Or, at least, he’s upset that he won’t have the right to detain you forever on his say-so. Make no mistake about this: McCain will be a continuation of Bush’s regime in every way that matters.
Miscellaneous Heathen
Hold to the now, the here, through which all future plunges to the past.
you are so right. But the prospect of the second term of Barry Carter is much worse from where I stand. The last slick talking lawyer who had the cult of personality kept my grandfather for 13 years. Fuck socialists!
I’m glad you comment here. It reminds me that there are people with poor critical thinking skills taken in by every GOP smear.
Seriously, though, by what possible metric can the GOP possible be a better choice? Habeas would’ve been overturned completely with another Bush judge just last week; with such a decision in place, our noble experiment would be for all practical purposes OVER. You complain about some slick lawyer holding your grandfather, but in that decision it was the Democratically appointed judges who kept that power from being awarded to the US executive branch. Do the math.
Remember, the test of whether a governmental power is a good idea isn’t what YOUR party would do with it; it’s what a party antithetical to your own ideals might do with it. That’s the fear behind the balance of powers, judicial review, and habeas corpus, among other lynchpins of liberal democracy. Many of which, we should note, McCain has made clear he’s hostile to.
except of course two points: 1) The DEMS practiced the fine art of the smear to take congress last election, parading the “homosexuals and perverts” just before congressional elections to tip the balance. I don’t see it as something you can divide between parties. 2) Habeus has NEVER been applied to prisoners of war during war, and has been suspended on many occasions throughout US history. This President used it against foreign agents who may or may not have been guilty. Whereas several US presidents have suspended it to the detriment of legitimate citizens of the US. The US constitution is not a guarantee for the citizens of the world. Ask the Illegal aliens who are rounded up regularly without regard to constitutional law. They are actually adding to society whereas these fellows in jails on ships and in Cuba are attempting to pull down society. Please explain why foreign enemies should be protected by the constitution.
Er, what? The DEMS were using homosexuality as a smear last time around? In the election with dozens of gay marriage ban initiatives on the ballot? Try again.
As for the POW angle, try again. This Administration has made it abundantly clear that these men are NOT prisoners of war, that they have no rights, that they cannot challenge their detention, and that they expect to be able to do this to anyone they like.
Habeas itself has only been suspended formally twice (during the Civil war, and during WWII and its aftermath). The Constitution is very explicit about the circumstances under which this is Constitutional, and we’re not in such a state today. The actual text is:
The US Constitution may be not, as you say, a guarantee of the rights of man for everyone, but it was certainly written to proscibe certain courses of action from THIS government in order to better protect those rights. Read it carefully; it’s a clear enumeration of things the Government cannot do, and the Bill of Rights doesn’t make exceptions for citizens vs. noncitizens (nor does the habeas clause).
It all comes down to this, Edgar: Either you think it’s ok for the government to have the power to capture and detain anyone it wants, for as long as they want, with no way for the accused to challenge that detention in a court, or you don’t. That’s the whole of the argument the Administration has been making. They don’t make exceptions for citizens or residents. They want to be able to say “Look! Unlawful combatant!” and lock ’em up, no questions asked. The Courts have said, correctly and repeatedly, that persons detained by the military at Gitmo and elsewhere must not be in some no-recourse legal limbo. If we made them POWs, certain rights would accrue to them and we’d be fine. By insisting they’re not POWs and making up a new category (“unlawful combatant”), the Bush team seek to establish a way it can do whatever it wants with no oversight or accountability.
That’s not ok. That’s not Constitutional. That’s not American. And I’m very, very glad that we still had four Democratically appointed judges on the SCOTUS who realized the implications of an unrestrained Executive. If you can’t see this, you’re blind.