That’s what John McCain called the recent SCOTUS ruling on GITMO detainees.
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.
McCain also noted that US officials have said that about 30 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have attacked American forces.
“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.
He also approvingly quoted Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent — and pointed out that Democratic rival Barack Obama voted against confirming Roberts and praised Thursday’s decision.
Meanwhile we have Democrats calling GITMO a “blight”
“Guantanamo has been a terrible blight on the integrity of this nation,” says Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who has proposed closing the prison complex.
So l suppose her solution on what to do with those terrorists captured on the battlefield is to follow the Geneva rules? Shoot them on sight?
I doubt it. I’m thinking she believes, as apparently lots of Democrats do, that they have the rights of American citizens (even though they are NOT citizens) and should be taken before our courts. Of course they better have had their Miranda warnings given prior to any interrogation or they get released back into the population.
Sigh…
Oh, and you just had to know the groups that support terrorists were jumping for joy:
A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today welcomed a Supreme Court ruling that gives detainees at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detentions in U.S. civilian courts.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called the decision a “victory for objective justice,” noting that the court’s decision maintains the integrity of the Constitution in overturning hastily-passed congressional legislation that provided inadequate legal recourse to detainees. Of the 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”
And Mark Levin threw his two cents into the mix on his radio show yesterday. (h/t Newsbusters)
[audio:https://floppingaces.net/Audio/LevinScotus.mp3]Don’t feel like listening, here is a transcript:
Denying foreign enemy combatants access to U.S. courts is an incident of war. Ladies and gentlemen, every single president of the United States has taken that position. Every single one. Every single president of the United States. Up until this Supreme Court, the Supreme Court understood that war was not their province, and that enemy combatants held overseas was not their business. And now we have, thanks to the Marxist left of the professoried in our law schools, the activist judges that have been breeded, placed on our courts, a totally different mentality. Treating people who would slaughter us, who would blow up our citizens, who would decapitate children if they had a shot at it, as people who are abused by us at Guantanamo Bay.
We have lost the propaganda war, and we have to make sure we don’t lose the war. But I am telling you, these five rogue justices, who lie about the law, who lie about precedent, and who lie about what they’re up to, expose our armed forces on the battlefield to extraordinary danger. And they expose you and me to extraordinary danger. Because let us remember the reason why Guantanamo is where it is is so that when we capture these terrorists on the battlefield, we can interrogate them, and find out what they know, about their hierarchy, about their strategies, about the potential next attack, and we’ve gotten extremely useful information in many cases. And we keep them there to keep them off the battlefield.
This is not part of the criminal justice system. We’re not interested in prosecuting them under our criminal laws. We’re interested in survival, and protecting the American soldier and the American people at a time of war. Every president has done this. Every single one. And when the reporters write “It’s a blow against George Bush or the Bush administration,” they are lying through their teeth. They are propagandists, spewing the talking points of the enemy. And when Supreme Court justices, who are extremely intelligent people, know better, and sit down with pen in hand, and rewrite the law, and pretend the precedent doesn’t say what it says, because they want to advance the cause of the ACLU, and the Marxist lawyers who represent these terrorists, shame on them.
What the SCOTUS did here is beyond precedent. As Mataharley wrote about here and as Justice Roberts points out:
Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law’s operation.
In the end I believe what the court has done is they have thrown it back to the Congress and the President which makes the upcoming election just that much more important. Think about it. One more conservative justice on the court and this decision would have gone the other way.
It’s that important.
See author page
I’m wondering, because we rent the space at Gitmo from the Cubans, Kennedy says it is considered American. Every base we operate from be it in Germany, Japan, Afghanistan or Iraq we pay compensation for. So should every ground that we hold prisoners be considered America?
Monday, January 28, 2008
HABEAS LAWYERS FOR OBAMA
HABEAS LAWYERS SUPPORT OBAMA
January 28, 2008
Dear Friends:
We are at a critical point in the Presidential campaign, and as lawyers who have been deeply involved in the Guantanamo litigation to preserve the important right to habeas corpus, we are writing to urge you to support Senator Obama.
