more Olbermann

[Hemi-Cuda]

on the Military Commisions Act

seems to be a dangerous time for American democracy as of late

[Looger]

"Did it ever occur to you once, that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future President and a "competent tribunal" of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" for… and convene a Military Commission to try… not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?"

good rant but...

to assume george w. bush is the author of all of this is VERY short-sighted.

also there are pinochet-like bits and pieces in this legislation to ensure no further prosecution i have heard - though i haven't read the whole legislation.

[Red Mile Style]

Olbermann for president!

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Looger

to assume george w. bush is the author of all of this is VERY short-sighted.

True, but at the end of the day he is the one who has to sign it. As the sign on Harry Truman's desk said while he was president: The Buck Stops Here.

Every time I hear something else like this, I keep remembering back to post 9/11 and smoething I heard; that OBL wanted the US people to wake up every day in fear like people in the Middle East wake up in fear.

Another thing that was alwas mentioned was the terrorists hated the West's freedom. I think, in the US at least, those same terrorists have much less to hate.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

True, but at the end of the day he is the one who has to sign it. As the sign on Harry Truman's desk said while he was president: The Buck Stops Here.

Every time I hear something else like this, I keep remembering back to post 9/11 and smoething I heard; that OBL wanted the US people to wake up every day in fear like people in the Middle East wake up in fear.

Another thing that was alwas mentioned was the terrorists hated the West's freedom. I think, in the US at least, those same terrorists have much less to hate.

I don't think so. Perhaps in a philosophical sense but I'm of the opinion and one that I think is easily backed up that the HUGE majority of people worry about nothing but putting bread on the table, about how their kids are doing and the next family vacation.

Politicians and policy's and times come and go. I'd put it real low in my list of things to worry about.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

True, but at the end of the day he is the one who has to sign it. As the sign on Harry Truman's desk said while he was president: The Buck Stops Here.

not saying he isn't ultimately responsible for what he signs...

but if people keep focusing on bush as the problem, we are in big trouble, because he will be dropped when he is no longer useful. the forces behind the evisceration of america's legal protections will remain.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

I don't think so. Perhaps in a philosophical sense but I'm of the opinion and one that I think is easily backed up that the HUGE majority of people worry about nothing but putting bread on the table, about how their kids are doing and the next family vacation.

Politicians and policy's and times come and go. I'd put it real low in my list of things to worry about.

I can see that point - more people are worried about the next mortgage payment than terrorism. And while I believe that day-by-day that is probably the case, fear of terrorism seems to have been a hot-button for the past few years.

It seems that much of the politics south of the border since 9/11 has focused on the Republicans portraying themselves as the only party who can protect the nation and other issues were secondary, almost incidental. Day after day in your household you worry about who is taking Billy to soccer tomorrow, but what are you thinking about when you step into the voting booth?


An interesting thing I've been noticing on US election ads I have seen lately. In some of the attack ads it is saying how candidate so-and-so ran a company that relocated X thousand jobs overseas, and he supported Bush 90% of the time. I know Bush isn't popular, but are opposing campaigns being told that being associated with Bush is a point that can be used to attack? I didn't realize things had progressed that far.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

An interesting thing I've been noticing on US election ads I have seen lately. In some of the attack ads it is saying how candidate so-and-so ran a company that relocated X thousand jobs overseas, and he supported Bush 90% of the time. I know Bush isn't popular, but are opposing campaigns being told that being associated with Bush is a point that can be used to attack? I didn't realize things had progressed that far.

i'm no expert on US politics but one thing i've noticed is that democrats like ted kennedy seem to be more protectionist when it comes to jobs shipping overseas, that is one thing they harp on a lot.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Looger

not saying he isn't ultimately responsible for what he signs...

but if people keep focusing on bush as the problem, we are in big trouble, because he will be dropped when he is no longer useful. the forces behind the evisceration of america's legal protections will remain.

Bush is a puppet, I'm with you on that.

Bush as a second term president is a lame duck anyways. This is when he is most dangerous - he can't run for election so he is not accountable to the electorate. As long as he doesn't do anything illegal and get impeached (and his "signing statements" seem seem to cover that), then he can almost do anything he wants.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I can see that point - more people are worried about the next mortgage payment than terrorism. And while I believe that day-by-day that is probably the case, fear of terrorism seems to have been a hot-button for the past few years.

