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

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.

they’ll rule that law unconstitutional and ignore it…we need a president and congress that will ignore their rulings.

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 3:26 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

…and another conflicting fact that many of those same ex-Gitmo prisoners showed up again captured/killed in Al-Qaeda.

Your “facts” are paraded around by agenda-pushing, anti-American, POS rags that aren’t even worthy to line the cage of a bird with chronic diarrhea.

dominigan on June 13, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Freevillage, explain to those killed aboard the USS Cole that they weren’t really putting their lives on the line.

redshirt on June 13, 2008 at 3:29 PM

agenda-pushing, anti-American, POS

I think “freedom-hating” must also be somewhere in there.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 3:30 PM

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

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM

So you admit to being a totally deceived and/or evil person. Unfortunately there are many like you.

And you’ve made a worthy contribution to HotAir today by showing everyone that people like you really do exist. There are many naive people that cannot comprehend such people existing, thank you for being a lesson to all.

Maxx on June 13, 2008 at 3:31 PM

I think “freedom-hating” must also be somewhere in there.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 3:30 PM

Well, when those rags advocate more regulation of already strangled businesses, I have to agree with you! Thanks for mentioning it!

dominigan on June 13, 2008 at 3:32 PM

And you’ve made a worthy contribution to HotAir today by showing everyone that people like you really do exist.

Yes, I confirm that people like me exist.

There are many naive people that cannot comprehend such people existing, thank you for being a lesson to all.

You are welcome.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Someone’s really got to check the courts. They’ve got too much power and too little oversight.

TheUnrepentantGeek on June 13, 2008 at 3:34 PM

The whole notion of “unlawful combatant” is ludicrous and inherently one-sided. ***
freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 1:43 PM

We didn’t make that rule up. It’s right in the Geneva Conventions: you’re an unlawful combatant if you’re a mercenary, if you don’t have a uniform, or in certain other situations. Unlawful combatants can be shot on sight or, in modern cases, sent to real hellholes and tortured to death.

In any event, need I remind everyone that the whole reason we did Gitmo was to try to be humane? It would have been easy to rendition these clowns to the third world country of our choice to be tortured and maimed, like what happened to John McCain at the Hanoi Hilton. Thanks to the Supreme Court, we’ll now to back to disappearing these kinds of people.

Outlander on June 13, 2008 at 3:34 PM

misterpeasea on June 13, 2008 at 2:16 PM

I didn’t say that as clearly as I should have. McCain, for whatever reason, is convinced that some interrogation techniques like waterboarding shouldn’t be done at all. McCain and many of the close GITMO crowd keep talking about the “torture” that goes on there because of these interrogation techniques.

I would submit that this is one of those situations where words matter. For “torture” to be going on at GITMO, one has to believe that our troops are taking the detainees out to inflict pain and suffering for no reason other than entertainment. One further has to assume that the military leadership knows that detainees are being tortured and condone such actions.

Abu Grahib did have instances of torture and the guilty were dealt with in court. GITMO has personnel involved in interrogation techniques designed to gather information. The techniques are carefully documented and performed in accordance with published manuals. It’s a huge difference that is important to bring up whenever somebody spouts off about the torture at GITMO.

highhopes on June 13, 2008 at 3:35 PM

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.

That’s absolutely moronic. And the end result of him fighting for this is the decision by the SCOTUS.

Imagine this happening with every other liberal/moderate/”working both sides”/etc.. stance of McCain’s.

Everytime something goes wrong he’ll say, “Well it’s not MY fault, I wanted this verson of it (cap/trade,etc..) and “they” went too far”.

Get this moron out of my face!

nottakingsides on June 13, 2008 at 3:35 PM

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

I’m no youngster, in that you are perfectly correct. If you are implying something else then I’m afraid you have misjudged the thickness of my armor.

Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 3:36 PM

freevillage

please don’t feed the troll

pseudonominus on June 13, 2008 at 3:37 PM

highhopes on June 13, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Agreed.

misterpeasea on June 13, 2008 at 3:37 PM

they’ll rule that law unconstitutional and ignore it…we need a president and congress that will ignore their rulings.

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 3:26 PM

I don’t see how they could, its pretty explicit.

Its also, as far as I know, never been argued or adjudacated.

