digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

McCain 2005: Give Gitmo Detainees A Trial Or Release Them!

politicalbase.com — Despite John McCain's outrage last week that the Supreme Court ordered Gitmo detainees know why they were being held, or released -- Political Base has stumbled upon a McCain appearance on Meet the Press in 2005 where he argued they deserved trials, going so far as to say "if it means releasing some of them, you'll have to release them." Shameless.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jbdobd, on 06/23/2008, -13/+287McCain was for the Constitution before he was against it.
    • asskicker32, on 06/24/2008, -6/+58Arghghghg... I know!!! I used to like McCain...
    • redlantern64, on 06/24/2008, -1/+26I regret that I only have one Digg to give such an awesome comment.
    • ftx437, on 06/24/2008, -20/+1Wait, i thought the constitution was for American citizens.not the whole world.
      • nblsavage, on 06/24/2008, -0/+19Actually the constitution limits what the American government is allowed to do. Period.
      • Professr, on 06/24/2008, -1/+22Foreign people on our soil, or in our legal system, are held accountable to our laws. They also get the *benefits* of our laws, including right to trial by jury. Just because arabic law allows "honor killings" of women doesn't mean we can go around killing arabic women.

        Yes, some of the people in gitmo may be suspected terrorists, but they're being held BY US. We are required to follow our own laws and provide certain legal options to these people. Otherwise, they'll end up spending the rest of their lives in that place, because it's easier to just forget about them than face the possibility that many of them are innocent.
        • medfreak, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Actually, there is no such thing as Arabic law allowing honor killings. In fact there isn't an Islamic law for it. The fact that honor killings is a widespread tribal practice in many third world countries including non-islamic India is proof enough. Before you start citing Arabic rules / laws I suggest you have a clue.
      • hipnerd, on 06/24/2008, -0/+13Article VI

        "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."

        Notice the part about treaties? Any international treaty we enter into, is given the full weight of the Constitution itself. So treaties we've entered into granting prisoners access to international aid organizations, prohibiting torture and guaranteeing their right to trial supersede any order of the President and any law that Congress cares to pass.

        Our obligations under international treaties are the "supreme law of the land," according to the Constitution. So when are we going to start acting like it?
    • Iztikeit, on 06/24/2008, -16/+6He's still the same person but he's gotta play by the GOP's rules. You guys think Republican/Democratic nominees get to make up their own minds? LOL
      • hipnerd, on 06/24/2008, -1/+9If they can't make up theirs, then I get to make up mine.

        He doesn't get my vote.
        • Iztikeit, on 06/24/2008, -4/+1Did I say he got my vote? Instead of making glaring assumptions based on a single sentence (I'm not a McCain fan, I've not been for multiple years) read what I said and ONLY what I said.

          Hey Obama, how do you like turning your back on friends just to appear like a safer presidential pick?

          If you actually knew anything about politics (Is this your first election at the age of reason or something?) you'd know McCain is a moderate and nothing like George Bush at the fundamental level. Sure, they are both Republicans and have some of the same masters pulling strings behind them but don't you think Obama has people to answer to as well?

          LOL American Politics™
      • XombieRobot, on 06/24/2008, -4/+1Are you guys really this surprised? C'mon now he's a politician, play by the numbers, the polls and what's going to be important to him NOW.

        Obama is much of the same, except he wants to change America by negotiating with terrorists, turning our health-care into ***** (just think about it: going in to see *your* doctor, taking a number, bad customer service just like any other public service ran by the government), and setting back Black Americans another 50 years instead of moving them forward.

        My vote goes to McCain to avoid this flag desecrating ***** from getting into office and turning America into a faggish Euro-style pussy government.

        Go ahead, digg me down! I know I will reach the depths of this bias filled political dumpster!!!
        • xexx, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4Doctor? What doctor? ~50 million americans don't have doctors, including me. I have no health care to turn into *****. Setting back black americans? how? You just spurt out a bunch of illogical crap with no reasoning and expect people to believe it? Only thing you left out was calling us "sheeple" from the opposite side of the herd.
        • XombieRobot, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1LOL, you are crazy dude. Why don't you have a doctor? No health care? What's up with your demographic?

          1. Get up out of your parent's basement
          2. Make yourself marketable and find a job
          a. If in school, take out extra loans and get insurance through your school
          3. Make sure the job offers a good health care plan adherent to your liberal needs.
          4. ????
          5. GREAT SUCCESS!


          Oh and also, its not illogical *****, Obama hates America.
      • hierophantus, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1So why does he drag his superficially line-toeing ass around on the "Straight Talk Express," then? I thought he was a "maverick." Now you're telling me it's okay if he completely sells out? Sounds like he'd be quite the principled leader.
    • Muyoso, on 06/24/2008, -9/+2I am pretty sure he was for military tribunal trials, not civilian court trials. So, yea, false outrage as usual from the left.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/24/2008, -8/+3YES!
      MCCAIN clearly stated that he would want them to have trials or be released,,,
      But Mccain has ALWAYS insisted they did not deserve USA constitutional rights but those of war criminals or pow status.
      He has also called for the closing of Guitmo.

