Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
McCain: Guantanamo Decision One Of the Worst Ever
huffingtonpost.com — The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," McCain said.
preneel- 1912 diggs
- digg it
- RoxorsPH, on 06/13/2008, -62/+106What a tool. I don't know a single Republican that is excited about voting for this man.
I think that the ruling which now considers Cuba a part of the United States is obviously stupid, it is far from one of the worst decisions ever.- skteoievtehr, on 06/14/2008, -7/+200The ruling doesn't state that Cuba is part of the United States! This is a crucially important distinction and one of the major arguments against the existence of Gitmo! Cuba is NOT part of the United States, but Guantanamo Bay is considered US territory. The question is, why should this be? And the argument is, that if Gitmo is considered US territory, then why shouldn't the inmates there be tried fairly, as they would in the United States? Guantanamo Bay and other "black sites" scattered across the globe are so problematic because US regulations don't seem to hold water there. This puts those imprisoned there in a sort of limbo position in which they are technically in the US, but not given the same rights of due process. The new court ruling declares that those tried at Gitmo can appeal court decisions in the United States. This is just plain old fair. The ***** that goes on at Gitmo and other prisons abroad is absolutely disgraceful. Shut them the ***** down. There are enough problems with the prison INDUSTRY, and it is an industry, right here in America. Oversees prisons should be banned. If we are going to imprison someone for a legitimate crime against our nation or its citizens, they should be held in our own country and tried in a goddamn US court. What kind of country are we, anyway? *****.
- phorty40, on 06/14/2008, -32/+1Fair and Terrorism. Very hard line to draw.
A lot of mixed feelings and hard emotions there.- mikelieman, on 06/14/2008, -2/+30If you're willing to give up the Rule of Law, what foundation does America have left?
Look at it this way... The PRISON GUARDS, TORTURERS, etc have to obey US Law, since they're wearing the Flag and swore an oath, right? - phorty40, on 06/14/2008, -9/+4The entire war on terror goes against congressional rule.
Besides i only made a statement , i wasnt siding with either of them.
And technically abiding by US law would mean they wouldnt be allowed to torture so therefore you awnser your own question. NO, these guards are apparently not held accountable for their actions. - Hamletlere, on 06/14/2008, -1/+20Until you prove they did the crime they are accused of (terrorism), why do you think it is fair to call them terrorists?
Do you think it is impossible for our intelligence services/military to make mistakes, and nab the wrong person? Do you think it is okay to jail possibly innocent foreign nationals for a decade, with no need to present evidence of their guilt? - phorty40, on 06/14/2008, -9/+2Guantannmo and Gitmo are not the Hussein styled chambers many portray them as , there are 395 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban fighters being held there , none of them are being mass executed or what not . Sure , it is unconstitutional for such a place to exist and mistakes do happen. But like i said , the entire war on terror was unconstitutional.
Guanatnamo has been used to detain suspected terrorists since 2002 , so ten years is mathematically impossible. Sounds like your thinking of something else.
Also it is specifically NOT used for anyone who qualifies as a POW especially those from Iraq. - nofrickenway, on 06/14/2008, -1/+12The teacher in my government class said that our legal system was set up the way it is, because it's better to let off 100 guilty people than to lock up 1 innocent person.
There is a good chance that the people that were abused will go back to wherever they were picked up and become "terrorists" because of the way they were treated (would you?). This is the reason they need to be tried, if they are innocent, let them go. We don't need to breed terrorists the same way we breed criminals.
Im sick of everything I was taught about our country being great, being totally reversed. The flag is becoming nothing more than a symbol that stands for nothing (and worse). - phorty40, on 06/14/2008, -6/+4dont let this past decade condemn your faith in our country.
its been a dark time for america in every conceivable fashion.
we will return to our glory , just give it time. - AugustusOsari, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5The thing is that it's not just now being totally reversed. They started reversing it around the same time they started teaching it to kids--indoctrination to prevent dissent. It's pretty sick, and things like the high crime rate, high poverty rate, and attacks from terrorists are all results. There are freer nations than ours that don't get attacked by terrorists, so I'm thinking it's pretty clear that we're causing the problem. Stealing even more rights from our citizens and denizens of the world has become the social panacea in far too many countries, and I'd like to point out that every one ended up either collapsing or falling to revolution.
America is either going to 1) stop taking this path and restore all freedoms or 2) see blood in its streets. Time will tell, but you can be sure that it has been far too long since the United States were truly great. - phorty40, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3"Time will tell, but you can be sure that it has been far too long since the United States were truly great."
Agreed. Far too long.
Unfortunately America will most likely never see a revolution , i say unfortunately because given the drastic circumstances we may see in the near future , the average citiczen has become complacent with the way things are and not how they could/used to be and likely wont do much aside from blogging about it.
Sad because this is truely a time for action and letting every one of our voices being heard is crucial.
Strange time we live in - TheMidnight, on 06/14/2008, -2/+1@Augustus
"There are freer nations than ours that don't get attacked by terrorists, so I'm thinking it's pretty clear that we're causing the problem."
It's not our freedom that terrorists are attacking. I agree that we partially caused it by interfering where we're not wanted, but the indoctrination claim seems a bit silly. Terrorists mostly attack us because we're the biggest and most powerful, and we're seen as the biggest threat to taking over the world and forcing fundamentalist Islam on everyone. Same reason everyone hates Wal-Mart or Microsoft but ignores Target, Oracle, or IBM. Similar companies, just slightly less influence, but #1 gets all the crap.
There are freer nations than us in what sense? Can you take a stand against homosexuality in Sweden? Can you deny the Holocaust in Austria? Can you claim Nazi party membership in Germany? Can you rant against blacks in UK or Canada? I didn't think so. The U.S. has its problems, but we have the fewest restrictions against free speech that I know of, even hateful speech. - AugustusOsari, on 06/14/2008, -0/+0Ah, some very good points. Thanks.
I know it is not our freedom that terrorists are attacking, and that was my point. I'd like to point out that our connections to various foreign countries and foreign affairs are typically the reasons cited by our enemies for their disapproval of us, with the Middle East especially hating us due to our over-the-top support for Israel and our tendency to meddle in their affairs, which many believe is a result of our connection to Israel.
I was expecting that many would disagree with the claims of indoctrination, and I can see where you're coming from to an extent. However, I would like to point out that the mainstream media is regulated by the government, the school systems are regulated by the government, the American flag is flown everywhere, etc. In fact, Obama's apparent failure to place his hand over his heart on one occasion--despite the fact that it was easily explainable, even!--brought outrage among quite some number of people, as if not bowing to the power and greatness of the republic is some horrible atrocity in itself. We are taught to believe that we are great, and that is undeniably indoctrination, and it would be even if it was true. The values which are taught in America are not just taught, but thoroughly driven into every citizen.
You also have a point when you say that "#1 gets all the crap," but it's important to recognize that there are other nations which are decidedly not "#1" which also tend to get a lot of crap. Israel, as I mentioned earlier, is one of them, and I'll leave the reasons up to you.
When I state that there are "freer nations," I mean overall. It is true that we do have quite a great deal of free speech, but freedom of speech is *not* the only freedom. Other freedoms, even other first amendment freedoms, are much more greatly preserved in other nations. I would also bring up most other nations, even most European nations, on charges of denying freedoms, but the fact is that many of them offer more than we do, which is my point at the moment.
Do not mistake me as a person who does not value freedom of speech, however. I am very thankful that we are permitted to have discussions such as that which we are having right now. On another note, though, it is often the case that freedom of speech is restricted only in very special circumstances in other countries; the countries you mentioned block certain types of speech because they are hate speech and promote the destruction of freedoms of others. If anything, this is sometimes a sign that they value freedom of speech very highly and choose to block hate speech because they recognize that it can be a powerful of a force against freedom in itself.
Again, don't mistake me for agreeing with everything that I may have seemed to portray in a positive light. I am simply making an argument based on the lesser in terms of 'evil', as it were, and not necessarily saying what is wrong and what is right, but instead saying what is *more* right and what is *more* wrong. - bman1984, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1It is a good thing that the supreme court leaves feelings and emotions out of the courtroom.
- mikelieman, on 06/14/2008, -2/+30If you're willing to give up the Rule of Law, what foundation does America have left?
- tidu, on 06/14/2008, -3/+43I don't care if it's US territory or not. We're holding prisoners there and ignoring America's values. It's just plain wrong.
- Muyoso, on 06/14/2008, -13/+1So its America's values to take someone who was planting an IED, and pay for him and the entire squad who captured him, to fly back to the US, pay for his trial, and have a gigantic fiasco with the ACLU defending people who are trying to kill Americans?
- EricSchC1, on 06/14/2008, -1/+5@MuyosoMuyoso: No, its America's values to not deny anyone who is imprisoned, AWAITING TRIAL, certain inalienable rights. It is those American values we cling to, because they are fair and humane and to the benefit of the human race as a whole, which is bigger than any one nation's socio-political hard-on for policing "terrorism". To be treated at least somewhat humanely, while standing accused, but not convicted of a crime is very much an American value and should be a world value as well. To deny them those rights because they're not "from here" is inhumane. If nothing else, we could y'know, be a nation that leads by example instead of force, for once.
- whatever01, on 06/14/2008, -0/+10You want to call them POWs? Fine. Do that. No trial required. But, the administration doesn't want to do that, because then, well, they'd have to treat them to certain standards. You want to call them criminals, fine, then do that, but you have to treat them to certain standards. You want to put them in legal limbo? The SCOTUS just said, "No."
- DylanClements, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1whatever01 is exactly right. Call them POWs, follow the Geneva convention, and the Supreme Court, the Congress, and quite likely the people of the US will back you. Call them some random new term meant to confuse everyone, torture them for useless information, and you probably will only get Congress to back you. Not the Supreme Court, or the people of the US.
- Fordi, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1@Muyoso:
Kinda, yeah. Or, at least, that's the cost of maintaining American values like 'Habeus Corpus' and 'Fair Trial'.
- goon5000, on 06/14/2008, -19/+2Basically the reason these mass murderers (and that is exactly what they are) are being held in cuba is to buy time, takes years for the lawyers to figure that ***** out. They forsaw morons like you whining about POW treatment (POW my ass, every time one of these mass murderers is released they go right back to the middle east and blow up 50 innocent people, is that a joke to you?). Another reason is if you put them in a US prison, they would be killed by inmates immediately, then you would blame their deaths on Bush.