Romeo13 on June 13, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Hopefully, McCain will consider making that one of his causes on the campaign trail.

If he had half a brain, he would do just that….
oh, nevermind.

james23 on June 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM

I don’t see how they could, its pretty explicit.

same way that andrew jackson did. the supreme court has no constitutional authority over the president or congress.

Its also, as far as I know, never been argued or adjudacated.

you do know that the supreme court has taken that power to interpret the constitution upon themselves. its time to take that away from them.

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 3:51 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

Read it again, he doesn’t want it “both ways” he doesn’t like anything that comes to close to torture(is that too hard to figure out why?).
You haters should learn to pick and choose your fights…it makes you look foolish when you don’t understand the obvious because of your hate.

right2bright on June 13, 2008 at 4:03 PM

I’m no youngster, in that you are perfectly correct. If you are implying something else then I’m afraid you have misjudged the thickness of my armor.

No, I don’t assume or even think really about anyone’s age. And I’m sure your helmet is just fine.

freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 4:06 PM

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.

right2bright on June 13, 2008 at 4:03 PM

With such exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Pass a law making this an exception… its an inherent power of Congress, and part of the Balance of Powers… the Supremes are already fostering a Constitutional crises, Congress needs to fire back.

Romeo13 on June 13, 2008 at 4:07 PM

McCain’s burning both ends of the candle here.

If Guantanamo was to be closed, exactly where did McCain propose to put the enemy combatants? Where ever that place is or was to be, he should be consistent and push to have them put there while awaiting trial and push further to legislate a new measure to over ride the imbecilic foolishness from our esteemed jackass five Justices of the Supreme Court. McCain has cranked out enough foolish legislation; he owes it to America to make amends and use his “skills” to keep the enemy combatants AWAITING their trial. Why should they get better treatment in receiving a day in court before Tom DeLay gets his chance to clear his name of the trumpt charges that have no law for basis as charged?!

maverick muse on June 13, 2008 at 4:13 PM

I’m no youngster, in that you are perfectly correct. If you are implying something else then I’m afraid you have misjudged the thickness of my armor.

Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 3:36 PM

It’s the chickenhawk smear, again.

Don’t feed the troll, guys and gals.

techno_barbarian on June 13, 2008 at 4:16 PM

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.

it says nothing about the supreme court interpreting the constitution.

Pass a law making this an exception

this law had a restriction on the courts, they ignored it.

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 4:22 PM

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 4:22 PM

the exception written into the law was NOT on the Supreme Court, but on the Appellate Courts… they would need to carefully craft a law that specificly said the Supremes Have no jurisdiction over Law concerning Prisoners of war, or Unlawfull Enemy Combatants… that it is left to the Military Tribunals.

Romeo13 on June 13, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Well, I’m a little surprised about the vehemence of his opinion on this. It gave him 100% of what he wanted. That it went further is what makes him mad. Because it limits, or at least complicates, the Executive power that he wants to have.

His real anger is because the Supreme Court gave him the pony he asked for… But won’t let him ride it.

LegendHasIt on June 13, 2008 at 4:43 PM

the exception written into the law was NOT on the Supreme Court, but on the Appellate Courts…

if appeals courts cannot hear a case, then neither can the supreme court. congress limited the jurisdiction of the courts, the courts ignored it.

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 4:49 PM

if appeals courts cannot hear a case, then neither can the supreme court. congress limited the jurisdiction of the courts, the courts ignored it.

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 4:49 PM

Congress does not have the power to limit the appelate courts… but does have the power to take this out of the Supremes Jurisdiction.

Congress attempted the wrong exemption… they need to do the one that is explicit in the Constitution.

Romeo13 on June 13, 2008 at 4:52 PM

Congress does not have the power to limit the appelate courts…

sure they do. congress made all the courts, except for the supreme court, and they can limit the power of the courts.

Article III, Section 2 clearly states: “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

When Chief Justice John Roberts was Special Assistant to the Attorney General during the Reagan Administration, he wrote a 27-page document defending the constitutional power of Congress to limit federal court jurisdiction. Proving that Supreme Court justices recognize this power over the courts, he pointed out that former Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts (no relation) had proposed an “amendment of the Constitution to remove Congress’ exceptions power.”

link

Congress attempted the wrong exemption… they need to do the one that is explicit in the Constitution.

oh please, anything they do would of course be unconstitutuional because to limit the power of the jack-booted, black-robed thugs is unconstitutional

right.

