On the Republican debate last night

[JMS]

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.

I agree with you. This last debate was what their 20th or 30th debate between both parties. I've watched parts of a few Democratic Debates and that was my first Republican debate I've watched.

I must say though, with Iowa caucus coming in what less than six weeks; the debates are heating up. As I said, this last Republican debate was pretty good Telivision. Hard Questions, and candidates got to directly answer the critisms leveled against them. Which they mostly did.

Again Huckabee was the biggest suprise to me. The guy looks like an aww shucks bumpkin. He's for real. He had quite a few good moments and nobody backed him up. Romney was also a suprise. He had the worst performance and I thought he would be among the strongest debaters.

Anyway, I'll be looking for the next debate. This race is finally heating up.

[PeterMP]

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.

The problem is that different people have lied about the McCain law from the start. Bush declared it was a victory and claimed two things in doing so that JMS keeps repeating:

1. That the law prevented the courts from hearing cases regarding the detainees. The Supreme Court alread struck this down in Hamdan. JMS keeps repeating it and keeps giving links from before the Hamdan case in support, but the Supreme Court has already said that it is false in the Hamdan case so this arguement is garbage.

2. That Bush has sole authority to determine what is torture and is free of all over sight. That is patently rediculous as the law has PAGES of text as to what is disallowed activity AND for even things that don't constitute torture (they fail to reach the level of a "grave breach", which torture is) Bush has sole authority, but even there they are required to be described in the Federal Register. This hasn't reached the Supreme Court yet, but there is no way that the Court is going to look at the pages of descriptions of what constitutes a grave breach and the Federal Register requirement and conclude that Congress didn't mean for there to be some over sight.

In addition, the Bush administration knows they are going to lose those cases, which is why he added the signing statement.

On the otherside, I've seen statements like:

'The McCain law allows for permenent detainment w/o hearings.' While I guess this technially true because the McCain law doesn't illegalize it, it is at best misleading because the McCain law doesn't say that Bush CAN do such things. JMS gave a link to a lawyer that was arguing that trying detainees in military courts was a violation of the 14th ammendment. That is something that the courts will hear (based on the Hamdan precedent the courts have the ability to hear such cases) and will decide completely independently of the McCain law.

Ideally, IMO there would be a law that detailed a method on how to handle the detainees and determine, which ones should be let go and which ones shouldn't. I don't think there is enough consensus on the issue on how to do that to pass a law dealing with it. McCain did a good job of crafting legislation that outlawed torture while avoiding getting drawn into the larger issue that almost certainly wouldn't have a consensus behind it to pass.

[Koolblue13]

I just don't see the McCain law as "changing" anything. It may not say Bush Can do what he wants, but it doesn't say he can't, won't or will have to. We know we are holding people without trial and treating them in an unlawful way and I don't see how the McCain law changes anything. It's just fodder for people, who are usualy in agreement, to argue over.

[PeterMP]

I just don't see the McCain law as "changing" anything. It may not say Bush Can do what he wants, but it doesn't say he can't, won't or will have to. We know we are holding people without trial and treating them in an unlawful way and I don't see how the McCain law changes anything. It's just fodder for people, who are usualy in agreement, to argue over.

The McCain law is pretty clear. Bush CAN'T torture, assualt, or cause mental stress. I don't think Bush has stopped doing those things as it works it way through the court system. That just takes time, and there isn't anything that McCain can do about that. There is no way to pass a law that Bush wouldn't challenge in the legal system.

[Koolblue13]

The McCain law is pretty clear. Bush CAN'T torture, assualt, or cause mental stress. I don't think Bush has stopped doing those things as it works it way through the court system. That just takes time, and there isn't anything that McCain can do about that. There is no way to pass a law that Bush wouldn't challenge in the legal system.

I believe Bush will continue to authorize and do whatever he sees fit. He has proven that he doesn't need to answer to anybody. The McCain law is something for everybody else to sleep better too.

[81artmonk]

I forgot to even talk about the democrat plants in the audience. The general who was gay and asked the gay question. The 3 undecided republicans were really supporters of Edwards, Obama and Hilary.

The gay soldier general, worked for Hilary and was a campaign supporter. And CNN didn't know this?

I touched on it before, but the questions are just ridiculous!! Why do the democrats get revelivent issues or questions, while the republicans get these biased gay, religion and abortion questions.

If democrats were treated like Republicans these are the questions the democrats would get asked:

"why do you support tax increases"?

