Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

McCain slams Supreme Court on terrorist detainees

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 10:00 AM
Original message
McCain slams Supreme Court on terrorist detainees
Source: AP

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday sharply denounced a Supreme Court decision that gave suspected terrorist detainees a right to seek their release in federal courts.

"I think it's one of the worst decisions in history," McCain said. "It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution."

McCain is one of the authors of the 2006 Military Commissions Act which set up procedures for the handling of detainees. The act denied the detainees access to federal courts.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that provision of the law violated the constitution.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080614/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_detainees
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Bwahahahaha! McLame wrote the law the Supremes just said was unconstitutional.
Edited on Sat Jun-14-08 10:03 AM by ocelot
No wonder he's got his Depends in a twist. Sorry, pal. The worst Supreme Court decision ever (or at least since Dred Scott) was Bush v. Gore. This time they did it right, and you wouldn't know the Constitution if it bit you in the ass. Which it just did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. a decision in favor of civil rights and McCain compares it to the
likes of Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson or SCOTUS's meddling in Bush v. Gore? One might think the Geezer was getting senile.
He was in favor of the ruling in Old Guy v. Kids on Lawn though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realisticphish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. yes, because terrorists are the only ones...
oh, wait, no, fucktard, it includes U.S. citizens and whoever they felt like throwing into Guantanamo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
3. Former federal prosecutors think we should just kill them all to get back at SCOTUS....
http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/06/12/justice-league-of-america/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
4. He is going to be sooooooooo trounced!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. help make it happen!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. I always do my share.
Details are not nessasary. We all need to look in the mirror and be able to look back and say " I helped"..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frisbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. I hope you're right...
...but I am going to be very worried about this election until I KNOW Obama has won. This country, and even the world are so fucked if McInsane gets to pick up right where * left off. Obama needs to win this thing by a margin that is impossible for the GOP machine to steal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miles 2 go Donating Member (368 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
8. It's good to see the "Maverick" going against * again
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sallyseven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
9. He is insane and we can't
let him near the black box nor the white house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. And he swallowed his foot nicely in his tantrum too
Went off on a rant about how "enemy combatants" are not citizens and thus shouldn't have legal rights. Well, duh, they're not citizens, and of course they don't have the rights of citizens, but last I heard legal rights were absolute for anyone under US jurisdiction.

Either that, or McCain just said that every permanent resident in the US does not have constitutional rights, which would hopefully cause a nice, hilarious backlash...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
41. There is nothing that says "enemy combatants" can't be citizens..
Bush can declare ANYone an "illegal enemy combatant" and snatch them right off the street & hold them indefinitely incommunicado. That is what the Patriot Act & it's puppies have done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
11. This piece of shit cannot be allowed to take the White House. The Junta will continue.
That 5-4 decision is a very, very thin line, and the proles are too stupid to understand what this means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bulloney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
13. There's our maverick senator at it again.
How can the media keep playing this charade?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usaftmo Donating Member (606 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
14. Worst decisions in history? Are you kidding me?
What about bush v Gore, or Plessy v Ferguson? Don't forget the Dred Scott decision!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juan_de_la_Dem Donating Member (800 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
15. He is truly out of his mind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debunkthelies Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
16. The worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court
Was appointing G.W. Bush to the Presidency.:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
classysassy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
17. Forked tongue
It was wrong for the viet cong to imprison me,I only bombed innocent civilians,but those guys thought about bombing us.(key words,I did,they may have thought about it)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib2DaBone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
18. ....Dont need no stinkin' Supreme Court...
Edited on Sat Jun-14-08 02:05 PM by lib2DaBone
The war-decider President says we dont need no Supreme Court.. he's going to "See about this recent Habeous Corpus Thingy". McCain says we don't need no courts.. 'cause we got floating prisons and torture. And of course, Pelosi and Reid cower in the corner while the lame-stream press covers the "Pregnant Man" story. I say Jerry Springer for President...Jerry..Jerry..Jerry!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
19. Interesting choice considering his own war time "detainment" experiences...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. McCain was against torture before he was for it.
Edited on Sat Jun-14-08 03:40 PM by ocelot
And you'd think a guy who spent five years in a nasty prison without a trial or access to counsel would have a little respect for the notion of habeas corpus as applied to non-citizens. After all, wasn't he an "enemy combatant" as far as the North Vietnamese were concerned? I think what's going on here is that McCain knows he has to pander to the mouth-breathing wingnut haters on the extreme right, who have never liked him. So he'll say whatever Karl Rove, his unofficial advisor, tells him to say. And with respect to this decision, he also has to say what Fat Tony Scalia said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
21. So sorry the headlines don't say he slams the court on habeus corpus
Slams em on terrorists sounds like The Great McCain Slams The Evil Terrorists
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
22. "McCain SlamsSupreme Court's Rare Upholding of Constitutiion."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
23. McCain aside, the practical effect of this ruling will be to encourage a tacit "no prisoners" policy
Soldiers in the field will think, hmm, I can put myself at an unknown risk not only from the enemy but also in the future from their lawyers - or I can shoot the bastards.

