Keith Olbermann: Bush destroys Habeas Corpus

[Naethyn]

Keith Olbermann: Bush destroys Habeas Corpus and sends USA to dark ages

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... eas+corpus

Olbermann for pres!

[Evermore]

why cant it be 2008 already so we can get rid of this fucktard president

[Evermore]

Published on Thursday, September 28, 2006 by TruthDig
Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)
With a smug stroke of his pen, President Bush is set to wipe out a safeguard against illegal imprisonment that has endured as a cornerstone of legal justice since the Magna Carta.

by Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas - Oh dear. I’m sure he didn’t mean it. In Illinois’ Sixth Congressional District, long represented by Henry Hyde, Republican candidate Peter Roskam accused his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth, of planning to “cut and run” on Iraq.

Duckworth is a former Army major and chopper pilot who lost both legs in Iraq after her helicopter got hit by an RPG. “I just could not believe he would say that to me,” said Duckworth, who walks on artificial legs and uses a cane. Every election cycle produces some wincers, but how do you apologize for that one?

The legislative equivalent of that remark is the detainee bill now being passed by Congress. Beloveds, this is so much worse than even that pathetic deal reached last Thursday between the White House and Republican Sens. John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The White House has since reinserted a number of “technical fixes” that were the point of the putative “compromise.” It leaves the president with the power to decide who is an enemy combatant.

This bill is not a national security issue—this is about torturing helpless human beings without any proof they are our enemies. Perhaps this could be considered if we knew the administration would use the power with enormous care and thoughtfulness. But of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place.

Death by torture by Americans was first reported in 2003 in a New York Times article by Carlotta Gall. The military had announced the prisoner died of a heart attack, but when Gall saw the death certificate, written in English and issued by the military, it said the cause of death was homicide. The “heart attack” came after he had been beaten so often on this legs that they had “basically been pulpified,” according to the coroner.

The story of why and how it took the Times so long to print this information is in the current edition of the Columbia Journalism Review. The press in general has been late and slow in reporting torture, so very few Americans have any idea how far it has spread. As is often true in hierarchical, top-down institutions, the orders get passed on in what I call the downward communications exaggeration spiral.

For example, on a newspaper, a top editor may remark casually, “Let’s give the new mayor a chance to see what he can do before we start attacking him.”

This gets passed on as “Don’t touch the mayor unless he really screws up.”

And it ultimately arrives at the reporter level as “We can’t say anything negative about the mayor.”

The version of the detainee bill now in the Senate not only undoes much of the McCain-Warner-Graham work, but it is actually much worse than the administration’s first proposal. In one change, the original compromise language said a suspect had the right to “examine and respond to” all evidence used against him. The three senators said the clause was necessary to avoid secret trials. The bill has now dropped the word “examine” and left only “respond to.”

In another change, a clause said that evidence obtained outside the United States could be admitted in court even if it had been gathered without a search warrant. But the bill now drops the words “outside the United States,” which means prosecutors can ignore American legal standards on warrants.

The bill also expands the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant to cover anyone who has “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” Quick, define “purposefully and materially.” One person has already been charged with aiding terrorists because he sold a satellite TV package that includes the Hezbollah network.

The bill simply removes a suspect’s right to challenge his detention in court. This is a rule of law that goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215. That pretty much leaves the barn door open.

As Vladimir Bukovsky, the Soviet dissident, wrote, an intelligence service free to torture soon “degenerates into a playground for sadists.” But not unbridled sadism—you will be relieved that the compromise took out the words permitting interrogation involving “severe pain” and substituted “serious pain,” which is defined as “bodily injury that involves extreme physical pain.”

In July 2003, George Bush said in a speech: “The United States is committed to worldwide elimination of torture, and we are leading this fight by example. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes, whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit.”

Fellow citizens, this bill throws out legal and moral restraints as the president deems it necessary—these are fundamental principles of basic decency, as well as law.

I’d like those supporting this evil bill to spare me one affliction: Do not, please, pretend to be shocked by the consequences of this legislation. And do not pretend to be shocked when the world begins comparing us to the Nazis.

just FYI

[Eziekial]

If you're really bent about this bill, pull the roll call for it and see who voted for it in Congress.

[Arlos]

As I said before, I really hope we have a Democratic majority in both houses, and a democratic president in 2008 (or a 2/3 democratic majority in both houses to allow overriding a veto) so that we can get rid of this legislation. That may not be necessary, however, as I can't imagine the Supreme Court allowing a law to stand that eliminates Habeus Corpus. So, I have a sneaking suspicion this bill is going to get ruled unconstitutional as well by the SCOTUS, and will need to be re-done. With any luck, we'll have a Democratic majority in Congress by that point, or at least in one of the houses, and so this travesty of a "law" gets consigned to the dustbin of history.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

I've bolded what I see as the pertinent points on the issue. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of United States citizens, not forien entities, which is why we have military tribunals and are not running these people through our criminal justice system. I have no concerns with this act based on aliens or forien combatants. On this basis Olbermann is putting a lot of spin on the issues and blowing things out of proportion. Habeas Corpus is not suspended across the board for American citizens as he seems to suggest.