The Administration’s Guantanamo policies have undercut our values at home and stained our reputation around the world. All of us are lawyers who have worked on the Guantanamo habeas corpus litigation for many years, some of us since early 2002, and we were all deeply involved in opposing the Administration’s attempt to overturn the Supreme Court’s Rasul decision by stripping the courts of jurisdiction to hear the Guantanamo cases. We have talked with Senator Obama about why the Guantanamo litigation is so significant, and we have worked closely with Senator Obama in the fight to preserve habeas corpus.
Some politicians are all talk and no action. But we know from first-hand experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated extraordinary leadership on this critical and controversial issue. When others stood back, Senator Obama helped lead the fight in the Senate against the Administration’s efforts in the Fall of 2006 to strip the courts of jurisdiction, and when we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration’s bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us. Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates.
The writ of habeas corpus dates to the Magna Carta, and was enshrined by the Founders in our Constitution. The Administration’s attack on habeas corpus rights is dangerous and wrong. America needs a President who will not triangulate this issue. We need a President who will restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community. Based on our work with him, we are convinced that Senator Obama can do this because he truly feels these issues “in his bones.”
http://habeaslawyersforobama.blogspot.com/2008/01/habeas-lawyers-for-obama.html
Kathie, read my post The Road to today’s decision, linked in Curt’s post above or found in the side bars for “recent posts”. Then you’ll understand what makes Gitmo different from other foreign bases.
Boyo… with freedom of expression, some real pieces of work slide in thru the cyber revolving doors…
“Guest” says:
For the record, Obama voted Aye in Detainees Treatment Act. He voted Nay for the Military Commissions Act, as referenced in the excerpt above.
However that Act did not “strip the courts of jurisdiction”, but instead awarded *exclusive* jurisdiction to the DC circuit. How does that equate to stripping rights?
@”guest”, #2 above
Obamanaughts either don’t know or don’t care that Obama is in bed with the darkest elements in America and overseas.
If the media were honest, America would know the truth about him, but they aren’t any more than he, so America is scammed by one of the sleaziest politicians around. Instead of “Yes, we can.” his slogan should be “Yes we con.”
Like all “good” Lefties, O’Bomber is a sociopath.
http://frontpagemag.com/blog/Read.aspx?guid=700ea7db-0482-4f02-9572-34c4104d77d1
“political equivalent of a sociopath”
http://www.intellectuallyhonest.com/2008/02/obama-ists-find-common-cause-with-anti.html
You can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=800
Good people distance themselves from bad, but in Obama’s world, the good are in the vast, no pun intended, minority.
6. “The detainees, moreover, are held in a territory that, while technically not part of the United States, is under the complete and total control of our Government.” The concept of “complete and total control” is left open for future development by the Court. As Justice Scalia notes in dissent, “it clears a wide path for the Court to traverse in the years to come.”
We rent a piece of land of a sovereign country, Cuba, tho hostile. Surely in Germany we have complete control over the base that we rent from the Germans.
Kathie,
Actually, no. In Germany, when there was a car accident (my experience) on my US Army base, both the BundesPolitzi and American Army MPs responded and investigated. Polizi did not patrol the base, but worked with the MPs and CID agencies. It all depends on SOFA agreements and the status of the country where the base is (occupied, allied, hostile). The USA ended Germany’s “occupied” status a few decades ago. With Iraq getting a full SOFA agreement in its mutual defense pacts, they will soon no longer be considered “occupied”.
So, yes, the definition of “complete and total control” is not as clear as it seems. If you already knew this and were waiting for the question to be answered, then there you are.
A foreign enemy has NO “civil rights” which are reserved for the citizens of a country.
That habeas ruling is one of the worst decisions of any Leftist group of judges, and going to get Americans killed.