      WTF can't liberals actually face facts ??!!!
    • Entroper, on 06/24/2008, -1/+3Amazing. It's not that he took the opposite position that surprises me; it's that he MADE THE ARGUMENT for it quite sensibly and has now done a complete 180.
    • AllyOfReason, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1New campaign slogan?
    • Kohaxx, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2I'm telling you, McCain 2008 is a doppleganger. Bush has locked McCain 2000 in a closet in the Bush family estate somewhere.
  • philodygmn, on 06/24/2008, -12/+81What a sad sack of *****, whose only political viability lies in his iconic military cred for having gotten tortured by some deranged nationalists of a different variety than himself. And even that he's completely eviscerated.
    • Iztikeit, on 06/24/2008, -6/+1Pretty sure McCain was more of a Patriot than Nationalist during Nam.
      • Exbzurq, on 06/24/2008, -1/+4Whats the difference?
        • Iztikeit, on 06/24/2008, -2/+2Nationalism is the blind reverence of your nation. Patriotism is an appreciation and admiration of your country and is anything but blind.

          Nationalism is aggressive and Patriotism is passive unless something calls for aggression (Revolutionary War)

          But since Digg isn't really based in reality and most of its users are your average internet user this probably will never be widely known around here.
        • Iztikeit, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2Sorry for informing you there is a difference....I thought knowledge was still appreciated.
        • RobotCitizen, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2“Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race.”

          Einstein
    • lonelily, on 06/24/2008, -2/+4Though I probably will not be voting for McCain, I don't think he's as sad as people think. He's never had any fear to cross party lines when it comes to legislation. He may have lost his morals, but he's saying what he thinks people want to hear so he can win a contest. I highly doubt Obama is any more innocent of this. No politician is, I don't care who they are.
      • Iztikeit, on 06/24/2008, -2/+1See? You get buried for even vaguely hinting at a positive aspect of McCain. Sure, McCain has changed his views multiple times to gain favor with the majority but he's still a moderate and still has the beliefs he chose before being influenced to modify them.

        He may not be the best leader but he certainly isn't George Bush.
        • lonelily, on 06/24/2008, -2/+1I'm a liberal at my core and never thought I'd admire a conservative but I really do see the positive in the man. He's not my favorite but to be honest neither is Obama. If he is elected (though I think it's a long shot at this point) I hope he goes back to the McCain he used to be. Not to say he's not the same person, but he is pandering to what he thinks conservatives want. He just doesn't seem to realize that it's not just the democrats that want change. I think everyone wants change after the past seven years.
        • Memitim, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2He's certainly better than Bush, but unfortunately parallels Bush too much for my comfort.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/24/2008, -2/+1True but if you want to face facts he hasnt stated he wanted them to have constitutional rights, just treat them as war criminals, give them trials, throw them in jails, or let them go free.

      And so far he hasnt changed that stance!

      Man liberals will say anything to win a contest even if its blatant lies.
  • tcbishop12, on 06/24/2008, -7/+55Fair weather political barometer reading John McCain hasn't taken nor held to any principled stance for many many years. Conservatives have thoroughly hated his pandering to the flavor of the day and now the general electorate can have a taste of it, too. Ughhh.
  • B08ama, on 06/24/2008, -7/+81I'm going to watch Fox News until they run this story. Shouldn't be long...
    • tcbishop12, on 06/24/2008, -2/+23. . . after Hades freezes over, you mean. Just after that, Fox'll run it.
      • ZenMojo, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3They keep the thermometer in their lounge, so they'll be the first to know.
    • zombies187, on 06/24/2008, -2/+22Bring a snack!
      • sturmgiest, on 06/24/2008, -2/+4maybe a 10 year supply of rations, any less and he will starve
    • jacen6678, on 06/24/2008, -5/+26Yeah... but Fox will probably spin it as Obama's fault somehow...
    • DreKor, on 06/24/2008, -0/+5I think it will be on, right after this: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/24/3428/
      • TheInfamousOne, on 06/24/2008, -1/+7You want ***** scary, read the comments to that story.
        Here is one:
        "I have great respect for Dr. Dobson and believe the comments he made about Obama to be true. I also believe Obama will say anything to try and get enough votes to become president in November. I have no respect what so ever for a man who would not say the Pledge of Allegence or even put his hand over his heart. This is the man who wants to lead our country?

        I do disagree with Dr. Dobson in regards to possibly not voting for President in November. I realize we may not have an ideal canidate, but we still have a duty to vote. We need to vote for the individual who we feel will do the best job for our country. Either Obama or McCain is going to be the next President and I for one am not going to vote for Obama."
        wow, just wow.
        • ZenMojo, on 06/24/2008, -0/+4John McCain's base. White males and fools (not to be confused as an inclusive statement).
    • scubachef11, on 06/24/2008, -5/+3Why would you watch Fox News?
    • chrgrose, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3Take one for the team.
    • JDL917, on 06/24/2008, -0/+11This is the first thing that popped into my head after reading that.
      http://digg.com/people/Woman_sat_dead_in_front_of_ ...
    • phrenzy, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Grab a Snickers.
    • mystcnurse, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1I won't hold my breath
    • AzureRise, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1LOL.
  • onyxcoltrane, on 06/24/2008, -5/+47The MSM sucks. I was painfully watching Meet the Press on June 22 and they spent about 30 minutes discussing whether Obama flip-flopped on campaign financing while McCain basically got a free pass on his dozens of serious flip-flops. Joe Biden was doing his best but he was up against the despicable Lindsay Graham and the "objective" moderator, Brian Williams. Transcript at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25313596/
    • FrankHope, on 06/24/2008, -7/+4Agree that MSM sucks, but so do the Dems half the time. Biden was being transparently hypocritical on the whole issue of campaign financing. Obama did pull a flip flop of major proportions. Graham, who is a scum, didn't hardly have to say anything. He just let Biden stick his foot farther and farther down his throat.

