Recall last week how McCain lost his mind when the U.S. Supreme Court said that Guantanamo Bay detainees could not be detained indefinitely without charges and were entitled to ask a court for a hearing where the government would have to show why it was holding them, or that they be released. That fundamental procedure is called a writ of habeas corpus.

Last week, McCain blasted the ruling, disingenuously calling it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Not surprising, this is yet another 180 degree lurch for McCain.

But look at what I found on Lexis/Nexis as I went through some old transcripts from the Sunday shows. It's from a McCain appearance on Meet the Press almost exactly three years ago on this very topic...giving a very different answer:

NBC News Transcripts
June 19, 2005 Sunday
SHOW: Meet the Press 10:00 AM EST NBC

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Guantanamo. In October--excuse me, December of 2003, "John McCain said he is concerned about the failure to move ahead with prisoners' trials at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. ...`These cases have to be disposed of one way or another. After keeping someone two years, a decision should be made.'"

That was a year and a half ago. It's now been three and a half years. Should we close it?

SEN. McCAIN: I don't think necessarily. But I think the important thing is it's not the facility at Guantanamo, it's the adjudication of the cases of the prisoners who have been held there without trial or without any adjudication of their cases. So the frustration is not the fact we have a facility at Guantanamo, although that certainly becomes symbolic. The frustration is, is: What are we going to do with these people?

Now, I know that some of these guys are terrible, terrible killers and the worst kind of scum of humanity. But, one, they deserve to have some adjudication of their cases. And there's a fear that if you release them that they'll go back and fight again against us. And that may have already happened. But balance that against what it's doing to our reputation throughout the world and whether it's enhancing recruiting for people to join al-Qaeda and other organizations and want to do bad things to the United States of America. I think, on balance, the argument has got to be--the weight of evidence has got to be that we've got to adjudicate these people's cases, and that means that if it means releasing some of them, you'll have to release them.

Look, even Adolf Eichmann got a trial. I mean, these--we are signatories to numerous agreements on human rights, against torture, universal declaration on human rights, etc. So that means we have to do something with these people. And I hope we can move that process forward very soon.

Got that? McCain thought that providing these detainees with a real trial was so important that "if it means releasing some of them, you'll have to release them." Now he feigns outrage when the U.S. Supreme Court says that even these scumbags are entitled to know why they are being held, or released.

Mark Nickolas' Blog: McCain in 2005: Gitmo Detainees Deserve Trials Or Should Be Released

Can I count on the right's usual "flip-flopper" response to this?
Or should the usual hypocrisy be expected, and this reversal is ignored...

This is old hat...and many on the right have noticed this flip-flop and believe that he did so to gain points from the conservative base...Most don't believe he's sincere...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

It seems he has done this on several issues.

__________________
Wine is fine, but whisky's quicker....--Ozzy

He finally got smart. The prevailing right wing view is that they are guilty. And because they are guilty they don't really need a fair trial.
Sounds like a communist country when you think about it.

We have picked up innocent people. Tortured them. And then dropped them in foreign countries. When they tried to bring their cases in court the court wouldn't hear their cases because all the evidence is secret. According to our government. What kind of country did Bush leave us? That ain't the America I love. That is a scared, paranoid and backward attitude. In fact I think it is down right un American

I just don't get it...when Kerry flip flops it's unacceptable to the right but when McCain does it,it's political posturing.I guess it just depends on one's party affiliation and a desire to achieve or maintain power.If one flip flopper is as good as another,hell I will just vote for Bob Barr. He may indeed flop but at least he flipped parties!

Go Bob Barr...

__________________
"Destiny must be shaped and not left to mere chance."..Spencer Collins

No...It's NOT alright...

But when looking at the alternative, it's easy to see why there's less anger...

Conservatives would rather deal with an unlikable McCain than a socialist who makes every attempt to destroy our wallet, has an extensive background with domestic terrorists and blatant racists, and wants to turn our country into a nanny state...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd