Olbermann: The March to War 2

Olbermann: The Day Habeas Corpus Died

Crooks & Liars | October 18 2006

Today, 135 years to the day after the last American President (Ulysses S. Grant) suspended habeas corpus, President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. At its worst, the legislation allows President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld to declare anyone — US citizen or not — an enemy combatant, lock them up and throw away the key without a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law. In other words, every thing the Founding Fathers fought the British empire to free themselves of was reversed and nullified with the stroke of a pen, all under the guise of the War on Terror.

Jonathan Turley joined Keith to talk about the law that Senator Feingold said would be seen as "a stain on our nation's history."

Turley: "People have no idea how significant this is. Really a time of shame this is for the American system.—The strange thing is that we have become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. The Congress just gave the President despotic powers and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to Dancing With the Stars. It's otherworldly..People clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're gonna change back anytime soon."

 

Countdown Special Comment: Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”

Crooks And Liars | October 19 2006

Keith Olbermann has been calling it like it is. His "Special Comments" are indeed special because no other talking head outside of Cafferty is willing to step up to the plate and say what needs to be said on 24/7. "Your words are lies, Sir." They are lies, that imperil us all.' Sounds about right to me.

Olbermann: And lastly, as promised, a Special Comment tonight on the signing of the Military Commissions Act and the loss of Habeas Corpus.

We have lived as if in a trance. We have lived… as people in fear.

And now — our rights and our freedoms in peril — we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid… of the wrong thing.

Therefore, tonight, have we truly become, the inheritors of our American legacy. For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

And lastly, as promised, a Special Comment tonight on the signing of the Military Commissions Act and the loss of Habeas Corpus.

We have lived as if in a trance.

We have lived… as people in fear.

And now — our rights and our freedoms in peril — we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid… of the wrong thing.

Therefore, tonight, have we truly become, the inheritors of our American legacy.

For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

We have been here before — and we have been here before led here — by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.

We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use those Acts to jail newspaper editors.

American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote, about America.

We have been here, when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as "Hyphenated Americans," most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.

American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said, about America.

And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9-0-6-6 was necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use that Order to imprison and pauperize 110-thousand Americans…

While his man-in-charge…

General DeWitt, told Congress: "It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen — he is still a Japanese."

American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did — but for the choices they or their ancestors had made, about coming to America.

Each of these actions was undertaken for the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And each, was a betrayal of that for which the President who advocated them, claimed to be fighting.

Adams and his party were swept from office, and the Alien and Sedition Acts erased.

Many of the very people Wilson silenced, survived him, and…

…one of them even ran to succeed him, and got 900-thousand votes… though his Presidential campaign was conducted entirely… from his jail cell.

And Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese was not merely the worst blight on his record, but it would necessitate a formal apology from the government of the United States, to the citizens of the United States, whose lives it ruined.

The most vital… the most urgent… the most inescapable of reasons.

In times of fright, we have been, only human.

We have let Roosevelt's "fear of fear itself" overtake us.

We have listened to the little voice inside that has said "the wolf is at the door; this will be temporary; this will be precise; this too shall pass."

We have accepted, that the only way to stop the terrorists, is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists.

Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets, was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets.

Or substitute… the Japanese.

Or the Germans.

Or the Socialists.

Or the Anarchists.

Or the Immigrants.

Or the British.

Or the Aliens.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And, always, always… wrong.

"With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"

Wise words.

And ironic ones, Mr. Bush.

Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act.

You spoke so much more than you know, Sir.

Sadly — of course — the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously… was you.

We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

But even within this history, we have not before codified, the poisoning of Habeas Corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow.

You, sir, have now befouled that spring.

You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order.

You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom.

For the most vital… the most urgent… the most inescapable of reasons.

And — again, Mr. Bush — all of them, wrong.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done, to anything the terrorists have ever done.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that "the United States does not torture. It's against our laws and it's against our values" and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens "Unlawful Enemy Combatants" and ship them somewhere — anywhere — but may now, if he so decides, declare you an "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" and ship you somewhere - anywhere.

And if you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was President, or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was President, or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was President.

And if you somehow think Habeas Corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an "unlawful enemy combatant" — exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this Attorney General is going to help you?

This President now has his blank check.

He lied to get it.

He lied as he received it.

Is there any reason to even hope, he has not lied about how he intends to use it, nor who he intends to use it against?

"These military commissions will provide a fair trial," you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush. "In which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney, and can hear all the evidence against them."

