On the Republican debate last night

[JMS]

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.



First off, over all impressions; The Republicans have a stronger field than the Democrats. From top to bottom they are more polished and give more intelligent answers than the Democrats who seem to speak in sound bites rather than answer questions. I was very impressed with the Republicans in this debate, first one I've watched.



Oddly enough I thought the weakest Republican in this debate was Mitt Romney. He didn’t come across as Presidential. I always thought of him as a stuffed shirt, someone who would say anything in order to win. I must say, that's how he came across last night. He couldn’t give clear answers on some of the questions and was caught several times talking out of both sides of his face. On immigration for example Romney jumped on Giuliani for NY city being a sanctuary city during his term as Mayor. Giuliani’s responded that he went to court to ensure illegal immigrant children could go to public schools because his primary concern as mayor was crime. Giuliani countered that Romney had actually employed illegal immigrants in the governor’s mansion in Ma. Romney looked very foolish I thought. It's amazing to me Mitt is among the front runners ( in NH and Iowa). Knowing this is the only Republican debate I've watched maybe someone can say if this poor showing was representative of how Romney has preformed previously, or not. I can’t believe it is because I always heard Mitt was a good debater.



On Huckabee. I hate the thought of the guy. A Baptist preacher running for President; Oh my god can you think of anything worse. Another faith based reasoner who will consult the bible and speak to god rather than employing his brains or that of his advisors. After watching him however he turned in one of the strongest performances of the night. They guy was very appealing. He came across as a level headed pragmatic guy. He was very well spoken, and represented some very tough questions with intelligent well thought out responses. It was amazing to me. I can see why he's climbing in the poles.



Giuliani. I thought Giuliani did well in the debates. He wasn’t head and shoulders above his competition, but he didn’t hurt himself and I thought he did well defending his front running status. He spent quite a lot of his time sparing with Mitt Romney, as they are the front runners; frankly I thought Giuliani got the better of Mitt. Giuliani also fielded question on spending irregularities (expense reports) while mayor of NY. I thought he was very creditable in his explanation and in dismissing these problems. I've heard Giuliani is running a one issue campaign.. (Terrorism / 911 ).. I must say Giuliani was at his best talking about crime and social programs which he implemented while mayor of NY. He represented his achievements very impressively.



Ron Paul. Again, I've long since lost any faith in libertarians. I must say though Ron Paul impressed me too. Mitt and the rest of the Republicans were talking about holding taxes down or even cutting taxes. Ron Paul amazingly spoke out about that's only half the problem. Tax cuts or holding taxes steady is irrelevant if you don't cut spending. Again I was floored. On Iraq Ron Paul was also impressive. Saying he would get out sooner rather than latter. Saying he didn’t want to pay to tell other people how to live their lives. Paul gave very common sense answers and represented himself very well, I thought.



John McCain. I used to like the guy. He has stuck his head so far up George Bush's sphincter in the last three years I've totally abandoned him. It also really annoyed me when McCain caved to the Bush administration on torture a few years back. Boy was McCain impressive last night. He was like Zeus throwing lightning bolts into the crowd. John didn't loose a single opportunity to tell the red meat Republican crowd about how they had screwed up or how he would fix them. He was roundly boo’ed on more than one occasion, but man did he have his game on. McCain has recaptured the magic he lost four years ago. It really brought me back.



Tancredo didn't get much air time, but he too had his moments on immigration and didn’t make any mistakes.





I really thought the Republican group was an impressive group, and they really did well in the debate. The Democrats are going to have to put a superior candidate together to beat the Republicans next year. The republicans have put together some really impressive candidates. The country might be suffering from Bush fatigue, but the democrats are going to have to do more than just show up to take this election.

Lastly I wanted to talk about the format of the debate. They had internet folks submitting questions via U-Tube. The questions were excellent, and hard. It made for a very entertaiining debate; something that also supprised me.

[tomgraham]

Ron Paul is my fav. Rep

[headexplode]

On the Republican debate last night . . . nothing of value or meaning was actually said, and the joke that is the election process and the candidates that participate was fully revealed for all to see, sparking a cultural/intellectual/spiritual revolution among all peoples of the world to tear down the artifice in our lives, who once and for all resolved to build a new future based on peace, love, and mutual respect?

Or was that just a dream I had?

[JMS]

On the Republican debate last night . . . nothing of value or meaning was actually said, and the joke that is the election process and the candidates that participate was fully revealed for all to see, sparking a cultural/intellectual/spiritual revolution among all peoples of the world to tear down the artifice in our lives, who once and for all resolved to build a new future based on peace, love, and mutual respect?

Or was that just a dream I had?


Again, I disagree. I thought most of the candidates declaired themselves clearly on controversial issues which separated them from their party and their President. Several candidates were roundly booh'ed by the crowd, including front runners, Guliani and McCain. It was a wild wild west show.

The formate and moderation were excellent. I didn't know Anderson Cooper had it in him. It was brilliant, if you directly attacked a candidate on an issue he got 30 seconds to respond. Wow... It was a debate; rather than just five concurrent press conferences going on concurrently.

Anyway, As someone who will most likely be voting Democrat in 2008, I was impressed.

[ImmortalDragon]

What about Fred Thompson? I thought he was much more impressive than Huckabee or Romney.

[Burgold]

What a different take than the one in the other debate thread. It's facinating how people can come away with such different impressions.

[JMS]

What about Fred Thompson? I thought he was much more impressive than Huckabee or Romney.

Good point. I thought Fred Thompson looked very presidential and aquited himself well. Each campagn was allowed to prepare a 30 second piece about their candidate, with no restrictions. Every candidate used it as a commercial to present their candidate. Thompson interestingly chose to point out Huckibee and Romney raising taxes or flip flopping on issues. Thompson threw some elbows.

I still was more impressed with Huckabee. Likely because my expectations of Huckabee were so low. His candacy is for real.

[zoony]

I heard Bill O'Reilly say that Thompson was in it simply to be a VP.

He and Guiliani would make a strong ticket. Both are strong where the other is weak.

I wonder if Guiliani could win NY? Thompson would secure the southern vote.

[JMS]

What a different take than the one in the other debate thread. It's facinating how people can come away with such different impressions.

I kind of agree with Kilmer in the other thread. The questions were very hard. They were almost designed to test the nature of the candidates and expose where they differed from their party and their president. I thought all the candidates other than Mitt Romney handled the questions very well. They didn't shirk off the questions or even waiver. I thought they did very well.

Frankly if the Democrat nominees did plant questions, which I doubt. I think they did the Republicans a service.

[JMS]

I heard Bill O'Reilly say that Thompson was in it simply to be a VP.

He and Guiliani would make a strong ticket. Both are strong where the others are weak.

I wonder if Guiliani could win NY? Thompson would secure the southern vote.


I wouldn't overlook Huckebee after last night. I've never known much about him, but I think he definitely came across better than Thompson. Not that Thompson did poorly but because Huckebee was just as carasmatic and presidential while doing better with the evangelicals and south.

As for Thompson just being in it for VP. I didn't see that. He was definitely throwing elbows.

[Burgold]

I kind of agree with Kilmer in the other thread. The questions were very hard. They were almost designed to test the nature of the candidates and expose where they differed from their party and their president. I thought all the candidates other than Mitt Romney handled the questions very well. They didn't shirk off the questions or even waiver. I thought they did very well.

Frankly if the Democrat nominees did plant questions, which I doubt. I think they did the Republicans a service.

That's good to hear. Regardless of party, I am hoping for a strong President who is quick on their feet.

That's why I disagreed with Kilmer about the "appropriateness" of the questions. I still don't believe in "Republican" or "Democrat" questions though.

Mostly though, I think I'm just in the mood to procrastinate (which is really not a good thing when you work for yourself :laugh: )

[ACW]

Mitt and the rest of the Republicans were talking about holding taxes down or even cutting taxes. Ron Paul amazingly spoke out about that's only half the problem. Tax cuts or holding taxes steady is irrelevant if you don't cut spending.It seems like it should be :obvious:, but it's not :doh:

[Zguy28]

I thought it was funny when Huckabee offered to help Guiliani with a Bible question. :laugh:

[GibbsFactor]

It was also funny when Huckee offered to send Clinton to Mars. Unfortunately, in this day and age, we don't need a comedian in the white house.

[Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin]

As a Thompson supporter, there is no way in hell Fred is going to be VP to GIULIANI. Fred's in it to be Prez-O-dent, not some petty tyrant RINO like Rudy.

If anything, the race will be to determine who is VP to Thompson.

It may not seem that way now, but if you're looking for a return to fiscal conservatism, the only way you're getting that is with Thompson. Hunter can't win and I think he's too protectionist for his own good. Thompson will talk a good game for the socons but he's out of the Reagan mold of "leave me the hell alone" conservatism. This does not mean that states will not be able to make their own laws about gay marriage, abortion, etc but his administration will be focused on other matters primarily, which makes sense from a federalist perspective, anyway.

Giuliani may somehow survive as the candidate going toe-to-toe with Thompson but in the end "Al Qaeda" of the GOP ('The Base,' not a slur against religious conservatives, just something I've been saying lately) will see Giuliani for what he is, which is someone who will serve the interests of the most liberal GOP elites and the Democrats.

Romney is almost too polished. What I like about Fred is that he wants to be President but he hasn't been spending his whole life building up to it. Give me the man who kinda wants the job but isn't some kind of Todd Marinovich of national politics and believes in basic, productive administration and policy and can speak to the people without engaging in shrill rhetoric.

He's exactly the counterweight needed for HIllary in the general election and if we want to escape disastrous health care proposals and ignore social security for ANOTHER generation---other than just taxing young people TODAY.

[JMS]

I thought it was funny when Huckabee offered to help Guiliani with a Bible question. :laugh:

Yeah Huckabee did show a good sense of humor. But more importantly he really knocked that question out of the ball park and challenged his own camp a little bit.

The question... ( video )... a dude with a bad hair cut and a danny partrige outfit from the 1970's is holding up a bible. Says. Do you believe in this book. Is it the word of god? do you believe everything written in this book is true...

Guliani says, I believe in some of the bible.. Booh's raise from the crowd. But I believe some of it is alagory. I don't for example believe Johnah actually lived inside a whale ( for a number of days...)... Uneasyness from the crowd...

Mitt Romney up next. I believe in the bible. I believe everything in the bible. I believe its the word of god.. Crowd cheers..

Huckabee up next. I believe in the bible, but I don't believe in a literal interpretation. ( stunned silence from the unwashed masses ).. Some of the bible is alagory.

Amazing...

[JMS]

As a Thompson supporter, there is no way in hell Fred is going to be VP to GIULIANI. Fred's in it to be Prez-O-dent, not some petty tyrant RINO like Rudy.


Fred was sure throwing some sharp elbows if all he wanted was to be VP.
His campagn add was hard hitting to both Huckabee and Romney. He also took his shots at Guliani during the debate.


