HaloScan.com - Comments

Glenn,

Although I expect it to fail, having the habeas amendment pass would at least expedite the potential process for the Supreme Court to strike this abomination of anti-constitutional law down. Isn't it important that lower courts at least have the ability to hear habeas petitions, if for no other reason than to establish justiciability? It would be precedent-setting indeed if the Court accepted essentially original jurisdiction on habeas petitions if no other courts are willing to grant them based on the law's passing.
Ron | 09.28.06 - 12:00 pm | #

I myself think this bill is much more than another pebble on the mountain. Is it written in such a way as to allow the Supreme Court to cherry pick it -- invalidate some of its atrocities and keep others? Democrats simply must use its passage to bludgeon the opposition. Otherwise, the public is being trained to accept it as no big deal and that would be an even more tragic development. Lose the vote or not, we have to make the passage (or the attempt) a major, major scandal for the Republicans. The fact is, the average Joe does not in the least understand what's happening. The Dems should filibuster just for the education value. They should reach out to republicans on the issue, saying whatever our differences we all believe in freedom. And they need short, sweet, pwerful ways to explain.
Cheryl Mendelson | 09.28.06 - 12:06 pm | #

I keep harping on this one phrase because I think it's the most dangerous portion of the whole package. "who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States"

There is a reason that Treason was specifically defined in the constitution and not simply left to the legislature to hash out.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

But this bill, allows anyone to be incarcerated indefinitely and subject to abusive interrogation based on one man's interpretation of the word "hostilities".

We've all heard it said that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" but insofar as our Constitution is our nation (as evidenced by the fact that it's what office-holders and the military swear allegiance to) then our nation is indeed committing suicide.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 12:14 pm | #

Welcome to the new and improved version of Pinochet's Chile.
Kevin | 09.28.06 - 12:17 pm | #

Oh my god Glenn, you mean they can throw me in a military prison, anywhere, anytime, anyplace? My gosh this is horrible. And they can torture me? My gosh we have to let someone know. That is devastating.

This is what passes for sarcastic humor among the trolls of the right. Coward.
Rob McMillin | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 12:19 pm | #

How can the ship have sailed unless Harry Reid wants it to. He could delay this until after the election. He just doesn't care or he's a terrible cynic.

Either way Reid should be gone.

Go to his web site and email a demand for his resignation as minority leader.
Tom Coffin | 09.28.06 - 12:20 pm | #

I'm sure Steve Davis will come along any moment now and rebuke us all for being so damned shrill, and that this seeming Democrat passivity is just part of their genius plan for killing the bill.

And we'll be getting that Phase II investigation any day now, right Steve?
r€nato | 09.28.06 - 12:20 pm | #

Oh my god Glenn, you mean they can throw me in a military prison, anywhere, anytime, anyplace? My gosh this is horrible. And they can torture me? My gosh we have to let someone know. That is devastating.

That is so clever and sophisticatd of you to take this tone, except for the fact that (a) many of the most exreme powers are the by-product of changes made to the bill over the last several days and (b) have been discussed barely at all. Additionlly, the scope of the powers the President has with regard to U.S. citizens is constitutionally suspect and not nearly as simple or clear as your glib comment would suggest. But at least you got to feel smart in leaving the comment, and that's what really matters.
Glenn Greenwald | 09.28.06 - 12:20 pm | #

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller
david | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 12:21 pm | #

Oh my god Glenn, you mean they can throw me in a military prison, anywhere, anytime, anyplace? My gosh this is horrible. And they can torture me? My gosh we have to let someone know. That is devastating.

Well, if we're going to have a legalized police state, I look forward to President Hillary Rodham Clinton throwing your habeas corpus-less ass in prison indefinitely. I think you might change your sarcastic tune when that happens.
r€nato | 09.28.06 - 12:22 pm | #

Glenn - Absolutely spot on about ordinary people not having a fucking clue just how dangerous this bill is to our country. How could they know when they haven't been informed just what is at stake?

My attempts to explain this to my neighbors were met with loud exclamations of disbelief that such a thing would ever be done in this country. I'm sure they were thinking that I've gone off the deep end to tell them such crazy things. ::sigh::
Auntie Roo | 09.28.06 - 12:22 pm | #

Paul Dirks:

There is a reason that Treason was specifically defined in the constitution and not simply left to the legislature to hash out.

And for exactly the same reason the Constitution sets the standard of proof for treason higher than other crimes, instead of lower.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 12:23 pm | #

why won't this be ruled unconstitutional when it's inevitably challenged in the courts?

Mainly because the bill goes out of its way to assert that the courts have no jurisdiction.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 12:23 pm | #

Here is the most relevant historical parallel: The Enabling Act of 1933.

It is starting to look like we are doomed to repeat it.
Blue Meme | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 12:24 pm | #

Specter's amendment just failed. Roll call not available yet.
ej | 09.28.06 - 12:26 pm | #

But that's a constitutional question, Paul. The Supreme Court won't just take Congress's word on what its jurisdiction is.
sniflheim | 09.28.06 - 12:26 pm | #

Is even Russ Feingold keeping quiet on this? Or is the "liberal" media just still ignoring him.
Lodge | 09.28.06 - 12:26 pm | #

Question from a non-lawyer--can a bill assert its way out of the courts? Or will that spark a nasty "the courts say no, the executive says yes" showdown?

To the untrained eye, this looks like a legal version of Russell's paradox.
Llelldorin | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 12:31 pm | #

this from the Raw Story link...

…(N)o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, … including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.

No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

In order for the Supreme Court to get to opine on this law, someone with standing has to get a case started. The law is designed to prevent that from happening.

