NY Times - Detention Camp Remains, but Not Its Legal Rationale

The Guantánamo Bay detention center will not close today or any day soon.

But the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday stripped away the legal premise for the remote prison camp that officials opened six years ago in the belief that American law would not reach across the Caribbean to a United States naval station in Cuba.

“To the extent that Guantánamo exists to hold detainees beyond the reach of U.S. courts, this blows a hole in its reason for being,” said Matthew Waxman, a former detainee affairs official at the Defense Department.

And without that, much will change.

The decision granted detainees the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts, meaning that federal judges will now have the power to check the government’s claims that the 270 men still held there are dangerous terrorists. That will force officials to answer questions about evidence that they have long deflected despite international criticism and expressions of support, from President Bush on down, for closing the camp.

Free the 270! Free Mumia! Let them go back to the battlefields to pick up right where they were caught fighting. Of course, it probably won’t be Afghanistan, where the vacationers were caught fighting with no uniforms on.

For the life of me, I will never understand why the Left is so upset by Club Gitmo, other then because they Hate Bush! That is pretty much all they have. They wrap habeaus corpus and giving these people Rights up in it, but, face it: were it President Gore, they would have zero problem with Guantanamo Bay detention center. And neither would the people on the Right.

The good news, though

The military trials against U.S.-held detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba will not be affected by a Supreme Court ruling that the detainees have the right to appeal in U.S. civilian courts, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Friday.

Mukasey, speaking at a Group of Eight meeting of justice and home affairs ministers in Tokyo, said he was disappointed with the decision because it would lead to “hundreds” of detention cases being referred to federal district court.

“I think it bears emphasis that the court’s decision does not concern military commission trials, which will continue to proceed,” he said. “Instead it addresses the procedures that the Congress and the president put in place to permit enemy combatants to challenge their detention.”

Of course, all sorts of terrorist loving groups and people, such as the ACLU (who forgot the A stands for American) will start appealing the al Qaeda members detention shortly.

And yes, I am aware that Senator McCain wants to close Gitmo. What he wants to do is move them all to Leavenworth and try their azzes quickly. It’s one of the issues I do not really agree with him on. If we are going to close it, let’s move them to one of the islands off the coast of Alaska.

The Surrender Monkey is thrilled that the NY Timesis taking not only the disingenuous stance that McCain is in agreement with the “domestic surveillance” program, but also that the McCain = Bush meme is being pushed. This kind of thing gives Surrendie a thrilling up his leg!

A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.

Mr. McCain believes that “neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin wrote.

And if Mr. McCain is elected president, Mr. Holtz-Eakin added, he would do everything he could to prevent terrorist attacks, “including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.”

Perhaps the NY Times would care to ask the presumptive Democratic Party nominee how he would treat calls originating from suspected terrorists who are not U.S. citizens and either originating or ending in foreign countries, particularly those who have ties to or large groups of Islamic terrorists. Or, is that yet another one of those questions we cannot ask Obama?

Mr. McCain was asked whether he believed that the president had constitutional power to conduct surveillance on American soil for national security purposes without a warrant, regardless of federal statutes.

He replied: “There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.”

Woops! After all the bloviating in this article, and all the myriad ones in the past, it was simply that Chimpy McHitlerburton was wiretapping all Americans, which, as we all know, couldn’t be farther from the truth, and Senator McCain just told the NY Times what the truth is.

Side thought: if Obama wins, and starts shoving all his policies down the throats of Congress and the American people, will the TImes complain about him taking executive authority? I don’t remember the Times complaining about Clinton’s use of Echelon. Do you?

Yes, the perpetually surprised looking Speaker of the House loves our troops and the USA so much that she cannot even give credit to either (via Hot Air through Ace. I thought about posting it on Thursday, but, Surrendie demanded that this story was his, damnitall!)

(Commentary) Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.

See, it was not the skills of our military or its leaders, it was those Iranians! How soon till she ends up wearing a burka while visiting Ahmadenijad?

This is why we need John McCain as President. He is not the kind of guy to sit back and let this kind of attack against our military stand.

Ace: Will she also thank Al Qaeda for scaling back its beheadings and bombings?

Abe Greenwald at Commentary: Discounting the success of the American military, denying the accomplishments of U.S. allies, and giving the credit to our most dangerous enemies seems like an especially productive week for a Democrat on Capitol Hill. After Nancy Pelosi’s post-Iraq hat trick, there’s really no need for Barack Obama to make this trip after all.

Right Voices has a hilarious graphic

I wonder if Joe Biden will be outraged when us damned neo-cons call Democrats weak on national security and question their patriotism?

How ’bout a double monkey, via Wake Up America?

As the Democrats bloviate on and on and on and on about gas prices (notice their massive escalation since the Democrats regained control of Congress?) yet offer no viable ideas, we learn about NIMBY

The United States should increase its domestic oil supply by opening up more drilling sites, several members of the Senate told Cybercast News Service Thursday, when surveyed on the issue at the U.S. Capitol. But some senators also said they are wary of allowing increased drilling in many locations - especially in their own states.

