On the Republican debate last night

[PeterMP]

:doh: Oh I must have missed when Bush defined what we were doing and not doing with regard to torture. ( hint, Bush hasn't done that) Pete, you know me better than that. Not only did I read the article. Read it further than you did. I read Between the lines where the President and republican senators are slapping themselves on the back.

Yeah you are right. The adminstration was trying to back us out of the Geneva convention and specifically Common Article 3..... Which the McCain bill prevented. But there is a reason the freaking President and all the Republican yes men in the senete threw their arms around the 100 page McCain bill in two days after it was introduced.

Again this is exactly what I said, The President gets to decide what is torture and what isn't. Also the president doesn't have to define how we are treating these guys, the President get's to rule on what is a violation of how we should be treating them.

Literally the President gets to decide what torture is, and get's to "re-interprete" the geneva convention. Which is exactly what bush has been doing from day one. Bush says we don't torture. That's because he doesn't consider water boarding, simulated drawnings, forced standings, and the rest torture. Doesn't matter that more than 70 people have died in US custody, Doesn't matter if John McCain has publically stated again and again that he does believe water boarding is torture. McCain totally caved.

The law isn't an open canvas w/ no guidance as to what is allowed an unallowed:

"The agreement provides several pages describing “grave breaches” that would not be allowed, starting with torture and including other forms of assault and mental stress. But it does not lay out specific interrogation techniques that would be prohibited."

The courts can deciede that Bush's decisions violate the law.

No pete the McCain bill retroactively applied to all CIA and military cases going back to 1997. That means that the interpretation of what torture means which applied in this country for 50 years up until Bush took office and what Bush changed could not be challenged for the years before John McCain legalized it.

John McCain literally legalized Gorge Bush's torture camps, retroactively.

It doesn't legealize them actually. It has no protection for the people that should be held responsible- The President and the AG.

:doh: It's in the Bill of rights article VI right along with Habeas Corpus (US Constitution Article I section 9) . And the article I quoted said exactly that the McCain bill denied the detainee's the right to view the evidence against them....

But the detainees aren't given jury trials, so again; The McCain billl allowed for secret evidence to be used to convict these guys in Military courts; where the defendents have no rights to see the evidence against them. Way to Go John McCain.

Actually, what you quoted doesn't say that. It doesn't say they will be denied anything. Just that they were ENSURED to see the evidence if they were tried. Beyond that the law is completely silent as to how or whether they will be tried so if the courts say or another law is passed saying they have to have trials. This is a protection. Casting this as a negative is completely ludicrious.

In addition, the Constitution is completely silent about what a SUSPECT can see, which is what you stated. The police are even allowed to lie to suspects.

The signing ceremony is a chance for the Polititians to slap each other on the backs and say what a good job they are doing. What you are talking about isn't called "the signing ceremony" it's called the "signing statement". Basically Bush writes into the federal registrar the day he signs the bill what his instructions are for the Executive. It's a technique other Presidents have used, but one which Bush uses on just about all the bills he signs into law. 1100 of them so far. It's Dick Cheney's wet dream of a claim to an imperial Presidency. IT's not clear weather his words mean anything or not, but it's an argument which the supreme court hasn't ruled on yet.

Again Bush has used signing statements on about 1100 bills so far in his Presidency.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/themes/statements.html

But your basic premise is wrong. Bush isn't breaking the law because the McCain bill makes him the sole authority as to what the law means. Bush gets to decide what torture is, and it's retroactive so not only isn't he breaking the law. Thanks to John McCain, he wasn't breaking the law in the years he was torturing folks before McCain gaced him with absolution.

Sorry, wrong term. You are right. I meant signing statement.

The law provides guidances as to what will be legal and what won't. It isn't a blank slate. Bush's decisoins can violate the law, which will be decieded by the courts. In addition, it offers HIM nor the AG any legal protection so again you are wrong.

***EDIT***

By the way, I don't think the law goes far enough in general to protecting detainees, and I'd like to have seen the law put in a method to "try" the detainees, but that would have been vetoed IF it had even managed to be passed. McCain managed to pass a law that does some good. The idea that it has negative components is essentially false. Hopefully in the near future there will further consensus on issues in this area and another law will be passed.

[Burgold]

She can't use it on her resume, but you oughtn't ignore the experience either. I think she was an active participant in President Clinton's two terms. Living in the White House, being consulted and advising on issues and (probably) being part of many crucial decisions does count.

And your comparison of living in the city and being part of a White House is just silly.

You don't probably live in your wife's office either. And you likely were never asked to give speeches to support your wife's position or explain a stand either. You were never asked to play the diplomatic role that a first lady must, although you may have been asked for input on her policy.

Being a part of the White House culture is significant. Maybe it only gives her the advantage of an internship (scary), but it does offer some insight. She likely understands what she is getting into more than many other candidates.

[JMS]

The law isn't an open canvas w/ no guidance as to what is allowed an unallowed:

You're hedging Pete. What part of "leaving it to the president to establish through executive rule any violations for the handling of terrorism suspects that fall short of a “grave breach.” do you not understand?

Fact is Bush has always claimed America does not torture. Bush has never wanted the right to torture foreign nationals or terror suspects. The Gonzolas memo was about this exact legal strategy to bypass Americas laws and treaties. We will just call torture something else. Bush has always only sought the authority to decide what torture was. Allowing him to use methods which have been considered torture for 50 years by previous administrations legally, and that's exactly what the McCain bill codified into law and allows him to do.

The law provides guidances as to what will be legal and what won't. It isn't a blank slate. Bush's decisoins can violate the law, which will be decieded by the courts. In addition, it offers HIM nor the AG any legal protection so again you are wrong.

Guidences? Bush doesn't care about guidences. Bush cares about limits on his authority. The McCain bill gives the president the authority to do basically whatever he sees fit, and allows him to classify his acts as torture or not toture without any independent oversight. If you think that's a good plan to secure civil liberties in this country then we would disagree about that. If you think that represents a strengthing of civil liberties in this coutry again you are wrong.

John McCain took a couragous stand against torture and faced off with the President and his own party on the matter. John McCain ultimately totally caved in on what he labeled one of his core values and the country is the poorer for it. Ultimately McCain allowed himself to be used as political cover for legalizing toture in this country and he will forever be identified with best case his loss of nerve, worst case political opprotunism.

Pete ultimately Bush is doing exactly what the McCain bill allows. He is torturing prisoners by a number of techniques, while not labeling it torture, and not even publically addressing the techniques used. Your contention that Bush has been limited by the McCain legislation flys in the face of reality.

[JMS]

She can't use it on her resume, but you oughtn't ignore the experience either.

How much Presidential experience do you chalk up to Roslyn Carter, Nancy Reagan, or Laura Bush?

I think she was an active participant in President Clinton's two terms. Living in the White House, being consulted and advising on issues and (probably) being part of many crucial decisions does count.