Romneys claim that Guliani ran a sanctuary city in New York as Mayor.
Guliani answers the Romney claim and counters that Romney hired illegals to work in the goveners mansion while gov of Mass.
Romney hums and haws, and says he's insulted, but basically fumbles the volley.
The immigration question comes to Fred. Fred says to Guliani, I think Mitt wasn't the only person to make questionable hires while in office.. Reffering to Guliani's police comish who was taking bribes and not paying his taxes. ( OUCH!! )



If anything, the race will be to determine who is VP to Thompson.


Thompson didn't do badly at all during the debate. The biggest problem Thompson had during that debate was time. Tancredo, Hunter, and Thompson got the least amount of air time. The folks who did most of the talking was Guliani, Mitt, and to a lesser extent Huckabee. It didn't even seem to me that Thompson was a top contender.

Anyway.. This was the first republican debate I've seen. As I've said, I thought everybody did well except for Mitt, who is supposedly one of their best debaters.

[zoony]

Ghost... I think Thompson's time was 8 years ago. He seems... old. I'm not sure how he would hold up in office.


I've always liked him though. He has a very cool accent :)

[PeterMP]

He has stuck his head so far up George Bush's sphincter in the last three years I've totally abandoned him. It also really annoyed me when McCain caved to the Bush administration on torture a few years back. .

I'm sorry JMS, but he didn't cave:

"McCain's initial bill called for banning all U.S. personnel from engaging in "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of detainees. The only changes to his proposal, McCain said, dealt with people accused of mistreating detainees.
"(It) basically says that if a person, a reasonable person, would feel that someone was acting under orders ... then it could be a defense in case of accusation," McCain said. "And there is a provision for legal counsel for those who are accused (of torture), both civilian and military.""

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/torture.bill/index.html

How is giving people the right to claim that they were following a legal order a cave in (note- not that they would be immediately be innocent, but that it could be a defense). All it ensures is that some poor PFC won't be charged with a crime when the Attorney General or President is really to blame.

If he he caved, then why did Bush feel the need to add the signing statement:

"After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

I don't why, but for some reason the left likes to portray him as having caved. It just isn't true. He got the law passed. Now it is up the courts to step up and do the right thing. There is no doubt that the legislator (McCain) considers all forms of toruture "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" .

[ATV]

The Republicans have a stronger field than the Democrats. From top to bottom they are more polished and give more intelligent answers than the Democrats who seem to speak in sound bites rather than answer questions.

JMS, I don't think you were joking, were you? I suspect you actually believe that.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/29/post-debate-undecided-gop-voter-leaning-towards-edwards/

This is from my brother's blog, and we think a lot alike.....

http://goofyblog.net/the-us-military-is-only-for-conservative-christians-and-other-things-i-learned-from-last-nights-republican-debate/

[JMS]

I'm sorry JMS, but he didn't cave:

Pete, Fact is the administration does continue to use water boarding and other techniques which McCain himself calls torture. Fact is some of McCain's toughest language in his bill banning tortur was stripped out of his bill by his own hand after "discussions" with the administration. Like holding soldiers responsible for their acts and not allowing them to hide behind the chain of command, ( a defense the nazi's used at neuramburg by the way).

McCain went toe to toe with his own President and Party on the issue and caved. I'm not saying McCain is a weakling for caving. I don't know of many folks who could have stood the preasure which McCain did stand up too. I am just documenting that McCain did cave.

Rather than sticking with what he himself has declaired to be a core issue, that the United States does not torture; McCain made a calculated political decision to align himself closer to George Bush, in order to foster political capital with the Presidents base for the 2008 elections. After 2 years of aligning himself with Bush McCain lost all crediblity with the independents who were his strongest supporters.

I was also noting that based on last nights debate. McCain is back to making waves and talking tough and is no longer Bush's lap pupet. Which was good to see.

[JosephGibbs]

Somewhat off topic... but I was watching "Days of Thunder" the other night on Bravo and noticed that Fred Thompson's 2 scenes were not in there. I have watched the movie on tv before and the scenes have been in there. I realize networks chop up movies to fit time restraints, but was this deliberate and if so, why? I know the networks have not been showing the Law and Order episodes he is in as well. To me, this is just political correctness. Do the networks believe people think "well, I really enjoyed Thompson's acting so he must make a great politician". Did California quit showing Arnold's movies while he was running for Governor?

thanks

[JMS]

JMS, I don't think you were joking, were you? I suspect you actually believe that.



I honestly believe that the Republicans last night took harder questions than the democrats have faced in their debates and handled them better than the Democrats have.



As someone who is very critical of the Republican party over the last 8 years; I was very impressed with the candidates and the answers they gave last night. I’ve never seen a debate like it. Three of the Republican front runners were roundly boo’ed by the partisan crowd. It was impressive as hell watching these guys in real time stand up to their own party and differentiate themselves from the President the parties last eight years.



Giuliani, Ron Paul, and McCain were all boo’ed.



If the democrats think they are just going to show up and can count on George Bush’s low approval ratings giving them the race. I think they’re going to loose.



The Democrats are going to have to run good campaigns to take this thing, and that’s something we haven’t’ seen from a democrat in a national campaign for almost a decade.



As for your brother’s blog, I will agree that Mitt Romney had more than his share of rough moments and didn’t do very well over all.



As for Ron Paul I disagree with you. Ron Paul expressed some very interesting and controversial ideas on foreign policy and defended them very well in my judgment. When McCain called him an isolationist and following the same philosophy which allowed Hitler to come to power, I didn’t find it an effective response to Paul’s call for us to extricate ourselves from a policy of telling other folks how to live their lives. Just the fact that nobody challenged Paul on his claim that that is what our foreign policy has devolved into was a powerful positive for Paul. Frankly I was dismissing Paul before last night. He was pretty sharp and did well.



