Not that this should surprise anyone. With regards to yesterday's ruling, McCain had this to say:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/06/mccain_slams_the_supreme_court.html

Quote :

"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."

Straight talk!

6/13/2008 2:56:24 PM

is that really a legit quote from him?

it would make me think he's starting to get alzheimers if that's the case

6/13/2008 2:57:39 PM

Maybe the Reagan Republicans will like him, now.

6/13/2008 2:58:57 PM

that's a big 'wut?'

6/13/2008 3:03:49 PM

Uhm.

Flooded?

Just how many people are we detaining without the right to challenge their detention before a judge?

6/13/2008 3:10:05 PM

look man, stop expecting us to recognize fundamental rights.

it's such a hassle

6/13/2008 3:12:35 PM

Sometimes I wonder if that Fox News picture of "Sen. John Mccain (D-AZ)" was accurate and he's just throwing the fight

6/13/2008 3:13:46 PM

Quote :

"is that really a legit quote from him?"

Here's the whole thing if you don't believe me:

Quote :

"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."

So, I reiterate: John McCain has no fucking clue what habeas corpus even is.

6/13/2008 3:15:34 PM

Or where America is...

Quote :

"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."

An attack on Iraq is an attack on the US now?

Was the motherfucker attacking our embassy or something?

6/13/2008 3:19:54 PM

General Election = Old Dumbass vs Young Smartass.

6/13/2008 3:20:34 PM

^^^where the fuck did he get that 30 figure from

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2008 3:21:01 PM

I remember when you people would froth at the mouth at the great way the old maverick would work with democrats in congress.

what happened?

6/13/2008 3:23:36 PM

you people

I was never one of you people sorry

6/13/2008 3:25:41 PM

Who exactly is "you people" here? Care to name any names, or just blow some more smoke up our collective asses while you sloooowly back away form the topic at hand?

6/13/2008 3:28:09 PM

I would pay $Texas for a reporter at his next press conference to ask:

"Sir, I was just wondering....what is habeas corpus again?"

6/13/2008 3:29:49 PM

Quote :

" 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."

We released them because the military tribunal decided we didn't have a case. So of course they're going to join forces with our enemies. We abused them for years on no evidence of any wrong doing for no other reason than that a bunch of people who sort of looked like them and came from the same side of the planet knocked down the WTC.

6/13/2008 3:30:11 PM

He may have been saying it would open up a can of worms, ie, a diet not up to the islamic standard could be considered unlawful and therefore their detainment is unlawful.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 3:32 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2008 3:31:44 PM

Do you even know what Habeas Corpus is?

6/13/2008 3:34:59 PM

yes, do you know what it means to give the gitmo detainees rights under the American constitution (being held without a trial being one of them)? They'll be able to sue for anything now.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2008 3:39:11 PM

You give people a few rights, and before you know it, they expect to be treated like a human being.

6/13/2008 3:40:11 PM

Yes because bastards like this deserve to be treated like humans.

6/13/2008 3:41:44 PM

Do you think a grand jury will let him off?

reeeaaally?

6/13/2008 3:43:28 PM

let him appeal to the 9th fucking circuit and I think they might.

6/13/2008 3:43:52 PM

Quote :

"yes, do you know what it means to give the gitmo detainees rights under the American constitution (being held without a trial being one of them)? They'll be able to sue for anything now."

Not the same thing and you know it. Or you're an idiot. I'm open to both possibilities at the moment.

Given the fact that we've found scores of detainees who were later found to be completely innocent, rounded up by faulty information or unscrupulous bounty hunters, perhaps it would make sense to, oh, I don't know, allow them to challenge the status of their detention before a court of law? Especially since we're holding them - and get this - in American jurisdiction? (Lesson learned - don't drag people back to secret American prisons if you don't want to have to play by American rules.)

Nah, let's just stick them in Gitmo forever and hope everyone forgets about them.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 3:46 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2008 3:45:12 PM

Quote :

"yes, do you know what it means to give the gitmo detainees rights under the American constitution (being held without a trial being one of them)? They'll be able to sue for anything now."

Well, that wouldn't be a problem if we didn't hold them without trial.

6/13/2008 3:48:13 PM

well if the gitmo base is evil, then so is abraham lincoln. these people are not american, they were fighting under no flag, they do not deserve the same rights that we as Americans have... BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT AMERICANS.

Instead of blaming America for this, why don't you blame Khalid Sheikh Muhammad for this?

6/13/2008 3:49:18 PM

I have every right to blame the administration when the administration decides to no longer uphold the laws they have sworn to uphold. I have every right to get mad at the administration when they lower the moral threshold to the level of people like bin Laden.

6/13/2008 3:53:34 PM

So if that's the case, if you don't want to play by American rules, perhaps we shouldn't put them in American prisons.

It's very simple - you're in America. You play by American rules. If you don't like it, get out. Yes, I'm talking to you, commie. Get the fuck out already if you don't like living under the Constitution.

Meanwhile, if your clairvoyance already tells you that everyone we've dragged in is guilty (despite, oh, all those people we found to be innocent), then why bother dragging them back to Gitmo? Why not just setup a POW camp back in Afghanistan, or better yet, shoot them on sight?

Oh, but it's not quite that simple, is it now?

