fITZ!

Fitz!

Balrog @ 1

Fitz!

Your ‘0′ is flawed, ccmask. You hit CapsLock in your hasty typing.

This article by Marty Lederman talks about other modifications that have occurred recently to make the bill much more dangerous. I strongly recommend the article.

Some one on Young Turks this morning (a caller) also noted that non-foreigners (i.e. U.S. citizens) had been removed from protections, if it is claimed that they are acting in a fashion which would be seen to aid terrorism (FDL and other left wing bloggers?). Any word on this?

Nuremburg!

The last post was the topic that brought me to FDL. But your passionate defense of the Constitution and democracy is one of the reasons that I visit every day. That and the recipes, bird pictures, bad puns, candidate interviews, and The Snark. Thanks.

OT Great picture of Jane as the Elf Queen in last night’s thread somewhere, I think from OilField Guy.

To the barricades! No wait, the phones!!

Perhaps I am foolishly optimistic, but I truly hope to see Democrats speaking up forcefully against this abomination. I still can’t believe I am living during a time when our country would even contemplate stripping habeus corpus rights from those held in confinement. The Great Writ is the foundation of law and the emblem of justice. I, too, will be watching closely to see who defends the principles upon which our country was founded and who is a lickspittle to the Bush tyranny.

What you are seeing here is how torture corrupts. The reasons that democratic nations must not torture are (1) human beings must not be mistreated by the government and (2) governments that engage in mistreatment lose legitimacy. You are witnessing the loss of legitimacy and the deepest kind of corruption. The behavior by the Republicans is reprehensible and mad, and the Democrats’ response is to play office politics and act like candy asses. Do any of these officeholders understand how lacking in legitimacy the Pakistani government is (for these very offenses)? Torture has corrupted Israeli life. Torture has undermined any legitimacy the Saudi government may ever have had. Anyone looking for an impeachable offense (and why are we still looking?) should start with the torture scandals that have been going on for some five years now. Let’s talk about impeachment (Bush and Cheney) as a consequence of the wire taps and these attempts at stripping rights out of the Consitution. And if the Supreme Court upholds these insane laws, it’s time for Thomas, Scalia, and Alito to go, too.

Hi guys, been trying to catch up. This is one of those days where I dread the potential for underhandedness by the republican senate and lack of spine in our dems. Have done my telephone duty and other rituals for success, I just hope there is more honor than nastiness in that room today.

Thanks for the link, Wigwam.

OT but important. RAW has a story on ESPN using fake audience cheers and boos for political purposes. When democrats are announced at an event, they add canned boos as if it is actual audience response. When a Republican appears (most recently Bush senior) they cut out the actual boos and put on fake cheers. Also, political lingo has been added to the play by play, i.e. “He hit a hard righter down the Limbaugh part of the field. Free publicity – and worse. Remember too that ESPN is owned by ABC-Disney. You need to read this piece to get the full impact.

Kay is stupid as are so many on the Hill and in the West. She is lecturing this morning about the terrarist threat and says that Muslims should not attack other Muslims or us– people that don’t hurt them.

&%$#@@&! Get out of their countries, stop dropping bombs, stop killing their people, stop occupying their land and thirsting for their oil.

“We will stand, we will not run, we have a memory and that memory will never let terrarists take away our freedoms. We stand on the shoulders of giants who have protected freedom.”

asshat– the preznit you have celebrated all during your speech is destroying our freedoms with your help and blessing.

OT – re: bomb threat at Fitz courthouse – they expect to reopen the courthouse in about 10 mins.

OT Tony Snow is on cspan3 with the press how can I find it? help

Pam in SC– go here

http://www.c-span.org/watch/in…..mp;Code=CS

Durbin talking about the bill now.

oh and Babington has weighed in during his wapoo chat:

New Hampshire: Good morning Charles.

While watching the Senate this morning and hearing both Frist and Reid talk about their plans for the “Hamdan legislation”, I’m quite sure I heard Senators Reid and Leahy hint at a filibuster emanating from “someone”. Have you any thoughts on this?

Charles Babington: I expect no filibuster.

Listening to “On Point” this morning, they were discussing the NIE release and one of the words that kept coming up was ‘nuanced’. They were saying that the key points were so nuanced that they could be read to benefit either side of the pro or con argument for changing course on Iraq. I had to wonder if they were written that way on purpose because of possible institutional demoralization by this administration- meaning that they know now what the outcome is when the admin gets bad news so they kept it less stark and more vague and “nuanced”. just thinking about it.

But there is nothing nuanced about torture, the Geneva Conventions’ benefits to our troops on the ground around the world or the fact that a large percentage of those held in Cuba are guilty of nothing.

Nice to see Oregon’s stalwart repub, Gordon Smith, working with Leahy…how does their amendment read, does anybody know?

Thanks to Bush’s idea of nation-building, I don’t recognize the country of my birth. How can anyone be proud of a “democracy” that violates its first principles? How can any form of government believe in torture and have any other nation want to emulate it? This is the last straw for me. This is the litmus test. Barbarba Jordan, are you out there?

AT but important – a lot of information about who did or didn’t do what leading up to 9/11 is contained in the book “The Looming Tower” by Wright. I can’t recommend it highly enough. There is a lot about Our Fitz in there too, and his work convicting terrorists.

er…I mean OT but important…sorry

sporkovat @
6

Nuremburg!

Ben Ferencz!

This stayed up over six hours next to the 405 on LA: eight lanes of heavy, HEAVY traffic…

http://freewayblogger.blogspot…..-sign.html

Cardboard, paint and something to say… that’s all it takes.

Richmond @
11

OT but important. RAW has a story on ESPN using fake audience cheers and boos for political purposes.

This is a story being pushed by a diarist at dkos- don’t remember the name off the top of my head. The claim is that they do it all the time, but the specific reference is to the Saints game on monday night football, where the NFL had GHWB out to do the coin toss. Allegedly he got booed when he was announced, for a solid 10 seconds or so, and ESPN edited the boos out and played a cheer track instead… and supposedly if you listen you can hear the clicks as they switch audio tracks.

/I haven’t heard it myself, since i don’t watch teevee.

meta @ 18

Add to that: how can we call ourselves a democracy if the only voices tolerated are those who agree with the people in power? How can we call ourselves a democracy if our votes are not counted when they are not for the people in power? how can we call ourselves a democracy when anyone can be jailed, without charges, with no way to present a defense, and solely on the word of someone who has never met them, has probably no credible evidence (and possibly no evidence at all) and may be doing it opurely for political purposes?

That isn’t my country. That’s its enemies. Or so I was taught.

Durbin talking about the amnesty offered in the bill… he’s doing great. Bringing up Gonzales and his part in torture and his part in trying to gut the war crimes act.

Thanks Angie – for the updates.

scarlet p. @
22

This stayed up over six hours next to the 405 on LA: eight lanes of heavy, HEAVY traffic…

http://freewayblogger.blogspot…..-sign.html

Cardboard, paint and something to say… that’s all it takes.

Scarlet P, you rock! The 405 is a parking lot for much of the day. Plenty of time for folks to sit and stew about that AND the traffic.

I would like the democrats to describe habeas corpus not just say how important it is

I’d like to see them say things like;

suspending haebeus corpus means the president can create a law after a person is arrested, it can be any law at all, and the peson can actually get tried for doing something that was completely benign and within the law before he was arrested

for instance, a man could be arrested, and if they couldn’t charge him with something they could invent a laq like “you are not allowed to pray on sunday”

the person might have never prayed on sunday since the law was written, however he could be charged with the law if he prayed on sunday before it was written”

that was just thrown together, I would like to see more graphic descriptions of habeas corpus and I think it’ss important to put a face on why we don’t want habeas corpus suspended

Durbin now addressing habeas corpus.

He’s eviscerating the bill and making the case that everyone here has been so passionate about. me to me– Durbin is doing just that. Now bringing up Sullivan and Hutson testimony.

Great job, scarlet p– thank you.

Awesome — Durbin is hitting habeas, and hitting it hard. Bravo!

OT sort of

Thank you to me to me for pointing out where the NIE excerpts could be found at rawstory last night.

Bush released 3 pages out of 9 of the Key Judgments of the 30 page April 2006 NIE entitled Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States”. While this is a fragment of a fragment, it is nevertheless a very strange document.

About the central contention that the Iraq war is making terrorism worse:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

* The Iraq conflict has become the ’cause celebre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.

First, the document uses preferentially the term “jihadist” which appears to have up to 5 different meanings: al Qaeda, terrorist, Iraqi insurgent, anyone who self-identifies as a jihadist, or any militant or extreme Moslem. Sloppy is a nice word for this kind of conflation.

Second, while the style of this passage could best be described as turgid, it is clear that Iraq creating a new generation of terrorists is probably not a good thing. And while I guess it would be nice if the perceived terrorists leaving Iraq were perceived by their perceivers to have perceivably failed, the thought could have been more succinctly expressed by the adage “If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.” The last sentence which is key could also use a bit of clarification. It is saying: given current conditions, terrorism stemming from the American invasion in Iraq will grow for the foreseeable future.

Third if you were wondering what the underlying factors mentioned above were. They are:

(1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness;
(2) the Iraq ‘jihad’
(3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and
(4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims

Just another wild ass guess here but I’m thinking our involvement in the first three go far in explaining the fourth, and why we are unlikely to make any headway anytime soon.

But the NIE reports that the “jihadists” or GIBH have their own weaknesses:

dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts,
the limited appeal of the jihadists’ radical ideology,
the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and
criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

I’m thinking the preparers of the NIE decided if we have 4 weaknesses then the GIBH should have 4 too. All of these points are, to say the least, problematic. If the GIBH are banking on “the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts,” then this may prove their Achilles heel because outside of conflicts involving Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan and tensions with Iran, Sudan, and Somalia I just don’t see any. As for the “limited appeal of the jihadists’ radical ideology,” I must agree except for maybe Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, and I suppose Egypt and Syria if the Moslem Brotherhood was ever allowed to compete in an open election. Thank goodness we don’t have to include Iraq and Iran in this group because they are majority Shia and the jihadi shtik is mostly a Sunni thing. Next point: let’s face it we have made it much harder with our cowboy diplomacy for voices of moderation in the Muslim world to speak up and have any credibility. The last point has some validity but has to be taken with a large grain of salt. The Algerians, Lebanese and Afghanis have all had long and bloody civil conflicts. The Algerian one ended only a couple of years ago and was especially brutal. The Afghani one is ongoing. The Iraq-Iran war had about a million dead. And, of course, there is Darfur. So the idea of Moslem on Moslem violence is not exactly unheard of and reaction to it is let’s just say variable.

Two other minor points caught my attention. One was a call for democratic reform which would stabilize countries and be used by GIBH to destabilize them. The second was that Syria and Iran were labeled the chief sponsors of state terrorism. This seems terribly unfair to the Saudis (the chief financiers of terrorism and religious extremism and the home of 15 of the 19 911 hijackers) and the Pakistanis (the creators and continuing supporters of the Taliban) who have done so much to earn this designation.

* GIBH by the way is Guys in Black Hats. There is no reason for me to use it but then there was no point in the NIE using the jihadist terminology either.

Yay — Durbin just hit the double standard of American soliders being held to account for interrogation techniques, but high level civil and military officials not being held to account for giving the orders. About damn time someone brought that up again.

“These provisions are inconsistent with American values and they put our troops at risk.”

thanks for the live blogging (can’t get to the tv)

OT

Olbermann’s Monday night ratings …..look at Keith go :

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvn…..1.asp#more

Digby is really pissed about this bill. His major point is that the bill is going to pass and nobody in congress really knows what is in it. Bush’s are making changes,”in the middle of the night”. An example; both sides agreed to allow evidence seized outside the United States, without a warrant, to be admitted at trial. In the latest mark-up “Outside the United States” has been omitted. Is everyone ready for the 2:AM knock on the door?

P J Evans @
24

meta @ 18

Add to that: how can we call ourselves a democracy if the only voices tolerated are those who agree with the people in power? How can we call ourselves a democracy if our votes are not counted when they are not for the people in power? how can we call ourselves a democracy when anyone can be jailed, without charges, with no way to present a defense, and solely on the word of someone who has never met them, has probably no credible evidence (and possibly no evidence at all) and may be doing it opurely for political purposes?

That isn’t my country. That’s its enemies. Or so I was taught.

The Democrats are playing the role of loyal opposition with too mjuch loyalty and way too little opposition. In fact, I’m beginning to think that they too have been taken over by neocons.

I called Warner again, for all the good it’ll do.

Another argument to make, beyond the basic one about how appalling it is to try to turn the clock back centuries on our judicial system, is that this will not serve justice. Every time they declare how they’re going to deal with prisoners, the Bush Administration makes a big show of how it’s important to act quickly so that “justice” can be meted out. Then they push through something so blatantly unconstitutional that it’s guaranteed to be tied up in the courts for years. (They’re trying to end-run that this time by declaring that the courts have no jurisdiction, but that is sure to be litigated itself.)

If you have the misfortune to talk to any right-wingers, ask them what they have against the well-established Uniform Code of Military Justice, and why do they think that judicial procedures written in crayon on the back of an envelope serves us better?

rayne

thanx for that link two floors down, that helps

what I really need is richard clarkes version of why he said clinton never gave bush the plans he spoke about

this is obscure…I have the information I need to demonstrate the detailed plan WAS given, so that’s not a problem

I did a google search and there are links where clarke seemed to say Bush wasn’t given the plan

they are snippets, though and I can’t track down the original claim, the context, nor if clarke explained the statement

what I think they are distorting is the fact that clarke said “bush never had a clear plan”, and actually using that to claim clarke said they never gave bush a clear plan

gonna be tough to dig this one out

thanx for the link and the help

From Matt Yglesias:

“…the United States now presents itself as what amounts to the globe’s largest and most powerful rogue state — a nuclear-armed superpower capable of projecting military force to the furthest corners of the earth, acting utterly without legal or moral constraint whenever the president proclaims it necessary. The idea that striking such a posture on the world stage will serve our long-term interests is daft. American power has, for decades, rested crucially on the sense that the United States can be trusted and relied upon, on the belief that we use our power primarily to defend the community of liberal states and the liberal rules by which they conduct themselves rather than to undermine them.

An America prepared to casually toss out the most fundamental principles of international humanitarian diplomacy — along with basic human decency and the rule of law as side helpings — is not a country others are going to want to cooperate with. It will constitute a threat to their own interests and values. Nor will it be a country blessed with a lot of accurate intelligence. As Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has pointed out, an intelligence service shot-through with demands that it torture people “degenerates into a playground for sadists,” the service itself “an army of butchers” skilled at terrorizing its victims but hardly capable of unraveling complicated investigations.

It’s a grim future brought to us by grim and deranged men — by people who seem to have developed an unhealthy level of admiration for America’s enemies. (They want the country they run to transform itself into a facsimile of its evil adversaries.) It’s a future in which it may become increasingly hard for decent citizens of this country to say truthfully that they’re proud to be Americans.”

Everyone reading this needs to call their Senators and Representatives. Beg them to stop this. It is unAmerican. It is counter to American interests. And it is immoral.

called DiFi’s office – all the lines are busy…! will try again later.

Great amendment, PJ.

I really don’t understand this. We need one Democratic senator to mount of filibuster. We need the rest to simply not show up for a cloture vote. It’s bad enough that most of the Dems are spineless. What I don’t understand is how they can all show up and vote for cloture (a la Alito) on something like this.

Hugh @
31

OT sort of

Thank you to me to me for pointing out where the NIE excerpts could be found at rawstory last night.

here’s what everyone is missing as far as the report

first, there are VERY few positives in the report, just about every positive are suggestions how to proceed, NOT claiming theyy are succeeding

but MORE important then that

ANY positive HAS NOTHING to do with Iraq, EVERY mention of Iraq points out the negative effects

so if the president wants to claim this nie says things are going swimmingly, he cannot possibly say this nie finds any good from his initiative in Iraq

JHunsecker @ 9

You are witnessing the loss of legitimacy and the deepest kind of corruption. The behavior by the Republicans is reprehensible and mad, and the Democrats’ response is to play office politics and act like candy asses.

A great point to make- this sort of thing worsens the legitimacy crisis of declining states – and with less legitimacy they have to use more repression and on down into terminal corruption and despotism.

Such moral rot poisons all institutions that enable it – the Congress- the worse than useless Dem Senators like Obama who pretend to have a moral influence on their political calculations, the whole Dem leadership, and, eventually, the Judiciary, if they capitulate to such outrages.

Then the American people will have the same relationship to their state apparatus as the Pakistanis, or the subjects of the old Soviet Union. At least then we’ll know where we stand.

>>added to say that at least I can be a little proud of one of my public servants from Illinois, I’m glad to hear Durbin hammering the outrages in this bill… as of yesterday Obama’s people say he has no position… which to me means he supports it

wigwam at 21: Mr. Ferencz advocates steps to replace the “rule of force with the rule of law.”

too bad this country is now doing the opposite…sad.

I’m hearing Gail Shattuck (CSMonitor) on radio saying that Dems will not do a “show stopper” on the bill, they will object, but will not filibuster. More when I find it.

Hugh @31 – wow, thanks for the summary. That’s almost a post all by its own self, huh?

Wonder what’s on the other 6 pages?

angie @
29

Durbin now addressing habeas corpus.

He’s eviscerating the bill and making the case that everyone here has been so passionate about. me to me– Durbin is doing just that. Now bringing up Sullivan and Hutson testimony.

Great job, scarlet p– thank you.

thanx for that info, gives me confort, I am not near a tv where I can watch and this conncetion is too slow to stream

Beyond habeas, this provision(in the Senate bill) seems to directly violate the Constitition:

S 3929.108, INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT.—
(A) As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

Article III:

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made (emphasis mine), or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

No?

They can pass anything they want, but, Constitutionally, Bush does not get the last word on treaties. (until he gets that 5th vote he needs for coronation with another right-wing appointment).
_

leftinoregon @ 17, I am an Oregonian too, and this is the first time I can recall Gordon Smith doing something worthwhile.

OldSchool @ 40

called DiFi’s office – all the lines are busy…! will try again later.

I got through to DiFi and Boxer. Told them if they didnt AT LEAST LOOK LIKE they were opposing this legislation they would help suppress voter turnout among the Dem base on Nov. 7.

I’m hoping Harry Reid has a trick up his sleeve. It’s not hard to trick Frist.

Pelosi making the point about making convictions stick. Five years have gone by and not one planner of 9/11 has been brought to trial. The bill doesn’t honor their oath of office to protect and defend the constitution.

Wigwam @ 36

P J Evans @
24

meta @ 18

Add to that: how can we call ourselves a democracy if the only voices tolerated are those who agree with the people in power? How can we call ourselves a democracy if our votes are not counted when they are not for the people in power? how can we call ourselves a democracy when anyone can be jailed, without charges, with no way to present a defense, and solely on the word of someone who has never met them, has probably no credible evidence (and possibly no evidence at all) and may be doing it opurely for political purposes?

That isn’t my country. That’s its enemies. Or so I was taught.

The Democrats are playing the role of loyal opposition with too mjuch loyalty and way too little opposition. In fact, I’m beginning to think that they too have been taken over by neocons.

I look at your country from my country and it is obvious from here that the Repubs and the Dems are owned by the same people. Two sides are needed to preserve the illusion of a real fight, as in pro wrestling. Keeps the people busy while the business gets done.

Hijacked D’s and R’s may look different but that’s because of the different ways the two parties are structured. Yes, folks, believe me, *both* parties have been hijacked. Think about it and see if that doesn’t make a lot of things make sense.

So, keep the Internet free, make the elections real, then the people of the United States take back both parties. This may take a while.

Also, I was wondering. The effable Sen Ted Toobz was able to put an anonymous hold on a bill, does that ploy apply in a case like this?

me to me @ 38

rayne

thanx for that link two floors down, that helps

what I really need is richard clarkes version of why he said clinton never gave bush the plans he spoke about

this is obscure…I have the information I need to demonstrate the detailed plan WAS given, so that’s not a problem

I did a google search and there are links where clarke seemed to say Bush wasn’t given the plan

they are snippets, though and I can’t track down the original claim, the context, nor if clarke explained the statement

what I think they are distorting is the fact that clarke said “bush never had a clear plan”, and actually using that to claim clarke said they never gave bush a clear plan

gonna be tough to dig this one out

thanx for the link and the help

I don’t quite understand what you’re saying, but here’s the link to Richard Clarke’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission. Maybe you’ll find what you’re looking for there.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/…..tement.pdf

Trent Lott is auditioning for the GOP leadership position again. SIGH Although watching he and Mitch McConnell tap dance around each other is amusing, if nothing else. (I met McConnell a couple of times when I was in college during his early tenure in the Senate — his daughter lived in my house at Smith — and we had a couple of great debates about the UN and the first Gulf War over breakfast and dinner, respectively, during a parent’s weekend one year. *g* Yes, I was like this in my early college years, too.)

me to me #38 — have you combed through Clarke’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission?

