McCain’s Long History Of Opposing Habeas Corpus
McCain’s Long History Of Opposing Habeas Corpus
Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) criticized to the Supreme Court’s ruling granting Guantanamo Bay detainees the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts:
It obviously concerns me. These are unlawful combatants. They are not American citizens. We should pay attention to Justice Roberts. It is a decision the Supreme Court has made and now we need to move forward. As you know, I always favored the closing of Guantanamo Bay, and I still think we ought to do that.
McCain’s statement mirrored remarks by President Bush, who said, “I strongly agree with those who dissented.” Watch reactions from McCain and Bush:
McCain’s desire to close Guantanamo Bay and his dislike of torture have nothing to do with this case. When it comes to upholding the rights of detainees, McCain has a long history of opposing them:
– In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Rasul v. Bush that the Bush administration had no jurisdiction to strip habeas corpus rights from detainees. In 2005, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced legislation overturning this decision and thus stripping detainees of their rights. McCain voted for the bill, which passed 49-42.
– The Military Commissions Act of 2006 denied anyone Bush labeled “an ‘illegal enemy combatant’ the ancient right to challenge his imprisonment in court.” McCain weakly pushed to strengthen the torture restrictions in the legislation, but ignored the lack of habeas rights. In the end, he voted for the Military Commissions Act.
– In 2007, Senate conservatives successfully filibustered legislation that would have “given military detainees the right to protest their detention in federal court.” In a 56-43 vote, the chamber fell just four shy of the 60 needed to cut off debate and proceed with the bill. McCain was part of the conservative filibuster and voted against moving forward with the legislation.
Today, the McCain campaign blog also approvingly cited Justice Antonin Scalia’s exceptionally extreme rhetoric on the consequences of the decision.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What part of “The The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended…” doesn’t McCain understand?
It doesn’t matter what the status of the person is. You can’t just label people and then hold them indefinitely based on that label. That would be the equivalent of conviction without due process. It’s pretty simple McCain.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:04 pmPlease, by all means, McBush, glue yourself even more tightly to GWB with your every pronouncement.
Have a ball & a biscuit.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:05 pmProve it in court then.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:05 pmDidn’t McCain recently cite Roberts & Alito as his judicial role models?
Now he is upset with Robert’s vote?
June 12th, 2008 at 5:06 pmOops, ignore my #4. I missed the “not”.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:07 pmThose of us who are loyal to The Constitution must put a stop to this sort of rhetoric. We just cannot allow anybody to disparage a presidential candidate like this. Especially when the warmonger name calling is coming from the Army.
I have thought for some time that there is a very strong bond between the government and corporations. They live for each other. The demos (as in democracy) is getting screwed.
The Republic is dying. Freedom is being lost. What form of government marries government with business. You guessed it … fascism.
Mussolini defined fascism as being a collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, classical liberalism, democracy and individualism. He wrote in The Doctrine of Fascism:
Since Mussolini, there have been many conflicting definitions of the term fascism. Former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton has written that:
Paxton further defines fascism’s essence as:
This sounds exactly like the neocon talking points. Get rid of the Republicans.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:07 pmThe very purpose of Gitmo is to circumvent the 9th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which extends the right of “Habeas Corpus” and jury trials to ANYBODY held in U.S. custody “on U.S. soil”.
I don’t think the Founders envisioned “off shore American gulags in another country”.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:09 pmBush: “oh, boo- hoo- hoo! those mean disentingly disenters disented on me! those lefty are so mean! waaaaaaaaaaaa!”
June 12th, 2008 at 5:14 pm#7 – That’s not what the 9th amendment says.
The 9th says that all the other amendments aren’t meant to be an exhaustive list of protections. You have rights whether they are written down or not.
Besides, the Constitution applies to the government of the US no matter where it is. If the government is operating, then it must be in its “jurisdiction.” And nowhere does it say that this right or that right shall only be protected for citizens. The government is disallowed to infringe on an individual’s rights. That’s the purpose of the BOR.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:16 pmDamn I guess innocent till proven guilty is over ruled by Bush says you’re guilty so you’re guilty. Fine figure of a man of peace he is
June 12th, 2008 at 5:16 pmIt’s always been my belief that the true measure of a person, or a nation, is not in how they treat their friends, but in how they deal with their enemies.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:17 pmLets say McCain was able to be in two places at once.
He is in a POW camp
He is in congress.
He then votes to keep himself imprisoned indefinitely.
Its absurd.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:17 pmWelcome to the FSA! (Fascist States of Amerikkka)
Check your civil liberties at the door.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:19 pmIf by “pay attention to Justice Roberts,” McCain means impeach him and any other member of the Supreme Court who fails to uphold the Constitution, then I agree.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:20 pmSome of these detainees have been held longer than Johnny Boy’s stay at the Hanoi Hilton Inn & Spa. Wonder if he felt he was fairly treated? Guess when the flip flop is on the other foot, it makes a difference in your beliefs, huh?
