Leahy!

Dodd!

Jefferson!

Rule of law!

That picture fires me up every time I look at it!

Fitz! Rootz! Fiengold!

Atrios sums it up:

The writ of habeas corpus is one of those basic foundations of modern Democracy. Without it, words like liberty and freedom have no meaning.

These are bad people running our government. Very bad.

Does anyone understand what in the hell Kit Bond is talking about in his ramble? Jeebus, thank you GOP for wasting your floor time on him.

KoolAid Kit Bond says that those who oppose this bill simply just don’t understand the terrorist threat we face. But he does, and he’s going to protect us by passing this bill.

Any Democrat who doesn’t stand up and put a stop to this need to be launched into. This is the saddest of days.

Russ. Pat. Jefferson.

Shorter Bond:

“I have my head up my *ss”

I never understand Kit Bond. Never.

well, Michael Abramowitz weighed in first thing with my question this morning ;(

New Hampshire: Hi Michael and thanks for taking my question.

I watched the Senate proceedings yesterday and again today and I cannot believe that the majority of Senators are likely to pass a bill legalizing torture, stripping people of our venerated right of habeas corpus, providing amnesty for those that have perpetrated war crimes, and effectively trashing the Geneva Conventions. Do you see any chance for a filibuster or any other means of stopping this odious legislation?

Michael Abramowitz: Good morning everybody.

It appears that the Senate is on track to pass the detainee legislation, and the Democrats have indicated that they will not filibuster. So the answer to your question is No, this legislation appears on track to be on the president’s desk in a matter of days.

Simple question for Kit: If we need this legislation ASAP right now, what the hell has been happening in the GWOT the last 5 years? Haven’t you been doing your job?

Simpler question for Kit: how many times were you dropped as a child?

Kit Bond, “we need this legislation to bring the terrorists to justice”.

Excuse me, which one of them has been brought to justice.

There is no justice in this legislation.

In the previous thread, my question got EPU’d

HeirofPatriots @ 123

Could one of the legal experts elaborate on what Professor Foland said at 7:28 am “Even if SCOUTS strikes down most of this bill, the pardon provisions will stand.”.

How come?

That’s alarming if true!

What surprises me is how little outrage and anger is being expressed– even by the good guys like Feingold. Like many of the commentors here in the last couple of days, this seems to me to be the worst thing imaginable. And I wouldn’t like to count on the courts finding it unconstitutional. I am deeply ashamed to be and American.

EvilDrPuma @ 13

Simpler question for Kit: how many times were you dropped as a child?

Thank you Dr. Puma,

First laugh I’ve had in days.

DiFi up now.

Evil Dr. Puma, I so yield to you.

Sad news up on Raw: Lamont losing momentum, Lieberman up by 10. GRRRrrrrrrr

If the definition of “enemy” is someone who shreds the democratic principles in the Constitution, then here are my enemies:

President Bush urged the Senate on Thursday to follow the House lead and approve a White House plan for detaining and interrogating terrorism suspects, saying, “The American people need to know we’re working together to win the war on terror.”
. . .
After Wednesday’s mostly party-line vote in the Republican-run House, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said in a statement that Democrats who voted against the measure “voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists.”

He added, “So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan.”

Bush presses Senate on anti-terror bill

Heir – the last version I looked at had a typical severability provision. That provision, found in most complex legislation, says that if one part is struck down, it is severed from the legislation and the rest remains intact. It is not unconstitutional to give amnesty.

susan @ 17

EvilDrPuma @ 13

Simpler question for Kit: how many times were you dropped as a child?

Thank you Dr. Puma,

First laugh I’ve had in days.

Then you needed it. You’re more than welcome.

A Vast Last-Minute Expansion to the Military Commissions Bill

This is being voted on in the House of Representatives today and will likely be voted on in the Senate tonight or on Thursday. Senators Specter and Levin will be introducing a bipartisan amendment to remove a provision that denies these non-citizens access to courts.
[..]
The White House made drastic changes to the military commissions bill over the weekend. The new version of the bill includes an expansive definition of an unlawful enemy combatant to include anyone determined by any form of executive-branch panel to be an unlawful enemy combatant. The bill would deny anyone determined to be an enemy combatant – or anyone “awaiting such determination” – the right to challenge their detention, treatment, or conditions of confinement in court.

What is next?
Deny my birthright citizenship because I am not a kool-aid drinking Repug?

Sharon at 16 — Chris Dodd and Pat Leahy did a fantastic job earlier this morning. I hope someone pulls clips of their speeches at some point — especially Dodd’s — because it truly was impassioned and spot on.

Richmond @ 18

Sad news up on Raw: Lamont losing momentum, Lieberman up by 10. GRRRrrrrrrr

From Tagaris:

New Q-Poll

Shows us down 10. ARG shows us down 2. Rasmussen down 2. Joe’s poll down 13. Ours somewhere inbetween. Finally, our volunteer meetings regularly register 100-plus. Ultimately, still a long way to go and I didn’t even set my alarm clock to get the poll first-thing, if that says anything about the amount of importance I assign the poll.

But, trends…

1.) We gained, again, in another poll. 2 points.

2.) Joe lost 4 points, and is under 50% for the first time

3.) Ned’s favorables have risen 6 points.

There’s a question in their about explaining vs. attacking. Anyone following this race, and especially COVERING this race, knows who is running a negative campaign. Some critical thinking instead of simple stenogrophy after listening to the “pull-string” would be appropriate at this point.

IMO – Feingold & Co know that the Dems will not stand up and do what they should and filibuster. They know it’s not going to happen and so they are walking that fine line of not trying to make them all look like either sociopathic sadistic monsters or “if I only had claws you could call me pussy” cowards right before elections.

HeirofPatriots @ 15

In the previous thread, my question got EPU’d

HeirofPatriots @ 123

Could one of the legal experts elaborate on what Professor Foland said at 7:28 am “Even if SCOUTS strikes down most of this bill, the pardon provisions will stand.”.

How come?

That’s alarming if true!

Courts generally try to limit their rulings to decide only what they need to decide — what the actual controvery is about — rather than issue essentially “advisory opinions” regarding other issues that may be lurking if the circumstances of the particular case before them were different. So they try not to strike down an entire statute if they can separate out the parts that are unconstitutional and spare the parts that are. I believe that’s what Prof Foland meant.

Post updated above, gang.

And Mary at 26, I think that is unfair. I think a number of the Democrats have been working against this and other unconstitutional provisions all along. Yes, the leadership has not mounted the effective campaign that all of us would have liked, but it is unfair to try and paint Feingold or Leahy or Dodd or any of the others who have been diligently working against this sort of action all along as complicit somehow.

scarecrow @ 27

HeirofPatriots @ 15

In the previous thread, my question got EPU’d

HeirofPatriots @ 123

Could one of the legal experts elaborate on what Professor Foland said at 7:28 am “Even if SCOUTS strikes down most of this bill, the pardon provisions will stand.”.

How come?

That’s alarming if true!

Courts generally try to limit their rulings to decide only what they need to decide — what the actual controvery is about — rather than issue essentially “advisory opinions” regarding other issues that may be lurking if the circumstances of the particular case before them were different. So they try not to strike down an entire statute if they can separate out the parts that are unconstitutional and spare the parts that are. I believe that’s what Prof Foland meant.

The bill also includes a clause that says in essence, “If one or more sections of this act are deemed unconstitutional, all other parts will continue to function.”

I find irony in the Congressional hearing into Hewlett-Packard’s spying on rich Hewlett board members while there have been few (1 or 2) hearings on Bush’s admitted breaking of the FISA law!

We are patriots and truth-tellers here, to the best of our abilities… and we are not alone in our efforts. We have companions from history as well as companions now. We may not win; but in such honorable company, we need never despair.

Strait Justice with her fell and perilous sword
Is gone to rust and rubble, sad decline:
A disregarded queen, deposed, ignored,
Her name a false and mocking anodyne.

Yet though the statue crumble, stands the Law.
Though honor fail on high, it holds below.
Rome may retreat, the legions may withdraw,
But we will not give Chaos room to grow.

No foolish brilliant gallantry in this.
Tenacity, instead, and love and rage
Compel us here to build at the abyss
Frail bulwarks ‘gainst the nightfall of our age.

And write we on these walls as darkness swells
Our names, our final valors, our farewells.

any chance they will filibuster but haven’t mentioned it to dr. fristenstein yet? As a surprise move? Didn’t Reid say something that hinted as much?

Naive question: Does the designation of “enemy combatant” automatically eliminate the principle of “innocent until proven guilty?” Does the presumption of guilt derive from that designation, or is it codified somewhere else?
Given all of the information we now know about detainees at Gitmo, why is no one asking for that examination of putative innocence?

Without a conscious decision and gameplan to filibuster, the speeches don’t mean much.

This situation is a direct result of adopting a gameplan of running and hiding from this issue and legislation for the last two weeks.

Who is directly challengin the Republicans to come back to the mic and explain how kidnapping and arranging for the torture of an innocent Canadian can be justified? How kidnapping and torturing an innocent German can be justified. How it is ok to kidnap and torture 9 people who are innocent for every one who may have engaged in hostilities at GITMO.

Which nine Americans do they want to kidnap and toture in the hopes that the 10th might be a bad guy after all?

Mary @ 21

Heir – the last version I looked at had a typical severability provision. That provision, found in most complex legislation, says that if one part is struck down, it is severed from the legislation and the rest remains intact. It is not unconstitutional to give amnesty.

Mary — I asked lhp a question yesterday that still awaits an answer:

Suppose the bill says, “amnesty for those who committed x in 1998,” and scarecrow actually committed x in 1998. So far, I’m off the hook. But suppose —

1. The Court later overrules the amnesty provision, for some reason — do I become liable again for acts I committed in 1998, when they were illegal at the time I committed them?

2. A subsequent statute repeals this bill. Do I become liable again?

I assume these two cases are not the same as the classic ex post facto law, which would be constitutionally impermissible.

Tristero on the Rogue Presidency:

The truth is that the United States government is presently holding, torturing, and even murdering countless numbers of people who have no chance in hell of obtaining a lawyer, let alone anything resembling a trial. The government is doing this under the direct orders of George W. Bush. There is no law, no bill, and no legislature who can stop him. If Congress were to pass a law unequivocably banning torture and send it to him, he’d use it for toilet paper. If the Supreme Court were to rule against Bush in the harshest and bluntest language, he’d yawn.