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 5:03 PM

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 5:03 PM

Sorry, I disagree… you have to write the correct law, and argue you it on Constitutional grounds…

Remember, you’d only have to swing one more Justice.

Romeo13 on June 13, 2008 at 5:06 PM

Just shows yet again to those conservatives who are even considering voting for McCain that he is just to stupid to understand important issues. Judges, the economy, immigration, the environment. Complex issues where conservatives are always standing outside the mainstream of public opinion. McCain bases his judgment on how he feels and he always feels like standing in front of a camera and preening for the Washington media.

I don’t think I’ll be getting McCain brown nose points for that one. ; )

Angry Dumbo on June 13, 2008 at 5:22 PM

Sorry, I disagree… you have to write the correct law, and argue you it on Constitutional grounds…

and who decides what law is correct?? our judicial gods who else??

Remember, you’d only have to swing one more Justice.

yeah maybe if we sacrifice a few virgins, one of our judicial gods will relent and have mercy on us.

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 5:52 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

they’ll rule that law unconstitutional and ignore it…we need a president and congress that will ignore their rulings.

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 3:26 PM

With Congress taking the Supreme Court’s authority away to hear such cases, it wouldn’t matter, even if the Supremes were so bold to take up such a case and rule anyway, the Congress would be fully justified to ignore such a ruling.

But I doubt the Supremes would be so bold as to ignore Congressional removal of authority in such cases.

Maxx on June 13, 2008 at 6:00 PM

In a nutshell, this is how Henry Mark Holzer, a Con Law Prof. at Brooklyn Law School, summed it up:

“(Boumediene) breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=62C36531-B083-4423-8DDB-632FE45D399D

In short, the courts made a political power grab because they don’t trust the people to elect suitably liberal legislators or executives. Balance of powers be damned. The courts likewise do not trust our military leaders and place them on par with cops in a foreign country. Military be damned.

Previously, I thought Kelo was the worst decision I could ever imagine. I didn’t think it could be this bad. Clearly, I have to work on my imagination.

Angry Dumbo on June 13, 2008 at 6:08 PM

But I doubt the Supremes would be so bold as to ignore Congressional removal of authority in such cases.

this is exactly what happened

congress removed the courts from having any authority in this case, and they ignored it and grabbed the power, if bush had any guts at all he’d announce that he is ignoring the courts!!

its time to end the tyranny of these black-robed jacka**ses

right4life on June 13, 2008 at 8:23 PM

McCain, Bush, Gates, Adm Mullen, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzalez, and many more have all said that they’d like to see Gitmo closed as soon as is practical. None of them ever intended that the detainees should have MORE rights than American citizens, as the SCOTUS decision dictates.

The military tribunals would have been a good way to deal this festering problem. Now the detainees should stay in limbo, as far as I’m concerned.

juliesa on June 13, 2008 at 10:07 PM

if bush had any guts at all he’d announce that he is ignoring the courts!!

Not courts – just this one court, on this one decision.

platypus on June 13, 2008 at 10:35 PM

For those who thought McCain would cheer this decision, it shows that McCain envisioned a much different process

it shows he doesnt have a clue. did he think moving them to leavenworth as he wanted wouldnt confer Constitutional rights on them? if so he is a terrible lawmaker and has idiotic advisors.

chasdal on June 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Supreme Court:

“The constitution is a sanctuary for slayers and a charnel-house for children.”

The Ritz on June 14, 2008 at 10:49 AM

For those who thought McCain would cheer this decision, it shows that McCain envisioned a much different process

This is precisely the argument the McCain camp is using against Obama in re. the surge. Obama was against it, and wanted all the troops home by now.
His judgement was clearly wrong, as events have shown.

Now McCain’s judgement was clearly wrong.

JiangxiDad on June 14, 2008 at 10:55 AM

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 detainees’ 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, “These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country have” (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 “given” 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 won’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 “endowed by our creator” with “unalienable rights,” such as, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Unalienable. Can’t be taken away. God-given natural rights. This is extremely important. Pay attention.

You see, if governments have “given” you “rights,” well then guess who can take them away at their will. Governments! McCain’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 “God-given.”

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 doesn’t take the great mind of an ACLU liberal to figure this out.

As Ronald Reagan said, “The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” 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 McCain…just the privileged few. Just pray that you stay in the good graces of an arbitrary McCain government, because where the government grants “rights,” 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.]

RMC1618 on June 14, 2008 at 11:11 AM

How soon before our military folks have to get search warrants before they search some cell in Sadr City?

PattyJ on June 14, 2008 at 11:37 AM

PattyJ on June 14, 2008 at 11:37 AM

they already need permission from “hight-ups” to execute offensive missions.

RMC1618 on June 14, 2008 at 11:45 AM

RMC1618 on June 14, 2008 at 11:11 AM

Interesting for sure.

True-McCain got the “given” stuff wrong, when speaking about Americans.

I can’t see what Ritsema adds new here. I thought the question hinged on whether Guantanamo, and places like that outside of the United States, are sufficiently under our control/jurisdiction to be deemed essentially US territory.

If Ritsema thinks so, so does the majority on the court.

But here it seems Ritsema argues that the location is irrelevant, since all people enjoy these basic rights.
Well, they may, in theory, but clearly not in practice. Is that now one of the reasons our Constitution was written? To ensure/protect etc. the god-given rights for all mankind?

Liberty and justice for all. But for McCain…just the privileged few. Just pray that you stay in the good graces of an arbitrary McCain government, because where the government grants “rights,” 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’?

I’m not a lawyer. But explain to me how by denying to foreigners at Guantanamo the exact same rights Americans enjoy, we here at home are threatened? Are Americans being held at Guantanamo? Ever? This sounds like just the same kind of hysteria coming from liberals about the Patriot Act.

Apparently, Mr. Ritsema is less interested in arguing the merits of the decision, and more in beating up John McCain. It’s possible to discuss this, without referring to the upcoming Presidential elections Mr. Ritsema. The nine justices did.

As for teaching at a “Christian” high school, we know that has no bearing on whether Mr. Ritsema is a liberal or not.

Finally, since you, RMC, made no comment re. the quote, I assume you are Mr. Ritsema, or agree with him.

JiangxiDad on June 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM

McCain failed to note the essential mistake in the SCOTUS FIVE STOOGES’ ruling, since it hinges on the following underlying PRESUMPTION: that they have unilaterally decided, irrationally, that we are NOT at war.

If we were really at war, they admit, the present military tribunal system and lack of haebus corpus for the “illegal enemy combatants” – spies, saboteurs & terroists- (using Gevena Conventions precedents) would be okay.

How does the Supreme Court get to decide that an “invasion” did not take place on 9/11, and that the subsequent war, is not going on?

Who appointed them War Judgers?

Congress and the President hold this power, not the Court.

Their ruling itself is Unconstitutional, since they have overstepped their legal bounds in making this decision, because it rests on a fraudulent over-reaching by them.

Has a Supreme Court move (not ruling, per se) ever been challenged as Unconstitutional in itself?

profitsbeard on June 14, 2008 at 12:04 PM

JiangxiDad on June 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM

Actualy quite a bit worse. What this guy believes leads us to the point where the American Judicial system would HAVE to cover EVERYONE in the world, not just US citizens.

Its already settled law that those inside the US get US Civil Rights… if you take the view that ALL must be given those Rights, as they are from God, then it leads us rapidly to the silly position of imposing American standards on the entire world.

Which I know is a NeoCon type of goal, but not one with fits with reality very well.

Romeo13 on June 14, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Finally, since you, RMC, made no comment re. the quote, I assume you are Mr. Ritsema, or agree with him.

JiangxiDad on June 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM

I thought he made a good point, that our founding principles were based on human rights, not “American Rights”.

And if we hold those thruths to be self-evident in theory but not in practice, what’s the point of having them at all?

It’s my understanding that under the Patriot Act, that an American citizen can be labled a “terrorist”, and i only assume that leaves them subject to be placed in a place like Gitmo.

Finally, I am not Mr. Ritsema, I found his article on a different blog site.

RMC1618 on June 14, 2008 at 12:25 PM

RMC1618 on June 14, 2008 at 12:25 PM

I dont’ think you responded to my criticisms of Ritsema’s points.

Do you know who the US Constitution was written for? The government it created governs whom? We were not creating a system to govern mankind! If others want our system, let them copy it.

As for Americans captured as terrorist, does John Walker Lindh come to mind? How was his situation treated?

JiangxiDad on June 14, 2008 at 12:41 PM

JiangxiDad on June 14, 2008 at 12:41 PM

I dont’ think you responded to my criticisms of Ritsema’s points.

your criticisms are your criticisms, what do I care?

Do you know who the US Constitution was written for?

the peoples of these United States.

The government it created governs whom?

The Peoples of these United States and the persons and places under it’s jurisdiction.

We were not creating a system to govern mankind! If others want our system, let them copy it.

I don’t believe anyone said that was the case. the Constitution only protects the rights we have as Human beings, from the hand of Man taking them away, the Constitution itself does not “give” us any right at all, it protects them, and puts restrictions on the Government, telling it what it may not do, (Congress shall make no law).

Since here in America, those same inalienable rights are our law, those subject to our jurisdiction under our custudy, are therefore subject to our laws, and everything that entails.

As for Americans captured as terrorist, does John Walker Lindh come to mind? How was his situation treated?

From my understanding, john Walker Lindh commited treason as defined under Section 3, Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution:
“Treason against the united States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to the enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
I understand that he was tried, Convicted, and now sits in prision.

RMC1618 on June 14, 2008 at 1:53 PM

your criticisms are your criticisms, what do I care?

RMC1618 on June 14, 2008 at 1:53 PM

I would respond, but since they are your comments, what do I care? Sheesh!

JiangxiDad on June 14, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Since here in America, those same inalienable rights are our law, those subject to our jurisdiction under our custudy, are therefore subject to our laws, and everything that entails.

You just claimed that the German and Japanese POW’s in WWII were entitled to the exact same rights as US citizens. You realize that’s what you said, right?

You just claimed that any Al Queda members we capture are entitled to the exact same rights as US citizens. You realize that’s what you said, right?

flenser on June 14, 2008 at 3:05 PM

I thought he made a good point, that our founding principles were based on human rights, not “American Rights”.

If he said that, then he was wrong.

It’s my understanding that under the Patriot Act, that an American citizen can be labled a “terrorist”, and i only assume that leaves them subject to be placed in a place like Gitmo.

You assume incorrectly.

flenser on June 14, 2008 at 3:07 PM

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

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

Of course, rights are a privilege of citizenship. That’s why Chinese citizens cannot petition the US government for their right to free speech. Americans have their rights because they are Americans, not because they are human. A casual look at humanity shows the truth of this.

flenser on June 14, 2008 at 3:15 PM

McCain needs to get to the Senate and submit a bill that says the Supreme Court does NOT have jurisdiction over Gitmo…

Congress already passed such a law. The Supreme Court ignored it.

flenser on June 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Message to our troops: keep kicking ass, we will beat the fucktards here at home

indythinker on June 14, 2008 at 4:11 PM

McShame… the two faced would be POTUS?

A few hours after the SCOTUS ruling concerning Gitmo…

“…[I]t is a decision that the Supreme Court has made,” McCain said. “Now we need to move forward. As you know I always favored closing Guantanamo Bay and I still think we ought to do that.”

That response apparently didn’t poll very well over night with “his wingnuts” so…

“…John McCain weighed in on the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the rights of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to challenge their detention in U.S. courts at a town hall meeting Friday, calling the 5-4 decision “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

Oh John, wherefore art thou John…?

J_Gocht on June 14, 2008 at 5:16 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

He could say that as president he would ignore this unconstitutional judicial reach. His popularity would go up 10 points in the party overnight and he would be doing the right thing.

JIMV on June 14, 2008 at 5:34 PM

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.

right2bright on June 13, 2008 at 4:03 PM
With such exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Pass a law making this an exception… its an inherent power of Congress, and part of the Balance of Powers… the Supremes are already fostering a Constitutional crises, Congress needs to fire back.

Romeo13 on June 13, 2008 at 4:07 PM

For heavens sake, the original Military Commission legislation already did that. The Court ignored the restriction and ruled anyway. The only thing that would get the Court to pay attention would be a public rebuke by the President or Congress and a flat statement that they will not obey an unconstitutional decision.

