Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
My father, a lifelong Republican, called and left a message on my voicemail yesterday saying that McCain's reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling on habeas corpus and the Gitmo detainees had sealed any chance McCain had for getting his vote in November. And McCain's statement was so ridiculous that one has to wonder if he is really that ignorant of the law or if he was simply lying through his teeth. Here's what he said:
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.
That may be the single dumbest thing said in this entire election so far. Habeas corpus suits have nothing to do with dietary restrictions on prisoners or what kind of reading materials they can have. McCain is conflating, either out of mendacity or ignorance, the kind of suits that can be brought by prison inmates and the kind of suits this ruling allows.
Habeas corpus suits only allow someone to challenge whether they are rightfully being detained. That's it. If McCain knows that, he's lying through his teeth. And if he doesn't know that, how absurd is it that he has an up or down vote on every single person nominated for the federal bench? If he doesn't know that, why should anyone vote for him for president? This is one of the most basic constitutional protections, one of the key components of a free society; if someone doesn't understand that basic concept, they should be kept as far away from power as possible.
Politics
Comments
The more I hear from McCain, the more I'm convinced that the doctors are lying and that he no longer possesses his full mental capacities. I held a similar view concerning Reagan, but no one wanted to believe me then.
The McCain of today is so radically different from the McCain of the 2000 election; it seemed back then that he at least was reasonably rational and could be respected, even if one disagreed with him. The man today is a mess of panderings and contradictions and ignorant utterances. It's really sad. We can only hope that Obama and the Democrats don't self-destruct.
Posted by: gary l. day | June 16, 2008 9:55 AM
Perhaps we should institute a simple civics test that everyone running for office must pass to be allowed the privilege.
Posted by: Julian | June 16, 2008 9:56 AM
Kudo's to your Dad - and just in time for Father's Day too.
re: McCain: Ignorant of Lying - Can I vote for both?
Somehow or some-when, "The Maverick" checked his Maverickness at the door when he decided to run for President.
Johnny, Johnny, Johnny, it didn't have to be that way. Come back from the Dark-Side - before it's too late.
Posted by: J-Dog | June 16, 2008 9:57 AM
But if we grant Gitmo detainees the right to habeas corpus, as soon as you turn around we'll be serving them fillet mignon on fine china while they recline on velvet cushions with glasses of champagne watching dancing young maidens, then sending them home in limousines! We can't have that for dirty terrorists (which we know them to be, though they haven't been given trials).
I really wonder what the kids of the future will be taught in history class about all of this.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 16, 2008 10:01 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if the talking heads in the media completely ignored the legal ignorance on display here and instead created a big flap over the use of the vulgar phrase "bollixed up".
Posted by: Wes | June 16, 2008 10:02 AM
From wikipedia, describing the perceived severity of "bollocks" (in England):
So Bollocks lies between Prick and Arsehole. Sounds about right!
Posted by: Wes | June 16, 2008 10:08 AM
"Ignorant or lying?"
Who says it can't be both?
Posted by: Ahcuah | June 16, 2008 10:17 AM
Anatomically speaking, of course.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 16, 2008 10:29 AM
Yeah, I would vote for both. And I would bet that he's going full bore on the outrage because his team believes there's little downside in taking this extreme position. They think it will bolster his standing with the wingnuts who believe the Supreme Court majority are enemies of the country, but I suspect they also think that the subject matter is dry enough that more thoughtful people on his left flank (i.e. moderates and independents) won't pay that much attention.
Posted by: tacitus | June 16, 2008 10:56 AM
Not that it would stop the media but, bollixed up and bollocks, while derived from the same word, mean completely different things.
bol·lix also bol·lox (bŏl'ĭks)
tr.v. bol·lixed also bol·loxed, bol·lix·ing also bol·lox·ing, bol·lix·es also bol·lox·es Informal
To throw into confusion; botch or bungle: managed to bollix up the whole project.
I don't see a problem with using the phrase. I'd say it's a polite way of saying fucked up.
Posted by: JScarry | June 16, 2008 11:06 AM
I got a crap parking ticket. Will McCain allow me to file a Habeas Corpus suit to get out of it?