      Williams did a pathetic impersonation of Russell. Of all the diversionary trivial non-issues that they could have talked about, this topic would have to be near the top of the list. They should have been talking about the FISA bill, but that would expose both parties for the traitors that they are.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 06/24/2008, -4/+2Williams did a pathetic impersonation of Russell? Somehow I just don't see Brian Williams convincing me he's Keri Russell.
    • hartley, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2They spent 30 mins discussing Obama because he is going to win.
    • Modizzle, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1I'm not exactly on the right or left because I am against hive-thinking, but it's untrue to say that McCain's remark was inconsistent. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the court did hold that unlawful enemy combatants should have "some adjudication." In response, the federal government authorized the use of CSRT (1% of release, and problematic because the alleged is not allowed to appear at the trial) . In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court held that CSRT's were unlawful. Because pesky terrorists kept getting into federal courts via writ of habeas corpus, Congress suspended the writ. In the latest case Boumedian v. Bush, the court basically held that it was unconstitutional for Congress to suspend the writ by reasoning that the framers would not condone the reasons for suspension. So in other words, McCain can say that he is for CSRT's but not for federal review. Which is still probably *****. He basically sold out whatever liberal stances he had in order for a shot at the Presidency.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush
  • FrankHope, on 06/24/2008, -14/+9The best thing that could happen for the Republicans would be for McCain to have a major illness that would cause him to drop out of the race. Obama is being handed this election. I wish he would use the opportunity to stand up for something, anything, instead of morphing into Bush-lite.
    • jacen6678, on 06/24/2008, -1/+9I dont know... the Dem party has worked miracles in the past. They have an amazing ability to pull defeat from the jaws of victory...
    • kmolleja, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2Agreed, hopefully he will forget to take his old-man angry pills and slip into a coma
    • Sil369, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2If Bush can survive a pretxel (remember that?) I wonder what it could do to McCain.
    • JinnRikki, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2I look for this exact thing to happen around October (surprise!). McChange drops out, for health reasons and the GOP drops a female candidate in his place (Condi?) Unable to do a proper vetting by voters she scoops up disgruntled Clintonites and all the Republican "anyone but McChange" voters. McChange will lose and lose badly if allowed to continue goopers know this. Terrorist attack combined with new candidate=close call for GOP in November.
  • bigskybear, on 06/24/2008, -7/+62Beyond the fact that McCain 2000 would loathe McCain 2008, his outrageous flip-flopping on huge items like this is going to seriously erode his famed support by Independents, and we're already seeing this in state polls. Because McCain won the GOP nomination by default, he didn't have the base behind him to begin with and these flip-flops are clearly designed to get conservatives to accept his candidacy. Yet, every time he lurches right, he loses people in the middle who propelled him in 2000. He's looking more and more like Bob Dole everyday. Sort of sad to watch a man's integrity deteriorate before our eyes.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/24/2008, -25/+4They were getting trials. In fact the Gitmo Military Commissions gave more rights and leeway to enemy combatants than we gave to the Nazis at the Neuremberg trials. Among the rights they had:

    - The right to hear the bases of the charges against them including a summary of any classified evidence

    - The ability to challenge the bases of their detention before military tribunals modeled after Geneva Convention procedures. As Robert’s pointed out, some 38 detainees have been released as result of this process.

    - The right, before the tribunal, to testify, introduce evidence, including exculpatory evidence, call witnesses, cross examine the government witnesses and secure release if and when appropriate.

    - The right to the aid of a personal representative in arranging and presenting their cases before the tribunal.

    - The right to have the government search for and disclose to the detainee any evidence reasonably available to it tending to show that the detainee is not an enemy combatant.

    - The right to appeal an adverse decision from the tribunal to the Federal DC Circuit Court along with the right to employ counsel and secure release if entitled to it.

    - The right to petition the DC Circuit to remand a detainee’s case for new tribunal consideration if the petitioner comes up with newly discovered evidence

    - The right to require the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct a yearly review of the status of each prisoner including the right to have the Secretary of Defense review any new evidence that may become available relating to the enemy combatant status of a detainee.

    - As a part of that yearly review, the opportunity for the detainee to explain why he is no longer a threat to the United States, which could lead to his release.
    The DC Circuit can order release of the prisoner, and the head of the DOD Administrative Review Boards can, at the recommendation of those panels, order release upon an appropriate showing.