I'd love for an actual lawyer to comment on this point, I could be completely wrong...
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 12:32 pm | #

Is even Russ Feingold keeping quiet on this? Or is the "liberal" media just still ignoring him.
Lodge | 09.28.06 - 12:26 p.m.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~fein...09/ 20060928.htm

An excerpt:

Mr. President, in sum, this legislation is very troubling and in many respects legally suspect. I fear the end result of this legislation will only be more delay. It will surely be subject to further legal challenge, and may squander another four or five years while cases work their way through the courts again.

We can and must fight terrorism aggressively without compromising fundamental American values. We must remember what the Army Judge Advocate General told me at a Judiciary Committee hearing this summer: that the United States should set an example for the world, and that we must carefully consider the effect on the way our own soldiers will be treated.

Mr. President, in closing let me do something I don’t do very often – and that is quote John Ashcroft. According to the New York Times, at a private meeting of high-level officials in 2003 about the military commission structure, then-Attorney General Ashcroft said: “Timothy McVeigh was one of the worst killers in U.S. history. But at least we had fair procedures for him.” How sad that this Congress would seek to pass legislation about which the same cannot be said.
Ames | 09.28.06 - 12:33 pm | #

Pardon my ignorance but this is being rushed through Congress because the Supreme Court ruled against the administration in Hamdan; why won't this be ruled unconstitutional when it's inevitably challenged in the courts?

Saying that Hamdan is a ruling "against the Administration" is a bit optimistic and perhaps disingenuous. The US Supremes haven't yet ruled directly against the Bush/Cheney Admin. They have uttered dicta that can be generously interpreted as such, but I would hesitate to say that the US Supremes have rendered any sort of decision that undercuts the absolute totalitarian authoritarian power of the Bush/Cheney Admin. And I would wager that they never will, at least not in the next 5 years or so.
liquified viscera | 09.28.06 - 12:35 pm | #

Yet another excellent post. To me the question is: will this be like the Sedition Act or Melos? The United States ultimately did recover the true nature of our democracy after the shameful Sedition Act. Ancient Athens never did recover from the stain of the massacre at Melos. Will this be a permanent change to America's character or can we and will we reverse it?
crust | 09.28.06 - 12:36 pm | #

Is even Russ Feingold keeping quiet on this? Or is the "liberal" media just still ignoring him.

Fuck Russ Feingold. He's a pussy, like the rest of the sycophantic Dems who are busy strapping on the kneepads and tying on the bib in eager anticipation of fellating Dubya Busy.
liquified viscera | 09.28.06 - 12:37 pm | #

I despair.

What, what do we do? Calling our Senators [good luck with mine: Coburn & Inhofe], writing letters, trying to publicize this travesty, gets us nothing. What are we to do?
Klio | 09.28.06 - 12:37 pm | #

Thanks, Ames. I'm in the Persian Gulf (actually the "Arabian" Gulf, in the country I'm in) and have somewhat limited access.

I'm not in Iraq, nor in the miltary, by the way. Just someone who decided to go where American voters, by returning big oil to the White House in 2004, decided to send their money.
Lodge | 09.28.06 - 12:38 pm | #

Glenn--

Christy Hardin at FDL raises a couple of points worth discussing.

First, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it."

She says that this forbids suspension of habeas corpus "except under very specific and highly limited circumstances," which does not apply in this case. So what Constitutional leg does this law stand on?

Does it mean that when the law is likely to be struck down as unconstitutional, will this have been nothing more than a big re-election stunt to help the GOP?

2) Christy also refers to Ex Parte Milligan, which decided that suspension of the privilege of the writ did not suspend the writ itself. She asks a good question:

how, exactly, does Huckleberry Graham and John McCain and John Warner and the whole of the Bush Administration think that the writ of habeas corpus, a history of legal precedents in civilian and military courts, and the rule of law can just be thrown out the window for these detainees without the Supreme Court and other courts taking a peek at the constitutionality — or lack thereof — of this proposed mess of a law?

There are substantial questions of contitutionality that are being disregarded in the rush to enact an ill-advised law.
Corinne | 09.28.06 - 12:38 pm | #

For years the NRA warned of this scenario, "It can happen here!"
Their main reason for supporting the 2nd amendment was that 'the people' need their weapons to defend their homes against intruders as well as from a tyrannical government.

Where are they now? Have you heard anything from one of the most powerful lobbies in this country? Maybe we have heard. Their silence speaks volumes.
They must believe that good Americans will be treated differently than bad Americans.
nuf said | 09.28.06 - 12:39 pm | #

Russ Feingold --

We can and must fight terrorism aggressively without compromising fundamental American values.

Translation: I am a stooge. I fell for the "fear them raghead terrrrrissss" crap that Dubya Bush sold us. And I cannot back away from, nor apologize for, my stoogedom. I must continue on in my pathetic sycophancy. But trust me on this, I can make equivocating speeches that will pacify the pollyanna optimists among the willfully blind Dem lovers in the American populace.
liquified viscera | 09.28.06 - 12:39 pm | #

EJ - How many Democrats voted against the Specter amendment?
Glenn Greenwald | 09.28.06 - 12:39 pm | #

Paul Dirks:
"who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States"
Combine that with this: "Anti-U.S. 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. “
And yes, this is important now that the NIE summary report defined “anti-globalization” as “radical ideologies” and thus attacks against “US interests”. Globalization of course being the word used to define all that is of interest to the corporate/capital world.
Wake up people, this is not about protecting us from the bad radical Muslim. This is about corporate America getting to use all of the US policing power. It is about giving our corporations an edge in globalization.
Divorced one like Bush | 09.28.06 - 12:41 pm | #

The vote on the Specter bill -- to add a right of habeas corpus -- failed 51-48.
Glenn Greenwald | 09.28.06 - 12:41 pm | #

As John Tester said:

"With things like the Patriot Act," Tester said, "We'd damn well better keep our guns."
adrian | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 12:42 pm | #

Corinne --

So what Constitutional leg does this law stand on?