Doesn't seem like a lot of deliberation will be involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. How in the hell does this decision put US soldiers at risk from lawyers?
What a ridiculous talking point! Where did you hear this, from Rush Limbaugh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. You got an actual argument, I'm all ears. Otherwise, fuck off with your ad hominems. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. Oh, I have an argument. My argument is that what you said was utterly ridiculous.
What exactly is the "risk" entailed by not being allowed to hold prisoners indefinitely without ever charging them with anything? What in the world were you talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. That's not an argument, that's an opinion. Do you know the difference?
I'm personally in favor of the ruling, and breathed a sigh of relief when I heard about it. Whether it may have unintended consequences is a separate matter and worth civil discussion.

Do you come here to discuss and construct logical arguments, or to call names? What exactly's in it for you? Gratification from spraying "freeper! freeper!" in a faux purple rage?

You're not going to persuade anyone by pissing on them.

If you have an argument, let's hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. How can I discuss this with you if you won't explain what you mean?
What risk from lawyers will our soldiers now be facing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #23
31. Yeah, darn those lawyers! What do we need them for right?
So. Let's apply this to every crime. If the police suspect you of a crime, they can arrest you on the spot and then hold you for however long they'd like. And you cannot challenge it in court, because then police would just shoot you out of fear of someone standing up to them.

Oppose that? Then you have to explain why it's ok to do it for one arbitrarily selected crime ("terrorism") and not others (like good old fashioned murder, here in the US).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. You're arguing about something that I agree with. WTF?
I support the decision. I personally believe all humans, even the worst and most dangerous, deserve a lawful That said, it's prudent to look at possible undesirable consequences of the decision, and avert them early while it's easy, rather than wait until later when it's hard.

Agree?

This is not about the "crime" of "terrorism", but about how the military may change its rules of engagement (officially or unofficially) when meeting enemies on the battlefield. Domestic criminals do not operate in a theater of war, and do not face the US Army or Marines. Different bodies of law and rules of procedure apply. I didn't make the rules.

Discuss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. While would the military change its rules of engagement?
Up until now have our soldiers been taking prisoners only with the expectation that these prisoners would all be imprisoned for life even if no evidence against them could ever be produced?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
24. "It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution."
Someone needs to tell McBush that this has already happened and he was part of it!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. That whole new idea of habeas corpus!
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't habeas corpus even older than McCain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2Design Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
25. A man who was tortured and maimed and deformed - supports torture -
he must really have a Stockholm syndrome - go figure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skoalyman Donating Member (751 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. maybe he has
a torture fetish
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
38. pssst: the AWOL Chimperor "touched" him. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
minnesota_liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 07:45 AM
Response to Original message
32. And McCain is a lawyer? (No) A great legal scholar? (No)
Who gives a shit what a know-nothing politician thinks about a legal ruling?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. Yep. The very basic principle for all politicians about the law should be:
The Law must not be broken.

A politician who breaks a law ceases to be a politician and becomes a felon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
33. Why is the MSM so fond of the word "slams"???
What a gross image that conjures in one's head... a little old man "slamming" other old men against a wall, or something else equally hard? With what, his bare hands?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewEnglandGirl Donating Member (602 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
40. Does he really think
you can just stick people in a box and leave them there in case they are dangerous? He is so scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
42. there you go again....
"I think it's one of the worst decisions in history,"

....but johnny, it's from your repug packed court, it can't be all that bad....

....johnny, don't you like our Constitution?....I thought sharing our system and values with other people was a repug priority?....you disappoint me....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
43. What a sad, pathetic man
I think we need to start warming up the docket at the Hague.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
44. McCain, the Constitutional historian, calls it one of the worst decisions in history....wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarface2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
45. if elected i will have 5 supreme court justices shot!
makane sneered as he denounced the rule of law in favor of military rule similar to chile in the 70s!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 06:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC