Olbermann's Special Comment on GOP Fearmongering

[Tock]

Olbermann's Special Comment on GOP Fearmongering

http://youtube.com/watch?v=c6LCce8IUpE

Sounding pretty angry, too . . .


Here are the Republican ads Olbermann references:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub_eCwSRQWY&NR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu7SYUwMrJw&NR


Olbermann (October 5th) on Bush's lies
Part 1 of 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4oDR...elated&search=
Part 2 of 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R07Oa...elated&search=





Republican campaign secrets revealed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZZV9...elated&search=





Olbermanns Special Comment On The Death of Habeas Corpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hutR9...elated&search=
Right now, if you are pulled off the street tomorrow and accused of being an illegal alien or terrorist, your right to Habeas Corpus, thanks to President Bush, is gone. You do not have the right to appear before a court to tell your side of the story. They can ship you a foreign prison, torture you, and break you. They can do this to you just because they don't like you, and your rights are gone.
Scary.
Gotta have Habeas Corpus rights for everyone restored.
And more on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igycX...elated&search=
and one fellow's response to George Bush removing your right to Habeas Corpus -- yes, if someone shows up on your doorstop with a paper signed by Bush saying that you are an enemy combatant, they can take you away, and deny you your day in court for as long as they want. Then they can torture you up to the point where your internal organs fail.
What do you think of that?

[Logan13]

Right now, if you are pulled off the street tomorrow and accused of being an illegal alien or terrorist, your right to Habeas Corpus, thanks to President Bush, is gone. You do not have the right to appear before a court to tell your side of the story. They can ship you a foreign prison, torture you, and break you. They can do this to you just because they don't like you, and your rights are gone.
Scary.
Gotta have Habeas Corpus rights for everyone restored.
And more on this:
What do you think of that?

Talk about fear-mongering........
You need to check your facts before you go on looking dumb. All US citizens get their day in court, as required by law. Treason is still litigated in the Federal Courts. Non-US foreign combatants(as well as our own soldiers), are subject to U.S. military tribunal, just like we had in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. You need to learn the difference between criminal and military law. Illegals still have a right to Habeas Corpus as they are accused of criminal acts, and then sent back to mexico. The next day they come back and break our laws again. Foreign combatants are subject to military law as they are accused of acts of war. Funny thing though, these "foreign combatants" would have you killed in their country of origin just for being gay, and yet here you are, fighting for rights that they are not entitled to. Please attempt to know what you are talking about before posting your blind, liberal, regurgitated garbage. The answers are out there Tock, but you must look for them. Quit relying on these websites to form your arguments for you, the truth is usually a mixture of both sides.

[Tock]

Talk about fear-mongering........
You need to check your facts before you go on looking dumb. All US citizens get their day in court, as required by law. Treason is still litigated in the Federal Courts.

Not any more.
http://www.auburnpub.com/articles/20...d/nation01.txt
Bush suspends habeas corpus

By The Los Angeles Times
Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:20 AM EDT

WASHINGTON - The military tribunals bill signed by President Bush on Tuesday marks the first time the right of habeas corpus has been curtailed by law for millions of people in the United States.

Although the debate about the law focused on trials at Guantanamo Bay, it also takes away the right to go to court for immigrants and noncitizens in the United States - including more than 12 million permanent residents - if they are declared “unlawful enemy combatants.”

No one has suggested the Bush administration plans to use its newly won power to round up large numbers of immigrants.

But before Tuesday, the principle of habeas corpus meant that anyone thrown into jail had a right to ask a judge to hear his case. He also had a right to go free if the government could not show a legal basis for holding him.

Many legal scholars predict the law's partial repeal of habeas corpus will be struck down as unconstitutional.

“This is an outright slap at the Supreme Court, and it is heading for invalidation,” said Eric M. Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University and an expert on habeas corpus. “This is a core principle of law that was established by the prisoners who were tossed into the Tower of London by the king, and it was preserved in the Constitution. Now, Congress is saying it doesn't apply to this disfavored group of prisoners.”


The new law says: “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 ... to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” In early drafts, the bill would have cut off habeas corpus only for unlawful combatants detained “outside the United States” and at Guantanamo Bay. However, the final version deleted that phrase.

Now, it not only bars the men held at Guantanamo Bay from challenging their detention in court, but it also closes the courthouse door to noncitizens who are arrested in Los Angeles or Chicago and held by the military as a possible “unlawful enemy combatant.”