Transcript from CNN.com (can’t vouchsafe accuracy or completeness)

I see mention of a December 2000 document. And it is because the Bush administration was both inept and obtuse about the threat of terrorism that Clarke asked for a reassignment to cybersecurity under the Bush administration.

I also note this bit from the transcript:

TIMOTHY ROEMER, 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Clarke. I want to thank you, as I start my questions, for your 30 years of public service to the American people. I want to thank you for your sworn testimony before the 9/11 commission: over 15 hours.

And I really want to say, Mr. Clarke, that there are a lot of distractions out there today. The books, a lot of news media, a lot of accusations flying back and forth.

I want you to concentrate, to the degree you can, on the memos, on the e-mail, on the strategy papers and on the time that we’re tasked to looking at on this 9/11 commission, between 1998 and September the 11th.

You coordinated counterterrorism policy in both the Clinton and the Bush administrations. I want to know, first of all: Was fighting al Qaeda a top priority for the Clinton administration from 1998 to the year 2001? How high a priority was it in that Clinton administration during that time period?

CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration — certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don’t know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration.

ROEMER: With respect to the Bush administration, from the time they took office until September 11th, 2001, you had much to deal with: Russia, China, G-8, Middle East. How high a priority was fighting al Qaeda in the Bush administration?

CLARKE: I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.

Well, president Bush himself says as much in his interview with Bob Woodward in the book “Bush at War.” He said, “I didn’t feel a sense of urgency.”

George Tenet and I tried very hard to create a sense of urgency by seeing to it that intelligence reports on the al Qaeda threat were frequently given to the president and other high-level officials. And there was a process under way to address al Qaeda. But although I continued to say it was an urgent problem, I don’t think it was ever treated that way.

ROEMER: You have said in many ways — you’ve issued some blistering attacks on the Bush administration. But you’ve not held those criticisms from the Clinton administration, either. We heard from Mr. Berger earlier that you were critical of the Clinton administration on two areas: not providing aid to the Northern Alliance, and not going after the human conveyor belts of jihadists coming out of the sanctuaries in Afghanistan.

Are there more in the Clinton administration years — the USS Cole, the response there?

CLARKE: Well, I think first of all, Mr. Berger is right to say that almost everything I ever asked for in the way of support from him or from president Clinton, I got. We did enormously increase the counterterrorism budget of the federal government, initiated many programs, including one that is now called Homeland Security.

Mr. Berger is also right to note that I wanted a covert action program to aid Afghan factions to fight the Taliban, and that was not accomplished. He’s also right to note that on several occasions, including after the attack on the Cole, I suggested that we bomb all of the Taliban and al Qaeda infrastructure, whether or not it would succeed in killing bin Laden. I thought that was the wrong way of looking at the problem. I think the answer is essentially Mr. Berger got it right.

ROEMER: OK. With my 15 minutes, let’s move into the Bush administration.

On January 25th, we’ve seen a memo that you’ve written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals’ review of al Qaeda. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new ‘02 budget authority to help fight al Qaeda and a response to the USS Cole. You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000.

Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals’ meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done?

CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn’t meet urgently in January or February.

Then when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of al Qaeda as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address al Qaeda in the context of all of those inter-related issues.

That process probably ended, I think in July of 2001. So we were ready for a principals meeting in July. But the principals calendar was full and then they went on vacation, many of them in August, so we couldn’t meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.

ROEMER: So as the Bush administration is carefully considering from bottom up a full review of fighting terrorism, what happens to these individual items like a response to the USS Cole, flying the Predator? Why aren’t these decided in a shorter time frame as they’re also going through a larger policy review of how this policy affects Pakistan and other countries — important considerations, but why can’t you do both?

CLARKE: The deputies committee, its chairman, Mr. Hadley, and others thought that all these issues were sufficiently inter-related, that they should be taken up as a set of issues, and pieces of them should not be broken off.

ROEMER: Did you agree with that?

CLARKE: No, I didn’t agree with much of that. ROEMER: Were you frustrated by this process?

CLARKE: I was sufficiently frustrated that I asked to be reassigned.

ROEMER: When was this?

CLARKE: Probably May or June. Certainly no later than June.

[emphasis mine] In other words, whatever work Plame did with Brewster-Jennings was bundled up with everything else around the Middle East and Asia…were they already scrapping everything in place to work on WMD proliferation and terrorism because they were already allocating all their resources and attention to the results of Cheney’s Energy Task Force?

Is that why WHIG member Rice shelved the 13-page strategy-report from the Clinton Administration — because she already had other marching orders?

Trent Lott says the SCOTUS was wrong with Hamdan decision, the admin is right and yes they got some things wrong– but they are human, after all.

Lott backing the scumbags and their filthy legislation.

(no, they are not human at all and neither are you)

railing on the dems now…

we are dealing with the most vicious killers in the world– they are baaaad people. (What about the innocents?)

Now we are worrying about the niceties about how to treat them.

Moderator(s) – please close the open italics tag appearing somewhere between comments 50 and 55.

SharonW @ 52

me to me @ 38

rayne

I don’t quite understand what you’re saying, but here’s the link to Richard Clarke’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission. Maybe you’ll find what you’re looking for there.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/…..tement.pdf

the claims are that richard lied before that testimony, that he said they never gave bush the plan

it’s hard to explain and when the person I’m having the argument sources his claim I’ll ask again with a better explanation

thanx for the help

Wow, McGovern is telling it like it is! Bush has broken the law. Exec branch has operated under a bizarre set of legal priviledges, despite warning from our best and brightest experts.

could somebody please close the italics tag

thanx in advance

thanks for drawing a line in the sand, christy.
a different take on why this is happening now. follow the money, as they say…

lhp (wherever you are) – Out here where pawpaws grow we had that moment of silence with you. If you allow for the roar of the kings river and southern breeze rustling through oak leaves. Nothing like rising from a few moments of silence to news of a bomb threat.

I never fully realized how much I believe in our constitution and the rule of it’s law until the past few months. So pardon me for being a bit sad today for those who have sworn to protect and defend the constitution are the very souls who may fail us before our eyes. Isn’t this an unarmed coup?
Over the years I have experienced personal violations of liberty such as assault, burglary of my own home, false arrest and short detainment and other invasive searches of my property. They make one feel powerless and violated and carry mistrust and anger, often for those who we need to trust most. I have never been through a trial or had to plea for anything except no contest for protesting wars and minor traffic violations. I share these experiences so their is a mild understanding of my comparison to the sense of violation I feel when I say today I feel like I have been punched in the gut by my President and a line of Congressmen are awaiting their turn. I want to vomit
As a fellow citizen who finds great comfort here in the lake I must share how ill at ease I am. I will have to reconsider my allegiance to a country who stands for something I no longer understand nor may want to. Life is short and the terms of battling for liberty in our world may have changed to an unacceptable playing field. The price of dissent and ease in which dissenters will now be able to be labeled unlawful combatants, judged, tortured and imprisoned for ideas alone is to high.
Thank goodness I have no children though I mourn for the future of those who face this kind of world. I tried in my small way. Now those peaceful methods I am afraid will carry an awfully high risk against even our illusions of liberty.
I don’t intend to give up completely but face the new paradigm with an understanding it may be time for me to shut up, move on and pretend things are alright while waiting for the battle tactics to change and enough people develop an understanding of just what is happening. If that awakening happens in my lifetime, and I hope it does, I will embrace that day with renewed hope and a clear understanding of what a citizen of the world must fight for. Ghandi said it takes one percent so maybe it will not take to long.
I hope I am wrong and Congress will show some backbone. Looks like today is another huge tipping point.

Christy,

Thank you so much for this passionate post. You always inspire me to do more, and let me tell you, I need a kick in the pants these days.

Snowe & Collins are not making statements about where they stand on the bill. I almost started crying while talking to their staffers. They sounded a bit more sober than they usually do and were attentive and responsive to my position.

I hope that they get how important this is.

As dear Norske would say, “Keep the faith and pass the ammunition”.

I think the tag is open from hotflahes post

I think it’s my bad. I’m sorry.

thanks for drawing a line in the sand, christy. we should all keep a list of pro-torture “democrats.”

i’d like to add a different perspective to the discussion, shameless blogwhore that i am. have you been to a prison lately?

Tag should be fixed — everyone refresh and let me know. MAC users see it differently from us PC folks — so I can’t tell if I’ve closed the one that was causing the rest of you problems until a MAC person refreshes and updates me. Thanks.

Do not come calling for my support if you cannot hold the Constitution and this nation’s founding principles in the highest regard.

This is the only thing that Senators and congressmen swear an oath to do, and yet you’d never know it to see them in action these days.

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, Christy. Defending the Constitution is the thing we need them to do before anything else, because it’s the Constitution that makes debates about all the other issues possible.

colorado bob @ 34

OT

Olbermann’s Monday night ratings …..look at Keith go :

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvn…..1.asp#more

YOWSA! That’s the highest I’ve ever seen!!!!

BTW, I bookmarked that site last November when you linked it here, thanks ; )

Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 9:27 am (#56)

Moderator(s) – please close the open italics tag appearing somewhere between comments 50 and 55.

I’m starting to think it’s a good idea to start every comment with the closing tags for italics and emphasis. I almost allowed italics to run amuck when I was editing a comment and accidently removed a bracket on one of the tags. Fortunately, I noticed it in the preview.

Back to normal on my Mac. Again, apologies. I apparently accidently double clicked the button?

JJHunsecker – I agree, but I don’t find any hope of returning morality and respect to government with a party whose leadership can’t or won’t do anything about this.

I posted awhile ago what I think is going on with the 1997 dating and how I thin that put the fix in for some of this, but it is horrible horrible thing what the Democrats are doing now. They are parents standing to the side while their child is raped and tortured in front of them while they munch on Cheetos and say, Oh well, I can’t do anything about it.

Barely a voice among them. Thank God for Leahy (who, btw, singlehandedly sat the Haynes nomination for a couple of years).

Here is Louise Slaughter’s floor speech from Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..104659/485

Email to my Congressman’s staffer:

——————-

Hi,

I wanted to bring out a point I noticed while reading the NIE released yesterday that I don’t imagine will get quite the play as the Iraq side of it. Here is one of the final paragraphs (emphasis added):

Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.

