He also seems to think that giving American citizens habeas corpus rights is some sort of crazy scheme dreamed up by liberal justices intent on destroying America's proud tradition of secret trials and warrantless arrests. Jim Henley seems sort of prescient:
John McCain is, and as Larison says, John McCain would be everything anyone hated about the Bush years minus the occasional bouts of temperance. Eve and Nat Hentoff (whom she links) wonder if Palin would be "as flip-flopping as Mr. McCain on the Bush torture policy," which is an odd way to put it. There's no evidence that Palin has a preexisting torture policy to flip away from, let alone what it would be. What there is evidence of is: Sarah Palin is John McCain's running mate, not the other way around. Sarah Palin and John McCain are running under the aegis of the Republican Party, which has made support for torture a litmus-test issue.
Although I have little but disdain for most politicians, I will vote for McCain, if for not other reason that to have split government. The idea of both a Democratic President and Congress is disconcerting to say the least. They will be worse than a GOP President and Congress, and that was bad enough.
They hate us for our freedom.
I don't see how any rational person can watch Romney's speech and possibly vote Republican for any office, ever.
Greg, you seem like a reasonable person. Look at it. Seriously. Can you possibly support any of that?
I'm sorry, this time I don't think the split government idea holds much water. The Bush administration has proven what a Republican president will do in a split government. They just ignore Congress altogether. Republicans seem to think the Executive branch is the only branch that matters. That is most of the problem. In my opinion they can take all the congressional seats they want, but I never want to see another Republican in the White House again after the last eight years.
He also seems to think that giving American citizens habeas corpus rights is some sort of crazy scheme dreamed up by liberal justices intent on destroying America's proud tradition of secret trials and warrantless arrests.
That's wrong. The people in Boumedienne weren't American citizens; they were foreign nationals. I didn't like the line, but polling on the decision was pretty unfavorable.
If Megan-the-libertarian cares so much for habeas corpus, why exactly did she vote for Dumbya in 2004?
Has this been explained somewhere that I missed?
After listening to Romney and Rudy, how any Republican can refer to the "angry left" with a straight face is beyond my understanding.
That was a disgustingly liberal cheeseburger!
http://nathancontramundi.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/romney-admonishes-rnc-dont-vote-for-mccain/
I don't think I can offer anything of substance on Republicans at this point. I find them too despicable, as a party. I recognize that in some ways the people in the party must be normal human beings with some moral instincts and intellectual capacities, but as they say, "So were the ...." I'll see if there's any point on which I can say something substantial.
They hate us for our freedoms, guys.
Rudy just said: "I learned as a trial lawyer a long time ago, if you don't have the facts, you've gotta change 'em."
WHAAAAAAT...??????
That Romney "quote" is the funniest thing I've read in so long. I just can't help imagining him really saying it, and it makes me chuckle every time.
The habeus corpus SCt decisions of late had nothing to do with secret trials and warrantless arrests. And Boumedienne, the most expansive decision to date, had nothing to do with American citizens.
Moreover, if the Republican Party had made support for torture a litmus-test issue, then it wouldn't have nominated John McCain.
I wish Romney had given that line about hash browns though. That would've been frickin' awesome.
For the most part in the conventions Republicans talk like Libertarians. Attacking government regulations, and tax/spend democrats. When the dust settles, they aren't very different.
As Michael B. alluded to, McCain opposes torturing of enemy combatants. He always has. He also supports closing Guantanamo.
As Michael B. alluded to, McCain opposes torturing of enemy combatants. He always has.
He has, sadly, flip-flopped on torture.
When considering what Jim Henley and our gracious hosts say about Republicans and torture, it is best to ignore the facts. Whether it is so or not so that all of them delight in the pain and humiliation of their enemies, that makes a compelling narrative, a story that's so good it ought to be true. How can our children be properly taught if the stories we tell them (and each other) do not have simple morals in black-and-white, which enable us to tell the good guys from the right-wing trash?
Throughout Romney's speech, I half expected the audience to start chanting "Four legs good! Two legs bad!"
If terrorists hate us for our freedoms then voting Republican is ipso facto pro terrorist.
Also, Meghan is not Libertarian. Don't be an IDIOT!
