Kaffee vs. Jessup II?: Obama and McCain Square Off on Habeas Corpus Rights for Accused Terrorists

Obama, again, does not get his facts straight. He is ALWAYS against the America way.

Yeah — right. Sure it is. Numb skull.
**********************************
Brilliant argument!

David
Stop reading something into it that isn’t there!

Akeem
How so?

Right is right people, and that is the American way. If we want our troops to be treated in the same manner, than we have to do it too. Besides some of the ‘detainees’ really are NOT enemies of the State, and should NOT be there. If McCain/Bush had their way, people would just disappear and spend the rest of their lives in a prison for no infraction and without being able to say they did nothing… or even “Why am I here”. That is NOT the American way. I have to stick with Mr. Obama on this one… all the way. Remember the ultimate rule… THE GOLDEN RULE.

Steve MD – Well, I certainly hope he would. We could discuss what constitutes a “speedy trial” under various circumstances, but 6 years without habeas corpus is clearly unacceptable.

As to whether or not Obama’s policy position on extending habeas corpus would be popular today, I doubt it. The populous is not really receptive to home grown defendants’ rights, so why would you think they would be with foreign terrorist/detainess not even in the confines of the USA. Obama’s position will help him with the latte crowd and those already within his fold, but he needs no help there.

scott – Yes, he WAS saying he would stand with the Americans in that quote.” You just have the quote wrong. Oh, you didn’t know? You just pulled it off a website somewhere and assumed it HAD to be correct. LOL

I wish McCain would stop calling me his friend. I’m not now nor have I ever felt friendship with him or his ideas.

I’m not crazy about McCain, but Obama is not qualified to be president.

There is a good reason why Bush and Company are so afraid of actually putting these prisoners on trial. They will lose big time in front of the whole world. They have no evidence and can’t even charge these people with a crime. All a public trial will do is expose the Torturers to the eyes of the world….including those few delusional Americans who still refuse to see that Bush is a sad little amoral puppet.

@Ted: Which qualification in the Constitution are you referring to: his age or citizenship? Maybe they are your own qualifications then…

In any other year, McCain would have supported the Supreme Court’s decision. It would be classic John McCain – he supports these types of things, and he supports the U.S. constitution. It is issues like these that gave him a repulation as a Maverick, as a patriot.
The things people do to become president.

The issue here not only is whether or not the detainees’ have a day in court, but whether or not the legislative branch of our government upholds’ our Constitution. I’m sure Barack Obama who mastered in Constitutional law and taught Constitutional law, may have an edge on McCain. The Judicial branch has done it’s duty as required by the Constitution. Senator Obama has previously demonstrated his knowledge and adherence to the Constitution by voting against flawed legislation that if passed would have ended up in the Supreme Court. McCain is probably correct in what he has stated regarding the character of ones being detained, but his willingness to run roughshod over the tenets of our Constitution, displays an attitude that is dangerous to say the least. I’m not sure it would be wise to have one leading this country who believes Presidential directives, or questionable laws, passed by the legislative branch, should not be challenged by the Judicial, and once challenged, abide by that decision. If he doesn’t like it, he has every right to introduce a Constitutional amendment to overturn that decision. The final tool for determining the laws of this nation.

jock59801 -
You do know that Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the War Between the States don’t you?
***************************************
You are aware that it was declared unconstitional then too. Over 13,000 people were arrested without Habeas Corpus too.

I don’t like the war any more than anyone else but this decision was rediculous. By Mr. Obama supporting the decision he has cast the final stone in my decision of who to vote for. He is too liberal for me… Now I have to find a candidate I can support.

I am interested in the idea that America is at war. My understanding is that Congress has the power to declare war, and it has not done so. I can vaguely understand the need to suspend Habeas Corpus at time of war. But whatever the ‘war’ on terror is, it’s not a conventional war, the enemy aren’t hiding in the grass in your back garden.
If terrrorism is a threat, make plotting terror a crime (if it isn’t already!) and prosecute those people that you can when they do so. (I do know all of that is quite difficult, but I do believe that terrorism has to be fought through force of the law!)

Mr. Obama, are you going to pay for the legal defense of the terrorists in our court system? Your way past liberal, your nuts…
**************************************
If they are proven to be terrorists, yes I guess so, we will anyway. If they are proven to be held wrongly then I guess we pay for the innocent too.

Close Guantanamo and send the terrorists to a prison camp in Iraq. Enough of the bleeding heart liberals. Some of the terrorists have been released and they return to the same way of life, killing the Americans.

Here we go again can’t argue the case so it is smear time again. Pathetic.

It’s sad how the USA, once the beacon of principle, has sunk so low as to defend institutions like Gitmo. It’s equally sad that the conservatives in the USA were once such great defenders of individuual rights but have sold their soul defending the Bush regime.

@tim
No wonder liberals are Anti-Americans.
*************************************
BS I am a liberal and I am pro America, just anti Republican brand of America. You know the one where they want to suspend Habeas Corpus, the bedrock of Civil Liberties and protection against the State for over 400 years.
Contrary to you I have faith in our system. I am for protection under the law, I served in the Marine Corps to help guarantee those laws. Yes even a Marine can be a Liberal We come from all walks of life.
When youi shoot off your mouth know what you are talking about.

tim – Do you think the Chinese should be able to throw Americans into prison indefinitely without trial?

