IF THE DEMOCRATS SUPPORT TORTURE I CANNOT VOTE FOR THEM. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY DEMS (OR REPUPS). MY MORALS WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO VOTE FOR ANY PARTY THAT SUPPORTS TORTURE.
dd | 09.27.06 - 10:41 am | #

Well, what do you know, a Donkey voter who will withdraw his vote out of principle...

Will the rest of you take dd's pledge???
Bart | 09.27.06 - 10:44 am | #

Yes, but what about the new blood coming in? The election is not just about the Dems in Congress now, but about the new ones coming along. Are we going to be cynical about them too?
crazy lemon | 09.27.06 - 10:46 am | #

check out Colbert:

http://www.comedycentral.com/sit...ml? itemId=75819
Gore/Feingold '08 | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 10:47 am | #

Bart, the greater question is when will you develop principles?

Your continual kiss ass apologetics for each and every action of the Bush fuckups paint you as a very very sorry character.
anonymouse | 09.27.06 - 10:51 am | #

The Democratic Party, as a right wing party, it has been seriously hampered by its coalition stand. I'm sure that this is part of the reason it has become impotent and stands for nothing.

It's always possible a charismatic leader will come forward, but it is unlikely that the Democratic Party will change. Tomorrow it will be a right wing political party and the day after that too. The left wing will always be an "add-on" without any real representation.

One of the "problems" is that the left and right operate very differently. The right is very pragmatic. The left is idealistic. The Democratic Party fundamentally is pragmatic. Its stand on things like the Magna Carta is based on tactical considerations. For the antiauthoritarian left this is a line in the sand.
edwin | 09.27.06 - 11:10 am | #

Sorry - lets try that again:

I think that part of the problem is that people think of the Democratic Party as left wing. It is not. It does not in any real way represent the left wing.

Because of the nature of US politics, the Democratic Party is a right wing coalition party that includes the left wing.

The Democratic Party, as a right wing party, it has been seriously hampered by its coalition stand. I'm sure that this is part of the reason it has become impotent and stands for nothing.

It's always possible a charismatic leader will come forward, but it is unlikely that the Democratic Party will change. Tomorrow it will be a right wing political party and the day after that too. The left wing will always be an "add-on" without any real representation.

One of the "problems" is that the left and right operate very differently. The right is very pragmatic. The left is idealistic. The Democratic Party fundamentally is pragmatic. Its stand on things like the Magna Carta is based on tactical considerations. For the antiauthoritarian left this is a line in the sand.
edwin | 09.27.06 - 11:10 am | #

It's no doubt a thin hope, but can't a single Senator (say Feingold) run out the clock at this point by using a hold (i.e. withholding consent where unanimous consent is required to bring the bill to the floor). The senator could very rightly argue s/he needs time to study the language in the bill and to understand for instance what "interrogation techniques" are or are not allowed under it.
People often say that holds are based on Senate tradition (as opposed to rules) and therefore Frist could bulldoze any hold. I'm not so sure. I think the part that is tradition is that the holds may be secret. However the possibility of a single Senator holding up the bill is grounded in the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Here are the details from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_hold

Sections 2 and 3 of Rule VII (Morning Business) of the Standing Rules of the Senate outline the procedure for bringing motions to the floor of the Senate. Under these rules, "no motion to proceed to the consideration of any bill...shall be entertained...unless by unanimous consent". In practice, this means that a Senator may privately provide notice to their party leadership of their intent to object to a motion. At that point, the motion can not proceed because unanimous consent has not been reached, even though the Senator has not publicly announced their intent to object. This allows a Senator to remain anonymous while preventing the motion to go forward.
crust | 09.27.06 - 11:12 am | #

The NIE says that leftist internet users are a major threat to national security.

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

While the Democrats' behavior on this and so many other instances of unmitigated fecklessness is excruciating, it is important to remember, no matter how shallow a comfort it is, that a minority party is often compelled for various reasons to take actions distinctly different than they ones they genuinely would. In most cases, as Glenn has repeatedly pointed out, their apparent motivations are weak and unfounded, but it is still important to remember that none of these radical measures would even be on the table if the current Republican congress were not in charge.

It makes little sense to punish a minority party by withholding your vote when the abhorrent measures currently (and recently) undertaken by the legislature are purely the concept and vision of the majority party. It makes much more sense to stay home when the party in charge (which you generally support) has made the lion's share of the mess, which is nearly always the case in our system of government.
Epsilon | 09.27.06 - 11:18 am | #

I never used to think much about my country.
I took for granted the rights we enjoy and although I would get annoyed at some politicians I never was truely frightened till George bush was elected.
I just watched an interview with the pastor from "Jesus Camp".
OH MY GOD!
What is happening to this country?
We have religious people brainwashing children, and the administration wanting to torture others.
The rational from both?
The "others" are doing it, why shouldn't we?
Well I'll tell you.
Since George Bush embraced the religious right, My America stood up and tried to do what is right(not religious, the true meaning) thing.
We were leaders of the world, not always right, but progress, embracing, problem solvers that other countries looked to for help and support.
We have become a nation that is allowing this administration to change and become a world follower instead of leader.
I no way sympathise with terrorists, but watching the news makes me realise why other country hate us.
How many of these terrorist contries have we used for our own purposes, supplied them with guns etc and now we declare them enemies? Or worse bomb the bejesus out of them, killing hundreds of thousands?
Or, watching this Jesus camp video and stating the muslims indoctrinate their kids, why can't we.
I know I don't read the bible as much as I should, but I don't think Jesus wants small children praying to a picture of George Bush. The word idolatry comes to mind.
Well, I can understand the position taken by the person not wanting to vote Democrat because of the torture issue. BUT..... I have had enough of Republican rule.
The future is here and I do not like what I see under thr REPUBLICANS.
Diane | 09.27.06 - 11:20 am | #

quote should remind us of how the government is thinking of handling those who criticize the Decider's dictates.

Defining an enemy combatant as including someone who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States and lumping anti-globalization groups with terrorist organizations and pretty soon that check you write every year to GreenPeace can land you in eternal incarceration.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 11:21 am | #

I will not vote for anyone that votes for torture, not in a primary, not in a general election, not ever. I don't care how lopsided the vote is. No vote is meaningless on this issue.

If Democrats will not stand up against torture, indefinite detention, secret trials, and admitting torture-derived evidence in trials, in what sense do they deserve my vote? In what sense do they deserve to be in office? In what sense do they deserve to be Americans? No dictatorship in history has had more power than that.

I will not vote for Democrats, just so they can get nicer offices in the Reyburn building or get more face time on TV as committee chairmen. I will not support the Sovietization of the United States.

What a pathetic lot of losers are our elected Democrats! They are the dregs of a dysfunctional political system, a sad Roman Senate of debased and corrupt sycophants. I think it is about time acknowledge where we've come to and elect a horse to the Senate. In fact, if only we could graft on the front end, we could have 500 or so horses representing us.
shargash | 09.27.06 - 11:23 am | #

The Democratic party may not represent the left wing, but it is the only left wing we got.
Alan | 09.27.06 - 11:25 am | #

dd and shargash....

Are you really willing to allow the republicans to destroy our nation because the Dem congresscritters are insufficiently defiant? I hope not because right now Karl Rove (and presumably bart) are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 11:29 am | #

I understand how upset everyone is. I take second place to nobody in my anger at this bill. But we shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush -- some democrats will vote against it. Our job is to reward those who do and replace those who don't.

This is going to be a long struggle. It may be years before we can prosecute the torturers. But it will never happen if we become defeatist now.
Mark Field | 09.27.06 - 11:41 am | #

Unfortunately, the Republicans are all ready well on their way to destroying our nation and the Democrats are allowing them. Sometimes you need to draw a line and say "this far and no farther". The Democrats seem to be unwilling to do even that. And that is shameful.
Kevin | 09.27.06 - 11:42 am | #

Are you really willing to allow the republicans to destroy our nation because the Dem congresscritters are insufficiently defiant?

You don't seem to get it: Allowing the Republicans to legalize torture, indefinite detentions, and secret trials will BE the destruction of our nation.
Anon | 09.27.06 - 11:43 am | #

Yes!!!! Ding, ding, ding!!!! A single senator can and will f--- up this bill, so can Democrats PLEASE shut up about how they feel betrayed by their Democratic politicians? Of COURSE Reid is making nice noises about this. Of COURSE Democrats are saying the bill is flawed but not dead on arrival. To say, "We aren't going to vote for this bill, under any circumstances" does nothing more than undermine their ability to operate down the road. When oh when, are Democratic voters going to stop acting like 3 year-olds and figure out that politicians specialize in POLITICS, which means they aren't all going to climb into a boat so that they can obstruct the Japanese whaling fleet. They will get together in a congressional steam-room somewhere and they will figure out who wants to put the anonymous hold on this legislation so that it CANNOT pass before the elections. This isn't rocket science, but it IS politics. Sheesh!!!
steve davis | 09.27.06 - 11:45 am | #

HWSNBN:

Well, what do you know, a Donkey voter who will withdraw his vote out of principle...

While the Republicans have shown, unequivocally, for the world to see, that they have no principles and no morals. See John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience for the details.

HWSNBN is a sterling example of this. He would have made an exemplary Schutzstaffel officer ... and would have been near the front of the lines to the gallows.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 11:48 am | #

Paul Dirks, the repubs HAVE destroyed my country and the dems just watched and went along with it. As I said, my morals will not allow me to vote for any party that supports torture. It has become obvious that both parties are enemies of our democracy, our constitution. This is THE vote - this torture vote. This is THE line. After this vote our country as we know it is officailly dead. The gop and dems have betrayed us. Lets admit it and go from there. Fascim is here - lets start to fight it. If the dems support torture, they have joined the gop and are not worth wasting time on.
dd | 09.27.06 - 11:48 am | #

Rep. Louise Slaughter on Torture Bill (my emph.)
I am going down to the House Floor in few minutes to debate HR 6166, Military Commissions Act of 2006, a critically important legislation the Republican leadership is presenting as a "bi-partisan" compromise. But it is nothing of the sort.

It was authored by the Administration and by the Republican leaders of this Congress.

As Chairman Hunter testified in the House Rules Committee yesterday, no Democrats were involved in the negotiations he conducted over the weekend to produce this bill.

Nor did the Rules Committee make in order any of the 16 amendments Democrats offered to address parts of this bill that most offend our democratic values and violate our traditions.

This closed rule means that Congress is turning its back on having a real debate on a legislation that will damage our credibility in the world for years to come.

It is a reality made all the more egregious by the historic importance of this moment.

We are at a crossroads today, and I fear that we will not by judged kindly by future Americans for what my Republican friends want us to do today....

All the more reason to punish any Dem who votes for torture.

The democrats serve as a placebo for an opposition party. By taking this position, they prevent a real opposition party from forming.

As Goebbels said, successful propoganda requires the illusion of discourse. That is, people won't be convinced if the media present only one point of view, there must be the illusion that there are alternate points of view being presented.

The same goes for democracy. For people to buy in they must believe that there is a real choice. So for fake democracy to work, a fake alternative is presented.

Is this a harsh assessment of the Democrats? Not really. If they were a true opposition party they would have a clear agenda set forth for the people to vote on for these mid term elections. Similar to Gingrich's Contract On America or similar to what opposition parties run on in every parlimentary democracy in the 1st world. The Democrats have no such agenda. They are not a fake opposition party.
Another Winston Smith | 09.27.06 - 11:53 am | #

anon:

You don't seem to get it: Allowing the Republicans to legalize torture, indefinite detentions, and secret trials will BE the destruction of our nation.

Just a small point: It's not clear the Democrats could stop this travesty even if they were so inclined. A Senate filibuster is about the only real hope (and I do hope they're trying to do something about that).

The only way to reverse this debacle (if it happens) is to get a Democratic majority in.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 11:54 am | #

I think anyone who takes a "pragmatic" approach to this issue is a fool. It should be Republicans FOR torture, Democrats AGAINST. But it's not, and that directly inhibits Democratic turnout. No two ways about it. I've been a Democrat for over 40 years and this turns me right off. I'll vote, but I'm very, very unhappy, to say the least, and I won't condemn anyone who stays home for reasons of conscience.

For some strange reason, no one ever, EVER tosses the Democratic base a bone. It's beginning to sink in.
JHF | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 11:56 am | #

Dirks,

It's not about insufficiently defiant, it's about not enshrining torture, indefinite detention and unreviewable presidential power in our laws. Yes the Republicans "started it" but the Democrats have the numbers to do the right thing here.

Even as a matter of strategy, doesn't it make more sense to emphasize to the Democrats in Congress that they're losing support here -- at least now, while there are conceivably a few more turns of the screw? What I don't understand is this preemptive urge (and I don't mean you particularly here -- it's been a hallmark of the debate on many blogs) to telegraph to Congress "we hate this, but we're going to work just as hard, maybe harder, to get you a majority if you let it through" (and to browbeat those who disagree). Guess the craven Dems had our number -- we'll take anything, even their enabling of the basic parameters of a non-reviewable detention and torture police state, and pull the lever anyway.
lawsinger | 09.27.06 - 11:57 am | #

I never have and never will vote for a politician who supports torture or refuses to stop it. There are two great articles at The First Church of Free Speech:
http://daltonator.net/durandal/b...ndal/blog/? p=68

Money Quote:
"If Congress, including the gutless Democrats, wasn’t afflicted with moral leprosy they would see Bush’s demand for immunity for what it is: A free and open confession that he and his sadistic henchmen have committed capital crimes and should be impeached, removed, tried and sentenced as soon as humanly possible. They would also point out that Bush is acting in the yellowbellied tradition of fascist thugs like Pinochet and the various Generalissimos of Argentina who also had people “disappeared” and took the coward’s way out by granting themselves immunity. Of course the Democrats are also behaving in typical lilly-livered fashion. At least liberal-minded politicians in Chile, Argentina and elsewhere in South America had to be jailed, tortured, exiled and assassinated (sometimes all of the above) before they knuckled under. What’s Harry Reid’s excuse? Or Nancy Pelosi’s? Or Howard Dean’s? Is it to win the next election? If they manage that, it will be in spite of being the party of Torture Lite, not because of it. If anything, being silent might cost them the upcoming elections. I for one would give them more credit if they said they didn’t really care to assume the leadership of a country that embraced torture and murder and the GOP can have the government.

For many years, we in the land of the not-so-free and the home of the not-so-brave have rather smugly belittled the Good Germans and their counterparts living under other despots who laid down like sheep while the governments they lived under committed all kinds of vile acts. The fatuous hacks of the news media think the fact that Bush isn’t Hitler means that they and the other three estates shouldn’t make an effort to call Bush to account. Actually, it’s the other way around: the fact that Bush isn’t Hitler only makes their craven, compliant behavior more disgraceful.

I will not vote for any member of Congress who votes to give immunity to torturers. I will also not vote for any member of the Senate who does not filibuster this abomination of a bill. I’m not someone who expects elected officials to agree with me on every point, but there are dealbreakers and torture is one of them. If that means the Republitards hold onto Congress until the Democrats grow a pair, so be it. What’s the point of voting for Democrats who lack the spine or morals to oppose something that is inherently vile and un-American? One of the founding principles of the Republic is that “cruel and unusual” punishment is forbidden. There’s a reason the Eighth Amendment bans torture. If the Democrats can’t work up the nerve to oppose “cruel and unusual” treatment now, when Bush is about as popular as head lice, they never will and I say to hell with them if they don’t."
Heyward Jablomey | 09.27.06 - 11:58 am | #

Yes, but what about the new blood coming in? The election is not just about the Dems in Congress now, but about the new ones coming along. Are we going to be cynical about them too?
crazy lemon | 09.27.06 - 10:46 am

I will not vote for an incumbent who supports this bill. It's really that simple.

Someone who couldn't vote for or against it, b/c he or she wasn't already in Congress at the time isn't part of the equation.
Kristin | 09.27.06 - 11:59 am | #

For some strange reason, no one ever, EVER tosses the Democratic base a bone. It's beginning to sink in.
JHF | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 11:56 am

The two parties are really two factions of the same party. The Dems are right of center, and almost as beholden to Corporations as the Repubs are.

Until a third party is able to make a real run, the left in this country will be politically homeless.
Kristin | 09.27.06 - 12:02 pm | #

IF THE DEMOCRATS SUPPORT TORTURE I CANNOT VOTE FOR THEM. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY DEMS (OR REPUPS). MY MORALS WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO VOTE FOR ANY PARTY THAT SUPPORTS TORTURE.
dd | 09.27.06 - 10:41 am | #

Bart's sock puppet and concern troll.

Well, what do you know, a Donkey voter who will withdraw his vote out of principle...

Will the rest of you take dd's pledge???
Bart

You know what that is.

I agree with Epsilon @ 11:18 am and will just hold my nose until the next election when we can purge some more of these spineless DINOs and GOP moles from the party.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 12:04 pm | #

Until a third party is able to make a real run, the left in this country will be politically homeless.
Kristin

Infiltrate and take over the Democratic party. That's what the right did to the GOP and it worked damn well for them.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 12:05 pm | #

If a viable third party comes along before that happens, I'm there. It sure as hell wasn't that lunatic Perot and the Greens get their money directly from Rove. Nader, well...you see my point.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 12:07 pm | #

Wherever he is, Joe McCarthy must be kicking himself that he was born 50 years too early. Can you imagine what he could have done with the power to wiretap citizens without warrants, detain them indefinitely, and torture them? From that perspective, the blacklists of the 50's seem almost quaint.

Don't worry. I'm sure the McCarthy witch hunts of the 50's could never happen again. Right?
Rufus | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 12:12 pm | #

I just called Boxer's office. I had to be put on hold because the volume of calls is so high.

Toll Free to the Capitol switchboard: (1-866) 808-0065

Light 'em up boys and girls.

Let them hear it.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 12:15 pm | #

Arne, the Democrats have more than 41 Senators -more than enough to stop this hellish bill. If they don't, the Republic is gone forever. At which point it doesn't matter if the Democrats win back Congress since we will be under an absolute dictatorship. Do you think the same cowardly, inept leaders like Reid will do any better if they get the majority? Do you think they'll be able to repeal the most vile law passed by Congress since the Fugitive Slave Act? It took a civil war to put the country right after that one. Of course not! Even if the same gutless cowards who won't stand up against torture now DID "grow a pair" and tried to repeal the Torture Act, the Republicans would gum up the works at every turn: filibusters, secret holds, you name it. I get the impression that if Bush were to propose a Cannibalism and Incest Act, the Democrats wouldn't fight it. This week is the last chance for the Democratic Party and our Republic. If they don't stop this vile Act, I'm through with both.
Heyward Jablomey | 09.27.06 - 12:15 pm | #

I understand how upset everyone is. I take second place to nobody in my anger at this bill. But we shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush -- some democrats will vote against it. Our job is to reward those who do and replace those who don't.

This is going to be a long struggle. It may be years before we can prosecute the torturers. But it will never happen if we become defeatist now.
Mark Field |

Thank you! For making sense.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 12:17 pm | #

The word "troll" is now as devalued as the word "fascist" and is being used to mean anybody you don't like.

Not that I don't believe in trolls. I remember the gung ho anti-war demonstrators in the 60s and 70s who wanted to burn flags. And ten years later, we discovered that yes, those were the FBI guys.

Anyway, how do we know that a pro-Dems poster complaining about trolls isn't herself a troll working for Harry Reid. Okay, just kidding, Harry doesn't have a budget for that -- I'm just pointing out that it's tiresome to listen to all this "Troll!" talk.
sysprog | 09.27.06 - 12:20 pm | #

Dammit! I've been angry at Democrats since Kerry just laid down and died under the Swift Boat attacks. I still don't know why, but I'm not going to hand Karl Rove a nicely wrapped gift in November and anyone who does deserves what they are getting. This is politics. Principles have nothing to do with it. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you may start winning elections. When we are the party in power of all three branches and have a left wing mighty wurlitzer, then we can get all principled and shit. For the present, this is a street brawl. As a commenter at Balkanization noted, the real time for Dems to go to the mat might be if Stevens passes. This can be rectified. Another wingnut on the court and we are screwed.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 12:24 pm | #

ALL - THINK WHAT YOU LIKE ABOUT ME!

