According to CNN, the Supreme Court ruled that "suspected terrorists and foreign fighters held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in federal court."
But this was already the case under the MCA of 2006, which amended the DTA of 2005 to the effect that anyone who was not an alien unlawful enemy combatant (AUEC) had access to the courts directly, and anyone who was given an AUEC status determination had the right to appeal that determination -- including on a factual basis, not just a procedural one -- in federal court.
I'm sure there's more to it than what CNN says, but unfortunately, the CNN headline and lead paragraph lead me (apparently falsely) to believe that the Supreme Court upheld the existing law.
The rest of the story doesn't really clarify matters. I don't have time to read the decision now, I'll get to it later.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at June 12, 2008 10:25 AM | Email ThisFind 'em guilty in a fair trial? Hang 'em high. No arguments from me there.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 12, 2008 10:35 AMThis is what I was specifically referring to.
If it was under challenge, as appears to be the case, then I am glad they upheld the law whether they had to strike something down to do so, or just uphold current law.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 12, 2008 10:47 AMLet's see how the moonbeam, Neo-socialist Dems handle this stuff.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on June 12, 2008 10:50 AMIt looks like what happened is that the Court said that the MCA's provisions for challenging in federal court were constitutionally insufficient.
Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2008 10:56 AMWRONG....
For you UN followers who so think they are right. The US agreed with the UN for POW's rules which these people are NOT.
Again we have the S/C making laws instead of ruling if they follow law or not.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 12, 2008 10:59 AM
It is one thing with regards to whether US laws apply to foreigners not on US soil (leaving out the debate whether GITMO is US soil), but US citizens, no matter the crime, should expect their due process rights granted in the Constitution.
Posted by: tc on June 12, 2008 11:57 AMThe Supreme Court today said the 2006 Military Commissions Act unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus, and thus overturned the lower court decision that declared the 2006 Military Commissions Act constitutional.
In essence, the court ruled that the MCA is not a reasonable substitute for a hearing in federal court - i.e., foreign terror suspects have the right under the US Constitution to directly challenge their detention in civilian courts on the American mainland.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the decision: "Liberty and Security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law."
Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent, suggested that today's decision will damage national security. Scalia wrote "the game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the nation's commander in chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
The whole decision is here as a PDF.
Well did the same thing in WWII. WOW how could FDR be so bad.
Gezzz Scalia was right, were going to do ourselves in.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 12, 2008 12:11 PMWould the previous law and/or todays decision have applied to Padilla (a US citizen taken to Gitmo and held many years without due process)?
As best as I can tell, no. This decision was regarding the MCA's substitute of standard habeas procedures for AUECs. Padilla was not an alien UEC, but a citizen UEC, who, under the MCA, had full statutory habeas rights.
Some have argued that the MCA did potentially take away habeas right from citizens, and the logic IIRC -- perhaps somewhat sustained in today's decision -- is that if you're a citizen but declared not to be, then you wouldn't necessarily get constitutionally adequate chance to prove your citizenship. However, as it was already accepted as a point of legal fact that Padilla was a citizen, it still wouldn't apply to him.
Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2008 12:26 PMWe have already had several terrorist that have had to be let go or the government had to provide information in open court that would allow the terrorists to know how we track them, in essence giving them classified intelligence to counteract whatever methods we use to track them and gather intelligence on them.
Posted by: pbj on June 12, 2008 12:33 PMWRONG...
I am not a UN follower and you have no clue what you're talking about.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 12, 2008 12:35 PM"I vote Republican because I don't believe in civil rights."
;-)
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary on June 12, 2008 01:00 PMYou seem to be so dog gone smart, then PLEASE tell us all.
Let me get out my popcorn.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 12, 2008 01:14 PMIt's going to be very, very difficult to meet the burden of proof in a US court for many of these combatants, and we'll have to let them go. And then it won't be long until that person will be back fighting and/or killing innocent people, somewhere in the world.
Posted by: Palouse on June 12, 2008 02:14 PMBut hey, Republicans don't need trials. We just know.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 12, 2008 02:19 PMAmericans are the only humans who matter, and Republican Americans are the best of that lot.
