Keith Olbermann on the military commissions act
moultano
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
in Discussions
Comments
It's scary. And I had always wanted to see New York.
I mentioned, the other day, to some friends, that the US government was trying to abolish habeas corpus for foreigners. After drawing blank stares and explaining what it means ("Oh, so THAT'S what it's called"), I got the inevitable question: "What on earth FOR?" Well, I accidentally said "to fight tourism." I had obviously meant to say "terrorism," but I didn't even manage to correct myself before we all broke down laughing. I swear, gallows humour is one of the best human qualities. Dunno how I'd be able to survive in this world without it.
So there you have it. The war on tourism has begun in earnest. I'm staying the hell away until you repeal that ridiculous law.
Cue people saying "good riddance" and thinking that they're REALLY giving me a comeuppance, completely missing the point.
Oh and by the way: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
But meh, whoever said that had no idea what he was talking about, right?
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RhmCKKt8h4&embed=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RhmCKKt8h4&embed=1</a>
PLEASE get this out to as many people as possible. It needs to be heard. Before Olbermann 'disappears'.
Also, Benjamin Franklin is attributed with that rather famous (yet horribly forgotten now-a-days) quote. :b
If I don't miss my guess, here's a YouTube Link to the video in question:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RhmCKKt8h4&embed=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RhmCKKt8h4&embed=1</a>
PLEASE get this out to as many people as possible. It needs to be heard. Before Olbermann 'disappears'.
Also, Benjamin Franklin is attributed with that rather famous (yet horribly forgotten now-a-days) quote. :b
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
B-Frank forgotten? If anything, it's the opposite; the quote Olbermann uses is <i>by far</i> the most overused B-Frank quote <i>ever</i>, especially since the whole issue of The Patriot Act vs. civil rights has come up.
Not that it's a <i>bad</i> quote, mind you, but it's overused none the less.
because nobody's listening...
I mentioned, the other day, to some friends, that the US government was trying to abolish habeas corpus for foreigners. ..."What on earth FOR?" Well, I accidentally said "to fight tourism."... I'm staying the hell away until you repeal that ridiculous law.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly, I think this is probably the best argument to be made against the law. (I'd worry about my reputation before saying that, except you people all think I'm crazy already anyway.) When a European tries to tell America how it morally SHOULD write its laws, I tend to just raise my eyebrows and move on, but I certainly can't blame foreigners for wanting to stay away from the US as long as this law is in effect. And that has an impact.
Just how MUCH impact will depend both on how aggressively the administration uses these powers, and on how much that use is exaggerated by the media and rumor mills. I tend to suspect that the first aspect will actually be very small, and the second very large, but only time will tell on that count.
because nobody's listening...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Administration might not be, but that's because they've had their fingers in their ears and have been shouting "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALA!!!" for the past 6 years. <i>Everyone else</i> is listening.
To paraphrase Sir Walter Scott: Mark their names and mark them well. For them, no minstrel raptures swell. High though their titles, proud their name, boundless their wealth as wish can claim, these wretched figures shall go down to the vile dust from whence they sprung, unwept, unhonored and unsung.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If everyone's listening, how did this act pass? Where was the broad public outcry? Where were the protests in the streets? If everyone's listening, everyone doesn't care.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since when has the public dictated policy to this administration? Like I said; <i>they're not listening.</i>
The US is a dictatorship now? While the danger is there, it hasn't gone that far yet. Although it is rapidly diminishing, the people still have the power. But the people are not listening. You'll see what I mean when the midterms come and the Bush administration manages to scrape another victory.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All the polls I've seen have the Democrats in the lead by a wide margin. I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to take back the House. The Senate, however, is another thing, but still.
And I think you're up-playing the amount of power the average citizen wields in this country. The only real check against tyranny <i>we</i> have are elections. Aside from that, only the government can check against itself (which it's been doing a <i>wonderful</i> job of <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> ). On a federal level, at least. Actual citizen checks against government power vary on a state and local level.
If someone could inform me of a place where I can view which senators/representative actually signed that piece of trash I'd be very grateful. I might need to chastise a variety of political figures (that I am somewhat directly responsible for). It's also unfortunate that I only get Fox news, since their stories are so laughably pointless and their debates so needlessly and unnecessarily argumentative (while still managing to be uninformative - I dare you to try doing that on purpose) that I only watch it because the Price is Right isn't on until 10AM. I kind of missed this whole "suspension of habeas corpus" thing because apparently an 82 year old man being stabbed through the heart by a sting ray is far more important than the alienation of a basic right in Anglo-Saxon governmental and judicial processes since 1215.
This is why I wish I had comedy central, at least the Daily Show or the Colbert Report would have something on this. Although dripping with comedy and sarcasm the underlying importance of issues somehow manages to surface on a comedy show far easier than it does on a 'legitimate news' show.
Love that one.
But hey, as long as you're innocent, you have nothing to fear, right?
"So as you can see, even without habeas corpus, at least one tenth of the Bill of Rights, I guess that’s the Bill of Right, now—remains virtually intact."
Love that one.
But hey, as long as you're innocent, you have nothing to fear, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've got nothing to fear except fear itself...it's when that fear of fear makes you nervous, which can then be construed as 'presumed guilt' that can lead you in front of an unlawful enemy combatant tribunal that will be the problem.
Or maybe GW pointing at you and saying "bring that combatant to my oval office, so that he may be tortured for the succulent, delicious, torture-extruded goodness that lies within!" That might be scary too.