Corinne, you mistakenly assume that Constitutionality is a concern for those writing legislation, and for the POTUS who intends to sign that legislation into law.

Have you been paying attention? The Constititution has become toilet paper for the Congress and President to use in wiping their diarrheic asses.
liquified viscera | 09.28.06 - 12:43 pm | #

It will not be long before persons start to dissappear within the United States now that the Spector Amendment has been defeated. It may be that the votes today will ultimately result in a second civil war in the US when the people start to reassert their basic values as a free people. This process will take years, but as the infrastructure of tyranny and as the elections of 2008 fails, the die is now cast today as the protections against arbitrary government action is stripped away.

Within twenty years, America will be unrecognizable as a free society.
Nobody | 09.28.06 - 12:43 pm | #

Nobody | 09.28.06 - 12:43 pm | #

I agree, Nobody. As much as I hate to acknowledge that it's what the future holds, I agree.
liquified viscera | 09.28.06 - 12:45 pm | #

Do I not recall that the Hamdi decision prevented detention indefinitely (of certain persons under certain circs) partly on the grounds that Congress had not authorized it? At least I remember thinking at the time that the decision sounded like an invitation to Congress to go ahead and authorize it. And O'Connor is gone now.
Cheryl Mendelson | 09.28.06 - 12:46 pm | #

--"Pardon my ignorance but this is being rushed through Congress because the Supreme Court ruled against the administration in Hamdan; why won't this be ruled unconstitutional when it's inevitably challenged in the courts?"

Manriquez,
There's a danger that it won't be ruled unconstitutional for the same reason that Congress is not voting against it. Read this Hullabaloo post. He nails the real dynamic here. An excerpt:

"Since the day after the 2000 election, Bush and his goons have been playing chicken with the very structure of the United States Government, double-daring anyone to try...he will force the private Constitutional crisis into the open. And there is no guarantee that Bush will lose.

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

Of course, all of Congress should vote against the bill anyway. But they won't. And to themselves, they will justify the vote as saying they made a hard choice but made the best one they could for their country."
forestwalker | 09.28.06 - 12:47 pm | #

Ok, so if this is a done deal, what can we do to get rid of it after the Democrats come back to power?
Rachelle Brown | 09.28.06 - 12:49 pm | #

geez lv, there's lots of Dem senators who've been spineless but Feingold???? C'mon. He was the sole Senate vote against the "Patriot" Act. He voted against the Iraq War uathorization.
r€nato | 09.28.06 - 12:47 pm |

Yes. And he spoke eloquently and forcefully against both and against much more. He is principled, and he is also reasonable, much more so than I, with my anger and disgust at what our country has let itself become, could ever be. And you, too, lv.
Lodge | 09.28.06 - 12:52 pm | #

But in another sense, they don't matter, because our Government is controlled by people and their followers who literally don't understand and, worse, simply [don't] believe in the defining values and principles of America.

It's actually worse than that still. It's clear that Graham, McCain and Warner understand and profess to believe in these principles.

When I went to visit my federal elected officials to discuss the need to stop the authoritarian takeover by this president, I made a point of saying "Look, Senator Clinton knows, Senator Spector knows, Senator Frist knows--hell, even you and I know--that permitting the president to be above the law flies completely in the face of what this country stands for."

It's not that they don't know, don't understand. It's that they're craven and, in the end, don't care to risk their precious seats of privilege. They're willing to strip themselves of their power in order to continue retaining their privilege.

Our bellwether for that is Senator Lieberman. Let's see whether he is caucusing with the Democrats today.
JayAckroyd | 09.28.06 - 12:52 pm | #

That's it. If the Dems don't filibuster this atrocity, I'm voting for the most right-wing nutcase GOP candidate in every election because there seems to be no difference - the Dems roll over and play dead. At least once there are no more Dems in office the Dems can't be blamed for anything the GOP does.
Disgusted Beyond Belief | 09.28.06 - 12:53 pm | #

As far as I am concerned, the fact that the Senate Democrats did not even attampt to kill this bill is reason enough not to label the Party truly spineless and not worthy of controlling Congress.

I would not vote for any politician who supported this bill, and Democrats who do certainly deserve to lose their seats. There MUST be a price for this treason.

Our constitutional rights are something on which true Americans cannot make compromises. Democrats deserve to lose for this.
Matt | 09.28.06 - 12:55 pm | #

"The Detainee Treatment and Moral Relativism Act of 2006."
Splash | 09.28.06 - 12:56 pm | #

Ok, so if this is a done deal, what can we do to get rid of it after the Democrats come back to power?
Rachelle Brown | 09.28.06 - 12:49 pm

My guess is nothing. At least parts of it will stay on the books forever (or at least until the next Revolution, if we're lucky):

"During and after World War I the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act were used in prosecutions that would be considered constitutionally unacceptable in the U.S. even in the political climate after the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack on New York's World Trade Center. While much of the laws were repealed in 1921, major portions of the Espionage Act remain part of U.S. law (18 USC 793, 794) and form the legal basis for most classified information." (emphasis added)

http://espionage-act-of-1917.min...17.mindbit.com/
Ames | 09.28.06 - 12:56 pm | #

Lodge --

Yes. And he spoke eloquently and forcefully against both and against much more. He is principled, and he is also reasonable, much more so than I, with my anger and disgust at what our country has let itself become, could ever be. And you, too, lv.