The truth is that there is a rogue presidency and there has been, since January, 2001 (earlier, if you count the stolen election). Certainly, everyone in Washington knows it, but no one dares to admit it. The bill legalizing torture merely enables Congress to pretend they still have some influence over an executive that from day one was governing, not as if they had a mandate, but as if Bush was a dictator. If, for some miracle, the bill didn’t pass, every congress-critter knows Bush would keep on torturing.

. . .

And this brings up the dilemma of a post Nov. 7 world. Apparently, one if not both houses of Congress may be controlled by Democrats. Now what? You think Bush is gonna get impeached? Put on trial for war crimes? Forget it. You think they’re gonna repeal the pro-torture law they’re about to pass? You can almost certainly forget that, too. Remember: it is crucial to maintain the illusion that Congress still has some say, as it was in November of 2002 about the Bush/Iraq war.

If, for some reason, Congress does decide to move against Bush in some substantive way, there will be hell to pay. Those of us who well remember Watergate remember that while it was genuinely thrilling to have Nixon caught, disgraced, and removed, it was also a time of extreme tension. Would Nixon tough the impeachment trial out, causing the country incalculable harm? It looked for quite a long time that he would. About Bush, there is no doubt.

Since the day after the 2000 election, Bush and his goons have been playing chicken with the very structure of the United States Government, double-daring anyone to try and stop them. If Congress does try – and I’m not talking little things like wrecking Social Security, that’ll happen and a dictator can afford to let things like that wait a while, I’m talking atomic bang bang and thumbscrews – he will force the private Constitutional crisis into the open. And there is no guarantee that Bush will lose.

And that is the truth. The Congress has been given an awful choice: Vote to approve torture and the suspension of habeas or show the world that yes, you really do have no genuine power to check Bush.

Of course, all of Congress should vote against the bill anyway. But they won’t. And to themselves, they will justify the vote as saying they made a hard choice but made the best one they could for their country.

meta @ 33

Naive question: Does the designation of “enemy combatant” automatically eliminate the principle of “innocent until proven guilty?” Does the presumption of guilt derive from that designation, or is it codified somewhere else?
Given all of the information we now know about detainees at Gitmo, why is no one asking for that examination of putative innocence?

I would say that when the status of “enemy combatant” (still undefined; this bill allows it to mean whatever Bush wants it to mean), when combined with limitation on habeas corpus, effectively eliminates any presumption of innocence for any individual detained as an “enemy combatant.” Such a detainee is presumed guilty with no right to contest, simply because the president says so.

Graham talking about sleeping at night since his moral compass is just fine.

Read Dean?

He has none, that’s why he sleeps at night.

Peterr — yes there is a severability clause, as unsual; however, that is not always conclusive. I believe there are cases in which the court has found that the unconstitutional clause is so integrally linked to other parts, that the affecte4d parts (even the whole statute) must also fall, even though there is a severability clause. Reaching way back here, and I warn all that IANApracticingA anymore.

Christy @ 28 – that must have come out wrong (by me) bc I don’t mean they (Feingold and Leahy in particular, a few others in the Senate to a lesser degree) haven’t done what they could.

I meant that as an explanation for the question above about why aren’t they coming out even stronger now. It’s too late in the game and they know it and so they are dealing with the same issue that keeps coming up here and elsewhere. What about the Dems who won’t do the right thing?

If they attack full out then they set them up to be called what they are and I’m sure that’s troubling for them this close to the elections. They still want Dems to win.

Thanks for the explanations. I didn’t know the specific language. Amnesty for torture and war crimes is sooooo wrong.

All these Constitution hating GOP goons should be reviled for ever.

Mary @ 34

Without a conscious decision and gameplan to filibuster, the speeches don’t mean much.

This situation is a direct result of adopting a gameplan of running and hiding from this issue and legislation for the last two weeks.

Harry Reid was hoping to run out the clock. He gambled and lost.

richmond 19 — no Lamont is still trending upward within individual polls. And Joe’s got no ground game. There are interesting results within the poll however, no wonder he’s hitting the bipartisan lie so hard, people seem to buy that crap.

I guess we have work to do, huh?

How is it that the same people who declared that the most frightening words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” find these words less frightening: “I’m from the government and I’m here to torture”?

Harry Reid was hoping to run out the clock. He gambled and lost.

He of all people should know never to bet against the house.

Shorter Huckleberry Graham: I don’t trust judges outside the military tribunal system to rule in the way that I would prefer they rule.

Thanks DrEvil Puma, you are right about that. But I was asking about the previous 5 years. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

Huckleberry was losing his temper. Is the American revolution gaining steam? Warner is trying to push procedurally for a vota as quickly as possible.

RevDeb at 45 — sometimes, when you do the whip count, all you have is the long odds to go on…

jane hamsher @ 43

richmond 19 — no Lamont is still trending upward within individual polls. And Joe’s got no ground game. There are interesting results within the poll however, no wonder he’s hitting the bipartisan lie so hard, people seem to buy that crap.

I guess we have work to do, huh?

The Quinipiac poll is hard for me to interpret, anyway, because I was able to find only a mention of the sample size. Without information on the sample composition, the results simply don’t exist in any kind of context. I also get a bit concerned with a phone poll in this increasingly post-land line age, since the demographics of people still using land lines may itself create bias in the sample.

meta @ 47

Thanks DrEvil Puma, you are right about that. But I was asking about the previous 5 years. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

I didn’t read that, but it’s okay. If you’re in anything like my frame of mind today, you’re not doing your best thinking.

Christy, didn’t it look to you like Huckleberry was tripping all over the “prisoner of war” versus “enemy combatant” issue?

I think there’s a BIG hole right there and ol’ Huck knows it. Without habeas, the truth of the detainees’ status cannot be determined; even the status of their location is in question (offshore? on-shore? taken from offshore to on-shore or vice versa?)

Christy Hardin Smith @ 48

RevDeb at 45 — sometimes, when you do the whip count, all you have is the long odds to go on…

I hear you. It just is beyond my comprehension, all of it. This is so morally reprehensible that . . . . well, words fail.

Christy Hardin Smith @
28

Post updated above, gang.

And Mary at 26, I think that is unfair. I think a number of the Democrats have been working against this and other unconstitutional provisions all along. Yes, the leadership has not mounted the effective campaign that all of us would have liked, but it is unfair to try and paint Feingold or Leahy or Dodd or any of the others who have been diligently working against this sort of action all along as complicit somehow.

I read Mary’s comment to say that when faced with a choice of making a bold stand for the constitution and thus showing timid Dems to be just that, or making a more subdued stand that sets forth their views but leaves the field clear for the nervous Nellies to remain quiet for reasons of electoral calculus – too often the choice has been for the latter.

I’m all for working to win in November, but throwing the constitution under the bus – even in the meantime – is no solution. “Well, they had the votes anyway” is no way to run a political party.

Not all of the Senate dems are taking this tack, but enough. I am appalled that every Democrat hasn’t been shouting from the rooftops about the elimination of habeas corpus, legalization of torture, and elimination of judicial review for wiretaps. How much more against the constitution can you get?

I’d love to see someone ask that the bill be read out in full. Make them listen to the garbage they are preparing to pass.

I’d love to see someone bring a crown onto the Senate floor, and present it to the chair to be delivered to George Bush’s desk along with this bill. Once it passes, the Senate has crowned a king – let’s just make it official, and give him the damn crown.

Christy Hardin Smith @
28

Post updated above, gang.

And Mary at 26, I think that is unfair. I think a number of the Democrats have been working against this and other unconstitutional provisions all along. Yes, the leadership has not mounted the effective campaign that all of us would have liked, but it is unfair to try and paint Feingold or Leahy or Dodd or any of the others who have been diligently working against this sort of action all along as complicit somehow.

I was of the impression, possibly a misimpression, that any senator could filibuster all by himself/herself. Obviously, one person can’t sustain all that long, but two or three could surely pull it off for a couple of days. Am I missing something?

It is a weird day when Arlen Specter is arguing my points on the floor of the Senate and I am nodding in agreement. That has happened far too infrequently lately — but I’m strangely grateful for the moment today.

lina @ 42

Mary @ 34

Without a conscious decision and gameplan to filibuster, the speeches don’t mean much.

This situation is a direct result of adopting a gameplan of running and hiding from this issue and legislation for the last two weeks.

Harry Reid was hoping to run out the clock. He gambled and lost.

But there was unanimous consent to limit debate. How is agreeing to limit debate a “gamble.” It sound to me that it is more like giving up all hope.

Specter, it’s about damned time.

Legislation cannot trump Supreme Court rulings, and SCOTUS recognizes habeas for aliens, and Rasul v. Bush found no rebellion warranting suspension of habeas.

It’s about time, gawddamnitall.

Fillibuster is the stop-gap of last resort. And I think there are a number of legislative maneuvers that have still yet to be played before we get to that point. Nothing is over until the last vote is cast, and we’d all do well to remember that — since, as yet, NO votes have been cast on this in anything close to a final way.

You guys are ruining my day. I should have listened to my mother, stayed ignorant, and continued taking everything for granted.

And for everyone here that is perplexed about Sherrod Brown’s capitulation to the crown, here’s Michael A’s take in the wapoo chat:

Washington, D.C.: What do you make of Sherrod Brown’s vote to support torture and the expansion of executive branch power yesterday? Craven attempt to look tough on terror? It was the support of the DNC that won him his primary for the senate race and he turns around to vote with the Republicans on this very important issue. Can you exlain the strategy behind this vote?

Michael Abramowitz: I don’t know what was in Rep. Brown’s mind, but the situation does exemplify the dilemma for Democrats, especially those in tough races this year. Brown is in a tough race for Senate against Mike Dewine in Ohio, and the reality–the merits of the issue aside–is that taking the toughest possible position against terrorism appears to be the safest and most popular position politically. There’s a reason the White House is pushing so hard to wrap up the detainee legislation before the elections.