The fact of the matter is this: Not a lot of news comes out of Gitmo so you let your imagination run wild seeded by your hatred for Bush, you're still pissed off that you voted for the guy who lost. You will grab onto anything that is anti-Bush, 6 years ago you whined about the economy and blamed it on Bush, then the economy started kicking ass so you switched to something else, you invented global warming and blamed it on Bush, you started complaining about Iraq and then stopped complaining as soon as the Dems took congress didn't you? You fought against the Surge, gee, you might have been wrong again eh? Have'nt heard any of you bitching about that one in a while.
It's very simple, keep complaining and we'll just decide to kill these mass murderers before they get a chance to set foot in cuba. Actually, that's not a bad idea. keep it up.- magus_melchior, on 06/14/2008, -1/+7Give me a break. We have Marshalls, FBI agents and others trained to do their jobs, which include prisoner escort. We have maximum security facilities that can keep inmates from even seeing a dangerous terrorist in lockup. Don't give us this fantasy that we'd turn terrorist suspects loose on the US prison population to be killed, that would be incompetence that nowadays would be expected of the White House.
Speaking of which, it was your President Bush who declared the "war on terror" and decided to rewrite US and international law concerning "enemy combatants". Buying into his argument that they're not POWs because it ain't a real war is the biggest load of ***** that they have yet to explain to our satisfaction.
And when some news of what amounts to torturing prisoners comes out of Gitmo, you'd rush to defend the White House's policies? How about when the White House all but forced Powell to lie through his teeth to the UN and the world that we should invade Iraq because of WMDs in the Rumsfeld intelligence crew's fantasies? How about John Yoo and Dick Cheney effectively rewriting the Constitution to support a dictatorial wartime President?
I'm done. Welcome to my block list, troll. - mystcnurse, on 06/14/2008, -1/+11Goon is a great name for you. Most of the people at Gitmo were picked up in Afghanistan - a relatively HUGE bounty was given to other people, many who actually WERE terrorists, to point these "terrorists" out. They were detained without any evidence of their wrong doing. You don't have to let your imagination "run wild". There is plenty of photodocumentation and even video documentation of the atrocities which were committed.
I know this is probably VERY difficult for a person like you - but try, just try, to imagine this happening in the U.S. And your neighbors are given 10,000 to point out terrorists, so they chose you, and maybe your kid, and now YOU are detained for years without even so much as a charge, no lawyer and no rights whatsoever. And you have sicko brainwashed adolescents who are playing out their sadistic tendencies on you, on orders of their superiors and nobody gives a *****.
The United States has a DUTY to uphold a higher moral capacity. No matter what. And BTW, EVERYBODY hates BUSH... or at least finds him completely incompetent with his tiny IQ - and his entire lying, thieving administration. Those who don't are blind followers of FOX and other corporate media who have no clue what is going on and don't want to know.
And I am NOT a Democrat or a liberal or a Republican. I'm an American. So get over your partisan BS. - 4321234, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5So, in your view everythings just fine. The economy, patriot act, Iraq, the enviroment. All good. No change required. Vote for McCain then. Stay the course.
- goon5000, on 06/14/2008, -7/+1Read what you just wrote, undefensible. These people are not POWs, They do not work for the military of any State, in most cases their countries of origin will not accept them back. And don't give me this "what amounts to torture" *****, you just proved that you know there's no torture going on, you just like prepetuating the myth beacuse you hate a repulican with a southern accent in the white house.
Thanks for adding me to your Block list, I love when clueless liberals run their mouth and then cover up their ears. - goon5000, on 06/14/2008, -3/+0"sicko brainwashed adolescents"? Apparently you've never met anyone in the military.
- goon5000, on 06/14/2008, -3/+0"So, in your view everythings just fine. The economy, patriot act, Iraq, the enviroment. All good. No change required. Vote for McCain then. Stay the course."
Yes. The economy is fine, so some people were lended money they should'nt have, don't you socialists love that? The Dow will be over 15000 by election time and you won't have any leg to stand on there, of course liberals don't understand economics anyway so you'll probably still be complaining. Patrioit act? I have no problem with it. Iraq, get over it, we won, and so did Iraq, sorry we didn't lose, I know you would have loved to be right. The environment? the price of oil is fast tracking development in solar, do you have a problem with that?
I'm not going to vote for McCain or Obama, I'm voting libertarian, and so should you. - blqysmg, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4We held cab drivers in Gitmo, for heaven's sake. Not everyone we capture is a terrorist. Our government does some pretty damn stupid things at times, and this is one of them. If someone is captured by the U.S. Government, placed in a U.S. Government Cell and held by guards paid by the U.S. Government, then we should extend to them all the rights they would have if they were on U.S. soil (which, by lease, Gitmo is.) I don't think we should fly them to the U.S., but they deserve an opportunity to confront their accusers, present evidence in their defense, etc. Anything else is completely against our moral and ethical code.
If they are found guilty of murder, conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to attempted murder (in the case that a terrorist plot was planned, but never executed) or whatever capital crime they might have committed, then I say fine: kill them or keep them in jail forever. - grumpyrain, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1I don't understand your point. Habeas Corpus is very simply the right of every individual to have charges heard against them in a fair court, and to compel those who wish to detain the individual to provide evidence as to why that individual should be detained.
It is the basis of the legal system in every country one would actually want to live in. I can not stand Gitmo, because it denies us justice. There are no doubt some awful people living there, people accused of committing or aiding some of the worst evils in the past decades, and yet we would deny them the right of a trial? I want them tried so we can legitimately punish the guilty ones and free any poor innocent who was caught up in the crossfire. A court that it setup to find the defense guilty is useless. We want a court that will uphold a reasonable evidence requirement. We want a court that will hear cases within a reasonable time. We want a court which is independent of political whim. We want a court with appropriate recourse to appeal verdicts and sentences where the court has failed to keep the expected standard. And we want prisoners treated with a certain dignity on the chance that they are held by mistake.
And given that a bounty was paid to Northern Alliance rebels when they handed over 'terrorists', you can be pretty sure that there is a reasonable chance that the case against many of them is pretty stretched.
- magus_melchior, on 06/14/2008, -1/+7Give me a break. We have Marshalls, FBI agents and others trained to do their jobs, which include prisoner escort. We have maximum security facilities that can keep inmates from even seeing a dangerous terrorist in lockup. Don't give us this fantasy that we'd turn terrorist suspects loose on the US prison population to be killed, that would be incompetence that nowadays would be expected of the White House.
- foofightrs777, on 06/14/2008, -2/+4The Constitution must follow the flag.
- phorty40, on 06/14/2008, -32/+1Fair and Terrorism. Very hard line to draw.
- DaDrake, on 06/14/2008, -27/+4Now you know one. =)
- tacochampion, on 06/14/2008, -40/+6Why don't you just shut up you angry obama bot?
Just because you don't know any salt-of-the-earth kind of people doesn't mean we don't exist.
You got california and ney york, the rest of the country isn't a bunch of godless freedom hating heathens.
People like you are everything wrong with America. You spend all your time yelling that the party in power does one thing, and then when they do the opposite you're just as unhappy. "WHat a tool" Would he be such a tool if he said "Gitmo is cool, I'm all about Gitmo!"?
When your parents decided to start a family (or had an accident) THAT was the worst decision ever.- CoolHandLuke70, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1"salt of the earth"? yes, only 'salt of the earth' people vote for McCain---you know, the ones that have the temerity to spout insults and vitriol and tell people to shut up on an open forum --- of course you are Bush supporter and are going to vote for McClone, makes sense! --- yeah, sounds real salt of the earth there buddy!
- BishkekBuddy, on 06/14/2008, -2/+83I do know that the grounds of any American Embassy anywhere in the world is considered to be "on American soil" and I have to believe the same holds for the grounds of any American military base. American laws should be upheld on American soil, period. What the Supreme Court did was to uphold this basic tenet - hurray for them.
- byronm, on 06/14/2008, -2/+55Amen.
Hell, if the supreme court didn't uphold this it would mean McCain isn't a US Citizen and therefore couldn't run for presidency. I guess its too hard for McCain to put 2+2 together though.- phorty40, on 06/14/2008, -1/+16Dug for truth!
- byronm, on 06/14/2008, -1/+53for those digging me down Mccain was borne on a US base so if US bases are no longer US soil then it shouldn't be a double standard. Mccain would have to give up his citizenship for not being borne in the US of A.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/14/2008, -1/+18Right Wing nutcases don't understand logic, byronm.
- magus_melchior, on 06/14/2008, -0/+9@byronm: Excellent point, and one that should be brought up to McCain's advisers.
@Wartyboskfapped: Many don't, there are a few who use it to obfuscate, and there are a handful that understand. - Pittance, on 06/14/2008, -2/+1You can be borne abroad and still be a US citizen if both are your parents are citizens or in the military.
- unknownpoltroon, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1This is not wholly true, but for most practical purposes it is.
- byronm, on 06/14/2008, -2/+55Amen.
- Faubio, on 06/14/2008, -18/+7The point is these are not US citizens, they are POW's. Why should they be granted the same rights as an American citizen?
- mikelieman, on 06/14/2008, -2/+28Because the RIGHTS aren't limited to Citizens. RIGHTS come from your Creator, and therefore the GOVERNMENT is prohibited from infringing on them.
- gsnedders, on 06/14/2008, -2/+23They aren't POWs according to the US government. If they were, they'd be covered by the Geneva Convention (i.e., among other things, they'd have a right to a fair trail), and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
- petraska, on 06/14/2008, -1/+17If they are POW's then they still have rights (at least according to the Geneva convention). I am sure that the alleged actions in regards to the treatment of 'POWs' at Guantanomo break many of these rights.
- secrity, on 06/14/2008, -5/+1They are NOT POWs, POWs don't need US SC protections.
- Hamletlere, on 06/14/2008, -2/+18Am I allowed to walk up and assault a foreign student attending college here in America, because they have no rights? No. They are accorded the same rights as a citizen while in the United States. They may report crimes against them to the police, and if they commit a crime and are arrested, they can expect a trial, just like a citizen.