Maybe, or maybe that is all your perception. Fact is I don't think Hillary even have a salaried position in Arkansas or the Clinton administration. She's a smart lady, but who knows how much she was involved in Bill's daily routine. Obviously the rift between them has been well documented.

And your comparison of living in the city and being part of a White House is just silly.

It might be silly but I'm trying to make a serious point. How much Presidential experience do you give Amy Carter? She lived in the white house too. I think there are servents in the white house who have worked there for 5 or six presidents at times; how much Presidential experience do they get? Fact is proximity or being wedded to someone doesn't allow one to claim any experience. Especially not when you have an entire team of secuirty agents separating the two aspects of the Presidents life.

Hillary is the only first lady to make the claim of Presidential experience. Hillary is a smart lady but she's and her husband are very gifted as shaping(warping) perceptions. That's what's being done here.

You don't probably live in your wife's office either.

And you think Hillary was invited to walk into the Oval office whenever she saw fit? You think she sat in on Presidentical meetings and decisions on a regular basis. I think my wife likely knows a lot more about what I do than Hillary did about what Bill was doing on a daily basis.

You think it's a coincidence that Bill had his trists in his office?

And you likely were never asked to give speeches to support your wife's position or explain a stand either. You were never asked to play the diplomatic role that a first lady must, although you may have been asked for input on her policy.

All of Hillary's input into the Clinton Adminstration is perception. She was not in the paid employ of the white house, nor do we know how closely Bill included her in his decisions. Clearly Bill and Hillary were not all that close, as he has a well documented track record of seeking marital relations with other ladies. It's rummored they didn't not even share a bedroom. This perception that Hillary was looking over Bills shoulder during his presidency is just a smoke screen concocted by her politcal machine. I find it much more likely that they didn't even see each other on a daily basis. The Roosevelts didn't. Although with Elenor I'm probable weakening my own case.

Being a part of the White House culture is significant. Maybe it only gives her the advantage of an internship (scary), but it does offer some insight. She likely understands what she is getting into more than many other candidates.

I just totally don't see it. If I sat on the sidelines with Gibbs with the 100 other guys, does that mean I would be a better head coach, knowing I had no authority or responsibility for decisions. Hell, if I wasn't a football fan I might have been sleeping during the experience for all anybody knows. How often do you think Gibbs would turn to me napping on the bench for guidence? You think Clinton was less obssessive and less opinionated about his chosen career politics than Gibbs. You think Pat Gibbs should get a chance at the skins next vacancy because of her experience with Joe?

Hillary is a one and a half term senator. That gives her a few years more in the senate running a staff of 12 guys than Obama. Obama has a few years more political experience than hillary as he was an elected state official before he ran for the senate. Neither are very experienced. Frankly the republicans on the other side aren't all that experienced either. I think George Bush (father) was the most experienced President ever. I think John Kennedy was among the least experienced.. Hillary and Obama and all the rest other than Richardson would rank a lot closer to John than they would George Sr.

Hillary doesn't get to claim Bills resume. George Bush shouldn't have been allowed to claim his fathers resume. Period....

that's my opinionated opinion... I could be wrong.

[GibbsFactor]

Hilliary OBVIOUSLY didn't spend a lot of time with Bill or in the Oval office.

[chiefhogskin48]

If Guiliani wins... Canada here I come

You guys say this every two years. Surprise, surprise, you never actually leave.

[Predicto]

Hillary is not my favorite person, not even close.

But I do not think you are giving her resume prior to being First Lady enough credit. Yale Law Review, worked for the House of Reps in the Watergate investigation, Law professor, first female partner in the top law firm in Arkansas, Chair of the Board of the National Legal Services Coproration, named one of America's 100 most influential lawyers.

As First Lady, she played an active role in shaping policy, much more than any first lady except maybe Elanor Roosevelt. Now she is a two term US Senator.

I'm not voting for her, but she does have a good resume.

[PeterMP]

Pete ultimately Bush is doing exactly what the McCain bill allows. He is torturing prisoners by a number of techniques, while not labeling it torture, and not even publically addressing the techniques used. Your contention that Bush has been limited by the McCain legislation flys in the face of reality.

I'm not going to continue to argue w/ you. The law isn't perfect, and I doubt McCain thinks it is perfect (I haven't heard him address this particular issue, but have heard him make similar comments about McCain Feingold and the immigration law that didn't pass). It is an improvement over the situation that exsisted prior to it, and it doesn't give Bush the power you seem to think it does. It DOES place limits that weren't clearly there before, which is of course why Bush added the signing statement that essentially says he'll ignore the law when he wants to.

If you can't see that, then I don't know what to say.

[Zguy28]

If Guiliani wins... Canada here I come

Say hi to Alec Baldwin for us. Oh wait, he didn't leave either.

[JMS]

But I do not think you are giving her resume prior to being First Lady enough credit. Yale Law Review, worked for the House of Reps in the Watergate investigation, Law professor, first female partner in the top law firm in Arkansas, Chair of the Board of the National Legal Services Coproration, named one of America's 100 most influential lawyers.

Hillary's resume is mixed. Sure she has an ivy league educations and yeah she was politcally active in the early 1970's. Most of the rest of her experience can be directly attributed to the political sucess of her husband. You think they would have made here a partner in the law firm if her Husband wasn't the atterny general of the state? I don't...

Don't get me wrong, Hillary is a smart lady, no denying that. She might even turn out to be a good President. But she can't claim 12 years of experience in foreign affairs and she is not the experienced hand in the race over Obama.

As First Lady, she played an active role in shaping policy, much more than any first lady except maybe Elanor Roosevelt. Now she is a two term US Senator.

And again, I don't think so. She played an active role in shaping Clintons failed health care policy and it failed mostly because Hillary was politically incompetent. As for defense, foreign affairs, domestic policy; I don't think hillary was consulted or played any significant role.

I'm not voting for her, but she does have a good resume.

I'm not ruleing out voteing for her. I would have a very hard time voting republcian, but I don't think she's enevitable. I don't think she should be nominated without a significant debate. I don't think after Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush that Clinton is a change of pace. And the country does need a change of pace.

All I'm saying is on the face of it, Clinton doesn't eclipse her rivals with her claimed superior experience. She's a smart lady and has run a competent campagne and just like her husband she has gotten out infront of issues like experience and shapped them in the eyes of the electorate.

[JMS]

I'm not going to continue to argue w/ you. The law isn't perfect, and I doubt McCain thinks it is perfect (I haven't heard him address this particular issue, but have heard him make similar comments about McCain Feingold and the immigration law that didn't pass). It is an improvement over the situation that exsisted prior to it, and it doesn't give Bush the power you seem to think it does.