Posted by: Dr. Ted Baehr on June 12, 2008 02:35 PM
Dr. Ted:
He does have the power, but no, a better solution would be coming up with a better law. The Supreme Court explicitly did NOT say that there cannot be a replacement for normal habeas procedures, only that the ones in place were insufficient and that therefore normal procedures would be holding, so the obvious route is to try to come up with better procedures.
Of course, with a Dem Congress in an election year, will be hard to get them through, but if they do block such provisions as these that are necessary for our security and are in line with the Supreme Court decision, then hopefully that can be used against them politically.
Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2008 02:41 PMIs that right, or - and I ask this genuinely - did you have something else in mind? Can you really reconcile that as justice? Does that make us the good guys? Can you really say that without any doubt, since you will never know the details of these cases and they will never be placed in front of a jury in your ideal system?
"Kennedy, the court's swing vote, was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, generally considered the liberal contingent."
The mainstream media is working to hide the fact that the Liberal wing of the court voted to give terrorists these rights. How many Americans tonight who here this news of citizen rights for terrorists will not know that it was liberals who did this in a 5-4 vote?
On how many critical issues will one liberal judge be the deciding vote as we slide down the slippery slope? Gay marriage last month, terrorist rights today, and what next tomorrow?
Posted by: Reality on June 12, 2008 02:54 PMNope. I supported what the President had in place previously, a military tribunal. This method still requires proof, but the burden is not as great. Getting a conviction in a US court will be much more difficult, and rare, in my opinion. That makes us less safe.
Posted by: Palouse on June 12, 2008 02:54 PMI know I'm not going to change your mind, especially since in your mind they are already guilty of terrorism before being proven guilty, and there will be those of you who call me a terrorist sympathizer or liberal or whatever you want. That's your choice. But I, for one, rejoice that there are still people of sound mind who care about our innate rights as human beings and won't bow to the mob who would have these people punished without a fair trial first.
Palouse @ 32 - You have admitted yourself that they won't be able to convict these individuals in fair US trial, so I'm not too worried about my safety.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 12, 2008 03:00 PMSee my post @28 for the reason why.
And it's not your safety most likely that will be in jeopardy. It's the soldiers and innocent people somewhere overseas who'll be affected.
Posted by: Palouse on June 12, 2008 03:05 PM* Don't take prisoners: kill them instead.
* Take them prisoner, but then soon simply let them go even if they were trying to kill you.
* Turn our soldiers into detectives so they can gather evidence in the middle of a battlefield.
All those options suck, and I can't think of another. We need to have a different system here, and I don't know what it is, but the normal criminal procedures are simply insufficient.
You're clearly so clever that you already know what everyone is going to say and how they'll react to your comments, so what is the point in discussing anything? Perhaps, though, you can write a hefty check to the federal government to offset the costs these suspected terrorists and their lawyers are now about to impose upon all of us, and explain why justice will be better served having liberal civilian judges, many of whom demonstrate their opposition to this administration at every opportunity, involved so politics can now be another major factor in the defense of American lives?
By the way, there are certain actions, such as violence against others, or threat of violence against others, that make some individuals less equal than others. By opening up the civilian courts to our enemies in actions against our government, the leftists on our Supreme Court have set an incredibly dangerous precedent and new hurdle in the protection of this nation. But that, of course, is completely in line with the leftist belief that America is the true evil in the world, and that nothing the Bush administration does can be trusted.
Posted by: Reality on June 12, 2008 03:19 PMBush should stand up and tell the court to take a hike, the way Andrew Jackson did when the court tried to override his authority.
Now we are compelled to treat blood thirsty terrorists with the same legal kid gloves as we treat someone arrested for shoplifting.
If we keep going down this road of judicial tyrrany we will surely lose this war.
Posted by: Kato on June 12, 2008 03:31 PMDo any of us really want to have terroists on our soil? What if they escape and run amoke in the USA? At least if they are in Cuba they are farther from us and have less chance to hurt us.
Posted by: tiffanie on June 12, 2008 03:32 PMIsn't there another option, which is treat them as POW's?
no, that is not an option. The thing about POWs is that you hold them until the war is over, then send them home (unless there are specific crimes). But we can't do that here, obviously (indeed, it was a major point the SCOTUS decided on). It would just bring us right back to where we are: capturing terrorist enemies and being forced to let them go to try to kill us again.
How we treat others reflects on us, not on who the "others" are?
