Olbermann: the beginning of the end of America

Naethyn · Post by **Naethyn** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:28 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs

I know I know this is like the 3rd or 4th video of olbermann I've posted but I really think what he says is spot on.

kiral · Post by **kiral** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:26 am

how can you like what that lamer has to say, though im not a citizen of the states, I find what he says to be a load of crap.

Spazz · Post by **Spazz** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:35 am

Oh look a canadien

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:15 am

no, he's a quebecer

ClakarEQ · Post by **ClakarEQ** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:28 am

In a way what I "hear" is that old phrase I think Phlegm or Arlos have helped me repeat.

Something like, they took my neighbor because they thought he was doing something bad, then they took my friend cause they thought he was doing bad, all the time I wasn't worried becuase I hadn't done anything wrong and if they came for me people would stand behind me, but then when they came for me, no-one was here to stand behind me. This is hardly close the phrase I'm trying to recall but hopefully you can follow along :p

Phlegm · Post by **Phlegm** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:54 am

ClakarEQ wrote:In a way what I "hear" is that old phrase I think Phlegm or Arlos have helped me repeat.

Something like, they took my neighbor because they thought he was doing something bad, then they took my friend cause they thought he was doing bad, all the time I wasn't worried becuase I hadn't done anything wrong and if they came for me people would stand behind me, but then when they came for me, no-one was here to stand behind me. This is hardly close the phrase I'm trying to recall but hopefully you can follow along :p

Martin Niemoller wrote:They came for the communists, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a communist;
They came for the socialists, and I did not speak up because I was not a socialist;
They came for the union leaders, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a union leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

Post by **Arlos** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:02 pm

I think he makes some very powerful points. Right now the president technically has the ability to declare anyone, yes, *ANYONE* an "Enemy Combatant" for *ANY* reason, and spirit them away to secret CIA prisons where they can be tortured at the whim of their captors, and they would have NO legal right to challenge their incarceration, and nor would ANYONE ELSE.

The changes wrought in that bill are terrifying. I hope, fervently, that the SCOTUS strikes it down.

Once again, I am drawn to some of the words of arguably our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, when he wrote in 1855:

Abraham Lincoln wrote:As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy

Just replace "negroes" with "muslims" and "Know Nothings" with "Neocons" and the uncanny parallels to today are staggering and obvious to all, and terrifying in their implications. I firmly agree with his final sentance in there as well. Nothing stinks quite so much as hyprocrisy.

-Arlos

Phlegm · Post by **Phlegm** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:05 pm

What exactly is a "neocon"?

Post by **Arlos** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:09 pm

Cheney, Wolfowitz, and that whole crew. Basically, the types that were part of PNAC, etc. Basically, the whole drivers of the war with Iraq, the incorporation of the religious right into politics, etc.

-Arlos

Post by **Lueyen** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:16 pm

Phlegm wrote:What exactly is a "neocon"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon

Gargamellow · Post by **Gargamellow** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:32 pm

This kind of stuff makes me cry.

Post by **Lueyen** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:39 pm

arlos wrote:I think he makes some very powerful points. Right now the president technically has the ability to declare anyone, yes, *ANYONE* an "Enemy Combatant" for *ANY* reason, and spirit them away to secret CIA prisons where they can be tortured at the whim of their captors, and they would have NO legal right to challenge their incarceration, and nor would ANYONE ELSE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

About part way down:

Applicability to U.S. Citizens

The text of the law states that it's "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their detention. [8] While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [9]

I looked up Levy's statement regarding the act:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/10/02/does-the-military-commission-act-apply-to-us-citizens/

My conclusion: A citizen may be detained (subject to habeas challenge), but not tried, under the MCA.

After looking at all this I reread the clause Levy cites for his reasoning, and realized I misinterpreted the section. I question if Olbermann did the same before his rant in the previous thread. Regardless if it was an unintentional oversight or an intentional attempt to stir the pot, he was wrong in regards to habeas corpus being denied to civilians.

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.

Denying habeas corpus only applies to aliens, not to civilians charged as enemy combatants.

I guess I'll have to pour over the whole thing this weekend to decide if I feel it really does goes so far as to endanger the civil liberties of civilians.

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:53 pm

doesn't the fact that it's even remotely questionable scare the shit out you?

Post by **Lueyen** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:49 pm

Tikker wrote:doesn't the fact that it's even remotely questionable scare the shit out you?

Of course it does otherwise I wouldn't plan to read what is as I recall 89 some pages.

Post by **Arlos** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:05 pm

I don't care if it only applies to aliens or not. Our justice system should be universal, no matter what, and equally apply to all persons, regardless of origin, that are brought under the system.

