McCain Criticizes Supreme Court's Guantanamo Detainee Ruling

[Leafless]

Arizona Senator John McCain condemned the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to allow detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, access to federal courts.

``These are people who are not citizens; they do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have,'' McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said at a town hall meeting in Pemberton, New Jersey, yesterday. ``There are some bad people down there.''

Mc.Cains assertion is so correctly right that and makes one shudder to think that some of those already released tried to attack to attack America again and should never have been given the opportunity to do so.

``Thirty of the people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again,'' said McCain, 71.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

[Mechanix]

It's my understanding that the executive branch has the authority to decide such things, and that the Supreme Court is suppose to stay home.

[Leafless]

It's my understanding that the executive branch has the authority to decide such things, and that the Supreme Court is suppose to stay home.

The responsibilities of the executive branch of the U.S. government:

This branch is basically responsible for "doing" the law. It is the branch with guns, jails, armies, etc. Basically, the head is the president, who appoints the vice president. The vice president is the speaker of the senate, and is second in line to the presidency. The president has the ability to send diplomats out, etc. He is also head of the army. He can veto laws, suggest laws, and is head of state of the country. That's the basics of the issue.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_res...e_US_government

But President G. Bush could have vetoed that law but chose to abide by it.

The Bush administration will ``abide by the court's decision,'' the president said following the ruling, during a news conference in Rome.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

[CANADIEN]

It's my understanding that the executive branch has the authority to decide such things, and that the Supreme Court is suppose to stay home.

In the US system, the Legislative branch (that is, at the Federal level, the Ccongress), passes legislation. The Executive branch (the President) is responsible for implementing legislation passed by Congress; the President can also veto such law, but the veto can be overturned by a 2/3 vote in both Houses of Congress. The Judicial branch (the Courts) interprets legislation by, among other things, determining if it is constitutional or not.

In this particular case, the Supreme Court was asked to determine if a particular law passed by the Congress and enforced by the President was constitutional. They said no, on the grounds that it violated the rights of a person to contest the legality of his detention through a writ of habeas corpus.

Edited June 15, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Three other cases related to the detention of individuals for terrorism have been heard by the US Supreme Court:

- in Hamdi vs Rumsfeldt (2004), the Court determined that an US citizen detained as an ennemy combattant had the legal right to contest the legality of his detention in court through a writ of habeas corpus

- in Rasul vs Bush (same day as Hamdi), the Court determined that the US court system had authority to determine if non-Americans detained at Guantanamo are rightfully emprisoned

- in Hamdan vs Rumsfeldt (2006), the Court determined that the military commissions set up to try ennemy combattants held at Guantanamo could not proceed because they violated both the (US) Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention.

And there there is Boumedienne vs Bush (June 12, 2008) in which the Court determined that the Military Commission Act of 2006 (ironically, passed in response to the Hamdan vs Rumsfeldt decision) violated the right of persons detained in Guantanamo to coontest the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus.

It is important to note that the Court has NEVER ordered the release of people detained in Guantanamo. It has NEVER determined that they were innocent of any charge brought against them. It has NEVER determined that the US government could not hold, try, convict and sentence them. What it did determine is that the process used violated US law. Quite a difference.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE: "Thirty of the people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again,'' said McCain, 71.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home[/url]

I find it very interesting that he would refer to the "thirty people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay ...." in his criticism for the Supreme Court decision as the decision to release them was made by the Defense Department in spite of the fact that they "considered more than 90 percent of the transferred detainees to be terrorist threats to the United States and its allies, but sent them home as part of an agreement that Saudi Arabia would mitigate the threat..."

"Critics are concerned that the arrangement will simply return some extremists to the streets. Defense officials say about 30 of the nearly 480 detainees released from Guantanamo have again taken up terrorist activities." link

Of course there's no evidence offered confirming the "about 30" number, nor is there any information as to what the "terrorist activities" are, much less evidence that they "tried to attack America again." (again? )

So it's a real crock that McCain is mentioning this in regards to the Supreme Court decision and it seems as if he's speculating/exaggerating besides.

[CANADIEN]

I find it very interesting that he would refer to the "thirty people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay ...." in his criticism for the Supreme Court decision as the decision to release them was made by the Defense Department in spite of the fact that they "considered more than 90 percent of the transferred detainees to be terrorist threats to the United States and its allies, but sent them home as part of an agreement that Saudi Arabia would mitigate the threat..."

"Critics are concerned that the arrangement will simply return some extremists to the streets. Defense officials say about 30 of the nearly 480 detainees released from Guantanamo have again taken up terrorist activities." link

Of course there's no evidence offered confirming the "about 30" number, nor is there any information as to what the "terrorist activities" are, much less evidence that they "tried to attack America again." (again? )

So it's a real crock that McCain is mentioning this in regards to the Supreme Court decision and it seems as if he's speculating/exaggerating besides.

These individuals were released as part of an agreement between the US and Saudi government, not as a result of any of the court decisions. While I think it is a stupid idea, the blame lays with the Bush administration, not the Court.

[Guest American Woman]

These individuals were released as part of an agreement between the US and Saudi government, not as a result of any of the court decisions. While I think it is a stupid idea, the blame lays with the Bush administration, not the Court.