The new law also defines this term broadly to include not just terrorists and fighters, but also people - including American citizens - who have “materially supported hostilities against the United States.” While a citizen could be arrested as an “enemy combatant,” he or she could still challenge the government's action in court.

Some legal experts say the fate of this repeal of habeas corpus is uncertain because it is entirely unprecedented.



“This is one of the great unresolved questions because this has never happened before,” said Duke University Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, a critic of the Bush administration. “The question is whether this is an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.”

The Constitution makes clear habeas corpus can be “suspended,” but only during extreme emergencies. It says, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

In the most famous example, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War.

The courts have not always come to the aid of people who say they are being wrongly detained by the government. During World War II, the Supreme Court upheld the government's internment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast.

Bush administration lawyers have said this, too, is wartime and the attacks of Sept. 11 were akin to an invasion. Moreover, Congress has now endorsed the president's power to hold “enemy combatants.”

But others say the court will look first to the words of the Constitution.

This limited repeal of habeas corpus fails all three tests, said John D. Hutson, a former Judge Advocate General of the Navy and dean of the Franklin Pierce Law School in New Hampshire. “This is not a time of rebellion. There has not been an invasion, and there's no evidence the `public safety' requires it,” he said. “Let's not kid ourselves. This is not about an invasion. It is about the embarrassment of holding people who, if they got to court, could show they should not have been held.”

Still, the outcome of any case that reached the Supreme Court is hard to predict because the justices have been closely split when faced with a clash between civil liberties and war-time powers.


In June, the court divided 5-3 on whether President Bush had the power, acting on his own, to set up a system of military trials at Guantanamo Bay. The justices had taken up a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of Salim Hamdan, a one-time driver for Osama bin Laden who was charged with conspiring to kill Americans.

The five-justice majority struck down Bush's rules and said they must be written into law. Three others dissented. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. recused himself from the decision, but had backed the plan when he was an appeals court judge.

Now, Congress has written the president's rules into law and said the courts, including the Supreme Court, have no right to hear a challenge to them.


Pepperdine University Law Professor Douglas W. Kmiec said Congress and the White House were on solid ground in seeking to cut off legal appeals from foreign fighters held by the U.S. military abroad, including at Guantanamo Bay.

“I would say habeas has no application to war-time detention outside the United States,” said Kmiec, who's generally defended the administration. After World War II, the Supreme Court ruled German military prisoners held by U.S. authorities had no right to challenge their detentions through a writ of habeas corpus, he noted.

But detentions within this country have been seen differently, he added. “This is one of the most difficult questions posed by this act. There is no question that a habeas right has existed within the territorial United States for citizens and legal residents,” Kmiec said.

[Kärnfysikern]

wtf is habeas corpus?

[Logan13]

[QUOTE=Tock]Not any more.
http://www.auburnpub.com/articles/20...d/nation01.txt
Bush suspends habeas corpus

By The Los Angeles Times
Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:20 AM EDT

WASHINGTON - The military tribunals bill signed by President Bush on Tuesday marks the first time the right of habeas corpus has been curtailed by law for millions of people in the United States.

Although the debate about the law focused on trials at Guantanamo Bay, it also takes away the right to go to court for immigrants and noncitizens in the United States - including more than 12 million permanent residents - if they are declared “unlawful enemy combatants.”

No one has suggested the Bush administration plans to use its newly won power to round up large numbers of immigrants.

But before Tuesday, the principle of habeas corpus meant that anyone thrown into jail had a right to ask a judge to hear his case. He also had a right to go free if the government could not show a legal basis for holding him.

Many legal scholars predict the law's partial repeal of habeas corpus will be struck down as unconstitutional.

“This is an outright slap at the Supreme Court, and it is heading for invalidation,” said Eric M. Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University and an expert on habeas corpus. “This is a core principle of law that was established by the prisoners who were tossed into the Tower of London by the king, and it was preserved in the Constitution. Now, Congress is saying it doesn't apply to this disfavored group of prisoners.”


The new law says: “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 ... to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” In early drafts, the bill would have cut off habeas corpus only for unlawful combatants detained “outside the United States” and at Guantanamo Bay. However, the final version deleted that phrase.

Now, it not only bars the men held at Guantanamo Bay from challenging their detention in court, but it also closes the courthouse door to noncitizens who are arrested in Los Angeles or Chicago and held by the military as a possible “unlawful enemy combatant.”