And from yesterday’s New York Times:

In another, the original compromise said that evidence seized “outside the United States” could be admitted in court even if it had been obtained without a search warrant, a provision Republicans and Democrats agreed was necessary to deal with the unusual circumstances of seizing evidence on the battlefield.

The bill introduced Monday dropped the words “outside the United States,” which Democrats said meant that prosecutors could ignore American legal standards on search warrants within the country. The bill also broadened the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant, from anyone “engaged in hostilities against the United States” to include anyone who “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.”

So the NIE says leftists in the Internet age could be a threat like terrorists, and the detainee bill is broadening its definitions to be sure to include as many people as possible, including citizens. These aren’t just any two random documents showing an incoherent government, they’re the two highest priority documents coming out of the White House this week. I’m working very hard not to connect any dots here and anything you can say to give me a good reason not to do so would be appreciated.

At the very very least, as a nation we need enough time to understand any possible unintended consequences before passing something like this detainee bill. It’s just not OK to rush it through in the last two days before adjournment. Important consequences could get missed.

———————

Her response did not give me any good reason not to connect the dots.

MacNormal here Christy.

BTW, our new and improved spam filter now hates a large city in Illinois, famous for jazz and ribs. Please use the ever-handy * when referring to it (Ms. Dyke, you may have to asterix-ize your nom de blog).

Patty Murray giving us 5 things she feels need hearings, starting with budget shortfall and lack of planning for veteran’s health care. GAO was asked to investigate and report damns the VA and the Pentagon.

I never talk about this, but my blood is boiling. My father, who was buried in a veteran’s cemetary with military ceremony 4 years ago, was held and tortured for 3 years as a POW in the Battle of Bataan. He would have never been in favor of any of this atrosity. He and so very many others suffered to protect our founding systems of government, not to violate them ad hoc.

I spoke with my the offices of my senators and my congressman this morning. I checked at the DNC website to see if they had anything protesting this atrocity to the American Constitution, but it was only the comments to the blog where I found anything like the spirit I see here at the Lake.

Eureka Springs, you put it very eloquently. My most cherished beliefs as an American–that we are truly a nation of laws–are being overturned by this rogue administration and the craven national legislature that is rubber-stamping this. The Constitution is our most precious national treasure. And now they are hooking it up to wires, standing it on a box, and have place a hood over its head.

I am ashamed–of my party, of my government.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 53

Trent Lott is auditioning for the GOP leadership position again. SIGH Although watching he and Mitch McConnell tap dance around each other is amusing, if nothing else. (I met McConnell a couple of times when I was in college during his early tenure in the Senate — his daughter lived in my house at Smith — and we had a couple of great debates about the UN and the first Gulf War over breakfast and dinner, respectively, during a parent’s weekend one year. *g* Yes, I was like this in my early college years, too.)

So was he still a twitchy little widget or had he already managed to work his way up from greasy to unctuous?

Let us look again at some familiar words, as I quote from the second and third paragraphs of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution:

2. The privilege of the write of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

3. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

For additional information about bills of attainder, please click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

For additional information about ex post facto laws, please click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

meta @ 41

thank you. I try, but I’m not in the same league with most of y’all. I have to admit, I never thought I could be this POd for this long and still be functioning. (Well, mostly functioning. Hayfever is trying to get me.)

Professor Foland quotes his email:

The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age…

The hair on the back of my neck rose ominously yesterday when I heard SnowJob mention the internets as being one of the proximate causes of the rise in terr’ism across the globe.

The dots connect and the picture is emerging. Unfortunately, Mr. and Mrs. Guy Next door won’t believe it until it’s too late.

I’m sorry Eureka Springs. Hang in there.

Thank goodness for Patty Murray.

well, I believe the process is under way to eliminate “the internets”

we might indeed be lost to whatever they want to tell us.

Rayne @ 55

Transcript from CNN.com (can’t vouchsafe accuracy or completeness):
9/11 Commission

CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration — certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don’t know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration. ….

CLARKE: I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue….

CLARKE: …almost everything I ever asked for in the way of support from him or from president Clinton, I got. We did enormously increase the counterterrorism budget of the federal government, initiated many programs, including one that is now called Homeland Security.

ROEMER: OK. …. let’s move into the Bush administration. On January 25th, we’ve seen a memo that you’ve written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals’ review of al Qaeda. ….Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? ….

CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals’ meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done?

CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn’t meet urgently in January or February.
Then when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of al Qaeda as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan…. That process probably ended, I think in July of 2001. So we were ready for a principals meeting in July. But the principals calendar was full and then they went on vacation, many of them in August, so we couldn’t meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September. ….

CLARKE: I was sufficiently frustrated that I asked to be reassigned.

HOLY SHIT! I had forgotten about this. Thanks for bringing it back into view!

I called Kaye Bailey Hutchison and the position is “She supports the President” [ ARGHHH… ] but they are having heavy call volume and expect to release a statement after hearing from constituents.

Murray has been tireless on the subject of our veterans for a long, long, time now.

Eureka Springs– {{{hug}}}

meta– we certainly owe your father much more than this.

meta @ 75

I never talk about this, but my blood is boiling. My father, who was buried in a veteran’s cemetary with military ceremony 4 years ago, was held and tortured for 3 years as a POW in the Battle of Bataan. He would have never been in favor of any of this atrosity. He and so very many others suffered to protect our founding systems of government, not to violate them ad hoc.

Meta, bless your dad. The sacrifices ou parents and grandparents made for our country moves me to tears.

My dad flew transports during WWII. After their first battlefield landing to pick up wounded soldiers, they had a meeting. They decided that since the army only provided parachutes for the crew and not for the injured soldiers, the crew wouldn’t wear theirs on these kinds of missions anymore so they wouldn’t be tempted to bail and abandon their charges in the midst of a fight.

Sigh.

I found this Baltimore Sun article to be quite frightening.

A little- noticed provision in President Bush’s proposal for the treatment of suspected terrorists would for the first time legally endorse the fight against terrorism as equivalent to war, lawmakers and national security lawyers say….

Critics of the provision, such as former CIA counsel Suzanne Spaulding, said it could amount to a back-door endorsement of the disputed wartime presidential powers that Bush has asserted, potentially strengthening his hand in court battles over the National Security Agency’s warrantless spying and permitting defense and intelligence agencies to launch operations in the United States.

“Does it allow the president to basically define the war on terrorism as broadly or as narrowly as he wants?” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat. “The answer is yes.”

Patty Murray is not terribly eloquent, but her description of the incompetence of the VA and the administration’s lack of attention to the needs of vets is very good. It’s one of Bush’s favorite things to talk about in his little speeches, aside from 9/11, yet they have been chronically underfunded to the point that vets have to wait 2-3 months for an appointment with a mental health provider. There is no plan for addressing the needs of returning vets with all kinds of needs, and she’s underlining the fact that the Secretary of the VA has, for more than 6 months, told Congress that their funding was just fine. She also quotes an article where VA leaders report that they are not aware of delays or problems with vets accessing care.

I bet if they asked VA nurses, they’d get an earful. But they don’t.

They are putting all their papers in order. John Dean and Prof Bob said that authoritarian followers will follow the laws even if it is against their conscience.

When I was little I wondered how could everyone stand by while Christ was crucified. When I was in high school I wondered how Germany could build camps and imprison and kill *millions* of people and no one stopped it.

And now I am seeing it happen.

chicago dyke @ 60:

thanks for drawing a line in the sand, christy.
a different take on why this is happening now. follow the money, as they say…

very dire indeed… there was a commenter a few days ago wondering about links to Halliburton/KBR’s $300 million deal for concentration camp construction in the U.S. …

“KBR-Halliburton Get $385 million contract to build detention centers just incase they are needed

February 4, 2006, NY Times
Halliburton Subsidiary Gets Contract to Add Temporary Immigration Detention Centers
By RACHEL L. SWARNS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 — The Army Corps of Engineers has awarded a contract worth up to $385 million for building temporary immigration detention centers to Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary that has been criticized for overcharging the Pentagon for its work in Iraq. “

one question – where is the police apparatus for this, or do you think it would expand upon the existing law enforcement system? I think not they like to do things parallel, whole new corrupt structures… so there’s a slight consolation they don’t have their Gestapo yet… but when they propose it dollars to donuts Joe-Bama from Illinois will vote for it!

(and Negroponte already has plenty of experience in this sort of wet work…)

I think part of the problem with people (other than us) not getting upset over this is that “habeas corpus” is, for many, an obscure, “foreign” legal term that does not apply to “us.” The media does not do a good enough job explaining that it is the fundamental basis for our system of justice. It is a shame that most of congress doesn’t see it either.

Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 9:41 am (#78)

Let us look again at some familiar words, as I quote from the second and third paragraphs of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution:

2. The privilege of the write of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

3. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

For additional information about bills of attainder, please click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

For additional information about ex post facto laws, please click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

To which, I suppose, you can add this old chestnut:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Congress is having a busy day. No doubt they’ll need to break for lunch soon. Destroying the Constitution is hard work.

I’m not going to be impressed by the Dems tossing out a few Senators to make a speech to “save the base” while they fold.

Stephen Parrish, CPA @
78

Let us look again at some familiar words, as I quote from the second and third paragraphs of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution:

2. The privilege of the write of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

3. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

For additional information about bills of attainder, please click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

For additional information about ex post facto laws, please click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Stephen, thank you as always, but if this is the case, then how is this happening? Are they really trying to say that this is enough of a threat, given the Cold War spies and threats, that ex post facto can be used? Did Turley talk about this, I missed him?

Oh, my, my tin foil hat is so crumpled and worn I need to make another one.

Sporkovat’s comment makes me wonder: Given the fact that immigration reform has died an unlovely death in Congress, do you suppose the whole who-stuck-john about it was simply cover for news about the detention center contract?

Oh, my.

Christy, I hope that you and Jane and other prominent bloggers can push for some response (filibuster) on this. The Democrats stand to lose the backbone of their ground organization if they fail us here.

WTF are they thinking?

sporkovat @ 89
one question – where is the police apparatus for this, or do you think it would expand upon the existing law enforcement system? I think not they like to do things parallel, whole new corrupt structures… so there’s a slight consolation they don’t have their Gestapo yet… but when they propose it dollars to donuts Joe-Bama from Illinois will vote for it!

(and Negroponte already has plenty of experience in this sort of wet work…)

Would this be it?

On Jan. 3, 2006, the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) expanded an existing contract held by Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) and renewed it to accommodate up to 20,000 refugees from environmental and political disasters. A future expansion in 2008 calls for another 20,000 beds.

more at Alternet

Mary @ 92

I’m not going to be impressed by the Dems tossing out a few Senators to make a speech to “save the base” while they fold.

Me neither…

Cujo– Frist announced that the thugs are having a policy tent revival today from ca. noon til 2pm. I guess they are absent now and munching on the bones of our founding fathers and mothers and wiping their greasy faces and fingers with our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

mommybrain @ 95

it’s from the NYT so it must be true.

sorry about the hat. mine sometimes glows red, and spins around buzzing when the signals get too intense.

Am I right in feeling like the blogosphere got caught a little flatfooted on this? Right after the compromise came out, I was expecting the war room to open (kind of like with Lamont or the ABC thing) with frontpage calls to arms and moment by moment updates here, on Kos, etc. But although there were lots of wrenching, heartfelt individual posts and diaries, there wasn’t the same orchestrated “this must not pass” (outside of say Greenwald or Digby’s sites, who were on top of this from day one).

Then, later, there were alot of “I hate this but will fight just as hard for a democratic majority” posts. I respect that (and I expect I’ll get there too), but as a matter of strategy, to tell the calculating Democrats who think we have nowhere to go that, in fact, we will support them no matter what (and I know that’s not what Christy’s saying here), hardly seemed to send a strong message.

This sounds like criticism but is really more of a question and a thought about the future — I’m heartbroken as the rest but expect to recover. Am I right in feeling that “our” response was slow to gather and somewhat inconsistent? And is there a way to be better at holding our representatives feet to the fire on the fundamental issues?

zennurse @ 95

Stephen Parrish, CPA @
78

Let us look again at some familiar words, as I quote from the second and third paragraphs of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution:

2. The privilege of the write of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

3. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

For additional information about bills of attainder, please click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

For additional information about ex post facto laws, please click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Stephen, thank you as always, but if this is the case, then how is this happening? Are they really trying to say that this is enough of a threat, given the Cold War spies and threats, that ex post facto can be used? Did Turley talk about this, I missed him?

I think they are hoping that, assuming Congress changes hands, the D’s will not have the will, energy, or ability to overturn this and that it will take quite a while to reach the Supreme Court, by which time, they will have appointed another winger to the bench.

I, for one, will never support for election to any office anyone who votes for this bill. I don’t care what kind of conversion they undergo during a future election cycle. If Hillary Clinton or John Kerry or Barak Obama vote for this and they find themselves running for president against Jeb Bush, I’ll not be voting for the Democrat.

I’m pretty sure all the wise men and women in the back channel of the Townhouse Google Group will come to the conclusion that politics is always about choices between lesser evils. After weighing their own electoral prospects, that will be the rationalization, endlessly employed, that our Democratic senators and representatives will be using this time around to sign onto this bill. Maybe our Townhouse sages and our entrenched elected officials deserve each other with their, “Down with open source communication – long live pragmatism.”

This will be where I get off the bus.

Richmond — glad to be of service refreshing memories, no problem.

Well, there’s a problem, but it’s right there in the transcripts.

Condoleeza Rice is a f*cking liar and a useless bag of hot air in expensive shoes.

George Bush was and remains an ignorant failure with a meanstreak as big as the state he calls home.

Dick Cheney is a heartless thieving self-absorbed bastard.

And they’ve run our country into the ground. What amazes me is how many times we’ve seen documentation about the caliber of work performance and morals of the people a the helm of this administration, and we are not all of us storming the streets like the Orange Revolution in Ukraine or the people of Mexico or Venezuela. We should be donning our black hoodie sweatshirts and our walking shoes, marching down to the town square, chanting and singing while lambasting these so-called leaders in effigy, going on a general strike until Congress goes on recess.

What’s it going to take, I wonder, before we turn this around?

Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 76

Let us look again at some familiar words, as I quote from the second and third paragraphs of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution:

2. The privilege of the write of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

3. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

For additional information about bills of attainder, please click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

For additional information about ex post facto laws, please click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Isn’t this B.S about the retroactive law excusing torturers exactly what was meant under Ex Post facto?

Bustednuckles @
105

Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 76

Let us look again at some familiar words, as I quote from the second and third paragraphs of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution:

2. The privilege of the write of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

3. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

For additional information about bills of attainder, please click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

For additional information about ex post facto laws, please click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Isn’t this B.S about the retroactive law excusing torturers exactly what was meant under Ex Post facto?

You can retroactively make something legal, but you can’t retroactively make something illegal.

Bless Mary @94 and Angie @99.

JF@100

I think they are hoping that, assuming Congress changes hands, the D’s will not have the will, energy, or ability to overturn this and that it will take quite a while to reach the Supreme Court, by which time, they will have appointed another winger to the bench.

I think that’s exactly right. What else explains the Shrub being in such a hurry?

Did I just hear the C-Span announcer say that First is attaching the detainee treatment bill as an amendment to the border fence bill? Or did I miss something?

Apologies if this is discussed up-thread – I’m juggling work and stuff on the home front (and not very well).

And that should be “Frist” and not “First” (see? not doing much of anything well)

What’s it going to take, I wonder, before we turn this around?
New leaders. Really new. And going for the throat of every member of Congress who is unwilling to stand for anything other than a meet and greet line at a fundraiser.

Busted – don’t I wish, but no. Ex Post facto would prevent, for example, passing a law that makes the Dana Priest story on secret prisons from last year a crime, retroactively. Retroactive amnesty isn’t prohibited.

Of course, taking an old law, like the Espionage Act, and re-interpreting it to make things crimes retroactively is still a pathway to success. *s*

CMike, I’m not just getting off the bus, I’ll be making those bustrips look really unappealing, to the best of my ability.

Cozumel @
68

colorado bob @ 34

OT

Olbermann’s Monday night ratings …..look at Keith go :

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvn…..1.asp#more

YOWSA! That’s the highest I’ve ever seen!!!!

BTW, I bookmarked that site last November when you linked it here, thanks ; )

Coz….. It’s the highest I’ve ever seen too. and he’s bringing the whole lineup’s numbers up too. That’s a big number for Matthews too. and it’s a doubling of the numbers a year ago . It gives him room to keep going.

This quote from yesterday is like a stone in my shoe:

“We’re going to do what we can to limit the amount of daylight between us and them on national security issues in order to neutralize this as a political issue,” a senior Democratic aide said.

If there is no daylight between the Democrats and the worst president in the nations history, what the hell good are they. And don’t anyone dare say, “well, it’s only on torture.”

The paleoconservatives and the libertarians will stand up to Bush. They denounce his war of aggression, his torture, his attempt to establish a Fourth Reich. Do we have to turn to those people to find daylight?

Frist the Cat Killer is defending torture etc. right now.

Just got off the phone with a DCCC person who was trying to raise money.
Very nice, patient lady, good at “reflective listening,” which she did quite a lot of.
Hope old Rahm Emanuel got the damn message. Boy was I pissed.

Levin up now.

Ripping the compromise bill and says he will offer the original cmte bill as a substitute later today.

This is a good read.

Forget Nuremberg
How Bush’s new torture bill eviscerates the promise of Nuremberg.

http://www.slate.com/id/2150396

And I was soooo looking forward to Bushco’s exciting trip to the Hague

zennurse @ 9:57 am -

Stephen, thank you as always, but if this is the case, then how is this happening? Are they really trying to say that this is enough of a threat, given the Cold War spies and threats, that ex post facto can be used? Did Turley talk about this, I missed him?

I think one or more of the lawyers here will have to answer your first question. Is the concept of a bill of attainder too antiquated for some contemporary readers of the Constitution to comprehend?

As for your second question, we can refer to numerous comments on FDL about Ex parte Milligan, which held that suspension of habeas corpus is unconstitutional when courts are open. Perhaps the lawyers here can add to my response to your second question.

I’ve just called my senators, though I don’t expect my voice to change the allegiance of Sens Burr & Dole – but I was surprised when my voice cracked, my eyes watered & emotion flowed.

The paleoconservatives and the libertarians will stand up to Bush. They denounce his war of aggression, his torture, his attempt to establish a Fourth Reich. Do we have to turn to those people to find daylight?

Sure looks like it – and I hate having to abandon the people we voted for, but they’ve asked for it, by not standing up even when we’ve been pleading for them to do so.

lawsinger @ 101

Am I right in feeling like the blogosphere got caught a little flatfooted on this? Right after the compromise came out, I was expecting the war room to open (kind of like with Lamont or the ABC thing) with frontpage calls to arms and moment by moment updates here, on Kos, etc. But although there were lots of wrenching, heartfelt individual posts and diaries, there wasn’t the same orchestrated “this must not pass” (outside of say Greenwald or Digby’s sites, who were on top of this from day one).

Then, later, there were alot of “I hate this but will fight just as hard for a democratic majority” posts. I respect that (and I expect I’ll get there too), but as a matter of strategy, to tell the calculating Democrats who think we have nowhere to go that, in fact, we will support them no matter what (and I know that’s not what Christy’s saying here), hardly seemed to send a strong message.

This sounds like criticism but is really more of a question and a thought about the future — I’m heartbroken as the rest but expect to recover. Am I right in feeling that “our” response was slow to gather and somewhat inconsistent? And is there a way to be better at holding our representatives feet to the fire on the fundamental issues?

Not sure what you mean here slinger. But at comment 101, it seems you’re not to quick on the draw yourself.

Take your time, don’t rush in. Have another cup of coffee…

sporlovat@91..I think that would be me. As hotflash@98 points out 40,000 new detention beds by ‘08-’09, the construction should be obvious somewhere. The only thing I have seen on the nets was months ago, and that was a home video of ? veracity, showing renovation of what appeared to be an old multi-building factory complex. It had the Auschwitz look and US military construction equipment on site.

(A new layer of tin foil for my hat)
The Gestapo? Probably three sources. 1)Expansion of the uniformed branch of the Secret Service 2)HSA thugs 3)National Guard if Bush can eliminate control by the Governors.

Bizarro Conservatism and Its Discontents, by Justin Raimondo

excerpt [emphasis added]:

There was a time . . . when Americans feared the accumulation of power, especially when it accrued to the federal government in Washington: conservatives of the Goldwater stripe (and, further back, the followers of Sen. Robert A. Taft), were especially vigilant against this danger. . . Both Left and Right were joined at the root by the American libertarian consensus – a reflexive distrust of government power rooted in history and reinforced by a rebellious temperament embedded in the American consciousness.

