About TomW


Real Name:
Tom Webster
Gender:
male
Member Since:
August 14, 2006
Last Signed In:
July 04, 2008
Profile Views:
10969
Blog Views:
12166
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Not Yet Drinking Liberally
Drinking Liberally?
Bush Announces The End of the Surge
McCain Breaks His Own Laws
McCain's Idea of Love
Unofficial "Bloggers' Brunch" at Dagny's Saturday
Republican State Parties in Disarray
Publican's Political Genius
I did not have sexual relations with that woman!
Amazing Obama Video
Archives
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL
TomW - > All Politics Are Local -> Olbermann covers The Military Detainment Act
Olbermann covers The Military Detainment Act
I've mentioned this before, but Olbermann covered it tonight as only he can.  It was an excellent piece that you can read or watch here.  Here's how it starts:

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.


This has been the justification for a lot of plans the have come out of this administration, and as they are framed as anti-terror, it's hard to push back against them.  But as we've seen with Katrina and North Korea, these plans to make us safer don't seem to address the real dangers we face.


 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?"


This law does indeed remove habeas corpus for anyone who is named by the President as an "enemy combatant".  There are no rules for this and no legal procedure outlined.  The Constitution does provide, as Olbermann covers, for the suspension of habeas during an invasion or insurrection. Under this law, habeas is abolished for anyone who for any reason is declared an enemy combatant. There is no judicial review for this decision.
Keith finishes with a summary of why habeas corpus is so important and underpins our most basic rights.

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.

Again, for the full effect of the piece, read it or watch it here.

Posted in these Groups:
Topics: Olbermann, habeas corpus, detainee detention act
posted by TomW on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 09:55 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 194 times
8 comments from 4 users

1

posted by mattloch on Oct 11, 2006 at 12:50 AM
...like the PATRIOT act, passed in the dead of night by congressmen so deprived of sleep that they later admit to never have read the bill, right...?
posted by randomfactor on Oct 11, 2006 at 08:24 AM
TomW, I believe the Third might just be covered under forfeiture laws...your home *BECOMING* support for those who put you in jail.
.
See?  The War on Terra and the War on Drugz come together at last.
posted by TomW on Oct 11, 2006 at 09:30 AM
I'm just glad this is getting some broader notice.  Sin in haste, repent at leisure, I guess.  Actually, if we take over Congress, this is the first law we need to repeal, followed by the Patriot Act.
posted by mattloch on Oct 11, 2006 at 09:37 AM
Nope. First thing they should repeal is "signing statements".
posted by TomW on Oct 11, 2006 at 09:40 AM
How do you do that though?  They sign a law that says Bush can't use signing statements and he vetos it or worse, just adds a signing statement.
posted by ProgressivePete2 on Oct 11, 2006 at 09:42 AM
It depends on what kind of majority they get. If they actually pull of a veto proof majority, look out. They could probably find him in contempt of congress.
posted by TomW on Oct 11, 2006 at 09:53 AM
They can't pull 2/3rds in the House or Senate.  Of course, there are some paleoconservatives who might flip if they thought it would hold.  Senate is at most 8 seat pickup, congress could be up to 50, which still wouldn't get them there.
posted by mattloch on Oct 11, 2006 at 10:27 AM
They could shame enough for a 2/3rds, or put the fear of a Democrat president in '08 to spur them into action....
1

Leave a Comment
Ground Rules for posting comments:
  • No profanity or personal attacks.
  • Please comment on the subject of the post itself.
If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

To protect users from spam, please enter the text from the image on the left.