Show me where (outside of immigration law, obviously), a legal alien is treated ANY differently under US law than a citizen. Are police required to respect the Miranda rights for legal aliens, as an example? Why yes, they are. In no other way does the law recognize a difference between citizens and non-citizens, save for the potential to deport an alien should they commit certain crimes (but generally they aren't, even then). If a British citizen is here under a legal visa and robs a bank, they will do time in a US prison in the vast majority of cases, the same as a US citizen would.

The reason this is so dangerous is you are establishing a precedent for denying habeus corpus to SOME identifiable group. Today it is "enemy combatants." Who is to say it could not be expanded to additional groups in the future? THAT is the concern. We get used to "Enemy Combatants" being denied the right, it becomes MUCH easier to select another group. Then another... and eventually another... small step by small step.

That is a road we CANNOT walk down; indeed it is a road we MUST not walk down. Thus my adamant refusal to accept even taking the first STEP down that road. It cannot be allowed, and must be stopped. Period. Nothing less than our status as a free society depends upon it.

-Arlos

Post by **Lueyen** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:46 am

Legal aliens unlike citizens, do not have the right to vote. In some states they are not elligible for the same welfare or government assisted health programs as citizens. Legal aliens are not technically protected by the same civil liberties US citizens have, although they are by custom extended the civil protections of the Bill of Rights. State to state there are specific statutes that address legal and illegal aliens alike, these sorts of laws would not and could not exist if our justice system was universal.

Of course when you are talking about Miranda rights you are talking domestic penal codes and court systems and not international military tribunals for which there are a separate set of laws and procedures.

I stated in a previous thread that I had no concerns with this act in regards to aliens, that statement isn't entirely accurate. I have no concerns with the constitutional validity of the act in regards to aliens. Although admittedly my inital primary concern was with the application to citizens of this country, part of the reason I wan't to fully read and disect it is interest and concern with the treatment of aliens especially in regards to interogation. I especially want to pay close attention to parts regarding treatment and torture because while I feel that the rules of the Geneva conventions are to vauge when it comes to "unlawful" combatants. That doesn't mean I want to see interogators given open ended freedom to do whatever they want to get information. I'm hoping there are very stringent guideliness which are very clear, and not subject to interpretation that is reached via a concencus between two entities.

Gargamellow · Post by **Gargamellow** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:35 pm

This is what I would normally consider bad jounralism. Bad journalism because it is full of personal opinions. However, the narratives that he writes leave me laughing.

Post by **Lueyen** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:33 pm

Gargamellow wrote:This is what I would normally consider bad jounralism. Bad journalism because it is full of personal opinions. However, the narratives that he writes leave me laughing.

In all fairness this is a message board, not a journalistic publication. People discuss issues here, not simply report events so there will be by nature opinions with facts supporting those mixed in. That being said I'm not sure if you are talking about the post Arlos made or my own, but I don't see either of us trying to portray our opinions on the issue as fact. I'm glad you find it entertaining though.

Post by **Tossica** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:50 pm

She is talking about the original subject matter.

Post by **Lueyen** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:13 pm

Tossica wrote:She is talking about the original subject matter.

Ah I didn't think that was the case due her posting previously in this thread that the stuff made her cry. Laughing to tears?

Gargamellow · Post by **Gargamellow** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 6:16 pm

My original post was me being sad about people dying. My second post was after the second time I watched the video and was my true opinion of it.

I have taken a lot of writing classes, including a couple in journalism. When one reports the news, one must stick to the facts. Opinion turns it instantly to propoganda and thereby making it fiction.

Post by **Arlos** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 6:24 pm

That wasn't a "news report", it was an "Op Ed" piece, just a video version rather than one in print in a newspaper. It is seperate and apart from the news reporting that he does on his show. The fact that it IS his opinion doesn't negate the truth of what he's saying, however.

-Arlos

Post by **Lueyen** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:26 pm

arlos wrote:The fact that it IS his opinion doesn't negate the truth of what he's saying, however.

Nope, the facts do.

Gargamellow · Post by **Gargamellow** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:38 am

It is actually more a narrative. If he were in the newspaper, it would be called a column and his picture would be next to it.

I think it sucks when people name-call and speak about politics. I think name-calling should be left out of adult discussion.

I never said I don't like the guy, though.

Fuck everyone. I am voting for Oprah.

Post by **Lueyen** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 1:28 am

Well after reading the entire Military Commissions act, I've come to the conclusion that Keith Olbermann either failed miserably to research his subject matter, or is intentionally trying to mislead people.

Rather then starting a point by point discourse refuting his assertions, for those that do not agree, I'll simply encourage you to read the Act and compare it to the historical acts Olbermann trys to draw a parallel to, the Act in PDF format is only 38 pages, and appears quite a bit larger in some of the html formats I've seen. Although it is (as is the case with most legal documents) definitely not and epitome of edge of your seat entertainment I will caution not to skim the especially dry parts regarding procedure of tribunals as this is where I found at least one aspect of the act that I consider a questionable process in terms of fairness.