Sunday, June 29, 2008

listener challenges Andrew Wilkow on Habeas Corpus

I wanted to highlight a showdown between APF pundit Andrew Wilkow and listener Troy. This is a first as I've never highlighted a listener challenge originating from a blog.

In the past I've highlighted listeners challenging pundits on the air and what pundits are likely to do when they are overmatched by a caller. These are only possible once the Pundit accepts the listener's call, but what recourse does the listener have if the Pundit doesn't respond?

In his blog Troy challenges Wilkow's assertions of Habeaus Corpus rights as it relates to the latest Supreme court ruling on Guantanamo Bay prisoners.
I wrote him an email this morning and posted a comment on his MySpace page contradicting his so-called "perfectly executed political analysis" and guess what he does?

He DELETES my profile under his 'friends' and REMOVES the comment.
JUNE 28, 2008: Andrew Wilkow has YET to respond. His silence speaks LOUDER than not only his INACTION; but also his RANTING on the radio that's "I'm right, they're wrong" because "I've just provided perfectly executed political analysis."
Whilst Troy does bait Wilkow he also provides a well sourced argument. Personally I have no legal training and am not well read on the American legal system. I also haven't heard audio of Wilkow's offending statements. It was worth highlighting this challenge because it was in the spirit of the blog - it's quite common in wrestling for people in the audience to challenge the wrestler in the ring. Troy is a respectful loyal listener of Wilkow. He believes his challenge is in the spirit of Wilkow's mantra of championing rational thought and discussion.

Read Troy's post here: Andrew Wilkow DOES NOT like having his perfectly executed political analysis questioned!!

Do not be fooled by the MySpace aesthetic. It is an earnest blog expressing the perspectives of a man with a humble microphone. Though Troy doesn't explicitly state if he is a democrat or Republican we can infer certain things as he is very transparent in his blog. He has served over a decade in the military, likes all kinds of music except rap, isn't a fan of political correctness and is a 'Trekker'.
Read Troy (Starfleet Cadet's) Blog on MySpace

Join the discussion and share your thoughts on the ruling of Habeas Corpus as well as the assertions made by Andrew Wilkow and Troy. You're welcome to do that here or on Troy's blog.

Go to Andrew Wilkow's MySpace Page
Go to Troy's (Starfleet Cadet's) MySpace page
Go to Troy's blog on MySpace
Go to Andrew Wilkow's official website

Watch what happens when a normal audience member challenges a wrestler -
VIDEO: Santino Morella challenging Umaga


Troy said...

Thank you for highlighting my blog challenging Mr. Wilkow on his position taken on 'The Wilkow Majority' regarding the Writ of Habeas Corpus and the recent Supreme Court ruling.

I was recently asked if I called into the show to present this challenege; my reply was no, unfortunately I was in my car at the time (of both shows) and did not have all the facts I presented in my blog before me.

As far as D or R go, I have never subscribed to such labels since both parties have muddied their respective identities to the point that neither have any real or honest meaning anymore.

Notwithstanding, I will say I am a firm conservative who leans more to the right than the left.

And one correction, if I is 'Trekker,' not 'Trekkie.' The former denotes a fan, the latter an obsessed fan (the type that William Shatner wrote about in his book 'Get a Life').

Anyhow, I felt it was important to challenge Mr. Wilkow on this subject for a few reasons.

One: more often than not he does provide "perfectly executed political analaysis." However, in this case the issue was LEGAL - not - 'political.' Therefore, he got it ALL WRONG!

Two: he always asks to be challeneged, so I date I've received no response other than as mentioned in my blog - deletion from his friends list and my comment erased from his MySpace page.

And Third: He always accuses liberlas of reading into the Constitution what they want it to and not for what it says. Well, he did EXACTLY what he accused liberals of doing and I called him out for it.

In sum, if you're going to be on the radio and providing not only important information but also helps if you back them up with ACCURATE substantiation, not supposition; which is what he did in this particular case/topic.

Again, thank you for highlighting my blog challenging the infamous pundit...Andrew Wilkow of the Wilkow Majority!


PS. I'm still a loyal listen of the show! ;-)

PunditFight said...

Maybe I should keep 'Trekkie' just to underscore my ignorance on the subculture. Just like when old people call it "The Rap music" (i can't think of a better example)

But I'll change it because you asked nicely.

Jay Stewart said...

Lets put it this way. Andrew Wilkow is a shill for the Republican party. He is also the Eric Cartman of Radio. Disagree with him and he will call you a liberal. Andrew is nothing then a Little Hitler.

Troy, at least you are independent minded, something he is not. Maybe you should try Indie Talk 110 on Sirius?

Troy said...

Thanks you Jay for the suggested Indie Talk station. I caught the last few minutes of the morning show into work and was impressed with that host.

Will have to give it more attention in the future.



Troy said...

I've updated my challenge/blog with the following:

JULY 2, 2008 UPDATE:

Apparently Andrew Wilkow is on cruise control down tunnel vision lane in regards to this matter. He believes that citing Johnson v. Eisentrager and Article 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution - supports - his stated position.

Sadly, his reading of Article 3, Section 2 lacks proper legal analysis and interpretation - as well as - his understanding of the cited 1950 SC case.

A cursory review of the Johnson v. Eisentrager at Wikipedia defines the underlining legal and foreign policy issue within the first paragraph:

Johnson v. Eisentr├Ąger, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), was a major decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, where it decided that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals held in a U.S.-administered German prison. The prisoners had at no time been on American sovereign territory.

The detainees in Guantanamo are not being held abroad in a foreign land of non-US sovereign territory. In fact, they ARE ON US SOVEREIGN TERRITORY! A point of legal FACT outlined in my argument below and substantiated by citing Judge Napolitano's book 'Constitutional Chaos' discussing this very issue.

Clearly Andrew Wilkow's legal analysis is wanting, and his continued ignorance of the subject is telling.

Moreover, the fact that he is sticking to his patently incorrect position on this matter - while refusing to acknowledge this challenge - exposes his hypocrisy in asking his listeners for such challenges but only cherry picking the ones he believes he can win or those he can out speak (i.e. louder voice and with frequent interruptions) with his sophistry.

S.C. aka S.D.

Anonymous said...

From what planet did Troy come? I would like for anyone to find and point out to me or anyone else the part where it lists the rights of non-citizens???

If Troy truly was a loyal listener he would have never have referred to Wilkow as 'infamous'!!!

Troy said...

Anonymous said:

"From what planet did Troy come? I would like for anyone to find and point out to me or anyone else the part where it lists the rights of non-citizens???"

The U.S.A. affords ALL 'human beings' basic rights...which includes Habeas Corpus.

NO ONE deserves to be detained without ryhme or reason by the US Government, least of all American citizens (which some Gitmo detainees were/are).

"If Troy truly was a loyal listener he would have never have referred to Wilkow as 'infamous'!!!"

Well, given the fact that Andrew's "passion" has become well known in many circles, and not in a positive or constructive context...the term 'infamous' most certain applies.

Moreover, his 'passion' has clouded his own judgment, not to mention his so called 'perfectly executed analysis'; be it politicall OR legal (and especially legal)!


Anonymous said...

Interesting blog post.

Andrew Wilkow Fan