    • rpeterclark, on 06/24/2008, -3/+21Those who were CHARGED did eventually receive trials. The majority of the detainees at Guantanamo have never been charged with a crime and hence have no recourse to challenge their imprisonment. By restoring habeas corpus, those detainees can now challenge their imprisonment in a timely manner. Detainees that have evidence of their guilt will stay put in Guantanamo and those who are imprisoned without any evidence of their guilt will be released. What's the problem with that?
    • JustHisWords, on 06/24/2008, -2/+6Sounds fair, right? It's too bad the reality of the situation provides none of these paper "rights". Do a bit more research on what is happening and you will find that none -- NONE -- of these "rights" are, in fact, available to the detainees due to the "stacked deck" phenomenon. It looks good on paper but you will find, if you actually care about the truth as it is practiced and are not just willing to accept Heritage talking points as facts when they are proven liars, these are not "rights" available in any useful form to the detained prisoners. Prisoners of war during WWII have no comparison to the made-up laws covering "unlawful combatants."
    • TheLoneHoot, on 06/24/2008, -0/+6"- The right to hear the bases of the charges against them including a summary of any classified evidence "

      Um, how come so many have been held without charge then?

      'get a brain morans'
      • Ebonsteel, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1That you, Hoot from DU?
        • TheLoneHoot, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Not sure what that means. DU? Duke University? Nope. Not me. Sorry.
    • Ebonsteel, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2Are you paid to spout NeoCon talking points on DIGG, or are you really just that stupid?
    • kreneskyp, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2how many mccain points do you get for a cut-n-paste? do you get more if its a bigger post?
    • onyxcoltrane, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1The camp has not hosted a single trial, and only 19 of the remaining 270 detainees have been charged.
  • wonderlandpr, on 06/24/2008, -8/+26If we thought the media had fallen in love with Obama, they are, clearly, MARRIED to McCain.

    Has anyone here seen the YouTube video where McCain STATED: I did not love my country.....(until he left it)

    Michelle Obama, you have company in this silliness. HOWEVER, it is up to the citizens to be sure that McCain is held to the same standard as a SPOUSE of a candidate.

    There is a post of this Fox YouTube statement by McCain. You can only find it online as FOX has pulled it..for some UNKNOWN reason. ( we know, Fox and why you did it) However, WE, the people have way of getting to the truth even without Hannity end his motley crew.
    • ssn697, on 06/24/2008, -0/+6I didn't love America until I traveled the world. I was a clueless 18 year old California kid. Going to other countries made me TOTALLY appreciate what I have here. I came back a 24 year old lover of my country...
    • SkittlesUSA, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Stop being so dramatic "wonderlandpr." There was a story on digg just yesterday and most people (yes even the blind Obama followers) agreed that it was a harmless statement.

      And yes, the media did give Obama a free pass for a very long time for some unknown reason.
    • eyepatch100, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1The media is married to McCain, and sometimes cheats with Obama.
  • swrostmore, on 06/24/2008, -8/+26hahaha, digging the ***** out of this. Damn, non-presidential-candidate McCain was so much better than Candidate McCain.
    • ssn697, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1I voted for 2000 McCain in the primaries. Where the ***** did he go? 2008 McCain barely resembles 2000 McCain.
  • THETEH, on 06/24/2008, -6/+22I remember a conversation I had a few years back where I said McCain was one of the few mainstream conservative politicans I found respectable. He used to have integrity!
  • fuzzybeard, on 06/24/2008, -10/+5Sad. McCain seems to flip positions more often than a tiddly-wink.
  • tkstock, on 06/24/2008, -14/+7I think you are misunderstanding McCain's point of his so-called "outrage" at the SCOTUS decision. The SCOTUS overstepped their authority effectively nullifying the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

    He wants to have the prisoners tried under the MCA passed by congress that will be used in the military tribunals.

    He doesn't want the cases tried in US Courts where there will be too many issues of security clearance and classified data.

    Not too hard to understand if you try. But I don't expect that you will.

    • swrostmore, on 06/24/2008, -2/+11"Effectively" nullifying the MCA? They specifically declared it unconstitutional!
      • tkstock, on 06/24/2008, -10/+3You don't consider that effective nullification? Do you want them to burn the paper and dance on the ashes?

        Specifically granting citizens rights to non-citizens, and more-importantly those persons who seek to destroy us has never been done in the history of this country. It fundamentally changes the way the courts intervene in defense issues.

        The chief justice said the majority had gutted the Detainee Treatment Act without really giving it a chance. “And to what effect?” he wrote. “The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people’s representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date.”

        Personally, they should have pushed through the tribunals and gotten them over with and released those they could (they're having a hard time finding a country that will take them!) The problem is now that the Military dragged their feet too long, and now the Courts will probably do the same if not worse as they work out the logistics.
        • rpeterclark, on 06/24/2008, -0/+10Up until the MCA in 2006, habeas corpus WAS applied to non-citizens. The Supreme Court didn't grant them any new rights, they simply restored the rights that were taken away. If these detainees, that have yet to be charged, appear in court and the government has evidence of their guilt, then they'll be sent back to Gitmo for their eventual tribunal. At least the detainees that are innocent now have a chance to have their case heard and a chance for release rather than rotting in prison.
        • Aadain, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2"You don't consider that effective nullification? Do you want them to burn the paper and dance on the ashes?"

          Yes, that would help a little in restoring our national morality. The MCA was an unconstitutional and immoral piece of law that should never have been. In is the job of the SCOTUS to keep the legislature and executive branches in line and prevent them from passing laws that go against the content of the constitution. So good job SCOTUS! You did your job!
        • tkstock, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1You're right about habeas corpus, but it would be impossible for the government to comply in a lot of cases.