'Presumed innocent,' Mr. Bush?

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, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.

'Access to an attorney,' Mr. Bush?

Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant, on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.

'Hearing all the evidence,' Mr. Bush?

The Military Commissions act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.

Your words are lies, Sir.

They are lies, that imperil us all.

"One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks," …you told us yesterday… "said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America."

That terrorist, sir, could only hope.

Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.

Habeas Corpus? Gone.

The Geneva Conventions? Optional.

The Moral Force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out.

These things you have done, Mr. Bush… they would be "the beginning of the end of America."

And did it even occur to you once sir — somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 — that with only a little further shift in this world we now know — just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died —

Did it ever occur to you once, that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future President and a "competent tribunal" of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" for… and convene a Military Commission to try… not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And doubtless, sir, all of them — as always — wrong.

Joe Scarborough is next.

Good night, and good luck.

Olbermann: Bush's 'dangerous, even Messianic certitude' [more Video]

_________________________

 

Phoney intelligence from false confessions needed to maintain Al-Qaeda myth, sexual mutilation of children advocated by White House legal architect

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 19 2006

The Bush administration's desperation to legitimize and legislate torture in the face of revolt from Congress, the Senate and even Colin Powell, is an attempt to rescue the need to have a constant supply of phony intelligence obtained from torture to justify the war on terror - while the real horror of how the administration advocates sexually mutilating children under the same legal definition remains hidden from the U.S. public.

A large portion of Americans still support the use of 'rendition' and 'pressure' because they are told that the information obtained from such methods protects them from terrorists. Not only is that information crude, unreliable and often misleading - but the suffering inflicted on the victims is a horror show in comparison to the milquetoast edited version presented via the media.

The philosophy of the Bush administration's approach to torture is encapsulated by John “torture” Yoo, professor of law at Berkeley, co-author of the PATRIOT Act, author of torture memos and White House advisor.

During a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel, John Yoo gave the green light for the scope of torture to legally include sexual torture of infants.

Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Click here for the audio.

By the very framework that has been established within this context, Bush's Rose Garden speech this past Friday was a tacit attempt to sell the justification of crushing a child's genitals in the name of the war on terror. No you haven't entered the twilight zone, you are witnessing the absolute sacking and moral decay of everything that used to be America.

They are actually arguing for the legalization of sadistic, serial killer style torture and sexual molestation of children - the same administration that labels its critics "fascists" is pursuing a doctrine that makes Dr. Josef Mengele look like Ronald McDonald in comparison.

The official US Army report listed all the abuses committed at the Abu Ghraib prison. These methods are standard use in the 'Copper Green' worldwide torture program.

a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

.................

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee; [Rape]

l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees (after detainees were beaten to death).

Spun as the actions of "a few bad apples," the Abu Ghraib torture program was sanctioned from the very top.

Janis Karpinski was scapegoated as being party to the torture when she was in reality trying to put a stop to it. Since the Abu Ghraib scandal she has been blowing the whistle on who directed the torture program and how it continues to this day. During an interview on the Alex Jones Show, Karpinski stated,

"There is overwhelming proof that torture is going on, that it has been directed and is likely continuing, even to this day. I don't want to believe it is but the statements from the people just returning from the theater give every indication that in fact it is, they still don't know where to draw the line." The General said.

Karpinski identified the masterminds of the torture policy as occupying the highest rungs of the Bush administration.

"The orders came right from the top, filtered down from the secretary of defense, with the endorsement of the President, the Vice President, whatever advisors are surrounding them, filtered down through the Commanders in the field, these practices were not only endorsed, but were in use at Guantanamo bay and in locations in Afghanistan. And when General Miller visited Iraq he brought those techniques with him. And then he sent contract interrogators who had 'performed well' at Guantanamo Bay to Iraq as well."

Why is the Bush administration so feverish to gut the Geneva conventions and legislate torture?

It is common knowledge that evidence obtained from torture is completely unreliable and if anything only muddies the waters of intelligence. The Neo-Con architects of the war on terror could not care less whether the information obtained from torture is accurate or not, the agenda is to artificially manufacture the myth that there are numerous Al-Qaeda cells dotted around the world wanting to attack America.

This process is clearly evident in Uzbekistan, where racist dictator Islam Karimov, the man who enjoys boiling people alive, plays ball in helping Bush and Blair maintain the Al-Qaeda myth by providing a steady supply of tortured Muslims who would admit to being Osama Bin Laden's rent boy just to have the cattle prod removed.

