Jun 19, 2008 8:36am
A Question Left Unanswered In This Habeas Corpus Debate
EmailAmidst this back and forth between Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Illinois, about extending to detainees the right to challenge their detention in federal courts — a question left unanswered, as of yet: what would a President John McCain do if Osama bin Laden were captured?
Refuse to give him Habeas Corpus rights?
Defy the Supreme Court?
I emailed the McCain campaign to get an answer. Twice. Last night and this morning. Will let you know what they say — if they ever get back to me on this issue at all.
- jpt
UPDATE: A day later, the McCain campaign responded. Read what they had to say HERE.
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
It’s easy. With the court ruling, Osama, et al will not be taken alive!
Posted by: A | June 19, 2008, 8:50 am 8:50 am
Do onto others, Senator.
Posted by: PJ | June 19, 2008, 8:52 am 8:52 am
Good Question.
If he says he won’t be taken alive… there goes any chance (as small as it may seem) he will pop his head out of his cave command… or that one of his followers may take the chance of letting info slip…or that they get messier about keeping their secrets…
Posted by: dl | June 19, 2008, 8:54 am 8:54 am
Does Senator Hussein Obama presume Osama bin Laden to be innocent, needing to be proved guilty in a criminal case???
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 8:54 am 8:54 am
I agree that the solution is to take no prisoners.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 8:55 am 8:55 am
OMG…McCain questioned on national security. Is this not blasphemy?
Posted by: watching | June 19, 2008, 8:55 am 8:55 am
mr incredible
obviously you are willingly and totally ignorant to Obamas position or Mccains on this issue
Posted by: really | June 19, 2008, 8:58 am 8:58 am
Let’s understand something the Suprme Court, apparently, doesn’t understand.
Those being held at GITMO are not defendants in criminal cases. They are captives, taken, not in a COPS sweep of a neighborhood, rather during battlefield operations in a war.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 9:00 am 9:00 am
==mr incredible
obviously you are willingly and totally ignorant to Obamas position or Mccains on this issue==
I can’t reason you outta thinking what you haven’t been reasoned into thinking.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 9:01 am 9:01 am
So, would OBL be a criminal defendant, or a war captive???
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 9:03 am 9:03 am
Mr. Incredible
Obama believes that making sure innocent people are not held without some sort of check and balance as to whether they should be held is a principal that this country has been founded on.
That human beings can not be held indefinitely be some small branch of military all in the name of national security.
It is a pillar of what made this country what it is. That ideal is not only what we fight to protect…it is one of our biggest arsenals against the terrorists and their recruiting…because we fight for what is right. When we lose our moral compass and authority… all in the name of fear…we will lose.
Our war on terrorists is as much about ideology as it is about them attacking us. If we lose on ideology…they grow…and if that happens eventually we will lose on the other front.
as we have seen over the past 8 years…as our reactive fear and stupid mistakes have fed their movement and more terrorist attacks around the world.
Posted by: dl | June 19, 2008, 9:08 am 9:08 am
not lets, you understand something. There is no defined battlefield in the war on terror. Those being held at GITMO are captives under the auspices of the USA. Habeas Corpus = they should be charged. Then should be tried in court, military court. Then executed. Not just held forever while we pay for it.
Posted by: really | June 19, 2008, 9:08 am 9:08 am
I hope our men in Iraq take real nice note of the SCOTUS decision when they — the men — draw a clean bead on an enemy combatant, or set up real nice and pretty with a grenade.
I hope that they understand that, if they don’t throw that grenade, or don’t pull that trigger, and kill the enemy, that enemy is gonna get another shot at him in court, then be released to take another shot at him on the field.
The only way to deal now with the reality of the situation on the battlefield is to preclude any chance at enemy second chances.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 9:09 am 9:09 am
There is no defined battlefield in the war on terror.==
Irrelevant. They are spies and saboteurs, and Geneva doesn’t protect them anyway.
== Those being held at GITMO are captives under the auspices of the USA. Habeas Corpus = they should be charged.==
They are war captives, not criminal defendants.
== Then should be tried in court, military court. Then executed. Not just held forever while we pay for it.==
The criminal law doesn’t apply to war captives. I don’t care how long they are kept, as long as they are off the battlefield. That is more humane — to them — than killing them.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 9:12 am 9:12 am
Mr. Incredible
OBL has proven he is guilty over and over…it is a stupid example.
He is not some unknown enemy combbatant that was arrested for suspicion of involvement…or any other reason.
He is the most well known terrorist…he is THE extreme and the fact that you only use him as an example of an enemy combatant is stupid.