I don't know why you are asking me that question. I think you'll find that I have never advocated treating them poorly. I am simply asking how we can deal with the very obvious problem we are faced with, while still respecting our laws and our values. And I don't see an answer. Do you?
If there are serious national security concerns, then the cases can proceed under seal. The Rosenburgs weren't tried in some shadow court on a military base; they were tried in Federal District Court in New York. And they were tried for our nuclear secrets!! During the Cold War!!
The Suspension Clause of the Constitution applies here, because the enemy combatants are being kept at Guantanomo Bay. The Government tried to argue -- ridiculously -- that the American government has no sovereignty over Guantanomo Bay. This, despite our presence there for over 100 years. The court did not buy the argument, and neither do I.
The President is the Commander-in-Chief. The President conducts war -- provided that Congress provides authorization and funding. Here, they did. But Congress has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Here, they did not. The President cannot assume that power. These combatants are effectively under the jurisdiction of the United States. They do not have all of the Constitutional rights granted to US citizens, nor should they. But they should have the right to contest whether their captivity is warranted at all.
Posted by: Zeeb on June 12, 2008 05:24 PMIf there are serious national security concerns, then the cases can proceed under seal. The Rosenburgs weren't tried in some shadow court on a military base; they were tried in Federal District Court in New York. And they were tried for our nuclear secrets!! During the Cold War!!
Unfortunately, no, that is simply not the case. We had evidence against the Rosenburgs. Do you really think we will necessarily be able to gather evidence against the terrorists we capture in the middle of a battlefield?
That's the problem we're facing. And you, nor the court (that I have seen, I have not read the decision in depth) offer no practical solution.
Again, these are our options:
* Don't take prisoners: kill them instead.
* Take them prisoner, but then soon simply let them go even if they were trying to kill you.
* Turn our soldiers into detectives so they can gather evidence in the middle of a battlefield.
The Constitution does not grant rights - it merely limits the government from violating inherent rights within their jurisdiction.
Again, all of you are assuming that anyone captured and brought to Gitmo or other such camps are, in fact, guilty, while American tradition dictates that people are innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial.
It has been pointed out in this thread and countless other discussions that I've participated in that it is impossible to gather evidence on a battlefield; It's also impossible to find the necessary evidence in many domestic cases, yet we don't give up on it and not have a trial.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 12, 2008 05:59 PMThat said, I do think we have a greater responsibility to citizens. As the Supreme Court said, we do NOT have to follow any specific procedure for habeas corpus with the detainees (as long as it meets certain criteria), but I would argue that we SHOULD follow the normal procedures for citizens.
All those in favor of this decision today should be sending your paychecks in, payable to the "U.S. government" to help assuage the cost to the sane U.S. Taxpayers that disagree with providing 270+ foreign terrorists federal trials, appeals, appellate appeals to the appeals, ad nauseum that is going to cost this country billions by the end of it.
One of the 4 dissenting judges on the bench said this of today's disasterous ruling:
"America is at war with radical Islamists," Scalia wrote, adding that the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
Anyway, no, you are not right. The first 10 amendments limit the power of the government, they do not grant rights. This limitation of power for the government does not say "in cases where you're dealing with a citizen".
This is what all of my research has shown thus far. If you've got a cite of law or case law that proves me wrong I'm completely willing to read it.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 12, 2008 06:47 PMThat's simply the right to have the government show cause if they detain someone. It does not guarantee the right to a military prisoner of a civilian trial - only a hearing to determine if the military has jurisdiction.
Sure its likely to clog the federal courts, but this is not a new right being recognized.
I do think it odd that this hearing would be held in a civilian court rather than a military one.
Posted by: deadwood on June 12, 2008 07:01 PMAny one notice. When it comes to so called 'rights' the left hands it outlike candy. But if it's a rep/con! hang them now!
Andrew you are SO wrong. I damn sure you think that Stalin was a nice guy too.
(don't answer) because after reading so many of YOUR post, SR you a liar!
As a combat person myself and HAVE SEEN WAR UP CLOSE... very close, you, sir know sh*t
I'm not going to fight with you, simple. YOU know NOTHING of what you speak!
You may wish to read up on WWI & II with dem's in control and TELL me about speach!
