Posted on 06/13/2008 12:09:36 PM PDT by DCRoush
John McCain said Friday that the Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees is “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” The presumptive GOP nominee said the decision, a 5-4 ruling Thursday that determined Guantanamo detainees have the right to seek release in civilian courts, would lead to a wave of frivolous challenges. “We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called … habeas corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases,” he said at a town hall meeting in New Jersey. McCain said he has worked hard to ensure the U.S. military does not torture prisoners but that the detainees at Guantanamo are still “enemy combatants.” “These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country have,” he said. “Now, my friends, there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people.” Barack Obama released a statement Thursday saying the Supreme Court decision “ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice while also protecting our core values.” “The Court’s decision is a rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain,” he said. “This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.”
(Excerpt) Read more at elections.foxnews.com ...
My honor. I like your posts.
Well, I suppose you could also like them if your were ill-informed, but let’s see what we have:
Obama: endangers economy, national security, Constitutional rights, and public morality.
McCain: endangers economy and Constitutional rights.
Barr: endangers national security and public morality
Baldwin: enadangers economy (Constitution party supports tariffs) and national security.
Nader: endangers economy (at the very least).
“There are only two people running.”
This is a good point you bring up. Which one do you want to win?
” Both McCain’s desire and this recent decision grant the right to a Writ.”
If he had this desire, he would have voted against S.3930, which authorizes [the President to establish military commissions for the trial of alien unlawful enemy combatants]. This is one of the stated reasons Obama voted against S.3930. Johnson v Eisentragger does not nullify this legislation. Only the recent ruling of SCOTUS nullifies this legislation.
P.S. Who do you want to win the general election, Obama or McCain?
“The legislation does not apply inside the CONUS. Sorry.”
Yes it does. Nowhere in the legislation does it make exemptions for CONUS.
” Nowhere in the legislation does it make exemptions for CONUS.”
I am going to try this one more time: there is a case (Johnson) that gives CONUS detainees access to file writs in Federal. NO MATTER WHAT THIS BILL SAYS. This bill cannot overturn SCOTUS. McCain and you should know that. McCain was stupid to think he can just write a bill that takes away constitutional rights. Any person in CONUS has access to file a Writ. PERIOD.
There was a former Justice guy on the WSJ Report just now explaining this.
There is a CONSTITUTIONAL right for any person detained inside United States Territory to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus to challenge the detention ANY PERSON DETAINED. This is a CONSTITUTIONAL right.
S. anything cannot abrogate CONSTITUTIONAL rights.
McCain closing GITMO and bringing people to Leavenworth would allow the terrorist detainees to file the writ. Again the bill McCain supports cannot change that, PERIOD. Unless it is in the form of a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment.
The whole reason we had GITMO is because it is outside the United States; and according to Johnson v E-— detainees outside the United States did not have access to federal courts to challenge the detention (i.e. file a Writ). Why the else would we have established GITMO in the first place?
So McCain’s desire to close GITMO and the recent SCOTUS do the exact same thing. Allow the terrorists access to civilian federal courts to challenge the detention. Judges have almost unlimited discretion.
You highlight the problem with McCain he says one thing and does the opposite - I believe because he just does not know what the heck he is doing.
I don’t care. Both are so lousy it’s not possible to choose.
“there is a case (Johnson) that gives CONUS detainees access to file writs in Federal.”
Your unsourced claim does not supersede the congressional legislation that I had cited earlier. You’ll note that the congressional legislation would not have passed as those who opposed it would have simply cited the case you cite, thereby ruling it unconstitutional. The legislation does not exempt those taken into the U.S. And the U.S. has held military tribunals and subsequent executions for foreign born unlawful combatants before within the U.S. boarders.
P.S. Who do you want to win, Obama or McCain?
“There was a former Justice guy..”
Now there’s an impeccible source./s
Don’t you consider our continued success in Iraq important to our national security?
Hmmm...I envision something like THIS:
[[[[Hmmm...I envision something like THIS:]]]]
Probably not as far off the mark as we would like it to be. The majority of this country is stuck on stupid I think.
I cited the Constitution and the Johnson case. If you are detained by federal, state or local authorities you can hire a lawyer that can go into any federal court and file a writ of Habeas Corpus. The writ challenges the detention. The judge can free the detainee and the McCain legislation you cite does nothing to change that. Why do you think GITMO was set up? It was set up to keep terrorists outside federal courts. Once they are in the territory of the United States they can file the writ.
Do you understand?
““There was a former Justice guy..”
Now there’s an impeccible source./s”
YOU are a fool.
In fact all the SCOTUS decision said was that GITMO is considered US Territory in this instance. Please take off your binders.
“I cited the Constitution and the Johnson case.”
I still haven’t seen you source your claim that foreign unlawful enemy combatants, as defined within S.3930 from 2006, get habeus corpus. If your claim was true, why didn’t those voting against S.3930 cite this case and have this legislation withdrawn? You even said yourself that you were ‘100% sure that in CONUS, unless you are subject to UCMJ, you get all the to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus’. The legislation I had cited [provides military commissions the jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter (articles 904 and 906 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) or the law of war by an alien unlawful enemy before, on, or after September 11, 2001.]
“the McCain legislation you cite does nothing to change that”
The legislation was supported by both congress and the White House.
“YOU are a fool.”
Have you verified this statement with ‘a former justice guy’?
I gave you the citation. It is the Johnson case.
If you are in CONUS you can file a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging your detention. This is done in federal court. Any district judge can order your release.
Sure S.3903 does attempt give jurisdiction to Military commissions but that does not mean you cannot file for a Writ if you are detained within United States territory. It takes a Constitutional amendment to change the Constitution. S.3930 is not that.
Why else have GITMO? It was there to keep people outside the United States to keep them out of federal court. This is a Constitutional protection. Read the latest SCOTUS decision!!
“Have you verified this statement with ‘a former justice guy’?”
http://www.bakerlaw.com/FindLawyers.aspx?Abs_Ppl_ID=A4F45B59-815B-4A91-9E21-1AE8768A834E
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010949
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.