          Dammit this is a mess. It's tough to discuss because:
          1) You have to give even enemy combatants and terrorists some rights
          2) Some of the people being held may be innocent
          3) The evidence and how it's collected is often HIGHLY classified - revealing it would put Americans or American soldiers in life-jeopardy.
          4) Even when they want to release some of the prisoners, no country wants them, so we have to keep them there.
          5) Some/most of them would kill everyone within our border at a moments notice.

          Herein lies the biggest problem:

          "...appear in court and the government has evidence of their guilt..."

          The problem is that some of this evidence is highly classified. It will be hard for the government to produce this evidence for the court, which would effectively kill their cases. That's why the military tribunals were important - everyone there had clearance to see the evidence (except the detainee!)

          The MCA gave the prisoners the right to contest their imprisonment, but the military tribunal process was too slow and was being used as a way of keeping the prisoners bottled up until the crux of the war is over. Some of them WERE actually being tried. Who knows where that will end up now...
    • bullhead2007, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3The MCA was completely unconstitutional in the first place obviously.
      • tkstock, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1It was hardly obvious - 4 of the 9 justices voted that it was constitutional. They refused to hear the case previously but decided to because the prison terms were becoming too long. (The government was dragging their feet - imagine that!)
        • kreneskyp, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1the dissenting view was that their fears overruled constitutionality. they didnt argue that the mca courts were constitutional
        • tkstock, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1After reading the constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 9 "Limits On Congress" it states, specifically:

          "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."

          I would say that while I disagree with bullhead2007 that the MCA was "completely unconstitutional", the part that suspended habeas corpus clearly was.

          But with this realization the courts are in for a huge mess. I wouldn't be surprised if the prisoner's stays were prolonged due to the logistics invovled in trying to bring these cases to civil court.
        • bullhead2007, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1^ I actually read the entire MCA when it was passed.

          It was unconstitutional because it gave Bush dictatorial powers to label anyone an enemy combatant, with no evidence, trial, or habeas corpus (due process of law). This included citizens. It gave Bush dictatorial powers to hold someone indefinitely. It is obviously unconstitutional to bypass all other checks and balances and give the president such power, not JUST the violation of habeas corpus.

          The MCA doesn't specify that the person must be an imminent threat from what I remember.
        • tkstock, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109- ...

          Bush can't arbitrarily label anyone an EC. It has to be done by a military tribunal

          "‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
          ‘‘(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent
          tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

          ‘‘(c) DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS DISPOSITIVE.—A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive
          for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

          Nowhere does it say it includes citizens. It doesn't explicitly exclude them either except in the common instance where it says "alien enemy combatant"

          In some cases the MCA defers the presidental powers to the constitution "The authority to establish military commissions under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 3(a), may not be construed to alter or limit the authority of the President under the Constitution of the United States and laws of the United States"

          So it explicitly states the intent is not to alter the powers the president has under the constitution. The only explicitly unconstitutional item I can find is the repeal of habeas corpus.
    • oscenester, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1constitutional rights FTW!
    • kreneskyp, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1not only was it unconstitutional, there was no MCA in 2005 when mccain made those statements. clearly mccain was referring to our existing courts.
  • sugarazor, on 06/24/2008, -7/+20Guys, you're going into this with pre-9/11 thinking!!

    Oh...

    Umm... pre-2006 midterm election thinking! The Democratic Congress has made us far less safe in the last two years! You can't just go around letting suspects get trials or basic human rights. Wake up liberals!!!!
    • reaper527, on 06/24/2008, -13/+1i know thats a sarcastic comment, but enemy combatants DON'T have a constitutional right to civilian courts, which is what the activist judges just gave them.
      • nblsavage, on 06/24/2008, -2/+8activist judges=judges you don't agree with.
        • reaper527, on 06/24/2008, -6/+2activist judges = judges who make the law instead of interpreting the law
        • nblsavage, on 06/24/2008, -1/+5in your opinion reaper, in your opinion.
        • reaper527, on 06/24/2008, -3/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism

          "As a general usage, "activist judge" is used to describe a judge who actively and knowingly subverts, misuses, grossly misinterprets, ignores, or otherwise flouts the law and or legal precedence due to personal opinion, be that opinion ideological, religious, philosophical, or other."


          my opinion, and definition
        • kreneskyp, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3its your opinion you are stating they dont have a right to the normal courts. the argument of the dissenting judges was based on their fears of a future attack, not that they didn't have a right to the courts. they were saying our court system is too likely to let these people go because we don't have solid evidence on them to win the cases. so because they were scared they voted in favor of kangaroo courts.
        • halliburke, on 06/25/2008, -1/+0nblsavage, what's interesting is that I'm willing to bet that activist judges = judges you do agree with.
      • sugarazor, on 06/24/2008, -0/+7What is an "enemy combatant?" Is every person in Gitmo someone that attacked the United States in one way or another?

        What's to stop them from throwing an American in Gitmo for checking out the wrong book at the library or saying the wrong phrase on the telephone? Without this ruling, they could toss you into a prison and claim you're not even American... how could you prove them wrong without a trial?
        • reaper527, on 06/24/2008, -4/+1these people aren't americans, they are people who have killed american soldiers. if they had an american citizen, then things would be different and they would have a constitutional right to a normal trial.
        • nblsavage, on 06/24/2008, -0/+4reaper, not all detainees were even captured in combat. Please try to think for yourself.
        • sugarazor, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2That's the point though... with this law, they can imprison an American citizen and simply claim they aren't American. How can you prove it without a trial?
  • brokenspatula, on 06/24/2008, -17/+10Buried for taking statements out of context. McCain has always been AGAINST torture and unfair treatment for detainees

    Shut up or tell the truth
    • rationalbeats, on 06/24/2008, -6/+8LOL, another buffoon who ignores the pro-torture bill McCain voted YES for.

