McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling

[Reefer Rogue]

You're correct, this will waste a plethora of money and that's unfortunate. Can we put a price on these people's heads? If one is innocent and is saved because of that money, perhaps that's the only way justice can be truly served.

[rockyraccoon]

Guys, we have innocent until proven guilty here, and I preferred if it stayed that way.

I'd rather let 1000 "terrorists" get away without punishment, than 100 innocent people rot there for life. It's not like those who get away won't get on all sorts of government watchlists anyways.

AND the tribunals offered to US citizens were not due process. They were more like some communist law process. Many US citizens were stuck there without a fair trial too.

exactly...we're supposed to believe that we're going around liberating people...so how is swooping into a country, rounding up a bunch of goat herders and calling them terrorists and locking them up forever without being able to face their accusers, know their charges, have a trial, etc. amount to liberation?

you can't just call them a terrorist and say they were going to do something bad, you have to prove it, it's insane to say otherwise.

the scary thing is that mccain says that habeas corpus is a privilege given to us by the almighty dictatorship...he, along with the rest of the anti-constitution freedom haters and neocons need to read the declaration of independence.

McCain: Habeas Corpus a Privilege not a Right

Scott Ritsema
Prison Planet
Saturday, June 14, 2008

By now, it is widely known that the Supreme Court has weighed in on the debate over the rights of the prisoners at Gitmo. The court has stated that the detaineesâ?? habeas corpus rights (the protection against an indefinite detention without charges and a trial) ought to be respected.

Referring to the human beings who are still being detained at Guantanamo Bay, McCain stated, â??These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country haveâ?� (emphasis added).

So our rights are given to us? Interesting.

I might ask McCain at the out-set, since you apparently believe that only citizens have rights (presumably â??givenâ?� to them in the Constitution) where exactly in text of the Constitution does the Constitution give this right the right of habeas corpus?

(Article continues below)

You wonâ??t find it. The Constitution only puts limits on the removal of habeas corpus, which implies that human beings possess this right naturally, and that habeas corpus is not some peculiar civil privilege, such as welfare, or some right that only citizens have, such as voting in our elections.

Similarly, human beings possess the rights in the Bill of Rights naturally, and as such, government is prevented from infringing upon them in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. But the rights are not granted by the government or the Constitution; we already had the rights as human beings!

I recommend that McCain read the Declaration of Independence. He has admitted that he is ignorant of economics, so perhaps he needs to brush up on his political theory and History, as well.

The Declaration of Independence declares the self-evident truth that God gave us our rights and that we are â??endowed by our creatorâ?� with â??unalienable rights,â?� such as, â??life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.â?�

Unalienable. Canâ??t be taken away. God-given natural rights. This is extremely important. Pay attention.

You see, if governments have â??givenâ?� you â??rights,â?� well then guess who can take them away at their will. Governments! McCainâ??s dangerous philosophy of rights as privileges is a recipe for tyranny. Government gives us our liberty? Is he serious? Well then that makes the state our god.

In reality, when something is granted, it is not a right at all. Something that is granted is, by nature, a mere privilege that can be revoked upon the whim of the entity which granted it--in this case, government...a scary notion, indeed.

A right, on the other hand, is unalienably possessed by somebody because he is the rightful owner of his life, liberty, and property. His own body, his thoughts, his decisions to move about, his money and possessions, etc.

These rights are his naturally. They are his property.

Rights are rooted in ownership of the property in question, and this very concept is God-ordained, thus we say that our rights are â??God-given.â?�

They are NOT granted by government. They are NOT merely a privilege of citizenship.

Under the American philosophy of government where our rights are natural, or God-given, we have the power of free action that is limited only by the equal rights of others. And only when we impede upon the rights of others can government legitimately intervene to punish the criminal aggressor...and it can only do that through due process (they have to prove your guilt in a fair, speedy, jury trial).

The right of habeas corpus has been recognized as a basic right since the Magna Carta.