It certainly is an improvement over the situation which existed prior to it's passing. If you are a President intent on detaining people indefinitely and torturing them. Bush stated flat out that unless Congress addressed the "ambiguity" in the law which might allow the courts to inteseed and hold people responsible for their acts, he would have no choice but to stop torturing people "interviews". McCain's bill addressed the "ambiguities" and the torturing continues.

Bush: Without my plan, detainee questioning won't continue

...

"Unfortunately, the recent Supreme Court decision put the future of this program (torturing prisoners) in question," Bush said Friday. "It's another reason I went to Congress. We need this legislation to save it."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/15/bush/index.html

The McCain bill which Bush endorsed and signed gave Bush exactly what he wanted to continue torturing prisoners.

It DOES place limits that weren't clearly there before, which is of course why Bush added the signing statement that essentially says he'll ignore the law when he wants to.

Pete read some of the links I'm providing you. You are smarter than this. Wake up. The torturing has continued unchecked. McCain sold out. Look for any unbiased news source on the subject. NY Times, Amnesty International, Washington Post, LA Times, hell even the Daily Show.... they all agree...

Critical loopholes in the McCain amendment show that the once-clandestine practice of torture is now an official weapon in the War on Terror........

the Bush administration succeeded in twisting what began as an unequivocal ban on torture into a legitimization of three controversial legal doctrines that the administration had originally used to justify torture right after 9/11. .....

In an apparent compromise gesture, McCain himself inserted the first major loophole: a legal defense for accused CIA interrogators that echoes the administration's notorious August 2002 torture memo allowing any agents criminally charged to claim that they "did not know that the practices were unlawful."

Next, the administration effectively neutralized the McCain ban with Senator Lindsey Graham's amendment stipulating that Guantanamo Bay detainees cannot invoke U.S. law to challenge their imprisonment. ( Habeas Corpus )

Complaining that detainees were filing trivial lawsuits over the quality of their food, Graham's amendment thereby attempted to nullify the Supreme Court decision in Rasul v. Bush that had allowed detainees to pursue habeas corpus appeals in U.S. courts. In sum, McCain's original amendment banned torture, but Graham's later amendment , as finally approved by the Senate, removed any means for enforcement.

Only days after Bush signed the legislation containing the McCain amendment, the White House used a portion of the new law, now called the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, to quash any judicial oversight of its actions.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/Amnesty_Magazine/Amnesty_Magazine/page.do?id=1105051&n1=2&n2=19

If you can't see that, then I don't know what to say.

Pete you are a smart guy. I know you've read every word I've written and you will be thinking about it in the coming weeks. All I can hope for is that given time to percilate on it, and to research it yourself; you will eventually come to understand what transpired.

John McCain who himself was tortured in Vietnam and who took such a principled stance against torture came under the full weight of his party and the Presidency to recant his position. Which he did, and further he allowed his political reputation which was substantial to be used as cover to legalize and legitamize torture.

Here are some more links for you to read up on it..

• The bill's most shocking feature is its elimination of habeas corpus review for non-U.S. citizen detainees. Triggered the moment that the executive labels an individual as an enemy combatant
  
• 2If this provision takes effect as law and withstands legal challenges, the President evidently will be able to detain individuals indefinitely, unrestrained by any judicial check on conditions of their detention.
  
• Moreover, to eliminate any doubt that the bill seeks to tie the hands of the judiciary with regard to issues of detainee abuse, it provides that “[n]o person may invoke the Geneva Conventions… as a source of rights in any court of the United
  
• The bill drastically narrows the grounds for criminal liability under the Federal War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 2441.5 In doing so, it seems to license the executive to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions in ways that would uproot understandings that have been in place since 1949,
  
• recently been affirmed by Senator John McCain.6These sections degrade the ability of the judiciary to fulfill its central function of interpreting the law. The proposed legislation would hand to the President apparently exclusive authority to decide which techniques violate the Geneva Conventions for purposes of criminal sanction under the War
  
• No one can say what the result will be, or how far the bar on acceptable practice will have been irreversibly lowered.
  
• the bill abandons our longstanding constitutional protections against punishing people on the basis of coerced testimony8and against denying individuals the opportunity to defend themselves through access to exculpatory evidence known to the government
  

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/09/text_of_the_law_professors_letter_against_the_bushmccain_torture_bill.html

• lends legislative support for the first time to broad rules for the detention, interrogation, prosecution and trials of terrorism suspects far different from those in the familiar American criminal justice system.
  
• highly truncated defendant's rights.
  
• bar terrorism suspects from challenging their detention or treatment through traditional habeas corpus petitions.
  
• They allow prosecutors, under certain conditions, to use evidence collected through hearsay or coercion to seek criminal convictions.
  
• The bill rejects the right to a speedy trial
  
• limits the traditional right to self-representation by requiring that defendants accept military defense attorneys.
  
• Panels of military officers need not reach unanimous agreement to win convictions
  
• By writing into law for the first time the definition of an "unlawful enemy combatant," the bill empowers the executive branch to detain indefinitely anyone it determines to have "purposefully and materially" supported anti-U.S. hostilities.
  
• At the same time, the bill immunizes U.S. officials from prosecution for cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees
  
• Written largely, but not completely, on the administration's terms, with passages that give executive branch officials discretion to set details or divert from its protections, the bill is meant to provide what Bush said yesterday are "the tools" needed to handle terrorism suspects U.S. officials hope to capture.
  
• University of Texas constitutional law professor Sanford V. Levinson described the bill in an Internet posting as the mark of a "banana republic."
  
• Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh said that "the image of Congress rushing to strip jurisdiction from the courts in response to a politically created emergency is really quite shocking, and it's not clear that most of the members understand what they've done."
  
• In the Supreme Court's June decision overturning previous administration policies, four members of the court who joined the majority opinion said conspiracy is not a war crime. The new bill says it is.
  
• Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal said the bill's creation of two systems of justice -- military commissions for foreign nationals and regular criminal trials for U.S. citizens -- may violate the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which requires equal protection of the laws to anyone under U.S. jurisdiction.
  
• "If you're an American citizen, you get the Cadillac system of justice. If you're a foreigner or a green-card holder, you get this beat-up-Chevy version," he said.
  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801763.html

[PeterMP]

The McCain bill which Bush endorsed and signed gave Bush exactly what he wanted to continue torturing prisoners.

No, it didn't. He claimed it did, but it didn't hence the signing statement. Beyond that the courts have rejected their claim that courts can't take cases from Guantamano Bay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

"An unusual aspect of the case was an amicus brief filed by Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham, which presented an “extensive colloquy” added to the Congressional record as evidence that "Congress was aware" that the Detainee Treatment Act would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases brought by the Guantanamo detainees. Because these statements were not actually included in the December 21 debate, Emily Bazelon of Slate magazine has argued this was an attempt to mislead the court.[3]

On June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5-3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction, that the federal government did not have authority to set up these particular military commissions, and that the military commissions were illegal under both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention."