I HAVE VOTED DEM ALL MY LIFE AND I AM OLD!

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR A PARTY THAT SUPPORTS TORTURE!
dd | 09.27.06 - 12:26 pm | #

The word "troll" is now as devalued as the word "fascist" and is being used to mean anybody you don't like.

Ya think?

http:// www.swingstateproject.com..._indynh_was.php

Deal with it. They are here. Some don't even realize they are "useful idiots". This one was definitely aware of what he was doing.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 12:26 pm | #

A street brawl? People like Reid and Obama are sort of cowards who would run from a street brawl with their tails between their legs before the first punch is thrown.
Heyward Jablomey | 09.27.06 - 12:28 pm | #

DD is just a clown from The World Can't Wait or ANSWER. Groups riddled with FBI and agent provocateurs and getting funding back channel from the GOP.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 12:29 pm | #

Heyward - thanks for that.
dd | 09.27.06 - 12:29 pm | #

A street brawl? People like Reid and Obama are sort of cowards who would run from a street brawl with their tails between their legs before the first punch is thrown.
Heyward Jablomey

Not these guys:

http://fightingdems.america-patr...a-patriots.com/

http://www.democrats.org/page/co...tingdems/index/
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 12:31 pm | #

Durbin just took a stand, along with Louise Slaughter.

Get on the phone.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 12:32 pm | #

Anonymous at 12:24,

A big reason why I think this issue differs in kind, not degree, is that I don't think it can (or at least will) be "rectified". One part is the moral dimension -- once you're a country that has officially adopted torture (not just allowed it to go on, but out and out voted for it), you're just not the same country again.

More practically, our country doesn't give back rights or benefits to disfavored groups once it takes them away. Think Congress (even a Democratic congress) is going to make welfare an entitlement again? Think states that bar felons from voting for life are about to let them start? Do you expect Congress (even with Democrats in control) to loosen the successively more severe restrictions it has placed on habeas appeals for people convicted of the death penalty? And I think there's probably more political capital in the corner of welfare recipients and convicts than suspected terrorists.
lawsinger | 09.27.06 - 12:38 pm | #

I will not vote for anyone that votes for torture, not in a primary, not in a general election, not ever. I don't care how lopsided the vote is. No vote is meaningless on this issue.

I am with you on this 110% This is the line in the sand. NOTHING else compares. This is a core, defining moment and issue (set of issues: torture, gulags, wiping out habeas) and any Dem that cannot get on the only correct side of this is out.

This cannot stand and there is NO electoral calculus that makes it legitimate or acceptable to vote for torture, indefinite detention, and suspension of habeas...and sticking the full judgement on each issue into the vacuous head of the President.

If the Democrats cannot see this for what it is and get on the only correct side on this issue (this isn't even remotely gray) then they are not suited to control even the smallest office in a government building.

There are 3 days left to get right on this. After that, no matter what the Democrats say (ANY Democrat) or how they plead, I will NOT vote for a single Democrat.
Terminus Est | 09.27.06 - 12:41 pm | #

For what it's worth -- Nancy Pelosi just spoke on the floor of the House. She was objecting to the fact that no amendments submitted by the Democrats to the Torture Bill -- to deal with the greatest outrages contained in the legislation, will be considered. She stated that she opposes the bill as it stands. Sounds like she's splitting with Reid on this. We'll see what her protest means as this drama plays itself out.
Rep. Tom Cole from Oklahoma keeps referring to "the terrorists," whose treatment and legal standing is being addressed by this bill, and how generous this country is to extend them any rights at all. Amazing. Seems the word "suspected terrorists," or "alleged terrorists" would be more accurate, but to the Republicans, that's too fine a distinction. In the New Great American Police State, we're all guilty until proven innocent now. That is, if we are fortunate to appear in a court at all to hear the charges made against us.
CarolynC | 09.27.06 - 12:45 pm | #

Steve Davis:

"When oh when, are Democratic voters going to stop acting like 3 year-olds and figure out that politicians specialize in POLITICS, which means they aren't all going to climb into a boat so that they can obstruct the Japanese whaling fleet. They will get together in a congressional steam-room somewhere and they will figure out who wants to put the anonymous hold on this legislation so that it CANNOT pass before the elections. This isn't rocket science, but it IS politics. Sheesh!!!"


An anonymous hold is only meaningful if there's a genuine threat of fillibuster behind it. In and of itself, it is meaningless.
Jan Rooth | 09.27.06 - 12:46 pm | #

If democrat incumbents stand and fight, they will get votes.

Jesus would not support torture. The founders of this country would not support torture.

Only George Bush and his rubber stamp congress could possibly support legalizing torture.

Stand up and shout it. Frame the debate. Don't hide. When you hide, you let Karl frame the debate: soft on torture, soft on security, no moral values.

And that framing works because it's true. And I for one will not vote for you.
jello5929 | 09.27.06 - 12:47 pm | #

Go see Glenn's new post just now at salon.
sysprog | 09.27.06 - 12:48 pm | #

In my town, the Democratic Party -- not all registered Democrats, but most people who are active in the party -- ranges in age from fifty to eighty, approximately the same demographic that you'd find at a classical music concert.

Their political views were formed somewhere between the New Deal and the Chicago Convention of 1968. Needless to say, they're not terribly thrilled about the War in Iraq, or the character of GWB, but they don't seem to see clearly the extent to which the national party is in collusion with the same interests -- absent the religious right wing -- as the Republicans.

Nor are they as angry they should be about the legalization of torture and domestic spying, or about attacks on immigrants. When they talk passionately, it's usually about things like the underfunding of education, the selling of public land to corporate and developer interests, the doughnut hole in Medicare prescription coverage, and the minimum wage.

This isn't exactly what anyone here would want from Democratic voters, but it does tend to explain those cynical Democratic candidates who genuflect in the direction of the New Deal while privately agreeing with Clinton the Republican leadership that such things are, if not socialism, at least not economically competitive.

My own take is this: you won't get decent elected Democrats until you have the votes to elect them. Lamont was a start, perhaps, but as some here have noted, he isn't exactly ideal on all the issues. My experience in the sixties, though, tells me that even a large army of young people determined to change the direction of the party, had little lasting effect on it except perhaps a negative one.

Institutions outlive individuals. If we want them to reflect what we believe for the long term, then we might do worse than to begin by articulating and defending our positions, making them part of an extended public discourse which will carry on after we are gone -- much as Glenn is doing here.
William Timberman | 09.27.06 - 12:53 pm | #

Jello-- the founders of this country did support torture-- after all, if you own a man you can do whatever you damn well please to him, can't you?

FB
Fat bastard | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 12:58 pm | #

In my previous post: Clinton and the Republican leadership

God knows, he has enough people calling him a Republican here without me helping out.
William Timberman | 09.27.06 - 12:59 pm | #

There are 3 days left to get right on this. After that, no matter what the Democrats say (ANY Democrat) or how they plead, I will NOT vote for a single Democrat.
Terminus Est

If you are now on the phone telling your Democratic representatives this, good. If not, you are just jerking off.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 1:03 pm | #

I suggest Jack Balkan's line, "If we can't trust you with safeguarding our civil liberties, why should we trust you with safeguarding our national security?"
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 1:05 pm | #

Bart,

Go now. Look in a mirror. See how long you can look yourself in the face. See how long you can stare your own intellectual dishonesty and lack of principle in the face.

Your arguments here have been endlessly and effectively rebutted and no one knows that better than you do.

You choose to respond with twisted "facts" and specious and illogical arguments. You choose to do that even though the issues this country faces require both truth and reason.

You are just sad.
AJ | 09.27.06 - 1:06 pm | #

Steve Davis:
"They will get together in a congressional steam-room somewhere and they will figure out who wants to put the anonymous hold on this legislation so that it CANNOT pass before the elections."

Bullshit. I'll believe it when I see it.
And I ain't gonna see it.
brendan | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 1:10 pm | #

By refusing to vote Democratic this election cycle, the Republicans will be given free rein to enact more legislation of this nature and pursue the other failed policies that are destroying this country. I, like others here, find their decision on torture and any Democratic support completely abhorrent. Yet the the alternative of allowing Republican control of Congress to continue, will prove to be even more disastrous for our country.

The only way that I have been able to reconcile my conflicting positions is by deciding to work for a Democratic majority THIS year and in future years devote my all of my funds and energy to primary challenges to replace Democratic incumbents who refuse to stand against this immoral bill.
MO Blue | 09.27.06 - 1:11 pm | #

If you are now on the phone telling your Democratic representatives this, good. If not, you are just jerking off.

I just got off the phone to my senator and Reid's office. I made it known in no uncertain terms that torture and habeas corpus were deal breakers.

No worries, I'm not just jerking off here. This is a deal breaker.
Terminus Est | 09.27.06 - 1:17 pm | #

From AJ at 1:06pm:

Bart,

Go now. Look in a mirror. See how long you can look yourself in the face. See how long you can stare your own intellectual dishonesty and lack of principle in the face.

He can't do any of this. The glass always breaks at first glance, and he's proven he's incapable of the necessary self-reflection.

Sad, isn't it?
yankeependragon | 09.27.06 - 1:18 pm | #

UPDATE: It really is odd and disturbing, as well as potentially quite dangerous, that the declassified NIE on the "Trends on Global Terrorism" focuses exclusively on Islamic terrorists -- except for the last section which conspicuously identifies "leftist" groups which use the Internet as a serious terrorist threat (h/t Sysprog). Odder still, it makes no mention at all of right-wing, anti-government movements (such as, say, the one that spawned Timothy McVeigh, an actual terrorist).

I have a post at Salon analyzing the implications of the NIE's little-noticed equating of "leftist" Internet-using groups with Islamic extremists when it comes to assessing global terrorist threats.

We are now the mirror image of the Evil Empire.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 1:22 pm | #

From Glenn's update:

It really is odd and disturbing, as well as potentially quite dangerous

One of the diarists over at Daily Kos caught this last night. Personally I think this is the singlemost disturbing element of this business.

Anyone want to lay odds on how quickly we learn the Quakers, Greenpeace, and the ACLU are having offices raided and staff undergoing rendition to Syria?
yankeependragon | 09.27.06 - 1:22 pm | #

No worries, I'm not just jerking off here. This is a deal breaker.
Terminus Est

I am this close to leaving the country for fear of doing something that I can't discuss.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 1:24 pm | #

[O{ur country doesn't give back rights or benefits to disfavored groups once it takes them away.

I'm not so sure of that. We've made extraordinary progress on race, we've generally acknowledged FDR was wrong to detain Japanese Americans, we've passed the Civil Rights Act, we've accepted the Miranda Warning and other Warren Court decisions protecting the rights of the accused, we've stopped forcing gays into the closet, and, of course, we enacted FISA. I grant you, all these things were easier to do because there were domestic constituencies for them. But I believe our overall history has been one of progress.

Same to WT. Don't sell yourself short. Your generation achieved many good things (see above), even as the Religious Right arose as a reaction against them.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 1:28 pm | #

lawsinger:

Yes the Republicans "started it" but the Democrats have the numbers to do the right thing here.

Maybe, maybe not. It is true that (some) Dems are essentially the only opposition to this, but there's those that -- for whatever reason, good, bad, or indifferent -- may defect and vote for this. The Democratic party has neither the party coherence nor the strong-arming power that the Republicans have now (not the will to use such). The Republicans are the party of "The Hammer", not the Dems. They're the ones with chairmanships to dispense, oodles of campaign money, perks and pork for the district to help in tight races, etc., all things that the Republicans have used to great effect to enforce almost unanimous party (a/k/a Dubya) loyalty when the chips are down. The Democrats have neither the tools nor the will to turn on the defectors, and if enough, even if only a few, defect (and party loyalty is less strong in the Senate because of its supposed "collegiality"), even the filibuster is impossible.

But make no mistake: If 80% of the Dems oppose something, and 100% of the Republicans are in favour of it, there is a difference between the parties, and you know which one's the better one.

That said, I was and am all in favour of going after Lieberman with both barrels blazing. And similarly, we need to work to get true and strong-spined Democrats both on the ballot and elected.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 1:35 pm | #

He can't do any of this. The glass always breaks at first glance, and he's proven he's incapable of the necessary self-reflection.

Sad, isn't it?
yankeependragon | 09.27.06 - 1:18 pm | #


Honestly, I look forward to the trolls' remarks and responses against them. Partly it's out of childish fun seeing them get beat up, but more importantly, it also it helps keep one honest on how to respond to their arguments and attacks. In that sense, they serve a purpose, even if they do pollute the waters a little.
fuzzy dice | 09.27.06 - 1:37 pm | #

Hey Glenn and Unclaimed Territory and Salon readers,

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

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

and

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

Please Glenn make an update for this call to action.
pippin | 09.27.06 - 1:38 pm | #

Personally I think this is the singlemost disturbing element of this business.

Well, we know that Rummy had anti-war groups monitored.

The canary in the coal mine is gasping for breath.
pseudonymous in nc | 09.27.06 - 1:42 pm | #

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

If 80% of the Dems oppose something, and 100% of the Republicans are in favour of it, there is a difference between the parties

You mean if 20% of the Dems oppose something and 100% of the Republicans… I guess we should be grateful that the Senators from Main are waffling and will vote whichever way the wind is blowing.
edwin | 09.27.06 - 1:48 pm | #

William Timberman | 09.27.06 - 12:53 pm | #

WT,

are you saying that Woodstock is ancient history, and that 60s hippie values are antiquated and anachronistic?

Heavens to murgatroyd! Exit, stage left!
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 1:51 pm | #

I enjoy reading comments from such passionate individuals. I agree with everyone who is upset with the lack of forceful leadership from the Democrats at this moment. But, like someone else said, change takes time. Even though it seems futile, continue to spread the word about the crisis this country is in to everyone you know. We will change the terms of the debate because we are telling the truth.

The Democrats and Republicans are similar in many ways, but there are important differences. Right now, it is important to take power away from the authoritarians. They are very dangerous. More and more people are now able to see through the lies the Republican party feeds the media. Don't give up yet.
steve_e | 09.27.06 - 1:53 pm | #

Anonymous --

Bart's sock puppet and concern troll.

Wow, you're a real "blog insider" and you prove it with that in-term used by the Cool Crowd, namely "concern troll."

Where do you cool people eat lunch? I want to eavesdrop so that I can learn all the cool lingo to enable my pretense at being one of you.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 1:54 pm | #

About the NIE reference to “leftist” groups. That definitely caught my eye, but there is such a thing as cohorts who could be considered to be leftist terrorists. Also, right next to “leftist” in the report was “nationalist,” and those people are typically considered right-wing, if not fascist.

So, I don’t think the report is wrong to include "leftist" among the kinds of groups potentially and even actually employing the Internet to organize for terrorism. I’d be amazed if a whole host of crazies across the spectrum were not doing this. "Enemy combatant" could include some or all of these, especially for an Administration eager to read a statutory definition that way. So, what does deeply concern me is the potential that environmentalists – and why not pro-lifers, who include a small but dangerous sub-set who kill and bomb? – could find themselves detained and tortured pursuant to this Stalinist legislation our federal govt is about to enact.

For about the sixty millionth time I’ve experienced this in the last few years, I simply cannot grasp how an American right-wing that was so (often correctly) angry about Clinton’s civil liberties abuses, and which even raged about those horrible "secret FISA courts," is now demanding that we bestow tyrannical powers on our Executive because George Bush now holds that office, and we have to make “war” on terror. But I’ve read enough right-wing blogs in the last few days to also know there is no reasoning with most of them. And that makes me sick with despair. If they’d wake up, this legislation wouldn’t pass.

But that isn’t going to happen, and so some version of this hideous thing is going to be enacted.
Mona | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 1:54 pm | #

steve_e --

The Democrats and Republicans are similar in many ways, but there are important differences. Right now, it is important to take power away from the authoritarians. They are very dangerous. More and more people are now able to see through the lies the Republican party feeds the media. Don't give up yet.

Sorry, Steve, but your statement above is pie-in-the-sky wishful dreaming of a surreal version of what truly is.

"Change takes time," huh? Seems to me that in 6 years, the Bush/Cheney gang have made GIGANTIC changes and nobody in the Dem party has stopped them.

So the "time" it takes is around 6 years, and it's already happened.

Please, Steve, stop with your pollyanna fantasies and see what's happening.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 1:56 pm | #

yankeependragon said: "One of the diarists over at Daily Kos caught this last night."

Mea culpa, I should have given a hat tip to dailykos, but I neglected to do so, mostly because I consider dailykos to be a semi-reliable swamp room full of partisan fever, so I felt that giving them an h/t would discredit the message.

My plagiarism makes me guilty of situational ethics and malleable morality, or in short, hypocrisy.

I lost the link to the dailykos article from which I cut and pasted. Anybody got that link?
sysprog | 09.27.06 - 1:57 pm | #

Mona | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 1:54 pm | #

Mona, they were angry at Clinton's abuses because they were envious of the fact that they weren't Clinton and they weren't in the White House.

The NeoCons never held the White House before this current Admin. You don't think they were itching to bring about sweeping changes to make up for all the disagreeable stuff they've seen in their political lifetimes?

There's nothing surprising about the NeoCon agenda, it was stated at the PNAC website back in the late 90s. What is surprising to most people, apparently, is that the Democrats have done nothing to stop the PNAC NeoCon agenda.

Frankly, I'm not surprised. Slick Willie Cumstain is a wannabe NeoCon, and his forked-tongue non-condemnation of the Bush/Cheney gang shows as much.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 1:59 pm | #

Crust:

Saw your comment at Balkinization, and see that it's here too, so I'll give my answer again.

Rule VII governs only the Senate's "Morning Business," which, though it doesn't always take place in the morning, is a specific period during which routine housekeeping is taken care of. After the conclusion of morning business, a motion to proceed is perfectly in order.

Of course, such motions are debatable, and therefore subject to filibuster. But that's when you have to come out from behind your "hold" and actually conduct that filibuster if you want to keep a bill off the floor in the face of a motion to proceed.
Kagro X | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 2:00 pm | #

LV: Are you saying...etc., etc.

In a word, no.
William Timberman | 09.27.06 - 2:01 pm | #

liquified viscera, I'm a cynic at heart, but I can act optimistic when I fell like it. I'm just chewing the proverbial cud. That's good enough for me...at least until the Gestapo comes. o_O
steve_e | 09.27.06 - 2:05 pm | #

Hurdles cleared for detainee legislation
Republicans on Wednesday cleared procedural hurdles in the House and Senate on the way to giving President Bush authority to detain, interrogate and try terrorism detainees before military commissions.

House Republicans succeeded on a vote in blocking any Democratic amendments to the legislation. In the Senate, GOP leaders won an agreement from Democrats to debate the bill for less than a dozen hours and then vote on it.

Four Democrats and Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania are being given opportunities to offer amendments in the Senate, but all were expected to fall with lawmakers eager to adjourn this weekend to devote the next five weeks to campaigning for re-election.

Specter's amendment would strike a provision in the bill that denies terrorism suspects the right to appeal their detention in court. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urged quick action on the overall detainee legislation.

"Until Congress passes this legislation, terrorists ... cannot be tried for war crimes in the United States and the United States risks fighting a blind war without adequate intelligence," Frist said. "That's simply unacceptable."

While bowing to the inevitable, Democrats continued to criticize the bill. Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said defendants still won't be able to confront some classified evidence against them while allowing evidence obtained through torture.

Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said Congress was acting in "an election-year frenzy" without addressing human rights and constitutional issues raised by the bill....

Any country that condones or practices torture in all its guises is not worthy of being called a democracy. Whatever legislation on this subject gets passed it must state as a minimum what prisoners or detainees are entitled to, and both what and how it must be provided. No loopholes, no generalized undefined terms. All treatment must be humane. No coercion is acceptable. You’ll get more with honey than vinegar. Again, as has been stated elsewhere, the WWJD dictum must underlie all.

