McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling

[Psycho4Bud]

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain today called the U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing Guantanamo detainees to challenge their status in civilian courts "one of the worst I've ever seen."

McCain made his comments while traveling on his campaign bus to a town hall meeting at Burlington County College in Pemberton.

"These are not American citizens. They are enemy combatants," McCain said. "I think this is one of the biggest mistakes that's been made in terms of our ability to defend our nation in a long, long time."

He called Thursday's 5-4 ruling "a stunning reversal" of World War II precedents empowering the president, as commander in chief, to deal with enemy combatants.
McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling - Breaking News From New Jersey - NJ.com

With McCain wanting to close Club Gitmo I'm suprised but pleased with his stance.

Have a good one!:s4:

Psycho4Bud Reviewed by Psycho4Bud on 06-13-2008. McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain today called the U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing Guantanamo detainees to challenge their status in civilian courts "one of the worst I've ever seen." McCain made his comments while traveling on his campaign bus to a town hall meeting at Burlington County College in Pemberton. "These are not American citizens. They are enemy combatants," McCain said. "I think this is one of the biggest mistakes that's been made in terms of our ability Rating: 5

[daihashi]

With McCain wanting to close Club Gitmo I'm suprised but pleased with his stance.

Have a good one!:s4:

I agree. I was infuriated with the ruling to give them the same Rights as American citizens. Even if these were not enemy combatants the fact of the matter remains that they are not Americans.

It's truely disgusting that we would attempt to give the same rights we get to enjoy to someone who attempted to harm our country.

whether you believe in Gitmo or not; you have to admit that giving terrorists or people that are not Americans the same rights that we have is just pain wrong.

[Psycho4Bud]

Obama, by contrast, went on the offensive against McCain in his response to the ruling. Forget about McCain's promise to close Guantanamo in the future, Obama observed -- remember that the former prisoner of war supported creating the military commissions system that the high court struck down today.

"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," Obama said.
Fallout from the Gitmo ruling | Deadline USA | guardian.co.uk

Is this the type of change people want? People like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the master mind of 9-11, having the same constitutional rights in our courts as our own citizens? I'm also sure they'll enjoy the media circus that'll be televised in the Middle East.

During the Revolutionary war, Civil war, WW1, WW2, etc....were ALL prisoners allowed their day in our civil courts? We now know what type of people Obama wants on our Supreme Court........NOT a good change.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Dutch Pimp]

"The needs of the many...outweigh the needs of the few"-Spock

[dragonrider]

Everyone the US takes into custody needs to be given some kind of legal "status" and some kind of legal recourse. I don't know if full access to civilain courts is the answer, but the Supreme Court does not provide suggestions on what to do, they rule on the legality of esxisting laws and lower court decisions. Maybe there is a better answer, but it's not the job of the court to say what it is.

But I believe there absolutely needs to be some kind of legal status and legal recourse. If you capture a member of an enemy army during a war, that soldier has a legal status as a POW --- they don't have access to civilian courts, but they don't just disappear into a hole. If you take an accused criminal into custody, that criminal has a legal status too and doesn't just disappear into a hole. The administration has said basically that these accused terrorists are not members of a foreign army, so they are not POWs. And they are not accused criminals in the normal legal sense. Since they aren't either of those two things, they are some other class of prisoner "enemy combatant," and they have no rights at all. I think it's un-American.

If these detainiees are neither POWs nor accused criminals, then the governemnt needs to develop a legal definition for them and rules for processing them that are constitutional. You can't just leave it at, Oh heck, we're not sure what you are, so we're just going to lock you up forever with no access to lawyers or courts. We're not going to tell you why you're here. We're not going to tell your family or your government where you are. Too bad you are just so legally confusing!

The reason these people need some kind of legal recourse is that we know for a fact that some people have been held as "enemy combatants" WHO WERE NOT TERRORISTS! 60 Minutes had a feature a couple of months ago about a German guy who was picked up in Pakistan, accused of a bogus terrorism-related charge, held for several years in Gitmo and tortured during that time. Is that what this country is about? Tell someone he is German, so he doesn't get to enjoy the rights of an American citizen? Accuse him of terrorism without any proof, hold him incommunicado, and torture him? Doesn't sound American to me. That is a slippery slope to YOU losing YOUR rights, people!

When you ask, "During the Revolutionary war, Civil war, WW1, WW2, etc....were ALL prisoners allowed their day in our civil courts?" No, probably none of them had access to civilian courts, but at least in WWII they had a legal status as POWs. It's up to the government to develop a new legal status if one is needed.

EDIT: Before anyone gets on me for being "soft" on terrorists, let me just say I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. If they are found to be terrorists, I'm OK with hanging them. I just don't think the US should be able to snatch someone up without even saying what they are accused of and hold them in prison indefinitely with no access to any legal status. It's been 7 years. We've had time to figure out what we are going to do with them!

[killerweed420]

Who knows what these people are guilty of. There needs to be some sort of a process. They can't be just locked up and left to die. This is a lot closer to Nazi Germany than it is America.
And now the bigger problem is. If these people weren't terrorists before they certainly will be now with the way we've treated them. Theyeither need to charged with something or released. If they are terrorists put the evidence before some sort of a military court and be done with it. If they are guilty kill them,if they're inncocent let them go.

[birdgirl73]

This is another example of really incredibly simple-minded, myopic stuff coming out of right-leaning surface-comprehension. Seriously incredible.

