McCain on Boumediene decision: “One of the worst”

posted at 1:30 pm on June 13, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

John McCain has publicly called for the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center for unlawful combatants, but objected strenuously today to the Supreme Court decision that grants terrorists access to the civil court system. At a townhall meeting in New Jersey this morning, McCain called the decision “one of the worst” in US history, and says it will undermine national security:

John McCain today slammed the US Supreme Court ruling that terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in civilian courts.

At a town hall meeting in Pemberton, N.J., McCain called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

While McCain reminded voters that he has worked to prevent the torture of terrorism suspects, he also argued against giving those rights to enemy combatants who are not US citizens. ….

“There are some bad people down there,” he said, adding that the first obligation of the government is to ensure the nation’s safety. “This decision will harm our ability to do that.”

McCain also warned that the courts will be “flooded” with habeas corpus petitions, delaying the adjudication of the cases.

McCain had wanted to close Gitmo through a process that would have terrorists detained in US military centers and subject to military tribunals. The Boumediene decision accomplished the first objective by default; the entire argument for Gitmo was that it didn’t involve sovereign US territory, and via Eisentrager, the civil courts would have no jurisdiction in these cases. By turning that precedent on its head, the court found that American sovereignty — and therefore the jurisdiction of the court — travels pretty much anywhere where American military forces operate, which makes Gitmo an expensive extension of the Florida Keys.

For those who thought McCain would cheer this decision, it shows that McCain envisioned a much different process than most of those who demanded an end to Gitmo. He thought that Congress and the executive had the authority to structure military tribunals that would give detainees due process but still treat them as unlawful combatants rather than POWs or American residents. The Supreme Court has decided that it makes the rules, even though Boumediene utterly lacks any guiding principles as to how to differentiate enemies of the US engaging in war using terrorism and the average drive-by shooter.

McCain’s longtime friend and political ally, Lindsey Graham, proposed amending the Constitution to make clear to the Supreme Court that they don’t have a role in conducting war. Hopefully, McCain will consider making that one of his causes on the campaign trail.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I told a staunch conservative friend of mine yesterday that as much as I loathe McCain’s positions on immigration and global warming I am still going to vote for him because we do not need Obama having the chance to nominate any more libs to the Supreme Court.

dawgyear on June 13, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Judges legislating from the bench again. And the Dems are worried about Roe v. Wade. What a mixed up world!!!

dalec on June 13, 2008 at 1:38 PM

The American people should demand a Constitutional Amendment on this subject. The US Supreme Court has overstepped its boundaries into foreign policy and the way the Executive Branch wages war. This is the worst decision in American law since Roe vs Wade.

If I was Roberts or Scalia, I would publicly chastise the other liberal judges.

msipes on June 13, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Well, he’s right on some things.

kcluva on June 13, 2008 at 1:39 PM

McCain can’t have it both ways. This is all cheap talk not real moral outrage on his part.

highhopes on June 13, 2008 at 1:40 PM

I was told that ‘constitutional lawyer’ was on Obama’s resume. Let’s hear his expert opinion on this Boumediene case.

Sir Napsalot on June 13, 2008 at 1:40 PM

McCain’s longtime friend and political ally, Lindsey Graham, proposed amending the Constitution to make clear to the Supreme Court that they don’t have a role in conducting war.

Two days after voting against Graham in the SC primary, he reminded me why he would be better than any Democrat in the general. And McCain is reminding me why I would rather hold my nose and put him in the White House than let any liberal take it.

backwoods conservative on June 13, 2008 at 1:40 PM

I predicted yesterday that he would upgrade his reaction from “concern” to something a little stronger. And that he would not actually do anything to reverse the decision.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 1:40 PM

Cause and effect?

The preservation of my son’s career prevents me from posting the full content of his email to me on this subject.
In a nutshell this has rolled through the ranks like a stun grenade. The troops are hanging on every word they can get….unfortunately the media and our own government is keeping silent about the ramifications.

This was a punch straight to the gut of the people who are defending us, and don’t try kidding yourself that it wasn’t.

Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 1:41 PM

If I was Roberts or Scalia, I would publicly chastise the other liberal judges.

Has anything like that happened before? Justices are usually to themselves and not public, no?

terryannonline on June 13, 2008 at 1:41 PM

McCain’s longtime friend and political ally, Lindsey Graham, proposed amending the Constitution to make clear to the Supreme Court that they don’t have a role in conducting war. Hopefully, McCain will consider making that one of his causes on the campaign trail.

