Posted on Oct 11, 2006
Keith Olbermann responded to the passage of the torture bill with this tongue-in-cheek investigative report on habeas corpus.
Video & Transcript
Transcript (from Crooks and Liars):
This story has been buried by Foleygate, which is a crime in itself. I had the honor of hearing Daniel Ellsberg and John Siegenthaler Sr. speak last night and the key subject was journalism in today’s political environment. We are one of the only countries in the world without an official secrets act, due in a large part to the uniqueness of our first amendment. Sadly this very bill puts us even closer to enacting such legislation and putting a muzzle on the media that would have prevented the extraordinary act of patriotism that Ellsberg exhibited, as well as those that followed in the entire Watergate scandal.
Transcript available below the fold.
Because the Mark Foley story began to break the night of September 28th, exploding the following day, many people may not have noticed a bill passed by the Senate that night.
Our third story on the Countdown tonight, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and what it does to something called “habeas corpus.”
And before we reduce the very term “habeas corpus” to something vaguely recalled as sounding kinda like the cornerstone of freedom, or maybe kinda like a character from “Harry Potter,” we thought a Countdown Special Investigation was in order.
Congress passed The Military Commissions Act to give Mr. Bush the power to deal effectively with America’s enemies—those who seek to harm this country.
And he has been very clear about who that is:
“...for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America.”
So the president said it was urgent that Congress send him this bill as quickly as possible, not for the politics of next month’s elections, but for America.
“The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy.”
Because time was of the essence-and to ensure that the 9/11 families would wait no longer-as soon as he got the bill, President Bush whipped out his pen and immediately signed a statement saying he looks forward to signing the actual law...eventually.
He hasn’t signed it yet, almost two weeks later, because he has been swamped by a series of campaign swings at which he has made up quotes from unnamed Democratic leaders, and because when he is actually at work, he’s been signing so many other important bills, such as:
The Credit Rating Agency Reform Act;
the Third Higher Education Extension Act;
ratification requests for extradition treaties with Malta, Estonia and Latvia;
his proclamation of German-American Day;
the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act;
and his proclamation of Leif Erikson Day.
Still, getting the Military Commissions Act to the President so he could immediately mull it over for two weeks was so important, some members of Congress didn’t even read the bill before voting on it. Thus, has some of its minutiae, escaped scrutiny.
One bit of trivia that caught our eye was the elimination of habeas corpus. which apparently used to be the right of anyone who’s tossed in prison, to appear in court and say, “Hey, why am I in prison?”
Why does habeas corpus hate America...and how is it so bad for us?
Mr. Bush says it gets in the way of him doing his job.
[video clip]Bush: “...we cannot be able to tell the American people we’re doing our full job unless we have the tools necessary to do so. And this legislation passed in the House yesterday is a part of making sure that we do have the capacity to protect you. Our most solemn job is the security of this country.”
It may be solemn…
[video clip] Bush: “I do solemnly swear...”
But is that really his job? In this rarely seen footage, Mr. Bush is clearly heard describing a different job.
[video clip]...to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States..
Countdown has obtained a copy of this “Constitution of the United States.”
And sources tell us it was originally snuck through the Constitutional Convention and state ratification in order to establish America’s fundamental legal principles.
But this so-called Constitution is frustratingly vague about the right to trial. In fact, there’s only one reference to habeas corpus at all. Quote: “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.”
But even Democrats who voted against the Military Commissions Act concede that it doesn’t actually suspend habeas corpus.
[video clip] Leahy: The bill before the Senate would not merely suspend the great writ, the great writ of habeas corpus, it would eliminate it permanently.
And there is considerable debate whether the conditions for suspending habeas corpus, rebellion or invasion, have been met.
[video clip] Leahy: conditions for suspending habeas corpus have not been met.
[video clip] Kerry: We’re not in a rebellion, nor are we being invaded.
[video clip] Specter: We do not have a rebellion or an invasion.
[video clip] Biden: The United States is neither in a state of rebellion nor invasion.
[video clip] Byrd: We are not in the midst of a rebellion, and there is no invasion.
Countdown has learned that habeas corpus actually predates the “Constitution,” meaning it’s not just pre-September 11th thinking, it’s also pre-July 4th thinking.
In those days, no one imagined that enemy combatants might one day attack Americans on native soil.
In fact, Countdown has obtained a partially redacted copy of a colonial “declaration” indicating that back then, “depriving us of Trial by Jury” was actually considered sufficient cause to start a War of Independence, based on the then-fashionable idea that “liberty” was an unalienable right.