And as a note, the people being held in Guantanimo are most certainly NOT prisoners of war. The government has made absolutely sure of that, because POWs DO have rights under the Geneva Convention, and our government did not want them to have those rights.- Neiby, on 06/14/2008, -0/+13That's a key point to remember. Our government is doing everything in their power to define these people in such a way as to make it sound perfectly natural that they don't have rights. They want us to get to a point where we agree that only certain people have rights and it's the government who gets to make that decision.
Once we're at that point, they can do whatever they want without fear of the citizenry getting too upset about it.
If the "bad" guys don't have rights, and if our government is officially allowed to operate outside of the law, then we are totally ***** as a nation.
- Neiby, on 06/14/2008, -0/+13That's a key point to remember. Our government is doing everything in their power to define these people in such a way as to make it sound perfectly natural that they don't have rights. They want us to get to a point where we agree that only certain people have rights and it's the government who gets to make that decision.
- davewashere, on 06/14/2008, -0/+9The whole point of Gitmo is that the prisoners there would be unclassified and their rights would therefore be ambiguous. The only classification for them is "captured enemies" or "terrorist suspects." There aren't laws or conventions that tell us how to deal with those classifications. I know a lot of Americans say "who cares, just executive those terrorists," but we do need to give them a chance to defend themselves. Even the Nazi leaders were given a trial. Holding these people in limbo is clearly a violation of the spirit of US laws and international conventions even though it might not technically be covered by such laws.
- mystcnurse, on 06/14/2008, -0/+7Dugg for the word "suspects"
Treating any kind of "suspect" this way is wrong, and inevitably leads the way for laws to change or be ignored in the United States. Once you "declassify" a person - or make that person or those people a part of the "out group", you can get the masses to support any treatment of them. Everyone keeps forgetting, for some reason, that these people actually did NOTHING. I STILL keep hearing these idiotic pseudo conservative brainwashed sheep saying "They flew planes into our buildings and killed 3000 American citizens". Under this premise, we should have invaded the great friends of our President, the Saudis.
Speaking of Nazi leaders, didn't Hitler have basically the same approach as the Bush administration? Round 'em up, throw them in, and execute as you are ordered! We're on our way there - and the newest FBI concern is white folks in t-shirts with children who look "normal".
http://www.welfarestate.com/pamphlet/
Oh, and btw... McCain is a nutcase.
- mystcnurse, on 06/14/2008, -0/+7Dugg for the word "suspects"
- Netwatcher, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2Wait let me check my notes...
Oh yes here it is...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
But hey, thats just the Preamble... its not like its the Bill of Rights..
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..."
Ok, its in the Bill of Rights, but its not like Constitution applies to everyone in the United States.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ... Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects"
Ok, your pretty much screwed, but thanks for playing. - buckrogers1965, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1If they are POW's then they are granted rights under the geneva convention, which is the law of the land in the U. S. of A,.
- Teanuh, on 06/14/2008, -18/+6Please read, you don't even know what you are disagreeing with him about.
Everyone is so caught up on hating McCain that you forget what you are criticizing him for.
Now, I don't support McCain or his campaign, but as far as I know, enemy combatants should be tried in a military tribunal, not civilian court. His opposition to this ruling does NOT make him a tool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant- theaceoffire, on 06/14/2008, -4/+16I am criticizing him for being pro-torture, for supporting domestic wiretapping without warrants, and for betraying everything he stood for the first time he ran.
- goon5000, on 06/14/2008, -8/+0pro-torture? ok, I hate liberals because they are pro-abortion. stfu
- breadfred, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3@goon5000, there is a difference between 'pro-abortion' and being 'pro-choice'. Would you like an unwanted child to be born, being neglected by his/her parents, growing up in an unstable environment and ending up as an outcast? I think most people by far do not want an abortion to take place if the parents had planned for the child. But what if the kid is the result of a rape, the unfortunate by-product of having sex while not being taught about condoms? There are enough single mums out there, who did not WANT a baby in the first place. Think about the future. Think about the monsters you create.
- jameskong15, on 06/14/2008, -3/+7Fortunately, we have 5 people on the Supreme Court who know much better than you and McCain about the Constitutionality of such matters.
- magus_melchior, on 06/14/2008, -2/+7@Teanuh: That's a red herring. Military or not, if you detain someone for years on American soil, you had better charge them with something within a reasonable timeframe. If you want the government to make up rules as they go along, you had better be prepared to burn your rights.
- Teanuh, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1I am not really surprised I am being dugg down.
What I was criticizing was the fact that so many people (such as RoxorsPH) simply bash McCain because they do not like him. Without even understanding what he is opposing. I never said I disagreed with the court's ruling, in fact, I agree with you, and I agree with the ruling. Ideally, enemy combatants SHOULD be tried in a military tribunal, but that is unlikely to happen any time soon, so the court was doing what was most humane. I simply disagree with all the diggers who call McCain a tool without any kind of valid reason.
Honestly, sometimes some of you diggers are just as close-minded as those nutjobs at fox news.
- Teanuh, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1I am not really surprised I am being dugg down.
- veijeri, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3And that would be true if they were prisoners of war and had been acknowledged Geneva Convention rights.
But they weren't. 'Enemy combatant' holds no legal weight if they aren't POWs.
- theaceoffire, on 06/14/2008, -4/+16I am criticizing him for being pro-torture, for supporting domestic wiretapping without warrants, and for betraying everything he stood for the first time he ran.
- omgbanana, on 06/14/2008, -5/+24I would have reserved "one of the worst decisions ever" for something like Plessy v Ferguson or Dred Scott v Sanford, buy hey!
This man is beyond a tool. He is obviously of the same caliber as the judges who presided over those cases.- foofightrs777, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Yeah this is totally worse than Korematsu too!
/sarcasm off - Memitim, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3No, I'd still go with Smeltit v. Dealtit.
- foofightrs777, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Yeah this is totally worse than Korematsu too!
- Calcularius, on 06/14/2008, -2/+14NO! What a stupid comment about Cuba.
Their ruling gives the message that it doesn't matter where in the world the military sends you, you still act like you're in America.- goon5000, on 06/14/2008, -12/+0good point, why don't you start acting like an American instead of a pussy
- Calcularius, on 06/14/2008, -0/+6You are why the rest of the world thinks Americans = Douchebags
If the American military is such a bunch of badasses then why haven't we finished the job in the middle east? Why didn't we finish it under Bush 1? Could it be there is some other agenda, perhaps related to the business of oil and oil profits? If the American military is such a bunch of badasses then why does our president lie to us, saying "Mission Accomplished" even though there are kids dying over there every day five ***** years later? If the American military is such a bunch of badasses then where the ***** is Osama bin Laden? Can you answer any of those questions? You are the ***** piece of ***** pussy who is too scared to not act like a brash ***** instead of being humble and backing down when you are wrong. And you are wrong, you are so ***** stupidly wrong it is no longer funny and no longer tolerable. I will never cease the fight of shutting down you ignorant self serving boorish GOONS of hate and destruction. SHUT THE ***** UP! We *REAL AMERICANS* are sick and ***** tired of your lame *****. You want to be a NAZI or an IRANIAN or a NORTH KOREAN with your treasonous thoughts of torture and jail and death and domination, but you are NOT an American because you are against everything that is truely and purely American and Constitutional. The Constitution begins by stating "provide for the common defense" It does not say anything about invading other countries and being offensive. Like you, offensive.
- Calcularius, on 06/14/2008, -0/+6You are why the rest of the world thinks Americans = Douchebags
- goon5000, on 06/14/2008, -12/+0good point, why don't you start acting like an American instead of a pussy
- MortalynFlux, on 06/14/2008, -0/+14I think this debate is good, because hopefully it will have people take interest in the constitution. However, you should read some of the findings for this case. The judges did not state that GITMO was U.S. Territory. What they did state is that, for all practical purposes, the U.S. has ultimate sovereignty and jurisdiction over the GITMO, its detainees, and any cases tried there. So the U.S. rule of law applies.
For example, if Cuba objects to a particular prisioner being held there, there is nothing Cuba can do. They can't order the release of the prisioner. If a case goes to trial, they can't appeal to a higher Cuban court. So it's not so much about technical claims regarding the legal state of the territory, but about sovereignty and jurisdiction. U.S. has it, Cuba does not. So U.S. law applies, not Cuban law.
As it stands, Cuba does not even cash the checks that the U.S. sends it for the lease of the land, as they do not find the U.S. occupation there legal, since it predates the current government and they argue that the treaty was signed under duress.- breadfred, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3Asa much as I despise a totalitarian regime, I do admire their principles. They don't even cash the cheques they have been sent - and their country is in a bad debt situation! Talk about standing by your principles..
- baronsmeg, on 06/14/2008, -0/+7actually all the decision meant was that the us is in control of Guantanamo bay, and there is a reason for this.
this is the third case concerning Guantanamo, the first was Rasul v Bush where he argued for access to us courts and habeus corpus. the bush admin stated that the case Johnson v eisentrager set precedent that allowed the US to deny him his right to challenge his confinement in US courts.(in the eisentrager case he was being held in China, and the supreme court said that that was not US territory)
the supreme court found that since Guantanamo was under complete control by the US, a different situation from the eisentrager case existed, and granted Rasul the right to challenge his confinement.
all this stuff however would be completely different, if the US granted these prisoners POW status. that way we could hold them until the war n terror is over. we just could not mistreat them or question them (legally) - Peetweefish, on 06/14/2008, -8/+0I tend to vote republican, and I am excited to vote for him. Particularly given who the other republican options were in the primary.
- Peetweefish, on 06/14/2008, -2/+0Stupid ***** Obamabots burying my previous reply. Go sodomize yourselves with rusty power tools.
- jessehadden, on 06/14/2008, -0/+6The decision does not say that Cuba is part of the USA. It says that an American president cannot circumvent the Constitution by conducting "extra-legal" activities outside of US soil. The Constitution was meant to empower and enlighten; never to shackle or exclude. To say that an un-Constitutional activity can be done by Americans because the soil happens to be "foreign" is simply an obscenity. These rights and freedoms are inalienable, and granted by no one -- we are born with them, like our eyes and our ears. To say that you can qualify, and even dismiss, the rule of law because of the nationality of the soil that you're standing on... well, since America is based on freedom and the rule of law, one might say that is just about the only statement that can be considered "un-American."
- jpop, on 06/14/2008, -4/+2No, it means that no matter who you are, where you are from, or what you did, we have to give you better rights than we give our own citizens. It also means we'll be taking fewer prisoners.