It would be a smart move. This, along with a decent energy policy, would solidify the conservative base.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 13, 2008 at 1:41 PM

And McCain is reminding me why I would rather hold my nose and put him in the White House than let any liberal take it.

What, by weakly condeming a decision which he had a hand in creating? You’re a cheap date.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 1:42 PM

The whole notion of “unlawful combatant” is ludicrous and inherently one-sided. I will wear a uniform on a ship miles away from where your guns can reach it, and you’re the coward. We can of course convince each other of this on this board, but this logic is rejected everywhere where “I’m American. There I’m right” isn’t an axiom.

On the other hand we can’t go to the other extreme and seriously expect soldiers to collect evidence against enemies the way it’s done on CSI.

There has got to be some middle ground, where the US doesn’t keep people in cages for 6 years without charging them with anything but yet the legal process isn’t totally unreasonable at the context of a war. Military tribunals for all prisoners sound to me like a workable solution.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 1:43 PM

For those who thought McCain would cheer this decision, it shows that McCain envisioned a much different process than most of those who demanded an end to Gitmo.

Well, when you join others demanding change you don’t always get what you among the change demanders may specifically want. If you demand that the bath water be thrown out sometimes the baby gets thrown out too. You should have thought of that before McVain.

MB4 on June 13, 2008 at 1:43 PM

McCain’s longtime friend and political ally, Lindsey Graham, proposed amending the Constitution to make clear to the Supreme Court that they don’t have a role in conducting war.

Wow. Considering that we’re now in a perpetual state of war, it seems like Graham is more of a moron and less of a reasonable lawmaker that I thought he was.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 1:46 PM

McCain’s longtime friend and political ally, Lindsey Graham, proposed amending the Constitution to make clear to the Supreme Court that they don’t have a role in conducting war. Hopefully, McCain will consider making that one of his causes on the campaign trail.

Politicians need to learn to leave the Constitution alone! It doesn’t need amendment to keep the SCOTUS out of the conduct of war any more than it needs an amendment to keep the flag from being burned! The 18th Amendment is proof enough that amendment should be done for legitimate fundamental reasons- not in the heat of the moment because McCain’s people got all they were demanding and more (and are now looking for an escape clause to blame this on somebody else).

highhopes on June 13, 2008 at 1:46 PM

One more damned liberal and SCOTUS will be awarding US citizenship to Osama Bin Laden.

drjohn on June 13, 2008 at 1:47 PM

I’m telling you guys, the only way to deal with this decision is to tell the Court to go to hell. If you think that passing a Constituional Amendment is the answer, all you’re doing is saying to the Court that they can give any outrageous decision they want and the only response is to follow a hard and nearly impossible procedure to correct the Court. The better approach is to treat the decision like a political decision and tell the Judges to $&^* off.

Sydney Carton on June 13, 2008 at 1:47 PM

The whole notion of “unlawful combatant” is ludicrous and inherently one-sided.

Why, because you say so? It’s not an American invention, as you seem to think. In fact, even the Russians have such a concept.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 1:49 PM

If I was Roberts or Scalia, I would publicly chastise the other liberal judges.

Has anything like that happened before? Justices are usually to themselves and not public, no?

terryannonline on June 13, 2008 at 1:41 PM

Didn’t Scalia do exactly that. He said that the decision of the majority of his colleagues will cause Americans to die. He laid their deaths at the feet of those justices.

There must be just as much a war going on inside the court as outside.

JiangxiDad on June 13, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Didn’t Scalia do exactly that. He said that the decision of the majority of his colleagues will cause Americans to die

Oh, by public I was thinking a public appearance. But, yes, Scalia did say that.

terryannonline on June 13, 2008 at 1:52 PM

McCain’s longtime friend and political ally, Lindsey Graham, proposed amending the Constitution to make clear to the Supreme Court that they don’t have a role in conducting war. Hopefully, McCain will consider making that one of his causes on the campaign trail.

Yeah and how’s that going to play to his “my friends” in the middle and the left, who think the SC should absolutely have a role in reigning in the Cowboy Executive and Imperialist America?

That’s a loser, loser, loser.

RushBaby on June 13, 2008 at 1:53 PM

For those who thought McCain would cheer this decision

I correctly predicted McCains reaction. First, a weak and noncommital response. Then, when the outrage on the right became too loud to ignore, a more forceful statement, but one which does not acknowledge his own role in what happened, or propose any remedy.

This was a political judgement on the part of the Court, which is an intensely political body. They noticed that both presidental candidates were critics of the Bush stance on the issue, and judged that they had the political room to rule as they did.