Today, thanks to modern, post-9/11 thinking, those rights are now fully alienable.
The reality is, without habeas corpus, a lot of other rights lose their meaning.
But if you look at the actual Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to that pesky Constitution—you’ll see just how many remain.
Well, ok, Number One’s gone.
If you’re detained without trial, you lose your freedom of religion, speech, the press and assembly. And you can’t petition the government for anything.
Number Two? While you’re in prison, your right to keep and bear arms just may be infringed upon.
Even if you’re in the NRA.
Three?
No forced sleepovers by soldiers at your house. OK. Three is unchanged.
Four?
You’re definitely not secure against searches and seizures, with or without probable cause - and this isn’t even limited to the guards.
Five… Grand juries and due process are obviously out.
Six. So are trials, let alone the right to counsel. Speedy trials? You want it when?
Seven. Hmmmm. I thought we covered “trials” and “juries” earlier.
Eight—So bail’s kind of a moot point…
Nine: “Other” rights retained by the people. Well, if you can name them during your water-boarding, we’ll consider them.
And Ten—powers not delegated to the United States federal government seem to have ended up there, anyway.
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.
And we can rest easy knowing we will never, ever have to quarter soldiers in our homes… as long as the Third Amendment still stands strong.
The President can take care of that with a Signing Statement.
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS DEMAND WARS
IN EASIER-TO-FIND COUNTRIES
"How Come No One Fights in Big Famous Nations Anymore?" They AskWashington, D.C. (SatireWire.com) — A delegation of American high school students today demanded the United States stop waging war in obscure nations such as Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and instead attack places they've actually heard of, such as France, Australia, and Austria, unless, they said, those last two are the same country.
"Shouldn't we, as Americans, get to decide where wars are?" asked sophomore Kate Shermansky. "People claim we don't know as much geography as our parents and grandparents, but it's so not our fault," Josh Beldoni, a senior at Fischer High School in Los Angeles, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Back then they only had wars in, like, Germany and England, but we're supposed to know about places like Somalia and Massachusetts."
"Macedonia," corrected committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan.
"See?" said Beldoni.
Beldoni's frustration was shared by nearly three dozen students at the hearing, who blamed the U.S. military for making them look bad.
"I totally support our soldiers and all that, but I am seriously failing both geography and social studies because I keep getting asked to find Croatia or Yemvrekia, or whatever bizarre-o country we send troops to," said Amelia Nash, a junior at Clark High School in Orlando, Fla. "Can't we fight in, like, Italy? It's boot-shaped."
Chairman Levin however, explained that Italy was a U.S. ally, and that intervention is usually in response to a specific threat.
"OK, what about Arulco?" interrupted Tyler Boone, a senior at Bellevue High School in Wisconsin. "That's a country in Jagged Alliance 2 run by the evil Queen Deidranna. I'm totally familiar with that place. She's a major threat."
"Jagged...?" said Levin.
"Alliance. It's a computer game."
"Well, no," Levin answered. "We can't attack a fictional country."
"Yeah right," Boone mumbled. "Like Grenada was real."
The students' testimony was supported by a cross-section of high school geography teachers, who urged the committee to help lay a solid foundation for America's young people by curtailing any intervention abroad.
"Since the anti-terror war began, most of my students can now point to Afghanistan on a map, which is fine, but those same kids still don't know the capitals of Nevada and Ohio," said Richard Gerber, who teaches at Rhymony High School in Atlanta. "I think we need to cut back on our activities overseas and take care of business at home, and if that means invading Tallahassee (Fla.) or Trenton (N.J.) so that students learn where they are, so be it."
"I've always wanted to stick it to Hartford (Conn.)," said Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. "Oh shit, is my microphone on?"
The hearing adjourned after six hours. An estimated 2,000 more students were expected to hold a march in the nation's capital, but forgot which city it was in.
Copyright © 1999-2002, SatireWire.
Bwahahah...Link
from ThinkProgress.org
Oh, The Hannity! GM Hires FNC's Sean Hannity For Its Latest Car Giveaway
General Motors has signed on Fox News host Sean Hannity as the new face of GM's latest car giveaway campaign, called "The Sean Hannity 'You're a Great American' Car Giveaway." It feels somehow wrong that there's not an exclamation point in there. At any rate, Hannity will offer radio listeners "the chance to pick and win one of five GM vehicles," according to ThinkProgress, which notes that the Hannity-hire comes in conjunction with GM's new patriotic-themed ad campaign for the new Chevrolet Silverado, complete with an anthem by John Mellencamp called "Our Country," echoed by the slogan: "Our country. Our truck." Per ThinkProgress: "The first spot features images from American history and recent events, including Rosa Parks and hurricane-damaged homes." Interesting way to sell cars, that.
