Skip Nav
Romantic Comedies
8 New Romances on Netflix in February
Netflix
18 Sex-Filled Films to Stream on Netflix
Nostalgia
375 Reasons Why Being a '90s Girl Rocked Our Jellies Off

McCain: Rights to Gitmo One of the Worst Decisions in History

John McCain has called last week's Supreme Court ruling that extends the
right to challenge one's detention to detainees at Guantanamo Bay “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

McCain said the decision highlighted the importance of nominating conservative justices to the court. McCain explained that although he still wants to close the prison and opposes torture, the decision threatens American security.

"These are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they are not and never have been given the rights that the citizens of this country have," the Republican nominee said. I wonder how a detainee could prove he is in fact an American citizen, without the right to challenge detention.

McCain eagerly distinguished himself from Barack Obama, who supported the decision saying: “This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.”

Is it possible to simultaneously support the closing of Guantanamo, and detention without charge?

Source

Around The Web
Michelle Obama Wearing a Plum Dress
Becoming an Adult During Obama's Presidency
Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee With Barack Obama
Presidents' Pets

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

Join The Conversation
juju4 juju4 7 years
Yes, I definitely didn't mean that he couldn't recall the experience.
stephley stephley 7 years
Okay, I get now that you saw 'forgot' in very strong terms.
jennifer76 jennifer76 7 years
But it is puzzling to me that someone who has had his unique experiences would be against the supreme court decision. If you look at the entire picture, not only is it puzzling to presume that he must have forgotten what it's like to be a POW for him to oppose the decision, it's completely farfetched. There are a lot of other possible and significantly more likely explanations. And, once again, for whatever reason people are dancing around the fact that he has consistently opposed torture and he has consistently stated that he believes Gitmo should be closed. The only thing that I can think here is that people are so used to supporting any court decision that gets them the change they desire that they are unable to even entertain the idea that you can believe the court overstepped its bounds or misinterpreted the Constitution even when you agree with the general change they are trying to effect. So if a rape victim spoke out against a ruling that protected other rape victims, it would be wrong to question that? Being a victim gives you a free pass? Not a free pass, it gives you ownership of an experience. No, it doesn't mean you can't question any position a person has. But, it's unbelievably arrogant to assume someone must have forgotten a painfully traumatizing experience if they have the gall to disagree with you on a related matter.
jennifer76 jennifer76 7 years
<em>But it is puzzling to me that someone who has had his unique experiences would be against the supreme court decision.</em>If you look at the entire picture, not only is it puzzling to presume that he must have forgotten what it's like to be a POW for him to oppose the decision, it's completely farfetched. There are a lot of other possible and significantly more likely explanations.And, once again, for whatever reason people are dancing around the fact that he has consistently opposed torture and he has consistently stated that he believes Gitmo should be closed. The only thing that I can think here is that people are so used to supporting any court decision that gets them the change they desire that they are unable to even entertain the idea that you can believe the court overstepped its bounds or misinterpreted the Constitution <strong>even when you agree with the general change they are trying to effect</strong>.<em>So if a rape victim spoke out against a ruling that protected other rape victims, it would be wrong to question that? Being a victim gives you a free pass?</em>Not a free pass, it gives you ownership of an experience. No, it doesn't mean you can't question any position a person has. But, it's unbelievably arrogant to assume someone must have forgotten a painfully traumatizing experience if they have the gall to disagree with you on a related matter.
stephley stephley 7 years
"I really doubt such a statement would be so cavalierly made about someone who had suffered a rape or other seriously traumatic experience."So if a rape victim spoke out against a ruling that protected other rape victims, it would be wrong to question that? Being a victim gives you a free pass?There's nothing offensive about dealing with McCain's POW experience in terms of statements and decisions that he makes as a presidential candidate - his military and prisoner experiences are offered as evidence of a greater and deeper experience. As voters, we have every duty to consider them when we make our decisions.
stephley stephley 7 years