If we were seeing a race between Zell Miller and Duncan Hunter, this ruling would not have happened.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 1:57 PM

Don’t ever believe what McCain says, look at what he does (or doesn’t do).

Valiant on June 13, 2008 at 1:57 PM

What, by weakly condeming a decision which he had a hand in creating? You’re a cheap date.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 1:42 PM

How exactly did McCain have a hand in this decision? McCain in 2006 helped President Bush draft the Military Commisions Act, which set up the Gitmo tribunals. McCain has advocated for closing Gitmo, but never for allowing the detainees to have their say in civilian court.

Complete7 on June 13, 2008 at 1:57 PM

Gotta give McCain credit for being right on this one…

Now, if he can just do somthing about it… maybe start a bill in the Senate? Sense of the Senate condemning this?

Romeo13 on June 13, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Antarctica is twice the size of Australia and nobody owns or leases it. It would give the gentlemen at GITMO a change of pace. Maybe we could give them something useful to do for society, like measure the hole in the ozone or something.

Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Why, because you say so? It’s not an American invention, as you seem to think. In fact, even the Russians have such a concept.

Oh, even the Russians? :) Not to mention cockroaches, I presume.

At any case, I am not saying it’s an American invention. I’m saying it’s stupid and unjust and is therefore already ignored.

Here’s the reality. If anyone fights Americans openly on a battlefield or something, they die. This is unquestionable. I’m not saying it’s the Americans’ fault. I’m saying this is how it objectively is.

Any demand to fight Americans “honestly” is equivalent to demanding that people commit a suicide. It’s like I with a gun demanding that you who has just a knife get out in the open and fight me one on one. You wouldn’t do it. You wouldn’t consider it “honest”. Neither do all those people who fight American soldiers.

BTW, this logic works both ways. I think Americans should also pay less (NOT zero) attention to civilian casualties so long as the war is just and the methods are generally reasonable. So my position is not anti-American. And I understand that the notion of “unlawful combatant” is useful to rally to your side people here inside the US.

I think though that it is plainly stupid to expect it work anywhere else in the world.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 2:00 PM

What, by weakly condeming a decision which he had a hand in creating? You’re a cheap date.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 1:42 PM

McCain only wanted torture to stop and Gitmo eventually closed. He didn’t want terrorists with more rights than POWs, having access to civilian courts.

amerpundit on June 13, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Hmm, let’s all brainstorm on the types of “legal representation” our UNIFORMED, LAWFUL soldiers would get over in the home countries of these GiTMO barbarians.

Not all at once, now.
I know, we can’t and shouldn’t compare ourselves to pure evil.

I’m glad McCain increased the severity of his rhetoric although I must agree he intimated this is the decision he would favor by saying GiTMO should be closed.

NTWR on June 13, 2008 at 2:01 PM

I’m pleasantly surprised by his reaction to this.

…proposed amending the Constitution to make clear to the Supreme Court that they don’t have a role in conducting war. Hopefully, McCain will consider making that one of his causes on the campaign trail.

Amen to that. Although I couldn’t bare to praise Mr “we’ll tell the bigots to shut up” in the same post so I refused to copy his name into my quotation. I’m just not ready to take that big of a step just yet.

Zetterson on June 13, 2008 at 2:01 PM

I’m just not ready to take that big of a step just yet.

Zetterson on June 13, 2008 at 2:01 PM

Right there with you, Zet.

NTWR on June 13, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Has anything like that happened before? Justices are usually to themselves and not public, no?

terryannonline on June 13, 2008 at 1:41 PM

Was a time ex-presidents kept their mouths shut too.

If Jimmy the Peanut can eradicate 250 years of tradition, I say ……. Go get ‘em Scalia.

fogw on June 13, 2008 at 2:03 PM

How exactly did McCain have a hand in this decision?

You’re joking! McCain has been a long time critic of the Bush administation on Gitmo and on terrorists rights. The Court accurately judged the lay of the political land. They may not have given McCain exactly what he asked for. But as you people like to say in other contexts, he allowed the perfect (as he saw it) to be the enemy of the good.