In general I also disagree with your brother..






Over all, just another night of a bunch of clueless right wingers pandering to other clueless right wingers.





That’s not what I saw at all. Huckebee saying the bible shouldn’t be interpreted literally… Paul calling for getting out of Iraq. McCain giving a litany of how the Republican party has failed over the last eight years while the crowd boo’ed him.

These guys had game…



The problem the democrats have shown Is that their debates aren’t nearly as fiery, contentious or informative. The democratic debates have been much more about just reciting pieces of the candidates stump speeches rather than actually answering the weak questions thrown out at them.

I'll tell you flat out last nights debate was the best debate I've seen in any Presidential race. It was a brawl.

[PeterMP]

Pete, Fact is the administration does continue to use water boarding and other techniques which McCain himself calls torture. Fact is some of McCain's toughest language in his bill banning tortur was stripped out of his bill by his own hand after "discussions" with the administration. Like holding soldiers responsible for their acts and not allowing them to hide behind the chain of command, ( a defense the nazi's used at neuramburg by the way).

McCain went toe to toe with his own President and Party on the issue and caved. I'm not saying McCain is a weakling for caving. I don't know of many folks who could have stood the preasure which McCain did stand up too. I am just documenting that McCain did cave.

Rather than sticking with what he himself has declaired to be a core issue, that the United States does not torture; McCain made a calculated political decision to align himself closer to George Bush, in order to foster political capital with the Presidents base for the 2008 elections. After 2 years of aligning himself with Bush McCain lost all crediblity with the independents who were his strongest supporters.

I was also noting that based on last nights debate. McCain is back to making waves and talking tough and is no longer Bush's lap pupet. Which was good to see.

And all that has to happen is for the courts to do is step and do their job and declare that things like water boarding are cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" like the author of the legislation clearly intended. At that point in time, then anybody giving such orders have broken the law. Blaming him for the water boarding that is occurring is akin to blaming the founders for the different things Bush is doing w/ respect to invastion of privarcy (e.g. opening mail).

I'll ask again, if he caved, then why the signing statement? Because the fact of the matter is that Bush knows he's breaking the law, but isn't going to stop until the courts force him too (just like the signing statement w/ respect to opening the mail). The courts are going to have to step in and declare that Bush is breaking it or that the law is unconstitional and that Congress doesn't have the authority to tell Bush how to treat detainees. The addition makse sense so some poor PFC doesn't take the blame for what is the doing of the President.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Somewhat off topic... but I was watching "Days of Thunder" the other night on Bravo and noticed that Fred Thompson's 2 scenes were not in there. I have watched the movie on tv before and the scenes have been in there. I realize networks chop up movies to fit time restraints, but was this deliberate and if so, why? I know the networks have not been showing the Law and Order episodes he is in as well. To me, this is just political correctness. Do the networks believe people think "well, I really enjoyed Thompson's acting so he must make a great politician". Did California quit showing Arnold's movies while he was running for Governor?

thanks
I believe there is an equal airtime law on the books for elections that causes this. I'm sure someone else can give you the exact details.

[RIPSean]

I know he's a longshot but I love Ron Paul. He did a great job at the end and I think he'd be a great president.

[GibbsFactor]

I know he's a longshot but I love Ron Paul. He did a great job at the end and I think he'd be a great president.

That makes 300 million of us!:cheers:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

If Guiliani wins... Canada here I come

[footballhenry]

I just wish people would actually "listen" to what Ron Paul is saying. I guarantee that any level-headed American taking the time to see what he is all about will come away very pleasantly surprised. I thought he did a great job last night as always explaining his views very clearly and concisely. It's just too bad that he isn't offered the same time as the usual suspects (McCain, Giuliani, Romney, etc.).

Oh and McCain should understand the difference between an isolationist and a non-interventionist. BIG difference. Glad Ron could explain it to him.

Ron Paul Revolution 2008!!! :D

[JMS]

And all that has to happen is for the courts to do is step and do their job and declare that things like water boarding are cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" like the author of the legislation clearly intended. At that point in time, then anybody giving such orders have broken the law. Blaming him for the water boarding that is occurring is akin to blaming the founders for the different things Bush is doing w/ respect to invastion of privarcy (e.g. opening mail).

I'll ask again, if he caved, then why the signing statement? Because the fact of the matter is that Bush knows he's breaking the law, but isn't going to stop until the courts force him too (just like the signing statement w/ respect to opening the mail). The courts are going to have to step in and declare that Bush is breaking it or that the law is unconstitional and that Congress doesn't have the authority to tell Bush how to treat detainees. The addition makse sense so some poor PFC doesn't take the blame for what is the doing of the President.


Pete,

Mcain's anti torture legislature did the following..

(1) It expressly left it up to the President to define what was torture.



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.”

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


(2) It stripped detainees of the right of habius corpus. Basically, a green card holder, and/or “suspected” terrorist can be detained for any reason, without being charged with any criminal act. and are not allowed to challenge their detention in a court of law..



Still, Senator Carl Levin (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/carl_levin/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he would press to change a provision in the proposal that would deny detainees a right to challenge their captivity in court.




(3) It expressly removed the ability for the courts to punish military and CIA officials found guilty of torture..



The senators agreed to a White House proposal to make the standard on interrogation treatment retroactive to 1997, so C.I.A. and military personnel could not be prosecuted for past treatment under standards the administration considers vague.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/washington/22detain.html


(4) It removed the ability for accused people to see the evidence against them except in the case of jury trials which are not granted to suspects.




