Alan Colmes Whips Up on Karl Rove Over War Powers
Here we see Rove argue against persons having the right to habeas corpus, which he regards as "ridiculous". Rove thinks it's "a terrible decision" to ask the administration to have to bring evidence to a court proving a persons guilt.
Why do these retards find it so shocking that they be required to bring proof against the people that they are holding in custody? I note that Rove also repeats the lie that persons released from Guantanamo Bay have come back to the US and committed acts of terrorism.
Colmes actually does a very good job of taking apart Rove's argument.
Colmes: This is a great decision that dates back to the Magna Carter and habeas corpus and refers back to....The constitution applies to persons not just citizens. That is in keeping with what the constitution says.The thing that appears to be annoying Rove the most is that the Bush administration should be required to provide evidence proving the guilt of some people that they have held in custody for over five years.
Rove: This is a ridiculous decision. This is not the criminal justice system, this is a WAR!
Colmes: When was war declared? Did Congress declare war?...It was not a declaration of war... If you want to go by the US constitution, don't they get to declare war?
Rove: If you feel that strongly, go get yourself an ACLU attorney. File a declaration in the court...
Colmes: If you're going by the Constitution...If you're a strict constructionist, habeas corpus is key.. you have to go through the Constitution...
In what system would one person have the power to declare someone an enemy and hold them without a trial? Oh that's right, it's this one.
And the fact that Rove was making this argument on the fourth of July, of all bloody days, is an irony that should be lost on no-one.
Tags:
4 comments:
The Administration is desperately trying to conflate habeas corpus with letting the bad guys go free.
All that the courts are asking is to be shown the evidence that justifies their detention. It's not a decision on guilt or innocence. Of course, that "evidence" is likely to be extremely flimsy.
Rove's advice to file a declaration of the court is just silly. The Administration has clearly stated that, since it is "a time of war", the President can do whatever he wants. Along with this is the odd contention that it's "a time of war" whenever the President says it is.
Will anyone be surprised when these odd contentions are abandoned by the neocons after a Democrat assumes the White House?
Will anyone be surprised when these odd contentions are abandoned by the neocons after a Democrat assumes the White House?
This is one of the things that has always struck me as odd about the Republican theory of executive power during wartime, will they be happy to see Obama assume the powers which they say Bush has?
Of course they won't. Although they will be happy to hand the nightmare of Guantanamo over to a Democrat so they can bemoan the trials of terrorists and equate the release of any innocents with some sort of surrender to bin Laden.
They have fucked this up beyond belief and are actually anxious to pass it to someone else as they have no clue at all about what to do next.
They have fucked this up beyond belief and are actually anxious to pass it to someone else as they have no clue at all about what to do next.
In the back of my mind, I've been wondering if this is precisely their strategy. IOW, be content with losing the Executive and instead concentrate on ensuring that Obama is "damaged goods" before even setting foot in the WH and taking on the awful mess that is sure to involve a long series of unpopular decisions. Then they sit back and say "I told you the Democrats would be a disaster for the country".
The thing that dissuades me from that view is the money. A Republican White House guarantees a direct and constant flow of money from the Treasury to their cronies and full employment for shills and sycophants. Also, they seem to be concentrating the vast majority of their money on the executive race and leaving the legislators in the lurch, which is the opposite of what they would be doing if they intended to let the Democrats discredit themselves.
On other wingnut blogs, the issue of these war powers in the hands of Democrats is dismissed in the belief that Democrats are not 'strong enough' to actually use them.
In the back of my mind, I've been wondering if this is precisely their strategy. IOW, be content with losing the Executive and instead concentrate on ensuring that Obama is "damaged goods" before even setting foot in the WH and taking on the awful mess that is sure to involve a long series of unpopular decisions. Then they sit back and say "I told you the Democrats would be a disaster for the country".
I don't even think that there is a strategy as such as much as there is a general feeling of relief at passing the stinking corpse to someone else.
As you say, there will be many decisions which will have to be made, especially regarding the guys at Guantanamo, which the repugs would love to pass on as they are literally clueless about what to do and this will allow them to snipe from the sidelines.
On other wingnut blogs, the issue of these war powers in the hands of Democrats is dismissed in the belief that Democrats are not 'strong enough' to actually use them.
Actually I think the Democrats are too, well.... democratic to use them, but how those buggers would scream if the Dems ever attempted to say Obama had power which Congress could not scrutinize because of the war.
Post a Comment