June 12th, 2008 at 5:28 pmJinJin,
Please tell us how much you are paying TP to advertise on their site and IN OUR F’ING BLOG SPACE?
June 12th, 2008 at 5:32 pmGrampy McSame says – My friends back in the day we all hated corpses, we would take our leaders corpses and put them on long boats and then set them on fire, but the hated corpses we would grind up into a green paste and feed it to the poor, we knew back then what to do with hated corpses, so why doesn’t the supreme court want our prisoners hated corpses, makes no sense to me…I think I sat in a plate of raw liver.
How do you think people feel about being locked up for 6 years just because an opposing warlord turned you in and you couldn’t challenge it?
June 12th, 2008 at 5:35 pmThe demos is getting screwed. The Republic is dying. Freedom is being lost.
John McCain is a fascist. Not a patriot, a fascist. Except that fascists are uber-nationalists. Flag waving, “Christian”, military loving, union busting, elitists. McCain is going to continue to shill for the Bush (skull and bones, new world order) view of reality. We need to use the elections to stop him.
You don’t like me calling McCain a fascist. Fair enough. Judge for yourself.
There have been many conflicting definitions of the term fascism. Former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton has written that some characteristics of fascism include:
Paxton continues…
So my suggestion is to contact your congressman/woman immediately and inform them they are “fired.” Let them know that you will (along with others in the district) be interviewing new candidates for their position between now and November 5th 2008. Also that you will be using your time and money to make sure they do not return to work on November 6th.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:36 pmJinJin Sucks
June 12th, 2008 at 5:37 pmMcSame is the same as Bush, only older and meaner. And, they both have robots for wives.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:37 pmConstitutional protections are only for wealthy white, males, don’t you understand?
June 12th, 2008 at 5:45 pmthink they ever swap ‘bots?
June 12th, 2008 at 5:46 pmJohn McCain didn’t have any habeas corpus rights when he was a POW so he doesn’t want the detainees to have any rights either. He believes that all POW (and that is what these detainees really are)should be treated like crap. If McCain believes that these detainees are not POWs, then that means there is no war on terror, only war on terra.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:55 pmdbadass Says:
think they ever swap ‘bots?
LOL…I do know certain parts are interchangeable. They both have that glazed over look in their eyes; wishing they were somewhere else.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:01 pmIf we are at war, then the detainees at Guantanamo are Prisoners of War. They can’t be anything else because there isn’t anything else. These idiots on the right idiot side keep making up terms as if they are experts in the English language. Next thing you know, a new dictionary will be on the shelf. It will be the first edition of the RightWingNut words and phrases dictionary for controlling the American public.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:02 pmYes, he most certainly did, Rogers.
That’s why we Americans USED to be better than the North Vietnamese – because we didn’t torture OUR prisoners.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:03 pmThank you Annie. I am hoping even Rx2 understands that very simple, but important idea.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:06 pmWhat’s so wrong with having the detainees challenge their detention if they believe they were unjustly detained?
June 12th, 2008 at 6:22 pmStratRat Says:
Thank you Annie. I am hoping even Rx2 understands that very simple, but important idea.
I wouldn’t get my hopes up on rogers, StratRat.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:25 pmA brick house hasn’t fallen on his head yet.
I wouldn’t get my hopes up on rogers, StratRat.
A brick house hasn’t fallen on his head yet.
I know…I am ever the optimist. Even trolls can be re-trained, albeit at great expense.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:30 pmlessee, unlawful combatant, detainee, suspected terrorist…
How about antilegal battlebot, or person in suspended confinement, or mayhaps confinee for somereasonoranother…
June 12th, 2008 at 6:44 pmPuts McCain in line with his friends in Burma, North Korea and Vietnam.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:47 pm(You would think that someone who was a prisoner of war and subject to torture would be for Habeas Corpus).
Oh, so NOW, all of a sudden, Bush thinks dissent is patriotic. Good to know.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:52 pmIt struck me when reading excerpts of Scalia’s dissent, that perhaps Scalia didn’t know that the constitution was written DIRECTLY AFTER A WAR. Perhaps Scalia thought that the people who wrote the constitution didn’t know what it was like to fight for the survival of their country against a power who believed in a strong leader government. Perhaps Scalia doesn’t know that those who wrote the constitution were WELL FAMILIAR with a system where the leader (or King) could do anything they wanted. So if Scalia thought the writers of the constitution didn’t know anything about it, he feels free to dismiss what they actually wrote about seperation of powers and rights of individuals. Perhaps Scalia believes that his own experiences using angry words in speeches to conservative think tanks make him better qualified to judge the meaning of freedom than those who just fought to attain it (at the “cost of American lives”).
Or, perhaps Scalia believes the British won the revolution and we live in a monarchy, hard to tell from his rulings…
June 12th, 2008 at 7:16 pm.
R E M E M B E R:
THEY(sic) HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS…
… And so THEY(sic) legislated away those FREEDOMS
(MCA of 2006/Habeas Corpus R.I.P.)