FOOL you know nothing about YOUR party.. zip zero!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 12, 2008 07:04 PMThe five majority justices on the court -- wrongly, I believe, and clearly so -- think that there needs to be a whole set of protections in place for habeas, that the DTA is fundamentally flawed because it is not in the federal court system. I do not buy that at all. I do think it had some problems, chief among them being the lack of time limit to challenge your detention, but nothing that couldn't be fixed.
"Today, the Supreme Court affirmed what almost everyone but the administration and their defenders in Congressalways knew."--Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
"Today's opinion is an important and much-needed check by a coequal branch of government on an administration which has shown utter contempt for the rule of law."--Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.
"Today's Supreme Court decision is yet another stinging rebuke of the Bush administration's extreme views on executive power."--Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
"Today's ruling is a resounding affirmation for the rule of law and a rejection of the president's sweeping claims of power."--Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
"This ruling is a stunning repudiation of the hubris and legal contortions of the Bush administration."--Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.
Maybe a little Bush Derangement syndrome going on?
Ummm yeah!
Stop making foolish assumptions. Thanks.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 12, 2008 07:12 PMOr shut you mouth.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 12, 2008 07:20 PMOr shut your mouth.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 12, 2008 07:21 PMeither way Andrew.. prove me WRONG.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 12, 2008 07:24 PMYou're here for nothing more than to muddy the waters with dumb accusations. Better luck next time.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 12, 2008 07:25 PMor are our memories too short or filled with the latest American Idol winner; or the latest late-night top-10 jokes?
wake up folks; this ain't no game; as uncomfortable as it seems, someone needs to grow some olive pits & defend our country, OUR interests FIRST & "take care of business;"
ask yourself about YOUR so-called "rights" in THEIR countries---good luck with the U.N. too
what kind of putz gives comfort to the enemy? and why are our politicians so silent on patriotism and our long-term welfare? hmmm
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on June 12, 2008 09:39 PMThey are very concerned over this decision as they are now wondering where this will lead to. Does it mean that before they capture an enemy combantnat are they going to be expected to read them their miranda rights or face the possibility that they will be released? Are the courts going to decide that since the enemy combantants that were already captured did not have their miranda rights will they be released? If so, what kind of an influx of enemy combantants will this cause (remeber we have AQI on the ropes here in Iraq right now and a release of the enemies would be a huge reinforcement to AQI). How will they go about prosecuting these enemy combantants without giving away intelligence assests (remember we have a lot of Iraqi's that are helping us and this could put them in direct danger; hence making it less likely that they will continue to help us out). Also take a look at this CNN article about released detainees and their follow up activities:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/07/gitmo.bomber/
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 12, 2008 09:43 PMI don't for a million years think the majority justices would make such a decision. Not even Bader-Ginsberg! THAT would be insane.
Posted by: deadwood on June 12, 2008 11:44 PMIf shooting at our military is not sufficient cause then there would be a serious problem.
I would expect to see a FISA-like court set up for these cases. That would allow the government to enter testimony with minimal change of compromising intelligence assets.
The naive reporters I hear have to be assuming that the above will not occur. I don't think anyone other the looney left is that stupid.
I don't believe that the Supreme Court (the 5 of them in the majority anyway) is that far out of touch with reality.
Posted by: deadwood on June 13, 2008 12:07 AMWhat's most likely to happen is renditions will increase. We will begin taking groups of Saudi/Emirati/Pakistani troops (perhaps some Iraqi companies or brigades? I noticed something about a sheik offering to go to Pakistan and finish AQ for us) with us on patrol and let them do the detaining, or we will detain and process immediately to country of origin or detention. If these libtards really think that somehow these tango douchebags are gonna get a better shake in their compatriot's legal systems, well by all means.
Also, here's the problem with extending habeus corpus to these tango douchebags. The US will have to provide evidence to prove the neccessity of holding on to an individual, and that intelligence will neccesarily be classified, probably Secret or TS/SCI depending on its source. Things are classified based on a few different factors, neccesarily the inclusion of previously classified material, classified sourcing, classified collection methodolgy, or classified Techniques, Tactics, and Procedures. Since these tangoes and their douchebag lawyers will go hunting for the most liberal system available, and since the DoD already has enough trouble keeping up with Security clearances for active duty, reserve, gaurd, and civilian contractors, the US government is likely to be unable to make evidence available for review, and our wonderful civilian court system will likely order their the detention of aforementioned scumbuckets be terminated. This differs from a military tribunal, which has different standards of evidence and is presided over by people who already have clearances and access to source material.