At the end of the day he got all he wanted. That the Court would give him more than he wanted was very predictable.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 2:04 PM

proposed amending the Constitution to make clear to the Supreme Court that they don’t have a role in conducting war

I’m sure that Graham knows that this will never happen.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 2:07 PM

There has got to be some middle ground, where the US doesn’t keep people in cages for 6 years without charging them with anything but yet the legal process isn’t totally unreasonable at the context of a war. Military tribunals for all prisoners sound to me like a workable solution.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 1:43 PM

They charged them. With being illegal enemy combatants. Or prisoners of war. Or terrorists. You don’t bring criminal charges against the enemy in a war. Of course, you also don’t accuse your own d@mn country of faking the whole thing, and scooping up random people to “put in cages” just because you’re a meanie, and torturing them just for kicks, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

The fact that this is even being seriously debated shows how much progress liberalism has made. It’s unreal.

misterpeasea on June 13, 2008 at 2:07 PM

where the US doesn’t keep people in cages for 6 years without charging them

you’re right, we should have killed them long before now, just like we did with the german spies that landed in NJ in WWII

maybe we should just free them by giving them a life preserver, to prolong it, and dropping them far out in the ocean, at night, and filming it, to put on a website for all their jihad buddies to see.

we’re in a war that requires people like Charles Martel, and Vlad the impaler, to fight the kind of people we are fighting….

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 2:07 PM

we’re in a war

No, we’re not.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Congress already has the constitutional power required to deal effectively with this treasonous act by the Supreme Court LIBERAL-5.

U.S. Constitution Article 3, Section 2, clause 2

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

With a simple majority vote, Congress could enact a law the would restore the long standing process that existed before the Boumediene decision. Within that same act, Congress could remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to review said act.

I think it’s time for Congress to give the treasonous LIBERAL-5 of the Supreme Court a harsh rebuke. They have got it wrong on this issue three times in a row, it’s time for Congress to say they have struck-out on this issue and remove the court’s jurisdiction to review the matter.

Maxx on June 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM

McCain only wanted torture to stop and Gitmo eventually closed.

amerpundit on June 13, 2008 at 2:00 PM

What torture?

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 2:00 PM

It’s not the mean bully Americans that came up with this stuff. It’s the Geneva Conventions. They want to encourage fighters to wear uniforms and discourage attacking civilians. We didn’t make the rules, but we’re the only ones playing by them.

misterpeasea on June 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM

This is all cheap talk not real moral outrage on his part.

highhopes on June 13, 2008 at 1:40 PM

*sigh*

Sounds like “Real” outrage to me…but still, many of you will never believe anything McCain says no matter what.

Give ‘em hell, Mac!

JetBoy on June 13, 2008 at 2:12 PM

Good Call, Dad.

Cause and effect?
In a nutshell this has rolled through the ranks like a stun grenade. The troops are hanging on every word they can get….unfortunately the media and our own government is keeping silent about the ramifications.

This was a punch straight to the gut of the people who are defending us, and don’t try kidding yourself that it wasn’t.

Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 1:41 PM

Limey, my first reaction was that the mid- and lower-level commanders in the military will make the adjustment in tactics to minimize the number of prisoners taken on the battlefield.

Any way to cautiously confirm this sentiment?

Jaibones on June 13, 2008 at 2:12 PM

we’re in a war
No, we’re not.

we’ve been in a war for 1,400 years…get a clue.

just because you don’t think so, doesn’t mean they don’t think so….

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 2:13 PM

McCain only wanted torture to stop and Gitmo eventually closed. He didn’t want terrorists with more rights than POWs, having access to civilian courts.

amerpundit on June 13, 2008 at 2:00 PM

How about a constitutional amendment prohibiting Congress from getting involved in the conduct of war other than oversight? Seems to me that McCain was way too involved in telling the DOD how to suck eggs and the DOJ how to conduct the prosecution.

Well, it backfired on him and the activist SCOTUS decided to give them full access to the American courts. This was a predictable outcome and John McCain’s rheotric in the aftermath doesn’t excuse the simple fact that he was the architect of this problem and the deaths by terrorist that are coming are going to be partly his fault.

BTW you throw around the term “torture” pretty easily when the process was interrogation- meaning there was a purpose to it- not just inflicting pain. It’s a nuance but a pretty big distinction unless you join the left in claiming our troops like torturing prisoners.

highhopes on June 13, 2008 at 2:13 PM

scooping up random people to “put in cages”

That’s what happened many times. It’s a simple fact acknowledged by the U.S. government in the form of releasing most of Gitmo prisoners.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 2:14 PM

we’ve been in a war for 1,400 years…get a clue.

Oh, THAT kind of war. So the executive power will have unchecked authority just for another 1400 years. I see.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Congress could enact a law the would restore the long standing process that existed before the Boumediene decision

the court would just ignore it..

