Colbert Torches Obama On Bagram Decision (VIDEO)

While he only dedicated the first two minutes of his show to the issue, Stephen Colbert's mini-segment on President Barack Obama's decision to preserve the habeas corpus-free detainee policy at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan was a brutal, bitter, and important piece of comedy.

Setting up his bit to appear as if the faux-conservative Colbert was going to pull a Jonah Goldbergian bit of praise for greenlighting the Somali pirate sniper solution, Colbert instead veered, giving major props to Obama's decision to appeal the recent court decision that granted habeas corpus rights to Bagram detainees. "He's just following the long-standing principle of American justice: guilty until proven forgotten about."

"It's essentially the same stance taken by George Bush," Colbert added, "With one important difference: Obama makes the kids like it." Sad because it's funny because it's true.

[WATCH.]

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Obama Denies Habeas Corpus
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[Shera42]

What we have here is a President that I agree with 95% of the time and disagree with 5% vs. a president previously who I am hard-pressed to think of a time he did the "right thing". After 8 years of lies and incompetence, we are suffering the aftermath.

I believe that Obama has done what he can to surround himself by competent people. He cannot fix this mess alone. No one can. We're in a crisis at the moment. The first 100 days, is he off at a ranch? On vacation? No, he's been working pretty much round the clock, and so have his staffers. He's losing his first because she has young children. So she needs to be replaced with someone who can commit to the long, difficult haul. I think that's a credit to this team that they are constantly on the go, constantly trying to put the pieces back together. And just because CNBC or some other news source said, hey the depression's over, they didn't just hang up a "mission accomplished" sign and pose for a thumbs up picture. They're still working just as hard as ever.

This hard work is praised with teabags, secession threats, and talk of impeachment. But you know what? No one will call you unpatriotic, while you complain, they'll keep working.

Does Obama have this issue wrong? Absolutely. I'm going to sign a petition or letter and hope he sets it right. Impeachment? Please.

[bronncohowie]

I supported Hillary. I voted for Obama. Here is what has happened:

1. Absolute refusal to hold ANYBODY accountable for U.S. torture.
2. A Constitutional Law Professor who witholds the basic right of Habeus Corpus.

What's next ?????

[googoogajob]

Look... the way I see it, we as US citizens should be fighting for our country, for the constitution and for the laws of the land. We are a nation of LAWS, not of men.

So I read all these posts here and it seems the bulk of everyones energy is in fighting for their 'guy ' (Bush or Obama) or their party (Dems or Repubs). Like its a football team or something. What gives?

If someone posts a complaint re: Obama (like a disgust that he is deciding not to hold ANYONE accountable for Bush torture policies) that person gets roundly demonized, called a repug, a racist etc..

How can some people here be so dismissive of facts? How can we just sit back and say stupid things like 'well where were you the last 8 yrs' as if that somehow addresses the facts?

I was fighting Bush's bad behavior the last 8yrs thank you, just as I am now fighting Obamas bad behavior.

I voted for Obama because he said some really wonderful things.
But there's now a real disconnect between his words (rhetoric) and his actions (deeds).

So, why are we making excuses for Obamas bad behavior???

[AHockeyMom]

I disagree with Obama on this and a few other issues. And there will likely be other points I disagree with. But it's nice to not be accused of being unpatriotic or un-American in my disagreement.

So I'm willing to wait and see if things change down the road. Unlike the previous admininistration, I have hopes that this one will constantly review its actions and critique their policies.

[SarahSarah]

Here here!

[ExFatoFides]

This bothers me so much. I think that the former administration intentionally created a black hole just where American constitutional law meets up with the Geneva Convention. On top of that the American political establishment still lives in fear of a terrorist attack happening on their watch. I believe in the end to uphold our constitution we will have to accept that from time to time terrorists will inflict damage on US interests and kill Americans. We will have to accept that democracies cannot fight wars like empires and that the moral authority of democracies extend only to their borders. We are choosing between the values enshrined in our founding documents and the empire that was subsequently built by us and for us. There is however an 800 pound guerilla in the room, and that is our intelligence establishment, I believe that that daily briefing the President receives is a trail of tears, the underside of global domination. The cost of being #1. We did the dirt first in the last half-century on behalf of superpower status and the collateral damage now includes our Constitution. You can blame Obama, he deserves some of it, but you can also blame the price you pay for gas, the fact that your fruit travels around the world before it comes to your table.