If you really want civvies having access to classified sources, methodolgies,and TTP, I would refer you to the Blind Sheik's illustrious counselor (Lynne Stewart), who was shuttling messages between the Blind Sheik and AQ. Or The NYT leaking our covert SIGINT program against the enemy.
Personally, I say we treat the same way we did the Germans (Operation Greif). Kill them where we find them.
Posted by: Aaron on June 13, 2008 03:06 AMAll in all though this is really a stretch by the Supreme Court. It would be one thing if they were caught on US soil or if they were in fact a US Citizen, but neither is the case.
What I fear the most is that they will be given a day in a civilian court after their ACLU lawyers go court shopping and that they are in fact released due to somehting along the lines of not being read their Miranda Rights. At this point they will probably use the same ACLU lawyers to sue our government (in other words the taxpayers), win the lawsuit and then be granted citizenship as a way for the liberal courts to say "we're sorry for your detention". At this point the same ACLU lawyers will already have briefs ready to file in case their clients are ever considered suspects in any kind of terrorism investigation. The briefs will state that the Government is harrasing their clients by keeping tabs on them in a terrorist investigation and that it all stems back to the Government being a poor looser over the botched criminal case against their clients.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 13, 2008 05:43 AMI say put the 5 jurists in flak jackets and cammies, have em' carry an M-16A2 and ship them off to Mosul for a 3 month assignment. After that assignment, maybe they can make an informed decision rather than one from the ivory towers of the SCOTUS where they have been ensconsed for so long from the average American. Don't worry justice Souter, we'll make sure you'll get to write back to your mommy who you live with when the court isn't in session.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 13, 2008 05:56 AMWe're faced with budget cuts in this state that affect essential emergency services and the Governor is pissing away 140 million annually of our money in order to keep her sorry posterior in the Governors seat? If this isn't worth a look at a recall, I don't know what is.
They want a new slogan for Washington? forget "SayWA", I'd say BOHICA is much more fitting. Bend Over, Here It Comes Again, Washingtonians.
I guess in my mind, the enemy is Al Queada. If we destroy this organization, we have defeated the enemy. We will also have a broader list of foreign people that we and European intelligence agencies can track. To put it another way, as long as Al Queada exists, they will continue to find willing volunteers to replace the people we take off the battlefield. Taking the person off the battlefield doesn't, in itself, do much to defeat them. I would condition this statement, however, that capturing top leaders does do alot because it is more than just taking a combatant, it is eliminating an organizational element, which is harder to replace. For the top leaders, we already have plenty of evidence to prossecute them. It is the lowly recruit who we may lack evidence and who is quickly replaced.
Posted by: tc on June 13, 2008 08:29 AM"as Al Queada exists, they will continue to find willing volunteers to replace the people we take off the battlefield."
So your solution is to do what? Not take them off the battlefield? and if not, do we shoot them or make sure they understand their 'miranda' rights?
"Taking the person off the battlefield doesn't, in itself, do much to defeat them. "
Really? So you solution is what? Disarm the guy that was trying to kill you five minutes ago and then pat him on the ass and send him on his merry way back to his buddies where he can pick up a new weapon and try again another day to kill an American soldier, plant an IED, kill Iraqi civilians thought to have collaborated with the Americans?
You live in a dreamworld tc. This is the land of reality, not the wormhole of some Alice in Wonderland movie.
You stated that POW's falls into the "capture the enemy and then release him later to kill again" option you had previously stated. Yes, and no. Yes, on a technical point, this is true. No, on the point that POW's are not released until the war is over and the enemy defeated.
Well, or until you lose to them.
If you take Bush's framing of the conflict, this is a War on Terror. Framing it as such, then the war is not over until Terror has been defeated. Assuming for a moment that Terror can be defeated.
That was my obvious point, I thought: this isn't a war that we will one day wake up and know we won. So holding them until "the war is over" makes no sense, so treating them like POWs makes no sense, unless we are going to hold them indefinitely, which the Court said we can't do without charges (unlike POWs). So treating them like POWs doesn't solve work.