Exactly. And McCain should have made that clear AND had criticism for those actually responsible for the decision to release them. Furthermore, the "tried to attack America again" is pure conjecture/exaggeration at best, and downright false at worst. If these people had indeed "tried to attack America" even once, I can't even begin to imagine the Defense Department letting them go. Furthermore, I'm sure we would have read about their attempt. Over and over again aka the LAX bomber. They wouldn't just be an anonymous "about 30" detainees.

[Leafless]

It is important to note that the Court has NEVER ordered the release of people detained in Guantanamo. It has NEVER determined that they were innocent of any charge brought against them. It has NEVER determined that the US government could not hold, try, convict and sentence them. What it did determine is that the process used violated US law. Quite a difference.

Who is THEY?

Your imagination is running overtime as to the legal status of an enemy combatant.

The legal status of enemy combatants remains murky. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on only one aspect: American citizens captured fighting in Afghanistan can be detained as long as they are granted due process in American courts. But most of the law is unsettled.

Keep you personal views to yourself.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5331942

[August1991]

Mc.Cains assertion is so correctly right that and makes one shudder to think that some of those already released tried to attack to attack America again and should never have been given the opportunity to do so.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

Leafless, here's an instance where I think that I may agree wih you.

I haven't read the Supreme Court's decision or McCain's response but it has always seemed to me that these men in Guantanamo are POWs, not criminals accused of a crime.

We should not put POWs into a judicial system. Instead, we should negotiate their release possibly as part of a prisoner exchange process or after an armistice. Unless they have committed a so-called "war crime", these men are not guilty of any crime. We should treat them civilly as prisoners of war.

If we put them into a war tribunal process, then I suppose we are into largely uncharted territory. Rudolf Hess was in custody until he died.

[CANADIEN]

Leafless, here's an instance where I think that I may agree wih you.

I haven't read the Supreme Court's decision or McCain's response but it has always seemed to me that these men in Guantanamo are POWs, not criminals accused of a crime.

We should not put POWs into a judicial system. Instead, we should negotiate their release possibly as part of a prisoner exchange process or after an armistice. Unless they have committed a so-called "war crime", these men are not guilty of any crime. We should treat them civilly as prisoners of war.

If we put them into a war tribunal process, then I suppose we are into largely uncharted territory. Rudolf Hess was in custody until he died.

The US Government contend that they are criminals, and I for one believe that a least some of the acts they stand accused of commiting are crimes. The moment these individuals are in US custody and the US decides to try them as criminals, they have a right to contest their detention.

As for the opposition expressed by some, including Bush and McCain, to the Court determination, it is not based on a belief these men are POW; it based on the belief they are not deserving on any legal recourse and mechanism afforded to other people accused of a crime.

Edited June 15, 2008 by CANADIEN

[Topaz]

There's something one has to think about and that is how these prisoners came to be prisonersd. The US gov't PAID people to turn in terrorists fighting against the US. Well, if you are poor and starving what are you going to do, turn in your neighbour,cousins etc. Most t\of those prisoners are innocent but if you are held and tortured are you going to thank you when you are released?? You'd be angry and want revenge and that's were the US made its mistake when they paid out cash for prisoners.

[Leafless]

Leafless, here's an instance where I think that I may agree wih you.

I haven't read the Supreme Court's decision or McCain's response but it has always seemed to me that these men in Guantanamo are POWs, not criminals accused of a crime.

POW status appears to be out of the question.

Some Reports Claim "High-Value Detainees Will Be Given Prisoner-Of-War Status."

But Neither The President's Proposed Legislation Nor The Detainees' Transfer To Guantanamo Gives The Detainees POW Status

The President's Legislation Specifically Authorizes The Creation Of Military Commissions To Try These Suspected Terrorists For War Crimes. The Bill ensures that these commissions are established in a way that protects our national security and ensures a full and fair trial for the accused.

Detainees Have Been Transferred To The Custody Of The Department Of Defense, At The U.S. Naval Base At Guantanamo Bay.

Neither The President's Proposed Legislation Nor The Detainees' Transfer To Guantanamo Gives The Detainees POW Status.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20060906-7.html

A problem I have related with POW status is if the war were to suddenly end would probably allow these detainees to 'walk', with no further penalties.

[jbg]

Mc.Cains assertion is so correctly right that and makes one shudder to think that some of those already released tried to attack to attack America again and should never have been given the opportunity to do so.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

I'm going to take a position I rarely take (at least according to Dobbin and BubberMiley). Absent a declaration of war, I believe that the President, by tradition as well as by written Constitution, had no right to suspend the operation of the writ of habeus corpus. Lincoln did so, appropriately, but in the context of a declared war, and only for limited areas.

Right after the September 11, 2001 attacks Bush should have made his first order of business seeking a declaration of war, if not against a country, against Radical Islamic Terror. Nothing in the Constitution restricts the war declaration power to war against nation-states. I suspect that Congress, despite posturing, would not have had the courage to buck the President on this issue. Then, in one fell swoop, the President would have had legal cover for roving, short-duration interventions, as the war on terror seems to require.

On that limited basis I agree with the Supreme Court. While I agree with McCain that this decision will cost lives, that is one of the prices of having a constitutional government. Congress can readily fix the problem, or have abundant amounts of blood on their hands. They should be given the choice and the opportunity.