Posted by: Shygetz | June 16, 2008 11:16 AM
Could it be that McCain was thinking of habeas procedures under state law? In California, prisoners can use state habeas procedures to challenge conditions of confinement, and prisoners have used it to challenge things like diet and lack of access to reading materials. If Arizona has similar laws, it's understandable that McCain made the blunder (although one of his handlers should've explained to him the significance of the Supreme Court case before he started talking about it).
Posted by: anon | June 16, 2008 11:49 AM
What bothers me most about this is that John McCain is seeking the office of President. He is seeking the ultimate office to "uphold the Consitution." Has he read the darn thing lately? What about Amendment 6?
Wouldn't it be his duty as President to supply the manpower necessary to see that all habeas suits proceed in and through court in a responsible and timely fashion? If the court system cannot withstand the number of suits brought at this time, wouldn't it be his duty to go to Congress and say, "We need more courts at a time like this," go out and find retired and otherwise qualified judges, convene responsible civilian courts as necessary, and proceed with diligence?
I guess that's more than McCain is ready for.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | June 16, 2008 12:03 PM
I really wonder what the kids of the future will be taught in history class about all of this.
The same thing they're taught about the Japanese Internment Camps during WWII: nothing.
Can't have the youngsters learning that the US is anything but a kind and gentle empire, who only resorts to war when there's evil Nazi-like bad guys to be smote and would never imprison anyone illegally. They might grow up to think that the US is not the beautiful, unique snow flake of the world, so exceptional that all regular standard about conduct and law do not apply. if kids were to learn that, they'd never vote republican.
Posted by: Keith | June 16, 2008 12:03 PM
McCain isn't that ignorant, but he knows his base is. They will take that and run with it to all their ignorant friends.
Posted by: TomDunlap | June 16, 2008 12:10 PM
I think I learned about habeas corpus in, like, senior year in high school. In fact, I had to pass a civics test to graduate, and I know it was on that. Has anyone called McCain on this?
Posted by: Maxine | June 16, 2008 12:10 PM
As if we needed more evidence that the man was stupid. Unfortunately, it's statements like this that are going to make the crazies love him even more. And the crazies like to vote.
Posted by: JStein | June 16, 2008 12:34 PM
Either he is an idiot or a genius. I doubt a former POW doesn't know the definition of habeus corpus. He just framed the argument for his core constituency - scared idiots who still get their information SOLELY from Republican talking points - because if they ventured anywhere but there they wouldn't be voting for him.
I may be cynical and cranky this morning, but there are probably thousands of people across the country, right now, thinking
Habeus corpus = coddling criminals and making sure they have the Koran and whatever kosher is for them weirdo Muslims (Halal, I know, but these people wouldn't) and it's getting IN THE WAY of processing these cases.
When, in actuality, the supreme court enforcing habeus corpus is FORCING the adjudication of these cases and has nothing to do with diet or reading materials. I am afraid that too many voters are thinking Latin words and Constitutional law are too hard to read about on their own.
Posted by: Hilary | June 16, 2008 12:38 PM
I think what McCain, Roberts, Scalia, Bush, et al want us all to hear is:
SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY, SCARY
Posted by: tacitus | June 16, 2008 1:51 PM
Damn! One SCARY too many!
Posted by: tacitus | June 16, 2008 1:52 PM
It will be shoved into the fifteen minutes on the Friday before spring break where we learn about the Japanese internment camps, the Trail of Tears, the Alien and Sedition acts, and slave ownership among the Founding Fathers.
Posted by: Nentuaby | June 16, 2008 2:39 PM
"The same thing they're taught about the Japanese Internment Camps during WWII: nothing."
I'm fairly certain that this is actually part of the curriculum, at least in my corner of the Pacific Northwest. I can remember being exposed to it at least as early as junior high, possibly earlier. Heck, we even had some of the survivors come in to tell us about their personal experiences. But do they really not even mention this is parts (most?) of the country? Sad.
Posted by: Jeffry White | June 16, 2008 2:42 PM
Your dad is right on the money. Adjudicate these cases and sort through who is a bad guy and who isn't. But that would make sense and as we know, the Bush administration is anything but logical.