“Oh, ‘effectiveness,’” I said. That I heard from my friend the teacher. For the sake of being effective he did everything required of him, and

of course he wasn’t effective. He knows that now. But then he had hopes of being able to oppose the excesses…”
”Yes, it was always the excesses that we wished to oppose, rather than the whole program, the whole spirit that produced the first steps, A, B, C, and D, out of which the excesses were bound to come. It is so much easier to ‘oppose the excesses,’ about which one can, of course, do nothing, than it is to oppose the whole spirit, about which one can do something every day.”

from milton mayer’s book “they thought they were free”, the story of how catastrophe overtook the german people… one small step at a time.

Wigwam @ 55

I was of the impression, possibly a misimpression, that any senator could filibuster all by himself/herself. Obviously, one person can’t sustain all that long, but two or three could surely pull it off for a couple of days. Am I missing something?

Your impression is a bit outdated. As of 1975, a filibuster can be ended by a cloture vote of three-fifths of the Senate. It isn’t something a couple of Senators can pull off without support.

(Refer: Wikipedia)

Wigwam @ 55

I was of the impression, possibly a misimpression, that any senator could filibuster all by himself/herself. Obviously, one person can’t sustain all that long, but two or three could surely pull it off for a couple of days. Am I missing something?

The right to filibuster is subject to being overturned after a certain amount of time has gone by. Forty eight hours (I believe) after someone announces an intention to “invoke cloture”, the Senate can take a vote to shut off a filibuster, which takes 60 votes to pass.

One senator can start a filibuster, but without a lot of support it can’t be sustained.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 56

It is a weird day when Arlen Specter is arguing my points on the floor of the Senate and I am nodding in agreement. That has happened far too infrequently lately — but I’m strangely grateful for the moment today.

Yes, but remember his recent history of completely folding at the end – i.e. domestic spying. He was all talk (a compromise), then, he caved to everything the Bushies wanted. I would be amazed if he did the right thing in the end.

Is it me, or is Specter actually saying the right things?

the demographics of people still using land lines may itself create bias in the sample.

A 21st century version of Dewey and Truman?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 59

Fillibuster is the stop-gap of last resort. And I think there are a number of legislative maneuvers that have still yet to be played before we get to that point. Nothing is over until the last vote is cast, and we’d all do well to remember that — since, as yet, NO votes have been cast on this in anything close to a final way.

thank you for the reminder…

does the unanimous consent preclude a fillibuster attempt?

meta @ 66

Is it me, or is Specter actually saying the right things?

Seems so, but this whole debate seems like something out of the twilight zone.

Thank you, Specter. He said it, that Congress is trying to legislate away Constitutional rights already recognized by the Supreme Court.

Damnitall, Huckleberry is back up to counter.

Graham is trying to fix his missteps about POW versus non-POW status.

Another part of the dishonesty going on in this “debate” is the continued referece to “terrorists,” and those “captured on the battlefields” when in fact the bill is so broad that it can catch a much larger group of people. In today’s Boston Globe, Legal residents’ rights curbed in detainee bill, Farah Stockman notes that immigration rights advocates fear that the bill could be used to round up and hold indefinitely non-US citizens residing in the US.

Human rights advocates yesterday lobbied against the bill.

“This would purport to allow the president, after some incident, to round up scores of people — people who are lawfully here — and hold them in military prisons with no access to the legal system, whatsoever, indefinitely,” said Joe Onek , senior policy analyst at the Open Society Policy Center, a Washington-based advocacy organization

Other last-minute additions to the bill include provisions that would broaden the definition of enemy combatant to include anyone who gives material support to enemies of the United States and its allies, and would prevent detainees who have been released from US custody from suing the US government for torture or mistreatment.

But the part of the bill that worries advocates for immigrants most is the one stating that “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”

This is like reading Joseph Conrad or watching Apocalypse Now.

For Kerry, Feingold, Dodd and Kerry I will selectively part with more of my money over the coming weeks. They have said clearly and forcefully what needed to be said.

Richmond at 65 — I’m not saying that I trust him. I’m just saying it’s nice to hear him saying the right thing. *g*

Huck is getting his panties in a twist.

EvilDrPuma @ 63

Wigwam @ 55

I was of the impression, possibly a misimpression, that any senator could filibuster all by himself/herself. Obviously, one person can’t sustain all that long, but two or three could surely pull it off for a couple of days. Am I missing something?

Your impression is a bit outdated. As of 1975, a filibuster can be ended by a cloture vote of three-fifths of the Senate. It isn’t something a couple of Senators can pull off without support.

(Refer: Wikipedia)

A filibuster itself can be pulled off by one or more. Support is a seperate issue

Roll call…buying time…

ot H/T lil buddy

Raw Story: 50 former Congressmen, Senators, Clinton vets launch ‘Dems for Joe’ Lieberman

SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER:

I thought it only takes one to filibuster. Why doesn’t someone like Feingold do it?

Christy Hardin Smith @56

It is a weird day when Arlen Specter is arguing my points on the floor of the Senate and I am nodding in agreement. That has happened far too infrequently lately — but I’m strangely grateful for the moment today.

I agree to some extent, Christy, but even if Specter’s amendment were to pass, this bill stinks to high heaven.

This may be one of those rare occasions where Specter’s rhetoric is sincere, but it’s not enough to take any of the sting out of this disgusting piece of legislation.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 73

Richmond at 65 — I’m not saying that I trust him. I’m just saying it’s nice to hear him saying the right thing. *g*

I know, and I appreciate your astute commentary – and live blogging. Sometimes, however, one just needs to vent! ;-/

Rayne @ 76

Roll call…buying time…

Nice to see you. Just wanted to say the attack on you by an overheated commenter yesterday was (1) completely unfair/untrue and (2) way over the line. I wish I’d done a 10th of what you’ve done for the cause.

Yesterday both Sherrod Brown and Harold Ford voted YES on the torture bill.

Both are democrats…supposedly.

How Pathetic.

Nancy at Starlight News

For me, we reach the Rubicon this week. A Democratic political party that won’t stand up and be counted against torture is not a party that I want to be associated with, regardless of how evil the alternative. I think opposing torture is a political winner. But even if I am wrong, and standing up against torture will cost the Democrats the majority, then…..
SO BE IT, they should do it anyway.

Anyone in Congress who isn’t willing to risk their seat to oppose torture I don’t want in power regardless of what party they are in. If a Democrat doesn’t have the courage to do the right thing on an issue this basic and fundamental, then they are a treasonous coward, and most certainly unworthy of their congressional seat. We should make any Democrat who gives the GOP bipartisan cover for this abomination the “Joe Lieberman” of every future election they enter. If they aren’t smart enough to see that doing the right thing here is a long term political winner for the party, even if they are worried it might cost them their job in the short run, then they are more committed to their own power than American principles, and to hell with them.

I’m with her. How about you?

Larry

scarecrow @ 35

Mary @ 21

Heir – the last version I looked at had a typical severability provision. That provision, found in most complex legislation, says that if one part is struck down, it is severed from the legislation and the rest remains intact. It is not unconstitutional to give amnesty.

Mary — I asked lhp a question yesterday that still awaits an answer:

Suppose the bill says, “amnesty for those who committed x in 1998,” and scarecrow actually committed x in 1998. So far, I’m off the hook. But suppose —

1. The Court later overrules the amnesty provision, for some reason — do I become liable again for acts I committed in 1998, when they were illegal at the time I committed them?

2. A subsequent statute repeals this bill. Do I become liable again?

I assume these two cases are not the same as the classic ex post facto law, which would be constitutionally impermissible.

IANAL and have no idea about the legal niceties of this possibility, but #2 will not happen until Democrats hold 60 Senate seats, the House, the presidency, and decide to spend all of their political capital to do it. This is simply never going to happen. Putting Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld back into jeopardy of jailtime will provoke the mother of all political battles, far beyond Bork (for those of us who remember it.)

I am willing to grant that #1 could happen in our universe, although I doubt it.

P J Evans @ 67

the demographics of people still using land lines may itself create bias in the sample.

A 21st century version of Dewey and Truman?

Possibly. The issue is that cell phone usage is demographically tilted toward younger demographics. That could make a big difference in the Connecticut Senate race, since much of Lamont’s backing is coming from younger, more tech-savvy voters, and more of Lieberman’s from the portion of the older demographic whose brains have ossified.

jr @ 78

SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER:

I thought it only takes one to filibuster. Why doesn’t someone like Feingold do it?

it takes 60 votes to cut off debate.

Larry at 82 — I agree with the sentiment on the bill, but you forget that an elected representative has to represent not just his or her own conscience, but also the sentiments of his or her district as well. And that is a very tough balancing act for some. It’s not a vote I would have been comfortable casting — but I’d suggest asking both men about why they cast it rather than immediately marking them as null — I know I’ll be asking for explanations from a whole lot of folks in the days to come on this.

meta @33

Does the designation of “enemy combatant” automatically eliminate the principle of “innocent until proven guilty?”

Yes. To understand their arguments (which are sad and bad at the same time) you do need to think as if we really were talking about a flat out war, members of armed services of opposing countries, captured on the battlefield. In that situation, prisoners of war are held without habeas or charges being filed against them until the end of hostilities. War is the only situation where that(holding people for no crime) comes into play and even with war, cessation of hostilities then results in release. It is obviously a necessary incident of real war, though, to be able to hold prisoners of war so they don’t go back out and start shooting at you again.

Now, the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions have always provided that a) civilians who are not in uniform can take up arms against an invading force and if so, they will be treated – if captured – as prisoners of war; b) soliders who attempt to take off their uniforms and blend in with civilians, especially for the purpose of committing sabotage or other things that have been traditionally deemed illegal acts of war, are illegal combatants and are not entitled to all the protections of a prisoner of war [although they were deemed by all but our DOJ to be covered by the ‘common article 3′ protections and that is what the Sup Ct just held in Hamdna]; c)civilians themselves may now and then get caught up in round ups etc. and if so, they get decent treatment guaranteed to them and also the right to a hearing to explain that they are civilians and should be released.

What is happening is that they are saying we have this war – but it is one where EVERYONE is an illegal combatant, bc none of them wear uniforms. The fact that many of them have also never committed any act tht would have, under the laws of war, been an illegal act of war is “adjusted” by the enemy combatant definition to make just about anything anyone can ever think of suddenly become a grounds for someone not in uniform to be detained. Then, they are taking away the right to a real hearing that civilians have always had, in order to obtain their release. Then they are adding torture and secret evidence as grounds for calling more and more people “enemy combatants.” FOr example, if you rent a room in your hotel to Taliban, if you cook a meal for them, etc. – those things would never have made a civilan an illegal combatant before, but now they do under the new definition.