"I really doubt such a statement would be so cavalierly made about someone who had suffered a rape or other seriously traumatic experience." So if a rape victim spoke out against a ruling that protected other rape victims, it would be wrong to question that? Being a victim gives you a free pass? There's nothing offensive about dealing with McCain's POW experience in terms of statements and decisions that he makes as a presidential candidate - his military and prisoner experiences are offered as evidence of a greater and deeper experience. As voters, we have every duty to consider them when we make our decisions.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 7 years
Great conversation going on in here.
juju4 juju4 7 years
My comment wasn't meant to be offensive, and I am sorry if it offended someone. But it is puzzling to me that someone who has had his unique experiences would be against the supreme court decision. I don't take this subject lightly, in fact the complete opposite, which is why I believe that even in times of war we should respect human rights. I don't believe that POWs suffer ONLY when they are physically tortured......isn't unending imprisonment without defense and without proof of guilt pretty unbearable on its own?
juju4 juju4 7 years
My comment wasn't meant to be offensive, and I am sorry if it offended someone. But it is puzzling to me that someone who has had his unique experiences would be against the supreme court decision. I don't take this subject lightly, in fact the complete opposite, which is why I believe that even in times of war we should respect human rights. I don't believe that POWs suffer ONLY when they are physically tortured......isn't unending imprisonment without defense and without proof of guilt pretty unbearable on its own?
Jillness Jillness 7 years
Just in case you wanted to skip the wordy post, here is a condensed version A 2003 memo by John Yoo, a former Justice Department official, which was declassified last week, went so far as to discuss the potential of the President to approve the maiming, drugging or applying "scalding water, corrosive acid or caustic substance" on detainees."
Jillness Jillness 7 years
Just in case you wanted to skip the wordy post, here is a condensed versionA 2003 memo by John Yoo, a former Justice Department official, which was declassified last week, went so far as to discuss the potential of the President to approve the <b>maiming, drugging or applying "scalding water, corrosive acid or caustic substance" on detainees."
Jillness Jillness 7 years
I thought the Declaration stated the principles that America stands for. If it is your principle that All Men Are Created Equal, you weaken that by trying to fit in exceptions. "It might be safe to assume that most prisoners there ARE guilty, and guilty of really horrible things...but if we are locking up even one innocent man/woman, and not even giving them the chance to defend themselves, then we are going against the principles that our country was founded on" I agree 100%. Since they had Habeus Corpus for 220+ years until 2006 with the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and then the Supreme Court just ruled that it was unlawful, I think that it is safe to say that our Constitution supports the idea that EVERYONE gets due process. I can understand we are in sensitive times, but I do think juju had a point...she wasn't just being glib. I do think it is pretty amazing that McCain would support a level of treatment of prisoners that prevents them (and our military) from finding justice. I know he supports the Field manual application for the CIA, but he is at the same time not supporting other legislation that prevents very cruel behavior. These bills that he opposes are important, IMO, because the administration can't be trusted. When you have an Adminstration who produces memos like this, you have to prepare for anything: A 2003 memo by John Yoo, a former Justice Department official, which was declassified last week, went so far as to discuss the potential of the President to approve the maiming, drugging or applying "scalding water, corrosive acid or caustic substance" on detainees."
Jillness Jillness 7 years
I thought the Declaration stated the principles that America stands for. If it is your principle that All Men Are Created Equal, you weaken that by trying to fit in exceptions. "It might be safe to assume that most prisoners there ARE guilty, and guilty of really horrible things...but if we are locking up even one innocent man/woman, and not even giving them the chance to defend themselves, then we are going against the principles that our country was founded on"I agree 100%.Since they had Habeus Corpus for 220+ years until 2006 with the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and then the Supreme Court just ruled that it was unlawful, I think that it is safe to say that our Constitution supports the idea that EVERYONE gets due process. I can understand we are in sensitive times, but I do think juju had a point...she wasn't just being glib. I do think it is pretty amazing that McCain would support a level of treatment of prisoners that prevents them (and our military) from finding justice. I know he supports the Field manual application for the CIA, but he is at the same time not supporting other legislation that prevents very cruel behavior. These bills that he opposes are important, IMO, because the administration can't be trusted. When you have an Adminstration who produces memos like this, you have to prepare for anything:A 2003 memo by John Yoo, a former Justice Department official, which was declassified last week, went so far as to discuss the potential of the President to approve the maiming, drugging or applying "scalding water, corrosive acid or caustic substance" on detainees."