That's right. Kyl and Graham tried to make it seem like that's what the law said, but it didn't and the Supreme Court got it right. As I've already stated, the law is silent about DENYING things to detainees. It does give them RIGHTS (during trial to see all of the evidence that the jury sees). The Court rightly decieded that the military tribunals are Unconstitutional (which the law is completely silent on it).

I understand your confusion. Bush has tried to spin this as a victory for him and that it supported his policies from the start (which it didn't, hence the signing statement). As I stated previously, this is no different than Bush's signing statement for the post office law claiming he has the power to open mail. He can claim the law says anything he wants, but it is meaningless for him to claim it because McCain doesn't agree w/ him nor do the courts.

You'll see this law will not be over-turned. Bush's interpertations of it (which are false) will be over-turned by the Courts and in the end, detainees will be better off.

[JMS]

No, it didn't. He claimed it did, but it didn't hence the signing statement. Beyond that the courts have rejected their claim that courts can't take cases from Guantamano Bay.

:doh: Pete, the results of the Hamden vs Rumsfeld case has not been the release of prisioners, other than Hamden. All that case proved was that Bush had to use military courts and not military commission. It's effectively just a difference in the rules of the hearing.

Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal said the bill's creation of two systems of justice -- military commissions for foreign nationals and regular criminal trials for U.S. citizens -- may violate the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which requires equal protection of the laws to anyone under U.S. jurisdiction.

"If you're an American citizen, you get the Cadillac system of justice. If you're a foreigner or a green-card holder, you get this beat-up-Chevy version," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6092801763.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

the Court issued a 5-3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction, that the federal government did not have authority to set up these particular military commissions, and that the military commissions were illegal under both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention."

Uniform Code of Military Justice requires military courts, which is what Bush went too. Nobody got released because of this hearing. It was an inconvience nothing more.

The Court rightly decieded that the military tribunals are Unconstitutional (which the law is completely silent on it).

Pete, the military trials continue to this day... they just aren't called tribunals..

I understand your confusion. Bush has tried to spin this as a victory for him and that it supported his policies from the start (which it didn't, hence the signing statement). As I stated previously, this is no different than Bush's signing statement for the post office law claiming he has the power to open mail. He can claim the law says anything he wants, but it is meaningless for him to claim it because McCain doesn't agree w/ him nor do the courts.

There are new court cases pending but the supreme court has not yet said whether McCain's amendment is unconstitutional or not.

The reason Bush did a signing statement isn't significant. Bush has done a signing statement on 1100 laws. He does them on everything he signs regardless of their content. It has more to do with his view of an imperial presidency and less to do with the content of the McCain bill.

You'll see this law will not be over-turned. Bush's interpertations of it (which are false) will be over-turned by the Courts and in the end, detainees will be better off.

Again the McCain law is a total victory for Bush. It makes the President the sole interpretor of what the Geneva convention means and what is termed torture and not. It grants congressional amnesty for his previous years of torturing. It further allows the detentions to go on indefinitely. And denies the detained any semblence of a civilian court trial. They can't see the evidence against them, can't even require the government to produce them for an independent court ( habeas corpus).

So now they get military courts rather than military tribunals.. big deal..

[PeterMP]

:doh: Pete, the results of the Hamden vs Rumsfeld case has not been the release of prisioners, other than Hamden. All that case proved was that Bush had to use military courts and not military commission. It's effectively just a difference in the rules of the hearing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

Uniform Code of Military Justice requires military courts, which is what Bush went too. Nobody got released because of this hearing. It was an inconvience nothing more.

All of which is irrelevant to the McCain law, which is the problem the left has w/ it (that it doesn't go far enough). The McCain law only deals w/ their treatment while in custody. It takes no steps to detail or describe a legal process by which they will be "judged" or released. I don't know what McCain's feelings on their detainment is, but w/o more of a consensus there is no way you could pass a law on it; much less one that would survive a veteo.

If military justice system is a violation of the 14th ammendment, the courts will find so, and the McCain law will not be affected or have an effect on that decision.

[JMS]

All of which is irrelevant to the McCain law,

I agree with that, so why did you bring it up? The supreme court case saying that it wasn't excluded from passing judgement on the merrits of the McCain Law, isn't relivent to the abuses which the McCain ammendment codifid into law.

which is the problem the left has w/ it (that it doesn't go far enough). The McCain law only deals w/ their treatment while in custody. It takes no steps to detail or describe a legal process by which they will be "judged" or released.

The McCain ammendment in it's final form was a bogus sham. It wasn't an anti torture law at all. Sure it outlawed things like "degrading and inhuman" treatment of prisoners. But it left a back door, which Bush drove a truck through. It made the President the sole arbitrator of what degrading and inhuman treatment meant. Furthermore It made the President's controversial policies law.

1. The bill's most shocking feature is its elimination of habeas corpus review for non-U.S. citizen detainees. Triggered the moment that the executive labels an individual as an enemy combatant
   
2. If this provision takes effect as law and withstands legal challenges, the President evidently will be able to detain individuals indefinitely, unrestrained by any judicial check on conditions of their detention.
   
3. Moreover, to eliminate any doubt that the bill seeks to tie the hands of the judiciary with regard to issues of detainee abuse, it provides that “[n]o person may invoke the Geneva Conventions… as a source of rights in any court of the United
   
4. The bill drastically narrows the grounds for criminal liability under the Federal War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 2441.5 In doing so, it seems to license the executive to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions in ways that would uproot understandings that have been in place since 1949,
   
5. recently been affirmed by Senator John McCain. Sections degrade the ability of the judiciary to fulfill its central function of interpreting the law. The proposed legislation would hand to the President apparently exclusive authority to decide which techniques violate the Geneva Conventions for purposes of criminal sanction under the War
   
6. No one can say what the result will be, or how far the bar on acceptable practice will have been irreversibly lowered.
   
7. the bill abandons our longstanding constitutional protections against punishing people on the basis of coerced testimony
   
8. Denys individuals the opportunity to defend themselves through access to exculpatory evidence known to the government (secret witnesses, secret evidence against the bill of rights..)
   

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2...rture_bill.html

I don't know what McCain's feelings on their detainment is, but w/o more of a consensus there is no way you could pass a law on it; much less one that would survive a veteo.

Not true, McCain's anti torture ammendemnt was attached to the Iraqi war appropriations funds. Bush couldn't get the money to continue the war(s) if he veto'd the Bill. McCain could have held to his guns, and McCain had many in this country behind him. But he caved in just like a Utah coal mine. Not only did he crawfish on something that he identified as a core issue, but he further compounded the issue by allowing himself to be used as camoflage in order to pass the torture bill into law.

If military justice system is a violation of the 14th ammendment, the courts will find so, and the McCain law will not be affected or have an effect on that decision.

