Keith Olbermann on the death of habeus corpus. Read the transcript or watch the video on CrooksandLiars.com.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, October 19th, 2006 at 12:48 AM and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
At least Olbermann points out that this sort of thing has happened before. The death of habeus corpus? Not likely. This will all blow over until the next boogyman comes along and scares us into giving up our rights.
But really, is anything else to be expected? I don’t understand people like Olbermann’s view of America, as a land that not long ago was populated by intellectual and whatnot. America has always been mostly populated by the ignorant, the easily amused or distracted. Why do you think our founding fathers set up the electoral college? They knew they couldn’t trust the fate of the presidency to the masses, who vote with their hearts and not with their heads. Sadly, that’s been corrupted too.
If the nature of the conflict with terrorism is ongoing, then there is no reason to think that this isn’t the death of habeas corpus in America.
That’s the flaw in Olbermann’s analogies. At least it could be assumed in past conflicts, that normal legal practices would resume when the war was declared over. With this war no end is in sight.
I think efforts should be made to fight terrorism on an ongoing basis. I even think that George W. is sincerely trying to act in the best interests of America, however, habeas corpus is here to protect us from leaders who would act in our “best interests”.
By doing away with something so precious, Bush is undermining the cause, by finally proving his critics right. It’s a shame, because I believe a lot of the criticism of Bush has, up to now, been debatable. But this is insane, there is no defense for this.
One thing you can do to help is refute the use of the term “war”; that’s what we’re trying to do here. By the reasoning used to give Bush “war” powers we could have given the same powers to Johnson for the “war” on poverty.
I think there is a reasonable way to deal with terrorism that respects the rights of Americans without crippling the government in dealing with it, regardless of what term you use to describe the conflict. That line has now been crossed.
I disagree with many points in the article, however I will take the advice of the article itself and not “waste time arguing”. However, the article clearly has an “impeach Bush” type agenda and moreso a “check out my organization” type agenda.
I’ll instead give you some advice on reaching someone like me. Why not try to appear concerned about terrorism? An analogy between “price wars” and jihad — and that the concept of jihad is somehow “rhetorical” — give at least the impression that you don’t take terrorism very seriously.
“I’ll instead give you some advice on reaching someone like me. Why not try to appear concerned about terrorism?”
Hunh. Interesting. I would suppose the reason “why not” is that some people — myself, certainly — assume that concern exists, and that everyone knows it exists, before the discussion even begins. Maybe that’s a false assumption.
Michah: …the concept of jihad is somehow “rhetorical”…
An interesting twist, perhaps unintended, of my words, but at least it shows you did me the courtesy of visiting the site. Steve’s right; concern over bringing to justice the murderers of nine-one-one and their co-conspirators can be safely presumed. That side of the equation is well represented. But many of the policies followed and many of the laws passed in support of that worthy goal do more harm to this country than anything bin Laden could ever have reasonably done to us. As it stands the President (a Republican today, maybe a Democrat tomorrow, who knows what the future holds?) can determine, on any or no grounds, that you or I or Steve are alien unlawful enemy combatants, and once having so determined there is nothing anyone can do to challenge that determination; we can be held indefinitely without even being charged. Does this help us catch bad guys? Sure? Does it help us prevent home-grown tryanny? No. Do we need to worry about home-grown tyranny as much as we do about religious extremists in other lands? According to the Constitution, yes.
Micah, sorry about the typo on your name, truly. Also, where I say, “more harm to this country than anything bin Laden could ever have reasonably done to us”, it should read instead, “…reasonably hoped to do…” Peace.
Sorry if I have misinterpreted your article or come off as overly hostile as a result.
There has been a tendency in some media today to interpret the words of terrorists as a lot less dangerous than they really are. Your words, at least to me, appeared to be in that vein, and that is what I was reacting to. To paraphrase you, the words we use are important because they influence the conclusions we draw. I would say again, that I had misinterpreted your meaning but I certainly didn’t assume before I read your article any beliefs at all that you may have.
To be fair, there is certainly a tendancy on the right to say, “you disagree with me therefore you are soft on terrrorism”, and I hope I haven’t given that impression either. I wasn’t specific on the points I disagreed with in the article, and that was a mistake, but it was mostly to do with the way you framed your argument. To be honest, I agree with everything you have just said in your latest post. I couldn’t argue with anyone who would vote for the democrats or protest over this new law. It’s absolutely terrible.
Thank you for the sincerity of your response. It’s appreciated.