AMERICA please do not exchange the beacon on the Statue of Liberty for a bullwhip.
sparafucilli | 09.27.06 - 2:34 pm | #

It's over. That's it. The democrats are dead to me. I only wish they were all literally dead.
Terminus Est | 09.27.06 - 2:34 pm | #

Well, what do you know, a Donkey voter who will withdraw his vote out of principle...

Will the rest of you take dd's pledge???
Bart | 09.27.06 - 10:44 am | #

Principled Democratic voters who withdraw their support from Democrats who support torture are not the only ones opting out, bart. I understand that in the Republican circles in which you travel, "principle" is not a word which gets much attention, but I actually know a lot of liberal Republicans (fiscal conservative/civil liberties liberal) who are withdrawing their support from the Republican party.

Princpled Democrats who refuse to support immoral Democrats are not your allies, bart, despite your taunting. They are the ones who will get the most in your way.

Yes, but what about the new blood coming in? The election is not just about the Dems in Congress now, but about the new ones coming along. Are we going to be cynical about them too?

Absolutely. Most of them are former career military people who I consider to be possibly the most dangerous candidates of all.

But which of them has spoken out in forceful terms about the torture bill? If you can cite such people, maybe one could support them. Please put their names and their statements here.
Eyes Wide Open | 09.27.06 - 2:41 pm | #

The wrath of Clinton: Calling the move a "conservative hit job" and saying that Wallace was just "doing Fox's bidding" -- plus wagging his finger in Wallace's face -- Clinton in his rage is terrifying to behold.

Clinton vs. Bush: A foolish fight for the GOP to pick

Speaking as a committed and hardworking Green who actually stands against torture and recognizes the very, very few democrats who fight their own party on torture, if we really got our money from Rove, I'd damn well like to see some of it!

That propaganda was invented purely by Democrats trying to win back their base in 2004 after they lost as much as 5% in progressive states to Nader in 2000 (even though the voters knew there was a chance they'd affect the results, showing that Nader could've taken the whole progressive base in a fair, IRV system). There are Republicans who give money to the Greens because ~30% of our supporters and Nader supporters are traditional conservatives-- the REAL kind who will desert the Repubs over spending and unsustainability issues. We can barely afford our staffers and had to make homemade lawn signs with markers for this election!
Colin Lee | 09.27.06 - 2:48 pm | #

It's over. That's it. The democrats are dead to me. I only wish they were all literally dead.

I much prefer trolls like Bart who are forthright in what they are doing than pretenders like you -- Terminus Est -- who are just trying to psych people out.
crust | 09.27.06 - 2:51 pm | #

Torture is a special evil because it leads inevitably to more and worse torture as it becomes obvious that a little torture is not efficient at generating lots of "data". It also leads to disastrous ego expansion among those that torture and those that sanction its use. The power of life and death and the power to cause physical pain to your fellow citizens can be addictive and intoxicating. How long before we hear that "special" interrogation methods should also be used in cases of missing children or on suspect serial killers ? Not very long I would bet. It will be a slippery slope from there. Would it be used on journalists hiding sources in national security cases? On left wing activists caught in military bases or on bloggers who post confidential information? The president will guarantee you that your organs will not fail permanently and they will tell you later that they were just kidding about raping your wife and daughter in front of you but when you turn in your friends and neighbors to stop the pain you will feel a shame that will burn worse than any pain.
Other nations have a clearer understanding of the shameful path we are about to take and could teach us a lot about what it feels like to not have the respect of the world but, since we are not willing to learn from other's mistakes, we will be in the illustrious company of Uzbekistan and their ilk. I understand moroccan interrogators have a technique they swear by where they use surgical blades to inflict small incisions on the penis of their "detainees" which are then allowed to heal only to be cut again and again. Of course our allies in central asia will have none of that disney stuff and prefer to parboil their detainees.
There is an additional concern which was pointed out recently by various people and that is the fact that the useless "intelligence" collected through torture will make the torturers look very productive in comparison to those who use traditional methods and inevitably will lead to the rapid promotion of those willing to do the worst to their fellow citizens. This will inevitably lead to a rapid degradation in the quality of law enforcement and intelligence operations since second rate people tend to hire third rate people.
Next, I would like to address the reason I think Reid and others may be participating in this affair. I believe the Dems have a deal with the national security apparatus or at least several principals therein. I suspect that in exchange for guaranteeing that the rank-and-file in the agencies will not get investigated in Congress for past deeds, the agencies will watch the Dems' back as far providing the strategic leaks to keep the Dems from looking weak on national security. The price is Bush gets away with violations of the law but so do the rank-and-file. The congressional Dems never bought into the whole impeachment thing anyway.
I have said before that Torture to me is a bright line. By voting for a candidate who who has helped pass this evil law I would become an enabler of torture and I would be just as guilty as the torturer. There is such a thing as collective guilt as we generously taught the german people. Moreover, this proposed law puts too much power in the hands of one man, and a deeply flawed man at that.
I am hopeful that the Dem senators will see the light in this matter and stop this law or at least modify it to remove torture from the equation and restore judicial review. If, unfortunately, the price is that Bush and his cronies will get away with previous crimes under the Torture Act I would consider that a small price to pay for restoring the rule of law and the nation's honor and that would not prevent me from voting. I would much prefer if the whole criminal gang found their way to a court of law and that rollbacks of bad laws would happen in the new Congress. As I said before I need assurances that the wrongs inflicted on the people of the US will righted by the new Congress and that resolving Iraq, difficult as it is, and balancing the budget will not be nearly enough for me. I will be looking for what happens as far as the Torture and Rape Act in the Senate and what is voted on and who votes. I know things might finally spiral out of control in the conference committee but I hope and expect that my senators will give them hell. I must say I am very proud of this year's batch of new candidates like Tester, Webb and many others and it will be almost impossible to keep me from the polls so I hope the and pray our senators will take an honorable path.
solon | 09.27.06 - 2:51 pm | #

Wingnuts use terror to attempt to silence Olbermann.

Glenn says:

[E]xcept for the last section which conspicuously identifies "leftist" groups which use the Internet as a serious terrorist threat...

"Leftists" groups will be defined as any group that does not serve Dear Leader. If we do not take a stand now they will come for us eventually.

Make a stand Oct. 5th

.
adnoto | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 2:53 pm | #

Good work Sysprog and Glenn. I mentioned it on my blog, and I think everyone who has a blog or some other outlet needs to shout that paragraph from the rafters.

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


--WKW
William K. Wolfrum | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 2:54 pm | #

Colin Lee.

Re Greens getting money from GOP propaganda [that] was invented purely by Democrats

Nice try. I posted the below in a previous thread, but here we go again:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/arch...ives/ 001256.php

For non link-clickers, the title of the TPM piece is "GOP Donors Funded Entire PA Green Party Drive". If you read the article, of $66,000 raised they actually did get one contribution from a Green rather than GOP supported. It was for $30 and from the candidate himself.
crust | 09.27.06 - 2:55 pm | #

Might I suggest WT had an important point a while back. Glenn points out that polls show a majority of Americans opposes torture. But polls do not show how strongly. The people who oppose torture are many. The people who will actually base their vote on it are much fewer. And, repulsive as it may seem, there are those on the right who will vote only for someone who favors torture.

We have to convince our representatives that opponents of torture are out there in numbers and will vote based on it.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 3:00 pm | #

crust: Why do you assume Feingold is against this torture bill? He gave a long speech yesterday and the issue of torture and the torture bill were conspicuously absent from it.

That was not accidental.

The site of New Jersey Democrats for Feingold describes him as the only truly "pure" Senator.

I think he's been allowed to ride that horse a little too long now.

We've got to search each other's minds
We've got to read between the lines...
Oh, you can't judge a book by its cover.--
Stevie Wonder
.
Eyes Wide Open | 09.27.06 - 3:00 pm | #

I much prefer trolls like Bart who are forthright in what they are doing than pretenders like you -- Terminus Est -- who are just trying to psych people out

I assure you that I am dead-ass serious. It IS over. The Dems have capitulated. They are giving their token resistance with a few amendments, mere lipstick for the dead, rotting pig carcas that is this torture bill, and then they are going to let it pass on a floor vote.

It has already been set in stone. A couple hours of debate for the Specter/Leahy amendment on habeas, to be defeated. An hour for Levin's alternative. An hour for Kennedy's amendment, and another hour for some other pointless amendment, can't recall who's. The Dems have already given unanimous consent.

It's over and the Dems have let it go. A bill that Digby describes as so hurried and botched that not a single senator on the floor really knows what's in the bill. There are so many "editing" errors that the bill that is actually going to be approved with the Dem's consent, is far far worse than what has been described thus far. Many of the "editing errors" totally change the complexion of the bill and render ALL of us in direct danger of disappearing.

I wasn't trolling. I am not trying to psych anyone out. I am stating stone cold fact. The Dems have failed, consciously and intentionally failed by offering mere token resistence - all the while giving Bush, literally, dictatorial powers beyond even King George II...beyond the powers of kings since the creation of the writ of habeas corpus.

I don't give a fuck who wins this fall. It now truly doesn't matter. The GOP is actively corrupt and criminal while the Dems are merely passively corrupt and criminal.
Terminus Est | 09.27.06 - 3:02 pm | #

Kargo X, thanks for the reply. The part I don't get is the following:

After the conclusion of morning business, a motion to proceed is perfectly in order.

Of course, such motions are debatable, and therefore subject to filibuster. But that's when you have to come out from behind your "hold" and actually conduct that filibuster if you want to keep a bill off the floor in the face of a motion to proceed.


When you say "come out from behind your 'hold'", you presumably mean it's no longer secret. But to me secrecy is not the point here, indeed not even desirable. When you say "conduct that filibuster" I'm not sure I'm with you. Normally, we think of a filibuster as something that takes 40 votes, but in this case it would take a single Senator to gum up the works, right? You can call it a "filibuster" if you like, but it's a very different beast if say Feingold could do it on his own.

(I also posted my original comment at Balkinization as you say. I posted it here first and noted I had done so at Balikinization.)
crust | 09.27.06 - 3:03 pm | #

No mention of terrorists like Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, or Ann Coulter (who has repeatedly "joked" about blowing up buildings and assassinating Supreme Court justices)?

And nothing about James Tobin, the former New England Regional Director of the Republican National Committee, convicted of a scheme to disrupt phone service to five Democratic Party offices and a firefighters' ride-to-the-polls program on Election Day 2002? No mention of the various militias that threaten violence?

I had no idea the anti-torture peaceniks were such a threat to America.
e_five | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 3:06 pm | #

Sen Olympia Snow:
Phone: (202) 224-5344
and
Sen Susan Collins:
Phone: (202) 224-2523
pippin

OK, pippin, I called both, and thank you for the phone numbers.

I wonder what would happen if each and every senator had their phones rung off the hook 24 hours a day by people calling and howling in outrage against the torture bill?

Would they dismiss that outcry and still support it?
Eyes Wide Open | 09.27.06 - 3:06 pm | #

EWO on Feingold and torture "compromise":

I don't know for a fact either way, but absence contrary evidence I feel safe in assuming Feingold is against it based on his prior positions. Commenter esoteric1117 at Balkinization says "Btw Feingold's office said that he will do everything to keep this from being crammed in before the recess", but I don't know their source.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/ ...937956609494326
crust | 09.27.06 - 3:08 pm | #

Crust, you've never been to a Green party fundraiser. Try coming out to one and talking to the candidates. They have no illusions. NEITHER party wants us there because we raise issues that make both parties uncomfortable and we're growing significantly in some states. If the Democrats gave a damn about your views and not your vote, Senators like John Kerry and John Edwards had HOW MANY YEARS to introduce or sponsor instant runoff legislation to even make an attempt toward making your whole point moot?

Try thinking for yourself. The logic about why Greens are spoilers is precisely as bullshit as the logic behind why killing Iraqis fighting off their occupiers is setting them free. If the Greens got into office, I can assure you we wouldn't suddenly step out of fake skins and show Rovian stripes. Our candidate for governor spent decades as a Greenpeace manager, so he's not hiding his politics. Stop reading conspiracy theory.
Colin Lee | 09.27.06 - 3:10 pm | #

That propaganda was invented purely by Democrats trying to win back their base in 2004 after they lost as much as 5% in progressive states to Nader in 2000 (even though the voters knew there was a chance they'd affect the results, showing that Nader could've taken the whole progressive base in a fair, IRV system). There are Republicans who give money to the Greens because ~30% of our supporters and Nader supporters are traditional conservatives-- the REAL kind who will desert the Repubs over spending and unsustainability issues. We can barely afford our staffers and had to make homemade lawn signs with markers for this election!
Colin Lee

Well the GOP thought it was such a good idea, they actually did it:

Republicans Sponsor Green Candidate in PA Senate Race
By Paul Kiel - August 1, 2006, 3:31 PM

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/arch...ives/ 001247.php
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 3:10 pm | #

Epsilon:
While the Democrats' behavior on this and so many other instances of unmitigated fecklessness is excruciating, it is important to remember, no matter how shallow a comfort it is, that a minority party is often compelled for various reasons to take actions distinctly different than they ones they genuinely would. In most cases, as Glenn has repeatedly pointed out, their apparent motivations are weak and unfounded, but it is still important to remember that none of these radical measures would even be on the table if the current Republican congress were not in charge.

I can forgive a lot from the Dems... but not the legalization of torture and the abolishing of habeus corpus.

They couldn't stop the war in Iraq; I understand that. I also understand wanting to be on the winning side.

But just think of what would have happened if they'd been saying "If what we are hearing is true, then war is a terrible, but necessary, thing."

They could now be saying "What we heard was not true, and for all his dodging, the President knew it!"

If they'd been loud about torture before, they could be screaming about it now, and people might listen.

They could still turn it around, but it would require an open, frank admission that they were wrong.

"We stood by, and let torture happen, because we were afraid that people would not stand beside us. We were wrong... even if no one would stand beside us, we should have fought against it. We were wrong then, but we will not let that mistake continue."

It takes passion to win elections, and right now, they've been whipped until they're devoid of passion and afraid of it.
John Palmer | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 3:11 pm | #

I love the Greens, except they need a sensible national security policy. Especially now.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 3:12 pm | #

I don't give a fuck who wins this fall. It now truly doesn't matter. The GOP is actively corrupt and criminal while the Dems are merely passively corrupt and criminal.
Terminus Est

I think Terminus Est is sincere, Crust. I could be wrong, but I also agree with his assessment, which, however, I should like to point out means that Greens or any third party are never going to succeed. I tell you, the only way is to take over one of the two partys and move it the way you want from the inside. There is a reason why it was done that way by the extremists calling themselves conservatives and Republicans and why it worked.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 3:17 pm | #

Here's my letter:

Dear Senator Reid,
I’m writing you ask, in your position as Democratic Minority Leader, that you do everything within your power to stop legislation that permits coercive interrogation of terrorist suspects. I believe that our government has all of the authority it needs, under current US and international law, to properly and effectively interrogate possible enemies of the United States and that the cost of undermining this country’s reputation and moral authority in the world far outweighs any perceived benefit to codifying new interrogation rules. I believe that view is shared by most military lawyers and Judge Advocate Generals.

The citizens of this country are shaking off the fog of shock from the 9/11 attacks and administration disinformation and will not, in the future, judge any perceived political expedience for Democrats as justifying the support of the current legislative proposals to weaken Geneva Convention, War Crimes Act and other protections (and especially Habeas Corpus protections) of anyone held by the US government. In this not-too-distant future there will be judged to be two kinds of political leaders: those who sought to undermine the rule of law and sully the United States through allowing barbaric treatment of detainees and expanding the power of the President, and those who stood against them.

As a lifelong Democrat, I sincerely I hope that you and the rest of my party stand up for justice, the rule of law and the future integrity of the United States of America.

Respectfully,
shep | 09.27.06 - 3:18 pm | #

Colin Lee, did you read my comment before replying to it? I gave you the link to TPMmuckraker documenting the GOP funding the Green Party in Pennsylvania (Anon at 3:10 has reposted it). Your response is "stop reading conspiracy theory". Nice. Maybe you've never heard of TPMmuckraker, but it is a reputable source. If you don't like that source, you can read about it a local Pennsylvania newspaper:

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinio...-opiniontop- hed

They quote the Associated Press for their info. Or is the AP in on your conspiracy theory too?

And by the way, how would you know whether or not I've ever been to a Green Party fundraiser?
Crust | 09.27.06 - 3:26 pm | #

the NIE's little-noticed equating of "leftist" Internet-using groups with Islamic extremists when it comes to assessing global terrorist threats.

Not to mention when they say "leftists" it's hardly just "leftists."

Even laissez-faire vegans like me are lumped into that group and animal welfare people were labeled the Number 1 domestic terrorist threat.

Not to mention Quakers, Catholic Party workers, libertarian anti-war protesters and all the rest of them.

"Leftist" just means anyone who dares to protest anything that ruffles the feather$ of the power elite.

BTW, pippin, do you have any more phone numbers to call? If so, could you put them here? Thanks.
Eyes Wide Open | 09.27.06 - 3:33 pm | #

Letter writing. Phone calls. At least by one definition you people are insane.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -Albert Einstein.

I hold out zero hope because my fellow countrymen are all insane.

Direct action Oct. 5th.


.
adnoto | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 3:35 pm | #

Wow.

Did we just hear the birth of a new meme? Rep. Steve King (R-IA) just called Hamdan an "unconstitutional intervention" by the Supreme Court in the president's warfighting powers.
Kagro X | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 3:35 pm | #

As far as "leftist" groups using the internet, and (off topic) the net neutrality bill, you only need follow the money.

Say you were part of the rich conservative group who 30 some odd years ago bought into the idea that conservatives needed the ability to somehow control the main stream media to get the "right" message across. Even so far as owning your own TV network.

So then you go about spending all that time and huge amounts of money to accomplish that task.

Then just when you smell victory, the internet comes along. Then 9-11. People begin using the internet to circumvent your very expensive, bought-and-paid-for dominance of the media. They point out your manipulation and lies at every turn.

It's gotta make them a little miffed. I know it would me.
RootieKazootie | 09.27.06 - 3:36 pm | #

"The first lesson in activism is that the person that offers to get the dynamite is always the FBI agent."

Judi Bari.

It's part and parcel of dealing with these people. They will use any means necessary to sow dissension and mistrust among your ranks. Now you know what it was like for the Panthers, AIM, Environmentalists, the list goes on. It's a sad fact of life but they will use trolls and agent provocateurs and if you get challenged, don't take it personally.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 3:37 pm | #

Perhaps the taboo on making comparisons with the Nazis (we don't want to be "hysterical", do we?) is yet one more example of how opponents of right-wing extremism handicap themselves in facing this situation.

This timeline is worth looking at:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/e...ks/ timeline.htm

2/27: Reichstag, the German Parliament building, is burned. Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch Communist, is arrested.