"Why do you want to allow a woman the right to kill her baby"?

"Why have you and your colleges done nothing in congress since you've gained power"

" Why have you opposed the war in Iraq after you had voted for it and supported the president initially??"

" why, with the increased gas prices and dependancy on foriegn oil don't you allow your own government to drill for oil in our own backyard to help distance ourselves from needing foreign oil??

These are the types of questions that repubhlicans get. But dems are never asked the same types of questions. It's funny when you think about it really.

[Prosperity]

Because gays, religion, and abortion are the top reasons why people vote republican

[Koolblue13]

Why don't we drill in our backyard? Why don't we stop subsidizing big oil and bull**** methanol and let everybody compete equally. Or, why don't we subsidizes alternitive energy and stop letting the middle east dictate where our military needs to be.

[JosephGibbs]

I believe Bush will continue to authorize and do whatever he sees fit. He has proven that he doesn't need to answer to anybody. The McCain law is something for everybody else to sleep better too.

Well, he is the President. There are checks and balances, so he does have to answer to someone. Again though, he is the President, not a senator; the American people (on 2 occasions) have given him the right to authorize and perform to what he sees fit as is best for the American people.

[Ken]

Well, he is the President. There are checks and balances, so he does have to answer to someone. Again though, he is the President, not a senator; the American people (on 2 occasions) have given him the right to authorize and perform to what he sees fit as is best for the American people.

Let's not forget the highly controversial way he was elected and the fact that he won while not winning the popular vote.

Also, the checks and balances which mainly fell on the Judicial branch have been severly hampered and have been circumvented on a number of occasions.

[Koolblue13]

So i'm watching some youtube converage of the Dems and I have two thoughts.

1. If we put sanctions on Iran(or NK or whoever), wouldn't they just depend on China even more, making Chinas economy even stronger, hence putting ourselves in a deeper hole, financially and powerful wise?

2. Is anybody else reminded of the scene in the movie Airplane, where everybody is lining up to smack the hysterical woman, anytime Hillary doesn't answer a question.

[JMS]

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.

Pete follow the logical argument.

(1) The supreme court did not over turn the McCain amemendment of 2005. You've said that yourself.

(2) The McCain amendment stopped Habeas Corpus, allows secret evidence, denies detainees the right to civilian trials and for the first time created/confirmed the third catagory of illegal combatant Bush had been pushing..

(3) The McCain bill did not address specifically what type of military proceedings would be allowed other than to say civilian trials were out.

(4) The Bush administration had invented Tribunals or Commissions which didn't even raise to the level of military court marshals.

(5) The Supreme court ruled on the legitamacy of the Military Tribunals and whether they satisfied Americas responsiblilities under the Geneva convention.

(6) The Supreme court found that Bush's kangaroo courts, or Military Tribunals were not sufficient, and thus gave Bush two choices.

a.) Use Military Courts.

b.) Go back to congress and get a law which specifically allows Military Tribunals to satisfy American treaty obligations.

Bush choose the latter. He got the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" which expressly allows him to use the Military Tribunals. Now that law is being contested before the supreme court this week, tomorrow.

"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 supreme court had jurisdiction to rule on the acceptability of military tribunals with regards to America's responsibilities to international treaties. Irrelivent to what the McCain bill did, which was to remove detainee's from the civil court system, deny them Habeas Corpus, allow indefinate detentions, torture, and the rest. Non of which the Supreme court touched.

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

No No No.... Hamdan vs Rumsfeld wasn't about detainees being able to challenge their detentions in civil courts, or overturning any of the new congressional codified abuses McCain introduced into law.

Pete, Read the first sentense of your own link!!!..

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."[

Hamden vs Rumsfeld didn't change the McCain torture ammendment. McCain said civilian courts are out. No problem there with the supreme court, they reaffirmed it. The supreme court found only that the alternative to the civilian courts Bush was using, "military tribunals" did not satisfy existing US laws and international agreeemnts ( Geneva Convention ). It did not throw the cases back to the civilian courts which would have overturned the McCain law. It layed out two alternatives I've already mentioned and provided links to.

(1) use Military Courts.

(2) go back to congress to get their authority for the tribunals.

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

Thomas Wilner, a lawyer representing several detainees at Guantanamo, agreed that the law cannot be enforced.

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

PETER!!! READ YOUR OWN LINK!!!!

Unfortunately, I think the government's right; it's a correct reading of the law," ( that the detainees have no right to civilian court system, BECAUSE of the McCain Law)

said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "The law says you can't torture detainees at Guantanamo, but it also says you can't enforce that law in the courts."