It was a complete victory for the Adminstration. It was completely against what John McCain had set out to do when he first challenged the administration on their treatment of the detainees. It was a total cave in by John McCain who was feeling the heat from his party and the administration on what he identified as a core issue.

The resulting rubber stamp McCain bill was presented to congress and passed two days after it was presented by overwhelming Presidential and republican senatoral support. It recieved only 10 Democrat votes.

[Koolblue13]

If Guiliani wins... Canada here I comeIf Rudy wins, it'll be the same place.

[ATV]

I agree that the Repubelican debates have been a little more contentious. I think this is largely because the Democrats tend to be in more agreement on the issues, more on the same page. So much so that the press has to hype up their conflicts even when they're minor and relatively boring. Also, I think that many of the Repubelican candidates believe (or at least pretend to believe) in some really wacky stuff, like torture for instance. When the insanity is juxtaposed with rational arguments, like Paul's for instance, the conflicts obviously make for more fireworks.

A Democrat is going to win the presidency, though. In part because of the extremely bad odor left from the past seven years, but mostly (IMO) because the Democrats simply have better candidates.

[JosephGibbs]

A Democrat is going to win the presidency, though. In part because of the extremely bad odor left from the past seven years, but mostly (IMO) because the Democrats simply have better candidates.

I have a hunch history will look upon your three points differently.

[Cdowwe]

I watched some of the debate last night. I've heard Huckabee won the debate, if there is such a thing.

On a non important note...
How big is Ron Paul? He looked like a 70 year old with a 5 year old's body, swimming in a suit

[luckydevil]

.

On a non important note...
How big is Ron Paul? He looked like a 70 year old with a 5 year old's body, swimming in a suit

LOL, yeah he is pretty skinny.

[JMS]

I agree that the Repubelican debates have been a little more contentious. I think this is largely because the Democrats tend to be in more agreement on the issues, more on the same page. So much so that the press has to hype up their conflicts even when they're minor and relatively boring. Also, I think that many of the Repubelican candidates believe (or at least pretend to believe) in some really wacky stuff, like torture for instance. When the insanity is juxtaposed with rational arguments, like Paul's for instance, the conflicts obviously make for more fireworks.

A Democrat is going to win the presidency, though. In part because of the extremely bad odor left from the past seven years, but mostly (IMO) because the Democrats simply have better candidates.


I disagree to some extent. I think the reason the democrats are so boring is because that's their strategy.

Hillary Clinton has tried to paint herself as enevitable. Part of her strategy has always been to run a very disiplined and error free campagn. She's done that by eliminating almost all unscripted discussions on substantive issues. She is the queen of speaking in rehersed sound bytes and re-stating, re-stating, re-stating. That might be a winning strategy for the democrat nomination ( she has been the front runner) but it makes for boring campagn.

Oboma is a very good and charasmatic speaker, but Hillaries game plan is to paint him as too niave and not experienced enough, which is really something because hillary herself is about as raw and inexperienced as you can get. Anyway Obama's campagn has countered this tactic with closing in on itself and again limiting his open QA sessions. He still throws some elbows but they aren't very hard, frankly because Hillary doesn't give him any opennings.

Richardson, and Edwards are so far out of the race that they don't even get any coverage; and when they do they are just as likely to suck up to the front runners as they are to take a poke at them.

At least for now, I think the Democrats candidates believe it's their race to loose and are doing everything they can to make sure they don't do so. Esensially playing not to loose.

[PeterMP]

Pete,

Mcain's anti torture legislature did the following..

(1) It expressly left it up to the President to define what was torture.


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



Actually, that's not true. It MADE Bush define that were doing or not doing. Did you even read your own link?

"Under the deal, Congress would seek to codify the limits by outlining in the War Crimes Act, a domestic law, several “grave breaches” of the relevant provision of the Geneva Conventions, known as Common Article 3. The deal would eliminate a legislative provision in the original White House proposal saying that compliance with the Detainee Treatment Act, which Congress passed last year and which bans “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” would by itself satisfy the obligations of the United States under the conventions. "

It is more STRINGENT than the law that was in place. It put MORE pressure on Bush, which was a substantial change from what Bush wanted.



(2) It stripped detainees of the right of habius corpus. Basically, a green card holder, and/or “suspected” terrorist can be detained for any reason, without being charged with any criminal act. and are not allowed to challenge their detention in a court of law..


Can you provide a link that this applies to green card holders? Generally, the courts have upheld that people on foreign soil don't have a right to habius corpus so IF the law actually did that, it wouldn't really be a change and beyond that your link doesn't say it did that.



(3) It expressly removed the ability for the courts to punish military and CIA officials found guilty of torture..


No it doesn't. It allows the people to use as a defense that they were following orders, but they can still be tried.



(4) It removed the ability for accused people to see the evidence against them except in the case of jury trials which are not granted to suspects.


Suspects don't have the right to see the evidence against the now so even if it did that, which again your link doesn't say that it did do, that isn't a change.




It was a complete victory for the Adminstration. It was completely against what John McCain had set out to do when he first challenged the administration on their treatment of the detainees. It was a total cave in by John McCain who was feeling the heat from his party and the administration on what he identified as a core issue.

The resulting rubber stamp McCain bill was presented to congress and passed two days after it was presented by overwhelming Presidential and republican senatoral support. It recieved only 10 Democrat votes.

I'll ask again, then why the signing ceremony? Bush is breaking the law, and he knows it. That's why the signing ceremony. This will end up going to the courts.