.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:19 pmSlightly off topic. but, the subject reminded me.
Has anyone offered a reason why Bin Laden has not been tried, in absentia, on charges related to 9/11? It’s becoming quite clear that the government is stalling because it can’t build cases against “internees” and actual trials would expose same. Would it not be reasonable to conclude that Bushco is afraid they can’t even build a case against the arch criminal? Is that the big secret at the heart of their web of lies?
June 12th, 2008 at 7:20 pmPresident Bush said,
So, when the president does it that means it’s NOT illegal?
.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:22 pmAlejandro in #10:
If the 2nd Amendment can give me the right to hand a pair of Bear Arms on the wall, the 9th can be read as retaining *people*, not “rights”. :)
All joking aside, the 14th Amendment is probably more appropriate:
“No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
No mention of Citizenship.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:36 pmMcOld says:
“It obviously concerns me. These are unlawful combatants. They are not American citizens. We should pay attention to Justice Roberts.”
You and unJustice “Corporate Fascist” Roberts should pay attention to the GOD DAMNED CONSTITUTION YOU A$$HOLE!!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 7:48 pm.
Q U E S T I O N:
If the President of the USA, upon signing bills into laws, makes sure to NOT faithful ensure they ARE lawfully executed(defined as being Constitutionally sound/passing muster), is it legal? If later, the SCOTUS decides that aspects of this law ARE unconstitutional, then did the law pass the muster? Did the president fulfill his Constitutional Duty? And if not, what should the remedy be…
… The president id due to “retire” January 20, 2009. Upon “retirement” he receives a lifetime of benefits that includes a guaranteed salary and SS protection, heath coverage and diplomatic status. This is essentially a “Gold Watch” handed to him as an award for a heck of a job.
I say, “Melt that ‘Gold Watch’ down and use it as the necessary ’stimulus’ America needs.”
Does George W(orst) Bush deserve such a hefty severance package… ? This is why Impeachment is NECESSARY! Sure he MIGHT get arrested 10 years from now, a-la Milosevic style in Paraguay, however what message does this send to future presidents… ?
.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:06 pmPresident W(orst) Bush says:
What redeeming quality does G. W(orst) B. see in withholding Habeas Corpus Rights?
.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:12 pm#43- Max-1 says:
What redeeming quality does G. W(orst) B. see in withholding Habeas Corpus Rights?
Money, money and more money…
June 12th, 2008 at 8:32 pmThere are still alot of us who agreed with Ruth Joan “Kiki” Bader Ginsburg’s vigorous dissent in Bush v Gore.
Turley said Scalia’s dissent was an “obnoxious rant”. Soooo…. he’s still rendering up the same specious nonsense as above in 2000. Well educated pompous moron!
June 12th, 2008 at 9:12 pmMcCain is dangerous, unbalanced, confused, ignorant, opportunistic, untruthful, corrupt, old, and just plain nasty. If Obama can’t beat him, I will give up. I will leave, or set myself on fire outside the McCain inauguration. Because that will mean that the American people are just too gullible and stupid to deserve the government we have fought for all these years. And four current members of the supreme court are radical enemies of our way of life. Any supposed Democrat who votes for McCain votes against the constitution and against freedom.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:13 pmquestioneverything Says:
——————————————————————————–
McCain is dangerous, unbalanced, confused, ignorant, opportunistic, untruthful, corrupt, old, and just plain nasty. If Obama can’t beat him, I will give up. I will leave, or set myself on fire outside the McCain inauguration. Because that will mean that the American people are just too gullible and stupid to deserve the government we have fought for all these years. And four current members of the supreme court are radical enemies of our way of life. Any supposed Democrat who votes for McCain votes against the constitution and against freedom.
This needs repeating…“And four current members of the supreme court are radical enemies of our way of life.”
They are the Corporate Fascist that hate Democracy in all forms!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 9:23 pmThis needs repeating…“And four current members of the supreme court are radical enemies of our way of life.”
They are the Corporate Fascist that hate Democracy in all forms!!!
AND REPEATING, AND REPEATING, UNTIL IT GETS DONE.
“IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
June 12th, 2008 at 10:20 pm“IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
“IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
“IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
“IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
According to McCorpse, “These are unlawful combatants.”
Most, if not all, of the detainees have not been charged yet, have not been afforded a prompt, fair trial, and consequently, have not been convicted.
It would appear that McCain has designated himself as a self-appointed judge and jury and has already rendered his verdict.
McSlime has provided us with an important sneak preview regarding the manner in which he would manage the Oval Office.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:45 amThats oddly similar to my opinion of Bush’s Adm.
I don’t have to agree with it and don’t like it.
Is there a list of Bush being told NO to issue and his authority? He doesn’t hear it near as much as I do.
Must be in Bush’s Project for a New Century’s constitution where only wealthy have rights and can’t be told NO……
June 14th, 2008 at 1:43 am