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

The Bush interpretation of the McCain law has not been challenged in court. The only thing that has been challenged is the Military tribunals.

You are confusing what the supreme court held in Hamdan vs Rumsfeld. You are further mistaking what the Supreme Court was ruling on in that case.

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

Thats the same article you already refferenced and it directly refutes what you attribute it as saying. Read your own link..

What your link doesn't say is that Judge Kessler did hear the case and imposed some restrictions on the Executive ( couldn't extridite the prisoner Mohammed Ali Abdullah Bwazir, to Tunisia. But she ruled that in October of 2007 six weeks ago. Her ruling is the first challenge to the McCain bill and has not been heard yet by the supreme court. It does not overrule the McCain bill which expressly takes this case out of the civilian courts.

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

No, that's not at all what happenned. What happenned is one couragous liberal judge is going head to head with the administration over the legality of the McCain law. She's the first. That doesn't prove your point that the McCain law didn't do I've shown the NY Times, Washington Post, and Amnesty International all agreed with me it did.

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.

PETER!!!, you are a much smarter guy than you are coming across here. The Guantanamo detainee's are not federal prisoners. They are not prisoners of war. Thanks to John McCain they have for the first time been recognized by congress as a third catagory. Enemy Combatants. What their rights are and how they are treated is setting legal president, and congress is passing laws just for them..

[JMS]

So i'm watching some youtube converage of the Dems and I have two thoughts.

1. If we put sanctions on Iran(or NK or whoever), wouldn't they just depend on China even more, making Chinas economy even stronger, hence putting ourselves in a deeper hole, financially and powerful wise?

America doesn't really compete with China in many trade niches. We export telecommunications, jet airplans (boeing) and weapons. China exports cheap food, textiles, toys, and electronic components.

Besides I believe China has said they're on board with the third round of sanctions against Iran, did so yesterday.

2. Is anybody else reminded of the scene in the movie Airplane, where everybody is lining up to smack the hysterical woman, anytime Hillary doesn't answer a question.

She's the front runner. It's reasonable everybody attacks her. If she's complaining now wait until the Republcians have a whack at her.

[JMS]

Why don't we drill in our backyard? Why don't we stop subsidizing big oil and bull**** methanol and let everybody compete equally. Or, why don't we subsidizes alternitive energy and stop letting the middle east dictate where our military needs to be.

Because the oil industry can make more money importing oil and refining it over seas and bringing finished gassoline to our shores. That's why when Bush said the federal government would provide land, suspend environmental laws, and underwrite by half the building of refineries in the US, the oil companies still balked. If they build the refineries in Mexico and bring the finished product from Mexico they can charge what they want. If they refine it here we have restrictions on how much profit they can make based on the price per barral of the oil used.

Refining capacity is why gass prices rose. Basically they rose because the oil company trusts decided they wanted to charge more. Opec only got on the buss because they saw the oil companies making huge profits by marking up the price at the pump; why shouldn't they charge more too and get their fair share of the pie, Everybody else was making more money on their product. governments had raised taxes, Oil companies had raised revenues. Opec was just next.

[Koolblue13]

JMS, my comment about drilling in our backyard was aimed at 81, I should have quoted him. I understand how it works, that was kind of my point.

That is good to hear and a bit of a suprise to me, about China backing a sanction. I didn't know.

[JMS]

I just don't see the McCain law as "changing" anything. It may not say Bush Can do what he wants, but it doesn't say he can't, won't or will have to. We know we are holding people without trial and treating them in an unlawful way and I don't see how the McCain law changes anything. It's just fodder for people, who are usualy in agreement, to argue over.

The McCain law was important because prior to it passing the supreme court had ruled that the Federal Government couldn't deny Habeas Corpus on Presidential authority alone. (Rasul v. Bush June of 2004,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush )

Bush was loosing and was about to close down the torture bases.

The President was going to have to shut down the camps or face responsibility for them in court. So in steps John McCain, a known torture victem. His prestige and cache with the American people provided Bush the political cover to pass a torture bill which lent congressional authority to what had been going on under Presidential authority up until that point.

Adminstration Congress Responded with the McCain Bill

Detainee Treatment Act of 2005

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibited US military and intelligence personnel from treating captives in ways inconsistent with Armed Forces regulations. But it also restricted Guantanamo captives from filing new writs of habeas corpus. The act did not close off the habeas corpus submission that were already in the works.