Is how I understood it
Start learning by reading the legal language:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Section 948b of title 10 of the United States Code, as enacted by the Act, provides (in part):
(a) Purpose.--This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try <b>alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States</b> for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.
Section 948d of title 10 of the United States Code, as added by the Act, providing for the jurisdiction of military commissions, states (in part):
A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.
<b>Section 948a of title 10 of the United States Code, as added by the Act, defines an "unlawful enemy combatant" as:
`(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.
Section 948c of title 10 U.S.C., as added by the Act, states, "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".</b>
A "competent tribunal" is defined in the US Army field Manual, section 27-10, for the purpose of determining whether a person is or is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and consists of a board of not less than three officers. It is also a term defined in Article five of the third Geneva Convention. However, the rights guaranteed by the Third Geneva Convention to lawful military combatants are expressly denied to unlawful military combatants for the purposes of this Act by Section 948b:
`(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.
[4] [5]
The criteria by which a Combatant Status Review Tribunal might determine someone to be an unlawful enemy combatant under section ii of the definition are provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and referenced in section 10 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. [6] <b>The Combatant Status Review Tribunal is be composed of three neutral officers, none of whom was involved with the detainee. One serves as a judge advocate, and the senior ranking officer serves as the president of the tribunal. Detainees may testify before the tribunal, call witnesses and introduce any other evidence. Following the hearing the tribunal will determine in a closed-door session whether the detainee is properly held as an enemy combatant.[7] The criteria by which "another competent tribunal" might do so are specified Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.[8]</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So... if any of you non-US citizens fall under these criteria, expect a knock at your door. If not, go about your business with the fresh smell of roses.
For those who wish to see what the voting for this law looks like:
Final Passage in the Senate
Party
Republicans AYE-53 NAY-1 ABS-1
Democrats AYE-12 NAY-33 ABS-0
Total AYE-65 NAY-34 ABS-1
Final Passage in the House
Party
Republicans AYE-218 NAY-7 ABS-5
Democrats AYE-32 NAY-162 ABS-7
Independent AYE-0 NAY-1 ABS-0
Total AYE-250 NAY-170 ABS-12
* AYE = Votes for the act
* NAY = Votes against the act
* ABS = Abstentions/no votes
Passed with 65% in the Senate and 60% in the House. Pretending this is a "Bush made me do it!" ploy to look "tough" with voters is an ostrich position by the <a href="http://indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/28/18324161.php" target="_blank">"Wish we weren't imprerialists" Left (U.S.)</a>
If you're interested in exactly how each Senator or Congressperson voted: <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259#position" target="_blank">Click here</a> and then <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll508.xml" target="_blank">Click here.</a>
EDIT: Edited to prevent hurt feelings.
<a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18316511.htm" target="_blank">http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18316511.htm</a>
The reason none of you understand what's going on is because you're getting your "facts" from a Talking Head that <a href="http://apnews.myway.com//article/20061008/D8KKIT900.html" target="_blank">uses "I hate Bush" rants to get ratings</a> on an otherwise <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702355.html" target="_blank">unwatched "news" channel.</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excuse me? Ok let's see, I am wrong because I do not understand what is TRULY happening, blablabla, ad hominem, blabla, quote of the very thing I object to, blabla. What again?
Excuse me? Ok let's see, I am wrong because I do not understand what is TRULY happening, blablabla, ad hominem, blabla, quote of the very thing I object to, blabla. What again?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please highlight the section of that quote that says "tjosan is wrong".
[...]none of you understand what's going on[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Highlighted. And may I congratulate you on that rather smart formulation. Instead of implying that maybe some of us don't understand what's going on, you ASSERT that none of us do, thus simply dismissing the entire thread so far.
The reason none of you understand what's going on is because you're getting your "facts" from a Talking Head that <a href="http://apnews.myway.com//article/20061008/D8KKIT900.html" target="_blank">uses "I hate Bush" rants to get ratings</a> on an otherwise <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702355.html" target="_blank">unwatched "news" channel.</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's a bit presumptuous to insist that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand what's going on. I think most of us are getting our facts from a wide variety of sources. I happened to find however that Keith Olbermann's <i>opinion</i> was a particularly insightful expression of my own.
Edited original post. I wouldn't want to offend anyone who was here to appreciate civil discourse.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, not getting involved, just had to say:
What is civil discourse when you discredit your opponents to knowing nothing when you yourself have no facts to stand on about that subject?
Edit: To clarify myself, you yourself point out some of the inherent problems with that bill, such as the second clause:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For so much legalese, that sounds like plain, vague English to me. If you are a unlawful enemy combatant, by a combatant status review tribunal, or any other worthwhile group established under the president or SoD, you can be arrested and tried.
...but what differs enemy combatants? What if I ask questions in a rather forceful manner? What if I take your hand, or you by the shoulders? And on top of that, who is the group that determines it? The risks involved with who would head the group are so large that its a lot easier to do this in private without the public knowing to complain about it. I'd rather my countrymen be in the dark about whats going on in the background, then have it laid in front of them...for them to dismiss it as mere security.
Edit 2: Yeah, it does mean I'm getting involved. I more wanted to point out the inherent flaws of Spooge's base logic of not wanting to offend anyone and only attain civil discourse when he himself obstructed it in not only his first, unedited post, but even in the edited version.