      ***** loser.
    • DaDrake, on 06/24/2008, -2/+4rationalbeats McCain voted against it because it would give federal courts jurisdiction over military matters in anther country. There is one thing you must understand... VERY FEW countries allow such a measure since you could literally stop military deployments through civilian courts.

      McCain has ALWAYS been STRONGLY against torture.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 06/24/2008, -3/+2He USED to be against it - even during the GOP race for the nomination - but he's recently flip-flopped on his position (as he has MANY things).
    • kreneskyp, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1do you get extra mccain points when you verbally attack people in your posts?
  • OffPiste, on 06/24/2008, -26/+2***** it. The more McCain screws up this election the more likely sharia law will become an inevitable outcome of the election.
    • rationalbeats, on 06/24/2008, -2/+17what a stupid ***** redneck you are.

    • swrostmore, on 06/24/2008, -1/+15How do you feel about Blackwater demanding that US courts obey Sharia law (because it would result in lawsuits against them by their employees being rejected)?
    • boombye, on 06/24/2008, -0/+14Your dumb ass can't even explain exactly what Sharia law is, you repeat something you hear on tv and act like you know what you're talking about. Sharia laws can't happen here because we have a legislative branch, a judicial branch, and the executive branch doesn't call all the shots.
      • OffPiste, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1Yet somehow you claim Bush has been pulling all the strings in the last 7 years? I see a big flaw in your hypothesis.
        • boombye, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Bush isn't that smart guy. It takes a concert of players in such a theater of B.S.

          Even if you hear liberals claiming Bush is "pulling all the strings", does that mean it's true? Therefore because Bush "pulls all the strings", then the guy after him will? So you're saying Obama will be pulling all the strings to bring about Sharia law? Bush didn't get to where he was alone, and didn't carry out the ***** he has alone.
  • ZWash300, on 06/24/2008, -2/+22It's summertime in a election year. You know what that means... flip-flop season.
  • ssn697, on 06/24/2008, -2/+8Easy prediction: This Presidential race /election cycle will set a new record for candidate "flip-flops" being reported. John Kerry will seem like a amateur by October...
    • NoDrama, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2McCain's already got him beat, so unless Kerry makes some strange comeback four years after the fact this is a sucker bet.
    • ZenMojo, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1Kerry only had two. He went to the Viet Nam war before he was against it! He was for the Iraq war before he was against it! But the media repeated them 100 times.
  • caponumen, on 06/24/2008, -6/+1Absolutely right, end this stupid farce.
  • DaDrake, on 06/24/2008, -3/+16McCain was very clear on his outrage. During that press conference, he stated that everyone deserves some form of trial (whether by military jurisdictional or civilian American court). He stated clearly that he wanted the military to have jurisdiction for trials (and they should be given within a reasonable time frame) not civilian courts; McCain position is civilian courts have security issues as well as the fact they are enemy combatants, which historically never been something American civilians been asked to judge.

    So yea... he been fairly consistent on this issue. The issue isn't black and white as the title suggest.
    • ftx437, on 06/24/2008, -3/+6oh no see...it's pro obama so no ones going to get past the title..
    • brodiewells, on 06/24/2008, -0/+6Exactly! this is not a flip-flop. I hate him as much as the next guy but, this is comparing apples to oranges. People need to study what an "enemy-combatant" is.
      • herbertstrasse, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1This would be true if the definition of "enemy combatant" actually held water at Gitmo; unfortunately, most detainees weren't combatants nor were they even apprehended on a battlefield.
  • ProUSADigger, on 06/24/2008, -12/+2This is one of the many reasons that McCain should not be the Republican nominee. He might as well be a Democrat.

    Having said that, there is no way in hell that I would want someone like Obama as president. I am more qualified than
    that absolute idiot...who can speak well.

    So, for me and many othere people who actually love this country and don't want to "Change" it, there is only one
    choice: John McCain. I won't feel good about it, but I'll vote for his liberal ass.

    It is a sickening position.
    • Iztikeit, on 06/24/2008, -3/+1Obama = Big Government of which the likes we've never seen
      McCain = Moderate who happens to be a Republican with a now Republican agenda it seems

      We all lose.....But the bigger the government, the worse.

      Don't use the world "liberal" too much on Digg, you'll get buried so fast because the majority cannot comprehend "conservative" in any sort of positive light. It's a shame too, because conservatives are the only ones who know how to run an economy successfully.
    • SQLserver, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3Wow.
      'ProUSA' digger?

      You are more qualified then Obama?
      You have had a seat in Congress?

      You don't want to change the poverty?
      You don't want to change the thousands dying in war?
      You don't want to change our education standards?
      You don't want to reinstitute consitutional rights to privacy?
      You don't want to change America from becoming a Christian Iran?