All based on the original premise that you do have right to hold and detain prisoners of war in an battlefield setting. Also, all done with complete disregard for the fact that illegal war activities were a prerequisite, in the past, for treating someone as an enemy combatant – now just a suspicion that someone could be an “enemy combatant” under that broad definition might be is good enough – or even less than that because whoever you pick up has no habeas rights. Add on amnesty for prior torture and legalization of future torture, with no safeguards of any kind. Add on no real designation of “the enemy” and no end in sight for the undeclared war.

The thing is, we do need some kind of security detention procedures. Absolutely. But they are almost all there to be found in existing laws and procedures. A little tweaking might make them work better and shold be considered, but no this full scale assault on the rule of law.

The article I linked last night by Thom Hartman talks about how the respect for Habeas was so strong that they even had to get a special act through parliment when they took Napoleon into custody, allowing for Habeas to be suspended for his specific detention.

We’ve come pretty far afield from that.

Given all of the information we now know about detainees at Gitmo, why is no one asking for that examination of putative innocence?

That’s where they conversations should have been going for at least the last year. Dem leadership thinks it makes them look weak on national security to express any concern over roundups, torture and death of innocent people. So they are doing their best ostrich imitation, IMO.

Christy, thank you so much for your impassioned posts these last couple of days. This seems to be the last straw for many reasonable folk.

I refuse to give up. We know that KKKarl is obsessed with Sun Tzu and Machiavelli; demoralizing ones opponent is a tactical maneuver. We counter with ignore-ance (not ignorance, that’s for them). This whole “debate” is political calculus. Cynical, lying bastards.

Shit, we hold a pretty good hand going into Nov. Don’t let Uncle Karl bluff us.

Never give up, never surrender. Attack, attack, ATTTAAAAAACKKKK!

PS. Today is my 25th annual 29th birthday. Was that our Rayne I heard on Stephanie Miller this morning, promising to toast Stephanie’s b-day tomorrow with a Rayne Martini?

Jesus General on: Thomas Jefferson, terrorist mollycoddler
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com…..4820304485

blockquote>

Possibly. The issue is that cell phone usage is demographically tilted toward younger demographics. That could make a big difference in the Connecticut Senate race, since much of Lamont’s backing is coming from younger, more tech-savvy voters, and more of Lieberman’s from the portion of the older demographic whose brains have ossified.

Now I’m really confused.

Rayne @
58

Specter, it’s about damned time.

Legislation cannot trump Supreme Court rulings, and SCOTUS recognizes habeas for aliens, and Rasul v. Bush found no rebellion warranting suspension of habeas.

It’s about time, gawddamnitall.

The Bushzies could give a shit. Your right, Article III Section 2 reserves final say on treaties to SCOTUS (for now), and no exigent circumstances exist for suspension of habeas, but Bush is just gonna plow ahead anyway with his get-outa-jail-free card, enabled by the aggregate cowardice of this Congress.

Jon Porter Re-Election Banner

What I would have like to have seen is each and every Democrat standing shoulder to shoulder behind Harry Reid, announcing that this legislation was not going to stand with their cooperation. That their oath of office holds them to a duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that they are not willing to incrementally erode that foundational document via legislation that is poorly drafted, poorly understood and which has potentially devastating consequences, with no proof that it would make us any safer. That being willing to compromise these long-standing principles, and to insert ourselves into international conventions that have stood the test of time, is opening the equivalent of Pandora’s Box. That this is giving in to fear, and is a sign of weakness not strength, that it is a sign of disrespect for and no confidence in principles that are likely the reason we have survived every crisis thrown our way…until, possibly, now. That we cannot fight terror by changing the structure of our own democracy. That we cannot promote democracy by turning our own away from it.

There have been fine speeches given by those who always stand up for what is right. I just would like to have seen a show of strength in a consolidated and visible way.

scarecrow – good to see you too. Door-2-door work last night; amusing working with interns because they still have so much to learn and skills to acquire.

Like moxie — some people need to be coached to have some moxie, get some spine. A young intern might be tempted to walk away after ringing the doorbell, but I’ll knock and hard until I’m certain nobody’s home or they are not coming to the door.

Right now we appear to have a few more folks in leadership positions needing some moxie lessons. [sigh]

Ugh, don’t tell me this is the damned vote…I thought it was a roll call. It’s predictable already, the most obvious names voting against Specter (Inhofe, Huckleberry Graham, Burns, etc., like a roll call of the evil.)

And Jeffords votes loud enough in favor that I can hear him. Yay, Jeffords!

EvilDrPuma — my mixed up 89 was just ribbin’ ya. I’m a “little” on the “ossified” side.

lina @ 85

jr @ 78

SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER:

I thought it only takes one to filibuster. Why doesn’t someone like Feingold do it?

it takes 60 votes to cut off debate.

I’m sorry if I keep harping on this, but it’s just like you said: 60 votes. NOT 60% of the votes. If 41 Senators simply don’t show up, there’s no cloture. Most Democratic Senators have done nothing to support us over the last 4 years. Will they be willing to do nothing when it really counts?

scarecrow @ 89

blockquote>

Possibly. The issue is that cell phone usage is demographically tilted toward younger demographics. That could make a big difference in the Connecticut Senate race, since much of Lamont’s backing is coming from younger, more tech-savvy voters, and more of Lieberman’s from the portion of the older demographic whose brains have ossified.

Now I’m really confused.

The point is, a phone poll still relies on listed (land line) numbers. That means that the younger, tech-savvy, pro-Lamont voter who may very well have gone all the way over to cell is not getting into the sample, and the ossified-brained, land-line-using Lieberman fan is.

Better?

“This would purport to allow the president, after some incident, to round up scores of people — people who are lawfully here — and hold them in military prisons with no access to the legal system, whatsoever, indefinitely,” said Joe Onek , senior policy analyst at the Open Society Policy Center, a Washington-based advocacy organization.

_____

Is this where the KBR internal detention centers thingy comes in?

Peterr @ 64

Wigwam @ 55

I was of the impression, possibly a misimpression, that any senator could filibuster all by himself/herself. Obviously, one person can’t sustain all that long, but two or three could surely pull it off for a couple of days. Am I missing something?

The right to filibuster is subject to being overturned after a certain amount of time has gone by. Forty eight hours (I believe) after someone announces an intention to “invoke cloture”, the Senate can take a vote to shut off a filibuster, which takes 60 votes to pass.

One senator can start a filibuster, but without a lot of support it can’t be sustained.

IIRC, Frist included an intent to invoke with the introduction of the bill, but I may have that wrong.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 86

Larry at 82 — I agree with the sentiment on the bill, but you forget that an elected representative has to represent not just his or her own conscience, but also the sentiments of his or her district as well. And that is a very tough balancing act for some. It’s not a vote I would have been comfortable casting — but I’d suggest asking both men about why they cast it rather than immediately marking them as null — I know I’ll be asking for explanations from a whole lot of folks in the days to come on this.

You won’t be the only one, but I’d prefer explanations before the vote rather than justifications afterwards. Silence, from people elected to speak, is not acceptable.

Where’s Lieberman? how did he vote???

scarecrow @ 93

EvilDrPuma — my mixed up 89 was just ribbin’ ya. I’m a “little” on the “ossified” side.

I’m actually still a land-line user, mostly because I just haven’t tried to keep up.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 86

an elected representative has to represent not just his or her own conscience, but also the sentiments of his or her district as well.

This begs the question of how many congressional districts would vote in favor of this bill were it put directly to them as a referendum. My guess is you’d have to dig pretty deep into the reddest of red congressional districts to find voters who would support this legislation (were they to read it and understand it.)

So, if you buy my premise, the only thing that’s left to account for Brown and Ford’s votes is political expediency in an election year, and that’s a pretty sad reason to put your stamp of approval on a bill that legalizes torture.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 86

Larry at 82 — I agree with the sentiment on the bill, but you forget that an elected representative has to represent not just his or her own conscience, but also the sentiments of his or her district as well. And that is a very tough balancing act for some. It’s not a vote I would have been comfortable casting — but I’d suggest asking both men about why they cast it rather than immediately marking them as null — I know I’ll be asking for explanations from a whole lot of folks in the days to come on this.

about normal policy issues, i agree. but not this… this is a line that should not be crossed.

reminds my of what my congressman (jim mcgovern) said about his vote against the iraq war…

my constituents can get a new congressmen, but i can’t get a new conscience.

so far: Smith, Specter, Chafee, Sununu voted aye.

Lieberman voted aye, Rayne.

Harold Ford is running as a Democrat in the reddest of the red states. He is dead even in the polls. The reality of this whole ugly situation is the Democrats know they don’t have the pre-election media savvy to defeat “Terra Terra Terra” with an explanation of habeus corpus (sp). It’s a sad state of affairs, but that’s life in 2006 America.

I know it sucks. But if Harold Ford gets elected in Tennessee, and the next Supreme Court nomination comes up, Harold Ford will vote with his party against Bush’s nominee.

And ultimately the Supreme Court will have the last say on torture, etc.

I have been watching the Senate, had just emailed a friend and said, OMG, this is the script: Hab Corpus was a piece of meat, the REAL point of all this is to make sure Bushco is NEVER prosecuted. Less than 15 min. later, sure enough,they’re voting right now to rescind Hab. Cor., and once again, we all fell for it. My guess is Bush is still able to “interpret” Geneva any way he chooses, which probably allows him to suspend Hab. Cor. anyway. Once again, we watch the dance, once again, we get our hopes up, once again, we blunder right into the trap. They get it all.

When is one of the good guys going to quote the Golden Rule in this debate?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It applies directly to the situation at hand. We don’t torture so that others don’t torture our troops. We don’t disappear people so that others don’t disappear our troops and citizens.

Christy @86

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Their first and primary overarching duty is to America… to protect and defend the constitution..

That said, I am now donning my asbestos suit.

Larry

Mommybrain — alas, no, it wasn’t me this morning.