JIMV on June 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM

These liberals need to begin a 9 step Liberals’ Anonymous program. It works like this:

1. We admitted we were powerless over the MSM bias. That our realities had become distorted.

2. Came to believe that only a conservative and his values could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to do our own thinking and research.

4. Admitted to a conservative, to ourselves and to another liberal the exact nature of our wrong thinking and votes.

5. We entirely ready to have God remove all our liberal defects of character.

6. Humbly asked God and every conservative to forgive my support for every liberal Supreme Court Justice on the bench.

7. Made a list of all persons we harmed by supporting every socialist/communist program that came down the pike, and became willing to work hard to repair the damage I caused.

8. Made direct amends to those we had harmed wherever possible, except to those who had already died as a result of my policies based on lax morals and lazy intellectual thinking.

9. Having experienced this reality check, we tried to carry to message to all other liberal lemmings.

SoldiersMom on June 14, 2008 at 6:58 PM

Had this USSC decision been reached in 1944 then Hermann Goering probably could have copped the insanity defense and walked. With the help of a John Edwards or OJ Jury, of course. We can be thankful that of that era a much lower percentage of the populace then was guided by get what they can while they can.

What the ruling indicates, above all else, is how the Supreme Court has become in-your-face pawns of the ACLU and Trial Lawyers Association. Imagine the loot which can be realized by their self-perpetuating lawyering cronies should every non-citizen POW or terrorist get a citizen’s trial. Remember the old adage that a town which can hardly support one lawyer can easily support two.

viking01 on June 14, 2008 at 7:06 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

All very true, but the fact is Congress already did exactly that with the Military Commissions Act. The Supreme Court just declared it unconstitutional, saying it was an “inadequate substitute” for habeas corpus rights.

If Congress passed such a law again, I would expect the Supreme Court to “overturn” it again.

Even so, I hope they do. I’d love to see Congress take the exact Military Commissions Act that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional and pass it again. MAKE the Supreme Court rule against it again. Make it plain that the Supreme Court mouths rhetoric about the need for restricting the power of the President and Congress, but accepts no limit on their own power.

There is only one way to reign in the Supreme Court, and that is when all the people in the country are tired of judicial activism, and make it plain to Congress and the President that they’ll support the effort to reduce the Supreme Court to be no greater than the other two branches of government.

theregoestheneighborhood on June 14, 2008 at 7:28 PM

theregoestheneighborhood on June 14, 2008 at 7:28 PM

Actualy, not they didn’t. They did NOT prohibit the Supreme Court in that decision, just the District Courts… which was the problem….

The need to say:

Persuant to U.S. Constitution Article 3, Section 2, clause 2
and the Congress’s ability to limit the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, we hereby declare that Enemy Combatants, and Unlawful Enemy Combatants, as so designtated by Military Tribunal, will be considered an Exception to the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Add in some legalese about time of Emergency… and its a done deal.

Problem is that they NEVER MADE THAT ARGUEMENT to the Court… so the court did not have to rule whether it was a valid arguement or not. Courts IGNORE anything not brought before them, thats normal law…

Romeo13 on June 14, 2008 at 7:57 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. . .

Maxx on June 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Unfortunately, the Democrats control the Congress, and they like this decision.

The Court has left the military with only one way of dealing with these terrorists and barbarians: take no prisoners—shoot them.

MrLynn on June 14, 2008 at 8:08 PM

They were not going to rule that they had no juristiction…The court lives to grow and expand. They are not of the country, but over it. Pleasing their cocktail party buddies is vastly more important that keeping Americans alive or obeying the law.

JIMV on June 14, 2008 at 8:55 PM

theregoestheneighborhood on June 14, 2008 at 7:28 PM

Actualy, not they didn’t. They did NOT prohibit the Supreme Court in that decision, just the District Courts… which was the problem….

The need to say:

Persuant to U.S. Constitution Article 3, Section 2, clause 2
and the Congress’s ability to limit the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, we hereby declare that Enemy Combatants, and Unlawful Enemy Combatants, as so designtated by Military Tribunal, will be considered an Exception to the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Add in some legalese about time of Emergency… and its a done deal.

