Irony Watch 10/19/2006
No, Keith, it doesn't mean "Like Iron*".
By Moe Lane Posted in Liberals — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Poor Keith Olbermann. I guess we'll never know how he managed to get control of his broadcasting studio long enough to send out this polemic ("Beginning of the End of America"**). You see, just as he got to this bit:
And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?
Is there any reason to even hope he has not lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against?
...well, that was when the FBI/NSA/BATF/ZOG strike team rushed the studio, threw Olbermann to the floor, declared him an enemy combatant, shot him in the back of the neck on national television and later swept up his family and friends.
No. Wait. That was in the Spock-has-a-beard, mirror-mirror evil universe. In this reality the only thing that happened is that Olbermann scored at least three sweet speaking gigs with various groups of chronic - and frantic - political masturbators***. Mind you, great work if you can get it... but I'd be a lot more genuinely impressed if I thought that the man had the mother-wit to be cynical about the whole thing.
Read the whole thing: if you can keep a straight face throughout, you're either a) stronger-willed than me or b) unwittingly part of the joke.
(Via RCP, who is likewise slowly allowing itself to contemplate that perhaps we're not quite as doomed as we thought.)
Moe
*Thank you, Terry Pratchett.
**I'd say that old Keith was the sort who clearly LARPed too much World of Darkness - he's got the look of a guy who insisted on telling you why his Brujah was especially tormented - except that it'd be way too insulting. To WoD LARPers.
Oh, yes: Weep! Wail! Staple hand to forehead!
Sheesh.
***I'm guessing. The number of gigs, that is.
« Do Nothing Dem Congress Slow-Bleeding US Auto Industry — Comments (46) | It's Not About the Sex (Or the Outing) — Comments (18) »
Irony Watch 10/19/2006 33 Comments (0 topical, 33 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
it never occurs to them that if what they say is true they wouldn't be saying it the second time. But I suppose that's too complex a train** of thought for the loonies. Last year some Hollywood type gave an interview and said it was so hard to get out their message about the evil Bush --- the interview was in London.
--------
** There are trains and there are trains. The Toonerville Trolly does not count.
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
Empty suit. But I repeat myself.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
Supreme Court Justice Alberto Gonzales might be worth it JUST to see Olberman's head explode.
the most far-fetched conspiracy theory, and copious amounts of Bush bashing will double his nationwide audience to--what?--30,000 via the Kossacks. Not shabby for MSNBC or a really good dinosaur band at the state fair. If habeas corpus were to be suspended, I'm sure such a drastic measure would be reserved for a much more troubling broadcast like Dancing with the Stars.
Why does God keep torturing us all by letting Keith Olbermann continue to live blissfully free of the effects of a pulmonary embolism? Because if somehow you think that God is not supposed to interfere in the affairs of this world, ask yourself this: how can He continue to inflict Keith Olbermann and his nonsensical yip-yapping gobbeldygook on an unsuspecting citizenry -- night after night -- when He could easily cause him to die a horrible, painful, spasmodic death on live television, without obviously violating the rules and without attracting undue suspicion of Divine Intervention. After all, the deep venous thrombsis that underlies pulmonary embolisms is frequently undiagnosed until it results in a fatal embolism. Here, look:
Massive PE is one of the most common causes of unexpected death, being second only to coronary artery disease as a cause of sudden unexpected natural death at any age. Most clinicians do not appreciate the extent of the problem, because the diagnosis is unsuspected until autopsy in approximately 80% of cases.
So basically, a merciful God could switch Olbermann off with a sharp snap of a switch, like an electric nosehair clipper, and nobody would be any the wiser. Let us pray.
Olbermann gives us the perfect opportunity to foil lefties.
Whenever you hear a lefty drone on about how much they hate Bill OReilly you just ask them why they don't watch Keith instead?
It really gets their goat because they don't want to admit that they can't watch that boring twit for more than five minutes.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
On “Ask the White House,” Attorney General Gonzales addressed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This clueless question was submitted, complete with the obligatory condescending remark, and apparently, it’s indicative of just how widespread the BDS Pandemic has become.
Mike, from Chicago writes:
Why is it necessary to suspend the writ of habeas corpus as part of the Military Tribunal Act? I take writ of habeas corpus to mean a legal proceeding in which an individual held in custody can challenge the propriety of that custody under the law. Isn't this writ intended to allow prisoners to challenge a potential mistake in their detainment? When you look back, years from now, will you be proud of this? You better well be. -MikeAlberto Gonzales
I am very proud of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and every American should share that pride. The new law is fully consistent with our values as a nation, and it will be vital to protecting our security as well. To explain why, allow me first to clear up some widely held misconceptions.First, the new law should not be understood to "suspend" the writ of habeas corpus for enemy combatants. Habeas corpus is a civilian remedy, and enemy combatants captured outside the United States have never had the right to file a habeas claim under the United States Constitution in prior armed conflicts. Thus, the new law's restrictions on habeas corpus do not, and cannot, deprive enemy combatants of any constitutional right that they have [n]ever had under United States law.