Yes, you sure know me. Like a brother.

Right.

Look, some cretins -- obviously, you're one of them -- will see any sort of demi-criticism of Bush as "heroic" and "passionate," but Russ Feingold is a PUSSY. Saying he's the standout in a field of spineless assholes isn't saying anything.

Who had the most meaningful speeches on the floor of the Congress since Dubya Bush took office? It wasn't Feingold, I hate to tell you. It was Bobby Byrd, the dinosaur from WV. Go back and read his speeches in the runup to invading Iraq. There you will see real patriotic passion. Not the mealymouthed half-arsed crap Russ PUSSYBOY Feingold has been uttering.

The only problem is, Bobby Byrd has gone silent now. So he's as bad as PUSSYBOY Russ at present.
liquified viscera | 09.28.06 - 12:58 pm | #

Pardon my ignorance but this is being rushed through Congress because the Supreme Court ruled against the administration in Hamdan; why won't this be ruled unconstitutional when it's inevitably challenged in the courts?

It's entirely possible that the salve for the consciences of Republican senators is their certitude that it will be overturned. They may feel like they get a free pass here--they get to exploit fear and racism among their base, while not ultimately putting anything on the books.

The trouble is from what I can tell about the bill is that it is studded with provisions that forbid court review. That, in itself, poses a Constitutional crisis. It's pretty clearly an awful piece of legislation, and those who are selling our birthright down the river may believe that its awfulness will end up making it irrelevant. So they get their wussy liberal attack ads and their constitution too.

But I wouldn't bank on that, in this administration. You may have to hold your nose, but we have to get at least one branch out of their hands in November.
JayAckroyd | 09.28.06 - 12:58 pm | #

renato --

geez lv, there's lots of Dem senators who've been spineless but Feingold???? C'mon. He was the sole Senate vote against the "Patriot" Act. He voted against the Iraq War uathorization.

Read my reply to Lodge above. Feingold is hoping to run for POTUS on the Dem ticket in 2008. There you will find his reasons for doing what you cite.
liquified viscera | 09.28.06 - 12:59 pm | #

First They Came for the Jews

[…]

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Sorry david.

1. They did not come for the Jews first.
2. Pastor Martin Niemoller did not write what you have printed.

Martin Niemoeller's message, in its true form, carries a powerful moral impact. Telling the story and drawing the lessees of the SHOAH are weakened, not strengthened, when carelessness or self-indulgence permits a corrupted text to be widely disseminated. The true sequence, which culminates the Nazi genocide of the Jews, is both literally and morally stronger than the corrupt forms that are becoming now widespread:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

http:// www.christianethicstoday....ell_009_29_.htm
edwin | 09.28.06 - 1:00 pm | #

these people are absolutely frightening...
l | 09.28.06 - 1:01 pm | #

FYI:

The perma-link to this post is broken:

http:// glenngreenwald.blogspot.c...4274.html#links
Sean | 09.28.06 - 1:01 pm | #

Angry. Sick. Literally nauseous.

God damn them. Anonymous? God damn you. God damn your party, god damn your president, and god damn you specifically. You have no honor, no shame, you are cowards who are granting bin Laden his greatest victory since 9/11 out of your fear and yellow-bellied inability to live up to what this country stands for. When the going got tough, you soiled yourself in fear and treated our founding document as toilet paper. God damn you.
DrBB | 09.28.06 - 1:02 pm | #

Judge: Government can continue surveillance program for 7 days
DETROIT -- The federal judge who struck down President Bush's warrantless surveillance program on Thursday allowed the government to continue the program another week while it seeks a further postponement from an appeals court.

U.S. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled on Aug. 17 that the program, which targets communications between people in this country and people overseas when a link to terrorism is suspected, violates the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. The White House says the surveillance is a key tool in the fight against terrorism that already has helped prevent attacks.

The Justice Department asked Taylor to allow the program to continue until the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issues a final ruling on the legal issues, which could take months.

Taylor denied that request, but gave the government a seven-day reprieve while it seeks a stay from the appeals court pending a decision on the legality of the surveillance, which the government calls the Terrorist Surveillance Program. ...

ej | 09.28.06 - 1:02 pm | #

"Look, some cretins -- obviously, you're one of them . . ."

I may be a cretin, lv, but I had sense enough to leave the country before it went all the way to hell.
Lodge | 09.28.06 - 1:03 pm | #

"Ok, so if this is a done deal, what can we do to get rid of it after the Democrats come back to power?"

If you are following CSPAN coverage of the Senate today, you are seeing the creation of the rules necessary for an American Imperium that has no room or need for individual liberty or freedoms at home or especially abroad. If you are following CSPAN, you are witnessing, live, the end of America as we know it.

Currently I am watching Pete Dominici argue for the oppression of humans abroad while he seems clearly oblivious to the certain operation of the terrorist detention legislation within the country against American citizens and the arbitrary power it gives the Unitary Executive. He is completly oblivious to the threat he is birthing.

Nothing will happen because the Dems in the Senate are basically in agreement with the ending of our American experiment in freedom and democracy on a basic level.

When the Dems are in power, they will like the new rules and procedures too much to even consider repealing any of the new powers. Those in power will find it easier and easire to keep their power by crushing dissent. Never before in history, has the technological base been so capabable and efficient in supporting tyranny in a way more thorough than Orwell could ever have imagined.

Our American People are going to have to suffer a period of darkness before they can recover their national soul. Teach your children the memories of freedom you have so the ideals may not be permanently lost.
Nobody | 09.28.06 - 1:04 pm | #

This law allows more than that.

One need not be declared an enemy combatant to be tossed, incommunicado, down a hole, with no end in sight.