How about naming one of the hundreds who we don’t know their name…have not seen them taking credit for the bombings of the worst terrorist attack in HISTORY…
Posted by: dl | June 19, 2008, 9:13 am 9:13 am
Mr. Incredible
A battlefield where there is no way to know if someone has a weapon behind their back… …is not the same as someone who has been arrested or captured …
please get smarter in your arguments.
Posted by: dl | June 19, 2008, 9:15 am 9:15 am
==Obama believes that making sure innocent people are not held without some sort of check and balance as to whether they should be held is a principal that this country has been founded on.==
those captured in war and on the battlefield are not criminals. They are captives. The very fact of capture makes it a charge.
==That human beings can not be held indefinitely be some small branch of military all in the name of national security.==
Under the criminal law, that would be correct. What they do is not governed by criminal law, rather military law of war.
==It is a pillar of what made this country what it is.==
Doesn’t apply on the battlefield.
==as we have seen over the past 8 years…as our reactive fear and stupid mistakes have fed their movement and more terrorist attacks around the world.==
So, you don’t wanna make them mad.
The fact is that they don’t need anybody to feed their movement. Nineteen terrorists didn’t need us to “feed their movement.”
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 9:17 am 9:17 am
==A battlefield where there is no way to know if someone has a weapon behind their back.. …is not the same as someone who has been arrested or captured …==
What’s you point?
==please get smarter in your arguments.==
Translation: “Agree with me!
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 9:19 am 9:19 am
mr incredible
your now giving the prisoners rights by saying they are innocent until proven guilty…
in fact thats where the whole difference starts
these people dont have to be proven guilty… were telling them THEY ARE GUILTY
now they have hte right to say.. im not can i please have soemone here my story…
and then they go before a judge and they PROVE why they are NOT guilty…
the united states has said they treat their prisoners unlike any other country, and that we have a law system to deal with things like this… we have constantly stated that we are above others in how we treat all people… on battle field and off.
but during the bush administration we now see that we actually either just started or previously we were just a lot more careful with how we dealt with prisoners, but now were torturing, leaving people locked up for no reasons
in gitmo those arent all enemy cambatants, those are peopel we stormed their houses and took them while they slept…
are you saying you are 100% sure we arent holding someone by accident?
wasnt nelson mandela on the terrorist watch list for flying by the united states…
hmmm i think we have made some grave errors with this administration, we have really stained americas image, this decision by the supreme court actually restores us some dignity to our golden values
Posted by: bhrandon | June 19, 2008, 9:19 am 9:19 am
Mr incredible, agreed
Obama has stated again that we have a SHOOT TO KILL policy on OBL.
the Mccain question was to score political points.
Our heroes in uniform have their brothers backs to cover, no time to worry about political posturing at home.
Posted by: really | June 19, 2008, 9:19 am 9:19 am
Mr. Incredible
You obviouly don’t know what you are talking about…
“they don’t need anyone to feed their movement”
are you kidding…
go do a little research on numbers…and reaction to our foreign policy.
this is not ON a battlefield after they are captured…duh.
Cuba…or on US soil is not the battlefield…ugh…the arguments are just so …like talking to someone in third grade.
Get smart. Be a little braver. Fight smart…not dumb.
We have done that for 8 years…America has gotten smarter… some like yourself are a little slow on learning this.
Posted by: dl | June 19, 2008, 9:22 am 9:22 am
McCain doesn’t have to answer. The Supreme Court answered. McCain will enforce the law.
If Usama is captured alive, he will be given every affordance of law applicable to his status.
Posted by: len | June 19, 2008, 9:25 am 9:25 am
IS JOHN McCAIN FIT TO BE PRESIDENT?
The Constitution is the basis of our law, the legitimacy of every public office, and the protector of our liberties.
It is no accident that the president is REQUIRED to take an oath to obey and protect the Constitution.
If John McCain is not going to respect the Constitution, he is an enemy of our liberties and the American way of life and therefore DISQUALIFIED from becoming president.
Posted by: John's Conscience | June 19, 2008, 9:28 am 9:28 am
==quoting Rush Limbaugh again…no free thinking here==
It’s not the quoting that matters, rather the quote, and the quote is right on.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 9:31 am 9:31 am
==IS JOHN McCAIN FIT TO BE PRESIDENT?==
YES!
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 9:33 am 9:33 am
==this is not ON a battlefield after they are captured==
A war captive still fights while in captivity. To him, he is still on the battlefield.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 9:35 am 9:35 am
You gotta love this quote…lol
saying in response to someone asking him “wasn’t Nelson Mandela on the terrorist watch list”
his response
lol
“irrelevent”
No Mr. Incredible….