As I noted in the answer to a previous question, the United States already provides enemy combatants with the chance to challenge the legality of their detention before a civilian court, by appealing the determinations of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. This process-which goes well beyond what is required for lawful prisoners of war under both international and domestic law-provides the same opportunity to get into federal court that these individuals would claim through the traditional writ of habeas corpus.
Thus, every American should be proud of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Future generations will look back and commend us for recognizing the threat of terrorism and taking every possible step-consistent with American values and the rule of law-to defeat it.
(emphasis added)
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
should dust off his copy of the Constitution. Congress has always had the power to suspend habeas corpus and the Constitution refers to habeas corpus as a privilege not a right.
Oh, wait nevermind, the left has a different US Constitution than the rest of us --- theirs is a "living" document that "goes with the flow."
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
The electorate certainly will be offered a clear choice on Nov. 7th.
I like my Constitution in original, mint-condition.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
But doesn't the constitution allow for the suspension of HC _only_ in the event of either an invasion of our land or a revolt within it? Maybe there's some dubious legal argument to be made about embassy attacks as invasions, and therefore that anyone associated with a group perpetrating attacks on US embassies can be held w/o HC.
That aside-- what frightens opponents of the detainee bill (and it's not just lefties/Kossacks/Olbermann) is that the bill seems to leave the ultimate authority to define a prisoner as an enemy combatant with the Executive. Even if the man occupying that office had widespread approval and could legitimately claim a mandate rather than having been elected twice by the scantiest of margins-- the essential power to determine whether someone does or does not have a right to HC lies with the executive, rather than being clearly defined in the bill. Yes? Am I reading some of this wrong?
And even all THAT aside...shouldn't enemy combatants be able to exercise HC? If we've detained them, shouldn't we at least be able to provide a judge with a reason for that detainment in a timely fashion to at least give the detainment some legitimacy while the intelligence community/military builds a case against the person in question?
And even all THAT aside...shouldn't enemy combatants be able to exercise HC?
Why should we? Legal combatants specificallydon't get that right under the Geneva Conventions, as we are allowed to hold them indefinitely for the duration of the conflict.
As for the rest, the illegal combatants, why should rejecting the GCs give them MORE protection?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
...has demonstrated that they've actually read the law in question. Here. I encourage you to get yourself up to speed before you post again on this topic.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
if you toss out centuries of jurisprudence.
Prisoners of war and not civil prisoners and have no access to civil courts unless charged with a civil offense. That is pretty easy to understand.
Prisoners of war are held until the power holding them gets tired. Germans captured in France in 1939 or North Africa in 1942 were not released until 1947, at the earliest. Those captured in the Ukraine in 1941 were not released until 1955. No habeas corpus. No lawyer.
As has been pointed out, and by the way all this is available IN WRITING from one of Moe's post on this story, combatants do, under the law, have the right to challenge their captivity but through a military tribunal.
As to the rest of this dross, I am a lot less afraid of a guys who won majorities twice exercising the power than a guy who failed to win majorities twice exercising it. But that isn't the point. Laws aren't passed because we like the guys enforcing them.
And don't you have something else to do besides trolling here? I hope so otherwise you are going to be really, really bored.
because of your military experience and historical knowledge.
Does not the MCA in the long run actually protect these non-aligned enemy combatants, who if allowed access to civil courts would instead most likely be shot outright according to the existing rules of war before they had this right usually afforded only to non-combatant, civilian, citizens strangely granted?
This would seem the most expedient and legal method to deal with these individuals if it no longer benefitted the military to detain and question as it saw fit for the greater good of the nation. Better dead than being a spectacle and recruiting tool of the terrorists.
_________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
that illegal enemy cobatants had HC rights...
you know, I can't even type that without it looking so intellually dishonest it makes my brain hurt, but I'll try to go on...
Since the specific feeble attempt you are making is to reference "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," (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constituti...) I think a very good case can be made that such invasion has in fact occurred (or perhaps you missed the whole 9/11 thing) and that such suspension is in fact necessary because "public Safety require[s] it."
I'm just pointing out that even the most generous assumptions leave you with a weak case, and the far stronger objections others have already posted should give you serious cause to re-examine your hypothesis.