The administration further responded by removing detainee treatement from the military regulations

The Supreme Court rules on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

In the summer of 2006 the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush Presidency lacked the Constitutional authority to empower Guantanamo military commissions. They did rule, however, that the United States Congress did have the authority to empower trial by military commission of the Guantanamo captives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_captives_habeas_corpus#The_Supreme_Court_rules_on_Rasul_v._Bush

The Congress and Administration respond with

Military Commissions Act of 2006

In addition to authorizing military commissions similar to those the Supreme Court overturned the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was intended to close off all the remaining writs of habeas corpus.

Supreme Court Responds..

The Supreme Court and the Military Commissions Act

On June 29, 2007 the Supreme Court agreed to hear outstanding habeas corpus, opening up the possibility that they might overturn some or all of the Military Commissions Act.[1]

up

Democrates try to take the initiative...

The proposed Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007

Senators Patrick D. Leahy and Arlen Specter have proposed Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, to restore access to habeas corpus to the Guantanamo captives.[2] Debate began on the bill on September 17, 2007. It has been attached, as an amendment, to a Defense bill.

I don't know why they would be trying to restore Habeas Corpus if they hadn't removed it? in 2005...

[Koolblue13]

Fair enough. It seems we are in agreement, I'm just nt as skilled at the internets as yourself.

[PeterMP]

Pete follow the logical argument.

(1) The supreme court did not over turn the McCain amemendment of 2005. You've said that yourself.

True. They found part of Bush's interpertation of it to be false.

(2) The McCain amendment stopped Habeas Corpus, allows secret evidence, denies detainees the right to civilian trials and for the first time created/confirmed the third catagory of illegal combatant Bush had been pushing..

It is fact silent on all of these issues.

(3) The McCain bill did not address specifically what type of military proceedings would be allowed other than to say civilian trials were out.

It is completely silent on all of these things. It rules out nothing.

(4) The Bush administration had invented Tribunals or Commissions which didn't even raise to the level of military court marshals.

Irrelevant to a discussion of the McCain law.

(5) The Supreme court ruled on the legitamacy of the Military Tribunals and whether they satisfied Americas responsiblilities under the Geneva convention.

In doing so, they also ruled that the McCain ammendment does not prohibit them from hearing cases w/ respect to detainees. The Bush administration was claiming that it did. The Supreme Court found this to be false. I've given you the wikipedia link three times. Go read it.

(6) The Supreme court found that Bush's kangaroo courts, or Military Tribunals were not sufficient, and thus gave Bush two choices.

a.) Use Military Courts.

b.) Go back to congress and get a law which specifically allows Military Tribunals to satisfy American treaty obligations.

As the McCain ammendment is silent on these issues, it is again irrelevant.

Bush choose the latter. He got the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" which expressly allows him to use the Military Tribunals. Now that law is being contested before the supreme court this week, tomorrow.

All of this is irrelevant to the McCain ammendment. However, the Military Commissions Act does do some of the things you claimed the McCain ammendment did in your second point.

The supreme court had jurisdiction to rule on the acceptability of military tribunals with regards to America's responsibilities to international treaties. Irrelivent to what the McCain bill did

Read the wiki link. The Bush administration claimed the McCain law did just that. They claimed that the law removed from the Supreme Court the authority to hear the case. The Supreme Court found this to be false.

, which was to remove detainee's from the civil court system, deny them Habeas Corpus, allow indefinate detentions, torture, and the rest. Non of which the Supreme court touched.

The McCain law does none of these things. The Military Commissions Act does some of them. The Court was silent on issues w/ respect to torture because there was no claim that Hamdan had been tortured.

No No No.... Hamdan vs Rumsfeld wasn't about detainees being able to challenge their detentions in civil courts,

I never said the case was about detainees challengeing their detentions in Civil Courts. The Bush administration claimed that the McCain law prevented even the Supreme Court from hearing any cases related to the detainees. The Supreme Court found this to be FALSE. Under the McCain law, if a detainee feels their rights were violated, they had the ability to petition to the courts. The Supreme Court recognized this right by even hearing the Hamdan case much less deciding it in his favor.

or overturning any of the new congressional codified abuses McCain introduced into law.

The McCain law does not codify abuses into law. That is just what the Bush administration has claimed and w/ the manipulation of the Congressional Record by Graham and Kyl made it seem like as described in the wiki link I've repeatedly given you.

Hamden vs Rumsfeld didn't change the McCain torture ammendment.

