McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling

[dragonrider]

So in that regards; it appeared as if you were trying to "rub my nose" in it so to speak. As if you found some damning information to prove me wrong. When there was no right or wrong to what I said.

Not my intention to "rub your nose" in it.

I am glad that you agree that they should be given some status. However I notice that you failed to acknowledge that the Left did vote for Iraq, they did vote for Afghanistan and they did vote for Guantanamo bay and the military Tribunal hearings that were being held ther with overwhelming support.

Are these facts you are just going to ignore? Seems convenient.

I had already stated that I do not see this debate as left vs. right. Here is my quote:

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.

It's funny now that your opinion has changed from blaming the Bush administration to now blaming the Government. Your rights have not been infringed. The courts ruling does not even effect you. It effects the detainees of Guantanamo bay by extending OUR rights to them. If you feel that your rights have been trampled upon than I suggest you talk to the Liberals as well as the Republicans. Write or call your congressman and voice your beliefs.

Yes, I changed the wording because you objected to it before. How would you have me refer to the poeple in our government who have made these decisions or taken these positions? I am trying to be accomodating here. I've already said I do not view this as a left vs. right issue. I think there are plenty of people on "The Right" who are as concerned about due process as those on "The Left." Certainly there are many on "The Right" who have voiced concern about constitutional issues with the way the War on Terror has been conducted. So, to parse it as finely as possible: I think the Bush Administration took the lead in attempting to define these detainees as something other than POWs or civilian criminals. Anyone on "The Left" or "The Right" who voted for any legistlation supporting that position deserves some criticism as well. They can all share the blame together, Bush, "The Left" and "The Right."

Again you've conveniently changed your wording here.. From your last post:

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.

Hrm.. nice subtle change of words that slightly contradict your last statement. Previously placing all blame on the administration and now after my posts saying it's the Government. Which I take to be an all encompassing term for the organization that runs our Country and not specifally pointing fingers at a group. Maybe this was an error and you said "government" when you meant to say the Bush Administration. If that were the case then I apologize and you've stayed true to your previous statements.

That sounds like you trying to rub my nose in it. If you're going to take the high road, you gotta stick with it, man. Gloating over someone taking your point of view is poor form.

We're we expanding the scope of this debate? I'm fairly certain that we have remained on topic throughout the course of this thread.

When I was said I didn't want to expand the scope of the debate, I was referring to the fact that *I* was bringing up an off-topic subject like warrantless wiretapping. I didn't want to get way off topic, and debate warrantless wiretapping, just bring it in as what I view as part of a pattern. If you feel it is on topic and wish to discuss it, then carry on. I thought someone might feel I was getting a bit far afield with that.

Please show me where I said what you want to do?

You were chartacterizing what I want to do. I though it was pretty clear. When I said this:

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.

It was a direct reference to the quote in which you said this:

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.

I was objecting to you saying I want 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. I never said I want to combat these terrorists with compasion, and I objected to you saiying that's what I want.

Again here we see Eye to Eye but we see different approaches to the matter. I'm assuming since this post is in regards to the supreme courts ruling to grant habeas corpus to the detainees of Guantanamo, that you are for this. I on the other hand would like my Government.. both left wing and right wing.. to do the correct thing and recognize these individuals as POW. I think you can agree with this also? We seem sort've on the same page when it comes to regards of getting them some sort of due process.

I am in favor of them having a recognized legal status with due process. If that means they are processed as POWs or as civilians, then there are problems with both approaches, but they at least have a recognized legal status. My main objection has been to 7 years of waiting for some acceptable method of due process. I think the court made the right decision in rejecting the status quo.

Here you're arguing semantics and it seems to me that you are bringing things up just to argue them. Yes I believe there should be a seperate process from what they have currently. Yes I believe that process should be the same as that of a POW. Is it wrong for me to bundle these as one in the same?

No, there is nothing wrong with that, if that is what you meant. And I was not just arguing for the sake of argument. I interpreted your idea as being a new process, not the one for POWs as you had suggested before. I thought you meant something separate from how POWs are processed, not separate from what they have now. I agree with you and the court --- what they have now is unacceptable.