Last December, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 became law, putting Congress on record as prohibiting “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” of American captives. But an amendment, added through a compromise by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin, purports to limit the courts’ jurisdiction to enforce that proposition. Graham-Levin (as it is known) is the troubling underbelly of the DTA—providing that “No court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider” applications for habeas corpus or “any action against the United States”

link

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 2:16 PM

BTW you throw around the term “torture” pretty easily when the process was interrogation- meaning there was a purpose to it- not just inflicting pain. It’s a nuance but a pretty big distinction unless you join the left in claiming our troops like torturing prisoners.

highhopes on June 13, 2008 at 2:13 PM

Amen. Though I’m not clear on how pouring water on someone inflicts pain. Sane liberals would love waterboarding, it’s the most humane form of “torture” in the history of the world.

misterpeasea on June 13, 2008 at 2:16 PM

So the executive power will have unchecked authority just for another 1400 years. I see.

you have no problem with an unchecked judiciary I see.

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 2:16 PM

As for McCain, eff him. His oft-repeated whining about “closing Gitmo” was hard to differentiate from maggots like Dick Durbin, whatever his motivation.

It’s a relief to see he has a functioning brain, but it won’t help him in the election. His idiotic accusations against our troops of torture at Gitmo will be a loud theme blared by Marx-Obambi in the general. But I’d rather have McCain’s hypocrisy exposed than have him accept this sickening vote without a fight.

I repeat, when Stevens’s family finally figures out that he belongs in a nursing home, there sure as hell better be a Republican in the White House, even if it’s only McCain.

Jaibones on June 13, 2008 at 2:16 PM

freevillage

At any case, I am not saying it’s an American invention. I’m saying it’s stupid and unjust and is therefore already ignored.

Yeah, I noticed that you were saying that the first time. But I was hoping you could explain why you are saying that. Do you think that the IRA or Al Queda are entitled to the same protections as soldiers who observe the laws of war? Why?

Any demand to fight Americans “honestly” is equivalent to demanding that people commit a suicide.

I see. So that makes it ok for Al Queda to set off a car bomb in a crowded marketplace? That makes Beslan all right? I think you’re a pretty sick individual.

I think though that it is plainly stupid to expect it work anywhere else in the world.

Did the Russians treat the Beslan killers according to the laws of war? Why do you expect America to obey a different set of rules than any other country in the world?

All right, I know why you do. But how can you logically defend it?

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 2:17 PM

Jaibones on June 13, 2008 at 2:12 PM

The word I received this morning was that everyone is in the dark. Nothing has gone down to the level that my son is at (battalion level). It is still early and I’m sure that is why, but I will say that the number one concern that has been communicated to me was the rights, granted by the court in this decision, for the ‘accused’ to be granted access to classified information AND the right to confront their captors in judicial and CIVIL court.

Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 2:17 PM

For those who thought McCain would cheer this decision, it shows that McCain envisioned a much different process than most of those who demanded an end to Gitmo. He thought that Congress and the executive had the authority to structure military tribunals that would give detainees due process but still treat them as unlawful combatants rather than POWs or American residents.

Sure he did. Sure he had a completely different vision. Why everyone knows that John McCain is really Conservative. NOT.

Snake307 on June 13, 2008 at 2:18 PM

scooping up random people to “put in cages”

That’s what happened many times. It’s a simple fact acknowledged by the U.S. government in the form of releasing most of Gitmo prisoners.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 2:14 PM

Don’t lie. Unless you have a link to the government acknowledgment. They didn’t release those prisoners because they were innocent, they released them because they thought they weren’t a threat. And they were wrong in more than one case. Former Gitmo guests have turned up on the battlefield again, and committed suicide bombings.

misterpeasea on June 13, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 2:17 PM

I’m afraid your son, and others in the military will soon be charged with ‘war crimes’ or murder.

I would advise exiting the military right now.

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Why do you expect America to obey a different set of rules than any other country in the world?

Where did I say I expect it?

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 2:20 PM

…for the ‘accused’ to be granted access to classified information AND the right to confront their captors in judicial and CIVIL court.

Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 2:17 PM

It’s hard for me to get my mind wrapped around this kind of stupidity. Scalia’s dissent flatly accuses them of citing a precedent which says virtually the opposite of what the majority claims it says, and that they have effectively overturned the case they cite as precedent.

Too lazy to look it up, but Ed cited it yesterday.

Jaibones on June 13, 2008 at 2:20 PM

It’s a simple fact acknowledged by the U.S. government in the form of releasing most of Gitmo prisoners.

So, if we release some of them, we are acknowledging that we’re the bad guy.