Meanwhile, Hannity's contract with ClearChannel radio was just extended to 2010, so GM may be making a long-term investment here. ThinkProgress points out some rather, er, blue-state unfriendly positions, which begs the question of whether GM is writing off liberal buyers of cars (one commenter says "Oh brother who would want to buy a GM car now with Hannity pushing it?"), and also notes notes that Hannity was the "least accepting of dissenting views out of six talk show hosts" (beating out Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh). Apparently he also isn't a fan of the liberal media. ETP doesn't drive in any case, but we do lament the passing of the the classic Bob Seger "Like A Rock" campaign. Those trucks just seemed so dependable.
Credit to Huffington Post.
More from Woodward’s book: President Bush’s then-chief of staff and Bush’s wife, Laura, pleaded with the president to fire Rumsfeld during 2004 and 2005. But Cheney and Rove convinced Bush that doing so would send the wrong message.
Also, there’s more evidence that Bush’s knowledge about the horrible state of affairs in Iraq was at incredible odds with his public statements.
Gen. John Abizaid, head of the Central Command, basically agreed with Rep. John Murtha about the hopeless situation in Iraq.
Washington Post:
Former White House chief of staff Andrew Card on two occasions tried and failed to persuade President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to a new book by Bob Woodward that depicts senior officials of the Bush administration as unable to face the consequences of their policy in Iraq.
Card made his first attempt after Bush was reelected in November, 2004, arguing that the administration needed a fresh start and recommending that Bush replace Rumsfeld with former secretary of state James A. Baker III. Woodward writes that Bush considered the move, but was persuaded by Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, that it would be seen as an expression of doubt about the course of the war and would expose Bush himself to criticism.
Card tried again around Thanksgiving, 2005, this time with the support of First Lady Laura Bush, who according to Woodward, felt that Rumsfeld’s overbearing manner was damaging to her husband. Bush refused for a second time, and Card left the administration last March, convinced that Iraq would be compared to Vietnam and that history would record that no senior administration officials had raised their voices in opposition to the conduct of the war.
The Daily Show host has the perfect rejoinder to Bush’s assertion, regarding the national intelligence estimate, that war critics are “naive.”
When Bush asserts that the Geneva Convention is vague, because it prohibits “outrages upon human dignity,” the host of “The Daily Show” tees off.
Link to video.
Al Franken dropped in on Wednesday’s “Daily Show,” where Jon Stewart asked the comedian and radio host whether he would indeed run against Sen. Norm Coleman in the 2008 election. Although Franken said he was still making up his mind, he added: “I’ve moved to Minnesota, I’ve been there since January 1st. You don’t move to Minnesota January 1st unless you’re serious.”
Later, regarding Sen. George Allen’s “macaca” fiasco, Franken offered this sage comment: “You don’t want to go into the last month of a campaign where the only issue is not ‘are you a racist?’ but ‘how big a racist are you?’By: Jamie Holly on Wednesday, September 27th, 2006 at 9:56 AM - PDT
Tony was just asking for it. He makes this ridiculous argument to try and downplay the significance of the NIE and Matthews nails him on it before Franken even gets a shot. Tony says we shouldn’t expect to see results because we’re not "at the end of the war" and argues it’s only natural to see more enemies now. Franken reminds him that we were repeatedly told before the start of the war that this would be a quick in and out, greeted as liberators, etc.
Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf stopped by “the Daily Show” on Tuesday for some tea and a candid discussion of the war on terror, including the Bush administration’s strong-arm diplomacy and his contemplation of war with America.
When Jon Stewart asked Musharraf who would likelier win a Pakistani election, George Bush or Osama Bin Laden, the general shot back: “They’ll both lose miserably.”
Bush Dismisses Iraq Bloodshed as a ‘Comma’
Posted on Sep 26, 2006
From CNN The president said this about possible civil war in Iraq: “I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is—my point is, there’s a strong will for democracy.”
Every time Bush comes out with a head-scratcher like this, we’re reminded of the lyrics from The Police’s classic song “De do do do, de da da da.” (jump for explanation)
And when their eloquence escapes me
Their logic ties me up and rapes meDe do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
UPDATE: Jack Cafferty responds to Bush’s “comma” comment
Crooks and Liars:
BLITZER: Lets move on and talk a little bit about Iraq. Because this is a huge, huge issue, as you know, for the American public, a lot of concern that perhaps they are on the verge of a civil war--if not already a civil war. We see these horrible bodies showing up, tortured, mutilation. The Shia and the Sunni, the Iranians apparently having a negative role. Of course, al Qaeda in Iraq is still operating.