Posted by: Phil | June 16, 2008 4:10 PM
Bingo. I'm merely halfway through a paralegal course, and even before I started I understood habeus corpus (now joined in my brain by a veritable Morris-dancing lineup of Latin phrases). This is one of those things that politicians say because they can.
Posted by: PuckishOne | June 16, 2008 4:20 PM
Kinda interesting that if a candidate accidentally says they've campaigned in "57 states" instead of "47 states", or say that you're going to "veto every beer" instead of "veto every bill", and it makes the national news... but make a fundamental, serious, he-actually-meant-to-say-that error like this and nobody notices but some bloggers.
Posted by: Coin | June 16, 2008 4:30 PM
Folks, just curious, but what is it about Obama that is going to make him such a better candidate than McCain?
Posted by: mroberts | June 16, 2008 4:51 PM
mroberts goal in basically every thread he posts in here appears to be to drag it off topic. In the interest of keeping it on topic, my answer to mroberts' question here would be that while McCain was making statements such as those quoted above, that Obama's response to the Boumediene decision was:
Posted by: Coin | June 16, 2008 5:09 PM
Coin, I'm not trying to drag things off topic. I honestly just can't figure out why people think Obama is so much better than McCain. I would be happy to ask the question on another post if Ed had one more specifically related to the election. I actually agree with you most of you here on the Supreme Court decision regarding Gitmo detainees.
Posted by: mroberts | June 16, 2008 5:17 PM
mroberts, you're seriously asking why Obama is better than McCain on a thread discussing how McCain doesn't support recognizing detainees as having the right to habeas corpus, in response to a post quoting Obama noting that he opposes the Military Commissions Act (which McCain helped to craft)? Seriously?
To put in a nutshell: McCain is absolutely willing to sacrifice individual liberty in the name of "national security." Obama is only partially willing to do so. There's your answer.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 16, 2008 5:30 PM
This whole manner of treatment just scares me! I don't want terrorists running around plotting and planning any more than the next person - even Mr. McCain or Mr. Bush. But holding folks for so long without any trial or hope of one? The points on the Japanese Internment camps is right on the money.
Posted by: Mary | June 16, 2008 5:35 PM
>> mroberts, you're seriously asking why Obama is better than McCain on a thread discussing how McCain doesn't support recognizing detainees as having the right to habeas corpus, in response to a post quoting Obama noting that he opposes the Military Commissions Act (which McCain helped to craft)? Seriously? >>
Gretchen, I am totally with you on this issue. I am in agreement with you all on this issue. However, I hope you aren't voting for Obama based on just one issue. I think McCain is better than Obama on economic issues, but that does not mean he is earning my vote just because of that. I think he sucks on the economic issues, he's just a little better than Obama. I am curious just to know what it is people see in Obama. I see a guy that is not experienced at all, who is weak on economic issues, weak on foreign policy, and very radical on social issues. Plus I think it is legitimate to raise questions about some of his past associations. You can tell a lot about a man by who he hangs out with.
Posted by: mroberts | June 16, 2008 5:49 PM
mroberts, I'm not voting for Obama. But even if I were, the Military Commissions Act is not a matter of whether the president wants to hire an expensive hair dresser for the members of Congress. It's the granting of unilateral power to the executive branch to imprison any person on the planet without trial, for the rest of his life if so desired, merely by labeling him an "enemy combatant." That's not a "single issue"; it's a grab for freakin' dictatorship-- any president or presidential candidate who supports it should immediately be discarded from rational consideration, as they clearly belong nowhere near the Oval Office.
Please stop reading criticism of McCain as support for Obama. Obama wins hands-down in the comparison for not being an insane sadistic bastard, but that doesn't make him Superman either.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 16, 2008 6:01 PM
"I think McCain is better than Obama on economic issues"
I think McCain is better than Obama on *some* economic issues. But I'm happy with Obama's choice of Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman as economic advisors.
I think Obama is clearly far better on social issues (and not radical enough on some, e.g., gay marriage and marijuana legalization, though apparently last month he did agree to not use the federal government to override state medical marijuana decriminalization).
"Plus I think it is legitimate to raise questions about some of his past associations. You can tell a lot about a man by who he hangs out with."
Such as McCain marrying into a family connected to organized crime?
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2008/05/max-dunlap-clemency-hearing.html
Posted by: Jim Lippard | June 16, 2008 6:26 PM
>> I think Obama is clearly far better on social issues (and not radical enough on some, e.g., gay marriage and marijuana legalization, though apparently last month he did agree to not use the federal government to override state medical marijuana decriminalization). >>
I couldn't imagine Obama being any more to the left than he is. We are going to disagree here any way. I lean more to the right myself.
>> Such as McCain marrying into a family connected to organized crime? >>
I wouldn't be surprised, I don't think McCain has much in the way of principles.
Posted by: mroberts | June 16, 2008 6:53 PM
RE: Japanese internment camps, slave-ownership by the founding fathers, Alien and Sedition Acts, Trail of Tears.
When I was in school decades ago we most certainly did learn about these. I guess not much about the Trail of Tears, and that's not good. However I distinctly remember being quizzed on alien-and-sedition-something-or-other and coming to the tardy and fairly shocking realization that our founders weren't always on the side of the Bill of Rights. I also remember learning a whole lot about the conflicts and compromises over slavery, maybe partly from book reports I did, but I know the fact that Jefferson owned slaves was distinctly mentioned in class. Ninth grade history covered all sorts of unsavory facts like the internment camps, a slew of prejudices against various ethnic groups, the Jim Crow Laws, lynchings, the McCarthy hearings... geez, what dirt didn't we dig into?
Now, maybe curriculum has been radically alterered since the more enlightened days of my youth, but I wonder. It seems to me people get a perverse pleasure from projecting horrible motives onto their political foes. If in fact these things are being taught, it serves no one to intimate they are being covered up to indoctrinate our children. Vast right-wing conspiracy anybody?
I also think it's worth all our whiles to check in on our local school curricula to make sure they are being taught. If they aren't, something more than bitter remarks on message boards is going to be necessary to get them back in the classroom.
Posted by: zy | June 16, 2008 7:49 PM
Wow. It astounds me that people can't "imagine Obama being any more to the left than he is" or consider him "radical". I find him fairly centrist, myself - a little left of center, but hardly a radical.
Posted by: The Ridger | June 16, 2008 8:14 PM
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong...but didn't McCain initially refuse to comment on the court decision until he had the chance to study it? And now that he has...THIS is his response?
Imagine what sort of decisions we could expect when he DOESN'T have time to study.
Posted by: BobApril | June 16, 2008 8:23 PM
You mean like the "hot bottled water" comment?
Posted by: Turcano | June 16, 2008 9:34 PM
mroberts :
Tell me a lot about this .
Posted by: llewelly | June 17, 2008 12:01 AM
And thereby mroberts proves that he's not interested in a serious debate, and reveals he doesn't understand a single thing about socialism, communism, or anything to do with the real radical left.
Posted by: tacitus | June 17, 2008 12:26 AM
Along the same vein as Tacitus: mroberts, I know you're a pretty conservative guy, but this statement is just silly. Are you really suggesting that Obama is leftwards of Vladmir Lenin? If so, then it's amazing that he scored the nomination, isn't it?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 17, 2008 1:13 AM
>> And thereby mroberts proves that he's not interested in a serious debate, and reveals he doesn't understand a single thing about socialism, communism, or anything to do with the real radical left. >>
Please people, OK, OK forgive me for not including Communists on my scale of "leftness". My comment was regarding the spectrum of political beliefs that are in this nation at this time. I don't know of any prominent politicians that are outright Communists so those didn't even enter my thinking when I made my post. Maybe you can read a little less between the lines, k?
>> Are you really suggesting that Obama is leftwards of Vladmir Lenin? If so, then it's amazing that he scored the nomination, isn't it? >>
Uh, no. But he is about as far left as you can get in the current political climate. THAT was the point I was making.
Posted by: mroberts | June 17, 2008 1:49 AM
Well, if you really think that, then I wouldn't recommend digging too deeply into Dennis Kucinich.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 17, 2008 1:53 AM
These types of comments are pretty much worthless if you don't provide examples and evidence of what kinds of things you consider to be "weak on foreign policy" or "radical on social issues".
Based on your previous posts on this blog, I surmise that someone who thinks gays should have the same marriage rights as straights would be considered "radical on social issues" by you; and that someone who doesn't beat the war drum against Islam is "weak on foreign policy"; and that someone who favors environmental regulations or a progressive income tax is "weak on economic issues".
Am I right?
Posted by: Wes | June 17, 2008 1:53 AM
By the way, mroberts, when you state that "he is about as far left as you can get in the current political climate," I really don't think that we're grabbing at straws by mentioning communists (actual leftists). There are in fact figures far to the left of Obama in this "current political climate." They may not wield much power, but they still exist. Or are you only claiming Obama's alleged leftism because he is the Democratic nominee and, by proxy, more left-leaning than his Republican opponent?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 17, 2008 1:59 AM
mrroberts - check out this if you think Senator Obama is a raving communist:
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10926321
I guess that makes Mayor McCheese a goosestepping Nazi then! - :D DJ
NOTE: "The Economist" is not noted for it's wildly leftist leanings.
Posted by: DingoJack | June 17, 2008 2:52 AM
These types of comments are pretty much worthless if you don't provide examples and evidence of what kinds of things you consider to be "weak on foreign policy" or "radical on social issues".
Yeah really it sounds like one of those political "analysts" you see on the news all the time. One of them was wondering the other day if Obama was "serious" about Iraq.
Whatever it takes to fill up the space in between the commercials I guess. You have to have something in there between all those commercials, you know!
Posted by: 386sx | June 17, 2008 3:09 AM
I.e. slightly to the right of most centre-right parties in Europe...
Posted by: Dunc | June 17, 2008 7:28 AM
I don't think any of the subsequent sniping actually invalidates mroberts' comment. I can't really imagine anyone too much to the left of Obama having much of a chance of running for the presidency. A little further perhaps, because Obama is quite right-leaning in a business sense from what I can gather, so I don't entirely agree, but it's not a completely silly assertion. Much further to the left on many social issues, however, and he would never have secured the nomination and would not stand a chance in the general election.
Posted by: Matthew | June 17, 2008 8:38 AM
Re Mroberts
Mr. Mroberts considers anyone to the left of Ann Coulter to be a dangerous left wing pinko.
Posted by: SLC | June 17, 2008 9:19 AM
I'd noticed that in other threads. But that comment, once explained, doesn't seem too far from the truth to me.
Posted by: Matthew | June 17, 2008 9:23 AM
Also, if he had killed many more puppies, then no way, dude.
To be fair, however, McCain is only one peg-leg-carved-from-human-skulls away from failing to wrap up the Republican nomination. (Well, I guess it depends on whose skulls.)
mroberts, here is what you wrote:
Then you moved the goalposts to:
And said *we* were the ones reading between the lines.
And, by the way, this is said about every Democratic nominee every four years, no matter who it is, and no matter whether the Democrat wins the general election. Every Democratic nominee is not just deemed "liberal," but "the most extreme liberal I can imagine" and "far outside the mainstream" -- despite having garnered tens of millions of votes by so-called Americans. Of course, the "fringe" is defined as "anyone who voted for this candidate" and the mainstream as anyone who didn't.
Mind you, Democrats attempt (flailingly) to do the same to the Republican nominee.
Posted by: itchy | June 17, 2008 9:24 AM
Oh crap, that means he's a shoo-in.
I vote for lying, stupid and pandering in equal measure.
Posted by: BaldApe | June 17, 2008 6:04 PM
"And, by the way, this is said about every Democratic nominee every four years, no matter who it is, and no matter whether the Democrat wins the general election. Every Democratic nominee is not just deemed "liberal," but "the most extreme liberal I can imagine" and "far outside the mainstream" -- despite having garnered tens of millions of votes by so-called Americans. Of course, the "fringe" is defined as "anyone who voted for this candidate" and the mainstream as anyone who didn't.
Mind you, Democrats attempt (flailingly) to do the same to the Republican nominee."
Well put itchy. Approximately 10% of any analysis/discussion/blog/news gets to the meat of where a candidate stands on issues or ideology. The rest of the time is spent wading through the labeling and repositioning to the fringe. Where would we be without everyong having an agenda? Could it be that Obama isn't really left of Lenin nor McCain a sure clone of GW?
Posted by: Rich | June 18, 2008 2:20 AM