Special Comment: Keith Olberman

[Oxygon]

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/A_Spe ... _1006.html

high bandwidth video link...

Friday October 6, 2006

Keith Olbermann delivered a 'Special Comment' in his Thursday evening broadcast on the subject of lying, specifically that committed by members of the Administration, up to and including President Bush. His Thursday 'Special Comment' was among the longest he has produced on his MSNBC show Countdown.

[Oxygon]

Habeus Corpus is DEAD?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xUzUljH8EHU

[rlortie]

The use of habeas corpus is established by both federal and state constitutions. Article I, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution provides that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion, when the public safety may require it. The constitutions of most states contain similar provisions, and in some states suspension of the writ is forbidden in any case. Massachusetts suspended the privilege of the writ from November 1786 to July 1787, on the occasion of Shays' Rebellion. The outstanding instance in the U.S. of the suspension of the right of habeas corpus occurred in 1861 during the American Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln suspended it by proclamation. In 1863 Congress explicitly empowered Lincoln to suspend the privilege of the writ during the war. In later years courts in several states suspended the privilege when state executives declared martial law during strikes.
In the U.S. the writ was originally limited to cases of illegal imprisonment, but its use was subsequently extended, and it is now also applicable to controversies in divorce and adoption proceedings involving the custody of minors. The basis for such applications of the writ is the assumption that the state has the right, paramount to any parental or other claims, to dispose of children as their best interests require.
Both federal and state courts issue writs of habeas corpus. Federal courts, however, can issue such writs only under given conditions, as when a prisoner is detained by order of the federal government or has been committed for trial before a federal court. Federal courts can also issue writs of habeas corpus when a charge against a prisoner concerns an act done in pursuance of a federal law or order of a federal court, or when his or her detention is alleged to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution or of a law or treaty of the U.S. The jurisdiction of the federal courts in this regard extends to foreigners, if they have acted under the authority of their own governments, so that their guilt or liability must be determined by international law. The state courts may issue the writ in all cases that do not fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction.



"Habeas Corpus," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Oxygon]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/00

[rounder]

I'm not a constitutional scholar, so where the hell does it say anywhere in the Constitution that the president can unilaterally and secretly assume dictatorial powers in his role as commander-in-chief? (I here state that the commander-in-chief need honor no national or international laws, treaties, nor be bound by constitutional checks and balances if they would "impede the war effort"; i.e., dictatorship). Nor can I find it stated that such power can be bestowed by the legislative or judicial branches, assuming one might justify it via case law or legislation. That earlier CICs like Lincoln or FDR exceded their authority is irrelevant, as their precedents were illegal.

Am I reading too much into this, or have we just undergone a "shadow" coup? If so, why aren't the president and his cronies being tried for treason?

[ken_behrendt]

Rounder...

Ultimately, all political documents only maintain validity by virtue of consensus. If times get crazy enough, their provisions can be temporarily suspended or even abolished if enough people perceive them as a hinderance to perserving the safety of a society. Are the times we of the USA now live in sufficiently "crazy" to warrant the suspension of parts of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. If Bush retires to a comfortable status of an elderly ex-Pres who, like Clinton, tours the world as a spokesman for demoncracy, then I'd have to say that the consensus of opinion was that these were such times. If not, then that the consensus of opinion was that they were not.

We should keep in mind that one of the tactics that the jihadists depend upon is to use the various "rights" of the infidel countries to undermine their stability as preparation for the formation of their new Caliphate. IF they ever come to control the world, then we can be assured that one of the first documents they will be happy to set fire to will be the US Constitution and any similar documents that are the basis of other freedom loving democracies.


ken

[scott]

Ugh. Ken, you really do drink up the Kool-Aid, don't you.

From one frothing lunatic to another:

GEORGE BUSH: If we don't stop them, Al Qaeda will create a caliphate across the mideast, then the world! After all, that's what Ayman Zawahiri said they'll do!

OSAMA BIN LADEN: If we don't stop them, the crusaders will invade our countries, kill our leaders, and convert us to Christianity! After all, that's what Ann Coulter said they'll do!

One amusing result is that the statements by one side's frothing lunatics are often far better known in other countries than their own. (E.g, that specific burst of Coulter's insanity may well be spoken of more often in Saudi Arabia than it is here.)

[ken_behrendt]

Scott...

Your point is well taken. To the Jihadists, the West represents the ultimate in Satanic degeneration and they refer to us as "filthy infidels".

The question then remains as to which of the two sides is the truly more evil one.

Under the Taleban in Afghanistan, any woman caught not wearing her burka or showing too much ankle could be publicly whipped and humiliated. I think if we asked the millions who risked their lives to vote in Afghanistan and Iraq who was the more evil, they'd quickly tell us it was not the West. About 90+% of the "moderate" muslims out there fear the jihadists far more than they do the West and for good reason. They've had to live with these vipers in their midst and endure the violence and mayhem they create. As far as I'm concerned, the quicker the world is rid of them, the better.

I'm now starting to see Bush as a kind of Winston Churchill of the 21st century. Just as Winnie was one of the first to correctly see that there was something diabolical about Hitler and the Third Reich, Bush has, in my opinion, correctly appraised the long term dangers that the terrorists represent to the world at large. As with all such cancers, the earlier the surgery to excise it is performed, the better the long term prognosis for the patient will be...


ken

[rounder]

for those here that let the media shape,control their general view of what they think is happening in the world, let it be known that if you wish to have any real understanding of what you are told ---- is real ---because you want to belive it after you have heard it so many times, is irrelevant if you buy into it. I will post this link that i have found that explains lots if you listen to it all from front to end. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2405469009

[Mac]

for those here that let the media shape,control their general view of what they think is happening in the world, let it be known that if you wish to have any real understanding of what you are told ---- is real ---because you want to belive it after you have heard it so many times, is irrelevant if you buy into it.

Ah yes, and internet sites are known to be soooooo credible...

A free press is just that - free. There are reporters from all over the world covering what happens in Washington DC, and most are looking for any excuse to deride/expose our government leaders, no matter what party is in control.

And it's not just major news networks that cover news. Any local station that can afford a plane ticket usually sends a reporter to various places at one time or another. Surely you don't think everyone is in cahoots to keep us poor idiots in the dark?

For some reason, conspiracy theories seem to abound at just about every "free energy" site I know of. No freakin' wonder the world thinks we're nuts. Sheesh.

Mac

[Trev]

Thanks for the link, rounder.

There's a new special comment on 'advertising terrorism' here :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... dvertising

Trev.