True. It changed Bush's interpertation of it.

McCain said civilian courts are out.

False. The McCain law is silent on the issue.

The Bush interpretation of the McCain law has not been challenged in court. The only thing that has been challenged is the Military tribunals.

You are confusing what the supreme court held in Hamdan vs Rumsfeld. You are further mistaking what the Supreme Court was ruling on in that case.

You are the one that is confused. As part of the case, the Bush administration claimed that the McCain law prevented the courts from hearing any cases w/ regards to the detainees. In the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court concluded that is false, and that the Supreme Court can hear cases if they want too. Again, read the wiki link.

PETER!!! READ YOUR OWN LINK!!!!

As I stated, the piece was written before the Hamdan decision. This is clearly incorrect based on the Hamdan decision. The Supreme Court will hear these cases.

What you want me to say? As I've stated since the beginning, people on both sides are trying to misrepresent the McCain law. Luckily for all of this, that guy isn't on the Supreme Court.

No, that's not at all what happenned. What happenned is one couragous liberal judge is going head to head with the administration over the legality of the McCain law. She's the first. That doesn't prove your point that the McCain law didn't do I've shown the NY Times, Washington Post, and Amnesty International all agreed with me it did.

As I've previously stated, all of those pieces were written before the Hamdan decision. In the Hamdan case (as described in the wiki link), the Bush administration claimed that the McCain law disqualified all courts, even the Supreme Court, from hearing cases related to the detainees. The Supreme Court found this to be false.

PETER!!!, you are a much smarter guy than you are coming across here. The Guantanamo detainee's are not federal prisoners. They are not prisoners of war. Thanks to John McCain they have for the first time been recognized by congress as a third catagory. Enemy Combatants. What their rights are and how they are treated is setting legal president, and congress is passing laws just for them..

They aren't federal prisioners, but your claim that even touching somebody is assualt and that you can't make assualt of a prisioner illegal (which the McCain law does as described in your own NYT link) and therefore that somehow invalidates the McCain law is ridiculous because the federal goverment has a history of detaining people against their will. I understand that Congress is writing laws just for these people. The McCain law is just that. It illegalizes assualt. How that will be defined and be balanced w/ the need for guards to mantain order will be decided by the Courts I'll bet and be somewhat based on how those same issues were addressed in federal prisions.

[PeterMP]

I don't know why they would be trying to restore Habeas Corpus if they hadn't removed it? in 2005...

You are really starting to look stupid. They didn't remove it in 2005. They removed it in 2006. Try reading your own link :doh: .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Restoration_Act_of_2007

"The bill would restore the right for Guantanamo captives to access the US court system under the principle of habeas corpus, a right that had been stripped from them by the Military Commissions Act of 2006.[3]:

That's right from your own link. The McCain law in 2005 didn't remove habeas corpus rights. It was done the next year with a different law.

I am now assuming you retract what you've said in every other post where you claimed the McCain law did so.

[JMS]

You are really starting to look stupid. They didn't remove it in 2005. They removed it in 2006. Try reading your own link :doh: .

Pete, you ignore NY Times, Washington Post, Amnesty International and your own links on the matter. I don't think you should be concerned that I'm looking stupid or intrasigent.

Let's just shut the door on this one shall we...

Also, section 1005, part (e) of the Act prohibits aliens detained in Guantanamo Bay from applying for a writ of habeas corpus.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee_Treatment_Act

And what does section 1005, part (e) of the McCain bill say?

‘(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--

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

I cut it down so you don't have too much to read. Hard to argue with the wording in the actual bill.

That's right from your own link. The McCain law in 2005 didn't remove habeas corpus rights. It was done the next year with a different law.

The 2006 bill closed loop holes left open in 2005 by McCain. It's true. But that doesn't mean that the McCain bill didn't do what I, The NY Times, The Washington Post, and Amensty International, and your own eyes ...... all have said it did. Here let me give you another one.. From November of 2005...

Senate strips Guantanamo detainees of right to sue

BY JOHN RILEY | STAFF WRITER November 11, 2005 The Senate voted last night to strip away the right of war-on-terror prisoners held at the military's Guantanamo Bay jail in Cuba to challenge their detentions in court.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wohabe114507579nov11,0,6972229.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines

I am now assuming you retract what you've said in every other post where you claimed the McCain law did so.

Pete you are using a positive in trying to prove a negative and it's rediculous. I've given you no less than five links which directly refute what you are saying.

