| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
I tell you, if anyone could turn me, it would be George F. Will. His analysis is always so dry and intellectual. I don't know his philosophy on women's reproductive rights. If he says government stay out, he may be the perfect conservative 
Contempt Of Courts
McCain's Posturing On Guantanamo
By George F. Will
Tuesday, June 17, 2008; A17
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?
Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue.
The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.
The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests.
As such, the Supreme Court's ruling only begins marking a boundary against government's otherwise boundless power to detain people indefinitely, treating Guantanamo as (in Barack Obama's characterization) "a legal black hole." And public habeas hearings might benefit the Bush administration by reminding Americans how bad its worst enemies are.
Critics, including Chief Justice John Roberts in dissent, are correct that the court's decision clouds more things than it clarifies. Is the "complete and total" U.S. control of Guantanamo a solid-enough criterion to prevent the habeas right from being extended to other U.S. facilities around the world where enemy combatants are or might be held? Are habeas rights the only constitutional protections that prevail at Guantanamo? If there are others, how many? All of them? If so, can there be trials by military commissions, which permit hearsay evidence and evidence produced by coercion?
Roberts's impatience is understandable: "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." Ideally, however, the defining will be by Congress, which will be graded by courts.
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's 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. |
_________________
I'm no model lady. A model's just an imitation of the real thing. - Mae West |
|
Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:44 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Well of course the best way to avoid having to deal with prisoners is dont take any in the first place.  |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:20 pm |
|
|
strattonsigns
F L I N T O I D
|
| That is what we should have done in the first place......shoot at our troops without wearing a uniform...you are a terrorist..not a soldier and do not deserve the same rights as a US citizen. |
|
|
|
Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:10 pm |
|
|
tricky mutha
F L I N T O I D
|
Non sequitur. The last two posts miss the point- understanding a specific form of conservative ideology espoused by Will and his assertion the writ of habeas corpus and how it arrests a most fearsome state power- the ability to boundlessly imprison people without having to release them or show through due process why the prisoner should be held.
Another point and then a comment- over the last 40 years all but two of our Supreme Court justices have been appointed by a Republican President, and the sacred business of judges is not to ratify the will of the majority but to protect the minority from its tyranny. |
_________________
"Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there"- John Steinbeck |
|
|
Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:29 pm |
|
|
strattonsigns
F L I N T O I D
|
Tricky,
Do you remember 9/11?
The problem is that we were not attacked by a nation. We were attacked by a group of people that share widespread religious idealogy that wants to eradicate Western culture and Semites. They changed the rules, we didn't. Do not sympathize with the enemy and do not underestimate them, they want you dead.
This is not conventional warfare...we have never encountered such a widespread threat...it's here it's there it's seemingly everywhere. The President of the United States takes a solemn oath to take whatever steps necessary to protect our Country. I believe, in certain circumstances, it may be necessary to side-step the Constitution...yes I said it and I mean it.
I do not believe that illegal aliens, enemy combatants, etc are afforded the rights that our Country has earned and fought for around the world. We are not fighting a political movement...we are fighting an insurgency that will stop at NOTHING...even suicide to kill as many of US as they can. Should we torture combatants caught in the field of war...you bet your sweet ass we should...if it protects my kids from another 9/11...you bet your life.
Yes, I believe in the Constitution has credance....problem is, they don't. I believe in the Geneva Convention....they don't. We must destroy this Islamofacist enemy everywhere and anywhere by ANY means possible...and any President that doesn't should be tried and convicted of treason. |
|
|
|
Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:40 pm |
|
|
tricky mutha
F L I N T O I D
|
| The Mayor Rudy shtick no longer works. Actually we were attacked by Saudi Arabia, and consequently, we invaded Iraq. Tired of your theocratic rants, along with your rhetoric denying first amendment rights to so called illegal aliens. Are you really in the 28% who support W? |
_________________
"Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there"- John Steinbeck |
|
|
Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:02 pm |
|
|
Kevin McKague
F L I N T O I D
|
Tricky Mutha, I can almost guarantee that neither Strattonsigns or Twotap even read the George Will article. They probably think that habeas corpus is the bad guy in a pro wrestling match.
SS said:
quote:
That is what we should have done in the first place......shoot at our troops without wearing a uniform...you are a terrorist..not a soldier and do not deserve the same rights as a US citizen.
What about those detained there who never raised a weapon? Many of those detained were turned in for the ransom money by political enemies that wanted them out of the way.
NPR has a great show, called "This American Life", that details this fact in an episode that can be found here: http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=331
Nobody doubts that there are some seriously dangerous people at Gitmo, but those simply caught up in the net are entitled due process. This isn't an American right, it is a human right, to which every person is entitiled. |
_________________
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est |
|
|
Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:04 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Tricky Mutha, I can almost guarantee that neither Strattonsigns or Twotap even read the George Will article. They probably think that habeas corpus is the bad guy in a pro wrestling match.
Really?? damn a sixth sense, what a clown. He sees there for he is.  Before these guys get done they will convince us we were never actually attacked. By the way is that guarantee good for 10 seconds or 10 ft which ever comes first. 
NPR
How about this proven deterrent.
Last edited by twotap on Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:17 pm |
|
|
Kevin McKague
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
twotap schreef:
Really?? damn a sixth sense, what a clown. He sees there for he is. Before these guys get done they will convince us we were never actually attacked. By the way is that guarantee good for 10 seconds or 10 ft which ever comes first.
NPR
Hey, Twotap, there is a "preview" button under the comment box that allows you to proof-read what you've typed before you post. I highly recommend it.
Then again, I suspect that even if you accurately typed what you meant to say, it still wouldn't make any sense. |
|
|
|
Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:21 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| Your just too quick with your dumbass responses thats all maybe you should think em thru. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:23 pm |
|
|
Kevin McKague
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
twotap schreef:
Your (sic) just too quick with your dumbass responses thats all maybe you should think em thru.
????
Demeralda, to get back to your original point, I agree, George Will is perhaps the most articulate and thought-provoking conservative writers ever. When it comes to good political conversation, there is nothing like discussing important issues with somebody who holds differing opinions, but can express them in a thoughtful manner, and has concrete reasoning behind his conclusions. I guess this is why I like George Will. I'd rather discuss (or in the case of Will, read) something with somebody I disagree with, if they can present their case well, than talk to somebody who claims the same philosophy as I, but can't explain why.
Plus, George Will stated that he likes listening to NPR, so he's already cool in my book. |
|
|
|
Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:45 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
| I also love that he leaves religion out of it. That's where most "modern" conservatives lose me. |
_________________
I'm no model lady. A model's just an imitation of the real thing. - Mae West |
|
|
Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:01 am |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
