Keith Olbermann on the Loss of the Bill of Rights

Yesterday, I posted a piece where I created a graphic of The Bill of Rights, with the damaged parts crossed out. After doing so, I remembered a segment on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, where Olbermann does much the same thing, explaining why those parts of the Bill have been so damaged.

I found it today, and thought I should post it. The Bill of Rights segment is toward the end.

McCain for Habeas Corpus Before He Was Against It

Image from source, Think Progress

As much as I despise simplistic sloganeering in political campaigns, the term "flip flop" was practically branded on John Kerry's forehead, and on countless other Democrats along the way. Republicans change their positions as "conditions change on the ground." Democrats rarely get the same latitude.

But thanks to the internet, we can now clearly spell out these so-called flip flops for everyone to see. And given John McCain's hardline comments about the Supreme Court's recent decision on habeas corpus, this one should be big news.

[Excerpt]

In 2005, McCain Said Even The ‘Scum Of Humanity’ Deserve To Have ‘Some Adjudication Of Their Cases’

Raising the specter of Osama bin Laden being tried in civil court, McCain invoked the Nazi war crimes trials to declare that bin Laden should be denied habeas rights at all costs, Supreme Court be damned. . . [snip]

McCain has invoked the Nazi trials at Nuremberg before to uphold his position on habeas. Unfortunately for McCain, in that instance it was to push for granting those rights to terror detainees. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Right-wingers Not Into Heavy Reading

Image from Ugly Republicans

A reader sent me a link to his blog, noticing a common thread on the right-wing blogs, regarding the Supreme Court decision on habeas corpus today. It would seem that George W. Bush isn't the only conservative with an aversion to heavy reading.

Check it out. And thanks, Simon!

[Excerpt]

Right wing bloggers employ investigative journalism skills to “skim” documents

I felt sympathy for right wing bloggers today after the Supreme Court ruled that habeas corpus would be restored to Guantanamo detainees. I knew that they not only had to disagree with the justices but they also had to declare their rulings unconstitutional and the work of “judicial activism.” But to make those claims right wing bloggers would actually have to read the court opinions, and those opinions are just so gosh darn long.

Well, luckily they employed their Woodward/Bernstein investigative journalism skills to speed up the process. . .

Read on (unless you'd rather skim) at: Bloggasm

Supreme Court Upholds Habeas Corpus for Detainees

Image from source, Salon

I still don't understand how George W. Bush, his administration and 25% (give or take) of the American people continue to believe that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have no rights. Many of them have been there for six years, and all of the above maintain that they don't need to be told why they're being held, have no access to counsel, no recourse whatsoever.

Conservatives will allege that they're terrorists, and don't deserve any of those things. Believers in human rights would say that they're suspected terrorists, and are innocent until proven guilty. And therein lies the rub. There is scant evidence on many of these people, so actual court trials would be difficult to prove. The Supreme Court decided today that is not the primary issue; habeas corpus is the issue. Good for them.

[Excerpt]

Supreme Court to Bush: You're not above the law

June 13, 2008 For the third time in four summers, the U.S. Supreme Court has slammed the Bush administration's detention policies at Guantánamo Bay -- locking up terrorist suspects indefinitely and beyond the law. And this time, some real progress might even come out of it. In a 5-4 decision drafted by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantánamo detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus -- that is, to challenge the legal basis for their detention in a federal court. . .

Read more at: Salon