[OliverTwist]

It seems like with Obama - forget the law - if you got no influence he's looking forward and past you to the kind of change that the people who really matter believe in.

Too bad.

[ironyThis]

In a traditional war does the Geneva Convention allow you to spirit the captured combatant away to another country, allow no contact with family, attorney, red cross, etc. indefinitely? In this case we have the undeclared "war on terror" which has no end. Can this really be supported legally? Morally?

[coultersnemesis]

the 'war on terror' 'verbiage' (as Palin likes to call it) was the most ingenious act of Bush's f-up Admin., Basically, most of the population thinks we are at 'war' and the world is our theater. Legally justifiable? No. Morally? Judging by what I've already seen: maybe. Yes, maybe. Perhaps. Most people will be dandy with it.

[jerrypl]

Change We Can Believe In? I don't think so Obama. You are failing America by become Bush's third term. You should be ashamed, since your intelligence and brilliance has failed you.

http://eye-on-washington.blogspot.com

[justthefacts17]

This is Jimmy Carter's 2nd term..let'­s face it. Intelligence
and brillance?

[coultersnemesis]

umm, torture and police state apologists are not welcomed here. You cheered Bush all the way when he did unlawful stuff and lied to our face with impunity. Toll be gone!

[ethancorso]

Obama has gone even further than Bush to justify wiretapping.

Obama has repealed our right to pursue legal recourse if our privacy has been violated.

Obama has denied Habeus Corpus to detainees being held at Bagram.

Obama has renounced torture, but chosen a CIA director who refused to rule it out during his confirmation hearings.

Obama has invoked 'state secrets' to prevent the release of some likely damning documents.

I supported Obama for months, from the primaries and throughout the election. Ideally i would have preferred a 3rd party candidate -- but I'm a realist -- so I knew that there were only three people who had a realistic shot at winning the Presidency: Obama, Hillary, and McCain. I believe now and I believed then that Obama is by far the superior choice amongst those three contenders. With that in mind, as well as the travesty of the last 8 years, I backed Obama whole heartedly.

The crimes I've enumerated in this post were legitimate grounds for impeachment when W. was in charge, and stand today as sufficient cause for indictments on war crimes charges.

Now matter how much you like Obama, and no matter how much you believe in his leadership and his policies, you cannot reasonably argue that he is not guilty of many of the same high crimes and misdemeanors as his predecessor.

As such, he deserves to be impeached.

Nobody is above the law. Having your name followed by a (D) is not sufficient justification for

[Bitsko]

Pardon my yawning.

[coultersnemesis]

hypocrite.

[ethancorso]

Pardon your hypocrisy and your ignorance.

[DannyRose]

Bravo. Well put.

[Martha601]

What's funny is that you visit an liberal stanced internet newspaper to voice your opinions!!!! I can respect your opinions, unlike the GOP but do you really believe that you're going to post something and everyone who reads it is going to have a sudden epiphany and abandon their views to adopt yours? Silly if you think so. The chances of a Democrat agreeing with you is the same chances it is for you to agree with us so.... stop obsessing and tell someone who cares!!!!

[CrazedSurfer]

Why don't people on this site talk about something interesting.
Every post I read is the same old tired Left or Right kook rant. Do you people ever do anything worth talking about?
I'll be surfing waves with the dolphins tomorrow.
So what are you going to do? Sit in front of a computer? Get out people and live. Go see some real people face to face and have a real conversation.

The most I can contribute is to remind you to get a life before is over. You are wasting time with your political rants. Nobody cares what you think but we are interested in what you do. So go do something interesting and report back.

Thanks in advance for any interesting stories you bring back.

[SarahSarah]

I am a Democrat and as I write I am wearing my Obama "Yes We Can" bracelet which I have worn every day since the inauguration. I like Obama but I would sacrifice him in a minute to reestablish the rule of law in this country.

[don quixote12]

Glen Beck?...is that you? Glen??

[mooph]

Um ... the detainees wanted to be tried in US courts. But both the treaties of the Geneva Conventions and the US Army Field Manual specify that they be tried in military tribunals.

Denying POWs, enemy combatants, "Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities" or belligerents access to US courts isn't the same as denial of habeas corpus.

Now, the tribunal system may be operating as SNAFU -- and from many reports, it is -- but that's a different issue.

[coultersnemesis]

That is an issue, true - nothing gives "enemy combatants" or w.e. you want to call them (what you call them is, apparently, important, BTW) rights to US courts however you are purposefully glossing over the fact that many people in Afghanistan are denied even a military tribunal, held for many years without even being told what they are held for. And most of these tribunals are a mockery of due process--i mean, really, if you don't even let the lawyer for a defendant see the evidence brought against him, why not just save money and stop the joke that the tribunal is a legal process at all?

[breakingpoint]

Worth Watching - Colbert calls out Congressmen Gutierrez for taking campaign donations from the Payday Loans Industry. Gutierrez once a champion for the poor and how he won his seat represents one of Chicago's poorest and toughest areas.

http://change-congress.org/video/?partner=colbert_gutierrez_e2

[justthefacts17]

"Once a champion of the poor". C'mon.. wake up. The "con" goes on.

[breakingpoint]

Well he was a long time ago. That's how he went from city alderman to Congressional Representative. When he was first elected he stepped on a number of toes in Congress and they put him in his place. Looks like he got the hint and did what so many politicians do, sold out.

[Samalabear]

Talk about a quick turn-about for that guy. Thanks for the video. I fell asleep during this episode -- not because I was bored, just exhausted.

[coultersnemesis]

"guilty until forgotten about"

When i think about this, it makes me so so sad--just imagine for ONE second, you, case of mistaken identity, locked in a cell, no ability to contact family, lawyer, just locked away for years and years. Scary shite people, scary shite.

[EyeDoc007]

"It's essentially the same stance taken by George Bush," Colbert added, "With one important difference: Obama makes the kids like it."

Nailed it.

[bilmardre]

So why do you think Obama has taken this stance?

[coultersnemesis]

fear.

[hokuspokus]

While I am cautious about the Obama cheerleading, I am wondering not entirely his doing and tied to this:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-05/are-republicans-blackmailing-obama/full/

I heard reporting that Republicans are fearful both of political and legal prosecution for the backing of violation of US and International laws, so they are attempting to blackmail the Obama Administration into continuing the Bush era policies to save their skins. Since he needs these appointments to get our country running again, as well as the fact that their are Big D Democrats that could be implicated as well, he may be choosing this path.

The CIA is supposedly also fearful of justice:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/15/headlines#1
and detainees are coming forward to say that treatment has become worse since Obama took office.

[eXcommunicate]

As much as I hate this, I don't think legally The Constitution applies to enemy combatants or POWs or whatever they are. The Constitution only applies to American citizens and those held within the borders of our country. Now, that's the following the LETTER of the law. As far as the spirit of the law goes, the administration's stance on this is utterly indefensible. They have the "legal" right to deny habeas corpus, but not the moral right to do so. It's a tough one. I wouldn't go so far as to say the Obama Admin. is "exactly like" the Bush Admin.

[coultersnemesis]

true about the Constitution, but what about Geneva? What about the fact that these foreigners "enemy combatants", (which BTW the government has NOT proved wit hany evidence and refuses to do so) are under US jurisdiction, it's like N. Korea saying, yea, WE are holding YOUR people, but NO laws apply to them, no N.Korea laws, not American laws, not International law--so they are in a 'legal blackhole' which is a fancy way of saying, lawlessness (which never ever leads to anything good)

[cuomofied]

OMG. He nailed it. It's nice to see people opening their eyes to the Obama deception.

[Bigunsmom]

well said!!!!

[coultersnemesis]

Not well said. Obama said all the right things before the election--we agreed with him. Do not confuse Colbert with right ring reactionaries who agreed with Bush's lawlessness to 'save us from the terrorists'. If I were a conservative, i wouldn't be too proud.

[revhatchell]

so, human rights violations are an american value now.

first they came for the suspected ter rorists and i said nothing...

[coultersnemesis]

worthy quote to flesh out:

"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me."

--Niemoller

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"

--MLK

They're just sayin'.

[JoeSchmuk]

NICE!

[Samalabear]

Perfect!

[justthefacts17]

Did a democrat intern 140,000 citizens and today is an icon?
Did he save us?

[coultersnemesis]

he didn't save us--the Americans who gave their blood and life and tears did. Not him. No politician saves America. The people are the foundation. Elites, rich, politicos, talking heads, none save America.

And no, interning the 140,000 Japanese Americans did not make us safer--as there was never any evidence found that any inside plot by any Japanese American was ever planned. But, you know, just like today, Government thinks its okay to call someone guilty before they prove it. Tick Tick, as they say.