By that foolish and malicious decision, SCOTUS has usurped power the constitution doesn’t grant it, and disarmed the executive in a time of war, thereby increasing our vulnerability while protecting our enemies.
At Powerline we read“Boumediene works a vast expansion of the wartime power of the federal courts and, ultimately, of five members of the Supreme Court. By the same token, it contracts the power of the elected branches of government to provide for the common defense.
America is deathly ill, and the Left are the buzzards fighting over what they hope will soon be it’s carcass. G-d help America that she should recover, and the Left should fail and go away in utter humiliation.
With any luck, the next terrorist attack will not be the detonation of a dirty bomb, but a nose-diving airliner into SCOTUS HQ. Or HQ of Habeas Lawyers For Obama . I wonder if they’d be so generous with their granting of US rights to foreign combatants then?
Thanks everybody. Kathie
Wow… Doug is that really you? Or someone masquerading as you?? I’m absolutely shocked and stunned with your ire at the opinion! Pleasantly, of course.
Or did you forget to press that pesky “sarcasm” button…. LOL
Doug,
As much as I disagree with the decision from the Supreme Court and as much as I disagree with the Lawyers for Obama, I have to disagree with your statement.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying but it seems that you are saying that with luck the next attack on our country will be a nose diving plane into the Supreme Court or Habeas Lawyers headquarters.
I don’t wish harm on anyone regardless of how much I disagree with them politically and it is, in my opinion, inappropriate for you to do so.
If I misunderstood, please correct me.
@Aye Chihuahua
Yes, it would not be right to wish that SCOTUS should be attacked by those the majority of 5 Libs seek to enable. I mean, what would we do if we lost the other 4?
And as to the habeas lawyers, I doubt their cave will be attacked any time soon by their allies in the war against civilization. The savages will want to wait till they win, when they will no longer have any need of the then useless idiots, to get rid of them.
p.s., FA, I have two other posts caught in your spam holding pen, in case you haven’t seen my email yet.
regards.
Ya know, Aye Chi, I’ve cyber chatted with Doug enuf to take a wild guess that it was a tongue-in-cheek expression, and that he doesn’t genuinely wish physical harm. ‘Course, only Doug can answer that.
But I’m mostly surprised he’s dissatisfied with the justices’ opine. If he is, then it is an issue upon which we agree whole heartedly.
____ NEWS FLASH ____
I just checked my email, and found this…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/13/AR2008061302423.html?hpid=topnews
OUCH!
Just goes to show, you never know what is going to happen.
My sympathy for his family and friends.
In my post, #8 above, I wrote… “At Powerline we read…” and it was missing the link, that should have been…
“At powerline we read….”
Mata,
You may very well be correct.
Perhaps I was a bit hasty.
yonason,
I wouldn’t want any of them to be harmed, majority or dissent.
@Aye Chihuahua
I wouldn’t want any of them to be harmed, majority or dissent.”
Sarcasm, AC. I don’t want them dead either. After all, the punishment should fit the crime, and they are just guilty of being incredibly stupid. What that should be punished with, I’m not quite sure, but death is a bit harsh for that, especially since it’s probably an “honest” foolish mistake.
I wouldn’t mind seeing them soil their pants in fear of the cutthroats they’ve enabled, though, if it would change their minds.
I should have been able to recognize that.
Sorry.
no apology needed, AC. I should have made it clearer.
regards
This is a different “Doug” email address and IP are different.
Gitmo is not sovereign soil, it is rented territory. This ruling is a clear example of BDS and a liberal court in action. I doubt anything the courts do is fair any more, they have politicized the law and the court, meeting the expectations of those that said it would happen when the SC was formed. Now days the Supreme Court can be counted on the rule on anything from science to war, even though they have no experience in either.