McCain is reversing the progress of human rights 800 years.

It doesnâ??t take the great mind of an ACLU liberal to figure this out.

As Ronald Reagan said, â??The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.â?� McCain, once again, betrays conservative values of limited government and God-given property rights. His is the view that the state is supreme.

Liberty and justice for all. But for McCainâ?¦just the privileged few. Just pray that you stay in the good graces of an arbitrary McCain government, because where the government grants â??rights,â?� it can take them away. So watch yourself dissenters...especially because McCain has a "volcanic temper." Will the American people let this man be the next 'decider'?

[Scott Ritsema teaches Economics, Government, and Advanced Placement U.S. History at a Christian high school, and possesses a master's degree in those three disciplines. Visit his new site CIVICS NEWS.com ...news with a conscience.]

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Is this the type of change people want?

of course it is. we want to be better than we are, better than we need to be and better than the world allows us to be. it is a delicate balancing act being performed by ham handed stooges with no desire to understand its intricacies. one side demands that we attain the required empathy immediately while the other declares it can never be done. half-way measures are unimaginable to either position, that would be to admit that there might be some small merit to the other side.

[dragonrider]

The problem is that these people are considered "enemy combatants" by our government. Which if you ask me sounds like a POW. They're in our prison camp, they're an enemy combatant and therefore should fall under the guidelines of POW.

Everyone is lashing out at McCain when McCain was one of the few people on both the Republicans or Democratic side who were against Guantanamo since DAY 1!!!

McCain is right, these people should not receive our rights... they should fall under the guidelines of POW which have their own set of rules.

but that's just my interpretation/opinion on it. :hippy:

VERY well stated!:thumbsup: And I have to agree with your idea on treating them as POW's....how many past POW's have found safe haven in our court systems?

Guys, the Bush administration has argued that these people are NOT POWs. That is the whole point of calling them "enemy combatants," so that they don't have to be afforded the Geneva Convention rights of a POW! The "enemy combatant" designation is something the government came up with so that these people can be considered something other than a POW but not quite a criminal.

Seems that the left wing can't decide whether these people's rights fall under the Geneva Convention or our own Constitution. I think this is where McCains stance is....these people SHOULD be treated as POW's and therefore have rights based on the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

What a load of revisionist history crap. It's not the left wing who can't decide what to do with these people. It's the Bush administration arguing that these people's rights fall under neither the Geneva Convention nor our own Constitution. I don't think this is a left-wing vs right-wing issue. It is an argument between people who believe in the rule of law and those who would rather sacrifice the rule of law for safety. And I think that is a false choice.

You aren't going to make yourself safer by sacrificing your rights. It seems foolish to me to say we need to protect our way of life from these terrorists by giving up the way of life that make us different from them. The Bush adminstration would have us remake our legal system to be closer to what they had in Iraq or Afghanistan. If we go very far down that path, the terrorists won't have to destroy our way of life, we'll do it ourselves.

[dragonrider]

The general population does not realize that these things cost money and think that they are just a free resource.

This does nothing but hurt AMERICANS.

Another well put post. :thumbsup:

It does cost money to keep our legal system running. If it is just to costly to have due process these days, then I suggest we just skip all the pretending with the detention camps, torture and secret tribunals. We should just shoot suspects on sight. No costly trials and appeals. No coslty detention system. Just the price of bullets. Then maybe we can afford some more tax cuts, and we can enjoy all our extra money knowing we are perfectly safe.

[daihashi]

Guys, the Bush administration has argued that these people are NOT POWs. That is the whole point of calling them "enemy combatants," so that they don't have to be afforded the Geneva Convention rights of a POW! The "enemy combatant" designation is something the government came up with so that these people can be considered something other than a POW but not quite a criminal.