McCain would just as Bush jr. be a grave insult to that greatest of all things American, the Constitution.
Plus, I just heard what Ross Perot had to say about the idle old man: “McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory. After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.”
Vote for McCain? Only rampant fools will.

OBAMA DOESN”T HAVE ANY MILITARY EXPERIENCE!! That is just pathetic!!
*************************************
Hmmm….. How many bloggers have Military experience?

These individuals are foreign warriors who were on a foreign battlefield fighting American and/or coalition troops during war when they were taken prisoner. To give these foreign warriors the same rights as American citizens when they aren’t even in the United States, sets a dangerous precedent. Next the courts will decide that these foreign warriors cannot be denied bail. And when they post bail and are set free pending their trial they will be free to roam the streets of America. Do you really want these terrorists free to execute suicide bombings in your neighborhood?
The ramifications of the U. S. Supreme Court’s ruling will cause an implentation of a U. S. policy of “taking no prisoners.”

These individuals are foreign warriors who were on a foreign battlefield fighting American and/or coalition troops during war when they were taken prisoner.
**************************************
That is correct they can be held as prisoners of war and given all rights afforded of the Geneva Convention. T declare them Enemy Combatants, held indefinitely with out charges, and denied rights given to prisoners of war, without access to judicial review, has been declared unconstitutional.
I have no problem with holding them as prisoners of war until such war is over. If however the US believes that hey should be held as enemy combatants, should be tried as terrorists, then charge them in a court of law.

jock59801
If I am wrong why don’t you quote.

Paul, you claim to be an U.S. Army officer fighting in Iran.
What is your MOS?
==========================
I didn’t say “Iran”, I said, “Iraq”.
I am a 15 series (Aviation Branch) officer, currently serving in Baghdad with the MNSTC-I, in a non-flying position.

Paul – You may not have noticed, but this is what the right-wing media does over here these days. When anyone says something that might be considered a valid counter to their mantra, they look for ways to attack the person directly and damage their credibility, however dishonestly. It is a rather uncivilized tactic, but it seems to work for them.

Obama doesn’t know anything about our American government. In his brief time in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate, all he has done was position himself to tun for president. He doesn’t know anything about American government. But then, the terrorists didn’t know how to land airplanes. We know how that turned out!

HoosierSue – Nothing Obama said was in error, so why do you insist on criticizing him anyway? He was comparing the instances based on the fundamental right of habeas corpus. Thank God we might actually get a president who thinks that is important.

Royce
It is not a military question we are arguing about here.
McCain, and Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney certainly has alienated many Military and Veterans, not to mention Military Lawyers in the process

I have not read the ruling yet. Is it written in broad enough language so that illegal aliens can now file a habeas corpus petition if they are held by the INS to long?

Let’s see Obama talk to the families of the people who released detainees have killed.

The courts made the right decision in this case. Frankly, I was always leery of just keeping these people indefinitely in a prison, mainly because that makes it seem that the United States has no real reason to be holding them, otherwise they would be using the civilian courts to try these people.

Yes the courts made the right decision. To bad Obama cares more about the rights of TERRORIST trying to kill little kids with bombs wrapped around their waists. What about the voting rights of the poeple of FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN. They are Americans or did liberals forget about that

When America can’t live up to and honor its own pricnciples and belief in a just judicial system, how can it expect the rest of the world to? America, you can’t afford to have it both ways. That, “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude. The world is watching. You can’t have one rule of rights for yourself, and another for others. You can’t hide behind the word “terrorist” to justify your own acts of terrorism. “Viva America!” and its principles!!

Paul – how can you do that? Asking us to believe that you are fighting there and then posting on a public blog at the time of the post, with the time difference and all? I have family over there and they certainly cannot do that. Nor would they even think of trying to. That would be just a little bit of a career killer as it does violate more than just a few regs. Know what I mean, Vern? Methinks someone has taken their screen personna just a wee bit into the realm of complete fakeness…

Patriot – I will never vote for a coward that wouldn’t serve this country, a hypocrite who cares more about his race and those that would kill mine than he cares for mine who lay down their very lives to save this country each and every day. All Obama has is little girls going to $20K worth of ballet class and music lessons each year. And that is worth my family members lives? Privileged little brats that will probably need help getting into Ivy League schools, although mommy and daddy can afford it? McCain put up and did a career, including enduring continued torture when he could have left. His sons ARE putting up as you and I are sitting here typing. And one of his daughters is contemplating a military career. I certainly will not vote for Obama. Period.

“The problem is that the way the CSRT is currently designed is so insufficient that we can anticipate the Supreme Court overturning this underlying bill, once again, in the absence of habeas corpus review.”
Sen. Obama’s remarks to the Military Commissions Act in 2006. Once again, history proved him right.
His remarks are recommended reading if you want to understand his position on this issue. He doesn’t take it lightly, I can assure you.

Jimbo – I just get annoyed at those who impersonate the military. They are so easy to spot. While mine shoot with lead over there, I shoot with my keyboard over here. As you can see, I am quite accurate ;-0

“These are people who are not citizens.”
I am sure McCain’s friends in Vietnam said the same thing about him. This claim is both totally absurd and incredibly arrogant. It plays right into the worst stereotype of Americans held by some people around the world.
What he should say is that these are people who have not been convicted. There have already been known incidents of innocents wrongfully detained for years at Guantanamo. It is those people habeas corpus defends, not the real terrorists.