Again Irrelivent. Just to recap. Bush said he could detain people indefinitely without any charges. The lower courts said, No, You need charges and an independent review. McCain Bill was passed codifying into law what had been rejected by the courts as Presidential excesses.

Bush said, ok I will bring charges and I'll give everybody a review in a newly created military "tribunal". ( not a military court). The Supreme court said, no. Military tribunals were not sufficient, and the McCain(12/2005) Bill didn't exclude them from saying so. The hearings must be conducted with some sembelence of legal proceeding. The court left open the option of military courts, which Bush subsequently went too before congress passing another law (Military Commissions Act of 2006) calling for the US court systems to butt out. This change between military tribunals and courts was dealt mainly with procedural issues and didn't effect who was hearing the cases.

The supreme court actually has two court cases pending on the law which came acter McCain's torture bill, this very issue this week.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c286d50-a108-11dc-9f34-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

And maybe they will even get it right. But that doesn't detract from the issue that the McCain ammendment enabled torture in this country. That his bill absolved George Bush of responsibility for the abuses he had already commited. That John McCain crawfished on an issue the country was counting on him to have a backbone on. Torture.

John McCain has lied about the result for years now.

That's why independents don't support John McCain. Cause we trusted him, and he let us down.

[Prosperity]

my thoughts:

Romney is a slime ball

Guiliani is very polished

Fred Thompson is moderately intelligent

McCain may have gone senile

[PeterMP]

I agree with that, so why did you bring it up? The supreme court case saying that it wasn't excluded from passing judgement on the merrits of the McCain Law, isn't relivent to the abuses which the McCain ammendment codifid into law.

The McCain ammendment in it's final form was a bogus sham. It wasn't an anti torture law at all. Sure it outlawed things like "degrading and inhuman" treatment of prisoners. But it left a back door, which Bush drove a truck through. It made the President the sole arbitrator of what degrading and inhuman treatment meant. Furthermore It made the President's controversial policies law.

Let me review your claims for you:

1. Under the McCain law, Bush was given the authority to deny detainees access to the courts.

The truth:

The Supreme Court rejected that arguement even though Kyle and Graham tried to manipulate the Congressional Record to make it seem like Congress had just done that. The McCain law is silent on how detainees will be treated by the legal system for the must part, and the only case it isn't, it gives them an EXPLICIT RIGHT (the right to see all of the information presented to the jury). Go back to the wikipedia page that I posted earlier.

The court has said that detainees to have access to the legal system and did so w/o striking down the McCain law.

2. Under the McCain law, Bush has the authority to determine what is torture.

The truth:

The law gives pages of descriptions of what will be allowed and not allowed activities. If Bush violates said descriptions, then the courts will be able to get involved (as they've already rejected Bush's claims that the law allowed him to deny detainees access to the courts) and say that he is violating the law. He only has authority to determine what happens in the cases that do not constitute a "grave breach". The law describes what would be "a grave breach", which includes "starting with torture and including other forms of assault and mental stress" so any torture is a grave breach and out of the President's hands. Beyond that, the courts not Bush are going to determine is specific actions constitute a grave breach. And of course, he has to tell the world what he is doing that doesn't constitute a grave breach:

"The agreement says the executive branch is responsible for upholding the nations’ commitment to the Geneva Conventions, leaving it to the president to establish through executive rule any violations for the handling of terrorism suspects that fall short of a “grave breach.” Significantly, Senate aides said, those rules would have to be published in the Federal Register."

(emphasis added is mine. I want to make this point repeatedly and clear because you keep claiming the opposite. Bush only has AUTHORITY in cases that are not "grave breaches". The law describes what is a "grave breach" and that description includes torture and things like assualt and mental stress so if torture occurs (as described by the law), then Bush han no power.)

They also have publish what is going on in cases that fall short of a grave breach in the Federal Register. Which of course means, that if they think of something creative, Congress can go back and pass a law to address just that issue.

(all from a link that YOU posted originally: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/washington/22detain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

3. "That his bill absolved George Bush of responsibility for the abuses he had already commited. "

False. The law absolved Bush nor the AG of NOTHING.

Now, if you'd like to state something that is actually accurate, then I'd love to continue this debate, but if you want to repeat more false statements, I'm afraid that I have better things to do then continually correct them.

[Zguy28]

Fred Thompson is moderately intelligent

You wouldn't think so from Richard Nixon's comments back during the Watergate flap.

"Dumb as hell"

[JMS]

Let me review your claims for you:

Fine, if you aren't comfortable discussing your claims lets by all means discuss mine.

1. Under the McCain law, Bush was given the authority to deny detainees access to the courts.

The truth:

The Supreme Court rejected that arguement even though Kyle and Graham tried to manipulate the Congressional Record to make it seem like Congress had just done that. The McCain law is silent on how detainees will be treated by the legal system for the must part, and the only case it isn't, it gives them an EXPLICIT RIGHT (the right to see all of the information presented to the jury). Go back to the wikipedia page that I posted earlier.

The court has said that detainees to have access to the legal system and did so w/o striking down the McCain law.

It's true the Supreme court ruled that the McCain bill didn't not explicitely exclude itself from Supreme Court oversite, but that's a far cry from saying the McCain bill did not try to remove the Detainee issue from judicial oversite.

Fact is McCain did remove the detainee's ability to court trials. Yet the McCain bill did not attempt to exclude itself from supreme court review.

Again Pete,

• The NY Times,
  
• The Washington Post,
  
• Amnest International
  

all disagree with your statement.

About 430 people are being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and there is no guarantee that they will ever be tried. The legislation(McCain ammendment), unchanged by the compromise, would prohibit habeas corpus challenges to these indefinite detentions.

“You’re creating a system,” Ms. Daskal said, “where Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,” called the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, “will have more rights than the low-level detainee who was sold into U.S. custody by bounty hunters.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/23/us/23legal.html

Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act in December 2005 (McCain Ammendment). The Act barred detainees at Guantanamo Bay from bringing future habeas corpus challenges to their detention or the conditions of their detention.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=War_on_Terror_detainee_legislation

The Senate endorsed a plan yesterday that would sharply limit suspected foreign terrorists' access to U.S. courts, an effort to overturn a landmark 2004 Supreme Court ruling that has allowed hundreds of detainees held by the military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their detentions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/10/AR2005111001412.html

Next, the administration effectively neutralized the McCain ban with Senator Lindsey Graham's amendment stipulating that Guantanamo Bay detainees cannot invoke U.S. law to challenge their imprisonment. Complaining that detainees were filing trivial lawsuits over the quality of their food, Graham's amendment thereby attempted to nullify the Supreme Court decision in Rasul v. Bush that had allowed detainees to pursue habeas corpus appeals in U.S. courts.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/Amnesty_Magazine/Amnesty_Magazine/page.do?id=1105051&n1=2&n2=19

The McCain law did codify into law Bush policies which had gone forward up until that time by Presidential authority alone. Including suspending Habeas Corpus, secret evidence, military tribunals. What the McCain ammendment didn't do was remove the suppreme court as ultimate arbitrator of the legality of these steps. ( The supreme court rules on legal issues regarding constitution and international treaties such as the Geneva convention.. )

Something Bush had to return to congress for with the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" a few months latter. The legality of the Military Commissions act is going to be heard at the Supreme Court this week.