[ImmortalDragon]

I watched some of the debate last night. I've heard Huckabee won the debate, if there is such a thing.

On a non important note...
How big is Ron Paul? He looked like a 70 year old with a 5 year old's body, swimming in a suit
He calls himself an exercise freak

[ATV]

Richardson, and Edwards are so far out of the race that they don't even get any coverage; and when they do they are just as likely to suck up to the front runners as they are to take a poke at them.
I agree that Richardson is a big-time suckup, and I do blame him for staying in the race, but Edwards still has an outside chance. I can't blame him for hanging around.

Also, you memtion Hillary's experience as compared to Obama's. I agree, there is not much difference even though she tries to paint this differently. As an Obama supporter it's really annoying. But - What about poor ole' Fred Thompson? Here's a guy (former Senator as well?) that's been in Hollywood the past X years. He's just downright pitiful. What a disaster he's been.

[Cdowwe]

He calls himself an exercise freak

Yea, hes pretty ripped :laugh:

[Cdowwe]

I hate to say it, but I have a feeling alot of good old boy left leaning voters wont vote for a woman or black candidate. And its just not showing up in the polls

[ATV]

Uh, ok. Fortunately "good old boy"s haven't "leaned left" for the past thirty years or so.

[JMS]

Actually, that's not true. It MADE Bush define that were doing or not doing. Did you even read your own link?

: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.



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.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/washington/22detain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


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.




It is more STRINGENT than the law that was in place. It put MORE pressure on Bush, which was a substantial change from what Bush wanted.


No Pete. The President didn't get the language he wanted but he got all the powers he wanted. Who cares if the language says "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" is not allowed if the President is the sole arbitrator of what that means!!.... The McCain bill weakened existing laws as existing laws held soldiers and cia men leagally responsible for thier acts and had independent courts for oversite. The McCain bill not only grants the President the powers to decide what is legal it exempt the CIA and Military from being held responsible for acts they commited before McCain leagalized them. The McCain bill exempts them. The McCain bill codified into law the powers the President had already been asserting and what McCain himself was objecting too.. ( I have a quote bellow which confirms the McCain bill applies retroactively to 1997 ).




Can you provide a link that this applies to green card holders? Generally, the courts have upheld that people on foreign soil don't have a right to habius corpus so IF the law actually did that, it wouldn't really be a change and beyond that your link doesn't say it did that.


:doh: That's BS. The government transported these folks to Guantanimo. Some of these folks have been taken from American cities. The Military has never had the right to try civilians detained by law officers and transported to their bases overseas... Freaking some of these folks have been American citizens, but the supreme court already ruled American citizens must be tried in courts. That's why the McCain bill only applied to non citizens including greencard holders and legal residents.

They didn't codify it into law to be redundant.



During the debate on his amendment, Arlen Specter said that the bill sends us back 900 years because it denies habeas corpus rights and allows the President to detain people indefinitely. He also said the bill violates core Constitutional protections. Then he voted for it.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/george-bushs-vast-new-powers-of.html




Senate Republican leaders narrowly turned back an amendment that would have provided habeas corpus rights to all detainees, allowing them to challenge their detentions in federal court.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont said passage of the bill dismantles a basic American freedom by denying detainees access to the courts.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/29/senates_passage_of_detainee_bill_gives_bush_a_win/




No it doesn't. It allows the people to use as a defense that they were following orders, but they can still be tried.


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.



The senators agreed to a White House proposal to make the standard on interrogation treatment retroactive to 1997, so C.I.A. and military personnel could not be prosecuted for past treatment under standards the administration considers vague.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/washington/22detain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin






Suspects don't have the right to see the evidence against the now so even if it did that, which again your link doesn't say that it did do, that isn't a change.


: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....



On another point of contention, the use of classified evidence in prosecutions of terror suspects, the senators won agreement that suspects would be allowed to see any evidence the jury sees, which the senators say is in keeping with 200 years of American judicial tradition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/washington/22detain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


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.




I'll ask again, then why the signing ceremony? Bush is breaking the law, and he knows it. That's why the signing ceremony. This will end up going to the courts.

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.

The hope for the courts is that the McCain law and the President's policies change the constitution. So there are several cases pending before the supreme court which challenge Bush/McCain torture bill on those grounds. No thanks to John McCain.

Thank you Pete for reminding me why I hate John McCain and the Republicans.

[81artmonk]

What a joke! That opening song. This is for leader of the free world right??


The questions were clearly slanted and biased towards the left. You would never hear any of that type of questioning going on in a Democrat debate!!

Last time I checked, gays in the military hasn't come accross as a huge issue, nor one that needs big discussion. (I might add, that it was Clinton's policy anyway, so I don't know why Republican get grilled on it as if they had anything to do with it)

Last time I checked the rebel flag wasn't a huge national issue.

Plus with the plants which CNN says they didn't know, but anyone with a computer and google could have found out, leads me to believe, either CNN is really stupid, or they are biased like we all knew anyway.

If I were running, I would have said after the song, this is foolish, this isn't becoming of anything serious and certainly not that of president of the united states and walked off the stage.

[JMS]

What a joke! That opening song. This is for leader of the free world right??

I thought the openning song was flattering. It was fluff, but so are most debates.



The questions were clearly slanted and biased towards the left. You would never hear any of that type of questioning going on in a Democrat debate!!


I thought the questions were hard, but I thought the Republican nominees handled them well. All except Mitt.



