Unbelievable
I’ve been quietly celebrating the very important decision of the Supreme Court on Thursday when they declared that Congress and the President had no power to strip away the right of Habeus Corpus. I’ve been listening to the news while I cleaned up the kitchen, and heard John McCain at a town hall meeting.
I know the media has been presenting this guy as a maverick and a moderate. _He Is Neither!_ He has voted in support of Bush’s disastrous policies 95% of the time in the past year. Prior to that he was rated by a Conservative think tank as a proper right wing voter 85% of the time. He has backed away from his stance against torture. (I guess torture is now just fine), he is anti-choice, and he will pack the court and destroy the country.
The reason I know he will destroy the judicial safeguards that protect our Constitution is what he just said in this town hall meeting. He excoriated the court’s decision on Thursday, and sided with these absolutely terrifying dissents from Roberts and Scalia. McCain railed against unelected judges legislating from the bench. This man wants to be President, and the primary duty of the President is to defend the Constitution, and apparently McCain knows nothing about the Constitution, or at least doesn’t understand it. It is the function of the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and actions taken by the President.
The Right claims to hate and fear government, but then they tell us to trust them. The stripping of Habeus Corpus only applies to these detainees. It would never be used against American citizens. Tell that to Jose Padilla. And how long until some new convulsion of fear has the president and congress deciding that certain ethnic groups need to lose their rights? Or certain religious groups. Trust us. We’re the people who tell you to fear government, but _trust us_. We’ll never take your rights away.
Consider the quote by Martin Niemoller. There are a number of versions as he made this speech several times, but I’m offering up the most famous version for your consideration.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Ah… actually the decision is bad law.
The people at Gitmo are not suspects who’ve been arrested by the police on suspicion of committing crimes.
Repeat: they’re not there because they’re accused of committing crimes.
Some of them may have committed crimes and may be liable to trial, but that’s not the reason for keeping them behind wire.
They’re -prisoners- taken by the -military-.
That’s an act of _war_, not a judicial or police procedure.
The only “offense” necessary for capturing someone in wartime is their being on the other side.
When you capture prisoners in war you’re entitled to keep them until the war is over or until you decide (strictly for your own reasons) that it’s safe to release them.
We didn’t release Germans or Japanese before 1945, or North Koreans and Chinese until the armistice in Korea.
We’re still fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban. Why on earth should we release (or put on trial) prisoners?
June 13th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
You are woefully ignorant about American Constitutional law, but you refuse to acknowledge other people’s greater expertise.
Secondly, many of the men at Gitmo were not “picked up on the battlefield”, they were sold to the Americans by bounty hunters. We have no idea if they were bad guys or goat farmers. All this decision does is give us a chance to figure out if these men are actually enemies or not.
And if you haven’t heard, the military has quietly released four or five of the prisoners because they _weren’t enemy combatants they were f***ing goat farmers_. And if they didn’t hate America before you can bet they do after six years at Gitmo. And the chief prosecutor _quit_ because he was basically ordered to find these men guilty no matter what because, as his commanding officer said, “After holding them this long we’ll look like idiots if we don’t convict them.” Now that’s justice.
This whole “war” on terror is moronic. It’s much more effective when we treat it as a criminal investigation. The World Trade Center bombers from 1993 are serving life sentences because the evidence was carefully gathered, they weren’t _tortured_ (which is a whole other rant for me. How dare this evil administration turn me, as an American citizen into a torturer.) so the evidence stood up in a court of law, and the bombers were punished and put away so they can’t do this again. Isn’t that the goal we want to achieve? Not some bogus, macho, chest thumping crap like we get from George Bush about how he’s a “War President.”
June 13th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I was vastly relieved by the Supreme Court decision, and simultaneously appalled by how close it was. As far as I can tell, the Bush administration’s position is that there are people who can be locked up indefinitely, and treated brutally, without any sort of legal recourse, simply because the president orders it done. You can’t have both unchecked executive power and the rule of law in the same polity. That’s a dangerous path to start down, and I’m relieved to see us turned back from it.
Obama’s not, by my standards, an ideal candidate—but we desperately need the kind of judges he’ll put on the Supreme Court, as a counterweight to the Bush nominees.
You know, in my teens, I tended to view the Republicans as the lesser evil, because they were supporters of the rule of law and especially of Constitutional rights against majority votes, because they were critical of unchecked executive power, and because they were fiscally conservative and wanted balanced budgets. Now if I want a candidate who adheres to those views I have to vote for the Democrat.
June 14th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Yes, that is _exactly_ the administration’s stated position. It’s a return to the old Nixon idea that “if the President does it, it cannot be illegal.”
Apparently the government’s position was just so bizarre that even Kennedy (who usually swings more right) was just appalled. They seemed to be arguing that Gitmo is part of a sovereign nation which does not follow the Constitution so it’s impossible to apply the Constitution to those areas. We have governed this area for over 100 years. Our laws apply to everyone else. Just not these prisoners.
If you carry this logic to it’s final destination it means McCain is not eligible to run for President because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and since it’s in another sovereign nation it’s not subject to American law or the American Constitution.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Here is the link to a fascinating editorial by George Will. (And for me to say George Will, who is so conservative he squeaks, has written something worth a link is saying something.) But in the old days conservatives used to honor the Constitution. This new breed just wants to honor certain parts of the Constitution, and toss out all the other parts.
Anyway, for your reading pleasure — http://www.azstarnet.com/opinion/244005