Where were all these sincere civil libertarian liberals when Bill Clinton authorized extraordinary rendition via presidential fiat and then outsourced the torture by sending the kidnapped individuals to secret prisons in middle eastern countries? The desperation of the left is showing. The looks on the faces of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews after Palin's speech tonight were priceless. They are in abject terror about Palin's candidacy. She is going to have exactly the opposite effect that Democrats here and elsewhere are predicting. You have two elitists who have never accomplished anything running against a true war hero and a real person who has more in common with the vast majority of the country than Obama and Biden combined.
"a real person who has more in common with the vast majority of the country than Obama and Biden combined."
The average American woman has 2 kids in her lifetime. Palin has five.
Most Americans live in large cities or suburbs. Palin comes from a town of 8000.
Palin comes from Alaska, a state with a population of 800,000 that is in almost every way politically, economically and demographically alien to the rest of America: colder, whiter, and largely dependent on federal government handouts, much like Siberia.
Palin is among the less than 5% of Americans who believe abortion should be illegal in cases of rape and incest.
On one issue, though, you may be right. Before she began running for VP, Palin seems to have though the Iraq War was a mistake, if she thought about it at all -- like 2/3 of Americans. And, like many other Americans, she had never been outside the country before she was 40.
"You have two elitists who have never accomplished anything running against a true war hero and a real person who has more in common with the vast majority of the country than Obama and Biden combined."
What a stupid argument. FYI, the average IQ is 100. Maybe we should insist that our leaders, in order to have more in common with most of the country, should be fairly dim intellectually.
(On reflection, that seems to have been the argument successfully deployed for the past two elections, so maybe its not so stupid after all.)
I used to admire Mr. McCain, but since he began to run for the presidency he has disappointed me at every turn. He has backtracked on nearly every "maverick" thing he says he stands for up to and including treating the other side with respect and trying to "reach across the aisles" to accomplish real work for the "people". I do not see how the open disdain Ms. Palin showed toward Barack Obama, in her speech tonight; a man who has justifiably won the respect of Hillary Clinton and over 18 million votes; will forward the Republican "cause".
This divisiveness is disgusting. Her politics reminds me of the power plays and low blow politics the Clintons' have been accused of playing - coupled with extreme right wing views and tactics of Mr. Rove and Pres. Bush.
I have been impressed with the way Mr. Obama has conducted himself. Running a tight and efficient campaign. Remaining above board, showing respect where it was due to Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin. He gives me hope that he will work with Republicans. Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin do not inspire anything in me at all.
"...giving American citizens habeas corpus rights..."
Way way wrong, Megan.
While Bush did take that position against, for instance, Hamdan, that is not what Romney was referring to, and that is not the position that conservatives support. (In fact, Ive heard no one support that, outside of Bush legal briefs, but it's still fair to attribute that position to Bush.)
The Supreme Court, however, decided that non-citizens captured in a foreign country and under the exclusive control of the US government--even while still outside the US--have a constitutional habeas right to appear in court. This SCOTUS ruling was a bizarre departure from history and precedent, and it was, frankly, a frightening usurpation of warfare powers by the judiciary.
It's especially frightening considering the court gave no guidance as to what, exactly, the District Court should review in its habeas proceeding, leaving the detention of men taken on the battlefield to the will and whim of district judges.
I have to agree with jt007 in that the Democrats are completely underestimating Palin's electoral appeal.
The Democrat partisans smugly ask, "Do you want a presidential candidate who lied to protect her grandchild and tried to fire the man who abused her sister?" and they don't have a clue how elitist they sound.
And not just elitist, alien.
Some day Palin will have to answer such questions as why she pressured her librarian to ban books at their public library. This person makes GW look like ted Kennedy. And she was before the bridge before it became so popular to be against it. Mccain is doing his best to fight the cultural wars of the 1960s. It's sad what these people have bestowed on the country for the next 8 weeks. He couldn't win on his own merits so he had to go cultural, splitting us up to win an election.
This will be the first true, honest-to-goodness bible thumper on any major ticket. I know W is born again, but he is Methodist, a very tame form of the species. All previous candidates have been members of some mainstream denomination, such as Prebyterian, Baptist, or Catholic. Palin goes to "Bible Church." That is full-on religious nutjob language.