It seems that much of the politics south of the border since 9/11 has focused on the Republicans portraying themselves as the only party who can protect the nation and other issues were secondary, almost incidental. Day after day in your household you worry about who is taking Billy to soccer tomorrow, but what are you thinking about when you step into the voting booth?


An interesting thing I've been noticing on US election ads I have seen lately. In some of the attack ads it is saying how candidate so-and-so ran a company that relocated X thousand jobs overseas, and he supported Bush 90% of the time. I know Bush isn't popular, but are opposing campaigns being told that being associated with Bush is a point that can be used to attack? I didn't realize things had progressed that far.

Only natural I would think for people who wish government was as involved in their lives as little as possible that they do handle the few things you would like to see them responsible for like war.

Does putting in some liberal thinking bozo who says "Hey let's go talk to Osama -- I'm sure he will listen to reason -- make sense? Or does it even matter -- Heck Clinton was trying to blow him up as well. All just a game --whoever does the best paint/smear job wins!!!

[Looger]

they both enacted executive order 199I taking the FBI off of al-quaeda's tail in the US.

when bush re-enacted it he threatened FBI agents with imprisonment!

[mykalberta]

I have watched Olberman (he is the only thing worth watching on CNBC) and have heard him refer to the Enemy Combatant Declaration and how it lessens freedoms in the US for US Citizens.

[
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter" - with "alien" defined in section 948a(3) as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States"
]

I personally love the example of the Japanese detainment, GWB didnt sign a law authorizing the detainment of a segregated group of individials residing in the US.

The fact of the matter is the US Consitituion doesnt protect the freedoms of those who build bombs out of chess sets and shoes only to believe they will get 99 virgins when they die, it protects those who call them selves Americans living in America (whether they be for or against America) (not those who live in a country whose economic power is largely only because of its purposeful depreciation of its own currency so its workers can be paid less so buisness is brought here and spit at the American flag like some on this board).

While I am not 100% up to speed in the bill, I am pretty sure that a US citizen residing in the US cannot be called an Enemy Combatant (there is no current jargon describing it but one would have/hope to assume it doesnt or that the Supreme court (left or right) would shoot that section down). Does that bill not only affect those who are captured in forward combat areas (Iraq, Afghanistan, or more covertly in SE Asia, Europe, Africa, Canada etc).

I am pretty sure the Enemy Combatant legal jargon comes from the way to get around Guantanamo with the UN.

If that is the case I fail to see how the law then violates the rights of US Citizens, if US citizens are captured in FA's they are treaded as Enemy Combatants (they should be shot for treason but we cant do that can we now).

While I agree that there are some disturbing clauses in cased in the Homeland security bill (such as secret warrants, warrants with no cause, media tapping and surveilance etc) the Enemy Combatants section (if I am reading it correctly) doesnt violate the constitution - it may not be in the utopian proper spirit of law but we dont live in a utopia, we live in a world where freedom of expression is attacked by the same group who wants to kill us. We live in a world where people spit and burn one religion but are so afraid of another that if someone publishes cartoons they are thought as racist - you would have to be a backwards savant not to see that.

While I personally agree the US should have never gone into Iraq or even Afghanistan (covert ops, assasiantions, blackmailing other countries would have sufficed) or even be in places like Germany, Saudi Arabia etc - how else would you have handled the 9-11 attacks. The US has taken a proactive stance on the issue rather than a reactionary stance (everyone complains how Iraq is this sticky area for terrorists now - well why is that a bad thing, you are now fighting terrorists with your people who are paid to kill instead of cops, nurses, firefighters who are soley a reactionary/deterent force and not the first line of defence).

Just my thoughts.

MYK

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

While I am not 100% up to speed in the bill, I am pretty sure that a US citizen residing in the US cannot be called an Enemy Combatant (there is no current jargon describing it but one would have/hope to assume it doesnt or that the Supreme court (left or right) would shoot that section down). Does that bill not only affect those who are captured in forward combat areas (Iraq, Afghanistan, or more covertly in SE Asia, Europe, Africa, Canada etc).