Last time I checked, gays in the military hasn't come accross as a huge issue, nor one that needs big discussion. (I might add, that it was Clinton's policy anyway, so I don't know why Republican get grilled on it as if they had anything to do with it)


It's a huge freaking problem. Since Clinton failed to legalize it and settled for don't ask don't tell even the chairman of the joint chiefs have recently argued over it publically said the policy is currently broken.

Peter pace was on the cover of Time Magazine in March..



Amid the turmoil of the Iraq war and the scandal at Walter Reed, the last thing the nation's top military officer should want to do is generate more controversy by renewing the debate over gays in the military. Yet that's just what Marine General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has done in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, telling the paper that "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts."




Retired Army general John Shalikashvili, who served as chairman after Powell, also wants it removed from the books.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1598653,00.html




Last time I checked the rebel flag wasn't a huge national issue.


Former Virginia Senator George Allen kept a Confederate flag on his office wall while govener. Former Republican Senate Majority leader lost his job under the Bush Adminstration having seemingly come out in support of 1948 dixicrate policies including segregation.



Plus with the plants which CNN says they didn't know, but anyone with a computer and google could have found out, leads me to believe, either CNN is really stupid, or they are biased like we all knew anyway.


Or they thought the questions were good and cared less about where they came from.



If I were running, I would have said after the song, this is foolish, this isn't becoming of anything serious and certainly not that of president of the united states and walked off the stage.

Again I thought the questions were tough and that the candiates handled them well.

[ATV]

The day that most Americans, not just Faux News disciples, consider something as corporate as CNN to be Left Wing, is the day America disintegrates into facism.

[borninblood]

Ive decided to register as a Republican instead of as an independent so I can vote for Ron Paun in the primary

[The_cavalierman]

I agree that Richardson is a big-time suckup, and I do blame him for staying in the race, but Edwards still has an outside chance. I can't blame him for hanging around.

Also, you memtion Hillary's experience as compared to Obama's. I agree, there is not much difference even though she tries to paint this differently. As an Obama supporter it's really annoying. But - What about poor ole' Fred Thompson? Here's a guy (former Senator as well?) that's been in Hollywood the past X years. He's just downright pitiful. What a disaster he's been.


Both Hillary and O'Bama have about the same amount of experience as GW Bush did prior to becoming president. Bush has set a new low as far as the presidency is concerned so whoever is president next can't do much worse.

[Burgold]

Both Hillary and O'Bama have about the same amount of experience as GW Bush did prior to becoming president. Bush has set a new low as far as the presidency is concerned so whoever is president next can't do much worse.

You got to work on your endorsements, Cavalierman.

Personally, I go back and forth on the Hillary experience thing. On the one hand, she's a one term Senator, but on the other she did spend eight years in the White House and eight more I believe in a gubenatorial mansion and I don't think that she was picking drapes. So, while she may not have been the decision maker, she has seen a lot, understands the stress, and probably has more "Presidential" experience than anyone else running.

[JMS]

You got to work on your endorsements, Cavalierman.

Personally, I go back and forth on the Hillary experience thing. On the one hand, she's a one term Senator, but on the other she did spend eight years in the White House and eight more I believe in a gubenatorial mansion and I don't think that she was picking drapes. So, while she may not have been the decision maker, she has seen a lot, understands the stress, and probably has more "Presidential" experience than anyone else running.


Hell I've lived in Washington all my life. I should be President, cause I've lived here for about 30 years longer than Hillery. I think Hillery has as much experience as Obama, not more. I think both have significantly less experience than Richardson. It's crazy that Hillery is painting herself as the candidate with experience and people are buying it.

Hillery can't use her husbands experience on her resume, Freaking I can't use my wifes experience on my resume, nor can she use mine.

Anyway, not to run down my own candidates for prez to much. I'll just be quite now..

[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 comeSay 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_bush mccain_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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae) filed by Senators Jon Kyl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Kyl) and Lindsey Graham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham), which presented an “extensive colloquy” added to the Congressional record as evidence that "Congress was aware" that the Detainee Treatment Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain_Detainee_Amendment) would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases brought by the Guantanamo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp) detainees. Because these statements were not actually included in the December 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_21) debate, Emily Bazelon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bazelon) of Slate magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_magazine) has argued this was an attempt to mislead the court.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld#_note-1)
On June 29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_29), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801763.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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.




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
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.
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. 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 testimony
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 (http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/09/text_of_the_law_professors_letter_against_the_bush mccain_torture_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 (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/khalid_shaikh_mohammed/index.html?inline=nyt-per),” 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 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Guantanamo_Bay) from bringing future habeas corpus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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_bush mccain_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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae) filed by Senators Jon Kyl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Kyl) and Lindsey Graham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham), which presented an “extensive colloquy” added to the Congressional record as evidence that "Congress was aware" that the Detainee Treatment Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain_Detainee_Amendment) would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases brought by the Guantanamo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp) detainees. Because these statements were not actually included in the December 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_21) debate, Emily Bazelon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bazelon) of Slate magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_magazine) has argued this was an attempt to mislead the court.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld#_note-1)
On June 29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_29), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

[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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae) filed by Senators Jon Kyl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Kyl) and Lindsey Graham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham), which presented an “extensive colloquy” added to the Congressional record as evidence that "Congress was aware" that the Detainee Treatment Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain_Detainee_Amendment) would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases brought by the Guantanamo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp) detainees. Because these statements were not actually included in the December 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_21) debate, Emily Bazelon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bazelon) of Slate magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_magazine) has argued this was an attempt to mislead the court.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld#_note-1)
On June 29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_29), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation) (2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) held that military commissions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_military_commission) set up by the Bush administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_administration) to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp) lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice) and the four Geneva Conventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions) signed in 1949."[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld#_note-0)


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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) to empower Guantanamo military commissions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_military_commission). They did rule, however, that the United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_29), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_captives_habeas_corpus#_note-TheJurist20070629)

up
Democrates try to take the initiative...



