If nothing else

June 12, 2008

If nothing else would convince you to vote for John McCain, then this should:

Justices Grant Habeas Rights to Guantanamo Detainees

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the American naval base at Cuba. The court’s liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

The idea of a President Obama appointing 2-3 more Justices like the five yutzes who came up with this decision (PDF) should give any rational person nightmares, and I wholly agree with the core of Scalia’s dissent: 

Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separation-of-powers principles to establish a manipulable “functional” test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other Constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes [sic] important precedents, most conspicuously Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. 

The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.

McCain was by no means perfect in the fight over judicial appointments in the Senate a few years ago, but he has promised to appoint judges and justices who recognize the courts’ limits and don’t try to seize control of federal policy in a time of war. My gut instinct is to take him at his word on this. But, even if he isn’t perfect again, he’ll be a darned sight better than what the Harbinger of Hope, Change, and Waffles would give us.

LINKS: More at Hot Air, Commentary (and here), Fausta, Jihad Watch, Sister Toldjah, Weekly Standard, and (for the Lefty view) The Nation.



The company you keep, one in a series

June 12, 2008

Reverend Wright, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Father Pfleger, Tony Rezko, James Johnson. These are some of the people whose association with Barack Obama has lead us to question the vaunted judgment of the Harbinger of Hope, Change, and Waffles. (That’s just a distraction! –Rocky Shut up and eat your fish food.) Now we have the latest, but I bet not the last: Jodie Evans, founder of the moonbat group Code Pink and a woman who thinks we should listen to Osama bin Laden:

A co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink, which has made a name for itself by interrupting hearings on Capitol Hill, is a fundraising bundler for Barack Obama.

Jodie Evans has pledged to raise at least $50,000 for Obama, according the Democrat’s campaign site.

According to research being circulated by GOP sources, Evans has a record of inflammatory statements such as saying that women were better off in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, “Men are dying in their Hummers in Iraq so you can drive around in yours” and, my favorite, that the invasion of Iraq amounted to “global testosterone poisoning.”

Oh, and about that bin Laden comment? Ed Morrissey provides the audio file of Evans’ appearance on a Kansas radio show:

Ibbetson (the show host) tries to explain that we hadn’t done anything to provoke the 9/11 attacks by saying we hadn’t invaded Afghanistan. Evans replies that we were in Saudi Arabia, which to her gave al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden a rational reason to kill thousands of Americans in terrorist attacks. Note that she says, “I don’t think any terrorist attack is justified,” and then says we should listen to Osama bin Laden and change our policies because — “Sometimes, it would be a good idea to listen to why someone is trying to blow you up”.

So, we have to ask: Is Barack Obama, a man quite likely to be President of the United States, comfortable with an important donor who believes that Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein and that bin Laden may have had good reason to murder 3,000 Americans?

Or are you warming up the bus for another throw-under, O Prophet of the New Politics?

No one holds candidates responsible for a few lunatics drawn to their campaign. All national campaigns are going to collect a few. But they should never be allowed to reach a prominent place, and should be cut off as soon as they’re discovered. For example, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr told the neo-Nazis of Stormfront to keep their money and go straight to Hell. The McCain campaign disavowed a conservative talk-show host who, at a campaign rally, kept taking cheap shots at Obama’s middle name. (Yes, my fellow Righties, I think Cunningham was out of line.)

The Obama campaign, on the other hand, appears distressingly comfortable with supporters who loathe the country he wants to lead. When questioned about them, he first denies their importance, then attacks the media for even mentioning the matter, and then claims he or she “wasn’t the person I knew” as he finally jettisons them.

There’s an old saying: “Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are.”

What do Obama’s friends tell us about him? Thinking

(hat tip: Hot Air)