2. Under the McCain law, Bush has the authority to determine what is torture.

The truth:

The law gives pages of descriptions of what will be allowed and not allowed activities. If Bush violates said descriptions, then the courts will be able to get involved (as they've already rejected Bush's claims that the law allowed him to deny detainees access to the courts) and say that he is violating the law. He only has authority to determine what happens in the cases that do not constitute a "grave breach". The law describes what would be "a grave breach", which includes "starting with torture and including other forms of assault and mental stress" so any torture is a grave breach and out of the President's hands. Beyond that, the courts not Bush are going to determine is specific actions constitute a grave breach. And of course, he has to tell the world what he is doing that doesn't constitute a grave breach:

The law does give pages of descriptions. Non specific descriptions like "Degrading and inhuman", and it makes the President the sole arbitrator of what that language means. Also the McCain bill doesn't describe specifically any techniques including rape and sodomy which it would specifically rule out without a Presidential Okay Dokie...

Again the NY Times, Washington Post, disagree with your analysis..

At least a few administration officials argued that no reasonable interpretation of “cruel, inhuman or degrading” would permit the most extreme C.I.A. methods, like waterboarding. Mr. Bradbury was placed in a tough spot, said Mr. Zelikow, the State Department counselor, who was working at the time to rein in interrogation policy.

“If Justice says some practices are in violation of the C.I.D. standard,” Mr. Zelikow said, referring to cruel, inhuman or degrading, “then they are now saying that officials broke current law.”

In the end, Mr. Bradbury’s opinion delivered what the White House wanted: a statement that the standard imposed by Mr. McCain’s Detainee Treatment Act would not force any change in the C.I.A.’s practices, according to officials familiar with the memo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?pagewanted=print

The bad news is that Mr. Bush, as he made clear yesterday, intends to continue using the CIA to secretly detain and abuse certain terrorist suspects. He will do so by issuing his own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions in an executive order and by relying on questionable Justice Department opinions that authorize such practices as exposing prisoners to hypothermia and prolonged sleep deprivation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092101647.html

"The agreement says the executive branch is responsible for upholding the nations’ commitment to the Geneva Conventions, leaving it to the president to establish through executive rule any violations for the handling of terrorism suspects that fall short of a “grave breach.” Significantly, Senate aides said, those rules would have to be published in the Federal Register."

(emphasis added is mine. I want to make this point repeatedly and clear because you keep claiming the opposite. Bush only has AUTHORITY in cases that are not "grave breaches". The law describes what is a "grave breach" and that description includes torture and things like assualt and mental stress so if torture occurs (as described by the law), then Bush han no power.)

Not specifically!! AND the President is the arbitrator!! Read the bellow statement by the New York Times...

The agreement provides several pages describing “grave breaches” that would not be allowed, starting with torture and including other forms of assault and mental stress. But it does not lay out specific interrogation techniques that would be prohibited.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/washington/22detain.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1196704801-wCx+kRXSnQO1ANRlOuES9Q

Pete you again are dwelving into leagalease. It is irrelivent that the McCain bill outlaws "torture" if it leaves the definition of torture up to the guy doing the torturing!!! EXCLUSIVELY.... removing independent oversite, previously done by the court...

That was the entire motivation behind the McCain bill. The torturing has been going on since shortly after sept 11 2001, the McCain bill was introduced almost four years latter. The reason being the supreme court had newly ruled that the courts were going to get involved and that's exactly why bush said he would have to stop the interviews ( torturing ). Unless Congress got into the hot pot with him. Which the McCain billl did, it put congressional support behind Bush's Presidential oders.

"Grave Breach" is an important phrase because that is the phrase that appears in the Geneva convention regarding Prisoner treatment. Again if you read the article, or the statement, The President alone is given the authority under McCain to determine techniques which do not exheed what constitutes a "grave breach". Which was the administrations strategy all along. they aren't arguing for the right to torture because that right is outlawed by international treaty and standing national law. What they have agued for is the authority to define / redefine what torture is. Which is what they did with Presidential order as documented by the Gonzolas papers. Which is what the McCain law gave congresional approval too.

And if you would please read some of the text of the law professors letter which I introduced into this discussion you would see I am just parroting what he states...

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, – U.S. – (June 29, 2006) and that have recently been affirmed by Senator John McCain.6These sections degrade the ability of the judiciary to fulfill its central function of interpreting the law. The proposed legislation would hand to the President apparently exclusive authority to decide which techniques violate the Geneva Conventions for purposes of criminal sanction under the War Crimes Act, so long as they do not fall within the category of “grave breaches” created by this bill.7 Only those enumerated “grave breaches,” like “Rape” and “Murder,” would be definitely criminalized, leaving abuses which are not on the list, such as manslaughter, up to presidential discretion.

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/09/text_of_the_law_professors_letter_against_the_bushmccain_torture_bill.html

An interogator could literally use his cigarette to burn a man to death and if that wasn't specifically discussed in the legislation it would be up to the President to decide if that was legal... No Court, No Press, No independent review.

They also have publish what is going on in cases that fall short of a grave breach in the Federal Register. Which of course means, that if they think of something creative, Congress can go back and pass a law to address just that issue.

(all from a link that YOU posted originally: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/washington/22detain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

Problem is Pete that by removing independent oversite you remove all oversite. The Administration doesn't discuss the techniques it uses to interogate prisoners so how exactly is anybody going to know what is being done? Besides that, The President get's to decide alone what's methods are torture... which is why we are still water boarding folks today two years after McCain bill was passed.

3. "That his bill absolved George Bush of responsibility for the abuses he had already commited. "

False. The law absolved Bush nor the AG of NOTHING.

(2) RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY- The amendments made by this subsection, except as specified in subsection (d)(2)(E) of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, shall take effect as of November 26, 1997, as if enacted immediately after the amendments made by section 583 of Public Law 105-118 (as amended by section 4002(e)(7) of Public Law 107-273).

Torture was illegal in this country. Torture was a crime and those who enabled it as well as those who practiced it were suseptable to a criminal court proceeding. What the McCain bill did was strengthen Bush's Presidential order as documented by Gonazolas's legal defense papers, changing the definition of what torture is with regard to federl law, and doing so retroactively.

Now, if you'd like to state something that is actually accurate, then I'd love to continue this debate, but if you want to repeat more false statements, I'm afraid that I have better things to do then continually correct them.

Pete I think I've documented my points accurately. Thank you for the discussion.

