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

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?