That sanction is applied to those who are merely suspected.

(c)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who --

(A) is currently in United States custody; and

(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatantantor is awaiting such determination. [emphasis added].

There are other Patrick Henry quotations coming to my mind right now.
Terry Karney | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 1:09 pm | #

Christy Hardin at FDL raises a couple of points worth discussing.

oooooooooooohhhh ppppuullllllllllllleeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzz

after reading the 24/7 "fitzmas" crap there, virtually always wrong and always full of self-promotion, surely "reddhead" is not really onto anything special here.

I respect her specialty training, experience, and hope, but this is not exactly the "best" way to add credibility..... "According to fdl..."

Yes, I know, its an important link here and the source of a lot of attention/income to others, but this does not add anything to the dialog today.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 1:10 pm | #

Their main reason for supporting the 2nd amendment was that 'the people' need their weapons to defend their homes against intruders as well as from a tyrannical government.

Where are they now?

Securely in the "back pocket" of the neocons and repugs - the NRA has never actually stood up for the rights of US citizens - they merely grandstand to make political points when it serves their purpose.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 1:12 pm | #

This was in my local hometown paper yesterday, from a frequent right-wing writer:

I say to each and every citizen of these United States who does not like what is going on, “Pack up and move east!”

What we need is a dictator for about 20 years, and that will solve a lot of problems the unappreciative Americans in this country have.

And I'd say this legislation makes it all the more plausible.
Bgno64 | 09.28.06 - 1:12 pm | #

A little more on Judge Taylor/DOJ

Domestic spying program gets 7-day extension from Detroit judge
...Coppolino and Taylor traded gentle barbs during Thursday’s 30-minute court hearing. “Your injunction, as far as we can see, was the first time in history that foreign intelligence has been enjoined at a time of war,” Coppolino told Taylor.

In rejecting his request for a stay pending the outcome of the appeal, Taylor remarked that the government had failed to cite any steps it had taken to comply with her order.

Also, here's the Roll call vote on the Specter amendment ( 51-48 ). (Sorry, I missed your earlier comment, Glenn.)

ej | 09.28.06 - 1:12 pm | #

Quit holding back DrBB,. We can take it. Tell us how you really feel.

;)
edwin | 09.28.06 - 1:13 pm | #

Condi meets w/ the NYT editorial board, and thanks them for having kept “some secrets.” It surely makes me wonder what it is we still do not know. Or, maybe I don’t want to…
Mona | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 1:17 pm | #

"Anonymous? God damn you."

DrBB, I fear murderous islamofacists that would just as soon as cut off your head as read your post. They're coming for you. They want to hide your women, keep your girls uneducated, stone gays and adulterers. They behead journalists. Yes I am afraid of them.

You are afraid of your own government, with all of its various safeguards.

So, as you say, goddam you.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 1:19 pm | #

Edwin that was funny.

Nonpartisan comment.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 1:20 pm | #

Anonymous:

You are afraid of your own government, with all of its various safeguards.

I'm game. List one.
edwin | 09.28.06 - 1:22 pm | #

I keep harping on this one phrase because I think it's the most dangerous portion of the whole package. "who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States"

There is a reason that Treason was specifically defined in the constitution and not simply left to the legislature to hash out.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

But this bill, allows anyone to be incarcerated indefinitely and subject to abusive interrogation based on one man's interpretation of the word "hostilities".

Oh, Paul... you don't think they're going to quibble over hostilities, do you?

They've got "purposefully" to quibble over. Give a check to charity, and you've purposefully given support. If the charity engages in hostilities, even without your knowledge, well, the support was still purposeful, even if you didn't know what you were supporting.

Plus, they've got the "competent tribunals" that can declare anyone an unlawful enemy combatant for any reason or no reason.
John Palmer | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 1:23 pm | #

Compare and contrast:

DrBB, I fear murderous islamofacists that would just as soon as cut off your head as read your post. They're coming for you. They want to hide your women, keep your girls uneducated, stone gays and adulterers. They behead journalists. Yes I am afraid of them.

From Casablanca:

"There are certain parts of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try and invade..."
Ames | 09.28.06 - 1:23 pm | #

Anonymous, you're a coward. We've beaten back far worse enemies in the past, without gutting the Constitution.

You're exactly what's wrong with this country today. You'll happily shred our ancient freedoms--right down to and including Clause 39 of the Magna Carta--and you'll do it with a smile on your face, because no-one's asking you to pay a cent more in taxes or take the slightest personal risk.
Llelldorin | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 1:26 pm | #

Anonymous sez, at 1:19
DrBB, I fear murderous islamofacists that would just as soon as cut off your head as read your post. They're coming for you. They want to hide your women, keep your girls uneducated, stone gays and adulterers. They behead journalists. Yes I am afraid of them.

Anonomymous-

Is this really true? Do you really envision a scenario where this even has the remote chance of happening? Where, in the US, our women would be required to keep hidden, our girls uneducated; where gays and adulterers would be stoned. I’m being serious. I can’t, for the life of me, think of any scenario where any of the events you describe could come to pass. What would have to take place for your fears to be realized?
JimLanc | 09.28.06 - 1:26 pm | #

C'mon Edwin, get serious. The opposition party, the press, the courts, the blogs.

The fact that you are really worried more about our own government than you are about terrorists months away from nuclear weapons, aching to impose a form of government that has nothing whatsoever to do with our own and will stop at nothing until it dominates is shockingly naive.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 1:28 pm | #

Nuf:
For years the NRA warned of this scenario, "It can happen here!"
Their main reason for supporting the 2nd amendment was that 'the people' need their weapons to defend their homes against intruders as well as from a tyrannical government.