I do however take issue and see a problem with this Act in that it does not distinquish between citizens and forieners in the determination and treatment of declared or investigated "enemy combatants". There is great cause for concern here, in that under this act the rights of a citizen of this country could be trampled on if they are deemed as a enemy combatant or suspected enemy combatant.

Olbernann doesn't annoy me because of his critisizim of this act, but the way in which he does so. In a zealous effort to bash the President, he misrepresented the real problem, and unfortunatly polarizes the argument. People should take exception with parts of this Act, but I feel complete rejection or acceptance (the polaraized views) are both wrong. Like so many issues, this to will be polaraized to a right and left view when the real answer is somewhere in the middle. Fuck the RNC and the DNC, they are both to busy jockying for power to do what is in the best interest of the country and it's people.

[Harrison]

Fuck the RNC and the DNC, they are both to busy jockying for power to do what is in the best interest of the country and it's people.

Holy shit! Someone gets it!

[Jay]

The party system and electoral college are huge cockblocks in the voting system

[Arlos]

Leuyen, the problem is, based on that same legislation, the President has unilateral power to declare who is and is not a "enemy combatant" or who "gave material aid to terrorists".

Also, it doesn't matter if they're aliens or not, the Constitution sets forth very specific guidelines as to when it is permissible to EVER suspend the writ, period, and it makes no mention of hairsplitting as to who it is being suspended for. Specifically, the country either has to be in a state of Rebellion (which was Lincoln's justification when he did it) or in imminent danger of invasion by a foreign power. Neither one of those cases applies today.

Also, I think if you look carefully at the Constitution, it doesn't say that it only applies to citizens of the US. Indeed, I don't believe much of ANY of our criminal laws say any such thing in general. By the fact that these persons have been taken into custody by the US, they are now subject to US laws, which means the full panoply of laws, INCLUDING the Constitution. Look at how other aliens are treated that are in the US. Are they exempt from any US laws? Are police or other law enforcement agencies exempt from any of their rules with regards to arrests, searches & prosecution? No way in hell.

As such, why should other aliens, whose potential sole discriminant factor is that the President declared them to be an "enemy combatant", thus be outside the law, when that happens in NO other cases dealing with aliens in US custody?

I repeat, it is a complete travesty of a law, and I fervently hope the SCOTUS slaps it down hardcore and rapidly, as it richly deserves.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

Leuyen, the problem is, based on that same legislation, the President has unilateral power to declare who is and is not a "enemy combatant" or who "gave material aid to terrorists".

Which is exactly the problem I have with the act. No strike that I think it's worse then what you cite. The act not only suspends rights to a citizen who is labeled an enemy combatant, but it also suspends rights for a citizen suspected of such until such time as a determination is made. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on it, but it is the propensity of this act to possibly be used to get around a citizens rights that I have a problem with.

Also, it doesn't matter if they're aliens or not, the Constitution sets forth very specific guidelines as to when it is permissible to EVER suspend the writ, period, and it makes no mention of hairsplitting as to who it is being suspended for. Specifically, the country either has to be in a state of Rebellion (which was Lincoln's justification when he did it) or in imminent danger of invasion by a foreign power. Neither one of those cases applies today.

Also, I think if you look carefully at the Constitution, it doesn't say that it only applies to citizens of the US. Indeed, I don't believe much of ANY of our criminal laws say any such thing in general. By the fact that these persons have been taken into custody by the US, they are now subject to US laws, which means the full panoply of laws, INCLUDING the Constitution. Look at how other aliens are treated that are in the US. Are they exempt from any US laws? Are police or other law enforcement agencies exempt from any of their rules with regards to arrests, searches & prosecution? No way in hell.

As such, why should other aliens, whose potential sole discriminant factor is that the President declared them to be an "enemy combatant", thus be outside the law, when that happens in NO other cases dealing with aliens in US custody?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Preamble sets the scope of our constitution, the intent to establish a form of government and protect the rights of the people of the United States. It doesn't address the rights of foreign peoples or entitles, because that is beyond the scope of intent. All further references to "the people" including those in the Bill of Rights refer to the people given in the scope of the document that being "We the people of the United States". The suspension of Habeas Corpus for foreign peoples is not a constitutional issue. The fact that the Act makes no provisions for nor separates a citizen of the United States from a foreign national, with the provisions for determining who is an enemy combatant and how they are dealt with however is a constitutional issue, and on that basis I fully agree with your last statement.

I repeat, it is a complete travesty of a law, and I fervently hope the SCOTUS slaps it down hardcore and rapidly, as it richly deserves.

-Arlos