Did I ever Argue this.. I said I FEEL they should be considered POW's. Because if you look at the terminology used, logically you come to the conclusion that they are POW's. I know what they are and how our government views them. You're stating fact against opinion. Do you make it a habit to slam someone's opinion, something they've admitted to not be fact?

I don't think anyone is going to argue or debate this with you because it is fact and everyone; from what I can tell; are discussing opinions on how they feel in regards to this ruling passing.

What a load of revisionist history crap. It's not the left wing who can't decide what to do with these people. It's the Bush administration arguing that these people's rights fall under neither the Geneva Convention nor our own Constitution. I don't think this is a left-wing vs right-wing issue. It is an argument between people who believe in the rule of law and those who would rather sacrifice the rule of law for safety. And I think that is a false choice.

The Left Voted for Guantanamo

Senate Democrats went on record Tuesday to support the war in Iraq and the continued operation of the US concentration camp at Guantánamo Bay. A large majority of the 44 Senate Democrats lined up with the Republican majority and the Bush administration in key amendments to the defense appropriations bill. The Senate session culminated in a bipartisan 98-0 vote to approve the nearly $500 billion budget for the Pentagon.

In the two most critical votes, the Democrats gave their support by a 37 to 6 margin to a Republican amendment tacitly supporting the Bush administrationâ??s policy on the Iraq war; and then voted 30-13 for a Republican amendment explicitly endorsing the use of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay.

You aren't going to make yourself safer by sacrificing your rights. It seems foolish to me to say we need to protect our way of life from these terrorists by giving up the way of life that make us different from them. The Bush adminstration would have us remake our legal system to be closer to what they had in Iraq or Afghanistan. If we go very far down that path, the terrorists won't have to destroy our way of life, we'll do it ourselves.

What rights am I sacrificing? Last I've checked, in this great Country that I'm proud to be in, I have not sacrificed my rights due to the operations of GITMO.

You're wanting to combat enemies, who video tape beheadings of innocent CIVILIANS/expressed great disdain for us/have claimed responsibility for 911, bombing of US embassies and countless other acts, with compassion. Do you think they are going to respond with compassion to us? I seriously doubt that.

While there may be a number of people in Guantanamo who may be innocent I feel a good number of people there are probably there for the correct reason.

And as stated before the quote above; the left is equally as guilty as the right:

and then voted 30-13 for a Republican amendment explicitly endorsing the use of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay.



In addition I stand by my STATEMENT; which is *MY* opinion, that we need a seperate process for these detainees. Maybe something supervised by a UN council. Although admittingly the UN is useless. It's outdated and no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally created.

Stop your finger pointing and look on both parties sides. It only takes a few moments to verify that you have data to back your statements. Information is key; don't fall for the hype that the entertainment based media (let's face it there is less information in news these days and more drama) and go research for yourself!! The more we fall prey to them the more ignorant we all become. :hippy:

fyi: I was in no way defending the Bush administration. Simply pointing out the obvious; that the Dems in addition to the republicans and Bush were all for Guantanamo. Everyone is to blame here; even the American people who turned a blind eye for years and years.

[daihashi]

And for people who bash McCain. Maybe you should read the following:

The amendment affected the United States Senate Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 ("DOD Act"); the amendment is commonly referred to as the Amendment on (1) the Army Field Manual and (2) Cruel, Inhumane, Degrading Treatment, amendment #1977 and also known as the McCain Amendment 1977. It became the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 ("DTA") as Division A, Title X of the DOD Act.[3] The amendment prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, by confining interrogations to the techniques in FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation. Also, section 1005(e) of the DTA prohibits aliens detained in Guantanamo Bay from applying for a writ of habeas corpus.[1][4] Certain portions of the amendment were enacted as 42 U.S.C. § 2000dd.

Amendment 1977 amended the defense appropriations bill for 2005 passed by the United States House of Representatives. The amendment was introduced to the Senate by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) on October 3, 2005 as S.AMDT.1977.