Karimov, Bush and Blair have set-up a nice little back scratching society and it works like this - Karimov has his brownshirts snatch innocent Muslims off the streets, tortures them until they "confess" to being Al-Qaeda members, and then in return for financial kickbacks, hands the phony confessions to the CIA and British intelligence, who use them as propaganda to argue the threat of the Al-Qaeda menace. In addition, the manufacturing of an artificial 'Al-Qaeda threat' enables Karimov to propagandize his own population into supporting his savagery through fear.

The fact that the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray told the Blair government directly that false confessions were being obtained through violent torture, didn't concern MI6 or the CIA, who ordered the program to continue.

The hallmark of the worldwide detainee and torture camps is defined by repeated examples whereby proven top Al-Qaeda members are protected or released while completely innocent individuals are imprisoned for no reason and tortured.

The Washington Post reported,

For more than a decade, Osama bin Laden had few soldiers more devoted than Abdallah Tabarak. A former Moroccan transit worker, Tabarak served as a bodyguard for the al Qaeda leader, worked on his farm in Sudan and helped run a gemstone smuggling racket in Afghanistan, court records here show.

During the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, when al Qaeda leaders were pinned down by U.S. forces, Tabarak sacrificed himself to engineer their escape. He headed toward the Pakistani border while making calls on Osama bin Laden's satellite phone as bin Laden and the others fled in the other direction.

Tabarak was captured and taken to the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was classified as such a high-value prisoner that the Pentagon repeatedly denied requests by the International Committee of the Red Cross to see him. Then, after spending almost three years at the base, he was suddenly released.

The article describes how Tabarak was a proven loyal and unceasing Al-Qaeda member with an unparalleled affinity for Osama bin Laden.

Compare this to the 70-90% of Iraqis who are arrested, hooded, and thrown into prison camps for the crime of not showing their papers at checkpoints.

This website has repeatedly highlighted examples of where known terrorists, even in some cases individuals who were in the throes of carrying out terrorist attacks, are ordered to be released by the US government.

And yet Pakistani gangsters admitted to rounding up innocent people in street sweeps and selling them to the US government as terrorists for anything up to $25,000. These people are now at Guantanamo Bay.

Khaled Masri was abducted off the streets of Germany by the CIA for being a suspected terrorist, the case against him later collapsed and the U.S. government graciously apologized for ruining his life.

In a similar recent case, Ottawa software engineer Maher Arar, who holds Canadian and Syrian nationality, was arrested for terrorist ties and deported to Syria, where he was tortured. An official inquiry concluded that Arar was completely innocent.

Only nine alleged terrorists have been brought to trial by the US government and none have been convicted, save the mental retard Zacarias Moussaoui who was tortured into whistling whatever tune his handlers demanded.

In many cases, alleged terrorists like Iyman Faris, the so-called Brooklyn Bridge bomber, turn out to be confidants of the US government. Faris was an FBI informant.

The so-called mastermind of the 7/7 London bombing, Haroon Rashid Aswat, was an MI6 informant whom British intelligence had repeatedly protected in the years before the attack in the face of attempts by intelligence agencies of other nations to arrest him.

The policy of the highest echelons of the American and British establishment is to torture the innocent and release the guilty.

The elite needs to maintain the facade that terrorist cells are everywhere and that only their smothering 'protection' will keep us safe. And yet time and time again the real terrorists are protected and given safe passage by the military-industrial complex handlers.

Though the torture program is being sold to the American people as a necessity in the "war of civilizations," it is in actual fact a trial balloon for the incarceration of political dissidents during a time of manufactured national emergency such as a biological terror attack or race riots.

It was announced earlier this year that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root had been awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.

The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps will also be used "as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency."

Discussions of federal concentration camps is no longer the rhetoric of paranoid Internet conspiracy theorists, it is mainstream news.

Under the enemy combatant designation anyone at the behest of the US government, even if they are a US citizen, can be kidnapped and placed in an internment facility forever without trial. Jose Padilla, an American citizen, spent over three years in a Navy brig before he was afforded any kind of hearing. The evidence against him was proven to be non-existent and he was transferred to a civilian jail.

---------

____________________________________

You Tube | September 29 2006

Cafferty struck a somber tone tonight after the House passed legislation that includes a war crimes immunity clause. He rightfully asks, "what are we becoming?"