2/28: The Nazi party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter accuses communists of a plot to seize power. Law for the Protection of People and the State abolishes the following rights: free speech, free press, sanctity of the home, security of mail and telephone, freedom to assemble or form organizations and the inviolability of private property. This law also cleared the way for the Nazis to put their political opponents in prison and establish concentration camps.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 3:41 pm | #

COINTELPRO: The FBI's Secret War Against Democracy

Between 1987 and 1990, in a conspiracy to entrap and "pop Dave Foreman [founder of Earth First!] to send a message," the FBI spent $3 million, used 50 agents and conducted more than 1000 hours of wiretaps. A key informant was paid a total of $54,000.
1981-1990, activists opposed to the U.S. foreign policy in Central America (as well as a dozen U.S. Senators and Congressmen) were subject to FBI harassment. The FBI's "investigation" of CISPES (Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador) involved 59 field offices and 200 incidents of death threats, intimidation, and break-ins.
In August 1985, Richard W. Held led 300 FBI agents and U.S. marshals in raids throughout Puerto Rico, trashing offices and homes and arresting scores of activists. The FBI's overall operations resulted in the creation of files on 74,000 individuals.
In 1975, Richard W. Held was involved in the FBI's cover-up of the 70 deaths of American Indian Movement supporters at Pine Ridge in South Dakota. On the scene after an FBI operation which resulted in the deaths of two FBI agents and one Indian man, Held helped lay the groundwork for the framing of AIM leader Leonard Peltier for murder. Peltier remains wrongfully imprisoned to this day.
On April 27, 1970, Richard W. Held requested and received permission from J. Edgar Hoover to "neutralize" actress Jean Seberg. Held placed an anonymous letter with a Hollywood gossip columnist regarding the parentage of Seberg's unborn child. On August 7, 1970, Seberg, nearly 7 months pregnant, attempted suicide. On August 23rd, she gave birth prematurely to a baby girl. Weighing less than 4 pounds, the baby died. Seberg's transgression? Her support of the Black Panther Party.
Beginning in 1970, FBI agent Richard W. Held, an architect of COINTELPRO vs. the Black Panthers in L.A., helped orchestrate the 25-year false imprisonment of Geronimo ji jaga (Pratt). Held and others engineered the frame-up of Geronimo by withholding critical information that the prosecution's key witness, Julius Butler, was an FBI operative.
On Dec. 4, 1969, Chicago police and the FBI assassinated Black Panthers Fred Hampton and Mark Clark. Hampton, who was alive but wounded after the initial assault, was then executed at close range. William O'Neal, an FBI informant, provided a detailed floor plan of Hampton's apartment; he was paid $30,000.
In 1963, the FBI turned their attention to Martin Luther King, Jr., and sought to destroy him through a campaign of wiretaps and harassment. In one incident, the FBI confronted King with a compilation of secretly recorded tapes, threatening to release them to the press if King did not commit suicide before accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.
From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10 million pages of surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592 and used 20,000 days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 3:43 pm | #

This is war.




Olbermann death threat powered letter made fun of by Murdoch’s NY Post
By: John Amato on Wednesday, September 27th, 2006 at 11:05 AM - PDT
What would the conservative media be saying if Limbaugh was sent a letter like this? The NY Post: "POWDER PUFF SPOOKS KEITH"

Keith Olbermann flipped out when he opened his home mail yesterday. The acerbic host of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" was terrified when he opened a suspicious-looking letter with a California postmark and a batch of white powder poured out. A note inside warned Olbermann, who’s a frequent critic of President Bush’s policies, that it was payback for some of his on-air shtick. The caustic commentator panicked and frantically called 911 at about 12:30 a.m., sources told The Post’s Philip Messing. An NYPD HazMat unit rushed to Olbermann’s pad on Central Park South, but preliminary tests indicated the substance was harmless soap powder. However, that wasn’t enough to satisfy Olbermann, who insisted on a checkup. He asked to be taken to St. Luke’s Hospital, where doctors looked him over and sent him home. Whether they gave him a lollipop on the way out isn’t known. Olbermann had no comment.

You can be sure that it would be front page news for The Post with pictures of Limbaugh going to the hospital–including interviews with the police and anyone one else they could find to make a statement. Then there would be a tidal wave on FOX News–you know the drill.

This is a new low for the right wing media of this country. Since Keith didn’t go public with the story, obviously he was doing what the police wanted and made sure not to cause a scene. He took the correct measures to ensure his safety as anyone of us would. It’s an outrage that in these times, a public figure would get a threatening letter and take it seriously, and then the right wing media would make a joke of it.

Paula Froelich only serves to encourage the wackos on so that they’ll continue this behavior. What a total disgrace.

Here’s a public email if you want to send Paula your thoughts paula.froelich@nypost.com (please show more class than Paula)

I wonder if Keith will be speaking out about this tonight?

(update) David Neiwert "Just in case the folks at the Post have forgotten, what they’re describing here — sending threatening letters through the mail — is a federal crime. Not only that, but fake-anthrax letters are widely recognized to be a form of terrorism, since they clearly "piggyback" off of the still-unsolved anthrax attacks of 2001Olbermann and the terrorists"…read on" Oliver has more…

http://www.crooksandliars.com/20...rdochs-ny-post/
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 3:49 pm | #

Leahy on Senate Floor now and he's pissed. (CSPAN 2 audio/video)
ej | 09.27.06 - 3:49 pm | #

It has been said:

The reason third parties are not successful in the U.S. is that as soon as a specific third party gains enough supporters, either the democrats or the republicans will simply adopt the ideas of that party. While this tactic guarantees that no third party will ever be successful, it also opens a direct method of inserting different philosophies and ideas into the big two.
thelastnamechosen | 09.27.06 - 3:50 pm | #

crust: your rush to call anyone a troll who actually has principles just because that person won't support Democrats is better suited to Fire Dog Lake than here.

I think what Terminus Est wrote is one of the most passionate and principled posts here. If he's a troll, sign me up.

Also, I forgot to congratulate Glenn on yet another significant find, the language in the NIE about "leftists."

Fantastic work, Glenn.
Eyes Wide Open | 09.27.06 - 3:54 pm | #

"By refusing to vote Democratic this election cycle, the Republicans will be given free rein to enact more legislation of this nature and pursue the other failed policies that are destroying this country. I, like others here, find their decision on torture and any Democratic support completely abhorrent. Yet the the alternative of allowing Republican control of Congress to continue, will prove to be even more disastrous for our country.

The only way that I have been able to reconcile my conflicting positions is by deciding to work for a Democratic majority THIS year and in future years devote my all of my funds and energy to primary challenges to replace Democratic incumbents who refuse to stand against this immoral bill."

Once this bill passes it's too late. It won't matter who wins in November because torture will be legal and those who have already tortured will be exempted from prosecution. That's the end of the Republic. It can't be undone.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 3:58 pm | #

That was me, by the way.
Heyward Jablomey | 09.27.06 - 4:00 pm | #

Define left. Left of what? Pat Robertson? I mean, this part of the bill is rather meaningless without a slider. Is it meant to encompass anyone who disagrees with Bushco? They would be considered the right, right? But how right are they? Are they infinity squared right or only +1?
We have to have some standards.
portia.vz | 09.27.06 - 4:02 pm | #

Thank you, Shep--

I am referring (when I call.. Schumer still has yet to take a public position) to this Human Rights First letter from 5 former Joint Chiefs of Staff from last week.

I also ask if they're going to endanger our own troops by permitting torture.

Dark days, but I have to try something. BTW, note that today's Senate.gov page is celebrating.. ta-dah! ... the Constitution. ironies, ironies...
Lyrebird | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 4:02 pm | #

PS, who's good with bumper stickers?

"If Nuremberg was good enough for Goering,
it's good enough for [Omar or other sought-after defendant]!"
Lyrebird | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 4:05 pm | #

Glenn:

It really is odd and disturbing, as well as potentially quite dangerous, that the declassified NIE on the "Trends on Global Terrorism" focuses exclusively on Islamic terrorists -- except for the last section which conspicuously identifies "leftist" groups which use the Internet as a serious terrorist threat (h/t Sysprog). Odder still, it makes no mention at all of right-wing, anti-government movements (such as, say, the one that spawned Timothy McVeigh, an actual terrorist).

Glenn, don't be afraid that they are talking about you and your website...

Very likely, the NIE is referring to eco terrorist groups like ELF, which are the top domestic terror groups at this time.

The reason it doesn't refer to McVeigh is that McVeigh is dead and the militia movement of the 90s has virtually disappeared.
Bart | 09.27.06 - 4:06 pm | #

I stand behind every word.

Democrats have always had the option to try eliminating the spoiler problem the democratic way. Instead they choose to produce mythology to scare voters. Do you believe that the Democrats finance the Constitution and Libertarian parties, too? Logically, that would be the answer if you are correct, but you are not. Why, by your logic, would the Republicans ask to shut the Greens out of debates?

As for TPMmuckracker, I haven't heard of it and your link was broken. I know that you've clearly never been to a Green Party fundraiser because of the beliefs you claim.

On the topic at hand, there are Democrats working on the inside, but they are often shut out by their own party. Do you honestly believe that the pro-Peace majority at the DFL convention turned Kerry against the war by working on the inside? The way to make politicians move is to hit them where it hurts, not to support your abusers.
Colin Lee | 09.27.06 - 4:08 pm | #

Jesus fucking Christ. Of course the right loves torture. One of their main venues thinks this is funny. You have to read it to believe it.
Mona | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 4:10 pm | #

EWO:

I think that was the first time I've referred to someone as a troll on this site after many months of posting here. It was his wish that a large class of people were "literally dead" that pushed me over the edge. If that's your idea of a "rush", then I plead guilty.

I'll grant you that the aptly named "Terminus" is passionate. But "principled" is not the first word that comes to my mind for literally wishing death on people, but perhaps you have different ideas.
Crust | 09.27.06 - 4:14 pm | #

Very likely, the NIE is referring to eco terrorist groups like ELF, which are the top domestic terror groups at this time.

The reason it doesn't refer to McVeigh is that McVeigh is dead and the militia movement of the 90s has virtually disappeared.
Bart

Right, Bart. ELF is a major threat but don't forget ALF, another dangerous threat.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 4:18 pm | #

Q: Who do you think sent white powder to Keith Olbermann--a 'leftist' terrorist, or a militant wingnut terrorist?
. | 09.27.06 - 4:21 pm | #

Suck shit out of my ass and kiss your wife for me, Bart.


QUOTATION: Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard.
ATTRIBUTION: Jesse Helms (b. 1921), U.S. Republican senator from North Carolina. New York Times, p. A19 (November 23, 1994).

Public statement made a week after calling the President unfit to be commander-in-chief.

Fake Anthrax letters to the NYTIMES and Keith Olberman (a federal crime and terroristic threat) are just a joke.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 4:22 pm | #

Oh, I see anon posted about that sick, sick Olbermann thing before I did. I just really cannot believe it. I just can't.

This level of depravity is too bizarre, tho I know, intellectually, it isn't unexpected any longer. But there should be some internal mechanism in people that at least informs them it is politically unwise to carry on like that in public, even if they are total putrid fucks.
Mona | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 4:24 pm | #

Glenn, don't be afraid that they are talking about you and your website...

The problem is that once this law is on the books, it's not going to go away and "who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States is sufficiently vague that a few years down the line it can be used to mean just about anything.

Does anyone think the correct response to Waco should have been indefinite detention and non-standard interrogation techniques?
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 4:24 pm | #

For those not in the know, ELF and ALF are groups that commit acts of arson and industrial sabotage in order to "save the earth" or "protect animals." Granted, they're criminals and mostly nutso kids, but calling them terrorists seems completely ridiculous. Neo-nazis groups, however, convinced at least one school shooter locally of the need to commit his murders. I think the greater danger is clear.
Colin Lee | 09.27.06 - 4:25 pm | #

Very likely, the NIE is referring to eco terrorist groups like ELF, which are the top domestic terror groups at this time.

Yeah - I can't even believe all the damage which "ELF" has wreaked inside the U.S. with their relentless terrorist attacks. Eavesdrop on them, send them to Guantanamo, torture them and then throw away the key forever - no charge or trial or anything. We trust in the President. That's the American way.
Glenn Greenwald | 09.27.06 - 4:25 pm | #

Colin Lee, did you read my comment before replying to it? I gave you the link to TPMmuckraker documenting the GOP funding the Green Party in Pennsylvania

Congrats. You have provided strong evidence that the US is not a Democracy. Descent is rigidly kept between two competing wings of the corporate / religious class. Third parties are "diversions" or "spoilers". The government is not "of the people, by the people, for the people" it is of, by and for the Republicans and Democrats and their funders - who have little interest or need to represent the people.

Without new political parties, US democracy is a farce, supported by the Democrats and the Republicans.

Reminds me of a joke: The congregation was sitting in church listing to the priest provide the eulogy to the deceased. At one point the priest stops and says, "I would like someone to come forward and say something nice". There were a few minutes of silence. The priest starts to become exasperated. "Look. You aren't going home until someone comes forward and says something nice about the deceased." There follows several minutes of rather nervous silence. Eventually a young man steps forward and says, "His brother was worse."
edwin | 09.27.06 - 4:27 pm | #

Bartlet's us know the militia's are done for, having "virually disappeared" so we can be sure that the "bad terrirsts are dem libruls...

Well, not quite so fast. The Militia movement has as a monotheic movement, and has lost numbers in the absolute. This much is true and indisputable.

However, much of the losses ended up being gains in other areas as people moved into more specialized groups such as the anti-immigration factions, the Christian Identity factions, the "Patriot movement," or even morphing into out-right hate groups like the "Tualatin Valley Skins," as well as your remaining traditional Militias.

So, while there may have been a "seed" or "germ" of truth in Bart's position. In context with what has actually happened, it's pretty mis-leading. The total numbers are down, but the core remains.

Fortunately, the doctrinal infighting in the militia movements is still so great that they're, according to those who study them, pretty much paralyzed. Though, as McViegh did, and Krar wanted to do, it only takes a small number to effect a large attack.
Moses | 09.27.06 - 4:37 pm | #

Once this bill passes it's too late. It won't matter who wins in November because torture will be legal and those who have already tortured will be exempted from prosecution. That's the end of the Republic. It can't be undone.

Not so fast. First of all, I don't think the immunity provisions are as broad as the Administration thinks. The conduct here breaks a great many laws, leaving lots of legal theories for prosecution. Second, we're talking here about war crimes. Almost every nation in the world claims jurisdiction over them, and our internal legislation won't protect anyone in foreign courts. If we can't prosecute 'em, we sure can extradite 'em.
Mark Field | 09.27.06 - 4:39 pm | #

Second, we're talking here about war crimes. Almost every nation in the world claims jurisdiction over them…

I hate to say it, but dream on.
edwin | 09.27.06 - 4:41 pm | #

But "principled" is not the first word that comes to my mind for literally wishing death on people, but perhaps you have different ideas.

Paleeze. Because of Specter's craven spitting on the Constitution and his duty in the Senate time and time again, I DO wish his cancer would return with a vengeance and remove him from the senate. Boo-hoo. Wishing any manner of diseases or accidents upon the monsters around us is exactly what you do too, you just don't admit it.

There are a number of people in government that would better serve the country and the Constitution if they fell by the wayside due to cancer, aneurism, heart attack, stroke, accident, or suicide. That is the way it is. Extreme? Sure, so what. It is a damned sight different, however, from advocating murder or assassination as Ann Coulter and her ilk do. I simply wish for nature to take its course, preferably in accelerated fashion. Best for all concerned.

Get over yourself and your outrage. Nature is always the best answer.
Terminus Est | 09.27.06 - 4:42 pm | #

Bart is right about one thing. The armed militia anarchists of the 1990's proclaiming how patriotic it was to wage war on the federal government are no longer active. The same people who so feared the government then are now out backing its authority to indefinitely detain without charges, deny habeus corpus, torture, etc.

9/11 changed everything.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 4:44 pm | #

Enlightened Layperson

armed militia anarchists

Within the current historical period, Anarchists are ultra left wing antiauthoritarian, armed militia are ultra right wing authoritarian. Which is it?
edwin | 09.27.06 - 4:47 pm | #

Crust: You have to read things in context. Terminus said that figuratively and I for one was readily able to pick up on his meaning.

He meant he feels so betrayed by them that he wished they didn't exist.

We can't all be precisely comme if faut at all times. Poetic license in is certainly allowed about these types of issues.

It would be as if I said that I wished Bill Frist would be tortured...

Moving right along, as for assuming Feingold is for or against something based on prior positions makes no sense. He has a mouth and a platform. He can say what he is for or against.

That would be like saying we "assume" all our elected officials are against the brutal and inhumane treatment of human beings.

We'd have been wrong. Right?

I try not to assume anything, but am always on a hunt for evidence.

Your "assuming" Feingold is against this torture bill is just wishful thinking. If he was against it, you'd have heard about it.
Eyes Wide | 09.27.06 - 4:49 pm | #

Your "assuming" Feingold is against this torture bill is just wishful thinking. If he was against it, you'd have heard about it.

His silence on this is disturbing and, to me, surprising. Even spending lots of time with his Progressive Patriots thing is no excuse when it comes to something so basic and core as torture and habeas corpus.

Where is Feingold? I hope he is strongly opposed but usually his position isn't left for speculation - he lets it out in beautiful fashion. His silence in this case is deafening.
Terminus Est | 09.27.06 - 4:53 pm | #

First of all, I don't think the immunity provisions are as broad as the Administration thinks. The conduct here breaks a great many laws, leaving lots of legal theories for prosecution.

You don't THINK...? Where the hell have you been? The "law" is whatever Dear Leader says it is. Along with the help of his congressional minions and their enabling cowardly "opposition" the Decider continues. to. decide.

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? What do you think? You are going to be able to extradite the criminals to the ICC? Exactly how so? You live in a dream world. Even if your dream is possible - even if we were able to extradite the criminals - why should we let it get to that point? Why should we allow them to persist? How cowardly are we exactly?

How about we at least try DOING SOMETHING so that, perhaps, it may never need come to that?


.
adnoto | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 4:53 pm | #

ELF has killed no one. Perhaps it's just luck, but those are the facts.

This novel is probably the genesis of the movement:

The Monkey Wrench Gang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ The...key_Wrench_Gang
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 4:55 pm | #

Anonymous --

I love the Greens, except they need a sensible national security policy. Especially now.

Why is it that they need "a sensible national security policy" and why is it that they need it "especially now"?

Wait, don't tell me... them terrrrrisssss.

Another fool falls for the terrorist gambit, when you're more likely to die from getting hit by a bus while crossing the street than you are at the hands of a terrorist. But never mind reality, we've got fear to sow.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 4:57 pm | #

WT --

In a word, no

I suppose I knew that was your answer, but I felt compelled to ask. Actually your excellent post raises some good observations about the nostalgic perspective of those Children of the 60s, who think the world really is about education funding and helping the poor, when the real threats to our safety and security are coming not from oppressing the poor or failing to fund public education, but rather, from the Democrats' failure to discharge their (former) duty of being the counterpoint to Republicans.

In other words, it strikes me that a lot of the Children of the 60s are living as though the 60s are still here today and we haven't seen a passage of 40 years' time.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 5:03 pm | #

Right wing extremists even Bush should sweat. They are out there.

http://www.littlegeneva.com/
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 5:03 pm | #

Damn those evil "Leftists"!
Eric in Ottawa | 09.27.06 - 5:05 pm | #

Another fool falls for the terrorist gambit, when you're more likely to die from getting hit by a bus while crossing the street than you are at the hands of a terrorist. But never mind reality, we've got fear to sow.
liquified viscera

By national security, I'm talking about defense, military, MIC that sort of thing. Non-violence is for Ghandi. It's a pipe dream. I'm for de-escalation and diplomacy but we will have a robust military with the ability to project power anywhere in the world whether you and the Greens like it or not. It doesn't have to be this nightmare, but it will be there. The threat from terrorism is greater now than it ever has been. Maybe you missed the NIE that Bush didn't want to declassify. Or... what? Inside job?

Of course I do not think the military is the proper tool to use to combat every threat of terrorism.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 5:10 pm | #

Hell,

I don't even know what to think anymore. Maybe it was an inside job. It's fucked is what it is.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 5:15 pm | #

Anyone watching Cspan? Spector just offered an amendment to strike the section eliminating the right of habeus corpus. Amendment joined by Levine, Feinstein among others, I believe.

Might be a little hope, after all.
JimLanc | 09.27.06 - 5:16 pm | #

I suppose I knew that was your answer, but I felt compelled to ask. Actually your excellent post raises some good observations about the nostalgic perspective of those Children of the 60s, who think the world really is about education funding and helping the poor, when the real threats to our safety and security are coming not from oppressing the poor or failing to fund public education, but rather, from the Democrats' failure to discharge their (former) duty of being the counterpoint to Republicans.

In other words, it strikes me that a lot of the Children of the 60s are living as though the 60s are still here today and we haven't seen a passage of 40 years' time.
liquified viscera

Education funding and helping the poor would mean most Americans would intelligent and well-informed enough to know better and not desperate enough to join the Army because that's how they are getting people stupid enough and poor enough to die for this abomination. Maybe you are a troll after all.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 5:19 pm | #

House passes bill torture bill. Roll call here.
ej | 09.27.06 - 5:19 pm | #

Edwin:

The militias of the 1990's claimed it was their constitutional right to form private armies and wage war on the federal government. They had plenty of milder-mannered fellow travelers who claimed to be exempt from the jurisdiction of the courts and any laws they didn't like.