[PeterMP]

Fine, if you aren't comfortable discussing your claims lets by all means discuss mine.

It's true the Supreme court ruled that the McCain bill didn't not explicitely exclude itself from Supreme Court oversite, but that's a far cry from saying the McCain bill did not try to remove the Detainee issue from judicial oversite.

Fact is McCain did remove the detainee's ability to court trials. Yet the McCain bill did not attempt to exclude itself from supreme court review.

Again Pete,

• The NY Times,
  
• The Washington Post,
  
• Amnest International
  

all disagree with your statement.

They don't really disagree. There were simply reporting what the Bush administration was saying, which the Supreme Court has said is FALSE. Note, the Supreme Court didn't strike down the McCain bill. It said that Bush's interpertation of it was FALSE.

The McCain law did codify into law Bush policies which had gone forward up until that time by Presidential authority alone. Including suspending Habeas Corpus, secret evidence, military tribunals. What the McCain ammendment didn't do was remove the suppreme court as ultimate arbitrator of the legality of these steps. ( The supreme court rules on legal issues regarding constitution and international treaties such as the Geneva convention.. )

The McCain law does none of these things. In fact, it does just that opposite w/ respect to secret evidence in a jury trial. Graham and Kyle tried to manipulate the record to make it seem like it did, and the Bush administration claimed that it did, but as CORRECTLY decided by the Supreme Court it doesn't.

The law does give pages of descriptions. Non specific descriptions like "Degrading and inhuman", and it makes the President the sole arbitrator of what that language means. Also the McCain bill doesn't describe specifically any techniques including rape and sodomy which it would specifically rule out without a Presidential Okay Dokie...

The McCain law rules out assault. I think rape is considered assualt :doh: . In terms of specifics, they are left out on purpose. That way the President can't change some slight detail of the procedure and then claim it is not covered by the law. It is no different than the Bill of Rights, which outlaws "cruel and unusual punishment", while making no real effort to describe what that entails. The McCain law actually has pages of description. In addition, it doesn't make the President the sole arbitrator of what that language means. The President is ONLY sole arbitrator in cases that don't arise to the level of a "grave breach". Under the law torture, assualt, and mental stress are considered grave breaches.

As far as your quote from the NY Times, Mr. Bradbury is a member of the Justice Dept. These are the same people that said the law said detainees didn't have access to the US courts, which the Supreme Court has already is FALSE. I've already said this, in an effort to paint this as a win the Bush administration has been lying about it from day one. They lost, and they know they lost, which is why he added the signing statement.

"Grave Breach" is an important phrase because that is the phrase that appears in the Geneva convention regarding Prisoner treatment. Again if you read the article, or the statement, The President alone is given the authority under McCain to determine techniques which do not exheed what constitutes a "grave breach".

An interogator could literally use his cigarette to burn a man to death and if that wasn't specifically discussed in the legislation it would be up to the President to decide if that was legal... No Court, No Press, No independent review.

Burning somebody w/ a cigarette is assualt. That would constitute a grave breach and is out of the President's hands. The President can claim otherwise, but he is wrong just like he was wrong about the law denying detainees access to the courts.

Beyond that, there is independent review because everything must be put in the in the Federal Register.

Problem is Pete that by removing independent oversite you remove all oversite. The Administration doesn't discuss the techniques it uses to interogate prisoners so how exactly is anybody going to know what is being done?

They are now legally required to based upon this law. If they break the law, then they should be sent to jail.

[JMS]

They don't really disagree. There were simply reporting what the Bush administration was saying, which the Supreme Court has said is FALSE. Note, the Supreme Court didn't strike down the McCain bill. It said that Bush's interpertation of it was FALSE.

Well it's nice that you can dismiss all three sources with a statement which

does not appear anywhere in any of the articles. Nowhere does the NY Times, or Washington Post, or Amnesty International say this is what the Bush administration claims. They all state plainly as I have quoted in context this is what the final text of the John McCain amendment codified into law.

All the supreme court in June of 2006 did in Hamdan vs Rumsfeld was to say Bush couldn't use Military Tribunals. Rather he had to use Military courts, or go before congress to get the permission to use the Tribunals.. The McCain admendment in 2005 took it out of the civilian courts hands; Hamdan vs Rumsfeld didn't change that or even rule on that. The court only objected to the proceedures Bush was using to conduct his Tribunals and that's it.

The court did not throw the cases back to the civilian courts, which the McCain bill changed.

Again, Read the washington post link be low.

As a result, no military commission can try Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the former aide to Osama bin Laden whose case was before the justices, or anyone else, unless the president does one of two things he has resisted doing for more than four years: operate the commissions by the rules of regular military courts-martial, or ask Congress for specific permission to proceed differently.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928.html

The Supreme court which has a responsibility in ruling on signed international treaties such as the Geneva Convention ruled that Military Tribunals as Bush implemented on his own authority, did not meet the standards under the Geneva Convention. The Supreme court didn't say John McCain's bill removeing these cases from civilian courts was improperly interpreted by the administration.

And as I've stated Bush did go before congress and got permission for the Tribunals in the "Military Commissions Act of 2006". Arguments to be heard in the supreme court this week (Wednesday).

Again nothing to do with McCain's 2005 torture bill, except that the McCain bill didn't explicitly define the proceedures for the miltary tribunals.

The McCain law does none of these things. In fact, it does just that opposite w/ respect to secret evidence in a jury trial. Graham and Kyle tried to manipulate the record to make it seem like it did, and the Bush administration claimed that it did, but as CORRECTLY decided by the Supreme Court it doesn't.

Pete, The McCain bill excluded the detainees from getting jury trials. As I've showed the NY Times, Washington Post, and Amnesty International all stating. Again we also have reality to fall back on here. Since 2005 I can't remember any of the guantonamo detainee's getting Jurry Trials... Simple logic here... No Jury trials, the detainee's don't get to see the evidence against them. That's what the McCain bill says.

Try to make this more interesting by providing one link which agrees with you when you controdict the NY Times, Washington Post, and Amnesty International. Not being petty here, just trying to make the conversation more educational for both of us.

Oh and again McCain's bill which allows for secret evidence conflicts with the Bill of Rights which allows defenents to see the evidence against them.

The McCain law rules out assault. I think rape is considered assualt :doh: . In terms of specifics, they are left out on purpose.

He didn't rule out assault generally, because that would be too broad. Ruled out Mental stress too, so the interigator couldn't suggest the guy might have left his gass on back in his thatch hut ?...

Pete, call your family lawyer right now. Poking someone with your finger is assault. Physically Touching someone is assult. Are you actually suggesting the McCain torture ( anti-torture) bill rules out any physical contact?

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/assault_battery.html

The many pages of content in the McCain ammendment outlineing what a grave breach was did not identify any specific technique as not allowed. Don't take my word for it... READ THE NEW YORK TIMES!!