No more: today, the “conservatives” on the Fox “News” channel and the Rush Limbaugh-radio talk show circuit are worshippers at the altar of State Power. No expansion of governmental authority is too vast, too broad, too brazenly contrary to the spirit and letter of the Constitution to evade their enthusiastic endorsement. . .

The ultimate expansion of the “unlawful combatant” definition to include any and all opposition to the War Party, whether military or political, is only a matter of time, and not much time at that. This administration and its allies have long maintained that their critics are “objectively” aiding the terrorist enemy. If Iraq is the main theater of our war on terrorism, then criticism of the war effort, such as organizing an antiwar demonstration, amounts to “material support” for “hostilities against the United States.” . . .

For once, I agree with Andrew Sullivan:

“Whatever else this is, it is not a constitutional democracy. It is a thinly-veiled military dictatorship, subject to only one control: the will of the Great Decider. And the war that justifies this astonishing attack on American liberty is permanent, without end. “

I might add, however, that Sullivan is only getting what he asked for. . .

The program of the War Party – perpetual war and the creation of an American empire – had to mean the overthrow of our constitutional republic, and the rise of… something else. Something that has been, so far, alien to America, but is now, sadly, a looming possibility: a dictatorship “legally” empowered by “emergency” measures, such as the one presently before the Senate [.pdf].

CMike at 101 — You know, as someone who is on the Townhouse list, I’d like to know what the fuck you think you are talking about — because I posted this, on my own, with my own writing, my own thought process and my own issues. As does everyone else. You think Democrats should just run around completely unorganized, screaming into the blogosphere and doing what, exactly? Jeebus — what the fuck is wrong with people that they can’t understand that both principles and pragmatism and a desire to win can all co-exist?

Hello, I’m a Democrat. I find this bill appalling. And I want to kick the GOP out of control of Congress and make Karl Rove’s Fall a shitty one. And your problem with that is what, exactly? Whatever circular firing squad bullshit everyone is dreaming up, we do not fucking have time for it with five and one half weeks to go in the election cycle. And I, for one, am damn well not rolling over for you or anyone else.

Hey FDL and readers,

News from MYDD. To stop the torture legislation, you must call the Senators from Maine RIGHT NOW!

Sen Olympia Snow:
Phone: (202) 224-5344

and

Sen Susan Collins:
Phone: (202) 224-2523

Please FDL make an update for this call to action.

What about Elizabeth Holtzman’s article saying Bush is seeking retroactive Immunity for violating the War Crimes Act. Is a “get out of jail free” card really hidden in all that – and if there is it is important to stop that too, don’t you think?

Bustednuckles @
117

This is a good read.

Forget Nuremberg
How Bush’s new torture bill eviscerates the promise of Nuremberg.

http://www.slate.com/id/2150396

And I was soooo looking forward to Bushco’s exciting trip to the Hague

Wow!! Yes. That is the disgusting tragedy in all of this. It is scrapping some of this nation’s finest contributions to civilization. Even the War Crimes Actc of 1996, which was an act of Republican statesmanship. All of it into the scrap heap in order to establish the Fourth Reich.

Torture, suspension of habeas corpus, secret trials, retro-active immunity for crimes against humanity, admitting evidence acquired through torture into trials — these things should be the third rail of progressive politics.

If are a Democrat, and you vote for any of these things, your career should be over. I pledge to do my part to make it so.

lawsinger @ 101

Am I right in feeling like the blogosphere got caught a little flatfooted on this? Right after the compromise came out, I was expecting the war room to open (kind of like with Lamont or the ABC thing) with frontpage calls to arms and moment by moment updates here, on Kos, etc. But although there were lots of wrenching, heartfelt individual posts and diaries, there wasn’t the same orchestrated “this must not pass” (outside of say Greenwald or Digby’s sites, who were on top of this from day one).

Then, later, there were alot of “I hate this but will fight just as hard for a democratic majority” posts. I respect that (and I expect I’ll get there too), but as a matter of strategy, to tell the calculating Democrats who think we have nowhere to go that, in fact, we will support them no matter what (and I know that’s not what Christy’s saying here), hardly seemed to send a strong message.

This sounds like criticism but is really more of a question and a thought about the future — I’m heartbroken as the rest but expect to recover. Am I right in feeling that “our” response was slow to gather and somewhat inconsistent? And is there a way to be better at holding our representatives feet to the fire on the fundamental issues?

Very well put, I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I suspect that with the election so close, there are folks who might have rallied the phone tree (remembering Alito, were you here then?) but are overextended in local and state activities. If we are deeply fortunate, this will not pass before they go home and we can rally not just the phone tree but the new Dem elected as well.

It looks like Frist and Reid have ducked out to massage things and Frist has just entered a schedule with a list of speakers. Are they not breaking?

Finally, the post you are commenting on does call for the kind of contact we have made with Congress before. Maybe we are just assuming that folks know what that has been and how it works. What seems to be missing is the concentrated energy among the top progressive blogs urging action in all caps/bold.

Is it election fatigue? Overwhelming news fatigue? Don’t know, but I do know that I have been more affected by recent events than usual, resulting in oversleeping and lethargy, sudden bursts of anger and unexplained tears. As a hospice nurse, I almost never cry when a patient dies, but found myself weeping last weekend on the way home from a pronouncement. We are literally days away from a vote that is crucially important, and yet I look around me and constantly realize how much more some of us know and care than others and it is just so discouraging. We have talked here a number of times about how many people vote against their interests out of fear and ignorance; the herculean efforts of all the firepups who are pounding pavement and writing their fingers off just has to pay off this time.

OK, it’s me so more off topic.

From time to time I send corrections to the BBC when they get some fact wrong. When I think it is a question of opinion (on their part) or editorial slant, I usually send a message to their complaint department. I never get replies to the corrections. The only way I know they’ve read my email is that they usually but not always will change the text in question. To the few complaints I’ve made, I usually get responses. They are surprisingly civil and thoughtful. What I never realized is that they are also apparently considered private. Now while the content may be considered so by them (so I will leave it out even if it deals with essentially factual matters) the policy itself I do not think is so here it is:

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

I’m not sure about the last phrase but I just thought it interesting that a communication from a public institution on a public matter would be considered privileged by that institution and not for the public discourse.

kemo @ 121
Not sure what you mean here slinger. But at comment 101, it seems you’re not to quick on the draw yourself.

Take your time, don’t rush in. Have another cup of coffee…

Like a lot of other people on this thread, I’m at work, trying to do my job, working for a public library. I’m checking back as often as I can, given the demands of my job. Just because someone puts up a comment after lots of others doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.

I think we progressives were caught flat-footed on this. I think that Democrats in DC are trying to wish this would go away so they don’t have to go on the record with a vote that authorizes torture, because it will bother their consciences. But it’s not going away–and they have to face voters and Republican charges that, if they vote against torture, the Democrats are weak on security and the war on terror. And given a choice between what is right [not to mention smart and moral] and what will hurt them in the short term, they are folding like pup tents.

PS moderators, there are rogue italics and underlining going on here–can you close the formatting gone haywire

patchandtuc @ 126

What about Elizabeth Holtzman’s article saying Bush is seeking retroactive Immunity for violating the War Crimes Act. Is a “get out of jail free” card really hidden in all that – and if there is it is important to stop that too, don’t you think?

Yup. They keep updating the bill but you’ll find it on the last few pages.

You change this shit by out-organizing the wankers. By staying focused as progressive shock troops, winning elections for real progressives like out BlueAmerica folks, we build the organizational power to punish those who break the wrong way on torture, a power we relinquish when we “get off the bus.” So if you want off, recognize that you are siding with the torturers.

I’m on Townhouse, and you have no idea what levers I’m working, publicly and privately, on this, as best I can, and if you don’t trust me or Christy or Digby or Glenn Greewald or others who work this stuff, stop reading our sites. But if you want to keep fighting, please stick around.

Mary @
111

What’s it going to take, I wonder, before we turn this around?
New leaders. Really new. And going for the throat of every member of Congress who is unwilling to stand for anything other than a meet and greet line at a fundraiser.

Busted – don’t I wish, but no. Ex Post facto would prevent, for example, passing a law that makes the Dana Priest story on secret prisons from last year a crime, retroactively. Retroactive amnesty isn’t prohibited.

Of course, taking an old law, like the Espionage Act, and re-interpreting it to make things crimes retroactively is still a pathway to success. *s*

CMike, I’m not just getting off the bus, I’ll be making those bustrips look really unappealing, to the best of my ability.

Mary – have you looked at Calder v. Bull recently? What other Supreme Court decisions come to mind regarding ex post facto laws?

Any possibility that Jeffords would filibuster this horror? That would certainly be his greatest hour as a U.S. Senator.

Great, clear, unambiguous response from Sen. Lautenberg’s (D-NJ) office: he does not and will not support the “No Terrorist Torture Tactic Left Behind Act.” According to his staff, Levin’s bill re-instates habeas and outlaws torture, which he will support.

Now the bad news: a useless, mealy-mouthed “we’re still reviewing it” response from Sen. Menendez’s (D-NJ) staff. This from a guy up for election in a close, nationally critical race. I made it clear this position was unacceptable and that my vote, as a registered NJ Democrat, was riding on this. Let em urge all New Jereseyans who care about this to call Menendez (202-224-4744).

One last thing: I did encourage Lautenberg’s people to exert some influence on Menendez.

Legal beagles: Re: ex post facto laws. Suppose an act is

1. Illegal on 1/1/2006.
2. On 10/1/2006 legislated to be retroactively not illegal as of 1/1/2006.
3. Then on, say, 2/1/2007, the legislation in #2 is repealed.

Even after 2/1/07, can malefactors originally guilty at #1, escape reckoning for their crime because #3 extends ex post facto protection to anything prior to 2/1/07?

What if the legislation at #2 were overturned by a court instead?

shargash @ 128

Torture, suspension of habeas corpus, secret trials, retro-active immunity for crimes against humanity, admitting evidence acquired through torture into trials — these things should be the third rail of progressive politics.

If are a Democrat, and you vote for any of these things, your career should be over. I pledge to do my part to make it so.

Where, from fucking Gitmo? Jesus Fucking Christ, this is a coup d’etat. They don’t even have to bother with the semantics of equating Dems with terrorists. They’ve hijacked the Constitution’s language WTR treason years ago: providing aid and comfort, etc.