But a Rayne Martini sounds damned good right about now, and it’s 12:03 here. Means I can have a 3-martini lunch to try and numb myself.

Wonder what’s in a Rayne Martini? If I made it myself it’d be 2 shots vodka, 1 shot anisette and one each pink and white Good and Plenty, shaken with ice and served in a martini glass.

BobbyG @ 90

Rayne @
58

Specter, it’s about damned time.

Legislation cannot trump Supreme Court rulings, and SCOTUS recognizes habeas for aliens, and Rasul v. Bush found no rebellion warranting suspension of habeas.

It’s about time, gawddamnitall.

The Bushzies could give a shit. Your right, Article III Section 2 reserves final say on treaties to SCOTUS (for now), and no exigent circumstances exist for suspension of habeas, but Bush is just gonna plow ahead anyway with his get-outa-jail-free card, enabled by the aggregate cowardice of this Congress.

Jon Porter Re-Election Banner

A rogue administration supported by lock-step repukes leads inevitably to a dictatorship. I’m afraid Osama has all but won…

Collins’ office only taking calls from constituents & messages from media.

Meta @33 – I’ve got a comment in moderation that has some info. I’m off for now, but after Sherrod Brown dressing up as one of the progressive pics who can help change the party from within, I have pretty substantial doubts that there is any hope and personally I regret each penny donated.

You do represent the people in your district but you first fulfill your oath of office. Next, you make sure you and the people in your district understand what you are voting on.

I will say that the NYT piece was my one ray of sunshine.

I hope for tortured dreams every night for anyone who votes for this legislation and may they all die with fear in their eyes with the knowledge of what their actions have earned them.

That’s how strongly I feel about it.

Goodbye USA. You’ve been morphing into something different for 5 years now, and the process is complete.

Orwell’s only mistake was getting the year wrong

ironranger @ 110

Collins’ office only taking calls from constituents & messages from media.

What did they say when you told them you’re from “Ironranger Reports, Inc.”?

Peterr @ 98

Christy Hardin Smith @ 86

Larry at 82 — I agree with the sentiment on the bill, but you forget that an elected representative has to represent not just his or her own conscience, but also the sentiments of his or her district as well. And that is a very tough balancing act for some. It’s not a vote I would have been comfortable casting — but I’d suggest asking both men about why they cast it rather than immediately marking them as null — I know I’ll be asking for explanations from a whole lot of folks in the days to come on this.

You won’t be the only one, but I’d prefer explanations before the vote rather than justifications afterwards. Silence, from people elected to speak, is not acceptable.

I agree this is not an ordinary vote that can be rationalized within the context of politics as usual. It is a watershed issue that defines us as a nation. To vote political expediency on this means you can vote political expediency on anything. And remind me, if this is acceptable now, how are any of those who vote for torture different in any real, fundamental way from those we oppose.

Mary, thanks so much for responding to my question @ 33. I really don’t understand, and look forward to your answer. Much appreciated.

Am I right in assuming that the Senate is currently voting on the Spector/ Leahy/ Smith Ammendment.

Collins just voted No, so I can only surmise that she will vote in favor of the bill.

Holy shit.

LOL Larry at 107 — my heart agrees with you, but my head says that it is a balance. Look at Al Gore, Sr.’s vote on the Vietnam War — he got out ahead of his constituents on the vote. I believe he was right to do so, but that’s because I agreed with him (in hindsight, because at the time I was barely out of diapers, if that…). But his constituents did not and voted his moderate voice out of the Senate.

Some things are worth standing up for, no matter the consequences. But you have to weight out both the short and long term consequences on the vote in order to determine where it falls for you — and for each person, that is going to be different. Is this vote on a torture bill more or less important than being able to influence the composition of the US Supreme Court and its rulings for more than one generation to come? Is it more important than the need to provide desperately needed oversight and accountability of the Bush Administration’s actions? Each elected official has to answer that for him or herself. And each constituent has to vote for or against them based on the calling of their conscience.

Speeches are nice. A filibuster would make me take people to the polls in November.

when do you think we will get a red cross report on the Gitmo prisoners?

Totally OT, but we must be multitaskers!

Josh over at TPM has a couple interesting points: Bob Woodward has apparently found his inner redemption…he’s doing 60 Minutes Sunday night ahd will say that BushCo hasn’t been honest about the level of violence to our troops.

And further, that it doesn’t take a year to produce an NIE, more like 2 weeks to 2 months. He challenges media to push Snow and Townsend on why they lied. And to push for release of the “draft.”

Don’t draft my kids until I see your draft, King George!

Take heart, pups, we may lose a skirmish, but the election’s not been held yet. And we can read Sun Tzu, too.

I’m remote navigating a broken furnace and multiple med appts for Mr. Sunshine today, so if you can take a bit o’time to check out Josh
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
and Spotlight to the MSM, could be a good way to expend some pent-up frustration…keep it polite! We need to make actions just as we want our Senators to do.

48 to 51 and habeas is gone.

51 nays – 48 yeas. Amendment fails.

48-51. . . Specter Amendment fails.

Three amendments remain.

JHF @ 118

Speeches are nice. A filibuster would make me take people to the polls in November.

if you’ll take people to the polls, you might get a Supreme Court that will overturn this law.

The Specter-Leahy amendment failed by a vote of 51 to 48. There are 3 amendments remaining before a vote on the bill as a whole.

angie at 121 — habeas is NOT gone. The amendment failed, but habeas is still written into the Constitution as of my last reading of it, and the Courts have had no say as to the constitutionality of this action by the Senate.

Rockefeller amendment up next.

Anybody know the text?

susan @ 116

Collins just voted No, so I can only surmise that she will vote in favor of the bill.

Holy shit.

A few days ago I noted that a college age nephew (a Democrat from Maine) recently spent some time with Collins, expressed support of her. When I spoke about her Alito vote, he said “well she has one of the most perfect voting records in Congress and that’s pretty important.” [me:yikes]. I mentioned that there might be a move against her, similar to Lieberman. His response: “Well she has no idea, she is pretty popular among people here.” [me: YIKES]. Please, Maine, find someone good to run against her.

scarecrow says:
September 28th, 2006 at 8:58 am

It’s a little out of period, and maybe a bit obscure: the polls at that time were done by phone, and since so many Dems couldn’t afford phones (or could only manage a party line: multiple houses on the same phone line, and the ring sequence said who it was for), the poll results were tilted toward the GOP.

I’d do cell only, but I’d have to change phones or change phone numbers, and then the computer still needs a connection…it’s on dialup now.

No offense to Christy or anyone else but if Joe Lieberman voted for torture we would not be talking balancing or weighing and we would certainly not be talking about conscience.

What the Democrats have done as they usually do is mill about without a plan and yielding the terms and course of the debate to the Republicans. A few stray ineffectual voices are raised and in the end nothing happens. There is no opposition, just a meaningless vote that lawmakers can point to showing how they stood up for blah, blah, blah.

According to Cantwell’s office it’s too late to filibuster.

Larry at 82 – I was deeply dismayed with Ford and Brown’s votes too, but I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt for now; obviously both of them are in close Senate races in a red and purple states respectively, and I recalled that the RNC is gushing campaign funding into those races as one of its top priorities – and it has a boatload of funds to play with. Meaning, they are ready to pounce with non-stop TV ads about how Ford or Brown voted no on being tough on terror, they are obviously terrorist coddlers – and just by sheer expenditure, they would convey that message to a degree the two candidates couldn’t counter well in the short time remaining with explanations of what the bill really represents.

And for Ford, anyway, this is far from the first time he has crossed the aisle in a way I would have a serious problem with in a vacuum, but is probably necessary to play toward that rarefied window for Tennesseans in the age of Rove and Fox News to still vote for a Democrat. Even so, I think he’s still a great guy, and still votes wisely and reasonably, as opposed to siding with the GOP, as much as he can given his constraints.

I have the full text of Senator Dodd’s remarks up at Emboldened.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 126

angie at 121 — habeas is NOT gone. The amendment failed, but habeas is still written into the Constitution as of my last reading of it, and the Courts have had no say as to the constitutionality of this action by the Senate.

Christy, you are doing a much better job than I today at being optimistic. I have hope for some unprecedented action by some fearless Dems still, but that habeas corpus amendment just failed and the Courts will probably take years to rule on this abominable legislation should it pass. ;(

Christy Hardin Smith @ 126

angie at 121 — habeas is NOT gone. The amendment failed, but habeas is still written into the Constitution as of my last reading of it, and the Courts have had no say as to the constitutionality of this action by the Senate.

But there are those who will not have access to it for years. Justice delayed is justice denied.

I was looking forward to hearing Kerry’s statement. The first sentence of the statement Christy highlighted above is a very good start:

“We must start treating our moral authority as a precious national asset that does not limit our power but magnifies our influence. “

Hugh at 130 — Lieberman sits in a Senate seat in one of the bluest states in the nation. The sentiments of his constituency are clearly against this bill. If he voted for it, that would rightly be questioned as both a vote that is against his professed personal beliefs and against the wishes of his constituency.

But Ohio and Tennessee are different constituencies altogether, and require different analysis. Pretending otherwise is naive, at best, and you know it. I know that the moral argument is against this bill — I believe I have said so — REPEATEDLY FOR QUITE SOME TIME — here on this blog. But that does not mean that I can countenance writing someone off entirely without looking at ALL of the factors that went into their vote. That is not how a republic works, nor should it. And we pretend otherwise to our own and our party’s long-term peril.

This is not beanbag. This has enormous implications legally and politically on a whole lot of levels. I’m pissed as hell that this has even gotten this far, and I think that is clear — but I am also not going to cede any victory on any level to the GOP and Karl Rove just because I’m pissed. Fuck them for putting this nation in this position in the first place — and I will be doing my damndest to make certain, in every sense of the word, that the GOP regrets this. Period.

Getting out in front of your constitutents usually happens because a politician does not share their views as they go along. Rarely does an opinion on a serious issue of the day turn 180 degrees on a dime.

If a politician . . .
asks questions of the administration in January,
gets no satisfactory answer in February,
asks them again in March,
gets more information in April that only intensifies the need for answers,
has the questions rejected in May,
raises more questions and doubts in June,
is called a traitor for questioning in July,
goes around the state/district speaking about the troubling dialogue between the legislative and exectutive branches in August,
holds hearings and speaks out in September,
. . . no one will be surprised at the end of the month when votes must be taken.