As was said somewhere else (and said much better), the GOP definition of liberal is simply anything that is currently out of favor with conservatives, and yes, it is used as an all-encompassing pejorative, devoid of any real meaning related to the classical definition relating to liberty and freedom.
To a lesser extent, the same thing can be said about conservative, especially since many "conservative" positions are actually quite radical (like throwing habeas corpus out the window).
Sheesh, can someone explain to me how republicans support throwing habeas corpus out the window, as it relates to the specific case in question?
Do you understand there are obviously two very compelling sides of the issue, otherwise it would not have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place?
Joe S., can you give us some examples of specific Democratic partisans smugly asking "Do you want a presidential candidate who lied to protect her grandchild and tried to fire the man who abused her sister?" The Democratic partisans I read, and listen to, seem to be asking questions more along the lines of:
"(why) she was introduced to the public as an opponent of the infamous “bridge to nowhere” but it seems clear that she was no such thing."
or
"what she and McCain will do to improve the lives of women and the security of their families."
or
why, after Palin increased taxes on the excess profits of the Alaska oil industry, she gave every Alaskan a second $1,200 rebate, the type of policy when proposed by Obama, was blasted by McCain because it would "increase our dependence on foreign oil and hinder exactly the same kind of domestic exploration and production we need."
With these and many other difficult legitimate questions out there, it's no wonder Republican partisans prefer to keep the focus on the types of questions you mentioned.
Re: The people in Boumedienne weren't American citizens; they were foreign nationals.
Thsi is ignorance parading around on stilts. The Constitution does not limit rights (with some few exceptions like the right to vote) to American citizens. Habeas Corpus is preserved under American jurisdiction for all persons the US government interacts with.
Habeas Corpus is preserved under American jurisdiction for all persons the US government interacts with.
Excuse my parading ignorance, but wasn't jurisdiction one of the major issues in the case? As in, Cuba is not the sovereign territory of the US government?
I mean, isn't that why the majority had to invent this special test of "absolute and indefinite" control, right?
But, again, I'm just one of those evil conservatives who have to be suppressed through indignation and desperate slander.
megan,
you are redeemed after your mega-comment-generating, but rather weak and incoherent post "Sarah Palin: the importance of being earnest"
That is a great line about the hash browns. ha! I might use that at the lunch table today...
I'll excuse your parading ignorance.
One of the issues in Boumediene was, in fact, whether Gitmo is under US control.
And the SCT said (on a 5-4 vote) that US control of Gitmo was sufficient to justify jurisdiction over the detainees' petitions for writs of habeas corpus.
You may now continue your ignorance parade
Said it before and I'll say it again, I'd rather the government be arresting Muslims overseas than burning up Christians at home. I vote my own self-interest. Now that's libertarian!
It's my understanding that the Constitution applies to the government, not the people. The government cannot suspend to right of habeus corpus except in cases of invasion or insurrection. The government has to follow this rule anywhere it is sovereign, in territories, and possessions, not just states.
Habeus corpus is not restricted to citizens. If it can be denied to non citizen enemy combatants during a "time of war" (though undeclared) then it can be denied to citizen enemy combatants.
A POW is an *innocent* person (usually a solider) who is incarcerated because a declaration of war has been made against their government.
An enemy combatant is a potential terrorist (i.e. a criminal) who is being held out of suspicion of involvement in crimes or a criminal conspiracy. Enemy combantants found to be innocent are often released with no change in the status of the war on terror. This doesn't happen with POWs, who are released follwing a change in status of the war (e.g. a treaty or cease fire) or in a prisoner exchange.
Habeous corpus applies to enemy combatants because of the potential criminality they possess as potential terrorists.
Applying habeous corpus to enemy combatants in no way limits presidential war powers in actual *declared* wars. If the president wishes full use of his war powers, he needs Congress to declare war--that's what war declarations are for.
As in, Cuba is not the sovereign territory of the US government?
Military bases are the sovereign territory of the US government, even if it lies within another country. The SCOTUS ruled that a facility that is 100% under control of the US government is also US sovereign territory, similar to how we treat our military bases.