The Senate did a bad thing yesterday, voting for the so-called Graham Amendment, 49-42 (with McCain voting for it), which would eliminate the statutory right of habeas corpus for alien detainees held by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo. The point of this amendment is to undermine the Supreme Court's June 2004 decision in Rasul v. Bush.

For an explanation of the issues see Marty Lederman at SCOTUS Blog and then see Steve Vladeck for the advanced course in the horrible and complex federal courts and constitutional law implications.

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/11/a_vote_for_unreviewable_injustice.html

U.S. Senate passes amendment stripping Guantanamo detainees' access to courts

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_passes_amendment_stripping_Guantanamo_detainees'_access_to_courts

ACLU Urges Congress to Reject Court Stripping Measure; Proposal Denies Detainees the Right to Challenge the Use of Torture (11/10/2005)

The Graham amendment would strip all courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions or any other action challenging any aspect of the detention of foreign detainees held at Guantanamo Bay,

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/21219prs20051110.html

I think the door has been closed..

[PeterMP]

Pete, you ignore NY Times, Washington Post, Amnesty International and your own links on the matter. I don't think you should be concerned that I'm looking stupid or intrasigent.

I've explained it multiple times including the manipulation of the Congressional record. It is out there for you to find if you so desire. It is right in the wiki link in the Hamdan decision. The fact of the matter is they can all say what they want, but they are wrong. The Hamdan decision is what it is. You can't change that, and they can't change that and posting links that either ignore it or are written before it doesn't change that.

I'm done here.

***EDIT***

I will note two more things:

1. In your original post, you spoke of a loop hole that had to be closed and hence the 2006 law. What was the loop hole? If the law in 2005 disallowed habeas corpus, why bother to pass another law a year later to do the samething, unless the 2005 law didn't really do it.

2. Heabas corpus REALLY is different than the idea of torture that McCain fought against so even if the McCain law did suspend Habeas Corpus (which it didn't hence the 2006 law) that wouldn't be an indication that McCain caved on torture so your over all premise would be wrong. From the start, you have been mixing things together (e.g. the right to a jury trial in the civilian court system and prevention of torture).

[JMS]

True. They found part of Bush's interpertation of it to be false.

I wouldn't even go that far. Bush had been using Military tribunals and the use of those tribunals had been overturned by the supreme court in Bush vs Raub in 2004, openning the way for civilian trials. The McCain Bill backed Bush up and undermined the Supreme Court ruling by deniing civilian trials and specifically Habeas Corpus but the McCain Bill did not confer on Bush the right to form his own legal system in the form of Military Tribunals. The McCain bill did not specifically void standing statute and international treaties. That's what the Supreme court objected to in Hamden vs Rumsfeld. The Tribunals.

It ( the 2005 McCain torture Bill) is fact silent on all of these issues.

1. Denies Habeas Corpus
   
2. Allows Secret Evidence
   
3. Denies Civilian Trials
   
4. introduced the term Illegal combatant to congressional law.
   

Here is the Bill...

http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html

Chapter and Verse..

Denies Habeas Corpus

section 1005, part(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (McCain Ammendment)

‘(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--

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

Allows Secret Evidence

The McCain Bill literally allows the President to write out the rules of evidence

The procedures submitted to Congress pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) shall ensure that the official of the Department of Defense who is designated by the President or Secretary of Defense to be the final review authority within the Department of Defense with respect to decisions of any such tribunal or board

http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html

Denies Civilian Trials

• 
  
  • 
    
    • ( LIMITATION ON CLAIMS- The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this paragraph shall be limited to claims brought by or on behalf of an alien--
      

• 
  
  • 
    
    • 
      
      • (i) who is, at the time a request for review by such court is filed, detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and
        

• 
  
  • 
    
    • 
      
      • (ii) for whom a Combatant Status Review Tribunal has been conducted, pursuant to applicable procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense.
        

http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html

introduced the term Enemy Combatant to congressional law.

( note I originally mistakely said illegal combatant... it's Enemy Combatant)

enemy combatant status of a detainee

http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html

Judicial Review of Detention of Enemy Combatants-

http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html

( has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.'.

http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html

It is completely silent on all of these things. It rules out nothing.

I'm citing chapter and verse here of the original documents. I've only done so because you've dismissed my refferences such as the NY times, Amnest International, Washington Post, American Civil Liberty Union, Harvard Law Review etc.. I'm hopeing you wont dismis the actual text of the McCain Bill.