“There may be places that make sense, I am not saying, ‘Let’s not drill anywhere,’ ” Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in response to the question. “But do I want to drill off the California coast? No. Do I want to drill in the Arctic in endangered areas? No.”

Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), strongly endorsed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) — but not in his home state of Florida.

“I just don’t think we should do it in areas like the Florida Keys, which are environmentally very sensitive,” Martinez told Cybercast News Service.

So, drill away, as long as it is not in my back yard. Does anyone think that, if the oil companies moved to actually drill in other states, that Democrats wouldn’t work hard to block it?

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who joined Feinstein in limited support, echoed her exact words, saying, “We can’t drill our way out of this crisis.”

On one hand, he is correct. We can’t, at least in the short term. We should have been working hard to open up our own wells starting the moment OPEC pulled their shenanigans in the 70’s, but, guess which side of the political aisle block it, and has been blocking it ever since, along with building new nuclear reactors and new refineries? But, if Senator Levin has a better idea, let’s hear it. What does he suggest? More of the “we need to invest in alternative energy,” with no specifics? I personally would love to have other alternatives. What are they? Bio fuels is a disaster, windfarms only work in certain areas, and solar is not ready for prime time. What else is there, Carl?

Interesting how liberal/Democrat policies have led to us being beholden to terrorist and terrorist supporting countries, eh? And these are the same types of policies we would get from an Obama presidency. After he talks one on one with folks like Ahmadenijad, of course.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

While I was at TPM earlier reading the Greg Sargent piece on the McCain blogger call, I noticed the Left is pushing yet another blatant lie - that McCain wanted to have a dialogue with Hamas. Haha. As if.

Thankfully, I don’t have to tear that lie apart, because Ed Morrissey has already done it.

The Left has had a field day with an expertly-clipped YouTube excerpt from a John McCain interview in January 2006, shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian Authority election. Former Clinton official James Rubin uses it for a dishonest attack on McCain, calling him a hypocrite for tying Barack Obama to Hamas while McCain supposedly supported diplomatic contact with the terrorist group. In doing so, Rubin and McCain’s opponents misrepresent both the Hamas issue and the larger context of McCain’s remarks.
[...]
The context here is crystal clear. McCain envisioned a possible change in Hamas from a terrorist group to a legitimate political party, one that recognized Israel and renounced violence. Under those conditions, McCain said that we could engage them in talks designed to establish peace, and only under those conditions.

More of the same distortions of the truth (aka lies) from the Lefty Liars, as usual. Nice try, chumps.

I wonder, will they go with this lie during the next blogger call?

Here’s the part they conveniently “forgot.” Notably, so did Obama (biggest liar ever to seek the Presidency, perhaps?)

(Cross-posted from MVRWC)

You just know that the Democrats are going to continue whining about what Dubya said yesterday about appeasing terrorists, terrorist leaders, and terrorist countries. Interesting thought, which I have heard expressed by a few pundits: why are the Democrats protesting so much? Could it be because Bush was 100% correct? Sure seems that way.

If Obama’s people are saying that the comments were directed at him, why would they think that? Could it be because he has said that he would do exactly what Bush said was a really, really bad idea?

Surrendie is sad today, because he was out protesting something or other yesterday, so wasn’t able to make a special Thursday appearence, and missed all the hubub.

Surrendie thought it was early May, not the last day of October

Code Pink is now resorting to witchcraft to beef up the number of its supporters protesting Berkeley’s controversial Marine Corps Recruiting Center.

The women’s anti-war group has told ralliers to come equipped with spells and pointy hats Friday for “Witches, clowns and sirens day,” the last of the group’s weeklong homage to Mother’s Day.

Well, the clowns part makes sense to me.

“Women are coming to cast spells and do rituals and to impart wisdom to figure out how we’re going to end war,” Zanne Sam Joi of Bay Area Code Pink told FOXNews.com.

How is protesting a recruiting center going to do that? They should just say they hate the military and be done with it, but, we all know that Liberals lie about their intentions.

The group’s week of themed protests, which included days to galvanize grannies and bring-your-daughter-to-protest, appears to have done little to boost its flagging numbers.

A FOX News camera, which has a 24/7 live shot of the recruiting center’s front door, recorded little action, and the gatherings have, until this point, been ill attended.

Check the Fox News article, which has a link to said camera. I’m looking forward to some photos from the Credentialed Media and, hopefully, Zombietime, of the idiocy.

Witches photo came from Michelle Malkin.

Surrendie demanded that he be included today, and, since his teeth are rather sharp and he has been known to fling poo, I decided to aquiesce to his request

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told Cybercast News Service on Tuesday he will move to end the Iraq War with an immediate termination of funding if a Democrat becomes president next year.

“I will move to cut funding immediately,” said Frank. “I have already done that. I voted against the war and voted to cut the funding. I would hope a Democratic president would put in place a plan that would begin a total withdrawal.”

So far, neither of the Democratic presidential candidates, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, has been willing to unambiguously commit to a plan to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013.

Look, there have obviously been problems with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Some were ones that should have been known about, some are simply Monday morning quarterbacking, with some of those falling in the category of seeing Eli Manning overthrowing the recievers for over a season till his mechanics were finally fixed. Regardless, we are there. We are very close to achieving the post war objectives. Did you know that one of the Surge brigades is being withdrawn? This would be the 3rd one, and it is due to progress.

The Democrats are basically taking the position of Al Qaeda and the hard core Arabs: run away, America, run away. Democrats prefer a weak and demeaned America. They, like so many around the world, want America reduced. But, who do they think will fill the power vacuum?

The Surrender Monkey is thrilled that the Washington Post is in the tank for the Obamessiah. They have a cute editorial up Gas Tax Gotcha: Sen. Obama’s courageous stand in favor of fuel conservation. To start off, the WP seems to be advising that the gas tax be raised, as

The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that a 50-cents-per-gallon increase in gasoline taxes would contribute more than $300 billion to deficit reduction over five years, while reducing traffic congestion, dependence on Middle Eastern oil and greenhouse gases.

In other words, it would make it that much harder to pay for the fuel to get to work. Not all of us live or work in an area that mass transit and/or car pooling is easily available. Some areas just are not great places for mass transit. Cities like DC, NY and LA are easy. A place like the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area are not, except for small jots across town.

Moving on to the Messiah

We do not underestimate the impact of high fuel prices on families that need their cars to get to work and school. But the gas tax is one component of the per-gallon price that comes back to benefit the motoring public, in the form of funding for road construction and maintenance. Much of the rest leaves America, going to such places as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Ms. Clinton proposes a windfall profits tax on U.S. oil companies to recapture the revenue forfeited by her proposal. Similar ideas have failed in the Senate because of oil-state objections; this one undoubtedly would, too. We have to agree with Sen. Barack Obama, the only candidate who has refused to play this game. “It’s not an idea to get you through the summer,” he said. “It’s an idea to get them through an election.” His opponents no doubt hope that Mr. Obama’s stand will prove to be political suicide. We think it qualifies as political courage.

First, the windfall profits tax, which Senator Barack NMN Obama supports as well, will not solve the issue. It is simply taking money from companies that do not set the price of oil itself. If you own a company, and you buy your extremely important to the US economy widgets for $1 each, then sell them for a 10% profit, you make 10 cents. If the company who sells you the widgets raises the price to $2 because the stock market traders are increasing the price, you will now sell the widgets for $2.20, still the same 10% markup. Hillary and Obama come in and say “we’re taking that extra 10 cents: you didn’t earn it.” Are you a little pissed off?

2nd, other then a windfall profits tax and some yammering on about “alternative energy” with zero detail, Obama has not ideas or plans. Nor does the Post. I guess that is what stands for political courage nowaday’s. To stand for nothing but empty rhetoric.

All the ideas out there, such as drilling in ANWAR, off the California and North Carolina coast, in the Gulf of Mexico, building new refineries and nuclear plants, alternative energy source, etc, are about 30-40 years to late. If we start now, it will not help for at least 10 years. Driving less is like putting some tape on a leaky pipe you should have replaced.

This is making Surrendie nuts, and is sure to make the Nutroots even nuttier

People who believe the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision giving the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush was politically motivated should just get over it, says Justice Antonin Scalia.

Scalia denies that the controversial decision was political and discusses other aspects of his public and private life in a remarkably candid interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, this Sunday, April 27, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

“I say nonsense,” Scalia responds to Stahl’s observation that people say the Supreme Court’s decision in Gore v. Bush was based on politics and not justice. “Get over it. It’s so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn’t even close. The vote was seven to two,” he says, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision that the Supreme Court of Florida’s method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.

Furthermore, says the outspoken conservative justice, it was Al Gore who ultimately put the issue into the courts. “It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question…. We didn’t go looking for trouble. It was he who said, ‘I want this to be decided by the courts,’” says Scalia. “What are we supposed to say — ‘Not important enough?’” he jokes.

Ouch! But, they do not want to move on. They feel very comfortable living in the past, pretending the The Goracle won the election and it was stolen from them by that guy who is too stoooopid to be pResident, but wiley enough to steal the election.

• Blue Girl, Red State calls it judicial activism. I’ve always wondered why Dems are Blue, instead of commie red. I get it now. They are Blue because they are always depressed.
• Crooks and Liars, a perfect name for a liberal blog, calls it “an insult to America and the planet.”
• Hullabaloo, in reference to getting over it, writes “Nev. Er.” Are you surprised?

Be prepared for round 3 of election stealing calls when McCain wins.

Trackposted to Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, , Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe