Posted on 06/12/2008 2:23:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“McCain quickly expressed his disapproval of the opinion, “
Why?
Senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsay Graham – three of the primary authors of this legislation – have argued that this definition “simply establishes the jurisdiction of military commissions” and does not, in any way, authorize the arrest and indefinite detention of those who fall within this broad category.2
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/qna1006/3.htm
John Warner, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, “Looking Past the Tortured Distortions”, Wall Street Journal¸ October 2, 2006.
You Have the Right to Remain Silent…
McCain, Miranda, and Common Article 3.
September 20, 2006 National Review
“To oversimplify for explanation’s sake, the McCain amendment extends the Fifth Amendment privilege to alien enemy combatants held overseas. It did this for the express purpose of clarifying the meaning of the terms “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment” (CID) in the United Nations Convention Against Torture. (That itself is ironic because Senator McCain, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and others who supported the McCain Amendment are now faulting the Bush administration for trying to clarify impossibly vague terms in the Geneva Conventions’ Common Article 3.......
the McCain Amendment literally grants Fifth Amendment protection only insofar as government conduct could be considered “cruel, unusual and inhumane.” (As the McCain Amendment states: “the term ‘cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment’ means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth … Amendment” )....
......Here, it is worth remembering (how could we forget?) that the whole purpose of the McCain amendment was to regulate coercive interrogation. The amendment was the direct product of an overwrought debate over something that was already illegal — namely, torture. Its purpose was to crack down on sub-torture conduct (i.e., cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment) as if it were torture so that, henceforth, the United States could not even be credibly accused of torture. ....
......This Supreme Court has already gone out of its way to find that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which literally relates only to civil wars, somehow governs our patently international conflict with al Qaeda. To come to this conclusion, it had to ignore clear provisions that say Geneva rights, including Common Article 3, are supposed to be enforced diplomatically — i.e., not by courts. Moreover, the same Court has found that questioning which merely fails to alert a suspect that he has a right to counsel is constructively coercive and violates the Fifth Amendment. “
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGI4MTZjZWE2ODdiNDkzMzA5NjkwZDA3OWU0NGQ1N
Good show eh!
“The USSC pretty much has voted with a 5 to 4 majority to eliminate the taking of prisoners in war.
Good show eh!”
I guess you’re right, it is interesting. I’m seldom bored when steam comes out my ears.
“John McCain promises one course and Barack Obama pledges another in picking future justices.”
He who controls the Senate, controls who sits on the bench. These candidates can promise/lie/BS all they want, but with the Senate firmly in Democrat hands, the only one that will follow through on his promises vis a vis judges is NOT named John McCain.
“The USSC pretty much has voted with a 5 to 4 majority to eliminate the taking of prisoners in war”
Sounds like a plan, kill ‘em all.
Why is indeed a good question. My guess is that John voted to confirm each of the majority SCOTUS justices on this decision.
Why should he get upset about the ruling itself. He has said the prisoners at Gitmo should get Geneva Convention status. He has advocated for them being treated like POWs.
I don’t think John actually understands what his advocacy means. And now that at least part of what it means has been realized, John is aghast. Well John, so was I before the fact. Glad to have you on board buster, as if I believed a word you were saying.
McCain will have to deal with a filibuster proof socialist senate.
(55-58 dems, 4-5 RINOs)
In the name of cooperation, we will NOT get constitutionalists.
I don’t know why people have a hard time getting their head around the notion that McCain could be for closing Gitmo and still be against this ruling. It shows he understands the proper role of the judiciary.
So be it. The President shoulplay a trump card and ordat no military person should ever take a prisoner of war.....alive! Then let them rule that the military can't kill anyone. Stay tuned in 20 years for that ruling!
I will vote for John McCain, because I trust him to pick Justices who will be less activist than Ruth Bader Ginsburg or John Paul Stevens, the two Justices who will be most likely to retire next. They have held off retiring, because they didn’t want George W. Bush to choose their successors.
That's only if we allow the Dems to get to that point. Regardless of the complaints folks have about the Republican nominee, they could work hard to get more conservatives in the House and Senate.
This post may be more in the vein of a fantasy, but if John sends up conservatives who can’t make their way through the Senate - after two or three liberal justices have left the court, by any means necessary...the court could have only 6 or 7 members, and be solidly conservative. There is NO law that says the Supreme Court can function or issue rulings with less than 9 justices present and voting.
I was really annoyed that so many freepers were running around saying McCain approved of the opinion. They couldn't understand the difference between wanting politically to close gitmo, and opposing an overreaching supreme court.
Trust and John McCain don’t go together. He’s a betrayer of the first order. Three of the five justices ruling on this abomination today were named by Republicans. McCain would nominate more liberals.
You were one of them. McCain spoke AGAINST the ruling. You need to figure out the difference between wanting to do something politically, and watching the courts usurp their authority.
So is this going to be the new “no point in voting for McCain” argument? That since McCain will have to fight for a conservative (remember Scalia was almost unanimously approved by a democratic senate), we’d be better off with Obama?
It won’t fly with THIS voter.
Sshh. Don’t give away the strategy.
Sadly, the republicans will still have enough votes to do that in the senate by filibustering any liberal nominee.
But they never supported using the filibuster for that purpose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.