“At least we know where McCain stands…”
Anyone saying this is using the same playbook from 2004. Okay, take the bait, here’s where he stands (currently, but wait, he may need to correct himself):
1. War – ‘Yes, ma’am, can I have more please – I hate it but I can’t stop loving it.’
2. False imprisonment – ‘They’re not falsely imprisoned if I say so.’
3. Economy – ‘I don’t know anything about it.’
4. Environment – ‘Looks pretty clean to me.’
5. Health care – ‘I didn’t get health care in Vietnam, stop your whining.’
6. Energy – ‘My friends, the problem isn’t oil, it’s that we don’t have enough. And by that I mean something that means something else. And we need a rational energy policy. Just like the one we currently have, or should have. And I’m not confused – stop playing the age card.’

A couple of minor points, and one big one – Rudolph Hess was eventually tried at Nuremberg, but only after the end of the war – he was originally captured in 1941 and held without trial, hearings, habeas corpus, whatever until that time. Detention of enemy combatants is not a punishment imposed on criminals, nor is being an enemy combatant necessarily a crime. Neither Geneva Convention III, nor Geneva Common Article 3, apply habeas corpus to people detained during military conflicts. So, big question -does the Supreme Court even recognize that a state of war exists between the US and al-Qaeda?
Second minor point- didn’t Sen Obama vote for the MCA that the SC ruling declared unconstitutional? Isn’t this a slap at Congress just as much as at the President?

skyebeader i repect everyone opinion and my brother-in-law is a retired captain from the air force who served under him and he has so much admiration for the man and one of my employees served under him so i believe they have some idea of his values as a soldier and leader. once again everyone is entitled to thei own opinion. check back here after the election in november. that will be a defining moment for everyones opinion.

It would be ever so nice if people who choose to comment on this blog actually had some facts.
So far facts seem to be few from virtually any source. After researching the question of how many prisoners released actually returned to the battlefield:
The answer appears to be SEVEN validated instances of this happening
out of hundreds of prisoners released
and three of those instances are questionable as to whether the same name was really someone who was involved in combat. All of these instances involved people who were involved in renewed combat in Afghanistan (none in Iraq) except one Russian citizen who was involved in “terrorist activity” in southern Russia.
I might point out that Senator Obama or any other US Senator “released” these individuals. The US Department of Defense released them basically because they were unable to build an actionable case that they could bring them to trial on.

El_Pajaro.
NPR story? If that is your primary news source I can easily understand where you are coming from. It’s a crime that we taxpayers have to foot the bill for a network that’s in the tank with the Dems. I stand by my last statement on the question.

Lou – my spouse is retired military who received a fax-stamped retirement cert from WJC on cheap onion skin mangled at the last station (which my spouse refused – I am proud of that because it was the right thing to do, and I just voted for HRC), but who got a personally signed and framed letter from GHWB. My son and son-in-law each are retirement eligible now and are probably one up each from pulling their triggers (assuming that the next president gets them home from their muliple tours alive). They all are SCW and BTDT. I think they have pretty good judgements. I watched the man while in, afterwards, and after resignation. Yes. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And I only suggest that being emersed with people who know the inside workings very clearly has an impact on mine. You have people who influenced yours. Perhaps those who do not have the experience with the military that you and I do might do well to talk to those who do. It might be just a good thing to simply thank them. They are not empty uniforms and there are some very fine brains under those covers.

1percenter.
Re. NPR comment. Many of us on the right feel that the liberals tend to look at an issue with their feelings and then justify conclusions however they can. NPR seems to fill that avenue for them. This is probably why you will find more liberals in the social sciences and like fields such as academia and entertainment. Liberals and conservatives actually use different thought processes to reach conclusions. Kindasorta make compromises sometimes difficult. No?

El_Pajaro.
I prefer US News and World Report. AS you may surmise from my most recent post, I am business oriented although I am a retired elementary teacher (Catholic).

1percenter.
Are network ratings up for discussion?

1percenter – it is a real shame that people just don’t watch, listen, and read what the actual candidates have to say out of their own mouths, brains, and pens and then go form their own opinions. When people need NPR, Fox, Jerry Springer, and a Survivor winner to parse their thoughts for them it simply further proves my contention that there needs to be tests to procreate and vote. And then people try to whine-debate about whose inane parser is better. Amazing. I would bet most of these people have driver’s licenses, too… Scary.