I bolded one word that I felt was key to this entire thing. I didn't want someone taking my own information that I put in here and try to turn it against me. Notice he says ALIENS.. it would not apply to citizens held in guantanamo.

Which further indicates that McCain isn't against human rights.. he put this ammendment up to stop inhumane treatment. He simply does not believe that American rights should be given to non Americans.

That's not to say he might not think they should fall under some other type of rights or process. However I have not looked up his position on Guantanamo beyond this. If you like I can try to dig up even more information.

Since you decided to come at me with fact I felt it only fair that I place more fact in this thread as well.

Everyone needs to open their eyes. Both political parties have issues and both political parties have good people in them. :hippy: you take the good with the bad I guess

[daihashi]

It's about human rights, not american citizen rights. Gathering information through water torture doesn't stand up in a real court which is why they wanted them trialed in a military tribunal where they could be sentenced to death and not appeal. Justice was served, you're wrong McCain.

I posted this recently but felt the need to follow up on this particular post:

The amendment affected the United States Senate Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 ("DOD Act"); the amendment is commonly referred to as the Amendment on (1) the Army Field Manual and (2) Cruel, Inhumane, Degrading Treatment, amendment #1977 and also known as the McCain Amendment 1977. It became the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 ("DTA") as Division A, Title X of the DOD Act.[3] The amendment prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, by confining interrogations to the techniques in FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation. Also, section 1005(e) of the DTA prohibits aliens detained in Guantanamo Bay from applying for a writ of habeas corpus.[1][4] Certain portions of the amendment were enacted as 42 U.S.C. § 2000dd.

Amendment 1977 amended the defense appropriations bill for 2005 passed by the United States House of Representatives. The amendment was introduced to the Senate by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) on October 3, 2005 as S.AMDT.1977.

McCain is all for Human rights, he just doesn't believe in giving American rights to non Americans (thus the reason for me putting in bold "aliens"). But I would never expect anyone here who just chooses to blindly bash the Right (this is not directed at you; this is a general message to the board members as a great number of you refuse to look at the flaws on both sides of the table. Too much fingerpointing here.) without even looking up to see if they are justified in their attack.

Good day. :jointsmile:

edit: Just want to reitterate that this was not an attack on you Reefer. I simply felt it was a good example on how alot of people on the board tend to yell misinformation. You are not in the US (at least judging by your listed location) and I don't expect you to know all the happenings in our country; but some of the other people on here who are in the US I would hope to get a little more from. This isn't meant as an insult to ANYONE... but rather I'm trying to encourage people to read and research before blindly crying wolf. I feel it's important regardless of what your political stance is. No hard feelings reefer? :thumbsup:

[Psycho4Bud]

daihashi...as usual, great informative posts.:thumbsup:

dragonrider...Bush this and Bush that? The comments were from current candidates and what we have to contend with for the next 4 years. Face it brother, the Bush whipping days are about done. We can let the bleeding hearts give these terrorists the same rights as a U.S. citizen OR be treated as a POW like they should be! Seems like the choice between the two parties for the future.

Once again, how many POW's from wars gone by had the same rights in our court system as our own people?

And AGAIN...what do we do with the assclowns that their own countries won't take back?

About 70 prisoners have been cleared for release, but their home countries either wonâ??t take them or havenâ??t given reliable assurances that the men wonâ??t be mistreated.
Guantanamo Criticism Intensifies - CommonDreams.org

Have a good one!:s4:

[dragonrider]

Did I ever Argue this.. I said I FEEL they should be considered POW's. Because if you look at the terminology used, logically you come to the conclusion that they are POW's. I know what they are and how our government views them. You're stating fact against opinion. Do you make it a habit to slam someone's opinion, something they've admitted to not be fact?