The agreement provides several pages describing “grave breaches” that would not be allowed, starting with torture and including other forms of assault and mental stress. But it does not lay out specific interrogation techniques that would be prohibited.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/washington/22detain.html

Again, President get's to interpret, cause mental stress is not a concrete quantifiable thing. And remember here, we have documented that more than 100 people have died in American custody while being "interviewed"... President can claims non was under mental destress and thus violating the Geneva Conventions "grave breach" language.

That way the President can't change some slight detail of the procedure and then claim it is not covered by the law. It is no different than the Bill of Rights, which outlaws "cruel and unusual punishment", while making no real effort to describe what that entails.

Difference being that the founding fathers didn't leave the President as the sole arbitrator of what the US Constitution and the Bill or rights meant. As I've clearly demonstrated the McCain bill did.

As far as your quote from the NY Times, Mr. Bradbury is a member of the Justice Dept. These are the same people that said the law said detainees didn't have access to the US courts, which the Supreme Court has already is FALSE. I've already said this, in an effort to paint this as a win the Bush administration has been lying about it from day one. They lost, and they know they lost, which is why he added the signing statement.

Again Pete... The Supreme court ruled that Bush's Military Tribunals were not sufficient to satisfy America's obligations under international treaties.. ( the Geneva Convention ).. And gave the Adminstrations two remedies... (1) go back to congress and get a bill which specifically gives the administration the right to assemble military Tribunals. (2) Go with military courts. The supreme court certainly did not over-rule the McCain legislation and let the Detainee's use civilian courts as you just stated.

Neither of these two remedies conflicts with the McCain bill, which simple eliminated the detainee's right to Habeas Corpus, CIVILIAN trials and to see the evidence against them.

The administration did in fact go back to congress and got a more specific bill which allowed them their military tribunals a few months after the Supreme court ruled in 2006. This new law will be argued before the supreme court this week.

Again the McCain bill did put the President in charge, and it did deny the detainee's the right to civilian trials ( habeas corpus) and the rest. None of which the supreme court has objected too.

Burning somebody w/ a cigarette is assualt. That would constitute a grave breach and is out of the President's hands. The President can claim otherwise, but he is wrong just like he was wrong about the law denying detainees access to the courts.

Beyond that, there is independent review because everything must be put in the in the Federal Register.

The President doesn't have to state what techniques he's using in the Federal Register, nor does he have to publisize them in any way. Remember, reality check here, Bush has steadfastly declined to elaborate on what interogation techniques Amerca does use, we only know because of groups like the Red Cross and Amnesty International as well as foreign suspsects haveing been released from jail.

The President has to document his interpretation of the Geneva Convention in the Federal Registar. Big deal... He's already said water boarding, extreme temporatures, naked pyramids, dog attacks and the rest he doesn't consider Cruel or dehumanizing. Some fail safe...

Again, assault is not outlawed under McCain. Cruel, dehumanizing, and murder are. Manslaughter is ok, so just so you didn't mean to kill the guy you are ok.

They are now legally required to based upon this law. If they break the law, then they should be sent to jail.

No they aren't Pete, Nobody from Guantanamo other than US citizens are getting to use the civilian courts. And torture isn't against the law, because the McCain bill changed the law. Bush has congressional authority to torture, indefinitely detain, deny folks civilian trials; thanks to John McCain.

All the supreme court has objected to is the proceedures used during the military tribunals.

Coarse we will all be reading more about this come Wednesday.

[ZoEd]

I watched the Republican debate last night and came away with some thoughts. Now knowing I am one of George Bush's biggest critics. Knowing I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Knowing I've already made up my mind that the Republican party is totally whacked and I'm not going to vote for them for at least a decade.. Here were my thoughts.

JMS, thanks for posting your thoughts. Coming from you I know these assesments on Republican candidates are candid and without bias. I've actually gotten more from this thread about each hopeful then any article I've read recently. That and I can't bring myself to watch a debate, there's enough reality TV on to occupy my time with. :laugh: Just kidding but seriously, I can't bring myself to watch them puff their chests up and try to sound all sophisticated and stuff. Just shoot me straight and you'll get a much better response.

[PeterMP]

No they aren't Pete, Nobody from Guantanamo other than US citizens are getting to use the civilian courts. And torture isn't against the law, because the McCain bill changed the law. Bush has congressional authority to torture, indefinitely detain, deny folks civilian trials; thanks to John McCain.

All the supreme court has objected to is the proceedures used during the military tribunals.

Coarse we will all be reading more about this come Wednesday.

This is wrong. I'll give you the wikipedia link again, but the main thrust of the Bush administrations arguement was that because of the McCain law that the Supreme Court shouldn't even hear the case. That the Court could have no input on the treatment of detainees off of US soil. The court found this FALSE.

"An unusual aspect of the case was an amicus brief filed by Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham, which presented an “extensive colloquy” added to the Congressional record as evidence that "Congress was aware" that the Detainee Treatment Act would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases brought by the Guantanamo detainees. Because these statements were not actually included in the December 21 debate, Emily Bazelon of Slate magazine has argued this was an attempt to mislead the court.[3]

On June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5-3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction"

The Court found this to be false. The McCain law DOES NOT affect their ability to hear cases related to detainees. The detainees do have access to the Courts w/ respect to violation of their rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

Everything you are citing is prior to this decision and so is based solely on the Bush administraction INCORRECT interpertation of the law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030202054.html

A torture case was brought before the Courts and the Bush administration claimed the samething. That the Court didn't have the right to hear it because the McCain law prevented them from hearing it, but we know from the Hamdan case this interpertation is incorrect.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030202054.html

Please note this article was written before the Supreme Court rejected the same arguement in the Hamdan case so it is only logical that the Courts will in fact have the same ability to do so here based on that precedent.

Do you see what happened? The Bush administration claimed the law gave them a power that it doesn't give them.

As to the rest, I would guess even in federal prisions assualt of a prisioner is against the law, and if a guard were found to be intentionally burning prisoiners w/ cigerattes then he would be found to have committed a crime, but everytime a guard pokes a prisioner that isn't considered a crime. The legal system has been dealing w/ people detained against their will for an extended period of time and there undoubtedly a well established guidelands as to what constitutes acceptable force and what doesn't. I would guess those same guidelines would come into play here.

[Koolblue13]

you two are funny. I usually read the threads with the two of you and try and learn a lot, but this one is different. You both know the truth.

[JMUClark47]

The most annoying part about this debate for me was that CNN is so liberal that they stereotype republicans into a few issues. The only questions they asked were pretty much God, guns, and gays. Plus a little foreign policy. This annoys me because the issues I really strongly side with Republicans are, are taxes and economics and healthcare --- not discussed at all. The media gives those issues to the Democrats and doesn't even let Republicans talk about them. Its very frustrating for us conservatives who want to actually hear policy discussions instead of just hating gays and wanting guns.