Yes, yes, I'm ignorant and it's so blindingly obvious, etc.. but yet it was decided only in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that breaks with clear precedent (Eisentrager anyone?) and has a functional test that pretty much only applies to Gitmo.
At the very least these circumstances should suggest that the matter isn't as cut and dry as the frequent attempts at browbeatery here would imply.
I can't believe people like JT007 and Joe S. are really sticking with this elitism meme. Guys, 2004 is over. Its 2008. Barrack Obama was raised by a single mother and Joe Biden is 99th out of 100 when it comes to the wealthiest senators. John McCain, on the other hand, is a multi-millionaire.
Military bases are the sovereign territory of the US government, even if it lies within another country. The SCOTUS ruled that a facility that is 100% under control of the US government is also US sovereign territory, similar to how we treat our military bases.
As Glorious notes, this is only a recent development in the law. Back in the 90s, the Clinton administration successfully argued to a couple of appeals courts that habeas corpus did not apply to the Haitian refugees it was holding in indefinite detention at G'tmo.
Citing Wasilla's population as evidence of Palin not being like the average American misses the point a bit. Yes, it's not a big town, but it's hardly distinguishable from adjacent Palmer, which is of comparable size. What's more, both of them are bedroom communities of Anchorage.
I find it difficult to feel much angst over the fate of foreign combatants, and how they are treated. US citizens in our prison system are routinely raped, beaten, and murdered by other prisoners on a mass scale. Many of them are only there for minor drug related offenses. Some advocacy groups claim the number of prison rapes that occur each year is as high as 240,000. That is bad.
However, as bad as that is, and as much as I’d like to see it changed, I confess I do not lay awake at night agonizing over the fate of another poor junkie who will have ‘Tiny’ as his bunkmate. To be honest, I rarely think about them at all. Few people do.
This is ultimately why I think the tremendous shows of concern over the fate of suspected terrorists in the third world is false and politically driven. Since when have our politicians cared about prisoners? Since when have the press? Since when have voters cared enough to make an issue of it? If people are not using suspected terrorists merely as a political club, why aren’t people even more vocal about our prisoners at home?
I don’t think we can ever release men who are suicidal religious sociopaths. Give these suspected foreign combatants lie detector tests. They’re not infallible, but they’d give us reasonably good odds of weeding out the innocent prisoners. But if you would require the US hold the burden of proof, even when the combatants are foreign citizens, who have a butcher’s mentality, who violate all the rules of war, and are captured in a fricken war zone, I believe it’s fair to say that you are more interested in playing footsie with lawyers than nailing terrorists.
Indeed there is some rational for doing so. Many hold that lawyers are the thin slimy line between us and fascism. That not offering the same rights to people captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan, as to a US citizen caught in a robbery, would be a banana peel on the slippery slope to hell. If I believed that, I could understand the necessity of giving suspected terrorists access to our convoluted legal system. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t. I believe this mentality is the result of misplaced admiration for lawyers who, in turn, ever extol the virtues of our Byzantine legal system, which is increasingly distant from the spirit of the laws it distorts.
Much of the time, I don’t think that letting lawyers expand the scope of their influence is the lesser of two evils, but simply an unnecessary one.
As for torture… I sometimes hear bible thumpers declare such is such is true because the bible says so. People who don’t believe in the bible don’t find these arguments very compelling. Another bible thumper may offer a logical explanation as to why the bible is true. I may not agree with his logic, but at least he is offering an argument.
Many people who oppose torture in extraordinary situations do not bother offering a rational for their viewpoint. They simply state that torture is always wrong, and that if you disagree, there’s likely something wrong with you. Well, if they aren’t offering a compelling argument, they are simply stating an opinion. It’s one that I happen to disagree with.
I happen to think that killing a man is worse than torturing him, but most people are OK with killing in a wartime situation. If we can kill to save lives, why can we not waterboard a man to save them? One can argue about how rarely to use this policy, and about how certain your evidence needs to be. But I don’t buy the notion that waterboarding is worse than death, or that it is worse than, say, letting a school bus get blown up by a flaming nutter.
Or so sayeth Quoth.