Pressing for unlimited proliferation of private armies, denying the state's monopoly on police and courts -- I would call that anarchistic.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 5:21 pm | #

Mona said,
This level of depravity is too bizarre, tho I know, intellectually, it isn't unexpected any longer. But there should be some internal mechanism in people that at least informs them it is politically unwise to carry on like that in public, even if they are total putrid fucks.

Seconded. What is even more bizarre is that the NY Post was a recipient of a real anthrax letter addressed to their editor.
thelastnamechosen | 09.27.06 - 5:22 pm | #

Indeed viscera, you're right, but there's more.

Anonymous seems to believe the scare tactic that the terrorists want to attack America for reasons other than our policy and therefore we must attack them before they inevitably attack us because they hate our success, but the Green party line actually would've prevented real terrorist attacks.

For one, Nader petitioned the FAA in the '70s about installing locks and secure cockpit doors in airplanes because of the ease of the Cuban hijackings, but the idea was scrapped in favor of deregulation and 9/11 happened without any protection. That isn't theory, that's real.

What about our policy in Palestine and its impact on Middle East radicalism? Our government has supported Israel's worst excesses and the NIE report shows that Bush's policies haven't helped ease regional tensions. What stops terrorism isn't military, but police force. Five years ago, before we were programmed otherwise, this wasn't even debatable.

The Green policy of nonviolence is a goal and a principle, but not a death wish. Only in the most ridiculous military-industrial propaganda would Greens dismantle our military beyond our realistic needs for defense.
Colin Lee | 09.27.06 - 5:22 pm | #

LV:

I think you've misunderstood the children of the 60's, both as they were then and as they are now. First, they weren't all cut from the same cloth; second your interpretation of their views is colored with the easy dismissal of someone who wasn't there at the time. It's easy to caricature people you disagree with in absentia; more difficult when you have to speak to them face to face.

It's not that I expect you to change your views, you understand, but given the time and space, and, of course, your willingness to hear me out, I could probably fill you in a little more on the true flavor of the time. Since this already tangential to the subject of this thread, though, please forgive me if I don't attempt it here.
William Timberman | 09.27.06 - 5:22 pm | #

Glenn:

Bart: Very likely, the NIE is referring to eco terrorist groups like ELF, which are the top domestic terror groups at this time.

Glenn: Yeah - I can't even believe all the damage which "ELF" has wreaked inside the U.S. with their relentless terrorist attacks. Eavesdrop on them, send them to Guantanamo, torture them and then throw away the key forever - no charge or trial or anything. We trust in the President. That's the American way.

:::yawn:::

The Bush Administration busted a good chunk of ELF and is trying them in civilian court.
Bart | 09.27.06 - 5:24 pm | #

Thank you, Lyrebird.

"PS, who's good with bumper stickers?"

Funny you should ask, I'm trying to get a site up right, specifically for bumber stickers. The url is www.hadenoughgop.com and it will offer 10-20 designs. I can add yours, if you wish. My personal current favorite: Fight Terror, Vote Democrat.
shep | 09.27.06 - 5:26 pm | #

The reason third parties are not successful in the U.S. is that as soon as a specific third party gains enough supporters, either the democrats or the republicans will simply adopt the ideas of that party. While this tactic guarantees that no third party will ever be successful, it also opens a direct method of inserting different philosophies and ideas into the big two.

I think this is essentially what Nader was trying to do. He didn't really want to run, just push the Dem's to adopt some progressive positions again.

It won't work as long as people are only concerned about 'wasting their vote' and voting out the party that's a bit worse. Ironically, our votes have been wasted as a result of that logic. If 20% had started voting green years back, you might not have to hold you nose, and wear a blindfold and rubber gloves to vote Democratic now.
Dread Scot | 09.27.06 - 5:40 pm | #

Well, there we have the answer. The House Democrats couldn't stop the torture bill, but about 80% had the guts to vote against it. I don't think they should be blamed too much, since there wasn't much they could have done.

The Senate, where the Dems could have filibustered, is a different story.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 5:43 pm | #

President Bush, in yesterday's press conference:

"If somebody has got information about a potential attack, we need to be able to ask that person some questions. And so Congress has got to pass that piece of legislation."

Whew! It looks like we can finally ask "someone" "some questions" at last. No wonder the War on Terror was going so badly before!
Rufus | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 5:46 pm | #

Funny you should ask, I'm trying to get a site up right, specifically for bumber stickers. The url is www.hadenoughgop.com and it will offer 10-20 designs. I can add yours, if you wish. My personal current favorite: Fight Terror, Vote Democrat.

What's a "bumber"?

"Fight Terror, Vote Democrat"? You must be kidding. You're not following the way the Democrats are acting, are you? You think the Dems are against terror and the Repubs are for it? Wow. I'd suggest you come down off your cloud and visit the reality of our Congress, which is that the Dems aer as bad as the Repubs.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 5:46 pm | #

Paul Dirks said,
Does anyone think the correct response to Waco should have been indefinite detention and non-standard interrogation techniques?

Source

Perhaps the most famous use of sound as an irritant was during the Branch Davidian siege in Waco, Texas. FBI hostage negotiators played recordings of Tibetan prayer chants, screaming and dying rabbits, and other sound “irritants” as part of the effort to get the Branch Davidians to surrender. This tactic was unsuccessful, and as Harvard University psychiatry and law professor Stone noted in his report to the Justice Department:

"The constant stress overload is intended to lead to sleep-deprivation and psychological disorientation. In predisposed individuals the combination of physiological disruption and psychological stress can also lead to mood disturbances, transient hallucinations and paranoid ideation. If the constant noise exceeds 105 decibels, it can produce nerve deafness in children as well as in adults. Presumably, the tactical intent was to cause disruption and emotional chaos within the compound. The FBI hoped to break Koresh's hold over his followers. However, it may have solidified this unconventional group's unity in their common misery, a phenomenon familiar to victimology and group psychology."
thelastnamechosen | 09.27.06 - 5:50 pm | #

William Timberman | 09.27.06 - 5:22 pm | #

Actually the "Children of the 60s" to which I referred were those whom you described in your original post as be the majority of the Democratic Party right now -- the ones who seem to think that if we focus on education and poverty, the things like fascist creep and authoritarianism will magically go away.

I'm not criticizing idealism, nor the desire to see a better America. I'm criticizing those who think that you can stick to a platform of ideas regardless of what's afoot, and that the platform somehow is timeless even when the times demonstrate it's inapplicable.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 5:51 pm | #

Enlightened Layperson:

You really are mixing left and right wing philosophies. You may choose to do so, but it is incorrect. Among many things anarchists do not believe in constitutional rights or even constitutions.

I would have thought that the militias were far closer to Libertarian philosophy.

In general (using recent history), anarchists who have been attracted to violence seem to go the route of "gangs" or "terrorism", not militias.
edwin | 09.27.06 - 5:52 pm | #

"I think this is essentially what Nader was trying to do. He didn't really want to run, just push the Dem's to adopt some progressive positions again."

Yeah, how's that workin' out?

There are two political parties in this country. Two. Pick one and try like hell to shape it to your liking. If you haven't noticed, principled protest votes get people killed.
shep | 09.27.06 - 5:53 pm | #

Bartfuck --

The Bush Administration busted a good chunk of ELF and is trying them in civilian court.

Goo goo goo, little Bartfuck. Goo goo goo. Your baby talk sure is cute!
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 5:53 pm | #

edwin --

Among many things anarchists do not believe in constitutional rights or even constitutions.

A rather narrow view of anarchy, if you ask me. For example, one may be anarchic with respect to a current administration in power, yet still believe that there is some merit in a constitution or government.

You seem to be describing UTTER anarchy, when there are shades of anarchy that can have limited purpose and/or application.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 5:55 pm | #

"the Dems aer as bad as the Repubs."

What's an "aer"?

Liquified grey matter, more like it.
shep | 09.27.06 - 5:55 pm | #

Well, it's true that he wasn't a U.S. green, but the career of Joschka Fischer might be instructive here. There's something in it for everyone from LV to EWO; even bart and his buddy Karl could learn something from Fischer's political peregrinations.

My interest in him stems not only from the fact that we're contemporaries, but also because his career illustrates how a large umbrella party, which might actually be able to take and hold power in a democratic country, can so easily be accused by one side as co-opting, and praised by the other as an avenue to power for ideas supported only by a minority.

Food for thought, I would say.
William Timberman | 09.27.06 - 5:56 pm | #

ej wrote:

House passes bill torture bill. Roll call here.
ej | 09.27.06 - 5:19 pm

Dorita --

Education funding and helping the poor would mean most Americans would intelligent and well-informed enough to know better and not desperate enough to join the Army because that's how they are getting people stupid enough and poor enough to die for this abomination. Maybe you are a troll after all.

Dorita, you are good at attacking scarecrows!

Please try sticking to posts I make and the wording therein, rather than attacking the thoughts you read into them.

Your Kos Kocksucker Kranial Krust is getting in the way of your feeble intellect. Klear away the Krust, Kossack.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 5:57 pm | #

Just thought it worth pointing out, the DHS has already run an HQ exercise featuring "online leftists" as their primary adversary.

http://blog.wired.com/sterling/ i...ntry_id=1543415
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/ 2...579476831601893

Most conspicuously was the fictional "Freedom Not Bombs" group -- a take-off from "Food Not Bombs", an "organization" (ala franchise) which provides free vegan food to homeless people, and sprang from the anti-nuclear movement of the 1980s. Essentially, it's assorted anarcho-punks and similar misfits consciously doing an end-run around the social-welfare bureaucracy to help people. Most of them (AFAIK) are either homeless themselves or just inside the outskirts of mainstream society. Many of the same people who get involved with FNB also worked at Common Ground after Katrina, which including setting up a citywide wireless network to help rescue workers.

And yeah, I see the establishment POV too---one so paranoiac and out-of-touch that a bunch of idealistic gutterpunks becomes a national security priority.

And here we see the hippie settling down with a nice meal... of human baby!
James Cape | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 5:58 pm | #

LV:

Point taken. You're certainly right about political shibboleths, and some of those who hold to them.
William Timberman | 09.27.06 - 5:59 pm | #

shep the goo goo goo babymind --

Liquified grey matter, more like it.

Hey, did you come up with that all on your own? You are a big gigantic man, criticizing a typographical error and implying that I'm too stupid to know otherwise.

When you graduate from high school, and have an adult perspective on the world, little shep the goo goo goo babymind, let us know will you? We might find something sensible in your pathetic binary worldview that insists Repubs are Bad and Dems are Good.

Now trot on back to Daily Kos and suck Kos's Kock like the Kocksucking Kossack you are.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 6:00 pm | #

Someone on an earlier thread linked to a graphic about terrorist attacks over time. The current Foreign Policy magazine has one with a courser timeline but a regional breakdown:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/Nin.../156/ pn_156.pdf

2 page PDF, 779KB. I'm pretty sure it's available without subscription (I have one so might have been cookied in).
GlennB | 09.27.06 - 6:02 pm | #

LV: I'm describing the political philosophy of anarchism. I guess you could call that utter anarchism. There are those who would be sympathetic to anarchism who might be interested in states and government. Anarchists, though, the answer is no government – no ifs, ands or buts. Anarchists are all quite firm on the issue. It's one of the few things they agree on.
edwin | 09.27.06 - 6:03 pm | #

WT --

Point taken. You're certainly right about political shibboleths, and some of those who hold to them.

I don't see you as one of those mired in an antiquated worldview, WT. I was making a sort of tag-along observation that followed your post remarking that the Dems where you live are stuck analyzing issues that definitely have some relevance, but in the present landscape surely are not the most pressing issues facing the nation.

Dorita/Anonymous would like to accuse me of thinking that education and poverty can be ignored. As one who spent his youth in relative poverty and who underwent a lot of formal education in order to improve his own station in life, I can say that Dorita/Anonymous is dead wrong in her sad, misguided accusations. The values inherent in making a more egalitarian economy and a more educated populace seem to me to go without saying. But we will not stop the present fascist drift by altering the level of poverty, nor by spending more $$$ on public education. Those steps must be undertaken LATER to ensure that the authoritarianism and fascist drift do not creep back into our system as they have in the past 15 years.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 6:07 pm | #

edwin --

LV: I'm describing the political philosophy of anarchism. I guess you could call that utter anarchism. There are those who would be sympathetic to anarchism who might be interested in states and government. Anarchists, though, the answer is no government – no ifs, ands or buts. Anarchists are all quite firm on the issue. It's one of the few things they agree on.

I suppose I have to disagree, edwin. I think you are defining anarchy AS YOU SEE AND UNDERSTAND IT. Even as cursory and topical a search as reviewing Wikipedia on the subject of "anarchy" will show that you are far too limited in your description.

While anarchists may want an IDEAL of no government, I truly believe that you'd be hard pressed to find any mature anarchy follower who thinks that in a massively populated nation like the USA, there can be any sort of system of life that has NO GOVERNMENT.

In other words, I think you're talking about an ideal, rather than what most anarchists would actually accept as a workable solution.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 6:10 pm | #

Edwin:

I don't know Mona well, but I hope she will take offense at your labeling the militia movement as libertarians.

I grant that historically anarchists have been left-wing, but that doesn't mean there can't be right-wing anarchists. It seems to me the difference between libertarians and anarchists is that libertarians are reformers and anarchists are revolutionaries.

The militia movement were revolutionaries.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 6:11 pm | #

"Now trot on back to Daily Kos and suck Kos's Kock like the Kocksucking Kossack you are."

It appears that I struck a neuron.

First off, you started it. Second, I'm sure not taking my trotting and sucking intructions from you, dipsh*t.

Child abuse victim?
shep | 09.27.06 - 6:12 pm | #

LV: I'm not sure how much practical application there is with any of the extreme ideologies – Anarchism, Libertarianism, Communism or Fascism. I don't like mixing them up though.
edwin | 09.27.06 - 6:14 pm | #

I think this is essentially what Nader was trying to do. He didn't really want to run, just push the Dem's to adopt some progressive positions again."

Yeah, how's that workin' out?

There are two political parties in this country. Two. Pick one and try like hell to shape it to your liking. If you haven't noticed, principled protest votes get people killed.

And how is that working out? Every election cycle the Dem's follow the Repub's further to the right and lose. As long as they feel they are entitled to your vote even as they (figuratively) spit on your values in an effort to appeal to the Republican base and you continue to validate that arrogant presumption, how exactly do you expect to change the party?
Dread Scot | 09.27.06 - 6:16 pm | #

Dorita --

The threat from terrorism is greater now than it ever has been.

Thanks for telling us what bart, shooter242 and daleyrocks think about the current situation. But when you decide to have your own ideas, perhaps you could consider whether there are other means to secure the nation besides preparing for all-out warfare against "terrrrrrrissssssssss".

Such as, repairing our mess in Iraq.

Such as, compensating the people of Iraq for that mess.

Such as, apologizing to those nations that Dubya Dickhead has offended, and making reparations to them as well.

Those steps would go much further down the road of preventing "terrrrrrrisssssss" attacks on the USA. But you don't understand that if you are bart, shooter242, daleyrocks or Dorita, apparently.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 6:16 pm | #

EL: I don't know Mona well, but I hope she will take offense at your labeling the militia movement as libertarians.

I can't say I am worried. It would have been nice though if you actually quoted what I said instead of sticking words into my mouth.
edwin | 09.27.06 - 6:18 pm | #

shlep --

Child abuse victim?

What are you talking about, eedjit? You didn't strike a "neuron," and please don't try to impress me with your anatomical references. Your simplified Dem Good, Repub Bad worldview tells me all I need to know about your feeble intellect, and a reference to neuronal impact can't change that.

As to child abuse, the only "abuse" I'm witnessing with respect to your posts is logic abuse and abuse of the facts now extant on the American political landscape.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 6:18 pm | #

edwin --

LV: I'm not sure how much practical application there is with any of the extreme ideologies – Anarchism, Libertarianism, Communism or Fascism. I don't like mixing them up though.

I agree on that. But I don't think that people behave in cubbyholed fashion, inasmuch as our basic humanity pretty much precludes such predictability where thought and action are concerned. What academia tries to describe and characterize isn't always what actually IS, in practice.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 6:21 pm | #

Dread Scott --

And how is that working out? Every election cycle the Dem's follow the Repub's further to the right and lose. As long as they feel they are entitled to your vote even as they (figuratively) spit on your values in an effort to appeal to the Republican base and you continue to validate that arrogant presumption, how exactly do you expect to change the party?

dead center bull's eye.

well said!
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 6:23 pm | #

LV: But we will not stop the present fascist drift by altering the level of poverty, nor by spending more $$$ on public education.

True, but it couldn't hurt. Anyway, if many of our present nay-sayers are correct, and the project of a permanent Republican majority does indeed lead GWB et al. to employ extreme methods to negate or destroy domestic opposition, I don't think they can manage it without a much more serious fight than we've seen so far.

The rest of the country, regardless of political affiliation, doesn't see the current situation as we do; that seems clear enough to me. They're more or less like the person bart sometimes pretends to be: Like, what are you whining about, none of you has been spirited away in the dark of night, moron donkeys.

Perhaps they're right, eh? Maybe GWB is just stupid, and maybe the Dems who're doing their usual finesse and triangulate calculations won't actually wind up in cattle cars because of their appeasement politics.

On the other hand...if that is what the right wing has in mind, I don't really think that it'll go like it did in Germany 70 years ago, and not because I'm an uncritical believer in the myth of American democracy's resilience, or the purity of the little people. It won't be pleasant, for a surety, but the outcome is definitely not foreordained.
William Timberman | 09.27.06 - 6:31 pm | #

WT,

I'm not eager to wait out the current scenario to see if it plays out as some maroon like "bart" projects. Given the history of criminal procedure law in the USA, it is pretty clear to me that the police and govt will employ whatever powers given them, and will do so until stopped by the courts. Honestly, I don't see the courts being too willing to stop them, notwithstanding the rulings such as Judge Taylor recently issued. What matters is what the Circuit Courts of Appeal and the US Supremes have to say on the matter, and they're not instilling in me a lot of confidence in their willingness to go against the Bush Admin prerogatives.

The fact that you or I have not been spirited away mid-night to a modern Camp Treblinka doesn't reinforce the bart-eedjit view of the world. The fact that the power is there is reason enough to be worried. And to me, it provides no comfort that the power could remain yet the Dems could take over in 2008. I don't really trust them any more than I do the Repubs.
liquified viscera | 09.27.06 - 6:44 pm | #

From Bart at 5:24pm:

:::yawn:::

The Bush Administration busted a good chunk of ELF and is trying them in civilian court.

Interesting outlook, given you've been arguing that 'terrorism' is such an overwhelming and horrific threat that we must gut such things as due process and civil liberties. I'm rather surprised, given your demonstrated contempt for the canons of your supposed profession, you even deign to mention such things as "civil court".

Incidentially, how do you state with such certainty that the ELF are listed on the NIE? Or are you simply guessing?
yankeependragon | 09.27.06 - 6:51 pm | #

“As long as they feel they are entitled to your vote even as they (figuratively) spit on your values in an effort to appeal to the Republican base and you continue to validate that arrogant presumption, how exactly do you expect to change the party?”

I’d say that we’re changing it right now. If it weren’t for voices like Glenn’s, Digby, Firedoglake, Billmon, Informed Comment and the people who read them, don’t you think that the Dems would be high-stepping the tunes played by Fox and the establishment press even more? Don’t you those tunes would be even more disharmonious without those voices?

Look, I defer to no one in my disgust with the Democrats one many issues, perhaps most harmfully on energy independence. They’re politicians. Helloooooo. You have to make them afraid that they might not get your vote and you have to make them not afraid to take the right position.

Thanks to TMW and the corporate press, we haven’t had much of a means to do that. And that brings up another way top move both parties positively at the same time and that is to make their corporate masters pay when they f*ck up. Anyone watching ABC or going to Disney this month. Going after a corporate brand may turn out to be the most effective means of moving the political football.