It’s sad that the US courts have become an adjunct to the DNC party apparatus that it has.
video commentary, followed by McCain speaking on the topic
http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V2494408
and some other stuff (interspersed with ads)
Thanks, AF, for that Levin tape. His observations are all too true, and a sad commentary on America today.
Gitmo is not sovereign soil, it is rented territory. This ruling is a clear example of BDS and a liberal court in action. I doubt anything the courts do is fair any more, they have politicized the law and the court, meeting the expectations of those that said it would happen when the SC was formed. Now days the Supreme Court can be counted on the rule on anything from science to war, even though they have no experience in either.
It’s sad that the US courts have become an adjunct to the DNC party apparatus that it has.
So you are so scared of the due process that you would throw away what America stands for? How on earth can it be so bad to merely process these SUSPECTS – that is all they are at this point (SUSPECTS) – so we only punish the convicted ones? It appears America is stronger, braver, and more patriotic than you will ever be. We have a country of laws, and your idiot king does not make laws – that’s Congress’s job. If you can find someone in your family who can read – and I highly doubt that (go home schooling!) please ask them to read our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those documents are fo your protection too.
You really believe the government should be able to take an American citizen off the street and put them away forever? For no reason? With no evidence? Please leave America now. She does not need you and those like you.
With skills that would make P.T. Barnum proud, Mr. Flintstone juggles apples and oranges.
Tooooo funny, Aye Chi! But you have to admit, it’s admirable flag waving from Fred. Too bad most of it comes from erroneous conjecture.
That due process for those deemed enemy combatants (who historically, by precedent, do not have habeas rights) was accommodated for by the passage of DTA and MCA. What makes you think they weren’t able to have due process?
That’s right, Fred. Congress passed DTA and MCA. Bush merely signed them into law, as is the path for all legislation. The Supreme’s have basically spit on Congressional legislation. And this is Bush’s fault… how?
None of the Gitmo detainees are American citizens. Most, if not all, have not set foot inside territorial US. Boumediene v Bush has absolutely nothing to do with American citizens…. located ANYWHERE. So your point is?
You may be able to read, Fred. But it could be your comprehension needs some brushing up. The issue comes down to status… enemy combatant, or alien enjoying US Constitutional right… while incarcerated. The process was in place for determining status (CRSTs), legal recourse for challenging that status in District of Columbia circuit courts (DTA/MCA), and if found not to be an enemy combatant … they could embark on the route of aliens enjoying Constitutional rights.
That clarity of due process is now gone, and all bets are off on how judges will handle cases that flood into federal courts. They’ll have to make it up as they go along since there are NO precedents for this. On what legal basis are they supposed to rule? What feels good?
And for those who do not understand the concept, here is a refresher course: How a bill becomes a law .
Israeli legal sholars, lawyers and judges filed an amici brief with the Supreme Court that argued FOR the detainees.
http://radamisto.blogspot.com/2007/08/israel-better-than-us.html
“Guantanamo has been a terrible blight on the integrity of this nation,” says Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Joint Chiefs Chairman: Close Guantanamo
Jan 13, 5:45 PM (ET)
By ROBERT BURNS
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) – The chief of the U.S. military said Sunday he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible because he believes negative publicity worldwide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been “pretty damaging” to the image of the United States.
“I’d like to see it shut down,” Adm. Mike Mullen said
Mullen said, “More than anything else it’s been the image – how Gitmo has become around the world, in terms of representing the United States.”
“I believe that from the standpoint of how it reflects on us that it’s been pretty damaging,” Mullen said,
“Israeli legal sholars, lawyers and judges filed an amici brief with the Supreme Court that argued FOR the detainees.”
Now you know why Israel is in so much trouble.
It’s “scholars” are self hating Leftists who pervert truth and hence justice, advocating for the enemy while being contemptuous and brutal to their own. And, parenthetically, siding with them and the mutual Arab enemy, which even Ms Rice and “Conservative” Bush are doing (as every president and Secy of Defense has done to date), is what is destroying America and the West.