It speaks (overwhelmingly) to the judgement that this administration basis their decision on who is a terrorist and who can be held.
but that does not suit your argument…lol.
Lets just in our scared little way lock up everybody because this administration (with all of it’s noble honesty and accuracy..hack hack)
has told us that these people are “enemy combatants” just like Nelson Mandela should be watched as a terrorist. yeah that’s courage.
Yeah these people don’t need a check or a balance… their judgement is great.lol.
Posted by: dl | June 19, 2008, 9:36 am 9:36 am
Is OBL a victim?
Will we now apply anti-discrimination laws in his favor??
Are we now seeing, here, OBL sympathizers?
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 9:37 am 9:37 am
I would like someone to ask Obama, if he thinks that Osama is innocent. If not why will he let the courts determine his guilt, and if he is innocent until proven guilty, why are we trying to kill him. You can’t have it both ways.
Posted by: Tony | June 19, 2008, 9:37 am 9:37 am
==It speaks (overwhelmingly) to the judgement that this administration basis their decision on who is a terrorist and who can be held.==
We’re not talking about Mandela, rather those held now at GITMO.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 9:38 am 9:38 am
==I would like someone to ask Obama, if he thinks that Osama is innocent. If not why will he let the courts determine his guilt, and if he is innocent until proven guilty, why are we trying to kill him. You can’t have it both ways.==
EXCELLENT point!!!
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 9:39 am 9:39 am
and Mr. Incredible
just because in someone’s mind they are on the battlefield…does not mean they are on the battlefield…
and thus where your argument comes from.
If it is in your mind it is so.
You and Mr. Cheney.
Posted by: dl | June 19, 2008, 9:39 am 9:39 am
==just because in someone’s mind they are on the battlefield…does not mean they are on the battlefield…==
It means just that. They have been sabotaging equipment and plotting against their captors. THEY believe that they are still fighting, and our men there must act as though they are, in defense. BITMO is just another front of the battlefield.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 9:42 am 9:42 am
Time would be better spent reviewing the inaccuracies of Obama’s review of the Nuremberg precedent he cited so readily. Strange that a Harvard lawyer plays so fast and loose with the facts.
Stranger still that he is not held accountable for his historical re-write.
The 2006 congressional legislation the Supreme Court addressed went far far beyond the Habeas Corpus allowed at Nuremberg.
Churchill’s position was the “summarily shoot them”
Posted by: smith | June 19, 2008, 9:46 am 9:46 am
The Nuremberg trials was a landmark event. However, it was held only after we had completely vanquished our foe. Total victory had been achieved – the state of war had ceased. So, again comparing apples to oranges to compare Nuremberg or even the 1993 WTC trial to the present.
Posted by: hopesprings52 | June 19, 2008, 9:52 am 9:52 am
My number 1 question for Obama right now:
Why in the world would you appoint Patti Solis-Doyle to be the Chief of Staff to the VP nominee? You’re trying to build party unity yet you went out of your way to very crudely signal that you are not going to pick Clinton as VP and to stick it to her and her supporters. Why would you be so petty and vengeful? Is this what we can expect more of if you should become president- for you to talk unity, but act spitefully?
Posted by: hopesprings52 | June 19, 2008, 9:57 am 9:57 am
Hope… of course you are correct. The War (II) was over, and the situation is different now.
The 93 precedent allowed the actual bomb maker to be released after his first FBI interview. He subsequently fled to Baghdad and has not been heard from since the start of this war. Presumably he is still at large.
To me that is unsatisfactory.
Osama and the terrorists define this as a war and we should also.
Posted by: smith | June 19, 2008, 10:06 am 10:06 am
“They are spies and saboteurs, and Geneva doesn’t
protect them anyway.”
Mr. Incredible | Jun 19, 2008 9:12:44 AM
Ah, but it does. Uniformed soldiers (POWs) may not be tried and hung (they get the better deal); spies and saboteurs must be tried before they can be hung, but neither can be held forever without trial.
Posted by: Lee C. ― U.S.A. | June 19, 2008, 10:10 am 10:10 am
In America’s infancy, our founding Fathers wrote documents, which basically created rules and laws that American’s live by.
I currently wonder if we as a society, have the need to alter some of these. They needed an electoral college due to lack of rapid reporting.
They never demanded a maximum age for candidates as most died long before they started to lose their faculties.
But we have advanced both in our ability to report our elections State by State – very quickly, and our medical break throughs, thus allowing longer life.
Any input?
Posted by: DAVID NH | June 19, 2008, 10:19 am 10:19 am
Lee C. – Incorrect – Any individual caught without the uniform of the opposing country can be shot on site!! No Trial necessary.