“Getting out in front of constituents” is not simply that you voted against their beliefs, but mostly (in my experience) that you SURPRISED them by doing it. I’ve seen it with politicians at a distance, and (in different debates) a bunch of pastors up close.

The old AIDS slogan is true of politics in these dangerous times: silence=death.

Could Jeffords (as an independent) filibuster the bill even if, perhaps, Democrats have taken it off the table?

Question is: how many Democrats will grant unanimous consent to torture of people held without trial?

It matters not what pretty speeches they give or what pretty votes they make. What matters is whether they give consent to torture. And that is how we should treat it.

Every Senator that does not stand up and force a cloture vote consents to torture. And every one of them needs a primary challenge.

An opportunity for Lamont. Joe Blow will certainly vote for the Torture State bill. That gives the Lamont campaign a perfectly simple weapon to use throughout the remainder of the campaign. “Joe voted to make America a Torture State. He voted to make end democracy in America, to make America a dictatorship. Torture and tyranny are not values that Ned Lamont will ever support, ever.” Yeah, the wording needs improvement. Make them pay.

- James

You can only filibuster for so long as you can sustain a cloture vote — which is 60 votes in favor of continuing the filibuster. I think the vote on the Specter-Leahy amendment just showed you how likely a filibuster is to be sustained for any length of time.

Voting to authorize waterboarding is a war crime.
Voting to authorize the administration to authorize itself to use waterboarding is a war crime.
Today 253 U.S. representatives commited a war crime.
If your representative voted ‘yes’, I suggest you put your nose one inch from his/her nose and explain, “You are going to prison.”
and “There is no statue of limitations”.
and “I will be your Ellie Wiesel”.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 137

Hugh at 130 — Lieberman sits in a Senate seat in one of the bluest states in the nation. The sentiments of his constituency are clearly against this bill. If he voted for it, that would rightly be questioned as both a vote that is against his professed personal beliefs and against the wishes of his constituency.

But Ohio and Tennessee are different constituencies altogether, and require different analysis. Pretending otherwise is naive, at best, and you know it. I know that the moral argument is against this bill — I believe I have said so — REPEATEDLY FOR QUITE SOME TIME — here on this blog. But that does not mean that I can countenance writing someone off entirely without looking at ALL of the factors that went into their vote. That is not how a republic works, nor should it. And we pretend otherwise to our own and our party’s long-term peril.

This is not beanbag. This has enormous implications legally and politically on a whole lot of levels. I’m pissed as hell that this has even gotten this far, and I think that is clear — but I am also not going to cede any victory on any level to the GOP and Karl Rove just because I’m pissed. Fuck them for putting this nation in this position in the first place — and I will be doing my damndest to make certain, in every sense of the word, that the GOP regrets this. Period.

Not sure anybody else will. They’ll sit on their backsides watching their faux news and controlled entertainment until they get hauled away for saying the wrong thing. ‘Course then it’s too late

Christy -

Thank you so much for blogging from the Senate.

I was going crazy looking for coverage of the progress there, after leaving messages on the machines of the senators last night and being in a constant distraction over this. You are a lifesaver!

As for the bill, given that it looks now like the odds are it will pass, I’m starting to think of how quickly it can get set up for review by the Supremes by someone like Neal Katyal. Obviously the supremes will strike it down in a heartbeat – I’d wager 8-1 or 7-2 with a lonely, fascist dissenting opinion by Alito and maybe Thomas. The only question is how soon we can get to that point.

This really is the worst bill passed by Congress since 1798, if not the worst of all time. That the trend toward dictatorship could be not just championed by the administration but now so firmly blessed by Congress is perhaps the most disheartening event yet in the pitiful downward spiral of the Bush-Cheney crisis.

Give ‘em the line I used on my blog yesterday:

“Terrorists can only take our lives. It takes Republicans to take away our liberty and freedom.”

Kerry speaking, again about moral authority — now a part of Congressional record.

Peterr..wonder how far I would have gotten if I had thought of your idea..Ironranger Reports…lol. I probably would have had to talk as fast as Tony (you don’t stop a war in the first moment) Blankley did on Hardball right from Matthew’s lst question. Tony looked a little frantic. That was just as fun to watch as the Franken & Tony round. I wish we could see more rightwingers actually to work to justify their positions instead of their years of free passes.
Keith Olbermann managed last night in a short period of time to clearly outline critical facts that msm has failed to do in all these years. It was a thing of beauty. To think that this is a rarity instead of the norm in what used to be the land of the free, home of the brave makes me want to bawl every day.

You can contact your senators toll free at 1-800-amnesty and they will patch you through (from Jesus’ General) I understand that even if the Court strikes the Habeus Corpus section of the bill it will still provide for protection for war crimes already committed. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also, I would like to know the 34 Dems who voted for this abomination in the House. I would like to give them a call also. Thank you.
(I am so gd-damned angry I am shaking)

Kerry spitting it out, with emotion. Go for it, sir.

Oh Jeebus, it’s more Kit Bond. Blergh.

John Kerry said that they just did away with habeas corpus and that the courts will one day rule that unconstitutional.

nobrakes @
150

Also, I would like to know the 34 Dems who voted for this abomination in the House. I would like to give them a call also. Thank you.

Here is a chart showing how each of the House members voted:

http://projects.washingtonpost…..votes/491/

(Once you’re on the page, click on the name of each party to see how the members of Congress from that party voted.)

Christy @ 143

So force the cloture vote. One senator willing to stand up against torture and the destruction of habeas corpus can force the cloture vote.

And then we will know. Who cares what they vote on the bill, it’s the vote on cloture that tells us whether our elected officials support torture.

And right now, they all do. By unanimous consent.

Looking like Kool Aid Kit graduated from the George W. Bush School of Oratory with honors.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 142

You can only filibuster for so long as you can sustain a cloture vote — which is 60 votes in favor of continuing the filibuster. I think the vote on the Specter-Leahy amendment just showed you how likely a filibuster is to be sustained for any length of time.

I thought 60 votes was needed to invoke cloture, thus ending extended debate (i.e. filibuster).

Christy Hardin Smith @ 152

Oh Jeebus, it’s more Kit Bond. Blergh.

My God, this guy is less articulate than his Commander in Chief

Glad to hear about DiFi – I’d been focusing on her office and had only gotten “She hasn’t made a public statement yet.” But though DiFi does stuff I don’t like (eg, the bankruptcy bill) she has been consistent on civil liberties, and surprisingly (aside from the initial vote to authorize), the war.

I had a good conversation with Jane Harman’s office yesterday as well. That surprised me somewhat, given how conservative she is.

I’m holding out some shreds of hope that this train won’t go down the tracks, but it’s hard.

Iraq was a ‘hotbed of terrorism’?

Anybody know how Snowe voted on the Specter amendment?

Froomkin:

It’s a red-letter day for the country. It’s also a telling day for our political system.

The people have lost confidence in their president. Despite that small recent uptick in the polls, Bush remains deeply unpopular with the American public, mistrusted by a majority, widely considered out of touch with the nation’s real priorities.

But he’s still got Congress wrapped around his little finger.

Today’s vote will show more clearly than ever before that, when push comes to shove, the Republicans who control Congress are in lock step behind the president, and the Democrats — who could block him, if they chose to do so — are too afraid to put up a real fight.

OT:

“Ned Lamont has lost momentum,” says Douglas Schwartz, director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. “Lamont wins among those who say Iraq is the most important issue to their vote, but that is only 35 percent of the electorate. Lieberman wins on all the other issues voters say matter most to them, including terrorism and the economy.”

According to the Quinnipiac Poll, likely Republican voters prefer Lieberman over Lamont by a 69-15 percent margin. Independent voters prefer Lieberman over Lamont by a 50-36 margin. Lamont leads only among likely Democratic voters, who prefer him over Lieberman by a 57-37 spread.

This from Salon’s War Room by Tim Grieve. Read more below:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

From Glenn Greenwald’s post this morning:

“Opponents of this bill have focused most of their attention — understandably and appropriately — on the way in which it authorizes the use of interrogation techniques which, as this excellent NYT Editorial put it, “normal people consider torture,” along with the power it vests in the President to detain indefinitely, and with no need to bring charges, all foreign nationals and even legal resident aliens within the U.S. But as Law Professors Marty Lederman and Bruce Ackerman each point out, many of the extraordinary powers vested in the President by this bill also apply to U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil.

As Ackerman put it: “The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.” Similarly, Lederman explains: “this [subsection (ii) of the definition of ‘unlawful enemy combatant’] means that if the Pentagon says you’re an unlawful enemy combatant — using whatever criteria they wish — then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to ‘hostilities’ at all.”

The quote is just a taste of what he has to say. If you want more: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

I think the Democratic Party is DOA and we’d better start a new party. We obviously can’t get it done before this November (although I’m certain that the election will be called off anyway due to a “national emergency” proclaimed by Bush, provoked by the nuclear attack on Iran that he will start on October 24th without provocation). Maybe, if enough of us are still alive and not disappeared into gulags by Bush and his Republican and Democratic enablers, we’ll be able to form a viable party to win in 2008.

Any Democrat who votes for this piece of shit is a spineless traitor.

Christy — I don’t know which is worse, the happy horseshite falling so freely from Kit Bond’s mouth, or the used car salesman appearance he manifests. If I put the TV on mute, he still “sounds” terrible…ugh.

First words out of his mouth are about the importance of this bill in continuing interrogation to get us intelligence.

Yah. Sure. I can see how that’s worked out so well for us already.

Stupid f*ck. Cripes, that yellow tie has more wattage than that skull of his.

.

Richmond @ 19

Sad news up on Raw: Lamont losing momentum, Lieberman up by 10. GRRRrrrrrrr

According to whom?

Zogby new poll has Lamont 44, Lieberman 45.8, within the margin of error.

And if I’m reading the graph correctly, that represents a GAIN for Lamont.

I found 2 amendments by Rockefeller S5078 and S5079. I think that S5078 may be the one being debated. It requires that there be extensive and regular reports on CIA prisons, prisoners, techniques used, and results.

S5079 sets a limit of one year that detainees can be detained in CIA prisons.