BRING THE CLINTONS BACK TO WHITE HOUSE NOW!!!!
The Bill Clinton administration brought
the U.S. 22 million new jobs and the lowest unemployment since the 1960s. It was an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity. Alot of very bad stuff could have happened but didn’t because he just did the job well. It may take a little more time for folks to truly understand how extraordinarily well he did and how hard that job is. Hillary would have grown our economy with the new green industries, which equaled jobs, better environment and far less reliance on foreign energy. Neither one of these guys will do as well on the economy as Hillary would have.
obama,
Whatever promises and pledges you make about salvaging the economy, they will fall on deaf ears. Don”t you know why Senator Clinton earned 18 MILLION votes? Then I”ll be happy to fill you in. The economy was never so GREAT as when William Jefferson Clinton was in power.
When he was harrassed and stalked by that Stupid Bimbo, Monique what”s her face, Bill soldierded on, and the economy did not falter. That is what I call showing courage in the face of adversity. I was among millions of people, who wanted this POINTLESS WITCH HUNT of President Clinton to cease, and indeed, the American People did not suffer any ill effect from this senseless onslaught of Clinton, who continued fighting hard to keep the economy STRONG AND RESILLIENT.
Obama, look at yourself in the mirror. You possess neither the FLAIR, PANACHE, NOR THE WISDOM That Bill Clinton had, and you will ot be able to salvage the decrepid state of the American economy.
What this economy desperately needed was another CLINTON to salvage it. Now it will fall into the hands of Senator McCain, who is far more capable and qualified to salvage it than you are.
obama……dream on, and on and…….
Clinton didn”t salvage the economy with pinache, he salvaged it with sensible policy.
The same policies are needed now. We need to practice fiscal discipline by paying for programs as we go. Lowering the deficit will decrease the government footprint in the capital markets and help business and consumers.
We need to adopt tax policies which share the burden fairly and expect that those who benefit the most from society(the wealthy)are not given breaks which the rest of us have to pay for. We need to help those struggling to make ends meet by not adding to their burden.
We need to make wise investments to create jobs where they”re needed. 2/3 of all job growth since 2001 has been in health care and education. As the populations of retirees needing healthcare and school age children needing educational opportunities grows, it doesn”t take a rocket scientist to recognize where te investments need to be made to get America working again in jobs that can”t be outsourced. Republicans are not rocket scientists.
The Democrats support the policies which gave us peace and prosperity in the 1990s and those same policies will bring us back in the next decade.
The Clintons as far as I remember had the best economic record ever in the history of the United States. That’s not too bad, as far as the rest, the petty matters…? I’m not too concerned with them. Barack Obama is going to have serious problems without the Clintons. personally, I would advise Hillary to let B fall on his own. So that she can comeback and run again 2012. B could lose by a pretty wide margin if these “momentum stats” of the last half of the primaries continue to ring true. It reminds me very much when the democrats voted Joe Liebermann out and the people voted him back in again. There’s a possibility of this happening, even in the face of these overwhelming historic odds. What else would explain these incredibly close polling numbers? John McCain is in a statistical tie for the White House. This should not be. FDR blew his competition right out of the water. Why aren’t the stats reflecting the historic political in balance?

neil1785: Now you’re yelling at me; please make sure the bruises don’t show. Look, I’d rather have a sock puppet than Bush/Cheney – and I’d even take old gym socks at that. So scream your thoughts if that helps. I can’t predict the future, but I think that sometimes one indication is money. If McCain ain’t raising it, he’s got trouble.

“Elizabeth Hasselbeck says Obama isn’t brilliant”.
NO WONDER!!!!! Look at him on debates with Hillary. He’s too dumb subjective. He is unable to talk in-depth about any of his so-called policies that he actualy stole from Hillary’s briliant ideas as proven at the 4 debates he had with her.
Ben Stein was on Jimmy Kimmel last year promoting his new book. Stein knows how to make a dollar or several million. Kimmel asked Stein if Obama should read his book. Stein said no, he should start with something more suited to his education level on the economy like simple addition and subtraction.
Obama took private lessons in economy just last year but apparently without great success according to his teacher:. He said Obama was slow on the uptake.
I now question Obama’s credibility of being a Magna Cum Laude from Harvard… HOW IN FACT DID HE EARN IT?… he can hardly debate sensibly on the spot without a prepared speech written by a paid speechwriter… he’s typically slow at impromptu speaking and most of the time he stutters and at the loss for words and he hardly uses or knows the right terminology like the difference between denounce and reject … evaded crunch-time debates with Hillary and now evading McCain’s a number of requested debates… evading public view of McCain-Obama debate by Obama himself selecting only one debate on the date that falls on a holiday which is July 4th when everyone is out vacationing… things like these do not make up an intellectual that has achieved higher if not the highest honor in the academe… not to mention the fact that as an adult he still practiced classroom-type of cheating like he plagiarized his speeches, bribed DNC delegates/superdelegates to seal his nomination, lied to the highest degrees… plus the fact that he as well as his wife had more black professors than whiteys and so on and so forth…And Besides, Obama & his wife were afforded the luxury of 230 points added to their SATs in order for an african-american to get into an Ivy League school. It pretty much points out that they must be too dumb that they need to be given the extra 230 points before they can even take the SAT!!
With Obama’s nomination, who is totally inexpert, amateurish, inadequate and unqualified for the job as President, Democrats have sealed their ultimate defeat. With Hillary’s nomination they may have perhaps had a little chance of winning the GE: they gambled it away. From now on they are doomed.

neil1785: i applaude your senseless and hopeless optimism and encourage you to write her in on your ballot as she won’t be on anyone else’s. your performance is worthy of the band on the titanic.