Once we release the prisoners, what could they as individuals do?
Kill us and others?
There will always be rogue individual terrorists in the world (Timothy McVeigh, although he had associated with some American-based hate groups). If we release an individual, we know their identity and can continue to keep surveillance on them. It is the enemy we don't know about who is the greater risk.
Nope. We have ALREADY released people from Gitmo who have re-joined the fighting against us. We know from experience that, in fact, some of them HAVE AND WILL pose a danger if released.
This ruling, "concerns habeas corpus - the right of Americans to challenge detention by the government. Justice Kennedy has now extended that right to non-American enemy combatants captured abroad trying to kill Americans in the war on terror. We can say with confident horror that more Americans are likely to die as a result."
"Justice Kennedy's opinion is full of self-applause about his defense of the "great Writ," and no doubt it will be widely praised as a triumph for civil liberties. [Praised on this website with no regard to the consequences.] But we hope it is not a tragedy for civil liberties in the long run. If there is another attack on U.S. soil - perhaps one enabled by a terrorist released under the Kennedy rules - the public demand for security will trample the Constitutional delicacies of Boumediene. Just last month, a former Gitmo detainee killed a group of Iraqi soldiers when he blew himself up in Mosul. And he was someone the military thought it was safe to release."
You have to wonder whether Kennedy and his leftist cohorts on the court would be so generous extending civil liberties to our enemies if they, themselves, were on the front lines in the war on terror?
Posted by: Reality on June 13, 2008 10:33 AMI don't disagree that individuals in the group are led by a "philosophy." My diffence is nuanced by reading articles such as the NY Post one to believe that if you get rid of the generals, the troops will disband or join local country causes, and not the global cause that Al Qaeda currently encompasses. We don't worry about Hezzbolah attacking us on our soil, do we?
Posted by: tc on June 13, 2008 11:09 AMhttp://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=7e4d2af4-820d-417c-8e8a-1965ac0f9cd0
Contrasted with McCain's statement in 2003:
I will just state that the statements do not appear in agreement. I will let you decide if this is a change of position or not.
This comment from his 2003 statement is of particular interest and I feel is in concert of what I have been attempting to state here.
McCain 2003: A serious process must be established in the very near term either to formally treat and process the detainees as war criminals or to return them to their countries for appropriate judicial action.
Posted by: tc on June 13, 2008 01:43 PMI didn't say it wasn't an organization, I said that it was "not so much a group as it is a mindset". I even mentioned "hard core members" which would clearly indicate they belonged to some semblance of an organization.
What I meant was that the organization is comprised of a belief system first and foremost, the organization is merely a vehicle by which to carry out that belief system.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 13, 2008 01:51 PMI will just state that the statements do not appear in agreement. I will let you decide if this is a change of position or not.
You brought it up, your responsibility to show how they are different.
The 2003 statement says that the detainees should be processed according to the law, and to change the law if necessary, which happened in 2006. The 2008 statement says he supports the law.
Good luck showing how they are in any way inconsistent. I don't expect a good answer or argument.
In regards to what I saw as inconsistent, in looking over the McCain Blog entry again, this was McCain's quote from earlier yesterday and not later in the day. His site doesn't have his later comment that was inconsistent with his 2003 statement. I am trying to find a good source for that comment. Where I saw the comment did not have a source link and therefore, I went searching McCain's site for the original quote, which was made while McCain was on the trail yesterday. The quote I saw conflicted with the message that McCain feels that these prisoners can't sit indefinately and if we the government wasn't going to prosecute them, they needed to be returned to their country of orgin (quote I provided in my post). Since I can't confirm the yesterday quote and McCain's site hasn't posted any official response, I guess at this time I would have to withdraw my questioning of change of positions. I am trying to be fair on this.
The quote I saw conflicted with the message that McCain feels that these prisoners can't sit indefinately and if we the government wasn't going to prosecute them, they needed to be returned to their country of orgin
No, please read it again. He said not that we needed to prosecute them, but that we "formally treat and process the detainees as war criminals." That's very different than calling for prosecution. The MCA of 2006 DID provide for such treatment and processing of ALL the detainees. The Supreme Court simply said that a. this process must include protections that amount to writ of habeas corpus, and b. the one in place did not.
Posted by: pudge on June 13, 2008 02:32 PM