• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

McCain hasn't the Slightest Idea !!!

A

Anonymous

Guest
So McCain blasts the SCOTUS decision on habeas corpus, adopting full-on bedwetter language to do so. But look closely at his statement about habeas corpus:

And my friends there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people. So now what are we going to do. We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate, because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases.

Er...Senator? Here's what habeas corpus means:


Also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or, if not, the person should be released from custody.

Habeas corpus is an ancient foundation of our system of law, and one of the safeguards of liberty in the United States. But it's apparent John McCain doesn't know what habeas corpus is.
 

fff

Well-known member
Did you see his latest blunder? He said he never supported private social security accounts. Almost immediately video of him supporting Bush's efforts to privatize social security were up all over the net. He's got to get his campaign in order if he expects to make a run for the presidency. Maybe Cindy will loan him some money to get him by until the convention. Looks like he's run his credit cards to the max:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his wife reported more than $100,000 of credit card liabilities, according to financial disclosure documents released Friday.
The presidential candidate and his wife Cindy reported piling up debt on a charge card between $10,000 and $15,000. His wife’s solo charge card has between $100,000 and $250,000 in debt to American Express.


McCain's wife also has a second American Express charge card listed on the senator's financial disclosure that was carrying $100,000 to $250,000 in debt.

Another charge card with American Express, this one for a “dependent child,” is carrying debt in the range of $15,000 and $50,000.

Cindy McCain reported a wealth of assets, including properties in Arizona and one she sold in La Jolla, Calif. for more than $1 million in profit.

In addition to his Senate salary, McCain received an annual pension from the U.S. Navy that is worth more than $58,000.

Democratic candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), reported no liabilities in his annual financial disclosures.

Obama reported $4.1 million in book royalties, while McCain reported $176,508, which the Republican said was donated to charity.

In 2005, Obama received an advance of $1.9 million from Random House Inc. for his book The Audacity of Hope. Obama said $200,000 of that advance went to charity.

Obama’s wife, Michelle, reported over $1,000 in income from her work at Tree House Foods and University of Chicago hospitals. The documents did not require her to be more specific about her income. Michelle Obama resigned from Tree House Foods in May 2007 because of its business dealings with Wal-Mart.

Obama reported between $50,001 and $100,000 in pensions from his work as an Illinois state legislator, and reported earning between $15,000 and $50,000 in interest from a money market fund.

Obama reported college savings of $100,000 and $250,000 for each of his two daughters.

In May 2007, Obama invested between $1 million and $5 million in a Northern Municipal money market fund, and divested between $500,000 and $1 million in July 2007 from that account. Obama purchased up to $1 million in U.S. Treasury notes last July.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who dropped out of the race this month, was granted an extension and does not have to file her documents until June 30.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mccains-report-more-than-100000-in-credit-card-debt-2008-06-13.html
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
So McCain blasts the SCOTUS decision on habeas corpus, adopting full-on bedwetter language to do so. But look closely at his statement about habeas corpus:

And my friends there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people. So now what are we going to do. We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate, because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases.

Er...Senator? Here's what habeas corpus means:


Also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or, if not, the person should be released from custody.

Habeas corpus is an ancient foundation of our system of law, and one of the safeguards of liberty in the United States. But it's apparent John McCain doesn't know what habeas corpus is.

There have been many suits filed by Gitmo detainees using inhumane treatment as an underlying cause to challenge the Habeas Corpus denials set by Congress.

I see nothing out of order about McCains' statements.

You said a mouthfull when you wrote:


and one of the safeguards of liberty in the United States.

Afghanistan and Cuba are not in the United States. :roll: :roll:
 

fff

Well-known member
Mike said:
Afghanistan and Cuba are not in the United States. :roll: :roll:

These people aren't being held in Afghanistan or Cuba. They're being held at Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court says that's US territory.
 

Mike

Well-known member
fff said:
Mike said:
Afghanistan and Cuba are not in the United States. :roll: :roll:

These people aren't being held in Afghanistan or Cuba. They're being held at Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court says that's US territory.

I thought you said they said "Technically" Gitmo is NOT in the USA? :lol: :lol:

The lease says that "Sovereignty" is held by Cuba.

See the irony? :roll:
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
So McCain blasts the SCOTUS decision on habeas corpus, adopting full-on bedwetter language to do so. But look closely at his statement about habeas corpus:

And my friends there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people. So now what are we going to do. We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate, because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases.

Er...Senator? Here's what habeas corpus means:


Also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or, if not, the person should be released from custody.

Habeas corpus is an ancient foundation of our system of law, and one of the safeguards of liberty in the United States. But it's apparent John McCain doesn't know what habeas corpus is.

Interesting post, Oldtimer. You inadvertently left off a link and you also forgot to put it all in a quote box like you usually do. That almost made it look like your own work.

But...it didn't really sound like you, so I googled a line from it - just out of curiosity. You Montana lefties have your own site, huh? :lol:

http://www.leftinthewest.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1890
 

Texan

Well-known member
Here's a good post from that same link (my bold):


Well...technically (0.00 / 0)
Article III, Section 2: (United States Constitution)

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

In the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush, is the following passage:

(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 has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

The Supreme Court had no authority to issue a ruling on the status of habeas rights for Gitmo detainees per the Constitution itself.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Don't any of you terrorist sympathizers have a comment about this? If the information in this post is true, it would seem to me that the Supreme Court ruling was in itself, unconstitutional.