Ahh, c’mon Jimbo, don’t pick up the fiddle too… All I hear is waah, waah, waah, why won’t Obama debate me? sounds like my 3-year-old…

1percenter – Thank you. He was one heckuva guy. Never graduated high school. Started his own business and built highways on the coast during WWII for troop transport. Had a young guy and his father working for him that were rounded up with the rest of their family and sent to Tule Lake. Spent a couple of years taking them food and clothes because he could trade gas coupons. He taught me that self-sufficiency ruled. If I didn’t earn it, I couldn’t have it. That I had no right to even think of being a burden to anyone. I am very fortunate to have had such an honorable man as my father. Happy Father’s Day and please, if you still have one, tell them how much you love them. You never know when that opportunity will leave forever.

1percenter.
I don’t blame Obama – he surly must know his limitations. He does seem to have a lot of trouble going into much depth on the issues – especially without a teleprompter.

For all you young republicans out there. Good news, McCain will need to start up the draft to keep his war going for the next 100 years or so. His son is already serving so it won’t bother him in the least to make sure everyone else serves their country too. That is the only reason McCain should be a president. Otherwise, he is too old and too much of a Bush loving neocon to be anything other than what he is now – an old rich spoiled temper tantrum throwing republican.

Jimbo: no doubt that Obama doesn’t debate as well as he orates. the sad thing about McCain is that even with the teleprompter he comes off flatter than unleavened bread. and, c’mon, the creepy smile he gives sometimes looks like the Joker or Mr. Sardonicus.

NITE NITE – we had some fun!!

it matters little who is right or wrong (for debate purposes) if obama does not even understand the historical background, participants, and outcomes, regarding the nuremberg trials he is referring to. MORE EVIDENCE THAT WE ARE ON THE BRINK OF NOMINATING AN INDIVIDUAL THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY TO SERVE THIS GREAT COUNTRY. THIS IS A TRAGEDY. GOODNIGHT.
COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY

neil: if you turn out to be right, please accept this as my apology because i will be rolling over in my grave at that point.

nope – and who cares who i would vote for anyway? i leave that sort of exhibitionism for the playboy channel.

In 2004, blacks chose Democrat John Kerry over President Bush by an 88 percent to 11 percent margin, according to exit polls. We all know that Obama is heavily favored by the Black community.

I think the question is:
“Why would we give full constitutional rights to those who have been accused of terrorizing and threatening our country?”
Granted, these detainees deserve a TRIAL….. but not a CIVIL trial.
They are NOT US citizens; they are NOT entitled to the rights of a US citizen!
There are international military courts set up to deal with just such crimes of terror, and those courts are where these cases should be adjudicated.
If you were related to someone who was killed om 9/11 you’d have more than just an inkling of why the supreme court’s ruling was flawed.
So although it was a more difficult decision to reach, I applaud John Mccain for saying what he did.

the Bill of Rights isn’t limited to US citizens only. i’m not sure what form of freedom mccain is interested in protecting, but without habeas corpus, there is no such thing as freedom.

McCain’s problem is that he wants to come aboard the ship Conservative, but he doesn’t know the password. I think right-wingers have been getting a contact high from debating lefties; since when has anyone conservative trusted government’s decision on who should be locked up?

FOLLOW UP:
If we now have to treat all future POWs as “criminal defendants,” then that means every detainee must be given the Miranda warning — in their native language. That means we must have dozens of interpreters on the battlefield. Furthermore, every one of the current detainees may have to be released — even the masterminds of 9/11 — for failing to give them their Miranda warning. THAT is why the ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court is WRONG.

Getsmart, you might want to RE-READ my comment. NOWHERE do I say that these detainees should NOT be given Geneva Convention rights. In fact, I stated the opposite: “The only rights they should be afforded are those covered by the Geneva Convention as ‘prisoners of war.’”
I did follow that up with the clarification that these detainees are not technically CALLED POWs, because they don’t fit the definition of POWs within the Geneva Convention.

Vernonwerge, sorry but you are still trying to equate prisoners taken in war to that of criminal defendants. Common POWs are NOT given a trial because they are not charged with a crime. They are detained until the war is over or their captors release them to other authorities. ONLY the masterminds and leaders are tried, if applicable, but they should not be afforded civilian trials with civilian rights. National security is at stake if all evidence has to be made public. Some evidence may have enough information that will make it known as to how the information was obtained. Thus the enemy will change their methods of communication and make our efforts to apprehend or seize their communications more difficult.
Until you liberals understand that the Islamic extremist do want us DEAD, you will never understand why we take the War on Terror so seriously.

The President said several times after 9/11 that the terrorists want to change our way of life. If we allowed them to change who we are then they’ve won. Well it’s seems there have been many changes in our way of life and who we are since then.
Our Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
That’s what we said we were about from the beginning. We believe all men have unalienable rights. We have been promoting ourselves as the champion of human rights around the world. Isn’t that the current justification for the war in Iraq? To remove an abusive dictator and introduce our ideals and values there and elsewhere in the Middle East.
We have changed since 9/11. We are becoming more of a police state and have been rationalizing practices we criticized the Soviets of. By the President’s own definition, it seems the terrorists are succeeding.
Do we believe that the right to a fair trial is a basic and unalienable human right?

John McCain has now sunk to the ultimate low and ultimate switch of souls…
Habeas Corpus is one of the 3 or four building blocks or foundations that made this country great…and like Bush…he wants to weaken that foundation…
all in the new name of running for President.
sad.