Irrelevant to a discussion of the McCain law. ( about Bush inventing Trials ).

You keep talking about the Supreme Court and Hamden vs Rumsfeld. That's exactly what that case was about. I agree irrelivent, but why do you keep bringing it up? It didn't overturn the McCain bill it only addressed the procedural issue with regards to Tribunals. Even then it left the Administration an out. Going back to congress and getting a clarification on the use of extra judicial military tribunals.

In doing so(supreme court hearing case) They, also ruled that the McCain ammendment does not prohibit them from hearing cases w/ respect to detainees. The Bush administration was claiming that it did. The Supreme Court found this to be false. I've given you the wikipedia link three times. Go read it.

No they didn't. The supreme court ruled that the McCain law didn't give the President the authority to create his own legal system, even if it alluded to it. Period the end. The Supreme court in no way enabled the civilian legal system to hear cases, which the McCain Bill excluded.

Read the wiki link. The Bush administration claimed the McCain law did just that. They claimed that the law removed from the Supreme Court the authority to hear the case. The Supreme Court found this to be false.

:doh: Obviously the supreme court ruled it had jurisdiction. That's not what we are discussing. the McCain bill specifically removed the lower courts ability to hear the Guantanamo cases.. section 1005 sub section 2(. The Supreme court ruling on the legitamacy of the military tribunals we both have already agreed is irreleivent, even if it did occur over the objections of the Bush Administration.

http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html

The McCain law does not codify abuses into law. That is just what the Bush administration has claimed and w/ the manipulation of the Congressional Record by Graham and Kyl made it seem like as described in the wiki link I've repeatedly given you.

No Pete that's exactly what it did. Bush needed it because the Supreme court had ruled against him in 2004 in Raul vs Bush. And bush specifically said he couldn't go on unless congress got into the pot with him. Which the McCain Bill did.

False. The McCain law is silent on the issue.

How do you just continue to say this?

You are the one that is confused. As part of the case, the Bush administration claimed that the McCain law prevented the courts from hearing any cases w/ regards to the detainees. In the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court concluded that is false, and that the Supreme Court can hear cases if they want too. Again, read the wiki link.

You are confusing the supreme court with "any court".. The Administration claimed that neither the supreme court nor lower courts could hear the cases because of the McCain bill. The Supreme court didn't address the lower court issue, but said it was not limited by the McCain bill. Big difference.

As I stated, the piece was written before the Hamdan decision. This is clearly incorrect based on the Hamdan decision. The Supreme Court will hear these cases.

The Hamden decision did not overturn the McCain ammenment, nor did it even address any of the administrations new powers granted/ratified under that ammendment. As we both have already agreed. So it makes no sense what so ever that you are dismissing this article on that basis.

What you want me to say? As I've stated since the beginning, people on both sides are trying to misrepresent the McCain law. Luckily for all of this, that guy isn't on the Supreme Court.

Peter this is the defense attorney for the Guantanamo detainee admitting that the Civilian court has no jourisdiction to hear his clients pleese because of the McCain ammendment.

In court filings, the Justice Department lawyers argued that language in the law written by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) gives Guantanamo Bay detainees access to the courts only to appeal their enemy combatant status determinations and convictions by military commissions.

"Unfortunately, I think the government's right; it's a correct reading of the law," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "The law says you can't torture detainees at Guantanamo, but it also says you can't enforce that law in the courts."

Thomas Wilner, a lawyer representing several detainees at Guantanamo, agreed that the law cannot be enforced. "This is what Guantanamo was about to begin with, a place to keep detainees out of the U.S. precisely so they can say they can't go to court," Wilner said.

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

They aren't federal prisioners, but your claim that even touching somebody is assualt and that you can't make assualt of a prisioner illegal (which the McCain law does as described in your own NYT link) and therefore that somehow invalidates the McCain law is ridiculous because the federal goverment has a history of detaining people against their will. I understand that Congress is writing laws just for these people. The McCain law is just that. It illegalizes assualt. How that will be defined and be balanced w/ the need for guards to mantain order will be decided by the Courts I'll bet and be somewhat based on how those same issues were addressed in federal prisions.

:doh: They aren't federal prisoners, at least we agree on that. The McCain law doesn't make assault illegal that's not what my link said. It said it makes some types of assault illegal. Like Assaults which are demeaning, or inhumanizing. But it leaves it up the the President to be the sole descriminator of what that language means. Again no specific techniques are outlawed by the McCain Bill. It spends to pages spelling out what is against the law using flowery language without being specific then leaves it up to the President to decide.