Write letters. Make phone calls. Educate yourself and others. Vote. This democracy stuff is hard work but, at the end of the day, you get to decide what you want to contribute to it and make the best choice you can to affect the outcome.

Or you can just sit on the sidelines and bitch about it. It's a big club.
shep | 09.27.06 - 6:53 pm | #

LV: And to me, it provides no comfort that the power could remain yet the Dems could take over in 2008.

To me either, as a matter of fact. In my day I had the FBI trailing me on occasion, and I've seen government lawlessness up close and personal. Like I've said, it's a long-term fight, and we're just in the early stages. To think, though, that we won't have a significant number of allies, events as well as people, is just plain wrong.

No, Michael Rennie and Gort won't be landing on the National Mall any time soon, but a couple more Katrinas, or even -- God forbid -- another 9/11, and in my opinion, Blade Runner could turn out to be as plausible a scenario as 1884.
William Timberman | 09.27.06 - 6:58 pm | #

UPDATE II: The House voted today to pass the President's interrogation and detention bill. The roll call vote is here. Democrats voted against the bill by a vote of 219-34. Republicans voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 160-7. Of the 34 Democrats voting in favor of the bill, two are currently in close races for the Senate: Rep. Harold Ford in Tennessee and Sherwood Brown in Ohio.

Exactly as I predicted. Every Donkey not in a safe district voted for the bill, even the leftist Brown.

Weeping crocodile tears for the rights of terrorists somehow doesn't sell in heartland states like Ohio and Tennessee.

We will have a final vote by Friday and a big televised signing soon thereafter.
Bart | 09.27.06 - 7:01 pm | #

"Weeping crocodile tears for the rights of terrorists somehow doesn't sell in heartland states like Ohio and Tennessee."

No doubt because they're too ignorant/partisan/stupid to realize that their rights are going right along with them.
shep | 09.27.06 - 7:05 pm | #

From Bart 7:01pm:

Weeping crocodile tears for the rights of terrorists somehow doesn't sell in heartland states like Ohio and Tennessee.

There you have it, class: the shallow, souless contempt for basic human rights that is the hallmark of the modern Republican or Islamic jihadist.

We will have a final vote by Friday and a big televised signing soon thereafter.

Enjoy your moment, Bart. May it keep you warm when you're waiting your turn to be waterboarded, put in stress positions, and undergo electroshock.
yankeependragon | 09.27.06 - 7:08 pm | #

For those who missed it, William Timberman gave a great example of a Green party politician who stood up for using defense, even though he believes in nonviolence. Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister from '98-'05, convinced Germans to go to war for the first time since WWII to fight to end the genocide of Kosovo Albanians.

Later, he was a leading force opposing the invasion of Iraq and had the gall to tell Donald Rumsfeld in front of the UN that he wasn't convinced by America's pre-war intelligence.

The lesson here is that you can't believe propaganda about an entire party you don't know much about. I'm working on Coleen Rowley's Democrat campaign and supporting the Greens in other races and I see no conflict because the Greens overlap the ignored wing of the Democrat party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Jos...Joschka_Fischer
Colin Lee | 09.27.06 - 7:10 pm | #

I saw much of the House debate on C-SPAN. The vote preceding the final passage vote, on a motion to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to make certain amendments, actually was closer with fewer party defections on either side than the final tally was.

Notably, very little opposition to the bill was over the torture-and-cruelty issue, which seems to have been totally deflated since McCain and his colleagues blessed the "compromise." The Democrats made their stand primarily over legal-process issues such as the habeas-stripping provisions and the 11th-hour changes in the language expanding the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant."

Meanwhile, there was a near-party-line vote in the Senate over Levin's substitute amendment that would have restored the bill to the language reported by Armed Services (the original Warner-McCain-Graham language, before the trio compromised with the administration).

Specter's amendment to delete the habeas-stripping provision is pending.

No one in either house is making a big deal out of detainee interrogation techniques, whether they are called torture or not.
Just an Observer | 09.27.06 - 7:15 pm | #

Weeping crocodile tears for the rights of terrorists somehow doesn't sell in heartland states like Ohio and Tennessee.

Just like weeping crocodile tears for German Communists wasn't selling in regions like East Prussia and Pomerania in 1933.

First they came for the Communists...
lysias | 09.27.06 - 7:15 pm | #

From the WaPo:

"A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers."

Those poor, naive souls. Don't they realize President Bush knows what's best for them?
Rufus | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 7:17 pm | #

Enlightened Layperson writes:I don't know Mona well, but I hope she will take offense at your labeling the militia movement as libertarians.

I appreciate that you realize those nuts have nothing to do with me, but I don't dispute that many of them are libertarians (or Libertarians) of a particular variety. Indeed, I've done a fair amount of grumbling that when I tell folks how I politically self-identify, pictures of me in camouflage face-paint and clothing hoisting an AK-47 as I rampage through a Michigan woods dance through their heads. Many political and religious movements have their fruitloop branch, and the extreme survivalists and militia freaks are ours.

As to this argument over anarchy, I have (very casually and not for long) flirted with anarcho-capitalism. To my understanding, anarchy, by definition, entails an absence of government, and that is precisely why I don't go the road of anarcho-capitalism. I believe in the rule of law and public courts, along with a few other things I endorse that the state properly involves itself with and provides. Some anarchists accept "law," but privately enforced such, which I'm not sure isn't an oxy moron.
Mona | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 7:24 pm | #

Mona:

OK, thanks. I stand corrected.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 7:27 pm | #

yankeependragon,

"There you have it, class: the shallow, souless contempt for basic human rights that is the hallmark of the modern Republican or Islamic jihadist."

I sometimes wonder if a prevalent characteristic of the enslaved is that they seek to be free. I wonder, also, if there is some portion of the enslaved who, in a kind of spiteful selfishness, wish enslavement upon all others deemed free, instead of hoping for freedom for themselves.

It's helped me alot, when reading Bart/bart/unnamed college republican/30-pieces-of-silver/whomever is on the rotation this week, to remind myself that he/she is paid to be here to agitate, sow discord, and sabotage.

Puts his/her posts in perspective. I freely admit that I can't prove that he/she is paid to be here, but that's my strong suspicion.

Rob
Desert Son | 09.27.06 - 7:34 pm | #

I should have clarified by adding that there may be a third category, a portion of the enslaved that choose to imagine themselves free and live in illusion rather than see the captivity in which they exist.

If Bart/bart/agitprop personnel of the week isn't paid to be here, well, then perhaps he/she is among this third category. "I cannot admit that I, too, suffer, or will suffer, at the hands of these in power, therefore I will create for myself the illusion that they who oppress represent freedom, instead of seeing them for the slavers they are."

Rob
Desert Son | 09.27.06 - 7:45 pm | #

"Anarchists" get a bum rap. Try this: when you compare the most famous Anarchists in U.S. history, Joe Hill and Emma Goldman (who could also be described as libertarians), to the most famous anti-Anarchists in U.S. history, A.Mitchell Palmer and J.Edgar Hoover, which couple better embodies your vision of noble American values? And which couple would you consider to be a couple of vicious terrorists, in a sense?

The word "Anarchism" covers a broad variety of people, and shouldn't be misused as a simple pigeon hole.

And now get out your little red Wobbly song book, and sing Joe Hill's version of "Onward Christian Soldiers."
anonymous | 09.27.06 - 7:50 pm | #

I swear, as I live and breathe, if the Democrats don't fillibuster this, I will stay home on election day. That will be the first time sonce 1978 that I haven't voted but that is how important this is.
MargaretPOA | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 7:54 pm | #

"“As long as they feel they are entitled to your vote even as they (figuratively) spit on your values in an effort to appeal to the Republican base and you continue to validate that arrogant presumption, how exactly do you expect to change the party?”"

"I’d say that we’re changing it right now. If it weren’t for voices like Glenn’s, Digby, Firedoglake, Billmon, Informed Comment and the people who read them, don’t you think that the Dems would be high-stepping the tunes played by Fox and the establishment press even more? Don’t you those tunes would be even more disharmonious without those voices?"

Great. Maybe the Democrat's slogan should be: "now with 10% less anal leakage". That would actually be better than "no daylight between us and the Republicans on security". What kind of political strategy is it to say: "we agree with the Republicans so vote for us".

It would be one thing to stand on principle and lose. At least that would preserve their standing to oppose (and cast blame) in the future, rather than setting themselves up to be accused of flip-flopping or being for something before they were against it. It would be another thing if they sold their souls for political calculation and won, like the Republicans. But to sell out for stupity and lose, repeatedly? I just don't understand.
Dread Scot | 09.27.06 - 8:02 pm | #

Regarding famous anarchists: I would have thought that Noam Chomsky would be in that list.
edwin | 09.27.06 - 8:03 pm | #

Dread Scot,

"But to sell out for stupity and lose, repeatedly? I just don't understand."

I'm wondering (alot, tonight, it seems) if the situation in Washington has become somewhat like that of the court of Louis XIV in France in the late 16th/early 17th centuries (insert tactless cheese-eating-surrender-monkey joke here).

As I understand it, and I don't very well, admittedly, so I'll defer to the better historians who can explain it better than I can, the court at that time was basically it's own, self-contained society where the whole purpose of existence was to "get in good" with le roi.

Meanwhile, back home in the country (everywhere NOT Paris or Versailles), the rest of France went about the business of governing itself, producing agriculture, and living it's life.

Granted, not ideal conditions, and not saying what we want is to emulate the socio-political situation of late 17th century France (Louis was not kind to the French economy and treasury . . . hey, waidamminit!). There's the obvious difference, too, that in the present day United States, the monarchists are trying to 1) establish a king of the United States, and 2) impose monarchy on everyone else.

Maybe not such a good analogy after all, but I'm just wondering if, for the Democrats (and all Beltway politicians), it's become about looking in at Washington, D.C., and less about looking out at the rest of the nation?

I haven't constructed this very well. Kinda messy. Sorry about that.

Rob
Desert Son | 09.27.06 - 8:12 pm | #

Anonymous:

For what it's worth, I joined the Wobblies in 1966, and I have my little red book, with a couple of dues stamps in it to prove it.

It's been fun to dig it out of the archives every now and then, and re-read the Preamble:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life...

Odd that some folks have now forgotten that those two sentences were once so perfectly descriptive of conditions in our own country as to need no explanation, no footnotes, and from coal mine to steel mill to shipyard, there wasn't a bart in sight except behind the barrel of a Pinkerton gun.
William Timberman | 09.27.06 - 8:13 pm | #

Fight Terror, Vote Democratic
Nell | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 8:23 pm | #

I would have thought that Noam Chomsky would be in that list.

I heard him say something to the efferct that he wasn't an Anarchist, but an anarcho-capitalist.

I don't fully understand, either and think that Anonymous at 7:50 had it best that they use one term to signify a ton of beliefs.

Personally, I could never believe in something like that, at least not until it's fully explained to me how we'd get people to clean toilets and work in dumps.

Plus, I think the term "Anarchy" turns people off. Better to call themself "Patriochists" or something catchier.

--WKW
William K. Wolfrum | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 8:27 pm | #

I admire Emma Goldman in a number of respects, but she was complicit in a movement that could be described as "terrorist," and slept with a man who was an assassin and advocate of revolutionary violence. Anarchists were serious and frightening problem in the U.S. for several decades, but they are also a good reminder of what over-reaction to an actual threat can do. In the case of the violent anarchists, fear of them brought us the Sedition Act, a foul piece of legislation -- that criminalized publishing "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the U.S. government, our flag, or armed forces during war -- a sick SCOTUS upheld. It was only by some happy fluke that it was eventually repealed by a sane Congress.

But Eugene Debs was sentenced to ten effing years in prison (he didn't serve it all) after conviction under that Act, for uttering these words.
Mona | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 8:36 pm | #

160-34. I am very tired of the people who just say "if the Democrats support torture, I'm never voting for them again" or whatever. The Democrats are overwhelmingly against it. However, they are not in power. I wish they could stop it, but it seems unlikely, since it has such strong Republican support.

Elect a progressive Democratic Congress and maybe we get there. Jeez.
JoshA | 09.27.06 - 8:38 pm | #

WT, the Anarchism post was by me.
sysprog | 09.27.06 - 8:47 pm | #

Noam Chomsky is not an anarcho-capitalist. Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. see here: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/inte...- anarchism.html

As far as convincing you goes – I don't have much interest in that, though the reasons you give are a bit simplistic. I am interested in Anarchism, in part because I have strong leanings in that direction and that is where I come from. I am not an anarchist though. I am a capitalist.
edwin | 09.27.06 - 8:48 pm | #

Edwin,

Well, you seem to have the sense of humor as a capitalist, as well ;)

Thanks for the link. Personally, I find Anarchy fascinating, but in the same way I find, say, Star Wars fascinating. Interesting fiction that won't happen.

Though, then again, should global warming and peak oil affect the world as Robert Newman and his ilk believe and a huge percentage of the population gets wiped out, everything is on the table.

--WKW
William K. Wolfrum | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 8:57 pm | #

WT ...from coal mine to steel mill to shipyard, there wasn't a bart in sight except behind the barrel of a Pinkerton gun.

That says it all. Nicely put.
nuf said | 09.27.06 - 8:59 pm | #

WKW: Since you seem to be at least somewhat chearfull – let me put a damper on it by pointing you to this link from billmon on lovelock.

It would be easy to view this as just another kooky end-of-the-world theory, if it weren't for the history of some of Lovelock's other kooky theories -- like the time in the late '70s when he hypothesized that chlorofluorocarbons wafted high into the stratosphere would eat great big holes in the ozone layer, exposing first the polar regions and then the rest of the earth's surface to increasingly harmful ultraviolet radiation. What a nut.

http://billmon.org/archives/002743.html
edwin | 09.27.06 - 9:12 pm | #

Will the rest of you take dd's pledge???
Bart | 09.27.06 - 10:44 am | #

I might Bart. But you have to understand, though, I want today's America destroyed. It's a rogue state that should be wiped off the surface of the earth. You and the rest of the Republicans are helping destroy America, with a few Democrats thrown in.

My ONLY loyality is to the U.S. Constitution. Not the "government", Not to any elected offical.
Elected officals are just civil servants; the butler or maid so to speak of the house's of government. And most elected servants, if not all, are worthless piles of crap.

My money is on the enemies of America because they have the greatess weapon in the world to take out America. That's the U.S. Government itself; Bush, Cheney, most Republicans in Congress, even a lot of the Democrats, and you Bart, do more to damage the freedom's of America than all the so called terrorist put together.
In fact, The enemy doesn't even have to set foot on American soil as of today to reduce your liberties or slash your freedoms. All they have to do is remind you that they exist and can attack any time they want, AND you Bart, will demand that you have less freedom so your protectors can "stop" an attack that wasn't coming at all. What are you protecting Bart? Just wanting to live? Hell Bart, If that's the case, what was so wrong with the Soviet Union and Communism? National defense was all encompassing to them. Protect the party which would protect the country which would protect your life; freedoms came last, if at all.

Your a loser Bart. You don't understand a thing of what's happening around you; AND that's the whole point: YOU don't get it. But don't feel bad. Neither does most of America.

Never will.

Yes bart. I just may want to fold my arms and watch America finish itself off.

You don't have any objections, do you?
James | 09.27.06 - 9:29 pm | #

That NIE should send a chill down everyones spine. It's a sad day in America. :(
Mike | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 9:34 pm | #

The torture bill is pernicious. That much is true; that much is undeniable. But we should not make the mistake of presuming it more than it is. It is not a Reichstag Fire. It is not. It is pernicious not for its scope, but for its hollowness, its complete legislative emptiness, dressed up in bloody bow. It is pernicious because it is simply a slapdash fiasco of commonplace Republican incompetence paired with commonplace Republican dismissal of law -- it is not going to create more torture than we have now, it simply attempts to legalize it (which it cannot do), give amnesty for it (which will last only as long as the first lawsuit), justify it (which will matter not a bit, in international law) and use it as a "toughness" stick (for election pandering to those sick and hollow voices among us that defend, support, and enjoy the thought that the United States does indeed torture people.) But it does not even solve the problem that the CIA allegedly needed solved -- clear enough rules on torture that their own people do not face war crimes for following Bush orders. They didn't get it. They're still on the hook, because this law cannot grant them closure, there. No law can. [...]

Losing Faith in America

America lies on the operating table this week.
Its chest cut open, its beating heart exposed.

The administration longs to do surgery.
It claims there is something wrong with America;
It claims that the very foundation of our laws:
The right of the accused to face their accusers,
Is not good enough to keep us safe…

(From what?)

To listen to the administration, we are to believe
That America is broken;
That the Constitution won’t let the administration do its job
By keeping it from spying on Americans without oversight.

The administration also claims that
There is something wrong with America’s morality;
That in order to save America we must first lose our soul:
By torturing and abusing fellow human beings.

America lays bloodied this week;
Rushed to the emergency room, laid bare on the operating table.
The administration claims that in order to save America
It must first rip the heart from her.

But no surgery is needed, America is not broken…
A principle was not forgotten, a mechanism was not overlooked.
No, there is nothing wrong with America.
America would be as fit or fitter than ever
If it only had an administration, a Congress
That had not lost faith in America.
.
spek | 09.27.06 - 9:51 pm | #

Leaving aside the big picture and how I feel like jumping out a window...

Of the 34 Democrats voting in favor of the bill, two are currently in close races for the Senate: Rep. Harold Ford in Tennessee and Sherrod Brown in Ohio.

Well, well well. Sherrod Brown, the new pick of Russ Feingold and the Progressive Patriots.

Sherrod Brown
(Pick a Progressive Patriot: Senate)

...He’s earned a reputation as an independent voice for ordinary Ohioans and middle-class families – a man of principle who has made a career of standing up to special interests who have too much influence in Washington...

What does "progressive" mean to Russ Feingold? Fascist torturer? Seems so.

Boy oh boy is this Feingold ever a piece of work. He should return every dime that every person gave to his fund because if there ever was NON- TRUTH in advertising, that was it.

Not to mention, who's his audience? It was his own supporters who picked Sherrod Brown. Who are his "progressive" supporters? AIPEC?

House Democrats acquitted themselves reasonably well on this issue.

Yes, they did, bringing home again the point that the Democratic Senators should not be supported but the House Democrats should.

The 7 Republicans deserve praise and the 34 Democrats deserve all the scorn that can be heaped on them.

Daily Kos better not come out in favor of any Democratic Senators or Representatives who supported this bill if they want to keep even one reader.

Another point would be to ask some of these stealth Governors who are always sneaking into the White House because they don't leave a paper trail how they would vote.

I wish Kos would ask his big pal Gov. Warner to make a statement about this torture bill. But you know, don't hold your breath....

Anyway, the day this passes will be one of the most shameful days in American history. But I guess America has good training, because now that I've found out about how the Japanese were put in camps during the Second World War, it certainly does give one pause....

Pretty soon I'll be morphing into David Byron on my way to becoming Hugo Chavez. My conclusion about everything?

I know nobody will agree with me but that doesn't mean I'm not right. America became the greatest country in the history of the world because of three things: 1) Laissez-faire(ish) capitalism, the only non-authoritarian system, 2) The Constitution and 3) the brilliant inventors and individual American entepreneurs (in the North, not in the South) who contributed so much to the creation of this nation and enabled us all to have the standard of living that we do.

This appears to have been done DESPITE its policiticans, not because of them.

Anyway, those three are long gone. We don't have laissez-faire capitalism, we now have corrupt government sponsored corporatism, we don't have the Constitution anymore, and we have Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lay instead of Thomas Edison and James Hill.

In short: it's Ozymandias time.

..."My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

.
Eyes Wide | 09.27.06 - 10:24 pm | #

---

"What kind of political strategy is it to say: "we agree with the Republicans so vote for us"."