- jessehadden, on 06/14/2008, -1/+3Better rights? What are you talking about?
As for fewer prisoners -- that's a good idea. Having a concentration camp filled mostly with cases of "wrong place, wrong time" seems to bely the error of indiscriminately rounding up people with funny-sounding names.
- jessehadden, on 06/14/2008, -1/+3Better rights? What are you talking about?
- jpop, on 06/14/2008, -4/+2No, it means that no matter who you are, where you are from, or what you did, we have to give you better rights than we give our own citizens. It also means we'll be taking fewer prisoners.
- Dragular, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1Quit sending prisoners to Gitmo, build a prison in Iraq. Problem solved.
- cquinnd, on 06/14/2008, -1/+3Not for detainees captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
And frankly, not for any Iraqi prison put under control of the U.S. Military, by the way the forces agreements are written there.
- cquinnd, on 06/14/2008, -1/+3Not for detainees captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
- rpgmaker, on 06/14/2008, -2/+2"It obviously concerns me . . . but it is a decision the Supreme Court has made. Now we need to move forward. As you know, *I always favored closing of Guantanamo Bay and I still think that we ought to do that.*"
He has a point there. - klethron, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2Are you kidding? 90% of Utah will vote for this guys JUST because he's republican. He'll get 98% of the votes in Utah if he select Mitt Romney as his running mate.
- DephexTwin, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3Sadly, I've seen many Hillary supporters on TV who appear to be excited to vote for McCain :(
- skteoievtehr, on 06/14/2008, -7/+200The ruling doesn't state that Cuba is part of the United States! This is a crucially important distinction and one of the major arguments against the existence of Gitmo! Cuba is NOT part of the United States, but Guantanamo Bay is considered US territory. The question is, why should this be? And the argument is, that if Gitmo is considered US territory, then why shouldn't the inmates there be tried fairly, as they would in the United States? Guantanamo Bay and other "black sites" scattered across the globe are so problematic because US regulations don't seem to hold water there. This puts those imprisoned there in a sort of limbo position in which they are technically in the US, but not given the same rights of due process. The new court ruling declares that those tried at Gitmo can appeal court decisions in the United States. This is just plain old fair. The ***** that goes on at Gitmo and other prisons abroad is absolutely disgraceful. Shut them the ***** down. There are enough problems with the prison INDUSTRY, and it is an industry, right here in America. Oversees prisons should be banned. If we are going to imprison someone for a legitimate crime against our nation or its citizens, they should be held in our own country and tried in a goddamn US court. What kind of country are we, anyway? *****.
- alapoet, on 06/13/2008, -19/+247At least we know where McClone stands on torture and illegal detention. Could he be any more Bush-like?
- DaDrake, on 06/14/2008, -39/+9He is STRONGLY against torture... he has a strong voting record going against the Bush administration on that issue.
About 4-5 months ago, there was a bill that he voted against that would make water boarding illegal, but that isn't why McCain voted against it. He clearly voted for bills in the past that did the same thing... he didn't agree that military personals should be subjected to civilian courts DURING service; very few countries allow such a thing, mainly because it breaks up the military ability to control who is fighting and who isn't.
Saying McCain supports torture is like saying Obama hates black people... makes no sense considering his voting record and strong rhetoric.- BishkekBuddy, on 06/14/2008, -4/+24So, in voting FOR water boarding he was saying that torture is ok if MILITARY does it to MILITARY? But then why would it be ok to torture "non-combatants?" They are supposedly, by definition, not military!
- jstohler, on 06/14/2008, -5/+33Correction: The OLD McCain was strongly against torture. The NEW McCain has sold out all his beliefs to appease the GOP base.
- Sogui, on 06/14/2008, -17/+4McCain is extremely anti-torture, he's the one who got some of the more "controversial" techniques banned in the first place a couple years back, not to mention this story has nothing to do with torture.
- jp12380, on 06/14/2008, -0/+12It does have to do with torture, that is what goes on at Guantanamo since the US feels that people kept there are not subject to the same rights as normal prisoners.
- Sogui, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1and McCain wants to close Guantanamo as well, so what's the point?
- painperdu, on 06/14/2008, -2/+10McCain is/was against torture as far as Bush agrees to it. Bush signed the anti-torture bill with the disclaimer that he can change it anytime he sees fit; McCain stood silent.
He may have been a war hero but he s no alpha-male when it comes to decision making. He'd most probably be worse than Obama when it comes to hard decision making against enemies of the US.- tidu, on 06/14/2008, -2/+4Hard decision making? I'd be as easy as making a jingle
"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"
He probably has "Extensive Beach Boys knowledge" written on his resume
- tidu, on 06/14/2008, -2/+4Hard decision making? I'd be as easy as making a jingle
- mikelieman, on 06/14/2008, -1/+6Don't do the Torture, if you can't to the Prison Sentence associated with Torture.
- Jareth86, on 06/14/2008, -0/+6I'm sorry, you must be thinking of McCain-2000. He was very much against torture, and wouldn't have made a half bad president. McCain-2008 is staunchly pro torture/anti constitution.
Don't feel too bad, its actually a very common mistake; they look almost identical. - elipabst, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2No he strongly TALKS about being against torture, but when it comes to his recent legislative action regarding the issue, he has done utterly nothing to stop it. Frankly I find that to be even more reprehensible. If you are going to support Bush on this issue, then stand up and be a ***** man and defend him. If you're against it, then do something about it. But to rail against it publicly and then do nothing to stop it, makes you either a liar or a coward.
- friday04, on 06/14/2008, -25/+4Yeah, I know where he stands. He's against torture and thinks Guantanomo Bay should be shut down.
- netdance, on 06/14/2008, -0/+12He's voted against bills to restrict torture. Golly, when did he become pro-torture? When he started clawing after the right wing reactionary neocon vote.
- asskey, on 06/14/2008, -2/+1Do you think he'll give a damn about them once he gets their vote?
- netdance, on 06/14/2008, -0/+12He's voted against bills to restrict torture. Golly, when did he become pro-torture? When he started clawing after the right wing reactionary neocon vote.
- JumpingJack79, on 06/14/2008, -0/+22Actually, McCain used to have his own personality and his own standings on issues, but now that he has to appeal to Bush's supporters, he doesn't even know where he stands. He literally has to MEMORIZE Bush's standings and repeat them, and he sometimes get it "wrong". Here's another example: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mcca ...
- sgglynn, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5I look forward to the day when I can say to someone I know "Brian, would you find out what my position is on ---–"
- Kazaki, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4You mean all 20% of them?
- ICSU, on 06/14/2008, -0/+12One of the worst? On par with the civil war and slavery?
... - sizzzzlerz, on 06/14/2008, -0/+13Don't forget bush's illegal spying on Americans on US soil. McBush is all for that as well.
Basically, if its in the Constitution, republicans hate it. - Leawood, on 06/14/2008, -0/+6McShrub, indeed.
- xtinamo, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4When I read your post I couldn't help but hear Chandler Bing say "Could he BE any more Bush-like?" Damn you Friends and your catchy catch phrases!!
- breadfred, on 06/14/2008, -2/+2Please - don't resort to name-calling. Unnecessary and childish.
- DaDrake, on 06/14/2008, -39/+9He is STRONGLY against torture... he has a strong voting record going against the Bush administration on that issue.
- thirdcoastborn, on 06/13/2008, -34/+102He would be worst than Bush as President of the U.S.
- munkii101, on 06/14/2008, -7/+15i doubt it, he's just 'appeasing' the GOP base, and since he dosen't seem to have a real stance on anything i don't see why won't he? the GOP base is so damn stupid they can't recognise ***** if it got thrown in their faces..
- phorty40, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1020% approval rating of bush , so... i dont think he can top that.
- tidu, on 06/14/2008, -4/+2McCain is not at 20%. Everyone has defaulted back to their party lines so it's 50-50 now. The best thing to do is compare Bush and McCain, because most people don't care enough to do it and notice all the similarities.
- Ne007, on 06/14/2008, -1/+4I don't think that is possible...it is possible to be just as bad maybe.
- MortalynFlux, on 06/14/2008, -1/+5Yeah, I'm wondering if the neocons are going to buy the whole filing Habeas Corpus for bad prision food line. If they parokeet that I will be rolling on the floor laughing for their gullability and sheer ignorance about the very nation they claim should be defended.
When Bush says he is defending America, what does he mean by that, exactly? America is a nation of laws, not men, so when you destroy the laws to defend them... well... it just doesn't make sense. - mystcnurse, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2Apparently so.
- phorty40, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1020% approval rating of bush , so... i dont think he can top that.
- insomniacal, on 06/14/2008, -24/+5"He would be worst than Bush as President of the U.S."
Of course he would. And the next Republican president would be worse than McCain, and the next one even worse, and so on. It's a well-established fact that liberals can't speak in anything but superlatives.- theaceoffire, on 06/14/2008, -4/+12I agree that Bush set the bar pretty high, being worse than him is a challenge.
- diggingaround, on 06/14/2008, -3/+1I agree... Bush from time to time stumbles upon some coherent thought, like "...now watch this shot!.."... but McCain has invented stupidity, ignorance, selfishness, envy and greed.
- SlimFastForYou, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Haha we should add that to the list of things younger than John McCain!
- vault, on 06/14/2008, -5/+1"He would be worst than Bush"
At least McCain knows the proper use of the word 'worse' instead of 'worst,' which is more than we can say for you.
- munkii101, on 06/14/2008, -7/+15i doubt it, he's just 'appeasing' the GOP base, and since he dosen't seem to have a real stance on anything i don't see why won't he? the GOP base is so damn stupid they can't recognise ***** if it got thrown in their faces..
- ParkBeam, on 06/13/2008, -14/+281Said the man who was held as a prisoner of war in Hanoi for 5 and a half years.
- hawkeye17, on 06/14/2008, -6/+63Which is the most disgraceful thing about McCains support of Bush. The man only believes in that which will get him elected. Straight talk my ass.
- mikelieman, on 06/14/2008, -4/+15Hey, we need to be sympathetic to McCain. He's *really* old, and he's been through a *lot* in his life. You have to be a little understanding when he goes a little crazy like this.
