Military Commissions Act/Keith Obermann report

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gary Conner

New member
This MSNBC clip is quite possibly the most important news report of
our generation, and addresses the questions posed about who can be imprisoned without habeus corpus under the Military Commissions act:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg


In case that disappears, it's also on Google:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5517942312906824233

and on Yahoo:
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?
vid=dbbe325cb5e8a69110da4140b0b58f66.997181

and on iFilm:
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2780446

and as for the documents:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html - I would like everyone to note that "conspiracy theorists" are specifically mentioned in this document. Interesting.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/070906terroristrecruiters.htm
 
I saw this ... IMO Olberman is more Libertarian than Democrat.

Of course we know the crowd here that will call him a left wing nutjob etc etc.

:cool:

When America finally wakes up , I'm afraid it will be too late. Our Grandchildren will ask us what the hell were we doing sleeping ?

We'll leave them in a state of servitude and massive debt.
 
Yet another example of deriving an opinion from what someone else says as opposed to looking at the actual document itself.
 
First off you assume no one has looked at the actual document. A wrong assumption.

Second ... something tells me if we were to believe what YOU say we'd be A-OK in your book.
 
Second ... something tells me if we were to believe what YOU say we'd be A-OK in your book.
Click to expand...


Not a-ok, just legally correct, which I can live with. But since so many are fixated on gettin information from secondary sources here's one...

During the bitter controversy over the military commission bill, which President Bush signed into law on Tuesday, most of the press and the professional punditry missed the big story. In the struggle for power between the three branches of government, it is not the presidency that "won." Instead, it is the judiciary that lost.

The new law is, above all, a stinging rebuke to the Supreme Court. It strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear any habeas corpus claim filed by any alien enemy combatant anywhere in the world. It was passed in response to the effort by a five-justice majority in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld to take control over terrorism policy. That majority extended judicial review to Guantanamo Bay, threw the Bush military commissions into doubt, and tried to extend the protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, overturning the traditional understanding that Geneva does not cover terrorists, who are not signatories nor "combatants" in an internal civil war under Article 3.

Hamdan was an unprecedented attempt by the court to rewrite the law of war and intrude into war policy. The court must have thought its stunning power grab would go unchallenged.

...

Until the Supreme Court began trying to make war policy, the writ of habeas corpus had never been understood to benefit enemy prisoners in war. The U.S. held millions of POWs during World War II, with none permitted to use our civilian courts (except for a few cases of U.S. citizens captured fighting for the Axis). Even after hostilities ended, the justices turned away lawsuits by enemy prisoners seeking to challenge their detention. In Johnson v. Eisentrager, the court held that it would not hear habeas claims brought by alien enemy prisoners held outside the U.S., and refused to interpret the Geneva Conventions to give new rights in civilian court against the government. In the case of Gen. Tomoyuki Yama****a, the court refrained from reviewing the operations of military commissions.
 
Another example of the Bush Monarchy at work. Huh, what is that---you mean BOTH the House and Senate approved this Bill including many Democrats? Only the likes of Pelosi, Kennedy etc...opposed it? As soon as you know of any terrorists who we should let go or please let me know the citizen who gets put in jail without any wrong doing so I can join in on your fears. None of this would have happened in the first place if the Democratic party hadn't gone after Bush in the first place---this was a compromise agreed upon by both sides. Funny, I don't hear much from the Democrats(except the extreme Liberal) about this---do you think they might not want to come across as soft on terror----AGAIN?.:rolleyes: Seems odd that Mr. Conservative Olbermann would be the only 1 worrying about it.
 
As soon as you know of any terrorists who we should let go or please let me know the citizen who gets put in jail without any wrong doing so I can join in on your fears.
Click to expand...

How many people have been released from gitmo sofar? I seem to recall hearing about quite a few.

And as for olberman, he's still just a talking head for one of the big studios...When you hear something on tv that sounds like something you may agree with, be MORE wary.
 
Dear Stage 2:

All I did was post the report. And speaking for me personally, to the contrary, I have looked at the summary of the Act by the Library of Congress, and honestly, the summary gives me GREAT concern, that an overzealous "commissioned" authority could ineterpret the "conspiracy" language therein, to apply to just about anything a person anywhere in the world (including the United States) said in opposition to a particular Administration's tactics.