BUSH: Yes, you see you see it on TV, and that’s the power of an enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. But there’s also an unbelievable will and resiliency by the Iraqi people. Admittedly, it seems like a decade ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is ×— my point is, there’s a strong will for democracy.
Today MSNBC decided to forego substantive discussion of terrorism and instead focused on the fact that former President Bill Clinton’s sock had slipped and part of his “white” leg was showing during his interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace. The MSNBC host asked her guests, “Is this a travesty or what?
Full transcript below:
HOST: Well, people haven’t just been talking about Bill Clinton’s red face in that Fox News interview and all the anger and the finger pointing, but some have been focusing on Clinton’s white legs. The former president showing off a little leg during the sitdown with Chris Wallace. We’re going to show you that, and that’s left some — see, there it is, a little glimpse of leg. Well, how does this happen? … I mean — is this a travesty or what?
[SNIP]
RON CHRISTIE: Yes, I do have longer socks on. And the fact of the matter is —
HOST: How high do they come? To your calf or knee?
CHRISTIE: They’re almost up to the knee. You don’t have to worry about any leg showing here.
HOST: Very good. Because I prefer modesty in all of my interviewees.
CHRISTIE: Exactly.
HOST: Julian Epstein, Ron Christie, that was fun.
CHRISTIE: Thanks.
HOST: If I had been doing that interview, I’ve got to say, I would just say, “Oh, Mr. president, your leg is showing,” or it’s sort of like telling someone they have spinach in their teeth. Come on, it’s not cool to let someone go around with spinach in their teeth, same thing with leg.
By: John Amato on Tuesday, September 26th, 2006 at 7:45 AM - PDT
Jon Stewart and Samantha Bee weigh in on the FOX-Clinton interview. Jon makes an astute point which the responsible, serious mainstream media seems to miss; Clinton’s record on bin Laden is strong. Much stronger than Bush who is STILL not doing anything about him.
The CIA shut down their bin Laden unit in July and a recent article says the trail has gone "stone cold." Then, we have this report that says Pakistan signed a deal with the forces who control the area where bin Laden is believed to be hiding (or dying depending on how gullible you are) Yea…REAL serious about terrorism.
Pakistan Prez appears on 'Daily Show'
By JAKE COYLE, AP Entertainment Writer 34 minutes ago
Jon Stewart welcomed Pakistan's president to "The Daily Show" on Tuesday with tea and a Twinkie. President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's tete-a-tete with Stewart on the Comedy Central program was even more unlikely than the much-anticipated meeting between Musharraf, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and President Bush, planned for Wednesday.
As a gesture mirroring Pakistani hospitality, Stewart welcomed Musharraf with a cup of jasmine green tea, and offered the more American delicacy of a Twinkie. Musharraf chuckled and thanked the host, though Stewart promptly changed the subject.
"Where's Osama bin Laden?" he asked suddenly.
"I don't know," replied Musharraf. "You know where he is? You lead on, we'll follow you."
Musharraf's appearance on "The Daily Show," which was taped late Tuesday and was to air Tuesday evening, was the first time a sitting head of state appeared on the program, a show spokesman said. The comedy show, though, has frequently drawn major political figures, including former President Clinton last week.
The Pakistan president, who is on tour of the U.S., appeared on the program to promote his new memoir, "In the Line of Fire." The book has drawn headlines for, among other things, the Pakistan president's claim that after the Sept. 11 attacks he had no choice but to support the U.S. led war on terror groups or face an American "onslaught."
On balancing the wishes of the U.S. and Pakistan, which is largely anti-American, Musharraf told Stewart: "I've had to learn the art of tightrope-walking many times, and I think I've become quite an expert of that."
Stewart, himself, has also proven deft at balancing both humor and seriousness on "The Daily Show." At one point, he asked Musharraf if he had omitted any mention of the war in Iraq in his memoir because it has "gone so well."
Musharraf again laughed, but said: "It has led certainly to more extremism and terrorism around the world."
To conclude the interview, Stewart put Musharraf on the "Seat of Heat," a new feature for the program in which red lights flash around the studio and the guest is asked a final question.
"George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden — be truthful — who would win a popular vote in Pakistan?" asked Stewart.
"I think they'll both lose miserably," replied Musharraf, an answer met with raucous laughter by the "Daily Show" audience.
___
