ThinkProgress Logo

Security

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.

Update

Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) response is here.

Economy

Obama’s Tax Plan, Not McCain’s, Helps Americans Who Actually Need It

The Wonk Room is always looking for new and interesting studies, and luckily a paper by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center fell into our laps. The report compares the tax plans of both 2008 presidential candidates and shows precisely who will benefit under the proposals put forth by Senators Obama and McCain. Here is a chart from the report:

obamatax1.JPG

And here is what it means:


OBAMA’S PLAN
MCCAIN’S PLAN
Increases (after-tax) income for poorest taxpayers 5.5% No benefit for poorest taxpayers
Increases (after-tax) income for middle taxpayers Modestly increases (after tax) income for middle taxpayers
Increases taxes for top richest 1% of taxpayers Increases (after-tax) income for richest taxpayers 3.4%

Essentially, the Tax Policy Center shows what we already know–Obama’s tax plan provides the heaviest benefits to the poorest Americans — the ones who need the most help — while McCain’s heavily favors the richest. And while McCain’s plan provides only a nominal benefit to the middle class, Obama’s gives solid middle class relief.

Climate Progress

The Global Freshwater Crisis

Along with carbon, water is the other great problem of this century. And, of course, the two are intimately related because the biggest impacts of carbon-driven climate change are projected to be on the hydrological cycle.

The American Prospect magazine has a special report on the water crisis in its June issue. If you want to get up to speed on the water issue, this is a good place to start:

Read more

Politics

The Popular Vote

Pew reports on the National Popular Vote movement gaining steam, with NPV proposals having passed in Maryland, New Jersey, Hawaii and Illinois with bills on the move in Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island.

The way this works is that an NPV state commits to giving its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote if and only if states possessing a total of 270 electoral votes agree to do the same. This will, if enough states sign on, provide a “backdoor” way of transitioning to electing the president via popular vote without going through the all-but-impossible Article V amendment process. Thus far, obviously, you’re seeing NPV pass in liberal states. But some cycle or other something will happen that gets conservatives worried about this. And there are plenty of right-wing states — Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina — that are too big to benefit from the electoral college’s overweighting of small states, and whose interests currently get ignored in presidential campaigns since they’re not “battlegrounds.”

Politics

Sen. Martinez Calls Out Dick Cheney’s Lie On Oil Drilling Off Coast Of Cuba

In a speech before the Chamber of Commerce yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney – the former CEO of the oil services company Halliburton — called for a substantial increase in domestic drilling for oil and other natural resources.

In his speech, Cheney claimed that China is pumping for oil off the coast of Florida, noting that “even the Communists” understand the need for more drilling:

It’s my own view that we should be drilling in ANWR in an environmentally responsible way, which could increase our daily domestic oil production by as much as a million barrels a day. As for other locations, George Will pointed out in his column the other day that oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida. But we’re not doing it, the Chinese are, in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply.

Mother Jones and the Gavel note that Reps. John Boehner (R-OH) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) have uttered the same talking points. It’s false. And they’re being called out on it by a conservative senator who knows more about the issue than they do.

Armed with maps and reports, Sen. Mel Martinez – a Florida Republican who served in Bush’s cabinet – took to the Senate floor to dispute Cheney’s claim:

Despite what is cited as fact here in the Senate and in other places, China is not drilling off the coast of Cuba. … Reports to the contrary are simply false. … So any talk of using some fabricated China/Cuba connection as an argument to change U.S. policy, in my view, has no merit.

Watch it:

Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, disputed Cheney’s prescription. “The only people who would benefit from more oil drilling are the oil companies,” he said.

The United States has less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, while consuming 25 percent of the world’s oil. Our own oil supply, without foreign imports, would last just three years. Drilling is not the solution.

As Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), the Chairman of House Select Committee on Energy Independence, said yesterday, “Even if we are able to drill every last drop of domestic reserves and are able to prod OPEC into further feeding our addition by increasing capacity, we are left with a much greater problem: Our planet will choke on all of that CO2.”

Climate Progress

Global Boiling: Climate Change Makes Weather A ‘New Risk Class’

Weather AlertThe Associated Press writes that weather derivatives — used by companies to hedge against weather-related losses — “are one of the fastest growing segments of the commodities market.” How they work:

Investors, who sell weather derivatives, agree to take on the risk for a premium. Investors will profit from these transactions if nothing extraordinary weather-wise occurs. If the weather goes bad, the company that bought the derivative collects an agreed-upon amount.

The weather derivatives market is exploding. Begun in the late 1990s, trading in weather derivative contracts now values in the tens of billions of dollars a year. As Brian O’Hearne, head of the reinsurance company Swiss Re’s Environment and Commodity markets in New York, told the Associated Press:

Weather is becoming more volatile, and we recognize this as a new risk class.

A 2005 Swiss Re report spells out our responsibility:

Climate change is a fact: one of its effects is an increase in the volatility and unpredictability of weather events, for example maximum and minimum temperatures, the number of hot or cold days and precipitation levels. Human activity contributes to climate change, but it can also help mitigate its effects on weather events.

Extreme weather has always been deadly, but manmade global warming is bringing an “increase in frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation.” The investment community is recognizing this fact, and taking steps to deal with the risk. The question facing our country now is whether our media and politicians will.

Politics

Army public affairs office promotes ‘Obama = surrender’ talking point.

The Army public affairs office publishes a daily roundup of Army-related news, mostly linking to “mainstream media articles, Army press releases, foreign media stories and blogs.” A link in Tuesday’s round-up, however, was “unusual” for its “patent political bias.” It read: “Obama: World peace thru surrender (KDIHH).” Phillip Carter at the Washington Post notes what’s wrong with this story:

Seriously? Have any of these people actually read the Obama defense policy papers or speeches — or are they simply going on what they hear on Fox News and the Limbaugh network?

And more to the point, why is the Army’s official in-house public affairs shop linking to this kind of stuff? Just a few weeks ago, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told all hands to stay out of politics. … Unfortunately, the message didn’t get to through to the Army.

Media

Conflicts of Interest

It seems that David Broder takes money from business groups whose interests he covers and doesn’t tell anyone about it in his columns. That’s the kind of thing that gets you labeled “dean” of the Washington press corps, since the name of the game is to get ahead while being self-righteous about your ethics.

In defense of bad newspaper columnists, I bet most of them would write very similar bad columns without any payola — the point is less that there’s a payoff for any particular opinion expressed than the simple fact that becoming an adequately well-entrenched member of the establishment can be quite lucrative if you reach an adequate plateau, but to do it you’ve got to be oh so polite to them that pays the bills.

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up