      • hierophantus, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Obviously, Po'USADigger is a GOVERNOR, not a senator.
        He was not merely editor-in-chief of Harvard Law Review, he was editor-in-chief of Regent University's law review, which as any republican knows is way more prestigious than that commie school.
        He spent every year since birth working in grass-roots organizing (for The White Male Equal Rights Amendment and to establish the "liberal" as a species that can be hunted with bow and arrow).

        But... damn it. He just can't make them purty speeches, which is all we Obama voters care about!
    • herbertstrasse, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1I didn't realize Columbia and Harvard Law made a practice of accepting idiots...thanks for the edification.

      /sarcasm
  • Obey666, on 06/24/2008, -9/+1Yes let them go cause they wont be more pissed off and want to harm America after that little vacation to no rights paradise
  • DarkDx, on 06/24/2008, -2/+7I can't believe the american people even allow stuff like guantanamo (openly admitted by the govt. it's not like this is area 51) to exist.
  • Jareth86, on 06/24/2008, -0/+15Remember in 2004 when Kerry backtracked on a few issues, and the media jumped on him with the "flip flopper" label all the way through November? Where are they on any of this *****?
    The idea of the media being liberal is like Joseph Goebbels big lie. If its said enough, people begin to believe it.
    • Iztikeit, on 06/24/2008, -5/+0McCain is flip-flopping because of the Republican party, not because he wants to.
      • Jareth86, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3Ah, well that makes it all better than. Thank you for setting me straight, fellow patriot!
        • Iztikeit, on 06/24/2008, -2/+1I never said it was "better", I'm just stating the obvious. McCain has been a very vocal and adamant moderate for the last few decades. I have no reason to believe he is changing his views for any other reason than to gain more approval. He's suddenly George Bush because he changed certain aspects of his platform to garner more favor from the populace. If you want to have a serious discussion about politics based on the actual PAST (and not the course of ONE ***** election, you stupid twits) then please quit being biased assholes.

          Obama is doing the same nonsense. Why would he separate himself from a friend of many years just because of some negativity? How is that any different? Because it isn't about any relevanet issues? It all flows through the same vein, changing your appearance to match what people want. Why pick and chose who does it when it's obvious everyone is doing it? Because you want to believe that it's possible to change and resolve the problems created by past mistakes? There's a difference between hope and blind hope.
    • brodiewells, on 06/24/2008, -2/+2the media realizes that this is not a flip-flop. What a stupid article. If any media outlet besides a blog ran this they would be run out of business.
  • almondfilter3, on 06/24/2008, -5/+1OoO Mr Mcain actually having an opinion back then and not just towing the party line, yeah I'm sure he wouldn't deem Obama or anyone else "unpatriotic" if they said that now...
  • banderwocky, on 06/24/2008, -2/+4Flip flop goes this old salmon, John Sidney McCain III. Are you sure he loves America now? Or just the money he married?
  • AsylumAleikum, on 06/24/2008, -6/+3McCain is a moron who will say and do anything to get in front of TV cameras.
  • jdigg06, on 06/24/2008, -7/+3Didn't you read the article before posting this?
    "if it means releasing some of them, you'll have to release them." SOME, not all. Read if you can.
    If you're going to bring up this, bring up Obama and his wonderful, straight-forward record: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

    /sarcasm.
    • HappyScrappy, on 06/24/2008, -1/+4Some is some. The court ruling doesn't say you have to release them all, just give them access to the courts. Which might allow some to free themselves.

      Why are you trying to apply a slant to this?
    • Iztikeit, on 06/24/2008, -3/+1Some of them deserve to be locked up. Do you really believe that those prisoners in Gitmo are all innocent of war crimes? Please.....And McCain would be FAR better concerning habeaus corpus than most.
      • nblsavage, on 06/24/2008, -0/+4if they deserve to be locked up then PROVE it. It shouldn't be that hard if they are as guilty as you claim.
        • Iztikeit, on 06/24/2008, -4/+0it isn't about difficulty, it's about the possibility of losing the ability to imprison dangerous people. It isn't my belief to hold these people but you have totally lost it if you believe they are ALL perfectly innocent human beings.
      • phrenzy, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1McCain may be "FAR better" on habeus corpus than most but Obama will be better on it than McCain. Makes my decision pretty easy.

        And stop with your "reductio ad absurdum" arguments; they make you look foolish.



      • HappyScrappy, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2War crimes? We have explicitly stated they are not prisoners of war so that we can question them, which the Geneva Convention forbids doing to prisoners of war. They are being tried as unlawful enemy combatants, not for war crimes.
  • HappyScrappy, on 06/24/2008, -2/+5Flipper McCain.
  • Kitrus, on 06/24/2008, -1/+7Only in post-9/11 America is this considered some sort of "victory" for democracy.

    Gitmo is a ***** sham and has always been one. Reporters from various news sources (including Rolling Stone magazine) have quoted top government officials as saying the vast majority of Gitmo inmates have no ties to Al-Qaeda or terrorism.
  • chicoer2001, on 06/24/2008, -1/+7But he said it before he was running for president. Things change when you run for president.

    If only Russert was still alive to put McCain in his place.
  • aimhelix, on 06/24/2008, -1/+3And people bitched about John Kerry flip flopping... wtf. I dont wanna GoBama here, but how can I trust someone with an endless list of contradicting stories to run for President.
  • Iztikeit, on 06/24/2008, -3/+1McCain has, just recently, been forced to . Just a few years ago McCain was one of the most moderate, especially in the Republican party, politicians deep in the game. While McCain appears to be a flip-flopping GOP lunatic his past would indicate that he's just playing the hand he's been dealt to get into office. It's not easy sounding logical and being associated with the Republican party.