To say a trial is necessary is foolish because our Constitution does not cover non citizens or residents of the Continental US (Hawaii and Alaska too)
Are not the libs by pushing our Constitution on other countries do the same as they accuse Pres. Bush.
Oh by the way the Congress and President can suspend Habeus Corpus on the Prisoner anyhow!!
This has never been done in the history of the US, and actually pass Supreme courts have refused to grant it!!
Trials do not have to be held until after the War is over anyhow! If you put them under POW’s then they can be held until the end of the war, if you put them under Enemy Combatents which the fall, then no treaty covers them!!
The Supreme court has over stepped its bounds!!
Think of something which is interesting, our military can kill the enemy without courts approval, the President can Nuke them without Court approval (or in Congress in that matter) but we can not question them? How logical is that?
Oh by the way in the 80′s the Supreme court ruled that until a prisoner steps onto the Continental US they do not need their Miranda Rights read!! (Noriega v US)
I also find it interesting that the same people who think the court stepping in here where it is obviously wrong, condemned the court for stepping in in 2000 where that was a domestic issue!!
I guess the libs only think things are right when they agree with it!!
The Founding fathers were actually against the Supreme Court, and they purposely limited their powers to interpreting the US Constitution only. They are suppose to be the weakest branch of Government.
Did we not fight a revolution to get rid of Taxation without Representation!! Well who does the Courts represent, they are not elected!!
Same goes for California, they way over stepped their authority, they only had the right to say something was Constitutional or not, they do not have the authority to make law!!
Beware what you wish for, for things you agree with if brought upon you wrongly will destroy you!!
The funny thing here the President can just move the prisoners to another place!!
Posted by: spock | June 19, 2008, 11:56 am 11:56 am
DAVID NH – The electoral college was created to give States equal say, not because of reporting issues!!
It was so smaller states would not be bullied by larger states, see the Federal Government was suppose to be small and only take care of 4 things.
The only way to change the Constitution is by Amendments, it is not living!!
Posted by: spock | June 19, 2008, 11:59 am 11:59 am
==Uniformed soldiers (POWs) may not be tried and hung (they get the better deal); spies and saboteurs must be tried before they can be hung, but neither can be held forever without trial.==
Geneva specifically denies spies and saboteurs the Right to treatment given to uniformed soldiers cuz they are not uniformed, and they take that chance, also cuz they are not fighting for a nation state.
And, by the way, the word you want is “hanged.”
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm
Spock has the correct view of the Electoral College.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 19, 2008, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
“Lee C. – Incorrect – Any individual caught without the
uniform of the opposing country can be shot on site!!”
spock | Jun 19, 2008 11:56:38 AM
Irrelevant (even if it were true); the persons in question were, in fact, not “shot on sight”; that option has been forfeited by the selection of different option and by the passage of time. They were taken to Gitmo instead. Battlefield rules do not apply there, because Gitmo is a prison not a battlefield.
“[O]ur Constitution does not cover non citizens or
residents of the Continental US (Hawaii and Alaska too)”
spock | Jun 19, 2008 11:56:38 AM
You say that as if it were true. It is not. Nor will you make it true by frequent repetition.
“[I]f you put them under Enemy Combatents which the
fall [sic], then no treaty covers them!!”
Again, not true. If they are not soldiers, then they are civilians (not soldiers = civilians), and they’re covered by other sections of the Geneva Conventions. The Bush Administration’s attempt to fabricate a discrete third category, not covered by the Geneva Conventions, whipped up out of whole cloth was a complete fraud. The Supreme Court confirmed that in the LAST case the Bush Administration lost. (The Administration is 0 for 3 now.)
“And, by the way, the word you want is ‘hanged.’”
Mr. Incredible | Jun 19, 2008 12:04:59 PM
Nope, the word I wanted was “hung”, past tense and past participle of “hang”. Check Merriam-Webster Online; it’s a perfectly acceptable word. I get to decide what word I want; you don’t.
Posted by: Lee C. ― U.S.A. | June 19, 2008, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm
==the word I wanted was “hung”, past tense and past participle of “hang”. ==
Then, you wanted the wrong word.
The past tense of “hang” is “hanged.” A person is not hung by a hanged jury.
You use the word as its use was corrupted.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 20, 2008, 8:32 am 8:32 am
Geneva does not protect spies and saboteurs, nor ununiformed individuals attacking uniformed soldiers. They can be shot on site, and, in view of the recent SCOTUS decision, shooting them on site would be preferable to giving them a second shot in court, then be released to take another shot at our men on the battlefield.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 20, 2008, 8:35 am 8:35 am
Our Constitution doesn’t apply to war captives.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | June 20, 2008, 8:36 am 8:36 am