I think the fact that you had to make the gross exaggeration to get your feelings across really makes the point of qualitative difference for me. Politics is almost always the choice between the lesser of evils, my friend. Sorry to break it to you.
shep | 09.27.06 - 10:57 pm | #

As far as convincing you goes – I don't have much interest in that, though the reasons you give are a bit simplistic. I am interested in Anarchism, in part because I have strong leanings in that direction and that is where I come from. I am not an anarchist though. I am a capitalist.
edwin

Chomsky is a libertarian socialist.
The man who first coined the term "libertarian" was an anarchist-communist named DeJacque in 1856. You may think you are a capitalist, but if you are a fan of the free enterprise and free markets, you are really an anti-capitalist like Chomsky. Capitalism stifles and kills small business, free enterprise and the free market. See Wal-Mart.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 11:01 pm | #

Capitalism stifles and kills small business, free enterprise and the free market. See Wal-Mart

Honesty would require borrowing some terminology from the European left of a generation ago, and distinguishing 'Capitalism' from 'actually-existing Captialism'.

The distinction was always ridiculed by those attacking the defenders of Socialism, but it seems equally relevant to the defense of Capitalism, or 'Capitalism'....
Davis X. Machina | Homepage | 09.27.06 - 11:15 pm | #

PS. I know I shouldn't be laughing when people are being tortured but I can't help it because when Mona is funny, she is really, really funny:

But there should be some internal mechanism in people that at least informs them it is politically unwise to carry on like that in public, even if they are total putrid fucks.

Also, I agree with everything James says, and have his same slant on the things he writes about.
Eyes Wide | 09.27.06 - 11:19 pm | #

PS. I think Hunter is full of crap.
Eyes Wide | 09.27.06 - 11:20 pm | #

Honesty would require borrowing some terminology from the European left of a generation ago, and distinguishing 'Capitalism' from 'actually-existing Captialism'.

The distinction was always ridiculed by those attacking the defenders of Socialism, but it seems equally relevant to the defense of Capitalism, or 'Capitalism'....
Davis X. Machina

Perhaps I should be more specific and call it what it is: Corporatization, monopoly or predatory capitalism or anarcho-capitalism. As Orwell observed:

What Hayek] does not see, or will not admit, [is] that a return to "free" competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them. Professor Hayek denies that free capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly, but in practice that is where it has led, and since the vast majority of people would far rather have State regimentation than slumps and unemployment, the drift towards collectivism is bound to continue if popular opinion has any say in the matter.
George Orwell, in a 1944 review of "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek and "The Mirror of the Past" by K. Zilliacus
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 11:29 pm | #

The Green policy of nonviolence is a goal and a principle, but not a death wish. Only in the most ridiculous military-industrial propaganda would Greens dismantle our military beyond our realistic needs for defense.
Colin Lee

Dreamer. I wouldn't expect a Green to go into Afghanistan to track down the Taliban. That began back in 1979. The problem with foreign policy and it's blowback is that it often takes 30 years for it to come back and hit you. A Green foreign policy tomorrow doesn't retro-actively correct past foreign policy blunders. I shudder to think what would happen if people as naive as you got hold of power. You don't know what to do with it. You are almost as bad as the GOP.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 11:37 pm | #

LV: I suppose I have to disagree, edwin. I think you are defining anarchy AS YOU SEE AND UNDERSTAND IT

You are truly clueless. That is precisley how any anarchist worthy of the name should approach it. If you run to the dictionary and read the entry and say, "Aha! I'm an anarchist!" you most certainly are not.

"The will to a system is a lack of integrity."

Friedrich Nietzsche
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 11:42 pm | #

Which is why I am no longer an anarchist. The opportunities for advancement to the top of the field were rather limited.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 11:44 pm | #

Bart: Very likely, the NIE is referring to eco terrorist groups like ELF, which are the top domestic terror groups at this time.

Tucker Carlson disagrees, or you are just a bunch of hypocrites. Take your pick.

Greenpeace files FCC complaint against Tucker Carlson



June 22 From the transcript of MSNBC’s “The Situation with Tucker Carson”

MADDOW: Can I just note that you just made a non-mocking reference to France? That's the first time.

CARLSON: Actually, I am objectively pro-France. You know, France blew up the Rainbow Warrior, that Greenpeace ship in Auckland Harbor in the '80s. And I've always respected them...

MADDOW: That made you like them?

CARLSON: Yes. Yes. It won me over.

MADDOW: Not steak au poivre?

July 15 From the transcript of MSNBC’s “The Situation with Tucker Carson”

CARLSON: Yes, yes. Third, they blew up the Rainbow Warrior. Twenty years ago on Sunday, they blew up the Greenpeace ship, the Rainbow Warrior, in Auckland Harbor. It was a bold and good thing to do.

Carlson Calls Greenpeace

Telephone conversation between Tucker Carlson and Greenpeace Executive Director John Passacantando on 8/03/05 at approximately 4:00 pm to 4:30 pm

TC: Your letter is wrong. It was vandalism, not terrorism… Your point that I support terrorism is wrong. I don’t support terrorism. It was not an act of terrorism, that is an important distinction. Since you are the head of Greenpeace you should do your research. The French Government did not intend to kill anyone, therefore it is not terrorism. This is an important distinction. Vandalizing the ship was impressive on France’s part. I don’t support terror.

JP: Bombing a ship is terrorism. Killing a man is murder.

TC: You should know about vandalism, you guys engage in it all the time.

JP: We are a peaceful organization that engages in no violence to people or property.

TC: Spraying paint on seals is the same kind of vandalism, blocking entrances with your bodies…

JP: So would you call Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi vandals?

TC: I don’t want to make a generalization.

JP: Just answer two questions for me: are you proud of what you said and would you say it again?

TC: I have answered all your questions, unlike you, I am a busy man and have things to do but I know if I hang up you are going to send out a fundraising letter saying that I hung up on you…

JP: Just answer my two questions.

TC: I am not hanging up. I am returning the handset to the cradle…
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 11:47 pm | #

TC: Your letter is wrong. It was vandalism, not terrorism… Your point that I support terrorism is wrong. I don’t support terrorism. It was not an act of terrorism, that is an important distinction. Since you are the head of Greenpeace you should do your research. The French Government did not intend to kill anyone, therefore it is not terrorism. This is an important distinction. Vandalizing the ship was impressive on France’s part. I don’t support terror.

JP: Bombing a ship is terrorism. Killing a man is murder.

ELF has killed no one.
Anonymous | 09.27.06 - 11:49 pm | #

Mona is a libertarian. Different from my kind of libertarianism, or Chomsky's, but neither of us are vulgar libertarians. However, wearing camouflage and carrying a weapon through the woods often isn't as dangerous and destructive as the "vulgar libertarians" who wear suits and do their damage with a rolodex and the stoke of a pen. Grover Norquist comes to mind.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 12:10 am | #

Quite frankly, I'm disturbed at the degree of institutional loyalty shown to the Democratic Party by a number of commenters here.

I know that most of them are not being paid by the Clintonistas. But what I don't know is why they act like they are. What is it about the Democratic Party that deserves loyalty? Is it their support of torture? Is it their support of imperialism and re-colonization? Is it their support of a police state?

I know why the politicos support it; they're getting money. But what's in it for the rest of you?
IngSoc | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 12:17 am | #

The five stages of grief.
1. Denial: It just can't be true that most of the politicians and ordinary citizens in the USA are going to endorse (or at least tolerate) torture. Surely, the voters will rise up in anger, or the politicians will take a principled stand. Because, after all, most of the American people tell pollsters that they think torture is icky.
2. Anger: How dare those politicians and voters crap on the US constitution and the Nuremberg Principles and the Geneva Conventions!
3. Bargaining: Maybe we can get that great orator, Barack Obama, to give a really rousing speech and wake up the nation. Or maybe Harry Reid will pull a sneaky parliamentary maneuver out of his hat.
4. Depression: I'm so sad that most of the politicians, and the masses of ordinary folks, just don't much care about the torture issue, and even worse, most of the so-called "Moral Majority" folks are actually pro-torture, and quite eager to buy torture when it's marketed to them as the answer to our national security problems.
5. Acceptance: We're fucked, tra la la.
sysprog | 09.28.06 - 12:17 am | #

So much for that Republic. The rule of law was on life support and the House just pulled the feeding tube. This is now officially, as Paul Craig Roberts described, a Land of Evil.

This item from a Canadian hit the nail on the head:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/vie...t=98317& start=0

"I am occasionally in a reflective mood, and as I reflect now on America, I must say that over the past six years, bit by bit, I have lost all respect for your nation. And I'm not going to sugar-coat this the way most people do, and say that I have only lost respect for President Bush while still holding the American People in the highest respect; that would be the easy thing to say but it would be a lie. The fact is that the kind of things Bush and his hit-men have gotten away with do not exist in a vacuum. They exist, and they succeed, because the American public allows them to.

As a collective group, despite the existence of some dissenters, you tolerate absolutely breathtaking lies, distortions, and worst of all, a complete and utter evasion of all moral responsibility, both for the actions of the Bush Administration and the actions of The People themselves, who are ultimately responsible for voting him in not once, but twice. The People continue to give him far more support than he deserves, which is why he will never face impeachment while he is in office even though he has violated virtually every aspect of the oath he took when he assumed the presidency. And please note: I use the word "assumed" here in the most perjorative possible sense of the term.

This is not just a "pass the buck" presidency; it is now a "pass the buck" nation. Bush blames Clinton, the Democrats, the UN, the Fates, everything but himself for 9/11. He blames anything but the Republican party's collective refusal to go after Bin Laden proactively: a refusal which dates back to the 1990s when Clinton repeatedly tried to kill Bin Laden and was attacked at every turn for doing so. The People, for their part, disavow any responsibility for the actions of the administration they voted for twice, and continue to give him levels of public support which cannot possibly be reconciled with his actions unless half the country has completely lost any grasp on its moral compass and the other half can't seem to muster any emotion about it other than apathy.

All of these depradations upon individual liberty and human rights over the past half-decade ... they did not happen in a vacuum. They happened because you as a nation allowed them to happen. Even now, after all of the abuses that this administration has inflicted, anyone who is identified as a "leftist" or a "liberal" still risks career suicide if he openly identifies himself as such, so the Democrats scramble to call themselves "centrists" who are only trying to slightly moderate Bush's policies rather than doing the right thing and vehemently opposing them. Even on the seemingly easy issue of torture, the American public is torn and its entire political apparatus, with its hundreds of politicians representing millions of people, cannot even muster a timid slap on the wrist for the ringleader.

And then there's the media, which is often accused of being biased "liberal" but has proven itself anything but. After six years of ceaseless and mindless Republican cheerleading, the FOXNews network finally worked up the courage to ask hard questions of a president ... too bad it was President Clinton, not President Bush. Yes, six years after leaving office, President Clinton is the one facing tough questions on 9/11, not President Bush! If someone had written this up as fiction 20 years ago, nobody would believe it. And yet FOXNews still has millions of loyal viewers, while CNN and all the other big-name networks say nothing. Oh, there is the occasional dissident editorial, but if you turn on the TV and watch the nightly news, FOXNews' ongoing and incredible abuse of the truth is simply a non-story.

How can this not be a leading news story? A New York Times writer gets caught making up stories and it's national news, but a huge national cable news network throws away any pretense of journalistic integrity in order to become a cheerleader for the ruling junta and none of the other media outlets think this is newsworthy? Why not? Why aren't there regular stories on the evening news at CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN about how dishonest FOXNews is? Why isn't FOXNews continually trying to defend its reputation against a withering storm of criticism? This is a network that actually had the unmitigated gall to ask if Bush was the greatest president in the history of the nation; you can almost see Karl Rove's hand up Sean Hannity's back, manipulating him like the soulless puppet that he is.

It is a truly sad statement on your society that the loudest voice against the establishment comes not from the opposition party (a contemptible collection of cowards who could not even support Feingold's move for a censure) or the mainstream media (which ranges between the centre and the far right), but from a comedy show, run by Jon Stewart. There are still dissidents, scattered here and there in a right-wing wasteland, but look at where they have been relegated to: comedy shows and Internet blogs. The much more powerful people in politics and the media who are supposed to look out for your interests have long ago discarded their duty, and nobody seems to care.

The most disturbing thing about all of this is the widespread belief that it will all get better once Bush is removed in 2008. This is simply not the case; if the Democrats win, they will have done so not by espousing clear moral principles and ideals, but by waiting out the president and hoping to win by default. The country still does not tolerate idealism on the left, the way it does on the right. The moment anyone stands up to vehemently oppose right-wing policies, which is the job of the opposition to a right-wing party, he is immediately labeled as an "extremist" and marginalized. And he is marginalized not just by his opponents but also by the media and the public, for without the public's tacit agreement, none of these tactics would work. Take away the Bush Administration and this perverse situation will still exist! Even a Democratic government would still be forced to work within this same structure, where one is considered a liberal "extremist" for advocating national health-care but mainstream right-wingers routinely advocate things like torture while simultaneously accusing homosexuals of harming America's moral fabric. Rod Serling would have been at a loss for words.

But after all of this, it's still not too late. America can and has done great things in the past. America can and has represented great ideals in the past. And it can do this again, if it rediscovers its heart. I hope for the day when I can respect my neighbour again.

Sorry to get up on a soapbox, but it had to be said sooner or later."
Heyward Jablomey | 09.28.06 - 12:17 am | #

Me$$age from Mr. Pure, Russ Feingold:

I am proud that the Progressive Patriots Community has chosen Sherrod Brown as our newest Progressive Patriot. While I know that it was hard to choose between so many great candidates, I'm thrilled to support Sherrod's campaign for the Senate seat in Ohio this November. Can you contribute $100, $50, or even $25 today to help Sherrod Brown take back Ohio's Senate seat for the Democrats?

[Pssst, Russ. In a word, no. I don't support monsters. Get used to it, because you may hear this theme again, closer to "home" next time.]
.
Eyes Wide Open | 09.28.06 - 12:28 am | #

---

A footnote to the above post:

Lest anyone object that the Democrats do not support torture, imperialism/re-colonization, or a police state, let me remind them that the Democrats have tacitly publicly endorsed it by not publicly opposing it.

Another footnote:

If you can come up with something that the Democrats are likely to do in the near future (ca. 2007-2009) that constitutes an about-face on their stance on the issues that I named (and why you think it's likely), I will understand institutional loyalty to the party by those not being paid to be loyal. You don't have to justify yourselves to me - but I'm dying to know.
IngSoc | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 12:29 am | #

I don't know what is more depressing, the virtual certainty of a permanent Republican Government, or reading the posts by by the sincere but/and politically stupid anti-torture writers. I don't use the word "stupid" lightly, but to be more accurate would be profane. I mean, do they revel in losing election after election? Do they sit around, cloaked in their righteousness and depressions, time and time again, muttering "what will it take? why don't they see? don't they know we're so good and they're so bad?" Michael Savage wrote a book, something about Liberalism being a mental disease. I don't know about that, but if insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, then that maggot coined a clever term. Since when were elections won on cognitive, moral, logical issues? The very fact that the left has made torture an election issue guarantees their defeat. The Republicans have framed the issue, the terrorists want to cut your children's heads off. WE want to kill them. THEY want to give them lawyers. Bill Clinton, always the pragmatist, was right on the mark when he said, The American people prefer "strong and wrong" over "weak and right."

I'm a Democrat through and through. I want to take back the Government, Goddamit! There's a time to take off the gloves and dive into the mud pit, and a time to hold scholarly seminars. As the great philosopher, George Steinbrenner, says: "lead, follow, or get the hell out the way!"
NYDamien | 09.28.06 - 1:00 am | #

Hayward Jablomey:

A correct assessment except for the socialist stuff. However, it's interesting that you start with a reference to Paul Craig Roberts.

I started on this blog with frequent references to Paul Craig Roberts and was attacked repeatedly by the "liberals" who frequent this blog.

And yet nobody in America has been so consistently right since 2002 and so passionate in his denouncement of everything you deplore.

He saw it all coming before anyone else and he certainly wasn't shy about writing about it. But this modern day Paul Revere was treated like a relic not even worthy of note.

Interesting that he is a paleo-Republican and not a "liberal" voice on the Internet.

The problem is simple: if one isn't in favor of a redistribution of wealth and a monstrous sized authoritarian government to administer that redistribution, one isn't even given the time of day by so-called liberals.

What's your conclusion about that? Mine is that the so-called present day "liberals" (in contradistinction to classical liberals like Paul Craig Roberts) don't really care about any of the moral issues you raise.

All they want is, through the corrupt special interest groups which they permit and encourage to represent them, the right to take away other people's money and give it to those they consider more worthy.

The fact it never even gets there isn't even important to them: it's the principle of people having the right to keep what they earn that they find so objectionable.

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that once you deny the individual the right to his property it's only a hop, skip and a jump to denying him his freedom and eventually even his life if he gets in your way?

All authoritarians look alike in the dark as far as I am concerned and they're all wearing the same pajamas, statist pajamas, whether they call themselves fascists, communists or socialists.

As for Clinton, to whom you throw a few oblique plaudits as you describe the unraveling of America as happening in the last six years, if you really cared as much about the principles you profess to espouse you'd be utterly horrified that Clinton was the one who started the practice of extraordinary rendition.

That doesn't seem to be your point, however.

I think a good start for everyone would be to get out the archives of Paul Craig Robert's articles and see if there is a single sentence since 2002 that he has written about this incipient dictatorship and the evil that lies beneath it and the shame of the American people for going along with it that any true patriot would disagree with.

If not, why is his name never mentioned around here as a hero?

One reason only: he isn't a socialist.

Follow the money. The principles went out the window long ago when the rights of the individual went on the auction block for the party which bid the most for them.
Eyes Wide Open | 09.28.06 - 1:08 am | #

Follow the money. The principles went out the window long ago when the rights of the individual went on the auction block for the party which bid the most for them.
Eyes Wide Open | 09.28.06 - 1:08 am | #

NYDamien,
Sorry if I missed it in your post, but just for clarification, are you saying the democrats should support torture or they will lose the election? Or are you saying they should support this specific bill or they will lose the election?

I assume you are not recommending the "follow or or get the hell out the way" options. How would you see the democrats leading on this issue? Should they be trying to ratchet up the stakes and demand even harsher techniques?

Also, I am confused by what you mean when you say "profane anti-torture writers." Are you sure you meant to use the word profane?

Apologies for all of the questions and thanks in advance for your reply.
thelastnamechosen | 09.28.06 - 1:42 am | #

It is not usually the case that a large minority of posters here remind me of why I avoid most contemporary left/liberal blogs & website, but the past 2 days have been distressing. Distressingly naive.
The Republicans have been successful at eroding the stature & honor of the nation during the past week. Is this surprising? Does the prevailing bread & circus-based pop-culture make it easier for them? Yessss...
Hayward Jablomey quotes a poster on another chat site who excoriates the U.S. Average Man for enabling Bush, without any reference to the recent election of the Harper (Rightwing Christianist) government up there. Yo, hello, Canada is a parliamentary democracy. Combined, their P.M. and ruling party have powers that Bush, even now, can only soil himself in anticipation of.
Bart/bart, the dishonorbot, is crowing about it all, and the only semi-sane voice is Timberman, because he's pretty near seen it all before.

There is nothing unexpected about what has gone down over this past week. Embracing torture, while calling it "tough interrogation" techniques is 1) damaging to our stature among the nations, 2) inherently reprehensible, 3) a smoke screen issue for the real desire of this administration -- retroactively protecting themselves from future domestic/international law enforcement actions.

A commenter called Lar discussed it, others sometime allude to it, obliquely, but the administration's actions speak more than anyone has -- the Bush administration is pushing this matter for CYA purposes. They are spinning it for anti-terrorism Brownie points, but they are engaged in a rearguard action all.the.way. on this.
Won't some of you among the meme-makers take note of it? Would the rest of you stop gnashing your electronic teeth over it? Your choices are actually clear-cut: fight by engaging in mainstream political action, please yourselves with agitprop demonstrations that no longer get covered by the MSM, or begin liquidating assets, and moving your funds into another currency in non-U.S. banking institutions. Do all 3 if you like.
Misery and disillusionment are part of life. Take your joy out through action.
Sweet dreams all.
Fluffy | 09.28.06 - 2:04 am | #

Heyward - That Canadian has obviously taken too many pucks to the head.
daleyrocks | 09.28.06 - 2:29 am | #

Glenn - My email is screwed so I'm posting this here, otherwise I would have emailed it .