It's no-one's fault they become senile. It's just the benefits of living to a ripe old age.- yacks, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Great.. Know we can have a President that can deny signing a bad law by stating that he didn't remember signing it. ;)
- birch25, on 06/14/2008, -0/+12to the man's credit, for most of his political career he has been a straight talker. the sad thing is that he has sold his soul to the gop and will say whatever he has to get elected.
- mikelieman, on 06/14/2008, -4/+15Hey, we need to be sympathetic to McCain. He's *really* old, and he's been through a *lot* in his life. You have to be a little understanding when he goes a little crazy like this.
- pintomp3, on 06/14/2008, -6/+44and he was captured over there fighting. most of the detainees were in their own country and not "on the battlefield".
Many of them were not picked up on or anywhere near the battlefield. Detainees were taken into custody from 14 different countries, including Gambia, Bosnia, and Thailand. About half were taken into custody in Pakistan – and, as noted above, the thousands of dollars offered by the US to bounty hunters encouraged false arrests. According to US military records, the US has not even accused the majority of them of fighting US or coalition forces.
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/guantanamo/2007/myths ...- theaceoffire, on 06/14/2008, -3/+19O.o
"Prisoners of War get rights."
"Not us!"
"You were not fighting us. If you had been shooting and killing us, then you would have rights... now shut up."- MortalynFlux, on 06/14/2008, -0/+11Yeah, you can't have it both ways. GITMO is either under the U.S. or under Cuba. These prisioners are either POW's or alleged criminals. There's no third option.
- theaceoffire, on 06/14/2008, -3/+19O.o
- ElAssoWipo, on 06/14/2008, -15/+21That's precisely why it's not hypocritical.
He knows it works. They tortured him, he talked, hundreds died. He gave them the routes the air force used. He also made a propaganda "confession" (Chinese used those a lot back then).
"I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."
- McCain.
If this war had been justified, nobody would blink an eye about guantanamo. The real problem isn't guantanamo, it's the fact that everybody that's in it was fighting a foreign aggressor that attacked their country or neighbors for no valid reason.- AugustusOsari, on 06/14/2008, -1/+14I would still do more than blink an eye.
Do you know what works to create world peace? Genocide of the entire human race.
Sounds like a bad idea, right? Torture is the same ***** idea. Do something bad because it just might bring about something "good" if all goes as planned. It's sick and wrong.- TheOther1, on 06/14/2008, -7/+5Actually; destruction of the entire human race is, sadly, the only sure way to ensure peace.
Either that or halt the practice of all religions. And I still doubt that would do it. - ElAssoWipo, on 06/14/2008, -3/+5Lol, like there was ever a war for peace.
War has never been, in the history of mankind, about making friends.
That's just what the people in power use to make it excusable.
It's not about being good, it's about win. It's not even about saving the lives of their own soldiers. They'll gladly sacrifice any number of them if it means they'll win. Normandy would be a good example of that one.
And nobody cried when Japanese-Americans were sent to concentration camps during the second world war. Simply because the war was justified and they werre affiliated to the ennemy.
Torture is a lot less worst than killing, but nobody seems to mind that part as much. That's like being outraged that a rapist is also a thief and not care so much about the raping.
It's war, you kill people for an economical or political gain. If you want to avoid atrocities of war, don't go to war.
- TheOther1, on 06/14/2008, -7/+5Actually; destruction of the entire human race is, sadly, the only sure way to ensure peace.
- publiclurker, on 06/14/2008, -5/+1You know, I've heard about the "confession" a few times, but have never found any good evidence. Do you know of any?
- ElAssoWipo, on 06/14/2008, -0/+9Yeah, John McCain's mouth. And books he wrote, and books written about him, and books writen about torture, and books writen by his fellow POW, his wikipedia page, the fact that he declared himself a war criminal, etc. etc. etc.
God damn you willfull ignorants.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/arti ...
- ElAssoWipo, on 06/14/2008, -0/+9Yeah, John McCain's mouth. And books he wrote, and books written about him, and books writen about torture, and books writen by his fellow POW, his wikipedia page, the fact that he declared himself a war criminal, etc. etc. etc.
- goon5000, on 06/14/2008, -12/+0that is pure BULL *****. you don't give a ***** whether or not the war is justified, hell, if we did not go into Iraq you would be saying that going into Afaganistan was unjustified. You're just pissed off that your guy did'nt win the election.
- ElAssoWipo, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Canadians?
- makeitloud, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4@goon5000, I'd be surprised if you're right about ElAssoWipo's reasoning, but I'll tell you that I think going into Iraq was the most monumental foreign-policy blunder in American history and we haven't yet experienced its full, disastrous implications. But I also think destroying the Taliban an Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was entirely justified. It's just too bad we left that fight to purposely step in the giant flaming pile of ***** that is Iraq.
I'm not pissed that my guy didn't win the election; I'm pissed that enough people in this country were so ***** stupid that they put traitors like W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc., within reach of winning and allowed other traitors to game both elections. I'm pissed because "your guys" are destroying our country
- TinternAbbot, on 06/14/2008, -9/+2You're a ***** idiot. He reached his breaking point and tried to commit suicide, he didn't give up information.
- AugustusOsari, on 06/14/2008, -1/+14I would still do more than blink an eye.
- BeefBaron, on 06/15/2008, -2/+2Obviously to Americans, "war hero" means someone who was paid to invade another country and kill people, probably enjoying it in the process.
I'll wager that when they finally pull all the soldiers out from Iraq, they'll get called "war heroes", even the ones that shot innocent Iraqi civilians.- Greg2k, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Sorry, how old are you?
- hawkeye17, on 06/14/2008, -6/+63Which is the most disgraceful thing about McCains support of Bush. The man only believes in that which will get him elected. Straight talk my ass.
- PALMARY, on 06/13/2008, -46/+11Sounds like a third term of Bush to me! I am so left wing, I can't think "right".
GO DSA!- hmunkey, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3At least your first sentence was accurate.
- Merb, on 06/14/2008, -14/+72The best part is that when he first heard, he said:
"It obviously concerns me . . . but it is a decision the Supreme Court has made. Now we need to move forward."
It's as if he was briefed by his panel of radical right-wing advisors as soon as he stepped out of the spotlight that if he wanted any chance of staying in this race, he'd better firmly establish himself as a staunch conservative on this issue. The man is a lemming--completely devoid of original thoughts and opinions, which will lead to his certain demise.- FrankHope, on 06/14/2008, -5/+21I think I saw "Traitor Joe" Lieberman whispering something in his ear.
- DangerCollie, on 06/14/2008, -0/+12What this really demonstrates is how far from true conservatism the Republicans have strayed. And instead of just admitting a mistake and changing course, they somehow feel their only option is to double down.
It's pretty sad when you're despised by conservatives, independents and progressives almost equally. That would be a hint for most people, but not John McCain. He's just going to keep on stumping for positions he really doesn't believe in. Republicans played him like a fiddle in 2000, then handed him a broken country and corrupt party. Nice. - salomejones, on 06/14/2008, -0/+9Dubya was a lemming too, don't forget. Maybe in this election, Obama's base will overpower McCain's ability to fraudulently take the win, but let's not be hasty. This is going to be hard work up until the very last second.
- mystcnurse, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4Or, OUR demise.
- grlykool, on 06/14/2008, -15/+45John McCain thinks Amistad was a bad decision too then. Jeez he's an idiot. No matter by Monday he'll deny he ever said this.
- Syntaxis, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3Don't be unfair, it's not like he doesn't stick to his opinions, he's just forgetting his opinions all the time.
That's just old age.
Make this man your president while you can! He might die of old age in a few years.
/sarcasm
- Syntaxis, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3Don't be unfair, it's not like he doesn't stick to his opinions, he's just forgetting his opinions all the time.
- life38, on 06/14/2008, -12/+53Let's see now. First its the liberal judges of a specific state. Then its the judges of another state. Then its the Supreme Court.
The decision might have been due to the fact that we did not declare war and have been acting as police. In police matters your innocent until proven guilty.- bkemper, on 06/14/2008, -2/+12You're (short for "you are")
- HanFastolfe, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2"In police matters your innocent until proven guilty."
You're funny, you've never dealt with the I.R.S. have you?
- EmmaRussell, on 06/14/2008, -11/+41Like a puppet on a string.
- Pedobear, on 06/14/2008, -1/+6Revolutionaries wait
for my head on a silver plate
just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh, who would ever want to be king?- ScottishMcDuff, on 06/14/2008, -6/+1Um...Viva la Vida really doesn't relate to John McCain. It's about Louis XIV's death at the hands of the people. Good try though...
- mystcnurse, on 06/14/2008, -1/+3Could relate tho... maybe not to McInsane, but what about the entire Bush administration.
- DeepFriedFetus, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Such a kick-ass song...
- ScottishMcDuff, on 06/14/2008, -6/+1Um...Viva la Vida really doesn't relate to John McCain. It's about Louis XIV's death at the hands of the people. Good try though...
- Pedobear, on 06/14/2008, -1/+6Revolutionaries wait
- debunkthelies, on 06/14/2008, -18/+147NO the worst decision was to appoint George W. Bush the 43rd President.
- familynight, on 06/14/2008, -4/+17even if it had been a great president and not bush, that decision was so incredibly bad and a staggering overstepping of the power of the judiciary. if the general population had a better grasp on government and the law, the supreme court could have been run out of town for that nonsense. extending habeas corpus to imaginary friends would make more sense.
- MortalynFlux, on 06/14/2008, -0/+9What's ironic is that the GOP's power for the past 8 years was built on a Supreme Court decision, and now they are doing everything they can to see how they can sidestep the Supreme Court.
- artc, on 06/14/2008, -3/+9NO, the worst decision was to appoint George W. Bush TWICE.
- bravo1995, on 06/14/2008, -0/+12Appoint != Elect
We screwed up the second time.- nycmac247, on 06/14/2008, -2/+2supreme court? florida?
he was appointed.
- nycmac247, on 06/14/2008, -2/+2supreme court? florida?
- ScottishMcDuff, on 06/14/2008, -3/+6True, but John Kerry...JOHN KERRY!!!
(his face still haunts my nightmares)- mystcnurse, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5Yeah, we need to go to the elementary schools to find the next round of all of them - dems, republicans, whoever.... congressmen, senators and the entire cabinet. I bet we would find better candidates if we looked elsewhere, hell, even in the kindergartens. I cannot believe that what we have is the best we can do. Mind blower.