Why do I suspect that if we put a bullet in them instead, you won’t be any happier? You start with your conclusion (bad America!) and all else follows from there.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 2:21 PM

^ Nevermind. I just captured the last paragraph and decided to ask that. Upon reading the rest of the post, I realize you’re a moron unable to comprehend anything. Don’t bother anwering my questions.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 2:22 PM

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM

LOL…you don’t know my boy right4…he would rather have his buttons cut off then surrender them voluntarily.

Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 2:22 PM

Sounds like “Real” outrage to me…but still, many of you will never believe anything McCain says no matter what.

Give ‘em hell, Mac!

JetBoy on June 13, 2008 at 2:12 PM

I presume you believed him when he said he got the message on boarder security? I presume you believed him when he said he wasn’t going to push for Amnesty? Or perhaps you believed him when he said that he wasn’t in favor of tax increases, right before he proposed a huge tax increase in the form of carbon cap and trade taxes?

Yeah. Believe McCain. Be my guest. I believe, that he’s a socialist in disguise. I believe the McCainiacs put short term gains over long term goals. We’ll have a Republican in the White House in November if McCain wins. Yeah. Of course, it’s a Republican with a long history of stabbing his own party dead in the back, but you know, it’s better to have McCain destroy the Republican Party than to have Obama in the White House.

Snake307 on June 13, 2008 at 2:22 PM

Where did I say I expect it?

Don’t play games. You want to make the arguments you are making, then have the guts to stick around and make them.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 2:23 PM

I’m afraid your son, and others in the military will soon be charged with ‘war crimes’ or murder.

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM

This is my first reaction, too. That commanders will determine that they can’t count on courts to properly restrain their enemies, and the enemy will likely end up on that battlefield again, so they’ll be sorely tempted to avoid taking prisoners, ever, and that this will end up getting them screwed by our own courts.

Can you imagine? The wife of a dead Islamist maggot in Afghanistan gets to sue Lieutenant Smith, claiming that he attempted to surrender and was “murdered”. Why not, he has the same rights that I do, right?

Jaibones on June 13, 2008 at 2:25 PM

Why not, he has the same rights that I do, right?

Jaibones on June 13, 2008 at 2:25 PM

Boom-bada-BING!

Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 2:26 PM

Upon reading the rest of the post, I realize you’re a moron unable to comprehend anything.

Ahh, so I am “a moron unable to comprehend anything” because I have the nerve to ask you what you think of the Beslan killers and Russias treatment of them!

I thought you were willing to defend “unconventional fighters” from our cynical Western rules? What’s wrong, you didn’t mean those unconventional fighters?

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 2:26 PM

Can you imagine? The wife of a dead Islamist maggot in Afghanistan gets to sue Lieutenant Smith, claiming that he attempted to surrender and was “murdered”. Why not, he has the same rights that I do, right?

given the courts, who know where they will take this ruling?

I’ve already told my children not to join the military for any reason. its bad enough they have to depend the left-wing wackos who betray them at every turn, now they have to worry about being charged in court for the ‘crime’ of defending our country.

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 2:28 PM

I’ve already told my children not to join the military for any reason.

Wow, considering we’re in an “existential struggle”, that’s a very interesting decision. I’m sure disagreements with the government counted as a reasonable excuse not to fight during the WW2.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM

I have to say I’m uncomfortable with people being held without charge for six years myself, and I do believe we’re at war, and that it’s not going to end for a long time.

There must be a middle ground. There must be a way to charge these people without bringing POWs into civil courts.

Because no matter how we dance around the truth, they’re POWs.

Meryl Yourish on June 13, 2008 at 2:31 PM

I don’t know why McCain is so outraged at giving Constitutional rights to terrorists when he was absolutely okay giving them to illegal aliens. You know, aren’t the Gitmo detainees “God’s children” too?

BigD on June 13, 2008 at 2:32 PM

McCain can’t have it both ways. This is all cheap talk not real moral outrage on his part.

highhopes on June 13, 2008 at 1:40 PM

Not quite. It is clear that he has pandered on some things to appease liberals, unfortunately, so if he was on the fence or dishonest about this, I don’t think he would publicly come out so strongly against this.

Even though he is not conservatives’ first choice, he still does understand some things, such as the dangers of a flooded court system and handcuffed fighters of terrorism.

Grafted on June 13, 2008 at 2:32 PM

I’m sure disagreements with the government counted as a reasonable excuse not to fight during the WW2.

Yes, I’m sure you’re a big supporter of WWII.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 2:33 PM

Wow, considering we’re in an “existential struggle”, that’s a very interesting decision. I’m sure disagreements with the government counted as a reasonable excuse not to fight during the WW2

you really are clueless. we didn’t have the government in WWII prosecuting their own soldiers for prosecuting a war. which is the likely result of this ruling.

And we didn’t have half the population stabbing our soldiers in the back. why would anyone want to defend a left-wing wacko from the dull knife??

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 2:33 PM

Because no matter how we dance around the truth, they’re POWs.

they’re not. this is a different type of war than the geneva convention ever imagined. they don’t fight for country, rather ideology.

but lets follow the geneva convention…they’re not regular soldiers, or POWs….that makes them spies, to be summarily executed.

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM

Meryl Yourish on June 13, 2008 at 2:31 PM

Uncomfortable? Why? German aviators shot down in 1940 or 41 over London didn’t get home until 47, some not til ’48. No charges.

Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 2:35 PM

Even though he is not conservatives’ first choice, he still does understand some things, such as the dangers of a flooded court system and handcuffed fighters of terrorism.

I don’t see much sign that he does see that. This latest statement is damage control, nothing more. He realised that he had to say something to placate the base.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 2:35 PM

Any demand to fight Americans “honestly” is equivalent to demanding that people commit a suicide.

This is absolutely hilarious!

What do you think happened? Do you think that prior to 9/11 the U.S. military sent Al Queda a telegram demanding they come out into the middle of the desert and face the U.S. Military like men and Al Queda responded in the only way open to them?

Because, remember it wasn’t the U.S. making “demands” it was THEM flying airplanes full of civilians into buildings full of civilians!

Oh, I know, you expect that when the U.S. is attacked, we evaluate the ability of our enemies to fight and then restrict our soldiers to the same level of capability?

Or maybe we should respond by sending trained fighters, without uniforms, to hide among the civilians in our enemies terrotories (oh, maybe you can tell us who exactly they are and where their territory is, so we can get this exactly right?) and have them place bombs that blow up our enemies along with as many civilians as happen to get in the way – THEN we will be waging a much more “even” type of conflict, right?

Or, better yet, we don’t do a damn thing. Apologize for our military, apologize for our technology, apologize for being a nation, apologize for all the bad in the entire world and invite them to go ahead and blow up our citizens and our cities just to make things a little more “even” huh?

Arghhh!

Fatal on June 13, 2008 at 2:36 PM

German aviators shot down in 1940 or 41 over London didn’t get home until 47, some not til ‘48.

German POW’s in Russia dd not get home for long after that. In some cases they never got home.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Hey freevillage, you said this earlier:

The whole notion of “unlawful combatant” is ludicrous and inherently one-sided. I will wear a uniform on a ship miles away from where your guns can reach it, and you’re the coward.

Are you kinda suggesting that service in the Navy isn’t exactly brave?

redshirt on June 13, 2008 at 2:40 PM

They are not, NOT POWs. A POW is not merely a someone who was taken prisoner during a war.

See Art. 4 of the third Geneva Conventions.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

misterpeasea on June 13, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Are you kinda suggesting that service in the Navy isn’t exactly brave?

Well, basically I admitted to hating freedom… and America.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM

7 of the 9 judges on the SCOTUS now were appointed under Republican presidents – Not Dems.

Kennedy was appointed by Reagan – and he wrote the majority opinion on this.

This is the problem with thinking McCain might appoint “good” judges. It’s more of a hope.

Again, we are dealing with a McCain, who even if he wins, is still going to be dealing with a Senate with an even stronger majority than they have now.

And given McCains proclivity to “reaching across the aisle”, are we more likely to get another Bork from McCain? Or someone more in line with a “moderate” like Kennedy?

catmman on June 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM

I correctly predicted McCains reaction. First, a weak and noncommital response. Then, when the outrage on the right became too loud to ignore, a more forceful statement, but one which does not acknowledge his own role in what happened, or propose any remedy.

This was a political judgement on the part of the Court, which is an intensely political body. They noticed that both presidental candidates were critics of the Bush stance on the issue, and judged that they had the political room to rule as they did.

If we were seeing a race between Zell Miller and Duncan Hunter, this ruling would not have happened.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 1:57 PM

Well put. The Supremes do not exist in a political vacuum, and McCain’s hands are far from clean on this one. Be careful what you wish for, St. John of Tucson.

Nichevo on June 13, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Well, basically I admitted to hating freedom… and America.

freevillage

Well, basically, you did.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Well, basically I admitted to hating freedom… and America.

freevillage

Well, basically, you did.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 2:49 PM

And, basically, called anyone who currently does or has served in the U.S. Navy, a coward.