Where are they now? Have you heard anything from one of the most powerful lobbies in this country? Maybe we have heard. Their silence speaks volumes.
They must believe that good Americans will be treated differently than bad Americans.

The NRA is the group of people who helped create the culture of fear, that the world is so dangerous, it's terrible to tell a person to disarm, even briefly. "The world is dangerous! Be ready to kill to protect yourself! It would be terrible to be told you must go without your ability to use deadly force to protect yourself, because the world is so dangerous that you always need that ability!"

Their pushing of the fear button is what's helped bring about this situation.

And now they have used the power of cowardice to turn the Feds into agents of cowardice.
John Palmer | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 1:30 pm | #

From Anonymous at

DrBB, I fear murderous islamofacists that would just as soon as cut off your head as read your post. They're coming for you. They want to hide your women, keep your girls uneducated, stone gays and adulterers. They behead journalists. Yes I am afraid of them.

So good then you don't live anywhere near any, isn't it?

Then again, given your demonstrated lack of spine, I doubt you'd be in all the much danger. They'd immediately recognize you're the sort of willing collaborator who they could depend upon to jump when they call, inform when requested, and generally keep your head down.

You are afraid of your own government, with all of its various safeguards.

Considering those 'safeguards' are being legislated away, pray tell exactly why shouldn't any thinking person be nervous at this point?

So, as you say, goddam you.

Yes, we're all damned at this point. I hope that thought keeps you warm as your waiting your turn for Room 101.
yankeependragon | 09.28.06 - 1:30 pm | #

I may be a cretin, lv, but I had sense enough to leave the country before it went all the way to hell.
Lodge

Do you have a spare room?
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 1:30 pm | #

I fear murderous islamofacists that would just as soon as cut off your head as read your post. They're coming for you. They want to hide your women, keep your girls uneducated, stone gays and adulterers. They behead journalists. Yes I am afraid of them.

They are much more dangerous behind the wheel of a cab.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 1:32 pm | #

Anonymous: What you want is an authoritarian police state. You and your ilk have been trying to create one here for fifty years. The immediate reasons for creating that state are transitory--today it's terrorists; fifty years ago it was the commies. But the outcome you're after is constant. The authoritarian surveillance state. I have no idea why you want it, but you do. The reasons keep changing but the desired outcome is a constant.

There are no words for the degree of contempt I have for you. Therefore I have nothing more to say.
DrBB | 09.28.06 - 1:32 pm | #

This legislation necessarily creates a civil war in America between the non-cowards who believe in the principles on which this nation was founded and the cowards who want an authoritarian state.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i...h? v=iC2Wx7MYcpE

Other than exercize our Second Amendment right, WHAT DO WE DO NOW?
nine | 09.28.06 - 1:33 pm | #

1. Where does it say, in the torture-detention-military commissions bill, that anyone actually must be tried by a military commission? Where does it say that anyone must be tried by any method at all? I can't find it. If it's there, citations would be appreciated.

2. If this bill doesn't actually require a trial, a court-martial, or a military commission for anybody, is there any other existing law that does?

3. Virtually all of the military commissions bill is therefore drivel, designed to surround and disguise the small part that really matters: The permanent destruction of the right of habeas corpus.

4. It is immaterial whether anything in this bill applies to citizens or not. Even if this bill destroys habeas corpus only for aliens, the annihilation of habeas corpus for citizens can, and will, be carried out by other means - supposing that habeas corpus still exists at all for citizens today. By what act of Congress has Padilla, for instance, been kept in captivity all this time?

5. The true object of this bill is to have Congress on record as ratifying everything that Bush has claimed he already has dictatorial plenary power to do anyway. This bill is designed to make all members of Congress into accomplices, so that they will shut up from now on. Like in Julius Caesar, when all the assassins wash their hands in his blood.

6. The bill is a major attack on what's left of the existence of Congress as an actual branch of government. Madison thought that congressmen would act to preserve their own power, and he thought that the Constitution gave them the means to do so when needed. His vision has failed at last.

7. Just as Congress's power to declare war was, for all practical purposes, given away for the last time in 1991, this bill now effectively gives away - for the last time - all of Congress's powers over the military (Art. I s. 8) as well as the power to protect the right of habeas corpus (Art. I s. 9). After this bill, on what possible basis could any Congress ever presume to contradict, or even criticize, anything the president does?

8. Eight hundred years of the greatest and most difficult labor to create and sustain political liberty are being annihilated in a week.

9. What is to be done when the elections are stolen in November - if there are elections in November? These people will never leave voluntarily.
spinozista | 09.28.06 - 1:34 pm | #

C'mon Edwin, get serious. The opposition party, the press, the courts, the blogs.

That and a note from Dear Leader will get you waterbording, and indefinite detention, in the hell hole of Bush's dreams.

Of course since the press, courts, and the blogs have no right to even know your name...
edwin | 09.28.06 - 1:35 pm | #

"Anonymous, you're a coward. We've beaten back far worse enemies in the past, without gutting the Constitution.

Anonymous will howl and howl, never to be heard from his coffin-sized cell, while he is being detained "for determination as to whether or not he is an enemy combatant" as he is scarfed up with all of the other posters on this site because all, in opposing the Unitary Executive's coup becuase they are supporting the "enemies."

You see, Anonymous, the Writ of Habeas corpus is designed to protect YOU from being detained by error.

Anonymous, you better stop posting now, because the oppressors are recording your IP address and tapping your telephone. They won't care what your positions are posted here, caring is too much trouble. It's just simpler to scarf you up with all of those who oppose the Decider. That way there is no chance of them making a mistake and letting some guilty opponent excape the GWOT defenses. You had better stop posting here because they don't care about you, Anonymous, the coward.
Nobody | 09.28.06 - 1:36 pm | #

From Anonymous at

C'mon Edwin, get serious. The opposition party, the press, the courts, the blogs.