Cafferty: President Bush is trying to pardon himself. Here's the deal: Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Conventions are felonies, in some cases punishable by death. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Convention applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble. They've been working these prisoners over pretty good. In an effort to avoid possible prosecution they're trying to cram this bill through Congress before the end of the week before Congress adjourns. The reason there's such a rush to do this? If the Democrats get control of the House in November this kind of legislation probably wouldn't pass.

You wanna know the real disgrace about what these people are about to do or are in the process of doing? Senator Bill Frist and Congressman Dennis Hastert and their Republican stooges apparently don't see anything wrong with this. I really do wonder sometimes what we're becoming in this country.

________________

AP | September 29 2006

Comment: Alberto 'The Bull' Gonzales is already out threatening federal judges to shut up and get behind the dictator or face the consequences.

Gonzales has the sheer gall to attack judges for even considering to "overturn long-standing traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent," which is exactly what Gonzales, Bush and the rest of the White House criminals are doing themselves by de facto abolishing the Bill of Rights!

**
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending President Bush's anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime.

He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs. "The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime," the attorney general told a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center.

"Judges must resist the temptation to supplement those tools based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review," Gonzales said.

And he said the independence of federal judges, who are appointed for life, "has never meant, and should never mean, that judges or their decisions should be immune" from public criticism.

"Respectfully, when courts issue decisions that overturn long-standing traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent, they cannot — and should not — be shielded from criticism," Gonzales said. "A proper sense of judicial humility requires judges to keep in mind the institutional limitations of the judiciary and the duties expressly assigned by the Constitution to the more politically accountable branches."

His audience included legal scholars and judges, including Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the Bush administration's most reliable supporters on the Supreme Court.

The attorney general did not refer to any specific case or decision but only to wartime, military and foreign affairs cases in general.

Gonzales has sent Justice Department lawyers into federal courts from coast to coast defending Bush's detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, his plans to try some of them before military tribunals and his use of the National Security Agency to wiretap Americans without court warrants when they communicate with suspected terrorists abroad.

Over administration objections, the Supreme Court ordered that detainees could challenge aspects of their imprisonment in federal courts and overturned Bush's plans for military tribunals, forcing Bush to ask Congress to approve a new version of the panels.

A handful of federal district judges either ordered an end to the warrantless wiretapping or agreed to hear court challenges to it. Opponents of the plan argue the NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's requirement that the government get a warrant from a court that meets in secret before wiretapping Americans to gain intelligence information.

The administration contends that despite the statute's language, the president has inherent authority from the Constitution to order such eavesdropping without court permission. Justice lawyers also have argued that the challenges to the NSA program should be thrown out of court because trials would expose state secrets. Most of the judges' rulings and proceedings have been stayed pending appeal.

Gonzales also said he thought more states should move away from having judges stand in partisan elections to keep their seats. Gonzales himself as a Texas Supreme Court justice "had to raise enough money to run print ads and place television spots around the state in order to retain my seat."

In such contested elections, "most of the contributions come from lawyers and law firms, many of whom have had, or will have, cases before the court," Gonzales said. "The appearance of a conflict of interest is difficult to dismiss."

He noted favorably that some states have adopted other ways of picking judges, including merit selection and appointment with simple up-or-down retention elections rather than contested campaigns. With polls showing many voters think judges can be swayed by campaign contributions, Gonzales said, "If Americans come to believe that judges are simply politicians, or their decisions can be purchased for a price, state judicial systems will be undermined."

________

Gonzales' sacking of US Attorneys like a 'coup d'etat' - February 9, 2007

________

Torture Bill [HR 6166] States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism
Legislation tolls the bell for the day America died, birth of the dictatorship

SEE ALSO 'Politics of Torture'

____________________________

Is this man mentally challenged?

Video - Ashcroft: Bush should be trusted not to abuse new powers

David Edwards / Raw Story | October 17 2006

In the following MSNBC video, former Attorney General John Ashcroft says that President George W. Bush should be trusted not to abuse new powers granted to him by congress.

Earlier today, Bush signed into law the Military Commission Act, a bill giving him the legal power to declare any person a detainee. The law has been criticized for removing the right of habeas corpus and limiting the right to see evidence presented against the accused. The bill also gives the president new powers to declare anyone a detainee -- including American citizens -- and to detain that person without oversight or access to the U.S. court system.

Ashcroft argues that Presidents in the past have not abused Executive powers during times of war.

 

___________

25% of Americans want Bush to take more of their Liberties

CNN | October 26 2006

Most Americans do not believe the Bush administration has gone too far in restricting civil liberties as part of the war on terror, a new CNN poll released Thursday suggests.