Kimpossible Kimpossible 7 years
I see, megnmac, thanks.
Kimpossible Kimpossible 7 years
I see, megnmac, thanks.
megnmac megnmac 7 years
Kim - The Constitution guarantees says no "person" shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. It doesn't matter WHO they are - citizens or not. The Constitution grants powers to the government and limits those powers (5th & 14th Am). It was written for the US - and embodies the rules for how the US operates. There are not separate rules when we accuse an illegal immigrant of a crime, they are still entitled to a fair trial. We bind ourselves to this code of honor and the rules don't change based on who we're facing.
megnmac megnmac 7 years
Kim - The Constitution guarantees says no "person" shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. It doesn't matter WHO they are - citizens or not. The Constitution grants powers to the government and limits those powers (5th & 14th Am). It was written for the US - and embodies the rules for how the US operates. There are not separate rules when we accuse an illegal immigrant of a crime, they are still entitled to a fair trial. We bind ourselves to this code of honor and the rules don't change based on who we're facing.
Kimpossible Kimpossible 7 years
torgleson - I don't know.. I'm just thinking that since it was written for the US, not for the World, that it only applies to Citizens.. but again I don't know.
True-Song True-Song 7 years
Well, it goes on to say, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I don't think inalienable rights from your Creator have any kind of fine print about paying taxes or being a citizen. Being a citizen to get access to education or welfare programs? Fine, of course. But only special snowflakes born in the U.S. have the right to not be held without trial? To me, this is so obviously wrong.
flutterpie flutterpie 7 years
okay so lets assume that "enemy combatants" are not covered, shouldnt americans follow their own laws? this is an american institution ran by americans, they are obligated to uphold the constitution to the best of their ability. they have had seven years to get their shit together, its time to stop suspending the constitution, stop finding ways around the geneva convention and stop living like we are on code red all the time. if we cannot protect our country and uphold our values, then we are no better than russia and china. as far as mccain goes, he is a hypocrite. he knows whats happening in gitmo, he knows why we have yet to try anybody and but in an effort to appeal to the conservatives, he walks around in mock shock that the supreme court chose to uphold habeas corpus.
flutterpie flutterpie 7 years
okay so lets assume that "enemy combatants" are not covered, shouldnt americans follow their own laws? this is an american institution ran by americans, they are obligated to uphold the constitution to the best of their ability. they have had seven years to get their shit together, its time to stop suspending the constitution, stop finding ways around the geneva convention and stop living like we are on code red all the time. if we cannot protect our country and uphold our values, then we are no better than russia and china.as far as mccain goes, he is a hypocrite. he knows whats happening in gitmo, he knows why we have yet to try anybody and but in an effort to appeal to the conservatives, he walks around in mock shock that the supreme court chose to uphold habeas corpus.
Kimpossible Kimpossible 7 years
torgleson as far as the "all men are created equal" thing... I could be wrong but that is in our Declaration of Independence so therefore only applies to US citizens, no? Since it was a document to dissolve political bands we had with England, or Great Britain, no? I am obviously no expert on History so my questioning with "no?" at the end of the sentences is truly a question as to the accuracy of my understandings.
Kimpossible Kimpossible 7 years
torgleson as far as the "all men are created equal" thing... I could be wrong but that is in our Declaration of Independence so therefore only applies to US citizens, no? Since it was a document to dissolve political bands we had with England, or Great Britain, no?I am obviously no expert on History so my questioning with "no?" at the end of the sentences is truly a question as to the accuracy of my understandings.
sarah_bellum sarah_bellum 7 years
That is a term actually used by military personnel. I wasn't trying to be clever, and I don't think a turn of phrase that rhymes is on the same level as trivializing 5 years of torture endured by somebody.
stephley stephley 7 years
One person's glib is another's clever remark: 2. "When in doubt, take them out." You should consider everyone's sensibilities as carefully as your own.
Latest Love
X