Now I know you aren't being serious. Just how much are you being paid to write this claptrap?

The fact that you are really worried more about our own government than you are about terrorists months away from nuclear weapons, aching to impose a form of government that has nothing whatsoever to do with our own and will stop at nothing until it dominates is shockingly naive.

Considering its the US government that is imprisoning people without either due process or legal recourse, engaging in illegal electronic surveillance against domestic targets, and now is getting legalized sanction to conduct torture? I'd say there's a significant amount to fear from the current conduct of the Bush Administration.

By contrast, unless you can name specific a 'terrorist' organization and clear intelligence that fits the bill of paranoid goods you just spewed out, I'm going to have to dismiss it as you having seen one too many episodes of "La Femme Nikita" to recognize the stupidity of the comment.
yankeependragon | 09.28.06 - 1:38 pm | #

"Where does it say, in the torture-detention-military commissions bill, that anyone actually must be tried by a military commission?

You catch the point. There is no requirement for trial, ever. There is no requirement that a determination of status be made, ever. The point is that they can legally pick any person up for a determination of status---and keep them forever and forever and forever. No trial, no habeas corpus, no process and they can torture them the whole time for their jollies. Yes, Anonomyous, they can keep you too.
Nobody | 09.28.06 - 1:40 pm | #

The fact that you are really worried more about our own government than you are about terrorists months away from nuclear weapons, aching to impose a form of government that has nothing whatsoever to do with our own and will stop at nothing until it dominates is shockingly naive.

You fuckin pussy. You're not a man, you're quisling slime.

Torture is utterly unacceptable for civilized people. It does not advance the military cause, it retards it. The only people who wish for it and justify it to themselves are psychologically damaged.

All these so-called Christians in Congress who voted for torture will be in for a nasty surprise come their final judgement.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 1:41 pm | #

JimLanc I sincerely thank you for the civility of your comment, I have to say that most of the ones I get I could not show to my kids.

I know what you mean. It seems remote. We're 5000 miles away from the hotspots. Americans would never accept Sharia.

Here are the bullet points I find to be particularly alarming:

1) We have one rogue, North Korea, already producing nuclear weapons. They have a history of putting their weaponry up for sale. Pakistan has them and is stable--for now. But look at what has been going on there, it's worrying. And of course there's Iran. Any of these bad, but the combination is worse. They have plausible denial if the weapons are used by terrorists.

2) Demographics favor the radical islamists, particularly in Europe. European countries could have muslim majorities in my kids' lifetimes. I'm not saying muslims equal terrorists, but I am saying terrorists are muslim, and they seem to have no problem recruiting even now.

3) Look at the recent trend in homegrown terrorism. No one knows how bad it really is, but the trend is not going our way.

4) Appeasement is already under way, from the Danish cartoons to the comments of the Pope to the cancellation of the Mozart opera.

I'm not suggesting any particular scenario, I'm just suggesting we have a problem that dwarfs a few tapped phone calls and some waterboarding--waterboarding, which is used in training our very own (volunteer) troops. We rightly or wrongly take our laws and SCOTUS decisions very seriously and are offended when we disagree, but this pales to the world we could find ourselves in if things go badly.

A 16-year-old girl was recently stoned in Iran for being nothing more than a smart-ass. That is a nightmare. A nightmare.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 1:43 pm | #

The fact that you are really worried more about our own government than you are about terrorists months away from nuclear weapons,

If they do as good as the Isralis – it's 3 years.

aching to impose a form of government that has nothing whatsoever to do with our own and will stop at nothing until it dominates is shockingly naive.

These terrorists almost declared war against the taliban. After the Taliban massicured their embasy staff – one would have to have moved heaven and earth to get these terrorists to support the taliban.

As far as "it domanates" – you might want to quote a few links.

Really anomyous – If you don't like what we got now, why the hell did the US overthrow the democratically elected government in Iran in the first place.
edwin | 09.28.06 - 1:46 pm | #

"What we need is a dictator for about 20 years, and that will solve a lot of problems the unappreciative Americans in this country have."
--Bgno64, quoting right wing LTE

And there you have it, in black and white. They don't want America, they want an authoritarian dictatorship. The reasons are irrelevant. They'll always find something. They want it and will never stop trying to bring it about.
DrBB | 09.28.06 - 1:46 pm | #

Paul Dirks said:

We've all heard it said that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" but insofar as our Constitution is our nation (as evidenced by the fact that it's what office-holders and the military swear allegiance to) then our nation is indeed committing suicide.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 12:14 pm

That sums up my feelings. On 9/11/01, I felt, almost instantly, even before noon, that an era had ended, and that a new, worse era had begun. This week, the feeling is similar, because I know that, no matter what happens next, the nation I love can't ever reclaim the nationhood that it had before. We stand this week at a great divide, at a defining moment in history. It's not a grand feeling.
sysprog | 09.28.06 - 1:46 pm | #

Terrorists can only take our lives - it takes Republicans to take our liberty and freedom away.
donna | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 1:47 pm | #

We rightly or wrongly take our laws and SCOTUS decisions very seriously and are offended when we disagree, but this pales to the world we could find ourselves in if things go badly.

A 16-year-old girl was recently stoned in Iran for being nothing more than a smart-ass. That is a nightmare. A nightmare.

Total BS. There is absolutely no chance of an Islamic state EVER coming to power in the USA, our highly armed civilian populace will ensure that, if nothing else.

It is disgusting to see you give up your God-given rights out of fear. Have you no self-respect?