James Dan;ey
If you are really worried about national security maybe you can explain to me how you could ever vote for the candidate who will continue us down the road of getting LESS intelligence and the support of the world…our allies and borderline states.
The world waits to see if we have learned that we were duped or if it really was that we didn’t care that we made these mistakes.
If we make the choice that we didn’t care…you bet your a## we will be losing more support from those countries… and the terrorists gain a larger cover/vacuum to exist in.
The intelligence we receive from these prisoners is 1. not as abundantly valuable as what we get from countries who want to support us.
and 2. not worth the trade off in PR that we give the terrorists to recruit.
We need to be smarter this time. Not stupidly fearful.
the famous Ben Franklin line…is truer today than it was when he said it…Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Is it ironic that Mccain was one of the four who originally opposed to MCA in 2006?
Blame Bush but also blame the democratic congress for the mess we are in.

Karen, you wrote: “Our country has been in wars before, and we have never had to give up all of our freedoms.”
What about ALL mail coming in from outside of the country being opened during WWII? And have you forgotten about all of the AMERICAN CITIZENS of Japanese ancestry who lost their possessions and property and were incarcerated during WWII? Now that was an abomination!

Karen, you are correct that there is NO DIFFERENCE between a “prisoner of war” and an “enemy combatant.” The Geneva Convention gives a very specific definition of what a “prisoner of war” is. These terrorist do NOT fit that description. Thus the term “enemy combatant.” President Bush has said on numerous occasions that while these “enemy combatants” do not fall within the definition of “prisoner of war” within the Geneva Convention that they WILL BE AFFORDED the same rights and treatment that “prisoners of war” receive.
What the U. S. Supreme Court has done is give these “enemy combatants” MORE rights than what “prisoners of war” are entitled to under the Geneva Convention.

Karen,
I agree with you on the merit.
But …blaming president without blaming the congress will not solve a problem. “Democratic” congress passed Military Commissions Act. Not to mention USA Patriot Act.

They are NOT US citizens; they are NOT entitled to the rights of a US citizen!\
Posted by: questioner | Jun 15, 2008 2:56:02 AM
_______________________
No PERSON shall be . . . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
The word “citizen” is not even mentioned in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.

Spirit Rebel, I will repeat what I wrote earlier. The invasion of Iraq was a result of the final ultimatum issued to Saddam Hussein after12 years of failing to comply with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire. While the UN Security Council issued their final ultimatum in 2002, they made it known that they had no intention of following through on their ultimatum. So President Bush issued his own ultimatum. When Saddam Hussein continued his refusal to comply, President Bush — with the authorization of Congress given to him in 2002 — kept his word.
There is an old adage that it is better to let 9 guilty men free than to convict one innocent man. That is fine when it comes to criminal cases. But when you are dealing with terrorists, and you consider that the 9 guilty terrorists will only kill more innocent people following their release, that is neither prudent or cost effective.
The main purpose for keeping these cases out of civil court, and more specifically the American judicial system in general, is that some of the evidence that must be presented in order to prove guilt would also expose informants and the methods of obtaining the evidence. Furthermore, imagine having 15 different trials going on at the same time in different jurisdictions. And all of these trials require CIA agents (and in some cases maybe the same agents) to appear as witnesses. Also, some military personnel may have to be taken off the battlefield in order to testify. We are at war! We don’t need to have our CIA agents and military personnel being tied up in courts while they need to be out gathering information and doing their regular duties. We have already had at least two individuals have the charges against them dropped rather than revealing the top secret information. Military tribunals afford the necessary secrecy that are not possible within the American judicial system.
Eric, I did not argue that “being held is proof of guilt.” I asked how Vernonwerge knows that there are innocent individuals still being detained. That is not the same thing.

James,
As you acknowledge a large percentage of those detained have been shown to have been innocent or at least lacking of any creditable evidence of guilt. They were held for many years. Those errors alone should be sufficient for any reasonable person to see that without trials the guilt or innocence of all those remaining is questionable. The onus is not on me to show there are innocents being held still, it is on the government to show that ALL of those being held are guilty of something that warrants their continued detention.************james said “this War on Terror is like no other. The “battlefield” is world wide. The enemy combatants are in Pakistan and other parts of Asia, the UK and other parts of Europe, Africa and even in the Western Hemisphere.” This is going to surprise you. I agree with you. Where I disagree with you is how to deal with that situation. We can not simply invade every country that has a sizable Muslim population and arrest (without trial) anyone we think may pose a threat. The only way to defeat radical Islam is by winning the hearts and minds of moderate Islam, by showing them their future is healthier,safer and wealthier by being allied with the West than it is by moving closer to radical Islam. Radical Islam’s immediate goal is not to over throw or defeat America (or the West) it knows it can’t do that on it’s own. It’s hopes are that by antagonizing America into rash acts it can make moderate muslims fearful of America and the west, driving them into the arms of the radicals. Arabs/Muslims are a patient people, they think in terms of centuries, not when the next TV commercial is on. We have to show we value our constitution, that we believe in the statutes our forefathers put into the law books, that they are not just flags of convenience that we throw away as soon as they become inconvenient to our desires. James you confuse strength with desire for retribution and confuse weakness for a patience to make sure the end result is one that provides a safe and sustainable future for our children. I would ask you who you think were stronger figures in History . Those like Ghandi and Mandela who were prepared to accept great personal suffering for their convictions that the path of least bloodshed was the route to their long term goals or Lenin and Castro who shot first, asked questions 2nd and shot again if they didn’t like the answers. I am ( and I think most Americans are) prepared to give my life for my family and my values. If all that one values (freedom, rights in law, constitutional values) are given away to provide the illusion of “safety” (and that is all it is a temporary illusion) under the banner of “national security” what is there to die for? AND THAT IS WHAT AL QAEEDA WANT TO DO,THEY BELIEVE AMERICANS ARE SOFT, THEY WANT TO DIMINISH THE RESOLVE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, TO CORRODE THEIR SENSE OF VALUES, TO MAKE THEM TIRE OF THE BLOODSHED, BECAUSE WITHOUT BELIEF IN THE RIGHTIOUSNESS OF THE CAUSE WE WILL NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE REST OF THE WORLD OR OUR OWN PEOPLE THAT WE NEED TO WIN THIS WAR. We are too used to short term solutions, this is a long term problem, it needs long term solutions. At times they will be painful and they will be difficult, but it is only by showing WE have true belief that our system is right even under great provocation that we can defeat radical Islam and leave the world a safer place for our children.