Remember when people used to tell their kids to get good grades in school so they could grow up to the be president? No wonder kids are doing so poorly in school. They want to make sure they don't turn out like HIM. - duggdowncatisad, on 06/15/2008, -0/+0No, kids are doing poorly in school because Bush has proven that you don't need good grades to become President.
- mystcnurse, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5Yeah, we need to go to the elementary schools to find the next round of all of them - dems, republicans, whoever.... congressmen, senators and the entire cabinet. I bet we would find better candidates if we looked elsewhere, hell, even in the kindergartens. I cannot believe that what we have is the best we can do. Mind blower.
- bravo1995, on 06/14/2008, -0/+12Appoint != Elect
- familynight, on 06/14/2008, -4/+17even if it had been a great president and not bush, that decision was so incredibly bad and a staggering overstepping of the power of the judiciary. if the general population had a better grasp on government and the law, the supreme court could have been run out of town for that nonsense. extending habeas corpus to imaginary friends would make more sense.
- dtfinch, on 06/14/2008, -17/+25I wonder what his stance is on slavery.
- warriormonk, on 06/14/2008, -18/+1Constitutionally speaking I imagine that he is against it since slavery was formally abolished with the 13 Amendment to the Constitution. This is unlike the present situation with the detainees at Gitmo who have NO rights under the U.S. Constitution. There is simply no mention of any rights being afforded enemy combatants who have been captured on the field of battle waging war against the U.S. The SCOTUS (at least the five most liberal justices) invented them. In effect, the SCOTUS amended the Constitution because it felt like it.
- str1fe, on 06/14/2008, -0/+8Like McCain cares about the Constitution.
- bravo1995, on 06/14/2008, -1/+4I always liked calling the Supreme Court the SCOTUS. It sounds like some kind of STD.
- bkemper, on 06/14/2008, -1/+4Detainees at Gitmo do have rights if the Supreme Court says they do. So you're wrong.
Especially when you consider that most of them care more about agreeing with the nazi-like positions of the conservatives than they do about the law, this decision is even more remarkable. - jameskong15, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5Just because the Constitution doesn't mention verbatim the random choice words that the administration is using today to avoid restrictions under the Geneva Convention doesn't mean it doesn't afford them certain rights (as can be seen by the majority opinion coming down at the highest level). You could change their name today to “super duper terrorists version 3.0” and even though the Constitution doesn't mention that name specifically, the same concerns seen in this case would apply.
- grunion, on 06/14/2008, -3/+1The restrictions? You mean the ones for dealing with enemy combatants not in uniform? Those 'restrictions' allow for summary execution. I agree that they're sidestepping THAT one, but I don't really see it as a bad thing (and the prisoners probably agree in that regard).
- MortalynFlux, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4The U.S. Constitution is the highest law for U.S sovereignty and jurisdiction. If GITMO is not under U.S. sovereignty and jurisdiction, who's jurisdiction is it under, then? Cuba? What laws must the prison guards follow? What if someone holds up the McDonalds over there. Should they be tried in a Cuban court?
- grunion, on 06/14/2008, -2/+1Technically, one could argue that Gitmo's law is the UCMJ as there is no civilian government in place. If those detained are non-uniformed enemy combatants though, they're well covered by the Geneva Conventions on Land Warfare - they're allowed to simply be shot as spies, no trial need be afforded them.
The guards are military, so their conduct is regulated by the UCMJ. - MortalynFlux, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3If it were the UCMJ, the UCMJ was created by U.S. Law, which falls under the constitution. The UCMJ provides for due process, to include Article 32 investigation before Courts-Martial, right to counsel, public trials, unanimous verdict for charges which involve the death sentence, and right to appeal. The same principles that the federal and state laws and procedures are built upon are the principles that the UCMJ is built upon.
There is no limbo here. It either falls under federal law, state law, military law, or the Geneva Convention. Take your pick.
What I find most hypocritical is Bush and McCain admonishing Cuba for human rights violations and continuing our embargo under that pretense when we're doing that very thing ON THEIR SOIL, and not making a great effort to hide it. Mind-numbing.
- grunion, on 06/14/2008, -2/+1Technically, one could argue that Gitmo's law is the UCMJ as there is no civilian government in place. If those detained are non-uniformed enemy combatants though, they're well covered by the Geneva Conventions on Land Warfare - they're allowed to simply be shot as spies, no trial need be afforded them.
- whatever01, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5Constitutionally speaking, the SCOTUS did not "amend" the Constitution.
Further, the Constitution is pretty specific in it's use of Person vs Citizen. You can call them an "unlawful enemy combatant" or "super duper terrorist 3.0" but that doesn't mean they aren't in the general category "person". If you think that the writers of the US Constitution were that careless, you'd be proving yourself the fool.
- DeFex, on 06/14/2008, -0/+13he prefers to pay slaves just enough that they are not called slaves.
- virtualball, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4For that answer, just ask his advisors ;)
- rald84, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3i'm so getting myself a slave
/jon stewart mocking scalia - nycmac247, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2you mean "top" or "bottom," right?
http://mysite.verizon.net/myk15/bushhugsmanho.html
- warriormonk, on 06/14/2008, -18/+1Constitutionally speaking I imagine that he is against it since slavery was formally abolished with the 13 Amendment to the Constitution. This is unlike the present situation with the detainees at Gitmo who have NO rights under the U.S. Constitution. There is simply no mention of any rights being afforded enemy combatants who have been captured on the field of battle waging war against the U.S. The SCOTUS (at least the five most liberal justices) invented them. In effect, the SCOTUS amended the Constitution because it felt like it.
- tehbored, on 06/14/2008, -14/+176I still don't understand how restoring habeas corpus to detainees will put anyone at risk.
- barfooz, on 06/14/2008, -8/+98You should have heard Laura Ingraham arguing against it on Fox News tonight. It was utterly repugnant and devoid of sense and showed no respect for the Constitution. She actually stated that she believes that the founding fathers would be sickened by the ruling. No, Laura, actually, this is why they wrote the right of habeas corpus into the gaddam document.
These authoritarian thugs and their sycophants that have ramsacked our legal and justice system need to be dragged out into the street and drawn and quartered. I'm disgusted by McCain's stance on this and I'm mad as hell about the whole thing.- tyleredw, on 06/14/2008, -3/+4I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!
- magus_melchior, on 06/14/2008, -0/+13"These authoritarian thugs and their sycophants that have ramsacked our legal and justice system need to be dragged out into the street and drawn and quartered."
Although many doubtless share your sentiment, if we do that we would have discarded the Bill of Rights. They ought to be charged, tried, convicted, and punished, but the sad thing is, they know how to game the system.- Zarokima, on 06/14/2008, -1/+3You can't play fair and expect to win if your enemy isn't playing fair.
- bman1984, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Nice quote to sum up pretty much every single one of the world's problems.
- twrife, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1Why were you watching faux news?
- DaDrake, on 06/14/2008, -3/+15Read the other 4 judges briefs (it was 4 vs 5). There are arguments for and against it but the USSC is looking at the big picture... not individual cases,
- Pixelpaws, on 06/14/2008, -1/+15I'm going to guess it's because they feel that these people pose such a risk to National Security™ and, as such, need to be locked away for a very long time. Or maybe it has something to do with the secrets that the government doesn't want the world to know about because having them revealed would compromise (insert pointless military action here).
Seriously, the list of excuses the administration could come up with is a mile long. That's not to say that they're valid, but there are "important risks" as far as the administration is concerned. Most importantly, the risk that what gets revealed in court makes what we already know about Guantanamo seem tame.- dlsspy, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2"I'm going to guess it's because they feel that these people pose such a risk to National Security"
Well, they probably do now.
- dlsspy, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2"I'm going to guess it's because they feel that these people pose such a risk to National Security"
- samk, on 06/14/2008, -12/+3In wars, typically prisoners are held until the end of the war. But this war has no foreseeable end.
The Supreme Court now says we can't hold you indefinitely unless we can charge you with a crime. But there is a difference between committing a crime and vowing to kill Americans. If you're part of al Qaeda, but have never planned a terrorist attack, what's the legal basis for holding you indefinitely? There is none. So we're going to have to let some terrorists go. And we already know that some former Guantanamo detainees have gone back to the battlefield in Afghanistan.- bono4u, on 06/14/2008, -3/+8My speculation would be if you haven't hold them in the first place they wouldn't go on any battlefield. My speculation goes even further, if the USA wouldn't have interfered in the ways it did in the middle east over the last 50 years, there wouldn't be presentiments as there are now there and in other places where the USA have had there silence wars.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/14/2008, -2/+5Sometimes you have to give up being "safe" in order to remain free.
Though I think you'd be hard pressed to draw a direct connection to most of these inmates and a real threat to American lives. What you think someone will probably do eventually is not basis for imprisonment. Not in a free society anyway.- samk, on 06/14/2008, -4/+0When you're at war, you're allowed to capture enemy soldiers even if they haven't fired a shot. The fact that they are part of the enemy army is usually enough basis for imprisonment. The Supreme Court has just decided that we have to let them go back into the battlefield.
As for the direct connection, we already know that a bunch of former detainees have gone on to become suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan. - archiesteel, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2"As for the direct connection, we already know that a bunch of former detainees have gone on to become suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan."
1 out of 60, according to the Pentagon's own estimates. One could easily argue the warmongering neo-cons overstate the threat in order to better control their gullible supporters. - whatever01, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5Samk when you're at war, you take prisoners of war (POWs). You can hold them as long as the war is going on. Since this undeclared war could go on forever (it's a war against a tactic - you want have a War on Blitzkrieg or a War on Skirmish Likes, too?), we can keep them off the battlefield forever.
BUT we would have to follow the Geneva Convention. Bummer. We didn't want to do that, apparently.
- samk, on 06/14/2008, -4/+0When you're at war, you're allowed to capture enemy soldiers even if they haven't fired a shot. The fact that they are part of the enemy army is usually enough basis for imprisonment. The Supreme Court has just decided that we have to let them go back into the battlefield.
- jbrand45, on 06/14/2008, -2/+6This isn't Minority Report. You can't be incarcerated for a crime you haven't yet committed based on a "hunch" by some bloodthirsty Warhawks.
