Habeas Corpus, R.I.P.

[viscousmemories]

[quiet bear]

Leif Erricson Day?

what the....

[JackDog]

As distressing as this law is, what's even more distressing is how many Democrats in the House and Senate voted for it....and as you hear in that piece, many of our lawmakers voted on the bill without even reading it.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

Keith Olbermann is the MAN.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by quiet bear

Leif Erricson Day?

Ya.

Sure.

Youbetcha.

[yguy]

The thread icon is certainly well chosen if it refers to Olbermann's credibility.

[D. Scarlatti]

How would you know? You're probably watching Bill O'Lielly during Olbermann's time slot.

[Javaman]

Originally Posted by yguy

The thread icon is certainly well chosen if it refers to Olbermann's credibility.

What, when he speaks about losing the things that make this country great or something else?

Here's my fear: I am a veteran and I still work for the military. I will be putting myself in harm's way again in a few weeks by traveling to a war zone to perform much-needed work to protect our troops involved in this 'war on terror'. It is not the first time that I have done so. My wife, however, is not a US citizen. She and I will be visiting her family early next year and, though I know of nothing she's ever done wrong, what if she's detained when we arrive back in the US? What if I come home one day and she's simply gone because she pissed off a customer who then called Homeland Security out of spite? Is it right to send her to a jail in New Jersey for years without charge and then deport her without ever letting me know?

[Watser?]

November 16, 2006

Washington- Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), an outspoken opponent of the Military Commission Act of 2006, today introduced legislation which would amend existing law in order to have an effective process for bringing terrorists to justice. This is currently not the case under the Military Commission Act, which will be the subject of endless legal challenges. As important, the bill would also seek to ensure that U.S. servicemen and women are afforded the maximum protection of a strong international legal framework guaranteed by respect for such provisions as the Geneva Conventions and other international standards, and to restore America’s moral authority as the leader in the world in advancing the rule of law.
“I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this country from terrorists,” Sen. Dodd said. “But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. It’s clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”
The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act:

* Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees
* Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants
* Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials
* Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable
* Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions
* Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight
* Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions

“We in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror,” Dodd said.

link

[Adam]

Damn, that was hilarious. Well...scary and enraging, but I already knew the scary parts, and the presentation was hilarious.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Javaman

What, when he speaks about losing the things that make this country great or something else?

The whole segment is based on a fundamental misconception which is evidenced when Olbermann plays a quip of Bush saying his "most solemn job" is protecting the nation's security, then follows with a clip of him taking his oath of office - the implication being that the first is somehow irrelevant in light of the second, when in fact the first flows naturally from and is perfectly consistent with the second.

Here's my fear: I am a veteran and I still work for the military. I will be putting myself in harm's way again in a few weeks by traveling to a war zone to perform much-needed work to protect our troops involved in this 'war on terror'. It is not the first time that I have done so.

Thank you for your service.

My wife, however, is not a US citizen. She and I will be visiting her family early next year and, though I know of nothing she's ever done wrong, what if she's detained when we arrive back in the US? What if I come home one day and she's simply gone because she pissed off a customer who then called Homeland Security out of spite? Is it right to send her to a jail in New Jersey for years without charge and then deport her without ever letting me know?

Assuming such an injustice even lies within the realm of possibility, the unpleasant fact is that the CIC would be in violation of his oath of office were he to pass up the opportunity to detain terrorists who have the motive and ability to murder thousands for fear of falsely incarcerating a handful.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by yguy

The whole segment is based on a fundamental misconception which is evidenced when Olbermann plays a quip of Bush saying his "most solemn job" is protecting the nation's security, then follows with a clip of him taking his oath of office - the implication being that the first is somehow irrelevant in light of the second, when in fact the first flows naturally from and is perfectly consistent with the second.

Olbermann's clip was well-positioned. Carrying out the second does not mean destroying the key element (Constitution) of the first. You cannot protect something by eliminating it.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

And the fact that the constitutionally-specified oath deliberately chose the wording "defend the Constitution of the United States" instead of "defend the United States" clearly tells where Dubya's obligations are supposed to be.

Assuming such an injustice even lies within the realm of possibility,

It does. It is going on right now. The "no fly" list has so many mistaken entries, obviously bad entries, and purely political entries on it that the chance of someone getting wrongfully detained has moved from the theoretical to the realm of routine occurrence.

the unpleasant fact is that the CIC would be in violation of his oath of office were he to pass up the opportunity to detain terrorists who have the motive and ability to murder thousands for fear of falsely incarcerating a handful.

Detaining his wife is not an "opportunity to detain terrorists". But because Dubya the Lame Duck wants to suspend habeas corpus, Javaman's wife may never be able to make that point to her detainers. If they get it wrong, there's no legal way to force them to correct their mistake.

[D. Scarlatti]

Details, details. Just defer to yguy's "credibility" and be quiet.