McCain’s Long History Of Opposing Habeas Corpus»

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/mccain-habeas-court/

McCain’s Long History Of Opposing Habeas Corpus»

Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) criticized to the Supreme Court’s ruling granting Guantanamo Bay detainees the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts:

It obviously concerns me. These are unlawful combatants. They are not American citizens. We should pay attention to Justice Roberts. It is a decision the Supreme Court has made and now we need to move forward. As you know, I always favored the closing of Guantanamo Bay, and I still think we ought to do that.

McCain’s statement mirrored remarks by President Bush, who said, “I strongly agree with those who dissented.” Watch reactions from McCain and Bush at link~

McCain’s desire to close Guantanamo Bay and his dislike of torture have nothing to do with this case. When it comes to upholding the rights of detainees, McCain has a long history of opposing them:

– In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Rasul v. Bush that the Bush administration had no jurisdiction to strip habeas corpus rights from detainees. In 2005, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced legislation overturning this decision and thus stripping detainees of their rights. McCain voted for the bill, which passed 49-42.

– The Military Commissions Act of 2006 denied anyone Bush labeled “an ‘illegal enemy combatant’ the ancient right to challenge his imprisonment in court.” McCain weakly pushed to strengthen the torture restrictions in the legislation, but ignored the lack of habeas rights. In the end, he voted for the Military Commissions Act.

– In 2007, Senate conservatives successfully filibustered legislation that would have “given military detainees the right to protest their detention in federal court.” In a 56-43 vote, the chamber fell just four shy of the 60 needed to cut off debate and proceed with the bill. McCain was part of the conservative filibuster and voted against moving forward with the legislation.

Today, the McCain campaign blog also approvingly cited Justice Antonin Scalia’s exceptionally extreme rhetoric on the consequences of the decision.

[Faux pas]

1. He'd make an excellent emperor....

:nuke:

[babylonsister]

3. Don't we already have one of them? nt

[Faux pas]

4. Yes we do. Figure McLame has learned well at the chimp's knee.

[Canuckistanian]

2. Obviously, he learned nothing as a prisoner of war himself

These rights he's denying are the very same ones that were denied to him in Vietnam.

In fact, the Vietnamese respected some aspects of the Geneva Convention MORE than Bush does.

And of course, there is NO DISCUSSION of the consequences IF an American were in the same situation.

Oh, he'd scream for his rights, of course. But the rest of the world would be that less sympathetic.

[OhioChick]

6. The fact that he was a POW

Was the first thing that came to my mind, as well. You'd think that he'd have different views on this issue.

[deacon]

5. How is he any different than bush? On what??? He's a third term, period. n/t