- samk, on 06/14/2008, -4/+2Er, no. Prisoners of war HAVE NOT committed a chargeable crime. Yet they are held captive in every war. Not based on a hunch. Based on the fact that they are fighting to kill you.
- whatever01, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3Samk - They are not POWs. The administration has made that VERY clear.
- jbrand45, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Exactly . . . they are not considered Prisoners of War. PoWs are afforded rights by the Geneva Convention . . . keeping them as "detainees" has, until now, enabled George Bush to do whatever he wanted to them. This includes torture, that he has made clear is no big deal to him. Do what you gotta do, right?
Wrong.
- bono4u, on 06/14/2008, -1/+5It puts the current administration at risk as there is now a ruling to which if consequently followed there can be found lots of offences.
- goon5000, on 06/14/2008, -10/+1tell that to the families of the people who have been murdered by your precious guantanimo suspects who have been released
- jbrand45, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4Can you prove that any of the detainees from GitMo that have been released have been directly involved in the killing of anyone? Didn't think so . . . otherwise they wouldn't have been released.
- barfooz, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2Yes: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/08/africa/gitm ...
That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right of habeas corpus, however. - jbrand45, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2I guess my original comment was misconstrued . . . what I meant was that many of the detainees in GitMo are in there for no real reason, at least any that have been released to those of us without classified clearance. They were captured "on the battlefield" and held without being charged. There is not necessarily any proof that they had done anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
As far as the article that you linked to . . .That still doesn't prove anything. All it does is reinforce the fact that we don't have any real clue what's going on over there or who is involved with anything.
"Ajmi is one of several former Guantánamo detainees believed to have carried out violence, said another U.S. military spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon."
Notice the key phrase: "believed to have" . . . that means they think he did, not that they know he did. Also the quote, "The circumstances of the attack in which Ajmi was involved remained unclear, he said."
The fact that he was a Kuwaiti, who, like the article points out, comprise less than 1% of the foreign combatants in Iraq, makes me suspicious that he was actually involved in the suicide bombing itself. Sure, his family confirmed that he is dead, but that proves nothing.
The article had a lot of words that said very little. There were no concrete facts, other than the man was in GitMo, released, made his way to Iraq and died.
For all I know he really was a suicide bomber . . . the point is we don't know for sure, and just because someone is not a citizen of the United States of America doesn't mean we should give up the "innocent until proven guilty" state of mind. When we ignore that fact, we are no better than the terrorists we purport to fight. - barfooz, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1No, I absolutely agree with your stance; I just wanted to point out that some of the people there are legitimately dangerous people. Which is no excuse to hold them indefinitely without a trial.
- barfooz, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2Yes: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/08/africa/gitm ...
- whatever01, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4Over 400,000 American soldiers died in WWII. You fight a war, people die. Get used to it.
Oh, wait, if we shredded the Constitution back then, would we have saved all of them?
Freedom isn't free. - bman1984, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Tell that to anyone with a law degree ;)
- jbrand45, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4Can you prove that any of the detainees from GitMo that have been released have been directly involved in the killing of anyone? Didn't think so . . . otherwise they wouldn't have been released.
- jessehadden, on 06/14/2008, -0/+6It puts many people at risk -- the President, his cabinet, his base, all of Congress, all of Fox News, etc. The light of a fair trial to expose what's going in is a huge threat to the criminals perpetrating this non-sense against America and the rest of the world.
- arplayer2k, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4Don't Terrorize Me Bro!!!
- dionysius89, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2I don't understand either. Justice Roberts said that the system would be flooded. If this is the only true "risk", then Justice Roberts should be ashamed: Since when do we sacrifice justice for the mere convenience of vacant courtrooms?
- duggdowncatisad, on 06/15/2008, -0/+0LOL. Just legalize weed, and you'll have more vacant courtrooms than anyone would know what to do with.
- barfooz, on 06/14/2008, -8/+98You should have heard Laura Ingraham arguing against it on Fox News tonight. It was utterly repugnant and devoid of sense and showed no respect for the Constitution. She actually stated that she believes that the founding fathers would be sickened by the ruling. No, Laura, actually, this is why they wrote the right of habeas corpus into the gaddam document.
- kelstock, on 06/14/2008, -12/+28Ah McCain, you've done it again
- nofrickenway, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2Who else but Quagmire?
- ScottishMcDuff, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3McCain IS kind've like Mr. Magoo.
- raisputin3, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2kind've = 'kind have' (but there is not such contraction that I am aware of, but I could be wrong on that) I think you meant 'kind of'
- nycmac247, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Magoo!!!
http://mysite.verizon.net/myk15/bushhugsmanho.html
- ScottishMcDuff, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3McCain IS kind've like Mr. Magoo.
- nofrickenway, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2Who else but Quagmire?
- brainscab, on 06/14/2008, -11/+35I think I get what he is saying, and it kinda scares me.
He has said he is for closing GitMo, but AGAINST restoring Habeas Corpus.
think about that:
he was held as a POW, so he empathizes with the detainees, but doesn't give a crap about something as abstract as civil rights.
Or even worse, he sees the political benefit of siding with the detainees, but thinks a story about some fancy Latin phrase wont stick, Im hoping we can prove him wrong.- MortalynFlux, on 06/14/2008, -1/+3Doesn't care enough about civil rights to put basic constitutional principles under scare quotes, as in the "so-called, quote, 'habeas corpus.'" and the "so-called, qote, 'First Amendment.'"
- grumpyrain, on 06/14/2008, -10/+94No. One of the worst decisions was to try and setup a kangaroo court and suspend habeas corpus. With a couple of strokes of a pen, the US lost its moral high road. It meant that no-one outside the US buys that Abu Grahib was just a bunch of soldiers going off the rails. McCain may have been a POW. He can thank his lucky stars he was not an 'enemy combatant'.
- Sogui, on 06/14/2008, -8/+3Actually, uhh, we was held as an enemy combatant, and tortured for information.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/14/2008, -2/+18You're an idiot. He was a POW.
The stupid term 'enemy combatant' was made up by Bush administration cronies. It did not exist as any kind of legal definition before September 18, 2001.- mikelieman, on 06/14/2008, -3/+7How could he be a POW if there was never a War declared against the legitimate Vietnamese government?
- theaceoffire, on 06/14/2008, -8/+3We don't have to declare war on them for them to declare war on us.
- salomejones, on 06/14/2008, -1/+9POWs are treated better than enemy combatants. That's how you can tell the difference.
- mikelieman, on 06/14/2008, -3/+7How could he be a POW if there was never a War declared against the legitimate Vietnamese government?
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/14/2008, -2/+18You're an idiot. He was a POW.
- mystcnurse, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5ABSOLUTELY!!!! You get it, as Colbert would say!
- Sogui, on 06/14/2008, -8/+3Actually, uhh, we was held as an enemy combatant, and tortured for information.
- zebco, on 06/14/2008, -8/+28Heaven forbid that we put right over might in this country for once. What a crazy, old bastard.
- PeppermintPig, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3But right and might is one and the same to the neocons, and they are compelled to engage in more of it and sidestep the hard questions, all in an effort to try and prove to you that they are responsible for 'protecting' you from the bad people in the world.
- DD2CC2U, on 06/14/2008, -10/+42McCain hates the constitution. How can he come out against habeas corpus?
- warriormonk, on 06/14/2008, -15/+4Please read the Constitution before making blanket statements like this. You sound like an idiot. Please see my response to 'dtfinch' above. If he truly "hates the Constitution", then he must be pro-slavery since slavery was outlawed by the 13 Amendment. I would also like to point out that event the Nazis were never granted these rights after WWII, so clearly the present SCOTUS is functioning is a reality apart from our own.
Bonus question for all you bleeding hearts: If the 5th Amendment (due process) now applies to the detainees, then does Article 3, Section 3 (treason) apply as well? IMHO if they are now, for all intents and purposes, considered U.S. citizens then let's truly treat them that way and try them for treason. Whichever approach gets them an early execution date is fine by me.- zappa027, on 06/14/2008, -1/+6They aren't US citizens, they're persons under US law.
- warriormonk, on 06/14/2008, -8/+2??? Please explain your point b/c I fail to see it.
U.S. citizens are accorded rights under the U.S. Constitution; non-citizens have many fewer rights, and when it comes to due process those rights are only afforded by statutes from Congress. This is what Lindsey Graham was talking about: if Congress can (and has) pass laws and statutes granting rights, then it can also remove (or re-confirm) rights, or the lack thereof. This is how are legal process works. Granted, there is a "tangle" of rights depending on what people and rights we're talking about, but this case with the detainees is pretty clear-cut. The SCOTUS essentially overturned well over 200 years of U.S. law and precedent.
However, within the alternate realities of MSNBC, HuffPo, Daily Kos, et.al., the SCOTUS is hailed as "wonderful" when they make disastrous (i.e. "liberal") decisions like this, but it's demonized when it actually does its job of correctly interpreting the Constitution instead of making new law by judicial fiat.
- warriormonk, on 06/14/2008, -8/+2??? Please explain your point b/c I fail to see it.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/14/2008, -0/+6"Whichever approach gets them an early execution date is fine by me."
So now we should execute people without a trial?
You blather on and on about the constitution as if it means something to you, and then incite some "Guilty until proven innocent" doctrine. You're an ***** without the slightest idea what the constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, is really about.
This isn't about technicalities and "national security." It's about the truths that we as Americans are supposed to hold to be self evident. That ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. We aren't supposed to be picking and choosing who gets civil liberties in the world. We are supposed to be promoting the idea that EVERYONE deserves civil liberties (but not forcing that concept on people).
Tell me, if only the people we like get rights than what the ***** does America stand for and what good it is? - mystcnurse, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5Wait a minute. Lying to the American people to start a war.
How much money is now missing from Iraq, money paid to certain companies with Bush admin fingers in them - who, btw, were no-bid contracts?
What exactly is TREASON?
And once you define that, who should be REALLY be charged with it. I could go on, but I think that finally the facts are becoming apparent enough that you could actually figure it out for yourself, good patriot. - bagelmaster, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Slippery slope fallacy is slippery.
- zappa027, on 06/14/2008, -1/+6They aren't US citizens, they're persons under US law.