The ECD allows anyone, (including citizens of the US living in the US) to be declared unlawful enemy combatants. It then goes on to specify how alien UECs might be tried (military tribunal), but there's no discussion of the rights allowed to citizen UECs. If a US citizen is arrested and held as a UEC, their only recourse is to challenge through the military tribunal system -- the public courts including the court of appeals have no jurisdiction over the matter.

[JohnnyFlame]

I'm firmly in the camp that wonders who is pulling the strings with this terrorist thing. Not to the point of it being a conspiracy but just that it sure seems to lineup for the interests of those who support the guys in power.

But then also I wonder if they want to win/take out this scourge then how do they go about it.

You have countries supporting terrorists. You have terrorists hiding amongst civilians and fighting from those spots or using relgious holy sites as their cover. You have the bombing of civilians etc.

It comes down to when you have an enemy who dosen't play by the established rules then what do you do?

We like to think that as democracies we are above all that but do try and remember that during the Second World War the Allies just kept upping the ante including carpet bombing(designed to kill civilians) and fire bombing Dresden(designed to kill civilians) right up and including dropping the big one on them(designed to kill civilians).

A little drastic to take those kinds of actions today but how could they up the ante.

1. You get caught and a military tribunal judges ya --toast!!!
2. They could go back to free season on pickin guys off -- see ya KIMBO!!!
3. Take the gloves off when they know there are guys who are actively involved in terrorism or promoting it but they don't have enough proof for a trial -- they just dissapear or end up deported or in front of one of those military tribunals.

I'm sure there would be usual holier than thou types who would say that you can't do that in a democracy -- not that it hasn't been done before or even continues to be done but don't let the facts get in the way.

Or do you go with the real cynical move -- get the rival Muslim factions fighting against each other -- promote a Syrian/Iranian battle and sell arms to both sides.

All look like viable stategems and whether they are morally reprehensible is a matter of debate.

Personally I think you try and avoid war making every possible overture to the other side and then some. BUT if it comes down to the decision to fight then it's all out no holds barred.

IF this was a conventional war nobody would think twice about military tribunals -- So is this a war or just a skirmish?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Just a few thoughts on some parts of your statement here:

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I personally love the example of the Japanese detainment, GWB didnt sign a law authorizing the detainment of a segregated group of individials residing in the US.

In effect, Bush has through executive applications of authority, declared that he has the power to decide who has the right not to be detained, and who is entitled to habeas corpus. The US government can decide to wiretap the phones of ANYONE--citizen or not, who they deem to be connected to "terrorism." They can arrest anyone they want to, and the authority to decide on that person's status as an enemy combatant resides within handpicked military tribunals.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The fact of the matter is the US Consitituion doesnt protect the freedoms of those who build bombs out of chess sets and shoes only to believe they will get 99 virgins when they die, it protects those who call them selves Americans living in America (whether they be for or against America)

This is a puzzling statement. Are you implying that the constitution itself advocates for two tiers of human rights? Those for citizens and non-citizens? That's pretty clearly not what the document says, and has not been the interpretation of the courts at least since the Dred Scott decision. Either way, if that's how the Bush White House interprets the constitution, then the argument that they have become the fascists that they're fighting is even more urgent. You can't just apply human rights selectively. They apply universally or not at all.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

While I am not 100% up to speed in the bill, I am pretty sure that a US citizen residing in the US cannot be called an Enemy Combatant

This is simply untrue. US citizens have been called Enemy combatants, and have been held in secret prisons. One (John Walker Lindh) was tried in U.S. courts, but the Justice Department insisted that they did this as their choice, not because they were required to. In other words, they reserved their right, even in the Lindh case, to try him wherever they felt like it. As it stands now, the government can basically decide that whoever they want is an "unlawful combatant"--and the review of this decision is done by military commissions that are handpicked by the government. If that's judicial oversight, then I'm William Shatner.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I am pretty sure the Enemy Combatant legal jargon comes from the way to get around Guantanamo with the UN.