I’m sure the number of eloquent protestations made at the door of the freight car will be legion.

Prairie Sunshine @ 135

Any possibility that Jeffords would filibuster this horror? That would certainly be his greatest hour as a U.S. Senator.

It would take a north-easterner to do it. If I were Lincoln Chafee, I’d be giving some serious thought to it.

Pach,

Please don’t be angry. All of us read Digby’s prediction that St. McCain, Huckleberry and Mr. Liz Taylor would cave to the administration’s point of view. Some of us called our congress-critters, asking “what are you going to do when the Republicans make a deal with the President?”

But now that the worst is happening, what more can we do? We know you and Jane and Redd and Digby and Glenn Greenwald and Marty Lederman have been working on this. What more can we do?

This is the deal breaker. If the Democrats do not expend every trick in the book, including filibuster if necessary, to stop the pro-torture, pro-gulag, anti-habeas corpus bill that grants blanket immunity to the torturers and their enablers, then they lose all right to control the reigns of what will then be an illegitimate government. I will NOT vote for a party that votes for torture. No ifs, ands, or buts.

There is no gray area here. This is one of the only black-and-white issues to ever come before the congress. You are either for torture or against it. You are either for gulags, indefinite detention, and arbitrary detention or against them. No quibbling, no calculus, no argument can be offered to support any of these things.

I have already emailed Reid and my senator as well as signed petitions. I have also cut off my wallet by terminating my ActBlue account and have ceased funding MoveOn, not to punish MoveOn but to prevent my money from going to a party (the Democrats) that are actually on the fence on torture! I will NOT vote for any member of a party that supports torture either actively (by voting for torture) or passively (by allowing the bill to pass without fighting tooth and nail to stop it).

If the torture bill passes then 3rd party candidates will be getting all my votes in November.

There is no compromise on this. It is all or nothing. The party is either pro-torture or it is anti-torture. Period.

Called Snowe & Collins. Who else at this moment needs to hear another voice?

nj progressive @ 140

Pach,

Please don’t be angry. All of us read Digby’s prediction that St. McCain, Huckleberry and Mr. Liz Taylor would cave to the administration’s point of view. Some of us called our congress-critters, asking “what are you going to do when the Republicans make a deal with the President?”

But now that the worst is happening, what more can we do? We know you and Jane and Redd and Digby and Glenn Greenwald and Marty Lederman have been working on this. What more can we do?

I’m not angry. Please don’t take concise words for anger. I’m thinking like a coach at crunch time, trying to keep everyone focused because mistakes when we’re playing from behind with the clock running are very costly. And make no mistake, we are playing from behind, and it’s not at all clear to me we have any chance to make up the deficit, but I’m working as best I can in a fluid situation, as we all are.

What can you do? Same thing you always do: work the phones. And then do it again.

Thanks. I’ll call Menendez’s office again, after I talk to an orthopedist. He seems to need a spine transplant.

OT Townhouse list?? What little I read from Google is pretty arcane..I am still ignorant of what it is.

op99 – I’m not doing the research, but if an act is a crime when committed, then not a crime, then a crime again, I don’t think that ex post facto applies.

The idea behind ex post facto laws is to not allow the gov’t to criminalize acts that are legal when the acts take place; really anti-retributive.

Think of it as “fair notice.” Even if the acts are later decriminalized, you would still have been on notice at the time of the act that it was illegal, and I am going to bet that that is all that matters for Constitutional review.

Of course, research may provide a different answer, but again, I’m not doin it.

I watched and listened to the debate for the wars in agony. I was against both. I had a hard time even looking or listening to the Senators who voted yea all these long years. They were foolish, vengeful and had succumbed to the fear that they all helped to spread and keep alive. They cowered in their own fear of being labeled unpatriotic and terror of losing their jobs/power. We know some were manipulated and that the administration and some in the Congress lied to the American people.

5 years later, I really find it more agonizing to watch and witness this. They know innocents are imprisoned, they know people have been tortured and killed by us, they know so much and still they have not learned anything. Their President has lied to them so many times and has admitted to breaking our laws! It seems not to matter at all.

They are traitors and everyone that votes for this will be liable for War Crimes when we finally have the government and the justice system we have fought for and deserve.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Pachacutec @ 143

Well said Pach. nj progressive, I will consider my blog manners more carefully in the future.

But, I felt lawsinger’s first paragraph was an intentional slight to this blog in particular, with no good reason. After all, lawsinger says Digby et al. were on top of the issue, right?

New thread, gang.

Christy Hardin Smith @124 wrote:

CMike at 101 — You know, as someone who is on the Townhouse list, I’d like to know what the fuck you think you are talking about — because I posted this, on my own, with my own writing, my own thought process and my own issues. As does everyone else. You think Democrats should just run around completely unorganized, screaming into the blogosphere and doing what, exactly? Jeebus

I’m sure you did write this on your own. But let me try out my powers of seeing into the future, I see the Townhouse list, quietly deciding in completely organized fashion not so far down the road, that this torture issue is one of those lines in the sand you can cross and still be a good Democrat worthy of support – “because of all the other important issues.”

“Screaming into the blogosphere”? Is that what the rest of us would do without the guidance of some brain trust? I believe in an open source communication model through which ideas emerge, are considered publicly without fear, favor or unseen coordinated support and the best ideas survive and come to be generally adopted.

Evil Parallel Universe @ 146

Thank you, omniscient one.

This is an immunity from prosecution law, and has nothing to do with the ex post facto clause. That clause only prohibits criminalization of past acts. In that context, there might be equal protection concerns to selective immunity or there might be a challenge to vagueness of what is still prohibited or not (classic notice of what is a crime by negative implication).

lawsinger @
101

Am I right in feeling like the blogosphere got caught a little flatfooted on this? Right after the compromise came out, I was expecting the war room to open (kind of like with Lamont or the ABC thing) with frontpage calls to arms and moment by moment updates here, on Kos, etc. But although there were lots of wrenching, heartfelt individual posts and diaries, there wasn’t the same orchestrated “this must not pass” (outside of say Greenwald or Digby’s sites, who were on top of this from day one).

Then, later, there were alot of “I hate this but will fight just as hard for a democratic majority” posts. I respect that (and I expect I’ll get there too), but as a matter of strategy, to tell the calculating Democrats who think we have nowhere to go that, in fact, we will support them no matter what (and I know that’s not what Christy’s saying here), hardly seemed to send a strong message.

This sounds like criticism but is really more of a question and a thought about the future — I’m heartbroken as the rest but expect to recover. Am I right in feeling that “our” response was slow to gather and somewhat inconsistent? And is there a way to be better at holding our representatives feet to the fire on the fundamental issues?

You go to war with the Army you’ve got. Some progressive bloggers have been on this issue for months , e.g., Balkinization. It was a bit late getting traction with the rest for two reasons: (1) the fight over “The Path to 9/11″ and (2) people put more faith in their Democratic senators than those senators appear to deserve. It has always been DLC policy to stay just to the left of the Republicans but leave no daylight. But I never thought they would be that way about something like the Geneva Conventions and the Legacy of Nuremberg, pillars of civilization. I was wrong.

Christy and Jane had already seen it in Lieberman and fought that fight early and valiantly. It now appears that the DLC hasn’t gotten the message, and we’re going to have to leave yet more blood on the floor.

Steve @
122

(A new layer of tin foil for my hat)
The Gestapo? Probably three sources. 1)Expansion of the uniformed branch of the Secret Service 2)HSA thugs 3)National Guard if Bush can eliminate control by the Governors.

Steve, what is HSA? Do you mean Moonies? My bet is Blackwater & Co mercenary types. Lots of qualified job candidates in Colombia & Darfur, battle toughand work for peanuts and plunder, Moonies could command. Nat’l Gd *might* come over all Tiananmen Square, but then, they did good at Kent State.

Prairie Sunshine @ 135

Any possibility that Jeffords would filibuster this horror? That would certainly be his greatest hour as a U.S. Senator.

It would. But the Senator has been in ill health, and I don’t thinkhe has the stamina to be the one to mount this.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 124

CMike at 101 — You know, as someone who is on the Townhouse list, I’d like to know what the fuck you think you are talking about — because I posted this, on my own, with my own writing, my own thought process and my own issues. As does everyone else. You think Democrats should just run around completely unorganized, screaming into the blogosphere and doing what, exactly? Jeebus — what the fuck is wrong with people that they can’t understand that both principles and pragmatism and a desire to win can all co-exist?

Hello, I’m a Democrat. I find this bill appalling. And I want to kick the GOP out of control of Congress and make Karl Rove’s Fall a shitty one. And your problem with that is what, exactly? Whatever circular firing squad bullshit everyone is dreaming up, we do not fucking have time for it with five and one half weeks to go in the election cycle. And I, for one, am damn well not rolling over for you or anyone else.

You GO, girl! When I first read the comment, I couldn’t even remember what Townhouse was! For Heaven’s sake, without the collaboration of progressive bloggers, there would be far less truth in the blogosphere. In my experience, there is seldom a downside to collaboration unless is is regarding illegal activities.

Steve: it’s a private communications network of progressive activists, bloggers and some DC staffers where we on the outside put the insiders on notice, cajole them when necessary when they seem perhaps ready to do the right thing, work out plans like the ABC/Disney campaign and share information to facilitate knowledge and news transfer across the Internets. It’s not something people can just “join.” It’s an invitation thing.

I know some people suspect such a bit of infrastructure is a bad thing, but it’s a very good thing and it works. We appreciate that you all hold us to public account, as accountability is one of our core values, but let the tinfoil hats remain at bay. We don’t lie to you and we don’t betray you. Ever.

CMike @ 150

Christy Hardin Smith @124 wrote:

CMike at 101 — You know, as someone who is on the Townhouse list, I’d like to know what the fuck you think you are talking about — because I posted this, on my own, with my own writing, my own thought process and my own issues. As does everyone else. You think Democrats should just run around completely unorganized, screaming into the blogosphere and doing what, exactly? Jeebus

I’m sure you did write this on your own. But let me try out my powers of seeing into the future, I see the Townhouse list, quietly deciding in completely organized fashion not so far down the road, that this torture issue is one of those lines in the sand you can cross and still be a good Democrat worthy of support – “because of all the other important issues.”

“Screaming into the blogosphere”? Is that what the rest of us would do without the guidance of some brain trust? I believe in an open source communication model through which ideas emerge, are considered publicly without fear, favor or unseen coordinated support and the best ideas survive and come to be general

If you had the facts, you know the opposite is true. But respect for private communications requires me to say no more.

Pach@158 Sounds like something we need more of.
HotFlash@155 HSA=Homeland Security Adm. I was in DC recently and couldn’t believe how rude the short-haired, white-trash punks in black tac. gear were.

Warner up now.

I cannot help but think that the organizational aspects on this issue from the Democratic side was way behind the curve. There has been tremendous individual and even small group actions by people here and elsewhere (many of which I have been involved in). But organized grass roots pressure on Democratic officials generally started too late this time. The Path to 9/11 was taking a lot of everyone’s time, I know. Sure Digby predicted it, but our collective action and positioning really did not begin until after McCain, Graham and Warner rolled. Lessons for the future.

Levin has spoken. He spelled it out, chillingly. There is no excuse, none, for any “Democrat” in the Senate to fail to support a filibuster on this clearly unConstitutional (per Levin) “compromise” bill.

The bill was first put before the Senate today as an amendment to the border fence legislation. Frist and Reid were working off the floor on whether the bill could be put before the Senate as a stand-alone bill or (presumably) whether a hold would be placed by a Democrat to prevent that without 60 votes first being obtained to get it to the floor. I believe an agreement has been reached, but I didn’t catch what it was, because I missed Frist’s comments on the floor.

Debate will now proceed on the compromised torture bill, at any rate – some hours’ worth, and five amendments will be allowed. Pat Leahy has been given 45 minutes to speak, and as angie pointed out, Senator Levin will be offering the Armed Services Committee version of the bill as a substitute amendment. Levin acknowledges that the committee bill still has a major problem with regard to stripping of habeas protections, so further amendment will absolutely be required should the substitute bill succeed in passing.

Mr. John Warner of Virginia has now risen to announce, on the Senate floor, his “support” for this violation of our United States Constitution.

Pachacutec @159 wrote:

If you had the facts, you know the opposite is true. But respect for private communications requires me to say no more.

I’d like to believe that. All I know is that whenever I see the matter is raised – except for you here and when I asked one other blogger – you get either hostility from the “in crowd” or some seemingly scripted ridicule referencing “Our Overlord Kos.”

re: Kemo @149 (don’t know how you do that clever thing with the reference)

If my tone came across as a slight to this site, it wasn’t meant that way. I don’t expect sites to have the same information, which is why I read alot of them (the torture and NSA issues were big on Greenwald early because they are highly legalistic issues). And, responding also to the comment by Pachacutec, I do trust that those here with abilities I lack are doing everything they can.

Maybe I can put it better by saying I missed a certain swing-for-the-fences comraderie that has come out here and elsewhere on other issues (the kind of thing that’s helped by lots of blow-by-blow updates of “I talked to an aide in Sen. X’s camp who thinks we can count on Sen. Y”). And I really wanted to have that on such a dark and troubling issue.

zennurse–you capture my reaction exactly; this has been a harder issue to accept than others; nj progressive–thanks.

lawsinger

If Warner really thinks this bill is consistent with the Geneva Conventions, he’s cracked. I used to respect him.

CMike:

I can’t account for the reactions of others. I can only convey what I know is going on, without betraying my word to let candid, private communications be private.

In the end, private communications do not require one to be corrupted or coopted: these things are a function of the character of the participants, and of that, for us here at FDL and elsewhere, you must make your independent judgments. The matter of incentives is also material: since we are outsiders who will remain outsiders, we do not rely on the insiders for a livlihood.

We’re playing a high stakes, multidimensional game here that is really no “game”, coming from behind with an insurgent hand. If you all quit on us, you guarantee we have no leverage or credibility to promote your agenda, our shared agenda and values.

We may not, and as Digby writes, probably won’t win this one in the immediate term, but that does not mean we don’t fight, and it furthermore does not mean getting off the bus is the solution. It’s actually a decision to capitulate. And we’ve pulled off unlikely victories before. The situation may, just may, be fluid enough squeak something out.

I’m generally lukewarm about calling- sometimes it seems like it makes no difference whatsoever, with many politiicians lacking a spine. Yet this issue is way too important to ignore.

Just called Feinstein’s office– while I coouldn’t get her position pinned down, the guy taking my call volunteered that they’ve been getting a lot of calls on this, and he said a lot shared “my view” on habeas corpus (i,e., don’t you DARE shred the Constitution!). To me, that’s a good sign– no matter what happens, our voice is getting through on some level…

zennurse @
157

Christy Hardin Smith @ 124 When I first read the comment, I couldn’t even remember what Townhouse was! For Heaven’s sake, without the collaboration of progressive bloggers, there would be far less truth in the blogosphere. In my experience, there is seldom a downside to collaboration unless is is regarding illegal activities.

So, what exactly is “the Townhouse”?

Pachacutec @
158

Steve: it’s a private communications network of progressive activists, bloggers and some DC staffers where we on the outside put the insiders on notice, cajole them when necessary when they seem perhaps ready to do the right thing, work out plans like the ABC/Disney campaign and share information to facilitate knowledge and news transfer across the Internets. It’s not something people can just “join.” It’s an invitation thing.

I know some people suspect such a bit of infrastructure is a bad thing, but it’s a very good thing and it works. We appreciate that you all hold us to public account, as accountability is one of our core values, but let the tinfoil hats remain at bay. We don’t lie to you and we don’t betray you. Ever.

Thanks. That’s exactly what is needed. Great!

Gawddamnitall, if you’ve got time to be here b*tching at FDL’s authors and readers, handwringing over what you think we haven’t done, you’ve got time to be making your own damned phone calls to Senators and writing your own faxes to the Armed Services Committee and the Intel Committee and LTE’s to your local papers. Start your own f*cking blog and take over the world, since you think it’s so easy and you obviously have the time.

I f*cking hate whining without action. And I hate brash assumptions even more – as if many of us here reading FDL need sanctimonious whiners complaining to us about this unConstitutional crap being foisted on us.

I spent HOURS working on communications to Senator Levin’s office this week; I already know that if the rail cars line up and the men in dark trench coats start pounding on the doors at 2:00 am, I’m going to be one of the people they round up for what I’ve written, said, done. And I’m not going down without a fight; I’ve got school-aged kids watching, who need to know what it is to fight for their rights, who need to know that the U.S. wasn’t always this corrupt or morally bankrupt.

Or that Americans weren’t always such whiney spoiled lazy sh*ts.

immanentize @
162

I cannot help but think that the organizational aspects on this issue from the Democratic side was way behind the curve. There has been tremendous individual and even small group actions by people here and elsewhere (many of which I have been involved in). But organized grass roots pressure on Democratic officials generally started too late this time. The Path to 9/11 was taking a lot of everyone’s time, I know. Sure Digby predicted it, but our collective action and positioning really did not begin until after McCain, Graham and Warner rolled. Lessons for the future.

Money-riven top-down outfits like Microsoft or the right-wing conspiracy can react quickly. For bottom-up volunteer activities, whether open-source software or politics, it takes time for a climate of opinion to form. We have to know that about ourselves and have our scouts out looking for incipient dangers. And then we have to listen to them. Marty Lederman has been on this for months, doing outstanding work. I’ve been super-concerned about this matter ever since I saw Gonzales brefore Warner’s committee on Aug. 2. But it was only within the last three weeks or so that I started following Marty on a daily basis. That’s probably due to my own ineptitude, but maybe we need some resource to alert people about up-coming dangers and about who is the authoritative expert on each of them.

But, again, everyone concerned with this matter would have been a lot more shrill if they had any idea that Democratic leaders in the Senate would rollover on this.

EPUd but THIS is the October surprise come early. It’s going to be amendments slipped into every single bill that comes up for voting. And the dismantling of the Democratic Party that will follow on the voting shambles when recess begins. Rove hopes to make it impossible for candidates to campaign and get traction.

Organized Crime.

Rayne says:

I spent HOURS working on communications to Senator Levin’s office this week; I already know that if the rail cars line up and the men in dark trench coats start pounding on the doors at 2:00 am, I’m going to be one of the people they round up for what I’ve written, said, done. And I’m not going down without a fight; I’ve got school-aged kids watching, who need to know what it is to fight for their rights, who need to know that the U.S. wasn’t always this corrupt or morally bankrupt.

I agree with every word of this. How can those of us with kids make any different choice? Throw me in jail if you must, but I’m not taking this shit. Not orchestrated by these thugs.

And Rayne? If we end up in a Gulag, I’d like to be in your block. And that goes for the rest of you guys too.

Wigwam @ 172

immanentize @
162

I cannot help but think that the organizational aspects on this issue from the Democratic side was way behind the curve. There has been tremendous individual and even small group actions by people here and elsewhere (many of which I have been involved in). But organized grass roots pressure on Democratic officials generally started too late this time. The Path to 9/11 was taking a lot of everyone’s time, I know. Sure Digby predicted it, but our collective action and positioning really did not begin until after McCain, Graham and Warner rolled. Lessons for the future.

Money-riven top-down outfits like Microsoft or the right-wing conspiracy can react quickly. For bottom-up volunteer activities, whether open-source software or politics, it takes time for a climate of opinion to form. We have to know that about ourselves and have our scouts out looking for incipient dangers. And then we have to listen to them. Marty Lederman has been on this for months, doing outstanding work. I’ve been super-concerned about this matter ever since I saw Gonzales brefore Warner’s committee on Aug. 2. But it was only within the last three weeks or so that I started following Marty on a daily basis. That’s probably due to my own ineptitude, but maybe we need some resource to alert people about up-coming dangers and about who is the authoritative expert on each of them.

But, again, everyone concerned with this matter would have been a lot more shrill if they had any idea that Democratic leaders in the Senate would rollover on this.

Hello,

Did I miss something here, didn’t the ball really start rolling on this over the weekend? How the hell are we supposed to get traction when even Kennedy and Feingold didn’t find out about the Judiciary hearing until Friday. They were both unable to attend because the meeting was called in such haste. And these hearings rarely take place on Monday.

Where have I been, I feel so totally blindsided by this, I think that most of us are reeling. This is just devastating …

Did anyone else know that this legislation was impending? My understanding is that it was horribly cobbled together over the weekend.

I know I’m EPU’d here, but anyone … ?

itwasntme @ 19

AT but important – a lot of information about who did or didn’t do what leading up to 9/11 is contained in the book “The Looming Tower” by Wright. I can’t recommend it highly enough. There is a lot about Our Fitz in there too, and his work convicting terrorists.

Thank you!!