It sure would be nice, if you guys would start linking this site :
http://thank-you-keith-olbermann.blo...
There's no ads on it , I'm not  trying to promote myself, I don't work for GE/MSNBC or any of their contractors. I'm not being paid to do it .
It's not a fan site that talks about his ties .
It's just a PUBLIC place where people can say thanks.

One man working for one of the largest corporations in the world, stands up a says no more.
We all know that story line, we've been witness to it for some time now.
Here's another story.
There's a site called the Olbermann Watch. It's the largest { Technorati  ranked by links } Olbermann site on the web ---- 170
http://www.technorati.com/...
Michelle Malkin uses it as a reference book.
My guess is that some money bags pays for this guy named " Dollar" to work the place.?Thank You Keith Olbermann is 2 weeks old and has 13 links, and 3,338 hits as of tonight.
See where I'm going with this ?   It sure would be nice to knock that guy off that perch, he uses it like a club. So even if you have just a small corner of the web where you and your friends gather, give TYKO a link, and help me replace a site that hates Olbermann with one that says Thank You.
COLORADO BOB | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 2:35 am | #

Mr.Chosen......
"Profane" referred to the more appropriate words available to express my feelings regarding the "anti-torture" writers. Please understand, I'm on your side, but having been the chief negotiator for a large corporation for many years, there's a big difference between winning ideas, and winning battles. The torture issue is a loser for us. My suggestion is, just shut the F up. By all means, vote your conscience, but don't run to the microphones screaming morality lectures. The voters aren't buying it.

To clarify my position, I would like to add, that 40 days from now may be the last chance our fledgling, wavering Democracy has to continue it's quest so ably elucidated by Jefferson. The term "fascism" may be innapropriately used most of the time, but not now. I'm a Russina Jew, born in Stalingrad at the time of "The Siege," now a loving and grateful citizen of America, and who understands "The Look." The German Command had it, so do those at the controls in Washington today. When AG Gonzales stated that the President, "in a time of war" did not have to abide, even to a ruling by the Supreme Court, I heard the last Gulag door clang shut.

Finally, having watched the steady, relentless, methodical dismantling of our constitutional way of life, ( not to be redundant, but only a naieve fool could be blind to the analogy) winning the election doesn't necessarily mean they will surrender power. Gonzales's proclamation, Alito's addition, "Commander in Chief," "Time of War"...............
NYDamien | 09.28.06 - 2:35 am | #

sysprog: WT, the Anarchism post was by me.

I might have known. :-) Why do I feel nostaligic about anarcho-syndicalists, given how much water has gone under the bridge since the last of them were executed, driven into exile, turned into non-persons?

Just because. They defended people, not things. They were brave but doomed. They knew it and soldiered on anyway. They've been pissed on by history, and by generations of people not fit to shine their shoes.

Post-industrial capitalism is proud of the wealth it claims, with some justice, to have generated for all. It also pretends that it has no enemies anywhere except for a lunatic fringe.

I'm sorry, but it isn't nostalgia for past defenders of the faith alone which persuades me to say that even the most modern, most refined form of capitalism has much to answer for, and that it will be called some day to answer for it, even if the judgment won't take place under the red and black.
William Timberman | 09.28.06 - 2:45 am | #

A commenter called Lar discussed it, others sometime allude to it, obliquely, but the administration's actions speak more than anyone has -- the Bush administration is pushing this matter for CYA purposes. They are spinning it for anti-terrorism Brownie points, but they are engaged in a rearguard action all.the.way. on this.

That's what I think too. I meant to write about it, because it appears obvious but hasn't received all that much emphasis, so I am glad fluffy describes it so well.

Criminals covering up their tracks to avoid apprehension and punishment. That's what it really is.

I discovered someone really smart. His name is Robert Link and he wrote some comments on Balkinization. To see an example of someone actually taking action in the right direction,
visit his blog Repeal-amuf.org.

This is the writing of one of those rare, truly first rate minds and one whose thrust is to take action rather than merely to lament.

One point: I am glad Mr. Link says "we, as a nation" because if he had said just "we" I would have taken exception.

I am not sure what happened to the rest of the nation, but about one hour after the collapse of the second building, I had already started to notice that something very strange was going on.

Apparently nobody else noticed then and I really can't understand that. Because the story the press was telling was, in a word, unbelievable. It simply didn't add up.

Anyway, here's Mr. Link's mission and I urge all to visit his site:

Repeal AUMF
Seven days after the World Trade Center buildings came down we, as a nation, made a terrible mistake. We were scared, literally in shock after a week of mind-numbing visual bombardment from media uniquely efficacious compared with any other historical period. We all had seen the towers come down, again and again and again. And on September 18 we acted. We acted in fear, in folly, in shock. We, as a nation, in the form of our elected representatives in Congress passed the Joint Authorization for the Use of Military Force, best known simply as AUMF. In many ways this legislation gave substance to the then-new phrase, "War on Terror."

Passage of AUMF was a mistake. It is time we fixed that mistake.
.
Eyes Wide Open | 09.28.06 - 3:14 am | #

IMO the "leftist" comment is taking a swipe at Chavez. They are out to demonize him as well.
padcrasher | 09.28.06 - 3:15 am | #

EWO - - I disagree with Paul Craig Roberts if he thinks the USA has suddenly become a "land of evil."

Our twenty dollar bills honor Andrew Jackson, an unapologetic mass murderer, though a piker by modern standards.

We killed hundred of thousands of so-called "bandits" in the Philippines war, 1898-1913. Nowadays we would label them not as "bandits" but as "illegal combatants", and most of them were killed not in battle but in war crimes. And we censor those facts, omitting them from grade school history texts.

Evil is nothing new, and Ronald Reagan, contrary to Paul Craig Roberts' distorted history, was almost as bad as GWB.
sysprog | 09.28.06 - 3:22 am | #

Has anyone else noticed that House Bill Hr6166 is missing the word "suspect"?

No where to be found.

Interesting.
James | 09.28.06 - 3:30 am | #

I'm sorry, but it isn't nostalgia for past defenders of the faith alone which persuades me to say that even the most modern, most refined form of capitalism has much to answer for...

My dear WT, sometimes you are so frustrating because other times you are so smart.

What do you mean "Even the most modern, most refined form of capitalism has much to answer for..."?

You call this capitalism? Why? It has very little do with capitalism. If you want to talk about capitalism let's talk about capitalism, not about a statist, authoritarian mixed-economy.

The early days of this country came close to laissez-faire capitalism so if you want to talk about those days in terms of the flourishing of industry, the unfettered atmosphere in which true innovation and invention were possible and the magnificent, concommitant improvements in the human condition, we can do so.

But please, don't present a system characterized by cronyism and government enabled non-meritricious, corrupt, corporatist monopolies and use it to condemn laissez-faire capitalism.

Laissez-faire means the government should keep its mitts off. Does this appear to be a society in which the government keeps its mitts off?

I'm sure your eyesight is better than that.

Next case: does anyone remember the novels of Henry James which had a theme of how innocent, trusting and naive Americans were as opposed to Europeans?

That innocence has its virtues but alas, it appears it's also been the Achilles Heel of most Americans.

Try this on for size:

Gullible Americans by Paul Craig Roberts

I was in China when a July Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when Bush invaded that country and that 64 percent of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links with al-Qaida.

The Chinese leaders and intellectuals with whom I was meeting were incredulous. How could a majority of the population in an allegedly free country with an allegedly free press be so totally misinformed?

The only answer I could give the Chinese is that Americans would have been the perfect population for Mao and the Gang of Four, because Americans believe anything their government tells them.

Americans never check any facts. Who do you know, for example, who has even read the report of the 9-11 commission, much less checked the alleged facts reported in that document. I can answer for you. You don't know anyone who has read the report or checked the facts.

The two co-chairmen of the 9-11 commission report, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, have just released a new book, "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9-11 Commission." Kean and Hamilton reveal that the commission suppressed the fact that Muslim ire toward the United States is due to U.S. support for Israel's persecution and dispossession of the Palestinians, not to our "freedom and democracy," as Bush propagandistically claims. Kean and Hamilton also reveal that the U.S. military committed perjury and lied about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners. The commission even debated referring the military's lies to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. Why should we assume that these admissions are the only cover-ups and lies in the 9-11 commission report?

How do you know that 9-11 was a Muslim terrorist plot? How do you know that three World Trade Center buildings collapsed because two were hit by airliners? You only "know" because the government gave you the explanation of what you saw on TV. (Did you even know that three WTC buildings collapsed?)

I still remember the enlightenment I experienced as a student in Russian studies when I learned that the Czarist secret police would set off bombs and then blame those whom they wanted to arrest.

When Hitler seized dictatorial power in 1933, he told the Germans that his new powers were made necessary by a communist terrorist attack on the Reichstag. When Hitler started World War II by invading Poland, he told the Germans that Poland had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany.

Governments lie all the time -- especially governments staffed by neoconservatives whose intellectual godfather, Leo Strauss, taught them that it is permissible to deceive the public in order to achieve their agenda.

Some readers will write to me to say that they saw a TV documentary or read a magazine article verifying the government's explanation of 9-11. But, of course, these Americans did not check the facts, either - and neither did the people who made the documentary and wrote the magazine article....

Eyes Wide Open | 09.28.06 - 3:56 am | #

---

Here's that broken link, sorry it's been along night.

http://thank-you-keith-olbermann...n.blogspot.com/
COLORADO BOB | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 3:59 am | #

NYDamien,
Were you ever a politician? Not only did you avoid every question I asked, but I feel like I know even less after your second post. I seriously doubt we are on the same side.

Everyone has their own way and you, of course, are welcome to follow you own advice.

For myself, I will not get back in line.
--[tt]
thelastnamechosen | 09.28.06 - 4:13 am | #

Follow the money. The principles went out the window long ago when the rights of the individual went on the auction block for the party which bid the most for them.
Eyes Wide Open

What an ultra-maroon!

Idealists are the most dangerous people on the planet.
Bugs Bunny | 09.28.06 - 4:14 am | #

EWO - - I disagree with Paul Craig Roberts if he thinks the USA has suddenly become a "land of evil."

PCR is a racist paleocon who posts at VDARE.

http://www.vdare.com/

A few years ago it was this:

The Democratic Nazi Party
by Paul Craig Roberts



http://www.lewrockwell.com/rober...s/ roberts2.html


EWO is an ultra-maroon. Think Elmer Fuddpucker.
Bugs Bunny | 09.28.06 - 4:18 am | #

Talk about infuriating, here's just one of the cases against the Democrats.

Btw, I noticed most of these things myself and I have written about them (to no applause here) and each time I did one of those dorita mentally challenged multiple personalities from Daily Kos or Fire Dog Lake popped right over here to try to bitch slap me.

I never said I knew anything about politics, but I did say my eyes were wide open and these things are pretty obvious to anyone who is looking at things with an open mind. But maybe you'll believe someone like Joe Allen who is a socialist?

The Antiwar Struggle, UFPJ and the Democrats.

...Meanwhile, Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), one of the three Democrats to vote for the resolution for immediate withdrawal, was defeated in the recent Democratic primaries by Hank Johnson, a virtual unknown. Johnson was supported by a coalition of conservative Democrats like former Georgia Gov. Roy and prominent Republicans like Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus.
* * *

Contrast this Democratic opposition to McKinney with the lavish support--from the likes of Bill Clinton and rising liberal star Sen. Barack Obama--for Bush clone Sen. Joe Lieberman in his failed campaign to win the Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut.

What sense does it make for antiwar activists to support a party that worked to defeat one of tiny number of opponents of the Iraq War among its ranks?

The antiwar movement in the United States needs to oppose the various phony "exit strategies" put forward by the Democratic Party. Some are just election-year posturing to fool voters disgusted by Bush and Rumsfeld, while others--for example, Rep. John Murtha's "redeployment" plan--are schemes for continuing the war on Iraq from outside its borders, most likely by intensified bombing.

The demand for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan is the only principled and practical position that the antiwar movement can take to end the misery brought to the region by the United States. Support for the Democratic Party is pulling antiwar organizations further from this principled position--and must be rejected.....

I know that most of them are not being paid by the Clintonistas. But what I don't know is why they act like they are. What is it about the Democratic Party that deserves loyalty? Is it their support of torture? Is it their support of imperialism and re-colonization? Is it their support of a police state?

I know why the politicos support it; they're getting money. But what's in it for the rest of you?
IngSoc

The best chance of defeating the pukes and righting the ship of state before it's too late.
JT Davis | 09.28.06 - 4:23 am | #

Here is your new crop of violent right wing, Christian identity fundamentalist militia in training.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c...h? v=co1_9lR9EpM

http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com/
JT Davis | 09.28.06 - 4:27 am | #

For fluffy:

Retroactive Laws Invoked to Protect Administration Officials from War Crimes Prosecution by Paul Craig Roberts

The neoconized Bush regime invented the war on terror, lost it, and now is bringing terror home to the American people.
.
Eyes Wide Open | 09.28.06 - 4:29 am | #

I am really learning even when the hoperboles get 'out of hand.'

I will not fight over the scraps of left-over potatoe peels comming from bart, rove, cond's, rock pebbles tossed in the river stream, or Gitmo's etcetera.

I'm eating slowly and savoring every morsel of true-'isms'....macticating...chew, chew, choo, choo, and 'whisteling' a happy tune each time I 'hear' the Train of Truth barreling down the tracks.

I get exceeding glad and believe the criminal reign will be deposed. Stop the grave-evil anyway we can...hop in a grave? Sit on the tracks. Right/Left? Be disobedient. Remain civil. We in the same-same dammnit Rocking Boat. Simple as that.
brotherbruz | 09.28.06 - 6:48 am | #

Hey Hayward,

So well said. You would be considered a prophet in Trafalgar Square. Any time you want to speak from a Canadian soapbox, American's welcome your 'voice.'

I've friends in Canada. Pick away at America like that any day...we need it...

You can pick your friends but you should not try to pick our friends nose? You say the truth very politely.

Thanks. We need our friends from the North's help.
brotherbruz | 09.28.06 - 7:27 am | #

in regards to your comment on democrats in close races who voted for the bill, rep bean ( dino IL 08 ) cemented by ire by voting for it
tofubo | 09.28.06 - 7:29 am | #

cemented my ire
tofubo | 09.28.06 - 7:30 am | #

sorry. spelled a word rong again. "masticate" as in chewing oatmeal 50 to 60 times with bytes over and over again untill the verbal meal reaches a soft consistency...as in chew our oatmeal well? Feel our oats...as how happy the horse trots anticipating to eat familiar grain again, and trots fast and happy like, the closer it gets to the home barn?
brotherbruz | 09.28.06 - 7:37 am | #

EWO:

In my opinion, laissez faire capitalism never existed but in text-books, or in the dreams of theorists. It's not different from Marxism in that respect.

What I meant was this: capitalism as it has existed, and does exist, is the most efficient engine for wealth creation which has ever been devised, but its record or wealth distribution is abysmal.

Consider the spectacular misallocations of capital which it permits. To give you just two examples which I've seen with my own eyes: 50,000 (yes, 50,000) square foot spec. houses built on the tops of hills in Southern California, a huge, well-equipped hospital built by a medical school for the patients of its professors standing completely empty, while two blocks down the street, the county general is letting poor people die in the emergency room driveway. Do I need even to mention B-2 bombers, or nuclear aircraft carriers?

Then, of course, there's the fact that people with the talent to lead huge business enterprises are not particularly interested in, or talented at, funding a just society. This has led to enormous misery, as well as to enormous social imbalances which were entirely unnecessary.

What to do, what to do, eh? What we can't do is pretend that none of this is important, or that thinking about it will kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Otherwise, we'll inevitably get a lot more of what we've got, some of which even a libertarian has to despise. Consider some of your own posts here, for example....
William Timberman | 09.28.06 - 9:32 am | #

For me, the most interesting thing about the two-party system in the US is how conveniently it negates any moral responsibility on the part of the individual citizen. Americans didn’t just vote to enshrine torture as a national policy – the Republicans did. It’s not my place to do anything about this wholesale abrogation of everything the Constitution stands for – that’s the Democrats’ job.

There are no Republicans responsible for this tragedy, no Democrats. Just us.
Ames | 09.28.06 - 9:54 am | #

NYDamien, I'll tell you what's politically stupid: Thinking that you can somehow salvage something from our dying Republic (they'll pull the feeding tube sometime today) once the Torture Act passes. It's as pointless as trying to salvage the tires from the Ryder truck Timothy McVeigh used in Oklahoma City. By this time tomorrow, our Republic is dead forever and won't come back short of a revolution or civil war, which aren't going to happen. It was fun while it lasted though, wasn't it?

For the record, I am NOT one of those who votes Nader and torches Starbucks or any of that other far Left bullshit. If Paul Craig Roberts is a racist, then MORE shame on the Democrats for ceding the table to a bigot and leaving him as the only uncompromising voice against torture(no weasel words from him). At least he speaks out. Where the fuck is Obama?
Heyward Jablomey | 09.28.06 - 10:38 am | #

Dorita --

You are truly clueless. That is precisley how any anarchist worthy of the name should approach it. If you run to the dictionary and read the entry and say, "Aha! I'm an anarchist!" you most certainly are not.

Actually, Dorita, if I were "totally clueless" then you would be without a brain. Mainly because you're so fucking wrong about so fucking many things. Including the above.

You didn't prove that I was clueless. Instead you concluded boldly (with ironic cowardly hiding behind "Anonymous") that I am clueless, yet make assertions that do not demonstrate my cluelessness. I know what Fred Nietzsche said. He never said anything that proves I'm clueless.

And I'd suggest that you try to read up on what is anarchy, Dorita. Because as your posts thus far demonstrate, you are wrong in your assumptions on what it is. Try comparing them to what I've said in response to edwin. There you will find your errors and bad conclusions. There you will find your shame, and perhaps in that course, your redemption.
liquified viscera | 09.28.06 - 12:21 pm | #

Dorita --

EWO is an ultra-maroon. Think Elmer Fuddpucker.

You should take your pathetically catty, bitch-in-heat attempts at having a clawing war with EWO to some place where you can conduct that preening posturing posting of pathetic pale pedantry in a mirror to admire yourself like a female Narcissus.
liquified viscera | 09.28.06 - 12:27 pm | #

WT --

What I meant was this: capitalism as it has existed, and does exist, is the most efficient engine for wealth creation which has ever been devised, but its record or wealth distribution is abysmal.

Very well said, and absolutely true. The problem is its fundamental premise -- namely, that those who generate wealth are the only ones entitled to it. And that is a problem because it assumes that everyone aspires to fiscal and material wealth, and that fiscal and material wealth are the only values worth pursuing in the human experience called "life."

Basically, laissez-faire capitalism is an apology for material greed. Nothing more and maybe even a lot less.
liquified viscera | 09.28.06 - 12:31 pm | #

LV:

Well said.
William Timberman | 09.28.06 - 1:05 pm | #

Mr. Jablomey............

I still have hope. As Billy Cyrytal said in "Princess Bride," "Dead is dead, almost dead means a little bit alive." If we can regain power, it will take most of two terms to completely reverse the travesty of the Bush years. But if we continue on the present path of "standing on principle" while the Reichstag Republicans march on relentlesly, ruthlesly on the "we're strong on terrorism" bullshit, we truly are doomed. The sad reality is that the American public IS stupid. Poll after poll shows they would rescind the bill of rights in a flash. We can pontificate all we want, but unless we gain political power we are doomed to continuing this conversation in the special "camps" I'm sure they have have ready for us......for national security purposes. I would tell them anything they want to hear, "Jesus is Lord," "abortion is murder," "evolution is only a theory," etc, etc, etc. After we win, we just say, "so, we lied." The Repubs do it year after after, and the public eats it up. Guess who's in the White House, Congress, and the Court. Unless we win, we're dead.
NYDamien | 09.28.06 - 2:15 pm | #