Fatal on June 13, 2008 at 2:54 PM

And, basically, called anyone who currently does or has served in the U.S. Navy, a coward.

Not just in the Navy. Anybody in the world is. Except, of course, Osama bin Laden, my personal hero.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Well, basically I admitted to hating freedom… and America.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM

JiangxiDad on June 13, 2008 at 2:58 PM

And, basically, called anyone who currently does or has served in the U.S. Navy, a coward.

And then he stomps off in a huff when people point out what he is saying.

I pointed out that the Beslan killers were doing exactly the sort of thing he is excusing. After all, they can’t fight the Russian Army! But he’s so enraged by that point that he’ll no longer concede that I exist.

He’s Russian, btw. Click on his link.

flenser on June 13, 2008 at 2:59 PM

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 2:58 PM

you’re the first honest lib I’ve ever run into!!

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 3:01 PM

JiangxiDad on June 13, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Your emphasis strikes me as insufficient.

W E L L, B A S I C A L L Y I A D M I T T E D T O H A T I N G F R E E D O M. . . A N D A M E R I C A.

Much better, don’t you think?

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 3:02 PM

The whole notion of “unlawful combatant” is ludicrous and inherently one-sided.

The uniform, and regulated troops, are the result of trying to avoid civilian casualties. Unregulated militias and ‘insurgents’ primary camoflage is gained by standing behind mom, pop, Sally, and Joe. Uniformed combat is an attempt to bring DOWN needless deaths on the battlefield. The punishment of summary execution is meant to protect civilian populations as much as protect soldiers.

This was a lesson we learned the hard way during the Revolution. The British reprisals against the civilian population was a direct result of our initial tactics.
By the time of the Civil War even the Butternut troops were organized to fight UNDER COLORS and not in a rag-tag gaggle.

The Geneva Conventions recognized and formalized the concept of uniformed troops as a means of reducing the horrible cost of war on both sides of the lines.

You are correct that it is a one-sided argument. One sided in favor of sparing innocents and captured soldiers needless suffering.

Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 3:02 PM

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 3:02 PM

Da. Spaceba.

JiangxiDad on June 13, 2008 at 3:02 PM

The troops guarding these Gitmo murderers had it bad enough before.

I can’t even begin to imagine the torture THEY will be faced with, administered by these less-than-animals, now that SCOTUS has broken every law of common sense and war.

Mommynator on June 13, 2008 at 3:04 PM

Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 3:02 PM

Note how I stated something as a matter of observable fact, namely that fighting the US according to the rules is suicidal, and you never challenged it. Instead you started talking about good intentions. Which reminds of my arguments with liberals on the subject of affirmative action. But I digress.

My position is that we don’t live in the times of the Revolution. And modern wars aren’t anymore battles on the open field between comparable forces. So any rules appropriate then may have lost their relevance or indeed even sanity.

Another matter of observable fact is that American troops have killed far more Iraqi civilians, and Iraqi terrorists killed American civilians. (I beg that if/when you respond you read carefully what I write and do not assume what else I meant to add. I chose my words very carefully.) So it strikes me as pretty preposterous to seriously talk about attempts to minimize civilian casualties. They are huge, and from the American perspective they are considered basically irrelevant including by the majority of those on this board.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 3:14 PM

and=than

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 3:15 PM

Da. Spaceba.

np

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 3:16 PM

Another matter of observable fact is that American troops have killed far more Iraqi civilians, and Iraqi terrorists killed American civilians.

more lies and BS. let me guess, your source is lancet. laughable.

lets see we could kill ‘civilians’ in WWII, but not now…yeah that makes ‘sense’…..

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 3:14 PM

No Sir! You do not get the point of uniformed combat. Your argument is that war has ‘evolved’. The only thing your type of ‘patriot’ has evolved into is a cowardly murdering bastard. Your concept of war is ‘law of the jungle’. Your concept of war is played out in many third world countries where civilian populations are nothing more then bullet stoppers.

Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Maxx on June 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM

I think ya got it… good solution…

McCain needs to get to the Senate and submit a bill that says the Supreme Court does NOT have jurisdiction over Gitmo… Done deal then, and perfectly Constitutional as its a Constitutional power of the Congress to LIMIT the jurisdiction of the Supremes…

Don’t need a Constitutional amendment.

Romeo13 on June 13, 2008 at 3:20 PM

more lies and BS

cowardly murdering bastard

Uhm, alrighty then. Any other responses? Perhaps from people who haven’t failed their latest physical?

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Perhaps from people who haven’t failed their latest physical?

you definately failed the psych exam.

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 3:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2