I am attempting to find a full version of what the President signed to study before making a final determination however it was just signed yesterday. Since this President has a habit of scribbling his "statements" on Bills and sending the entirity to the Federal Register to be printed in full, claiming it ALL to be law, I want to see EVERYTHING he believes to be law before making any definitive statements.

However, it is a concern as to what Hillary will do with such power in 24 months.
 
Last edited:
When you hear something on tv that sounds like something you may agree with, be MORE wary.
Click to expand...

Actually that is my main beef with Olbermann-----put forward on opinion, then put somebody on who completely agrees with everything he says. I prefer someone put forth an arguement then have on a guest who disagrees with a counter before deciding. Tucker, O'Reilly etc...use the latter as a rule.
 
Petre said:
I saw this ... IMO Olberman is more Libertarian than Democrat.
Click to expand...

Olberman? I recommend you visit here for some background on why this MS/NBC reporter is unqualified to be a journalist in every sense of the word, is seriously deranged by demonstrated example, and is not to be trusted.
 
Mow:

They are all just talking heads, Oberman, O'reily, Hannity, et al, and they ALL have their bias. The point is, What did the President sign into law? Did he and our beloved political heros in Congress just shred the Constitutional protection of American citizens to at least have a lawyer, or not? Does two or more people, after the date of signing, discussing political issues regarding an Administration's tactics, constitute a conspiracy for which you can get sent to Gitmo?

That, is worth looking into. Anyone know if the Federal Register has printed the thing on line in full?
 
"Did he and our beloved political heros in Congress just shred the Constitutional protection of American citizens to at least have a lawyer, or not?"

I just read it and it doesn't appear that they shredded that protection.

John
 
I just read it and it doesn't appear that they shredded that protection.

John
Click to expand...

Dear JohnBT: I found it. I am getting a completely different picture, as the language is very ambiguous. I haven't read it all by any means, and will do so, but some of this already is a little spooky at first glance
 
On the subject of Kieth's diatribe yesterday, I noticed that he made a glaringly untrue statement:

He says that this bill allows the government to torture confessions out of suspects and then use it against them in the tribunals...
K. Olbermann said:
The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain “serious mental and physical trauma” in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves...
Click to expand...

That's actually specifically forbidden in the bill itself.
MCA 06 said:
A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
Click to expand...

Just thought I'd point that out because I don't appreciate being lied to.
 
Dear Goslash 7:

No, read it again. Olberman said "abused" not "tortured" according to the quote you cut and pasted.

The President refused to define the word "torture" in an interview yesterday, so Olberman is using the term "abused" in that quote.
 
Last edited:
Another example of the Bush Monarchy at work. Huh, what is that---you mean BOTH the House and Senate approved this Bill including many Democrats?
Click to expand...

The House and Senate are under Republican control… they have the majority - you know that right?
The votes break down like this:
Republicans: 218 voted Aye, 7 voted Nay.
Democrats: 34 voted Aye, 160 voted Nay.

this was a compromise agreed upon by both sides
Click to expand...
Compromise? Compromise to this Administration is giving people an opportunity to agree with them before they do what ever they want.

None of this would have happened in the first place if the Democratic party hadn't gone after Bush in the first place
Click to expand...
...in other words, the Dems should have just agreeed with him from the begining and everything would be different? Even if they have differing opinions? "Should 'a done what I told ya boy... now I'm gunna hav ta hurt ya!" Now that must be the compormise you were talking about! Democracy in action!

BTW - You problably aren't hearing much from the Democrats because you only listen to Fox News.
I prefer someone put forth an arguement then have on a guest who disagrees with a counter before deciding. Tucker, O'Reilly etc...use the latter as a rule.
Click to expand...
You have got to be kidding! O'Reilly?? The "Shut-up!!!" King... you are truly fair and balanced...even his fans think he is biased...
 
Last edited:
Gary Connor,
The operative word here is 'incriminate', not 'torture'. Feel free to substitute 'abuse' with 'torture' if you like. It doesn't make his assertion any more true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top