Posted on 03/10/2010 8:49:16 AM PST by AuntB
So, I thought for sure that this had to be misinterpretation by liberals at best, or a downright lie at worst. They lied about the removal of the writ of habeus corpus for detainees, after all, claiming that it applied to all Americans. So, before even reading the bill, I knew that the reports of McCain writing a bill that would call for the indefinite detention of American citizens who are labeled unlawful enemy combatants were incorrect. It was just the liberals hyperventilating yet again. Right?
Well, now I’m not sure. While it still may be nothing to blink at in the end, I find one provision in this bill – to paraphrase Chief Justice John Roberts – very troubling.
The passage in question from the bill (emph. mine):
An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.
Uhh, a quick reading of the fifth and sixth amendments shows that the provision about holding Americans (civilians, anyway) in this manner is clearly unconstitutional. I had a difficult time at first understanding why McCain would even write this. The man may not be a young and charming constitutional law professor, but I would guess he knows the document well enough. He knows this bill doesn’t have a chance of passing, at least not with the indefinite detention provision as written. So I wondered, “why even waste time writing that part?”
Then I remembered that McCain is being challenged by former Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth. A Republican, Hayworth has used his campaign website to take McCain to task over his terrorism cred:
But John McCain wants Guantanamo Bay shut down and terrorists moved to the U.S. for trial. J.D. Hayworth supports the mission at Guantanamo Bay and thinks it would be both a mistake and an abomination to award enemy combatants and other terrorists the rights enjoyed by American citizens.
John McCain also wants to tie the hands of our military interrogators by banning enhanced interrogation techniques. J.D. Hayworth recognizes the importance of giving our professionals the tools they need to get the job done. At least four major 9-11 style terror attacks were prevented thanks to information gathered using these techniques, and countless lives were saved.
McCain does indeed support the closure of Guantanamo and is against waterboaring. So this is probably not so much a bill that McCain expects to see passed, but more of a “look at me, I’m strong on terrorism” bill. Yet, I’m not sure that McCain needs to pander to the uber-hawks. McCain has generally shown his support for anti-terrorism measures and missions. The ones that are not completely insane, anyway, like waterboarding. I also think that McCain has the intelligence to know that the “not-in-my-backyard” whining by his colleagues toward bringing terrorists to a prison on the mainland is mostly a non-issue.
McCain has spent his career being the America first guy, and most voters recognize that. Certainly Arizona voters, do, or else he would have had more serious challengers over the years. So why is McCain panicking now?
Well, it doesn’t help that there is a strong and vocal “keep them in Gitmo and use whatever measures are necessary to extract information” crowd out there. Also, Hayworth will have plenty of material to use from 2008. You know, the election where Barack Obama was more hawkish than McCain about combating terrorism in the Pakistan tribal region. Let me repeat myself. The Democrat was more hawkish than the Republican on a foreign policy issue. Hayworth will only need to display a few clips from the debates showing McCain getting flustered about upsetting Pakistan if he wants to rally the uber-hawks at McCain’s cost.
So, while I think that McCain’s record speaks for itself most of the time, I can see why he would fear losing some voters, given some of his votes and statements in recent years. That said, I think a provision that would allow the government to hold American citizens until “the end of hostilities” (whenever that is in a war planned around a concept) goes too far. I think a “true conservative” like J.D. Hayworth would agree, given that he will most likely have the support of the Constitution citing tea party crowd. Unfortunately for McCain, this is just something else that Hayworth will now be able to hold over his head.
Quite apart from it being an election year, I am saddened to see that the Senator would go this far to try and pander to the conservative base, most of whom I would guess (and hope) would themselves have a problem with the provision. Since I’ve followed politics, I’ve liked John McCain more than many other politicians. I may disagree with him on some issues, but ultimately I’ve thought of him as a man of principle. As is highlighted by his opponent, he has been against torture being applied to detainees, even when it hasn’t been popular. He has remained committed to seeing Gitmo closed, and that certainly isn’t popular. Heck, even liberals will give him support at times. Finally, he’s likable, which isn’t something a lot of politicians can say these days.
Amongst the Republican candidates, he was my top choice for the nomination, and I would have been happy to see him as President. But I may have to review my support of him if he would write a provision like Sec. 5, whether or not it’s an attempt to pander to his party’s base. A politician who actually respects the constitution would not even think about it.
Senator McCain, an explanation, if you would.
Well this is the final nail in his coffin.
That Dum President FDR signed an EO to round up the Japanese.
Yes they can and HAVE done it.
Art. II Section 9 second clause. Allows suspension of habeus corpus during Rebellion or Invasion.
“Well this is the final nail in his coffin.”
Wouldn’t that be nice. We’ve heard that prediction for years over McCain’s duplicity. But I hope you’re right!
Curiouser and curiouser. The text of the bill, S.3081, is not on the Library of Congress Thomas website, nor at any other sites, including McCain’s Senate website list of legislation he is sponsoring. Yet this quotes the bill. Where this is provision come from?
.
Then why the need for a special bill like this?
FDR’s actions with respect to nationals of a hostile power makes sense. But with respect to citizens who were rounded up purely on the basis of their ethnicity, that does not.
But the Japanese issue is complicated, as I understand it, because it involved individuals who, although not citizens, were born here but denyed citizenship due to some racial quota.
If the Constitution already permits this kind of action, what is nut-boy John McCain doing here?
“Then why the need for a special bill like this?”
THAT is the question!
I really dislike and disturst McCain - very much.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama wanted this for some nefarious reason and asked McCain to be his front man on it.
We already got a jerk in the White House of questionable loyalty- lock him up!
Only if that martial law declaration suspends habeus corpus. Which it probably would.
You raise an interesting point.
McCain is a big amnesty supporter. What if this type of action was use to solve the illegal Alein problem?
Will he be willing to add that action to his bill?
Sounds like a real barnburner issue for JD. Needs to be reworked by someone familiar with the finer points of political argument. HUUUMMMM. Let Juan explain a bill that allows the Internment of American Citizens yet he wants amnesty for illegals.
Without a doubt the communists in power now and circumventing the constitution could declare conservative elements such as Tea Party participants as enemies of the state (current regime) and start rounding us/them up and off to holding camps. The possibility of this happening is more real than imagined.
They wouldn't need to round up everyone, just high profile people in sufficient numbers and covered in MSM, after which, resistance will crumble. We as a nation are weak internally, because we are so fragmented by the very large numbers of recent immigrants (legal & otherwise) who do not have any allegiance to our country nor the fundamental laws based on the constitution.
ping & bump for later read
Chief Justice: "Do you, Barry Goldwater, solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Goldwater: "I do. You're under arrest, Warren."
PS, Herr Blucher ... do the horses neigh at the mention of your name too?
“McCain is a big amnesty supporter. What if this type of action was use to solve the illegal Alein problem?”
That is a big problem with Federal bills - adding crap that isn’t relevant to the main thrust of the legislation, burying it by making changes in the U.S. codes by reference instead of quoting the changed passage in its entirety.
My point was that he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Hypocrit.
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.