Again while taking the entire oversite of these prisoners out of the civilian courts.

[GibbsFactor]

So i'm watching some youtube converage of the Dems and I have two thoughts.

1. If we put sanctions on Iran(or NK or whoever), wouldn't they just depend on China even more, making Chinas economy even stronger, hence putting ourselves in a deeper hole, financially and powerful wise?

Talk about an isolationist policy.

[JMS]

1. In your original post, you spoke of a loop hole that had to be closed and hence the 2006 law. What was the loop hole? If the law in 2005 disallowed habeas corpus, why bother to pass another law a year later to do the samething, unless the 2005 law didn't really do it.

The McCain bill had two loop holes....

(1) It allowed cases which were already submitted to the courts to continue in the civilian courts.

(2) It allowed the civilian courts specifically and exclusively the "United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit" to be hear appeals narrowly on the merrits of detainees being classified as enemy combatants.

It's important this distinction. The McCain bill did not allow combantants to enforce it's anti torture provisions in Court. the McCain bill cut off their use of the courts once they were found to be enemy combatants.

In 2006 four detainee's cases were progressing through the court system and were stopped based upon "Military Commission Act of 2006"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33688.pdf

In 2006 the administration cut off even these avenues as well as clarifying the Supreme Courts objection in Hamden vs Rumsfeld, on the tribunal issue. Bush's Kangaroo courts. Congress explicitely gave Bush the authority to write up his own legal system, the tribunals, where he was in charge of hearing, prosecuting, defending, and evideciary rules without any indepenent oversite... Something the McCain bill did in a hand full of sentences, with the Supreme court objected too; the Miliary Commission Act of 2006 re-affirmed.

Like I said two cases involveing the Military Commission Act of 2006 will be heard in the supreme court tommorrow.

2. Heabas corpus REALLY is different than the idea of torture that McCain fought against so even if the McCain law did suspend Habeas Corpus (which it didn't hence the 2006 law) that wouldn't be an indication that McCain caved on torture so your over all premise would be wrong. From the start, you have been mixing things together (e.g. the right to a jury trial in the civilian court system and prevention of torture).

Like independent oversite isn't related to the rule of law? The point has always been that by stripping judicial oversite from the Prisoners at Guantanamo and leaving it solely up to the President to catagorize their treatment, ( knowing the administration was already torturing these guys)... McCain handed the keys and carte blanch to the administration...

I've always stated the McCain bill outlawed torture. Big deal torture has ben outlawed in this country for decades if not a century. What the McCain bill did was strip out any independent oversite, that's how he facilitated torture.

As for The McCain Bill not outlawing Habeas Corpus.. Read the bill yourself..

http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html

SEC. 1005.e.(1)"[/i]]

• (e) Judicial Review of Detention of Enemy Combatants-
  

• 
  
  • (1) IN GENERAL- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    

• '(e) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider--
  

• 
  
  • '(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or
    

[PeterMP]

Peter this is the defense attorney for the Guantanamo detainee admitting that the Civilian court has no jourisdiction to hear his clients pleese because of the McCain ammendment.

Originally Posted by Washinton Post

In court filings, the Justice Department lawyers argued that language in the law written by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) gives Guantanamo Bay detainees access to the courts only to appeal their enemy combatant status determinations and convictions by military commissions.

"Unfortunately, I think the government's right; it's a correct reading of the law," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "The law says you can't torture detainees at Guantanamo, but it also says you can't enforce that law in the courts."

Thomas Wilner, a lawyer representing several detainees at Guantanamo, agreed that the law cannot be enforced. "This is what Guantanamo was about to begin with, a place to keep detainees out of the U.S. precisely so they can say they can't go to court," Wilner said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6030202054.html

I'm going to ignore the rest because I have addressed the issues multiple times, and much of it is beyond your original claim that McCain caved on his torture stand.

I'm sorry, but I missed where he said "civilian court". What is a civilian court? Is the Supreme Court a civilian court?

The fact of the matter is that despite claims by the Bush administration that the McCain ammendement prevented them from hearing the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court said that the McCain ammendment did not affect their ability to hear the case. The same precedent will stand w/ respect to torture. If his clients are being tortured, AT LEAST, he can bring the case to the Supreme Court. Is the Supreme Court not a court than that will enforce the torture rules presented in the McCain ammendment?

His statement is false.

NOW, I'm done here.