The proposed Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
Senators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) Patrick D. Leahy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_D._Leahy&action=edit) and Arlen Specter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter) have proposed Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Restoration_Act_of_2007), to restore access to habeas corpus to the Guantanamo captives.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_captives_habeas_corpus#_note-WashingtonPost20070918) Debate began on the bill on September 17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_17), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_captive) to access the US court system under the principle of habeas corpus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus), a right that had been stripped from them by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Restoration_Act_of_2007#_note-1):

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus).[1] (http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html)
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_bush mccain_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 (http://www.discourse.net/archives/2004/06/guantanamo_is_not_a_lawless_place.html).

For an explanation of the issues see Marty Lederman (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/11/hamdan-rasul-et-al-imperiled.html) at SCOTUS Blog and then see Steve Vladeck for the advanced course in the horrible and complex federal courts and constitutional law implications (http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2005/11/the_graham_amen_1.html).

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.

Denies Habeas Corpus
Allows Secret Evidence
Denies Civilian Trials
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 (http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/09/text_of_the_law_professors_letter_against_the_bush mccain_torture_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






(B) 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 (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




(B) 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(b). 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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030202054.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.

[JMS]

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.


Oh boy, With Regard to Habeas Corpus, you denied the Washington Post. You denied the New York Times articles. You denied Amnesty International. You denied the American Civil Liberties Article. You even denied the Harvard legal review.

Now you are denying what the McCain bill itself says..... No matter, I know you heard me. Give you a few weeks to think about it, you'll be on my side of this discussion.



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


:doh:



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?


No he can't pete, as we have both agree'd several times now the Hamden vs Rumsfeld case wasn't on the merrits of Hamdens incarsoration, nor on the merrits of his treatement. The case dealt exclusively with the fact that Hamden had been given a military tribunal "hearing" and that did not satisfy the US Law and internatinal agreement which the Supreme court said super ceeded what had been written in McCain. The supreme court did not throw out McCain bill. It didn't even rule on it.

The McCain bill has not yet been successfully challenged in court with that challenge being upheald on apeal to the supreme court.

Hamden didn't bring a case saying he had been tourtured. He couldn't do that. Hamden case said he hadn't gotten a fair hearing. Something which was outside of the scope of what the McCain bill asserted.





His statement is false.

NOW, I'm done here.

Yes you are done. I stuck a fork in your argument several pages back and since then it's just been running around like a headless chicken. I'm glad it's done. It was painful to watch.

[SkinzFan007]

ron paul owns. ill vote for guili or huck though since itll probably be one of them but id LOVE paul.

[GibbsFactor]

ron paul owns. ill vote for guili or huck though since itll probably be one of them but id LOVE paul.

Don't do that. If you have a candidate (who WILL be on the ballot) why not vote with your heart? Ron Paul has just as good of a chance as anyone. If you would LOVE Paul, vote for him. He's already got like 70% of the GOP delegates from Maryland as it is.

[JMS]

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


The McCain bill stated specifically that no court civilian or other could hear the cases in guantanamo.. Remember Bush was using Tribunals which he invented and were not courts.



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


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


And yes the supreme court is not just a civilian court. It's the highest court in the land over civilian courts, over military courts, and at times over congress and the executive. The supreme court did not rule or interpret the McCain law. It didn't for example throw the cases back to civilian courts. It ruled narrowly saying only that the McCain bill wasn't specific enough on who would hear the cases if the courts could not. It said and AGAIN i repeat. Military courts are ok but they have to confirm to military regulations for courts. Also tribunals are OK, but congress has to re-affirm the use of those tribunals; which congress did in 2006.

John McCain's law certainly denied the detainee's the right of Habeas Corpus, and denied them the right to independent oversite by the courts. It did legalize torture by leaving it up to the President alone to interpret what that word means. And remember this President has always contended that water boarding, restricted movement, and exposure to extreme temporatures are not torture; even though more than 100 people have died in US custody while these techniques are being employed.

And counter what was conventional wisdom at the time. John McCain's bill not only legalized Bush's torture, The torture actually would have been stopped had John McCain's bill not passed due to a previous supreme court ruling in 2004; Raul vs Bush which ruled the President alone didn't have the authority to eliminate judicial oversite of these prisoners. Thank You John McCain Torture advocate, for giving congressional authority for the torture camps..!

[Koolblue13]

Don't do that. If you have a candidate (who WILL be on the ballot) why not vote with your heart? Ron Paul has just as good of a chance as anyone. If you would LOVE Paul, vote for him. He's already got like 70% of the GOP delegates from Maryland as it is.I finally got my dad t start checking him out. He has never voted outside of Dem, but is finally listening.

[Koolblue13]

Talk about an isolationist policy.Care to explain how so?

[GibbsFactor]

Care to explain how so?

Putting restrictions and sanctions on another country does not promote anything but making that country turn and trade with others, certainly not with us. In turn, this type of policy promotes the US as an isolationist republic. Our way or the high way.

[Koolblue13]

Putting restrictions and sanctions on another country does not promote anything but making that country turn and trade with others, certainly not with us. In turn, this type of policy promotes the US as an isolationist republic. Our way or the high way.This is only one country out of many, why allow anybdy to deal with one that might be wanting to throw nukes at us? I don't think that is "isolationist", I think it's smart.