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 |