Think Progress

McCain’s Long History Of Opposing Habeas Corpus

By Amanda on Jun 12th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

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.

UpdateSen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) response is here.



Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date

49 Responses to “McCain’s Long History Of Opposing Habeas Corpus”

  1. Alejandro Says:

    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.


  2. And Yet... Says:

    Please, by all means, McBush, glue yourself even more tightly to GWB with your every pronouncement.

    Have a ball & a biscuit.


  3. Alejandro Says:

    These are unlawful combatants.

    Prove it in court then.


  4. Mugsy Says:

    Didn’t McCain recently cite Roberts & Alito as his judicial role models?

    Now he is upset with Robert’s vote?


  5. Mugsy Says:

    Oops, ignore my #4. I missed the “not”.


  6. Roadkill Says:

    Those 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:

    Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity…. The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value…. Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number…. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right’, a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual we are free to believe that this is the ‘collective’ century, and therefore the century of the State.[16]

    Since Mussolini, there have been many conflicting definitions of the term fascism. Former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton has written that:

    Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”[17]

    Paxton further defines fascism’s essence as:

    …a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination.”[17]

    This sounds exactly like the neocon talking points. Get rid of the Republicans.


  7. Mugsy Says:

    The 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”.


  8. ninique Says:

    Bush: “oh, boo- hoo- hoo! those mean disentingly disenters disented on me! those lefty are so mean! waaaaaaaaaaaa!”


  9. Guido the Loving OBGYN Says:

    Obama:

    This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.

    ’nuff said


  10. Alejandro Says:

    #7 - That’s not what the 9th amendment says.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    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.


  11. konchster Says:

    Damn 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


  12. raynman Says:

    It’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.


  13. Xisithrus Says:

    Lets 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.


  14. Leftside Annie Says:

    Welcome to the FSA! (Fascist States of Amerikkka)

    Check your civil liberties at the door.


  15. rmwarnick Says:

    If 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.


  16. upside99 Says:

    Some 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?


  17. upside99 Says:

    JinJin,

    Please tell us how much you are paying TP to advertise on their site and IN OUR F’ING BLOG SPACE?


  18. Buckie Boy Says:

    Grampy 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?


  19. Roadkill Says:

    The 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:

    …a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination.”[17]

    Paxton continues…

    Fascism also operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim was to promote “superior” individuals and weed out the weak.[49] In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class.[50] Lawrence Britt suggests that protection of corporate power is an essential part of fascism.[51] Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because “the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise… Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social.”[52]

    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.


  20. dbadass Says:

    JinJin Sucks


  21. StratRat Says:

    McSame is the same as Bush, only older and meaner. And, they both have robots for wives.


  22. Doc Rock Says:

    Constitutional protections are only for wealthy white, males, don’t you understand?


  23. dbadass Says:

    think they ever swap ‘bots?


  24. Cats r Flyfishn Says:

    John 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.


  25. StratRat Says:

    dbadass 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.


  26. Cats r Flyfishn Says:

    If 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.


  27. Leftside Annie Says:

    Yes, 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.


  28. StratRat Says:

    Thank you Annie. I am hoping even Rx2 understands that very simple, but important idea.


  29. Nat Says:

    What’s so wrong with having the detainees challenge their detention if they believe they were unjustly detained?


  30. Wayne Says:

    StratRat 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.
    A brick house hasn’t fallen on his head yet.


  31. StratRat Says:

    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.


  32. RUCerious Says:

    lessee, unlawful combatant, detainee, suspected terrorist…

    How about antilegal battlebot, or person in suspended confinement, or mayhaps confinee for somereasonoranother…


  33. helenahandbasket Says:

    Puts McCain in line with his friends in Burma, North Korea and Vietnam.
    (You would think that someone who was a prisoner of war and subject to torture would be for Habeas Corpus).


  34. Jones Says:

    Oh, so NOW, all of a sudden, Bush thinks dissent is patriotic. Good to know.


  35. bigtime patriot Says:

    It 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…


  36. Max-1 Says:

    .

    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.)

    .


  37. pete Says:

    Slightly 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?


  38. Max-1 Says:

    President Bush said,

    “I strongly agree with those who dissented.”

    So, when the president does it that means it’s NOT illegal?

    .


  39. Mugsy Says:

    Alejandro 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.


  40. dixie blood Says:

    McOld 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!!!!


  41. Max-1 Says:

    .

    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… ?

    .


  42. Max-1 Says:

    President W(orst) Bush says:

    We’ll(sic) abide by the Supreme Courts decision… That doesnt mean I have to agree with it…”

    What redeeming quality does G. W(orst) B. see in withholding Habeas Corpus Rights?

    .


  43. dixie blood Says:

    #43- Max-1 says:

    What redeeming quality does G. W(orst) B. see in withholding Habeas Corpus Rights?

    Money, money and more money…


  44. Sachem Says:

    There 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!


  45. questioneverything 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.


  46. dixie blood Says:

    questioneverything 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!!!


  47. 99Luf Balloons Says:

    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!!!

    AND REPEATING, AND REPEATING, UNTIL IT GETS DONE.

    “IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
    “IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
    “IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
    “IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
    “IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″


  48. curmudgeon Says:

    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.


  49. Robt Says:

    Thats 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……


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Jump to Top

About Think Progress | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy (off-site) | RSS | Donate
© 2005-2008 Center for American Progress Action Fund
View Most Popular

Advertisement


Visit Our Affiliated Sites

image image image
What We're About

Featured

image
Subscribe to the Progress Report




Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.

Name:
Email:
Tip:
(required)



Reports

imageTopic Cloud


imageArchives


imageBlog Roll