James wrote: ‘What the U. S. Supreme Court has done is give these “enemy combatants” MORE rights than what “prisoners of war” are entitled to under the Geneva Convention.’
That is correct. The problem though is that there’s pretty good evidence that the Bush Administraion, rightly or wrongly, decided to use the Enemy Combatant tag to get away with not treating captured enemy as dictated under the Geneva Convention.
Therefore, the advantage of being able to challenge your detention when you’re an enemy combatant is, I think, made up for by the disadvantage that you aren’t protected by the Geneva Convention.
The thing is that if Bush thought after 9/11 that he couldn’t let the Terrorists he caught get away with just giving him their name, rank and serial number, he probably should’ve just withdrew from the Geneva Convention instead of making this highly problematical category called “enemy combatant”.
Given it was a new category (unlike POW) there was every possibility that it would come to be defined in such a way that they’d have a right to challenge their detention.
The rights they were just given, however, were probably excessive and out of proportion to legal need.
I guess we can just hope at this point that the enemy combatants don’t end up in front of some typical bleeding heart liberal judge who’ll let them go without giving proper consideration to whether releasing them will endanger the public.

Bob Johnson, I agree with most of your assessment. However President Bush had a number of legal scholars, constitutional lawyers and Geneva Convention experts hashing this out. When presented with the options he chose the course he took. He was not about to call these terrorists “prisoners of war,” as that would have placed them in the same category as the common private who was captured in battle. And there is nothing common about these terrorists. President Bush knew that there would eventually be a ruling on the term “enemy combatant.” But he expected that the worse that would come out of this is the U. S. Supreme Court would give them “prisoner of war” status; with a reasonable possibility that the U. S. Supreme Court would defer to his decision. But the U. S. Supreme Court decided to give the “enemy combatants” even more rights instead.
I really don’t believe that withdrawing from the Geneva Convention would have been a very wise move.
Ironically, had we located WMDs in Iraq, President Bush’s approval rating would be at 70% today. And none of this would be an issue.

Thinking, the Constitution is just fine, it’s the judges that need changing. The preamble makes it clear that the constitution applies to the Citizens of the US, not whom ever the ACLU thinks it should.

I am no lawyer and it seems that the Court could have been a little more precise in it’s ruling but the fact is that there are hundreds of people being held in a prison, they have been there for 6 years, and they have never been charged with anything or had a chance to prove their innocence. This is yet another example of how the Bush administration has botched things. I’m guessing that the government either tortured them and doesn’t want anyone to know or they have no proof but are now afraid that this emprisonment has given these people reason to want to harm Americans. In Indonesia terrorists are put on public trial and all evidence is seen. Many people credit this process for a reduction in attacks as everyone can see the results and it shows these monsters for who they really are. Am I dreaming or at first didn’t we label them “enemy combatants” as oppsed to “prisoners of war” so the Geneva Convention wouldn’t apply? I’m sure some of those people deserve to be thrown in a hole and never see the light of day again but I’ll also bet some are innocent of any wrongdoing. Do we write these people off so our government can continue to hide the fact that mistakes were made? Do we not offer justice because our government does want to admit they tortured people? Put them on trial and get this over with!

Newsrook, while the link was taken down I am familiar with the report. That is OLD news. VERY OLD news. Secretary of the Army Thomas White made his comment way back in 2002. And guess what? Over 400 of the detainees HAVE ALREADY BEEN RELEASED.
Now as for Thomas Jefferson’s quote, it is applicable to criminals not to terrorists. Do you — search your soul long and hard before you answer — really believe that it is better to let 9 known “guilty” TERRORISTS free than to incarcerate one innocent man?
A “yes” answer would mean that you believe it is better that 9 individuals — EACH OF WHOM — will likely plan or execute suicide bombings resulting in the death of dozens, if not hundreds, of innocent people, is better than allowing ONE innocent individual to be detained for years? A “yes” answer would mean that you believe that the possible sacrifice of hundreds of people versus keeping an innocent man away from his loved ones for a number of years is acceptable.
THAT is the dilemma that President Bush has had to deal with since 9/11.