And that's precisely why it's horrible. Those rules exist for a reason--to circumvent them with semantics so that you can do mock-drownings, semi-starvations and psychological abuse is about as morally empty as you can get. Far worse than debating the meaning of IS.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

If that is the case I fail to see how the law then violates the rights of US Citizens, if US citizens are captured in FA's they are treaded as Enemy Combatants (they should be shot for treason but we cant do that can we now).

Actually, you can. U.S. law still provides for the death penalty for treason. That's really not the issue here so much as the due process for deciding who's a traitor. The main difference between democracy and dictatorship is oversight, checks on executive power, and due process. Do away with these, and you do away with that "America" that was attacked in the first place.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

we dont live in a utopia, we live in a world where freedom of expression is attacked by the same group who wants to kill us. We live in a world where people spit and burn one religion but are so afraid of another that if someone publishes cartoons they are thought as racist

All the more reason to stand up for the values of democracy and freedom. We don't have to become like the terrorists in order to defeat them. If democracy and freedom are indeed better systems, then we should fight to protect them, not give them up at the first sign of danger.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The US has taken a proactive stance on the issue rather than a reactionary stance (everyone complains how Iraq is this sticky area for terrorists now - well why is that a bad thing, you are now fighting terrorists with your people who are paid to kill instead of cops, nurses, firefighters who are soley a reactionary/deterent force and not the first line of defence).

I'll never understand this argument. Iraq, by everyone's admission had nothing to do with 9/11. How is attacking Iraq a "proactive stance" on fighting terrorism? And while it's comforting to imagine that by fighting th war on terror there rather than here we're saving lives, we have to remember that one life is not inherently worth more than another. If by killing 100,000 people in Iraq we can save 25,000 people in the U.S., that's not a victory. At least not where I learned to do math.

[Crazy Flamer]

While I think its true that here in Canada we don't worry about terrorism that much, I have a feeling that isn't the case in the US. Terrorism is all you hear about. Its on the news every day.

And the funny thing is, it seems to me that it isn't even the terrorists that feed this fear, its the American government itself. Its like Osama Bin Laden knew he would only have to attack once, and the government would take care of the rest. If he wanted people in the US to wake up everyday in fear as they do in the Middle East, he is well on his way to getting his wish. Who knew his biggest proponent in reaching this goal would be Bush...

[JiriHrdina]

Bump, another good commentary from Olbermann commenting on the botched John Kerry comment, Michael J. Fox and other things.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRgN1mdLbk4

[JohnnyFlame]

I always put guys like this who are so over the top and biased to the hilt more in the comedy section than the commentary section. I have watched/listened to Limbaugh and think he is funny. Funny as in good for a laugh.

I think the whole Bush thing is ridicously overblown. I can hardly remember a time in my life where there wasn't some war going on and some loonies doing this and that and people squawking how it was the end of democracy. Fart I remember the uproar during the FLQ crisis and all the over the top dumb crap we had to listen to then. Life amazinly went on, some new dufus took over in every country, some new loonies took over from the old ones.

NOT worth getting worked up over --- and certainly NOT worth taking guys like this for anything other than a laugh!!!!

[Bobblehead]

I looked up Olbermann's ratings the other day. O'Reilly is still the overwhelming leader in that timeslot (among the newschannels) and Olbermann has less than 1/2 as many viewers. But Olbermann's numbers jumped from the previous ratings period. link

Leading the charge was "Countdown With Keith Olbermann," which jumped 67% in viewership and 61% in the adults 25-54 demographic compared with October 2005.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

I always put guys like this who are so over the top and biased to the hilt more in the comedy section than the commentary section. I have watched/listened to Limbaugh and think he is funny. Funny as in good for a laugh.

I think the whole Bush thing is ridicously overblown. I can hardly remember a time in my life where there wasn't some war going on and some loonies doing this and that and people squawking how it was the end of democracy. Fart I remember the uproar during the FLQ crisis and all the over the top dumb crap we had to listen to then. Life amazinly went on, some new dufus took over in every country, some new loonies took over from the old ones.

NOT worth getting worked up over --- and certainly NOT worth taking guys like this for anything other than a laugh!!!!

Fair enough. Care to comment on what exactly was so funny though?