This is nice. Also, it means McCain’s lost Will.
WASHINGTON — The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” Well.
Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?
And then:
McCain, co-author of the McCain-Feingold law that abridges the right of free political speech, has referred disparagingly to, as he puts it, “quote ‘First Amendment rights.'” Now he dismissively speaks of “so-called, quote ‘habeas corpus suits.'” He who wants to reassure constitutionalist conservatives that he understands the importance of limited government should be reminded why the habeas right has long been known as “the great writ of liberty.”
No state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison. Hence the habeas right has been at the heart of the centuries-long struggle to constrain governments, a struggle in which the greatest event was the writing of America’s Constitution, which limits Congress’ power to revoke habeas corpus to periods of rebellion or invasion. Is it, as McCain suggests, indefensible to conclude that Congress exceeded its authority when, with the Military Commissions Act (2006), it withdrew any federal court jurisdiction over the detainees’ habeas claims?
As the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief in support of the petitioning detainees, habeas, in the context of U.S. constitutional law, “is a separation of powers principle” involving the judicial and executive branches. The latter cannot be the only judge of its own judgment.
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), which launched and validated judicial supervision of America’s democratic government, Chief Justice John Marshall asked: “To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?” Those are pertinent questions for McCain, who aspires to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution.
simple really just kill them. no need for renditions, torture, jails, habeus corpus. Better yet kill the cia agents who are found out. I mean what does a country have to do to get a spook who can fool some twit from the AP???
It doesn’t surprise me that you’re opposed to habeas. It just disappoints me.
it’s ok man we can’t all be the same. Constitutional law should not be applied to those not defended by the constitution. Particularly those who wage war against the people who the constitution defends. Pretty sure that the purpose of the document was not to defend foreign agents. Until you find an instance where the US government is abusing this power against “ITS OWN CITIZENS”, the threat that they could does not sway my beliefs.
Wish you could have seen the French executives (Total) whilst in Belgium deny that France was talking up action against Iran. It seems that when Sarkozy says something it has several meanings but of course this is not applied to US foreign policy.
The Supremes disagree with you on the applicability of US rights and laws to foreigners. This country’s founding position has always been that the rights enshrined in the constitution are natural rights that accrue to use from God (or whomever). They aren’t granted to US by the state; the state is explicitly prevented from taking them. Period.
Nothing in the Administration’s case insists that their actions be limited to noncitizens; in fact, they’ve already using these supposed powers on a US citizen (go read up on Yaser Hamdi, or Jose Padilla – both are US citizens, and both were held without habeas).
Again, the key test is to imagine how a regime you don’t support might use detention powers in a country without habeas. You’d think your own family history would illustrate that allowing a government the ability to detain people arbitrarily is a bad idea. It isn’t a question of whether a government will abuse its power. It’s a question of when.
5 f the supremes disagree. I travel around the world and AM NEVER PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF ANY COUNTRY I AM VISITING. EVER. Your views, simply put, are only to defend the points you were making earlier about how this “facist” regime would seize power and privilege. Applying our court system to matters of State defense and cloak and dagger ops is the wet dream of the liberal freedom fighter. By doing so you just weaken the State because like it or not there are ugly things that must be done. I really am not concerned about the State abusing power being as local authorities in this country have the ability to do worse now. Habeus, that is nothing, kickdoor policies amount to a death warrant.
Your math is wrong, by the way.
So the fact that our rights are being eroded by creeping executive power is reason to shrug our shoulders over creeping executive power? How’s that work? Also, how’s your own tail taste, Ouroboros?
Action on the battlefield is one thing. Once we capture people — often for no good reason, it turns out, and the Pentagon has admitted this — we have to have some process for examining who we’ve captured. Otherwise, we’re Cuba.