Obama is showing his weakness and his naiveness, the Suprem Court was wrong on all levels, the Constitution applies to US citizens and welcomed guests only!! (We the People)
But no where in history has POW’s or illegal combatants ever got access to our courts!!
If we are attacked again the line will lead right up to the DNC, ACLU and Supreme Court!!

@James Danley
A few counter questions:
1. If they are known “guilty” terrorists, why would they be released?
2. How did you come up with a 9-1 ratio of terrorists versus innocents? You even point to former Secretary of the Army Thomas White in your comment, and according to him at least a third of the inmates didn’t belong at Gitmo.
3. Which ratio is acceptable to you? 5-5? 7-3? Or even your ratio reversed: 1-9?
4. Would you still find it acceptable if that one innocent individual was yourself or one of your loved ones?
5. What if every case of mistreatment of innocents made another 10 or 100 young men join al Qaeda to fight what they see as American injustice?
I recommend that you take a look at McClatchy’s investigation into the detainee cases, released yesterday.

Just one more reason I cannot and will not vote for Obama. Nor will I stay home. I refuse to even discuss the notion that non-Americans have American rights that only Americans have died to defend. Period
Posted by: dotindixie | Jun 16, 2008 8:24:12 AM
_____________________
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part.
No PERSON shall be . . . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
The word “citizen” or “American” is not even mentioned in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.

rhbate – Ignorance is Bliss -
You got to read the whole Constitution – “We the People of the United States of America”
The constitution in all its amendments is for the people of the United States, not foreigners caught on foreign land.
And to top it all of these terrorists are not on our land, the Supreme Court has always upheld in the past that persons kept outside the US in a time of war do not get covered!
Even in WWII which I do not agree with FDR intermed 100′s of thousands of Japenese and German within US and the court approved.
The Court has over stepped its authority and the President should ignore the order or Congress and the President should overturn the judgemant with law.

Somebody needs to tell the supposed Constitutional law expert Obama that Nuremberg did NOT allow for American habeas corpus. Ridiculous!

Vernonwerge, even if we did know that Saddam Hussein didn’t have WMDs it still doesn’t matter. ONE of the conditions of the 1991 cease fire was that IF Saddam Hussein no longer had WMDs he HAD TO PROVE THAT HE NO LONGER HAD THEM. He did NOT prove that he no longer had them, therefore he continued to violate the conditions of the cease fire. SO we felt that 12 years of trying diplomacy to get Saddam Hussein to comply with the conditions of the cease fire agreement was long enough. When the UN Security Council refused to follow through on their “final ultimatum,” President Bush issued his own final ultimatum. Saddam Hussein called what he perceived was a bluff by President Bush. But when Saddam Hussein once again failed to comply, President Bush rescinded the cease fire and invaded Iraq. This was in accordance with several UN Security Council resolutions.
Now then you wrote: “I believe the evidence is over whelming that he manipulated evidence and stretched the truth to such a degree it was no longer the truth.” Explain to me then how it was that in 1998 — when Congress gave President Clinton the authorization for regime change in Iraq due to his WMD threat — Gov. George W. Bush (R-TX) manipulated the evidence which caused President Clinton, VP Al Gore, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV), Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and many others to say that Iraq had WMDS and was a threat? NOTE: Sen. Rockefeller was one of those who said the threat was “imminent.” He also said that Iraq would have a nuclear weapon in 5 years — that would have been 2003!!!!
In addition, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD), Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and others sent a letter, dated Oct 9, 1998, to President Clinton urging him to “take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Aaron, very well put!!

Or maybe the information that was gleaned from the detainees was successful in foiling subsequent attacks.

James Danley,
I am 100% with you on the “defeat the terrorists” part. I think we just differ on how to do it.
When I look at the war on terror from where I stand it looks like we are fighting mosqitos with canons. We are acting like Goliath in the fight against David and I don’t like it one bit. Because we are the good guys and bin Laden is no David.
If we want to defeat terrorism it takes less muscles and more brains than what we have shown so far. And it requires us not losing ourselves to fear and hate.

As far as “National Security” is concerned, there doesn’t seem to be much daylight between the positions of McCain and Obama with respect to keeping everything “on the table” regarding the threat of attack on Iran, keeping everything “on the table” with regard to the need for ‘some’ domestic, anti-terrorist spying, and keeping everything “off the table” regarding the impeachment of the Iraq war criminal, Bush.

I live in the most southern part of the Netherlands. In recent years I adopted the grave of a WWII U.S. Army soldier Erie County, PA, who found his final resting place at the Netherlands American Cemetery at Margraten, the Netherlands. Since the waning days of WWII it is a Dutch tradition to adopt the U.S. graves at this cemetery. This tradition is passed on from generation to generation.
These young U.S. Servicemen payed the ultimate price for us to live in a free, democratic society which commits itself to safeguarding fundamental universal principles in the past, the present and the future. They paved the way for U.S. Nuremberg Chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson to set the tone for the way modern post war democratic societies organized the values which we cherish so much. This is what always made me feel so proud of the Americans who liberated my country more than sixty years ago, so I couldn’t agree more with the statements of Barack Obama pertaining to bringing Bin Laden to Justice and thus preventing this murderer from becoming a martyr. Reason prevails over fear. I am really thankful to Barack Obama that he is able to renew the values so eloquently stated by Robert H. Jackson in his Opening Statement before the International Military Tribunal (at Nuremberg) : “That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.”