Of course there needs to be some process. Due process. The same things that we ask in other countries and even as a part of the Geneva conventions have to be afforded to those so-called enemy combatants. They're not convicted enemy combatants. They're alleged. It is an absolute no-brainer for there to be some sort of due process. If they're just locked up and alleged as criminals until the ends of their lives, then our so-called big talk about spreading Democracy and freedoms in the parts of the world they hail from is a complete joke.

The languishing-in-captivity-until-death approach is also precisely the sort of dark-ages judicial process we're expending millions of dollars to correct in Iraq and Afghanistan through our provincial judicial reconstruction teams. Go spend some time reading about provincial reconstruction if you don't believe me. This is why folks need to be better informed here. To say we shouldn't have to give Gitmo detainees the same rights as Americans when we're in Iraq and Afghanistan spending millions to give those countries the same sort of judicial freedoms we enjoy--and also to insist that, if Americans were in the same circumstances, we would have to be given those same rights as detainees in their prisons, either civilian or military--is an incredible form of hypocrisy.

What's particularly amazing to me about McCain's current stance--which I don't for a moment believe is about anything other than appearing to fall on the side he thinks is going to get him the most right-wing support, not about what he actually thinks about due process for alleged combatants, particularly considering what he's repeatedly said about Gitmo and torture and Geneva in the past--is how he, an alleged "enemy combatant" war criminal/POW in Vietnam for nearly 6 years, could have concluded otherwise in response to the Supreme Court ruling. I still maintain that this is more about partisan stance than it is about his actual response, however, and I have to keep in mind that he's not a lawyer or a judge, which probably affects his perception, too.

[dragonrider]

This is another example of really incredibly simple-minded, myopic stuff coming out of right-leaning surface-comprehension. Seriously incredible.

Of course there needs to be some process. Due process. The same things that we ask in other countries and even as a part of the Geneva conventions have to be afforded to those so-called enemy combatants. They're not convicted enemy combatants. They're alleged. It is an absolute no-brainer for there to be some sort of due process. If they're just locked up and alleged as criminals until the ends of their lives, then our so-called big talk about spreading Democracy and freedoms in the parts of the world they hail from is a complete joke.

The languishing-in-captivity-until-death approach is also precisely the sort of dark-ages judicial process we're expending millions of dollars to correct in Iraq and Afghanistan through our provincial judicial reconstruction teams. Go spend some time reading about provincial reconstruction if you don't believe me. This is why folks need to be better informed here. To say we shouldn't have to give Gitmo detainees the same rights as Americans when we're in Iraq and Afghanistan spending millions to give those countries the same sort of judicial freedoms we enjoy--and also to insist that, if Americans were in the same circumstances, we would have to be given those same rights as detainees in their prisons, either civilian or military--is an incredible form of hypocrisy.

What's particularly amazing to me about McCain's current stance--which I don't for a moment believe is about anything other than appearing to fall on the side he thinks is going to get him the most right-wing support, not about what he actually thinks about due process for alleged combatants, particularly considering what he's repeatedly said about Gitmo and torture and Geneva in the past--is how he, an alleged "enemy combatant" war criminal/POW in Vietnam for nearly 6 years, could have concluded otherwise in response to the Supreme Court ruling. I still maintain that this is more about partisan stance than it is about his actual response, however, and I have to keep in mind that he's not a lawyer or a judge, which probably affects his perception, too.

You have really put this point very well, Birdgirl. This is a much better explanation for the point I was trying to make. I'm not sure that we have settled what the due process will be for people who are not members of a foreign military or a criminal in the normal sense, but there must be SOMETHING.

And I also agree that McCain's statements on this issue seem very inconsistent with what I understood to be some of his CORE BELIEFS. Is it an extreme pander, or is he not the person I thought?

[BigWeed]

Obama, by contrast, went on the offensive against McCain in his response to the ruling. Forget about McCain's promise to close Guantanamo in the future, Obama observed -- remember that the former prisoner of war supported creating the military commissions system that the high court struck down today.

"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," Obama said.
Fallout from the Gitmo ruling | Deadline USA | guardian.co.uk

Is this the type of change people want? People like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the master mind of 9-11, having the same constitutional rights in our courts as our own citizens? I'm also sure they'll enjoy the media circus that'll be televised in the Middle East.

During the Revolutionary war, Civil war, WW1, WW2, etc....were ALL prisoners allowed their day in our civil courts? We now know what type of people Obama wants on our Supreme Court........NOT a good change.

Have a good one!:s4:

Hey Pyscho put it like this do you think a american that drives down a dirt road and shoots two little girls desevers due process and all the rights we have as law abiding citizens. I think you should strip him of all his rights and put him to death or even water board his ass untill he dies. The great thing this country is good for is that all people have due process and let their voices be heard and to defend themselves in a court of law.:rasta::rastasmoke:imp:

[daihashi]

Hey Pyscho put it like this do you think a american that drives down a dirt road and shoots two little girls desevers due process and all the rights we have as law abiding citizens. I think you should strip him of all his rights and put him to death or even water board his ass untill he dies. The great thing this country is good for is that all people have due process and let their voices be heard and to defend themselves in a court of law.:rasta::rastasmoke:imp:

You're right.. that is the great thing.. All the People of THIS country have due process and can have their voices heard.

This is a privilige of the American People not for people suspected of terrorism. The people at GITMO do not deserve American rights. They obviously need some process there, but giving them American rights is not the way to go about it.

Like someone else said earlier.. maybe something similar to being a POW or the like, but having equal rights to an American who pays his dues to his country through taxes or through serving is just insane!!! These people have contributed nothing to America and you want to give away our rights to them? :wtf: