The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Customer Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out

  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Times News Services
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Алекс Овечкин
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
    • Donne Travels
    • Lives Common
    • National Pastime
    • Politics 101
    • Stories of Faith
    • Civil War
    • Middle - America
    • Chicago Blue State
    • Zadzooks
  • Marketplace
    • Autos
    • Jobs
    • Real Estate
    • Classifieds
    • Shopping
    • Dining Out
    • Education
    • TWT Store
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Inside the Beltway
    • Inside the Story
Home > News > Editor Favorites

War position shapes lawmakers' view of ruling

By Ben Conery THE WASHINGTON TIMES | Friday, June 13, 2008

  • Bookmark and Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Print
  • [-][+] Font Size
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Tell a Friend
  • Got a Question?
  • You Report
  • Click-2-Listen

NEWS ANALYSIS:

Whether politicians considered Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay Naval Base detainees a victory for terrorists or for the Constitution was largely determined by their substantive stance on the war in Iraq.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican, said the decision will "hamper the ability to prevent a massive murder of our civilians."

"This is a setback for those who have made battling the war on terrorism their first priority," said Mr. Rohrabacher, a supporter of the war since the earliest post-Sept. 11 debates on overthrowing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

But Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, called the ruling "a stunning repudiation of the hubris and legal contortions of the Bush administration."

"The Supreme Court has reaffirmed what we are all taught from grammar school on: that the United States is a nation of laws and that our Constitution and Bill of Rights must be respected," said Mr. Markey, who has voted against funding the war and favors an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

The reactions of both parties' presumed presidential nominees also mirrored their general stances on the Iraq war.

Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat, said the decision "ensures we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values."

"This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law and rejecting the false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus," he said in a statement on his campaign site. Mr. Obama has emphasized repeatedly on the campaign stump that he opposed to war, unlike many congressional Democrats, even before it began.

Campaigning in Boston, Sen. John McCain told reporters he worries about giving habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants, but the former Vietnam War prisoner also emphasized his longstanding opposition to torture, saying he supports closing the detention center at Guantanamo.

Continue reading 12Next

[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Bookmark and Share

Comments

Read Comments

Post your comment:

Please login or register to post a comment

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?

Advertisement

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. EXCLUSIVE: Career diplomats protest Obama appointments
  2. EDITORIAL: Passing unread laws
  3. CIA chief urged to 'correct' record
  4. EDITORIAL: Sotomayor's secret files

Most Shared

  1. EXCLUSIVE: Career diplomats protest Obama appointments
  2. EDITORIAL: Passing unread laws
  3. YON: Girl with no future
  4. PRUDEN: Ministry of Apology would cure all ills
  5. HOLMES: Deja vu on dictators, double standards
  6. Bloated deficits endanger dollar's global status
  7. Israeli know-how
  8. EDITORIAL: The fate of FedEx
  9. Obama agenda stalls on Capitol Hill
  10. EDITORIAL: Killing Cap & Trade

Most Commented

  1. Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind
  2. WH communications director leaving
  3. Freddie Mac acting CFO found dead
  4. Kerry aims to rescue newspapers
  5. Fidel Castro: Obama 'misinterpreted' words
  6. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  7. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  8. Gibbs: Pay no attention to what Rahm said
  9. Politics' Talking Heads Highlight Speaker Series
  10. Fleecing Mike Ditka

Related Stories

EDITORIAL: Sotomayor's secret files

NRA raises concerns over Sotomayor

EDITORIAL: Sotomayor plays the race card

Equality on trial

Washington in 5 minutes

Sotomayor advised critics of Bork

Inside Politics

Ruling reverses Sotomayor in firefighter case

Justices won't hear appeal of 9/11 families

Reversal unlikely to stymie Sotomayor pick

Poll

Will you be traveling this 4th of July weekend?

Market Data

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.