The texts of the amendments are on pages S10318 and S10319 of the Congressional Record. I tried to link directly to the pages but the comment window strips them out. The Rockefeller Amendment is quite long but does not begin at the beginning of the page. I would use the find function and type in ‘rock’.

THe GOP Red Herring/Straw Man/False Dilemma-fest continues unabated on the Senate floor. Domenci, STFU.
_

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/28/woodward-book/

New Woodward Book Details Multiple Bush Cover-Ups Over Iraq

The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward is set to release “State of Denial,” the third in his series of books documenting the inner workings of the Bush administration. Woodward will discuss some notable revelations in the book this Sunday on 60 Minutes.

(snip)

Omigod. Domenici doesn’t need the used car salesman look – he is clearly more stupid than Bond.

Most valuable tools we have = CIA interrogation.

Yah, once again, I can see how effective that’s been.

What was EXTREMELY valuable was the 2003 report from the CIA, issued within weeks of the launch of military action, that said Iraq was at high risk of falling into a civil war.

Give me more intelligence like THAT, yah stupid droning moron. Very sad when the only thing Domenici has going for him is that he didn’t wear a yellow tie…

This is all about fear.

The Republicans are the party of fear. They are afraid of everything. They want everyone else to be afraid too.

Sadly, the dems. for the most part are afraid to stand proud and tall and say NO to their fear.

:-(

Christy Hardin Smith @ 142

You can only filibuster for so long as you can sustain a cloture vote — which is 60 votes in favor of continuing the filibuster. I think the vote on the Specter-Leahy amendment just showed you how likely a filibuster is to be sustained for any length of time.

You’ve got the vote backwards. It takes 60 votes to shut off a filibuster, not to sustain it. The cloture motion is a motion to end debate, and must be agreed to by 60 votes.

I hope that this is what Leahy and Co are leading up to – giving folks a bunch of debate on the five amendments to run out the week, and then getting the Dems to hold firm on a filibuster before the Senate adjourns until after the elections.

I hope that’s what’s going on. We’ll see.

September 28, 2006 will go down in the history books as the day the US shifted from a Democracy to a totalitarian state. Ironically almost nobody will notice, and there will be barely a mention of it in the main stream media.

Understand, The Military Commissions Act of 2006 about to be passed in congress and the senate enables the president and all future presidents to designate anybody he wants as an “enemy combatant” (even if you are a citizen!) and to be held indefinitely without a right to a hearing or to know what you are charged with.

This is not a party issue, this is and American issue. This bill disintegrates the the ideals of this country that have held strong since it founding. Even if you don’t mind George Bush with these powers then imagine Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or Al Gore with these powers. This is not right!

If you even care a bit, please call your member of congress or senator to oppose this, though it looks like a done deal.

Fear is a false God

Bush is a blasphemer…and the religious right is too stupid to see it.

Is it more important than the need to provide desperately needed oversight and accountability of the Bush Administration’s actions?

How can you give someone license to torture and kidnap innocent people and amnesty for those things and even abuse of children, then have any pretense to being able to demand “accountability” or to have the competency and capability to provide oversight?

Or that you have the moral compass and the strength of will to make the hard decisions for this country, when you were faced with this kind of decision and made the wrong choices, knowingly?

How will they ever deal with the real hard, tough, issues if this is all that can be expected from them?

Mary @ 175

Is it more important than the need to provide desperately needed oversight and accountability of the Bush Administration’s actions?

How can you give someone license to torture and kidnap innocent people and amnesty for those things and even abuse of children, then have any pretense to being able to demand “accountability” or to have the competency and capability to provide oversight?

Or that you have the moral compass and the strength of will to make the hard decisions for this country, when you were faced with this kind of decision and made the wrong choices, knowingly?

How will they ever deal with the real hard, tough, issues if this is all that can be expected from them?

amen.

Of course I meant to say the religious right are too stupid to know it.

I am so upset listening to c-span that proper english has left my brain.

Egregious @ 165:It was Q-Pole. But see response of Rev-Deb @ 25. Also, Raw has up more numbers now than when I posted.

Wasn’t it in the last Star Wars movie when someone said:

“This is how democracy ends. Not with a gun but with a gavel”

or something to that effect?

Stephen Parrish — so…what’s your take on Woodie’s newest waste of paper?

Does he do a mea culpa and acknowledge he was a useful tool in those coverups?

Does he pants WaPo but good, by stealing their thunder?

Does he make a bunch of empty claims or those that have been covered in more thorough detail by emptywheel, Jeralyn, Christy, Jane, et al?

Agh. I hate to think of parting any money on Woodie’s work.

The GOP is going after one more election win based on fear of terrorism; but, Hezbollah’s defeat of Israel demonstrated that the USA has lost the holy war in the Middle East and will have to withdraw from the occupation of Iraq and eventually Afghanistan. Future MALAISE brought on by isolation, loss of economic power and global warning will be spelled out with giant capital Malthusian Letters.

The torture laws passed today by Congress are needed in America to keep the hoi polloi from storming their gated communities.

RevDeb @ 171

This is all about fear.

The Republicans are the party of fear. They are afraid of everything. They want everyone else to be afraid too.

Sadly, the dems. for the most part are afraid to stand proud and tall and say NO to their fear.

:-(

mainly, it gets the focus off Iraq.

Gah, Domenici must surely be the Dean of the George W Bush School of Oratory. Geeze.

Domenici- “We must remember we are dealing with terrorists, not white collar criminals.”

Yeah, the GOP has the lock on the latter.

See the incessant framing: “terrorists”, not “terror suspect detainees.” Why don’t we just fucking summarily EXECUTE all of them?

Froomkin’s all over this, folks – check it out here, and enjoy his opening salvo:

Today’s Senate vote on President Bush’s detainee legislation, after House approval yesterday, marks a defining moment for this nation.

How far from our historic and Constitutional values are we willing to stray? How mercilessly are we willing to treat those we suspect to be our enemies? How much raw, unchecked power are we willing to hand over to the executive?

And that’s just to get things rolling.

lina @ 183

RevDeb @ 171

This is all about fear.

The Republicans are the party of fear. They are afraid of everything. They want everyone else to be afraid too.

Sadly, the dems. for the most part are afraid to stand proud and tall and say NO to their fear.

:-(

mainly, it gets the focus off Iraq.

But once they close down to go home and campaign, they no longer have this fog machine to use.

Yes, they are trying to change the subject.

WE need to do what we can to change it back again! Close Dau’s triangle. Work the media, etc.

Pat Roberts (R-KS) LYING into the Congressional record.

Claims Congress has been fully informed, they need only ask.

What total bullsh*t.

Dear Senator Reid,

I am writing to express my concern about the so-called “compromise” torture/detention bill moving through Congress. I have been following this issue closely and today, to my surprise, I read that Democrats are thinking of voting for it.

I must ask you not to support it, even if further amended this week. This is the wrong direction for our country.

I ask that of you because I believe if this legislation is adopted, or anything like it, it would remove some of the core reasons I pledge allegiance to America. Namely, that “all men” (including suspected terrorists) deserve to be presumed innocent and protected by habeas corpus law and given a speedy and fair trial with access to evidence used against them. Why? Not simply because its seems highly likely many “illegal combatants” are indeed not terrorists, because of the way rich enticements were offered by us to poor Afghanis for turning in their neighbors. No, the ultimate reason is because they are human beings, just that. That’s what America is all about, in my opinion, protecting the rights of human beings. Principles can be very inconvenient. This is about us and our principles.

As Senate Minority Leader, if it takes a filibuster to defeat this terrible proposal, please put principle ahead of the political risk of being called “soft on terrorism” by the likes of Carl Rove. I would not be able, in good conscience, to vote for any Democrat who supported this legislation, and I suspect I am not alone in this.

I believe our country will later regret it if passed, like we later regreted the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WWII. Only this time all of us will be losing basic rights. I believe that if we stoop to torture out of fear or lack of confidence in ourselves, we will end up reduced to the level of our enemies, with little left to fight for.

This week may well be a defining moment in our experiment with democracy. Defending our core principles can’t really be a bad way for Democrats to be elected in November. And those principles may well prove to be the ultimate weapon against terrorism.

Thanks for your consideration, and give ‘em hell, Harry

This bill will get voided by the supremes, along with the retroactive pardon of torture. The people responsible will not be able to avoid prosecution forever.

Hopefully starting under judiciary committee chairmen Conyers and Leahy in January.

Domenici- “We must remember we are dealing with terrorists, not white collar criminals.”

This is where they need to nail him and make him or Cornyn or others come back to the mic and ask them to swear, before God and the people of the United States of America and this is true.

That it is true of Arar. That it was true of Dilawar. That it is true of el-Masri. That it is true of the Uighurs. etc.

And ask them specifically if they are intentionally giving amnesty for war crimes committed against innocent people – if they sputter through, ask them to all put it on the legislative record, that they do not intend for those who perpetrate assaults and crimes on civilians to be covered by any amnesty provisions.

Then let’s see.

Brian @157 thanks for the info. I’m going there now.

bryan @ shotgunfreude @ 189

This bill will get voided by the supremes, along with the retroactive pardon of torture. The people responsible will not be able to avoid prosecution forever.

Hopefully starting under judiciary committee chairmen Conyers and Leahy in January.

Rove will make certain that that never happens.
_

Pat Roberts smoking crack on the floor of the Senate…

if this bill doesn’t pass and languishes during the recess, the CIA will not be able to interrogate enemy combatants while we are out campaiging.

Oh yes…the poor CIA will be paralyzed, everybody just sitting in their office twiddling their thumbs…and the terrorists just running amok.

Dammit – offer some time to Roberts and ask him to explain whether or not he is saying that he and other members of COngress were specifically briefed on el-Masri; that we kidnapped and were torturing a man based on thinking his name sounded bad? And if so, what were the extent of Pat Robert’s approvals of that kidnap and torture and is that why he wants amnesty for war crimes?

Get tough or get out.

Sorry Brian that should be #154. Got to up the medication.

Geez freaking louise – not be able to question people they have had in detention for YEARS?

What have they forgotten to ask them? Their favorite color?

BobbyG @ 185

Domenici- “We must remember we are dealing with terrorists, not white collar criminals.”

Yeah, the GOP has the lock on the latter.