The new law also defines this term broadly to include not just terrorists and fighters, but also people - including American citizens - who have “materially supported hostilities against the United States.” While a citizen could be arrested as an “enemy combatant,” he or she could still challenge the government's action in court.

The Constitution makes clear habeas corpus can be “suspended,” but only during extreme emergencies. It says, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

In the most famous example, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War.

During World War II, the Supreme Court upheld the government's internment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast.

In June, the court divided 5-3 on whether President Bush had the power, acting on his own, to set up a system of military trials at Guantanamo Bay. The justices had taken up a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of Salim Hamdan, a one-time driver for Osama bin Laden who was charged with conspiring to kill Americans.
Pepperdine University Law Professor Douglas W. Kmiec said Congress and the White House were on solid ground in seeking to cut off legal appeals from foreign fighters held by the U.S. military abroad, including at Guantanamo Bay.
After World War II, the Supreme Court ruled German military prisoners held by U.S. authorities had no right to challenge their detentions through a writ of habeas corpus, he noted.
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 ... to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

This article only further proves my previous post. The difference between military and criminal law is at the forefront. You are trying to say that anyone can be picked up off the street and denied habeus corpus. This is not the case, no matter how much you want it to be so that you could bad-mouth the gov't. Re-read this article, as it points out that anyone deemed a enemy combatant is subject to a military law. Mexicans coming over the border illegally is still a criminal law matter, and habeas corpus is given. Now if Osama were caught coming over the border, that is a whole different situation. As I reminded you above, our own US soldiers are tried under military law, as they were in the whole Abu Grabe scandel. The only ones who have to fear this are those who wish to harm the US and its citizens. Perhaps this does include you Tock........

[Tock]

wtf is habeas corpus?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

Basically, it means that when you get thrown in jail, that you have the right to appear before a judge to have the judge decide if you deserve to be in jail.

It's a basic right guaranteed in the US Constitution. But, the US Constitution says, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (Article 1, Section 9)
Since the US is under no "Rebellion or Invasion," then what the Congress and Bush have done is unconstitutional.


So, if Bush decides (or one of his underlings decides, and then gets Bush to agree) that you somehow assisted a terrorist (maybe your name appears on a mailing list of a group that sent $$$ to a Palestinian charity group that turned out to be run by Hamas), then he can have you thrown in jail. And Bush can deny you the right of Habeas Corpus, the right to appear before a judge to see if you belong there.

Problem is, that if Bush or one of his underlings has a grudge against you, or if you wrote an editorial that they considered to be anti-Bush and pro-Hamas, then they can put you in jail. And they can keep you there without the right to appear before a judge.

Or, if they don't like you, for whatever reason, they can do the same thing. No Habeas Corpus.

Or, if they just make a big mistake, if you look just like someone else who did or said something improper, and they put you in jail by mistake, well, you don't get the chance to appear before a judge and explain things. And you could end up in prison for a very long time.

Not good . . . Not good at all . . .

-Tock

[Logan13]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

Basically, it means that when you get thrown in jail, that you have the right to appear before a judge to have the judge decide if you deserve to be in jail.

It's a basic right guaranteed in the US Constitution. But, the US Constitution says, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (Article 1, Section 9)
Since the US is under no "Rebellion or Invasion," then what the Congress and Bush have done is unconstitutional.


So, if Bush decides (or one of his underlings decides, and then gets Bush to agree) that you somehow assisted a terrorist (maybe your name appears on a mailing list of a group that sent $$$ to a Palestinian charity group that turned out to be run by Hamas), then he can have you thrown in jail. And Bush can deny you the right of Habeas Corpus, the right to appear before a judge to see if you belong there.

Problem is, that if Bush or one of his underlings has a grudge against you, or if you wrote an editorial that they considered to be anti-Bush and pro-Hamas, then they can put you in jail. And they can keep you there without the right to appear before a judge.

Or, if they don't like you, for whatever reason, they can do the same thing. No Habeas Corpus.

Or, if they just make a big mistake, if you look just like someone else who did or said something improper, and they put you in jail by mistake, well, you don't get the chance to appear before a judge and explain things. And you could end up in prison for a very long time.

Not good . . . Not good at all . . .

-Tock

If the world did not have terrorists, there would be no need. Perhaps you should move to the UK where a Muslim cleric has recently stated that it is justified to execute gays. Or perhaps you could move to Iran, well maybe not, that's where these executions are going on at.........I have blown away your attempt to skew the facts once more, this is not an opinion piece, this is a factual one..............