I did not slam your opinion or make any personal attack on you. I don't understand why you would percieve that as a slam. I'm pointing out the inconsistency between what you feel should be done and what the Bush adminsitration has argued should be done. If you feel that the Guantanamo detainees should be treated as POWs, then that is great and I applaud your desire to see them have the recognied legal status of POW as apposed to the legal limbo of "enemy combatant." Perhaps if the Bush administration had treated them as POWs, then we would not be in this situation of having them afforded the rights of a civilian trial.

What rights am I sacrificing? Last I've checked, in this great Country that I'm proud to be in, I have not sacrificed my rights due to the operations of GITMO.

Well, here now we are talking about MY opinon. And MY opinion is that the government has attempted to create a legal limbo in which a person can be designated an "enemy combatant" and afforded no legal status whatsoever, neither a POW nor a criminal. MY opinion is that by creating such a legal designation, the governemnt has weakend the right to due process in general and has diminished MY rights to due process. If you create a system where you can put someone in prison without charging them, without any access to the legal system, or even the right to have their government or family notidfed of their detention, then how do you KNOW that YOU won't someday find YOURSELF in that hole? Do you just take it on faith that the government will never make that kind of mistake, and wrongly put YOU in prison for something they suspect YOU did? And if it did happen, what would YOU do? What recourse would you have?

I don't want to expand the scope of this debate any further, but I do want to say that the legal status of prisoners in GITMO is only one area in which I think the Bush adminsitration has diminsihed the rights of Americans. I agree that the legal battle around the legal status of GITMO detainees may have little practical affect on the rights of Americans. I am far more worried about other erosion of rights that do DIRECTLY apply to Americans on American soil, such as warantless wiretapping and othe kinds of surveilance. Again, I'm not trying to expand the scope of the thread, but I see the GITMO detainee issue as part of a larger pattern of the erosion of American rights.

You're wanting to combat enemies, who video tape beheadings of innocent CIVILIANS, with compassion. Do you think they are going to respond with compassion to us? I seriously doubt that.

Don't telll me what I want to do. I dislike someone else putting words in my mouth. If you want to discuss what I want to do, ask me, don't tell me.

I have no compassion whatsoever for anyone who beheads a civilian or practices any other kind of attack on civilians. My opinion is that in a war zone if we thnk we have the coordinates for someone who is suspected of this kind of thing, or any kind of terrorist activity, then we should drop a bomb on them or send in a sqaud to kill them in combat. I'm not in favor of trials for enemies in a war zone. However, my opinion is that if we capture people we suspect are eneimeis in a war zone, then we need to treat them as POWs. If we capture people outside a war zone that we suspect are terrorists, then we need to afford them some legal status so that we can prove those charges. And once those charges are proven, we can apply the maximum legal punishment --- death if possible. I have no comapssion for terrorists --- I just believe in the rule of law.

While there may be a number of people in Guantanamo who may be innocent I feel a good number of people there are probably there for the correct reason.

Well, there it is. That is the real nut of the matter. That's why these people need some kind of legal status. I agree that nearly all of the suspects in GITMO are probably there for the correct reason. I also think that almost all civilians who are arrested by civilian police for routine crimes are guilty of the crimes they are charged with. However, I still believe in due process.

In addition I stand by my STATEMENT; which is *MY* opinion, that we need a seperate process for these detainees. Maybe something supervised by a UN council. Although admittingly the UN is useless. It's outdated and no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally created.

Earlier you said that your opinion is that the detainiees are POWs, but here you say that your opinion is that there should be a separate process for them. That is not a consisitent opinion. However, I do agree that there may be a need for a different kind of process. It may actually be legitimate to create a separate legal status of "enemy combatant" that applies to a person who is not part of a foreign army but takes up arms against the US. However, my opinion is that so far the governemnt has not managed to create such a status in a way that satisfies either inernational law or the Constitution with regards to due process.

Stop your finger pointing and look on both parties sides. :hippy:

I disagree that I am doing any finger pointing. I especially am not pointing the finger at anyone on these boards if that is what you mean. I am however very critical of the Bush adminsitrtion for its diseragard for due process.