    After saying that I still don't want him to be president, because if your party forces you to change AT ALL you probably aren't the person I want in charge.
  • Hetman, on 06/24/2008, -0/+8It is called pandering to your base supporters. McCain is not trying to win the liberal vote. He is trying to shead his liberal idea's so he appears more conservative and Neoconish. I find it funny when people on digg get outraged by McCain. Guess what McCain is not trying to get your vote. He is trying to pull in the conservative christian right vote. Which are basically polar opposites of your average digg user.
  • sejr, on 06/24/2008, -1/+5 * Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

    Nuff said.
  • ImperialRome, on 06/24/2008, -3/+1The SC said in Rasul v Bush that the President cannot order military commissions, it would have to be a Legislative act to begin such trials, and they would have to have certain safeguards.So after McCain went to all the trouble to write a Military Commissions Act, do the legwork to get it passed and signed by the President, to have the SC just take a giant dump on it should provoke a negative response. That's not being "inconsistent" or flip flopping, that's defending the principles of Federal Government, and the separation of powers.
    What the SC did was tell the other two branches of government that they were wrong to follow previous SC precedents in crafting the MCA, and they were wrong for following the Hamdan decision.
    Hamdan decision said that military commissions were not expressly authorized by Congress and the AUMF, and so the President does not have the authority to enact them on his own. Congress responds by writing the MCA and the SC strikes it down because they abhor the idea of a military court convened outside their jurisdiction.

  • Darkside2984, on 06/24/2008, -7/+1Well at least his faith in God isn't changed depending on which city he is in... I'll keep on clinging to my guns and my God since we are going through these bad times... lawl
    • Hetman, on 06/24/2008, -0/+4When it comes down to it, I will take my gun. When is the last time God saved you from being attacked by lightning bolting your enemy?
  • crowbar77, on 06/24/2008, -0/+6Not surprising, he's pretty much sold his soul to get the nomination. What happened to the McCain of 2000?
    • Ebonsteel, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3He turned into this pale shadow of his former self, following 8 years of having his tongue stuck so firmly up Dubya's ass. Pathetic.
    • letherial, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3this is mcain with SP1 installed, sure he is incompatiable with former versions, but the new features are worth it!!
  • loveandrockets, on 06/24/2008, -1/+6Some of the detainees in Gitmo were people caught fighting US soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    I think if you have the balls to try to fight against the most powerful military the world has ever known, you have the right to be treated as a POW--with all the protections of the Geneva Convention.
    • Hetman, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2I agree with you 100% The problem is the wording of the Geneva Convention. It technically implies that they are not uniformed Combatants so therefor do not fall under the Geneva Convention. Nations need to get together and change it from its originial text.
      "Under the Third Geneva Convention a fighter or belligerent in an international armed conflict who wanted lawful combatant status (and therefore prisoner of war status if captured), would have to meet certain criteria including:

      (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

      (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

      (c) That of carrying arms openly;

      (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." (From Article 4)"

      • SkittlesUSA, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1It is not a "problem" that it does not recognize combatants without uniform. Part of the purpose of this is so that enemy soldiers WILL be uniformed so they are protected by the convention and don't look like an average civilian.
  • Rainemaker, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Attack of the pander bear.
  • Swordman554, on 06/24/2008, -0/+6McCain has flip-flopped more times than a fish out of water....
  • AnarchoGoth, on 06/24/2008, -1/+4I am waiting for a neocon to say something to the effect of: "Well, we can't give them a free trial now because even if they are innocent, after the way we have treated them they will hate America so much that if they were not a terrorist before, they will be one now, so we might as well convict them under the precrime law of...."
  • samk, on 06/24/2008, -3/+1McCain still favors giving Guantanamo detainees military trials. That's part of the reason why he opposed the Supreme Court ruling.

    It's a basic concept, but sadly, Digg users just can't understand it.
  • Sluglas, on 06/24/2008, -3/+1Obamaton.com
  • AmericansRevolt, on 06/24/2008, -7/+0CONGRATULATIONS FELLOW AMERICANS- OBAMA WINS BY DEFAULT .............. my ***** old testament god please come down and zap this place to *****. please.
  • cruik, on 06/24/2008, -1/+0Please stop just reading headlines, or reading articles written by people who just read headlines. Generally people have reasons for their actions and I think it would be fair to listen to them. The supreme court case was not cut and dry, sometimes in politics there are stipulations to legislation and decision that might be disagreed upon. Sometimes when someone votes down or denounces a decision, they are in opposition to the additional stipulations rather than what the bill or decision is initially intended for
  • maxer64, on 06/24/2008, -1/+3I only hope that because it's so early, none of these things have reached John Q Voter's ears yet. By October, this race will be completely over.
  • artinreality, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3A line in this article really gets me thinking. "...these guys are terrible, terrible killers and the worst kind of scum of humanity".

    But torturing [potentially] innocent people is much, much different! It is in the name of "America", therefore is 100% justified as the Correct Thing To Do.
  • vortz83, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4I'm scared for my life that McCain might be our next president. Please let this not happen.
  • IrishKeith, on 06/25/2008, -3/+1.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.