Problem is that they NEVER MADE THAT ARGUEMENT to the Court… so the court did not have to rule whether it was a valid arguement or not. Courts IGNORE anything not brought before them, thats normal law…

Romeo13 on June 14, 2008 at 7:57 PM

Do you really think that would make a difference. I’ll grant they didn’t specifically removed the jurisdiction from the Supreme Court, but they did give the exclusive jurisdiction to the D.C. court.

I suspect if the MCA had specifically revoked the Supreme Court from jurisdiction, they would have interpreted that as an unconstitutional attempt to limit their power. It would also have been a provocation to the Supreme Court, effectively daring them to do something about it.

Would be interesting to see, though…

theregoestheneighborhood on June 14, 2008 at 9:10 PM

Besides, nothing gets to the Suprteme Court unless it comes from one of those lesser courts and those courts were prohibited from actin. The Supreme court have turned reminded those courts they had no juristiction instead of acting to kill americans as they did.

JIMV on June 14, 2008 at 9:41 PM

The Supreme Court’s awful decision in the Boumediene case highlights the important differences between John McCain and Barack Obama, at least where national security is concerned. McCainreacted to the 5-4 vote as most voters will, with dismay:

Mr. McCain said here Thursday morning that he had not had time to read the decision but that “it obviously concerns me,” adding, “These are unlawful combatants; they’re not American citizens.”

Mr. McCain said he thought “we should pay attention” to the dissent by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., which argued that the steps established by the administration and Congress in creating review tribunals run by the military were more than sufficiently generous as a way for detainees to challenge their status.

Obama’s reaction, meanwhile, will please left-wing law professors and Bush-hating Democratic primary voters:

Mr. Obama issued a statement calling the decision “a rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo” that he said was “yet another failed policy supported by John McCain.”

“This is an important step,” he said of the ruling, “toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law….”

Of course, as Paul noted last night, what the Court’s majority overturned was not a decree by the Bush administration, it was a statute that was passed by large majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2006. The Military Commissions Act passed the Senate on a 65-34 vote, with Democratic Senators Carper, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, Nelson (Neb.), Nelson (Fla.), Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar and Stabenow voting with the Republicans. Likewise, in the House 34 Democrats joined with 219 Republicans to pass the statute. In Obama’s view, were all of these Democrats part of an attempt to “create a legal black hole at Guantanamo?” Evidently so.

This incident should remind us why Obama is regarded as the most liberal member of the Senate, a back-bencher who, unlike many of his colleagues, virtually never reaches across the aisle to cooperate with Republicans on any issue, large or small. (powerline)

Keemo on June 14, 2008 at 10:49 PM

The terrorist death count is going to go up dramatically. Actual official reports won’t.

The phrases “Drop your weapon”, “Stop or I’ll shoot”, “Don’t move or your a dead man” will go out of style.

Those who succeed in surrendering will be turned over to reps from their home countries who will extract any useful information they may have (probably not by water-boarding) They will then be shipped home where security forces will have more questions that will need to be answered. Many will never be seen again.

Most in Gitmo will be released to the security forces of their home countries. It’s not likely they will be thanking the supreme court. It is likely that will be wishing they were still in Gitmo.

There will be liberal outrage and cries of “Rendition!” The official response will be, “The supreme court gave us no option.”

5 to 10 Gitmo prisoners will be selected and used for show trials to feed and occupy the liberal media machine and the hate America crowds here and across the world.

In 2011, the republican controlled congress will act to right this wrong and limit the powers of the court with regards to our armed forces abroad. It will be signed as soon at it hits the republican president’s desk.

Rod on June 15, 2008 at 8:23 AM

Mr. Obama issued a statement calling the decision “a rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo” that he said was “yet another failed policy supported by John McCain.”

Would that it were so. But the fact is that McCain was a more significant and effective critic of the WH’s Gitmo policy than was Obama.

flenser on June 15, 2008 at 4:05 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

That’s fine for this case, however, over the long haul, the SCOTUS is WAY overdue for term, and/or age limits. Plus, a Constitutional Amendment for the senate to overturn them. Because presently, the SCOTUS are not accountable to anybody, including even heaven or earth.

byteshredder on June 16, 2008 at 2:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2