See the incessant framing: “terrorists”, not “terror suspect detainees.” Why don’t we just fucking summarily EXECUTE all of them?

this entire new vocabulary has done more damage to this country and whatever brain it had than almost anything else.

I am sick of it. This filthy legislation is going to put all of us– here and abroad in more danger. It opens the door for all other signatories to the Geneva Conventions to interpret them willy nilly. Hell, torture will be hunky dory too! No more calling other nations on human rights abuses since we get to move to the head of the class. Any hope of redemption from our abuses at Gitmo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib is off the table– we will legislate to AVOID holding our leaders and violators of the War Crimes act accountable.

The Republicans are afraid of the terrorists, and the Democrats are afraid of the Republicans so the cowards in the White House win.

BobbyG @ 193

bryan @ shotgunfreude @ 189

This bill will get voided by the supremes, along with the retroactive pardon of torture. The people responsible will not be able to avoid prosecution forever.

Hopefully starting under judiciary committee chairmen Conyers and Leahy in January.

Rove will make certain that that never happens.
_

With any good fortune, Rove will be in prison first for the New Hampshire Democrat phone-jamming-gate, whether or not Fitz pulls out something to pin on him in Plamegate.

Based on feedback from a national pollster, it behooves us to tie every single damned Republican incumbent and candidate with George Bush.

George Bush is so repellent that a picture of Bush on literature will encourage recipients to throw out the literature without reading it.

In regards to the Lamont race, we need to tie Lieberman to Bush and remind the public that they are supporting Bush when they vote for Bush’s favorite Democratic Senator.

In regards to any of the rest of these Repug bastards in the Senate and in the House, we need to tell the voting public that these people are yet again providing cover and support for George Bush, at his bidding. They are protecting George Bush from whatever punishment Bush has coming. Senator Rockefeller said today, on the floor of the Senate, into the Congressional Record, that the administration had broken the law, for crying out loud — and this amendment the Repugs are trashing is cover for law breaking.

If you have a blog, blog about the links between Repug elected officials and Bush; write LTE’s about the same and send them to multiple papers.

They’ve changed the subject so that we talk about Congress and not about Bush — screw that. It’s all about Bush, and it’s all about their supporting him.

James @ 141

An opportunity for Lamont. Joe Blow will certainly vote for the Torture State bill. That gives the Lamont campaign a perfectly simple weapon to use throughout the remainder of the campaign. “Joe voted to make America a Torture State. He voted to make end democracy in America, to make America a dictatorship. Torture and tyranny are not values that Ned Lamont will ever support, ever.” Yeah, the wording needs improvement. Make them pay.

- James

Campaigning against torture and tyranny is far more noble and honorable that the Repukes’ terror-and-tax cuts campaign. The challenge is selling it.

Until the Dems reframe the arguments, our work is cut out for us. The estate tax became the death tax. When it should have been the dynasty tax.

We fight powerful odds, but we cannot quit. Even sand, when individual grains bind together, can dislodge mighty stones. Keep on!

Sally @ 198

The Republicans are afraid of the terrorists, and the Democrats are afraid of the Republicans so the cowards in the White House win.

The Congress, after 5 1/2 years of the Bushzies, is suffering from severe clinical political battered spouse syndrome.
_

Well, more and more it seems this administration runs our country like a fraternity. Who said anything about torture? It’s just an initiating ceremony!

I love this – America is facing a mortal threat… from an amendment that would require the CIA to file a report every three months, instead of once a year!!! Oh god, the agony! A report every three months! When will this crisis to democracy be averted?!?!

angie – more than the Geneva conventions, it opens the door for other countries to actively go after our people for commissions of crimes. Just bc our COngress says its not a crime to beat an innocent man until his legs are pulverized then put him in a stress positino where he has to stand on them or die – those kinds of things – doesn’t mean the world will go along.

Congress and Bush are encouraging the commission of crimes that can put our people and our soldiers on the line for criminal prosecution throughout the world. As well as making us more and more hated as the major power in the world coming out and saying it is ok to kidnap and torture brown skinned Muslims anywhere in the world, for any reason or for no reason.

That sure won’t provoke any hatred.

“When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where
they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where
despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].”
Abraham Lincoln
Source: August 24, 1855 – Letter to Joshua Speed

Peterr @ 173

I hope that this is what Leahy and Co are leading up to – giving folks a bunch of debate on the five amendments to run out the week, and then getting the Dems to hold firm on a filibuster before the Senate adjourns until after the elections.

I hope that’s what’s going on. We’ll see.

Peterr,

I hope you’ve got it right.

Peterr at 172 — thanks, I did get that backward int he typing. I’m trying to juggle too many things at once this morning — between the research, the phone calls, the e-mails and everything else, it is all I can do to juggle today.

Mary @ 206– there’s that too!

I appreciate Kerry’s principled comments. I know a lot of folks are pissed – rightfully – that he found his spine so late in the game. But at least he DID find it, and he’s taken some principled, progressive stands during the last couple of years.
That’s more than can be said for some Democrats and many Republicans who I believe know in their hearts this legislation is wrong but don’t have the stones (figuratively speaking) to shoot it down.
As dramatic as this sounds, I often don’t recognize this as the same country as I grew up in. Probably because it’s not.

Fresh thread, gang. Thought we could use some fresh space.

Hold, Jeffords. Hold.

Prairie Sunshine @ 202

The estate tax became the death tax. When it should have been the dynasty tax.

I’ve already heard a good reframe of this from a few quarters, can’t remember who now… rather than referencing the tax itself, it references the proposed GOP tax cut, as:

the Paris Hilton Tax Cut.

Try asking a GOP lawmaker, “Why are you supporting the Paris Hilton Tax Cut?”

It conveys so much in so few words: the GOP desperation to further enshrine billionaire wastrel heirs as a permanent aristocracy, at the expense of the children and grandchildren of all the ordinary Americans who would be picking up the tab for the Paris Hilton Tax Cut over the next umpteen decades – a massive wealth transfer to the super-rich from everyone else.

Can somebody explain why a filibuster is out of the question?

Habeas is as fundamental to our judicial system as the prohibition of slavery is to our rights. No one would look on slavery as a red state, blue state issue. No one should look on habeas that way either. Either we accept habeas as fundamental or we don’t. There is no “kind of” fundamental just as there is no “kind of” pregnant.

If habeas is to be considered just another political issue susceptible to all the usual political calculations, then it is not fundamental to our judicial system. It is just extremely difficult for me to see how you can have any kind of judicial system worth having without it.

That is an important, even critical admission. There were many before the Civil War who considered slavery bad but they did not seek to end it but limit it. Were they right? Were they being practical, realistic? Was the maintenance of a country that was half slave and half free worth it?

Is habeas something you compromise on? Is torture? If we do not draw lines, then there are no lines. Where are yours?

Alright… sounds like Carl Levin is going off.

Imagine that… a senator concerned that after years of vigorous effort, he hasn’t even been able to learn what the torture techniques are, that the GOP is so anxious to bless in blind faith.

Levin up…

Been trying to get the 2nd Bybee memo for 2.5 years without any luck — as has Rockefeller.

Chairman Warner asked in 2004 for all documentation on interrogations, never provided.

Asked John Negroponte, asked Hayden, where is 2nd Bybee memo. Nothing.

4/28/2005 asked Sec. Cambone for 2nd Bybee memo — Cambone never replied.

Asked Porter Goss in 2005…and so on.

Thank you, Senator Levin, for having the facts handy; wonder if this is going to be a subject of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (Levin is ranking Dem)…?

Pat Roberts says all they have to do is ask, and the Ranking Dem of the Armed Services Committee can’t get — and this isn’t the only document in question.

Levin actually used the words, “cover up”.

I’ll be quite interested to know, when this is all over, whether Ned Lamont would have voted for or against the bill in its final form. I won’t be so interested in knowing how Mr. Lamont stood on various amendments or whether or not he thinks in its final form it is a flawed bill or if Connecticut is a state with complicated demographics.

If Mr. Lamont, already, has stated his unequivocal position in this matter would someone give me a link?

These patriotic senators recite the pledge of allegiance “…and to the constitution for which it stands” – makes me want to puke!

Kennedy shouts “death by hanging” for those WWII convicted of war crimes, including waterboarding.

His amendment is about PROTECTING AMERICANS – these techniques are war crimes.

Finally some passion.

Just suppose Bush and his thugs get what they want in the way of torture and kangaroo courts. Then when it is possible to do so, the Iraqis effectively charge Bush and his buds with war crimes and the gangsters are tried under the rules they so badly wanted for the other guys. Lovely!

Hugh – Habeus Corpus is (I won’t write was) considered the fundamental right – so fundamental that it is the only right that is in the Constitution itself.

Hamburger at 220 — Dodd was equally passionate in opposition earlier this morning. Leahy was also good. There have been some great speeches this morning — I hope that some of them get YouTubed or put up on C&L at some point, because they are worth seeing again.

What is needed is at least one Senator of courage to stand up and try to initiate a filibuster – run out the clock, give the country more time for debate- I don’t know the procedural issues and I don’t care if they don’t think they have the numbers ….

IF NO ONE TRIES WE WILL NEVER KNOW…

and as has been pointed out a vote on cloture would be a meaningful way to judge their real position… a NAY vote when they know they don’t have the majority still smells of political calculation…

are they “keeping their powder dry” for something more important?

what if this was about death squads rounding up “5th columnists” in broad daylight?

As Graham told the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, “the administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue fifth column movements…”

then quisling dems like Obama might timidly vote for a comprimise measure toothlessly requiring the Leader to run his death squads only at night…

really this is where we get with the logic of the ‘least-worst’ as opposed to requiring candidates to have some principles they won’t sell out as a condition for support…

Clinton Up

If you can stand the stench of INCREDIBLE HYPOCROSY, here’s part of a speech Bush the Torturer gave at the UN in June 2003:

“Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control.”

I just got off the phone arguing with one of my Senators (Gordon Smith R-OR) aides.

He’s telling me that

a. the senator supports it (no surprise)

b. that section 3 of the bill prohibits torture. (i told him that having a few narrow prohibited acts and letting the executive decide what is and is not legal is a direct breakage of the constitution)

What are some good arguments re: Section 3?

ps. the toll free # for the senate switchboard has gone away, what’s up with that.