I don't share all of Olbermann's fear of this law, but I'm far from comfortable with it, mainly because its somewhat vague wording doesn't seem to prevent American citizens from being declared "enemy combatants". I am naturally suspicious that this was done on purpose.
and at the moment my brain is blanking on what the heck they called the thing even though I know what you are writing about.
Negative streiff. Here's the part that defines enemy combatant, from the definitions in Section 948a:
"`(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"
Note the complete lack of reference to alien status here.
Then, Sec. 948c. specifies to whom this law applies:
"`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter."
Again, no reference to alien status here. In fact, the Military Commissions Act doesn't at say at all how the government may try unlawful enemy combatant who are citizens.
The headers are in the law for a reason, they aren't simply design elements.
The fact that the header for 948 C is, oddly enough,
Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
should be a real wake up call as to what is in that section: to wit who is subject to the commissions. Which it helpfully spells out:
"`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter."
Note the word ALIEN.
As to your point you quote liberally from the definitions section, and it is always interesting to see a glossary held up as legislative intent, which is really irrelevant.
If we look under
Sec. 948b. Military commissions generally
you find:
`(a) Purpose- This chapter establishes 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.
So we have clearly stated that the purpose of the law is to try ALIEN combatants and the commissions are limited to trying ALIEN combatants.
Look, if you don't believe the law go to Wikipedia.
As a note here, I consider this stunt to be a patently dishonest attempt at trolling. And my consideration counts for quite a bit. I've followed your posts closely and I don't think you are stupid enough to actually believe what you wrote.
So don't play cheap little games like this in the future.
If you don't believe me
streiff, I'm going to repeat my initial comment, just in case you're confused:
"I don't share all of Olbermann's fear of this law, but I'm far from comfortable with it, mainly because its somewhat vague wording doesn't seem to prevent American citizens from being declared "enemy combatants". I am naturally suspicious that this was done on purpose."
Notice that I am ONLY saying that my discomfort comes from my perceived lack of clarity in the Act's definition of Unlawful Enemy Combatant. You erect a strawman if you assume that I have a quarrel with the intent of the law. I understand the intent of the law, and I actually quite agree with it. I have not stated otherwise. But I would prefer that the text of the Act be more strict in its definitions, because I feel that the Bush administration has demonstrated a propensity for neglecting the intent of laws when it sees fit. That's ALL I'm saying, and I haven't dance around the issue at all. Your assertion that using a "glossary" to infer intent is irrelevant is confusing to me. IANAL, and I would appreciate some clarity from you on that point.
All that aside, I look with utter embarassment at my comment about Sec. 948c., when I said that it contains no reference to alien status. I don't know what I was doing when I wrote that, but my quoted text uses the word Alien, clear as day. It would be funny if it weren't so painful.
You said
doesn't seem to prevent American citizens
This is just untrue. The law clearly is limited to aliens.
I erect no strawman, I merely cite the text of the law. Not the intent. The words.
At no point do I reference international law. Indeed my comment was pretty clear to your original post
except for the fact that it specifically excludes US citizens, you are right it is pretty vague.
I don't really understand what you are trying to prove here.
You were wrong your first post. You were wrong in your second post. I think your discomfort is more a function of your refusal to read pretty straight forward language in favor of bizarre conspiracy theories.
But I am through here. The law excludes US citizens. That is a fact and on that point, your discomfort aside, there is no issue.
I think your discomfort is more a function of your refusal to read pretty straight forward language in favor of bizarre conspiracy theories.
The paranoid left leap directly from "alien nonaligned combatants" to "random US citizen", with a leap of faith directly over ("but it might happen"). It isn't even Occam's Razor they fail to use, a case of narrowly deciding a logical argument based on likelihood.
What we have here is willful disregard for both logic and reality. To wit: if the government wanted to "gitmo" some set of citizens as terrorists, and have it be legal, it would need to pass a law that made gitmoing citizens legal. This law would not make it legal for them to do so. They would have to break this law to do it. If they are willing to break this law, they didn't need to pass it.
Not only that, but the government does not want to gitmo citizens. What is its motivation? This government can barely summon the courage to say that people shouldn't cross its borders willy-nilly, or to imprison citizens who have be convicted of violent crime.
And yet they obsess over the black helicopters.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
him to the ground and insinuating he is an illegal "undocumented" alien "immigrant", he can just pull out his picture ID voter card and prove them wrong.
Uh-oh.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
surf past Keith on his "show" I am grateful that he represents the other side.
...is that this inane diatribe is currently one of the most popular downloads on YouTube.
This to me is prima facie evidence of the size of the "divide". That people are willing to believe this crap is frightening.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
and were shipping container ships loaded with left wing whackos off to Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, why in the heck does Olbermann -- or any of his viewers -- think this addled twit would still be on TV?