- stev31h, on 06/14/2008, -2/+6McCain hates freedom
- warriormonk, on 06/14/2008, -15/+4Please read the Constitution before making blanket statements like this. You sound like an idiot. Please see my response to 'dtfinch' above. If he truly "hates the Constitution", then he must be pro-slavery since slavery was outlawed by the 13 Amendment. I would also like to point out that event the Nazis were never granted these rights after WWII, so clearly the present SCOTUS is functioning is a reality apart from our own.
- nova912, on 06/14/2008, -6/+26If you don't like the constitution you can *heavy southerner voice* 'geeeet out.'
- brokenspatula, on 06/14/2008, -52/+12VOTE MCCAIN
- grovest4life, on 06/14/2008, -5/+9Correction Vote Mcsame
- kaintehdragoon, on 06/14/2008, -3/+13NEVER!
- Dzonatas, on 06/14/2008, -7/+5McCain enjoys immunity!
http://digg.com/business_finance/EFF_caught_in_usi ... - openj, on 06/14/2008, -28/+4Any decision which inhibits the United States of America's ability to serve God in His continuing fight against muslims is a bad one. He's up here busting His Almighty hump to keep the wolves outside of your gates, and your courts are turning on His messenger, George Bush. I swear if you keep this up we're going to have to send Jerry Falwell back down there to put you back in order.
- cakerun, on 06/14/2008, -1/+13*crosses fingers* sarcasm?
If you wondering why i asked, it's because sarcasm doesn't work so well over the internet. If it is sarcasm, good show sir. - bicyclethief, on 06/14/2008, -0/+7You schtick was amusing the first few times. But now it's just dumb.
- cakerun, on 06/14/2008, -1/+13*crosses fingers* sarcasm?
- eliot2000, on 06/14/2008, -8/+76You know who he should pick as his running mate? John McCain from the 2000 election. That guy would never have put up with BS like this.
- publiclurker, on 06/14/2008, -0/+302000 McCain wouldn't agree to be in the same room as the 2008 copy.
- gypsi, on 06/14/2008, -0/+6mccain 2000 was dare i say a little tolerable. what the hell happened?
- Syntaxis, on 06/14/2008, -0/+8Back then "9/11" hadn't happened yet. So there was all reason for a peaceful campaign. Today, however, they apply terrorism as a way to further their political careers.
Definition for terrorism:
"The systematic use of terror, the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change."
That's -exactly- what your (USA) government is doing. Creating and maintaining a false threat to change laws and the political climate.
Digg me down, I'm used to it.. ;-)
- fishbeef33, on 06/14/2008, -9/+34Yeah, what an awful decision: upholding habeus corpus. Those damned America-haters in the supreme court, what were they thinking?
You'd think after big mistakes in American history like slavery and the Alien & Sedition Acts, that politicians would be a little bit more careful with our liberties. I guess our congressmen and women are kind of like the kid who sat next to me in social studies class, making paper footballs instead of reading their assignments.- DangerCollie, on 06/14/2008, -0/+8Nah, they were the ones driving around in cars their daddy bought them, skipping class to have sex at drunken pool parties, all the way pretending to be moral and preaching against pre-marital sex. It takes a lot of self-delusion to maintain that two-faced lifestyle. They start learning early, watching parents rail against drug crimes while popping prescription painkillers and anti-depressants. Seeing dad hit on his friend's college age daughter and getting a clue that mom is banging her personal trainer. But they're in church every Sunday, at least around here. They'll be off to the country club for a little champagne brunch and Zoloft afterwards.
- ask03, on 06/14/2008, -8/+17Strange. All this time I was thinking worst decision might be going to Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson.
Good thing McCain is around to clear up this issue for me...- bravo1995, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4How dare you introduce historical context! How dare you!
The lessons of history have no place in the politics of today!
- bravo1995, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4How dare you introduce historical context! How dare you!
- Sogui, on 06/14/2008, -17/+10If you read the whole thing you'd understand that McCain SUPPORTS closing Guantanamo, he has passed legislation to increase anti-torture scrutiny at Guantanamo, and ---he absolutely favors making sure that every detainee gets his day in court--- The reason for resistance on this issue is because the Writ of Habeus Corpus would expedite those habeus suits and flood our judicial and intelligence community. Suddenly courts would be juggling dozens of these cases while our intelligence agencies would have to rapidly prepare suitable evidence against the detainees. I am in favor of the Supreme Court's decision, though many of the details are still confusing, but McCain's argument does make sense here:
------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. Sen. Graham and Sen. Lieberman and I had worked very hard to make sure that we didn't torture any prisoners, that we didn't mistreat them, that we abided by the Geneva Conventions, which applies to all prisoners. But we also made it perfectly clear, and I won't go through all the legislation we passed, and the prohibition against torture, but we made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have. And my friends there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people. So now what are we going to do. We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate, because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases. By the way, 30 of the people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again, one of them just a couple weeks ago, a suicide bomber in Iraq. Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation, and the men and women who defend it. This decision will harm our ability to do that.
---------------------------------------- Pixelpaws, on 06/14/2008, -3/+9They should have had evidence for the detainees before they were detained. That's the entire point of Habeas Corpus: to demand that you be shown the evidence that justifies your detention or to be set free due to the complete lack of evidence.
As an aside, there's this lovely clause in the US Constitution: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." There's no rebellion going on in the US, nor have we been invaded, so I cannot see a very convincing public safety argument- buckrogers1965, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Invading other countries doesn't count? :)
- Spektr4, on 06/14/2008, -4/+5"flood our judicial and intelligence community ... dozens of these cases while our intelligence agencies would have to rapidly prepare suitable evidence"
I think the word "flood" exaggerates the problem here. But let's remind ourselves, these guys have been held for five years. Maybe in those five years our intelligence agencies might have assembled some suitable evidence against them? If not, what are we doing holding them? Come on, the US does not operate like this. It is a disgrace.
"one of the worst decisions in the history of this country"
You really agree with that statement?
"there are some bad people down there"
If there are, why is the administration so afraid of trying them in court? Does Bush feel he is a dictator who can simply declare a person a terrorist and it is so?
"so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus"
Is McCain trying to deride the concept of Habeas Corpus? - SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/14/2008, -1/+3"Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation."
Really? I thought it was more like this:
Life
Truth
The Pursuit of Happiness
Common Good
Liberty
Equality
Justice
Diversity
Popular Sovereignty
Patriotism
Funny there seems to be no mention of "national defense" anywhere in that list. If it's truly as all important as you claim you might think someone would have included it.
http://www.imschools.org/NextDay/CDV.htm - whatever01, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Our first obligation is to the Constitution of the United States. One could argue that the Declaration of Independence would follow shortly thereafter, but I digress.
We must protect what this country aspires to be, the principles it was founded on. Not what it has become. If we have the principles, we can always work towards them. If we destroy the principles, there's not much point in sticking around.
- Pixelpaws, on 06/14/2008, -3/+9They should have had evidence for the detainees before they were detained. That's the entire point of Habeas Corpus: to demand that you be shown the evidence that justifies your detention or to be set free due to the complete lack of evidence.
- SpartanErik, on 06/14/2008, -19/+11This is a war, there should be trials at a military tribunal not civilian courts (unless of course I missed something)
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/14/2008, -4/+12You missed the fact that it's not a war.
You can't have a war against a proper noun.
What country are we at war against? When did congress declare this? QED. - Pixelpaws, on 06/14/2008, -4/+14This is not a war. Congress has not formally declared war.
- groovechamp30, on 06/14/2008, -1/+6There is no war...
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/14/2008, -4/+12You missed the fact that it's not a war.
- lovecss, on 06/14/2008, -9/+7Go back to making delicious oven chips.
- wannapiece, on 06/14/2008, -9/+41I just cannot see how McCain has any supporters, Pro war people make me sick
- ScottishMcDuff, on 06/14/2008, -2/+6Are you talking about this war specifically or any war?
If it's about this war, I agree with you.
If it's about any war in general, then that's a naive statement to make.- magus_melchior, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4The big war supporters (military contractors, weapons manufacturers) love Iraq because it's great for business-- see Halliburton and Blackwater, at least until the shootout brouhaha; I don't know about Afghanistan.
- whatever01, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2Actually, what's interesting is that for many military contractors - the Big Ones, this war sucks. More money is being spent on bullets and body armor than on airplanes and tanks.
- buckrogers1965, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1You would be surprised at how many very expensive submarines are required for a war in the desert.
- magus_melchior, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4The big war supporters (military contractors, weapons manufacturers) love Iraq because it's great for business-- see Halliburton and Blackwater, at least until the shootout brouhaha; I don't know about Afghanistan.
- TinternAbbot, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4Not very many people are "pro war" in general.
- ScottishMcDuff, on 06/14/2008, -2/+6Are you talking about this war specifically or any war?
- hideko, on 06/14/2008, -9/+18you've gotta be joking, this must be some sick twisted joke that's gone too far.
this man is REALLY running for president?? REALLY? - Chainheart, on 06/14/2008, -8/+11Add another to the flourishing list of flip-flops
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3These aren't just "flip-flops." That was a Rovian term used to deride ANY change in viewpoint on an issue. It was intended to outline a change of mind as a sign of weakness.
What McCain is doing is entirely different from simply changing his mind through the course of time and debate. He is quite literally saying one thing today and the opposite the next. It's a symptom of a man who no longer guides himself, but rather allows himself to be guided by the party and people around him in an effort to appeal to specific voters. While most politicians do this to some extent, McCain has clearly lost his way. He gets on stage without consulting anyone and speaks for himself. Then steps up the next day after clearly having been coached on what he SHOULD believe and so says something entirely different.
I don't think he knows what he truly believes any more, and subsequently I have a hard time believing he has very strong convictions concerning what should be done about what's wrong with America right now. Putting this personality crisis in the Whitehouse is probably one of the worst ideas of modern times.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3These aren't just "flip-flops." That was a Rovian term used to deride ANY change in viewpoint on an issue. It was intended to outline a change of mind as a sign of weakness.
- hawkeye17, on 06/14/2008, -14/+4The reason behind this decision is simple. The United States is a better place than many places in the rest of the world...we are more evolved and moral. We used to be anyway.
- scadabout, on 06/14/2008, -2/+8you believe Americans are on the high ground?Wrong.
the media touts that we are "the best" propaganda.
we have over thrown governments, destroyed economic systems.
We have Killed, Jailed,replaced Leaders, that were de
- scadabout, on 06/14/2008, -2/+8you believe Americans are on the high ground?Wrong.