6/13/2008 3:53:38 PM

apparently nebulous scare tactics about turrists is the only way to argue against giving prisoners a right to trial.

If they are guilty, then charge them, try them and sentence them. If they are not guilty, then let them go. You can't just hold someone indefinitely with no charges or way for the prisoner to dispute their imprisonment even if they are an evil bastard.

6/13/2008 3:54:21 PM

I just find that liberals like to sympathize with the wrong people
- Spare the guilty, no death penalty
- Kill the innocent, abortion on demand
- give our rights that our soldiers are fighting for to those who they're shooting at.

You sympathize with the wrong side. A lot of shit goes down when you fight in wars (ask every single president who has presided over a war) and you seem not to give the benefit of the doubt to the American president, but to the foreign nationals without uniform hiding in mud huts behind civillians.

Yes, those are the people you should sympathize with.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 3:56 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2008 3:55:30 PM

Quote :

"they lower the moral threshold to the level of people like bin Laden."

we're not as bad as bin Ladin...we're worse amirite

6/13/2008 3:55:33 PM

^^ Which liberals? Where? I defy you to name names.

Meanwhile, blow some more smoke up our collective asses, commie. Go ahead. When you can't win the argument, grab a tube and start blowing smoke up our asses.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 3:56 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2008 3:56:12 PM

which liberals?

Quote :

"Spare the guilty, no death penalty - Kill the innocent, abortion on demand - give our rights that our soldiers are fighting for to those who they're shooting at."

probably the ones who are against the death penalty, pro choice, and adamant about gitmo rights??

6/13/2008 3:58:12 PM

Name some names or get the fuck out.

Meanwhile, let's stay on topic.

6/13/2008 3:58:59 PM

It's almost as if "liberals" are for civil liberties, even if they're unpopular.

What a crazy notion.

6/13/2008 3:59:51 PM

^^why dont you read what he actually typed instead of pitching a fit

6/13/2008 3:59:58 PM

i'll volunteer my name.

but i'm basically saying that we should just put the detainees in either the pow legal designation or that they should be able to challenge their detention and be provided with a charge.

6/13/2008 4:00:03 PM

Quote :

"^^why dont you read what he actually typed instead of pitching a fit"

I'm calling his bluster. And yours. Because that's all you've got right now - no substance, no rebuttal, just bluster.

Go ahead. Keep up with it. You know you don't have a case on this one.

6/13/2008 4:01:03 PM

you people

I was never one of you people sorry

And yes, KSM should be treated like a human. Otherwise, we legitimize what he and Al Qaeda have done. But whatever, be .

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 4:04 PM. Reason : ...]

6/13/2008 4:01:13 PM

I'm probably more conservative than you, Oeuvre. In fact, conservatives, historically, would have stood up for the rule of law. They wouldn't have used scare tactics to skirt basic human decency and legal and moral guidelines.

6/13/2008 4:01:23 PM

yeah they wouldve just killed them on the battlefield instead of trying to minimize casualties by capturing them

6/13/2008 4:02:48 PM

Quote :

"Meanwhile, if your clairvoyance already tells you that everyone we've dragged in is guilty (despite, oh, all those people we found to be innocent), then why bother dragging them back to Gitmo? Why not just setup a POW camp back in Afghanistan, or better yet, shoot them on sight? Oh, but it's not quite that simple, is it now?"

6/13/2008 4:04:18 PM

you're absolutely right...i'm sure none of them are guilty...cause those are the only two possibilities

6/13/2008 4:05:41 PM

I'd love to see anybody who said to spare the guilty.

Subjecting a criminal to trial isn't the same thing as sparing them...unless you live in the Middle Ages or much of the Middle East, I suppose.

6/13/2008 4:05:50 PM

I'd love to see anybody who said they were all guilty

6/13/2008 4:06:38 PM

Quote :

"you're absolutely right...i'm sure none of them are guilty...cause those are the only two possibilities"

Which is why I said "set them all free!" Right. Instead of saying:

Quote :

"Given the fact that we've found scores of detainees who were later found to be completely innocent, rounded up by faulty information or unscrupulous bounty hunters, perhaps it would make sense to, oh, I don't know, allow them to challenge the status of their detention before a court of law? Especially since we're holding them - and get this - in American jurisdiction? (Lesson learned - don't drag people back to secret American prisons if you don't want to have to play by American rules.)"

I know, I know: reading is hard.

6/13/2008 4:06:58 PM

I know, I know. Only you are allowed to use strawmen.

6/13/2008 4:07:31 PM

What strawman would that be, scarecrow? The one where you bluster and bluster until you're blue in the face and come back with nothing?

6/13/2008 4:08:34 PM

this strawman

Quote :

"if your clairvoyance already tells you that everyone we've dragged in is guilty"

i guess its easier for you to feel mighty about your point when you assume i think they're all guilty, even though in the gitmo thread i pointed out that all prisons or jails have some innocent people locked up there

hey let me act angry and boldface some words

6/13/2008 4:09:43 PM

Quote :

"I'd love to see anybody who said they were all guilty"

This only further damages your position.

Surely you're not arguing in favor of preventing an innocent from being able to challenge his or her detention before a judge? Especially in light of the tactics used at these facilities...

6/13/2008 4:12:59 PM