Article III, Section 2: (United States Constitution)

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

In the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush, is the following passage:

(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 has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

The Supreme Court had no authority to issue a ruling on the status of habeas rights for Gitmo detainees per the Constitution itself.

http://www.leftinthewest.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1890
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
Don't any of you terrorist sympathizers have a comment about this? If the information in this post is true, it would seem to me that the Supreme Court ruling was in itself, unconstitutional.

Article III, Section 2: (United States Constitution)

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

In the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush, is the following passage:

(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 has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

The Supreme Court had no authority to issue a ruling on the status of habeas rights for Gitmo detainees per the Constitution itself.

http://www.leftinthewest.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1890

Even Congress and the President can't throw out the Constitution- and I believe that Kennedy's opinion is correct- no matter how bad the situation is- we cannot start bending or throw out habeas corpus- the right to be informed of why you are detained/arrested and the right to challenge those charges in front of a Court/tribunal......

All the constitutionalists- and constitutional scholars are saying the same thing---- the Supreme Court bent over backwards with the new law, King Georges throwing out of habeas corpus- and allowed it-- until 4-5-6 years had passed and these people being detained weren't even being given status hearings- or regular reviews in front of military tribunals- and that it appeared that this would/could continue indefinitely- especially after testimony to the courts/congress showed that some of those being detained had no terrorist connections at all- and that contrary to GW's previous statements the US was using torture contrary to International Law and the Geneva Convention...

Like I said before-- King George brought this ruling upon himself (and the country) with his ARROGANCE believing he could imprison people forever without ever having them allowed a hearing or an appeal- and then International banned torture practices on them.....

Since he failed to follow the rules of determining and detaining enemy combatants- and then ARROGANTLY refused to heed the Supreme Courts previous rulings- now it will be in the hands of Federal District Court Judges to decide from case to case.....

As they proclaim- even the almost 200 evil Nazi perpetrators of mass genocide and war crimes were brought to complete OPEN trial within 4 years of being caught- with trials starting in 1945 and continuing thru 1949...OPEN trials that showed the world the fairness and impartiality of our Country's Justice System- which has been so badly impaired by King Georges actions that it will take years to repair.... :( :( :mad:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
Maybe Cindy will loan him some money to get him by until the convention.

In May 2007, Obama invested between $1 million and $5 million in a Northern Municipal money market fund, and divested between $500,000 and $1 million in July 2007 from that account. Obama purchased up to $1 million in U.S. Treasury notes last July.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mccains-report-more-than-100000-in-credit-card-debt-2008-06-13.html

Jealous of someones prosperity again are we?

If you want to look at someones prosperity, why not look at Obama's net worth say two or three years ago compared to now? Funny how the man became a Millionaire so quickly almost completely parallel to the time he started running for President.

Also funny how he wants to raise taxes on everyone especially the wealthy but he invested a Million dollars in tax free account. Also funny how he gave so little to Charity until the time he decided to run for President. Also funny how fast his wife's income grew in this short time period also.

Maybe you should start being fair and balanced and look at your great black hope and his money! :wink:
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Even Congress and the President can't throw out the Constitution-
Nor can SCOTUS - until now. When they completely ignore the Exceptions Clause - ignoring legislation passed by Congress that specifically limits their jurisdiction, they are effectively throwing out the Constitution.


Oldtimer said:
As they proclaim- even the almost 200 evil Nazi perpetrators of mass genocide and war crimes were brought to complete OPEN trial within 4 years of being caught- with trials starting in 1945 and continuing thru 1949...OPEN trials that showed the world the fairness and impartiality of our Country's Justice System- which has been so badly impaired by King Georges actions that it will take years to repair.... :( :( :mad:
You make it sound like four years is some sort of magic number. The four years is meaningless. Those trials started AFTER the war was over - AFTER Germany surrendered. Not after some magic number of years.
 

Texan

Well-known member
As far as I'm concerned, there are no points more pertinent than those made by Justice Scalia in his dissent:

"America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 60–61, 70, 190 (2004). On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, D. C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. See id., at 552, n. 9. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.

"The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
Even Congress and the President can't throw out the Constitution-
Nor can SCOTUS - until now. When they completely ignore the Exceptions Clause - ignoring legislation passed by Congress that specifically limits their jurisdiction, they are effectively throwing out the Constitution.


Oldtimer said:
As they proclaim- even the almost 200 evil Nazi perpetrators of mass genocide and war crimes were brought to complete OPEN trial within 4 years of being caught- with trials starting in 1945 and continuing thru 1949...OPEN trials that showed the world the fairness and impartiality of our Country's Justice System- which has been so badly impaired by King Georges actions that it will take years to repair.... :( :( :mad:
You make it sound like four years is some sort of magic number. The four years is meaningless. Those trials started AFTER the war was over - AFTER Germany surrendered. Not after some magic number of years.

That may have figured into their decision- the apparent "neverending war"-- and the Senator and President wanttabe spouting his "100 Years in Iraq" BS-- no there is no way you can say these cases were handled in a "timely manner'...And thats what the all the testimony/evidence was showing- as well as the mood of the public...Judges are human- and feel and react to the mood of the public in some ways..
And Supreme Court Justices don't like arrogant administrators that don't listen to their advice and rulings-- if King George had expediantly set up having tribunals and status hearings for these detainees- and getting those that didn't qualify to be held there anymore out-- this ruling would never have been necessary and never came to be.....

Just another King George "Screw-up" the US has to live with....
 
Top