Have you no love for your country?
prunes | 09.28.06 - 1:49 pm | #

Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 1:43 pm wrote, "A 16-year-old girl was recently stoned in Iran for being nothing more than a smart-ass. That is a nightmare. A nightmare.

Certainly a nightmare. Now, we are going to have the nighmare of having American citizens, including people like Anonymous, being held indefinitely for opposing to Unified Executive forever.

Once someone is picked up under this legislation, it doesn't matter whether they are citizens or not, whehter they are terrorists or patriots. They can be held forever while a "determination" is made as to whether they fit "unlawful combatant" status. Once in that limbo of being "under determination" all rights are lost. This applies to Anonymous if he steps even one inch away from the party line and does something like posting on ths blog.
Nobody | 09.28.06 - 1:49 pm | #

A paragraph from the NYT slightly annotated:

But Republicans [anonymous] argued repeatedly that the nation is facing a faceless and brutal enemy that lurks in the shadows [European Union], requiring a new way of thinking on the part of the United States [bedwetting paranoia] and giving new importance to the ability to freely [brutally] interrogate them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/ 2...artner=homepage
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 1:50 pm | #

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1787

We are witnessing the death of the great American experiment. And we stand by and do nothing.
Kozmo | 09.28.06 - 1:54 pm | #

Anonymous, if you're more than about 18 years old, you'll remember the Communists. They were much, much worse in any respect you could name--they HAD nuclear weapons, murdered millions of their own citizens, and had a spy network that makes a few mad immigrants look like a joke by comparison.

And yet we prevailed, without suspending habeas corpus.

All this is probably whistling in the dark--you're afraid, and the Republicans promise to keep you safe. You have no idea exactly how holding people forever without charge, or conducting show trials, or allowing torture will keep you safe, but you're willing to take them at their word. After all, they promise to keep you safe, and to ask nothing tangible of you--not a penny in extra tax, nor your sons for the Army. They ask only for all the liberties that ten centuries of brave Englishmen and Americans have won for you.

You're more than happy to comply.

And that, Anonymous, is why you're a coward.
Llelldorin | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 1:56 pm | #

"A 16-year-old girl was recently stoned in Iran for being nothing more than a smart-ass. That is a nightmare. A nightmare.

In Texas a few years ago, a man was dragged behind a pick-up truck till dead because he was black. a nightmare, a nightmare.
euphronius | 09.28.06 - 1:56 pm | #

By the way, JimLanc, if you are really interested in the topic may I suggest taking a look at Fiji. I'm not an expert in this (I often get jumped on here when I get a detail wrong), but the basic idea is that the Fijians began to allow Indian immigrants to solve their labor shortage. After a few generations--I mean it was very quick--the Indians had established a voting majority.

Nothing against Indians whatsoever, who knows, maybe life in Fiji is better. But I'll take our form of government over Sharia any day, even if Alec Baldwin is president.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 1:57 pm | #

How sure are we that there really will be a new President on January 20, 2009?

How sure are we that there really will be a real national election in 2008?
John of Roquetaillade | 09.28.06 - 1:57 pm | #

Anonymous @ 09.28.06,

You are hilarious! May I suggest Chicken Little as a nickname.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 1:59 pm | #

Glenn, faulty link to the roll call on the Spectre amendment?
bamage | 09.28.06 - 1:59 pm | #

Anonymous @1:43 pm,

Chicken Little.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:00 pm | #

From Anonymous at 1:43pm:

Here are the bullet points I find to be particularly alarming:

1) We have one rogue, North Korea, already producing nuclear weapons....And of course there's Iran.

Neither North Korea nor Iran are poised to become more than a region concern, even if they indeed do develop or stockpile nukes of their own (there's a lot of question there). The notion that they'd give homemade nukes, which tend to be on the big and cumbersome side, to a terrorist group is remote, particularly given they know they'd be toast if it was ever learned they did such a thing.

2) Demographics favor the radical islamists, particularly in Europe.

I see you've read Buchannan's latest screed. What's your point? That there's an ethnic shift underway? If there is, so what? Is there a corresponding decline in Christianity overall?

3) Look at the recent trend in homegrown terrorism. No one knows how bad it really is, but the trend is not going our way.

Guess we should quit making more terrorists then, shouldn't we?

4) Appeasement is already under way, from the Danish cartoons to the comments of the Pope to the cancellation of the Mozart opera.

Nobodies mentioned the Danish cartoons for months, Benedict's comments were ill-chosen but he's taking steps to minimize the issue, and I confess I don't know enough about the Mozart opera business to comment.

I'm not suggesting any particular scenario, I'm just suggesting we have a problem that dwarfs a few tapped phone calls and some waterboarding--waterboarding, which is used in training our very own (volunteer) troops.

Except we aren't talking about 'just' a few tapped phone calls or 'just' waterboarding, are we?

A 16-year-old girl was recently stoned in Iran for being nothing more than a smart-ass. That is a nightmare. A nightmare.

I believe this story fell under the term 'urban legend', or do you have first-hand testimony affirming it happened?
yankeependragon | 09.28.06 - 2:00 pm | #

Nothing against Indians whatsoever, who knows, maybe life in Fiji is better. But I'll take our form of government over Sharia any day, even if Alec Baldwin is president.

Are you even vaguely aware of the percentage of Muslims in the US? It's negligible.

Are you also aware that this is the exact argument the Nazis used to motivate the attacks on Jews, that their demographics would destroy Germany?

I'm not afraid of terrorist Muslims. Why are you so chickenshit?
prunes | 09.28.06 - 2:01 pm | #

"A 16-year-old girl was recently stoned in Iran for being nothing more than a smart-ass. That is a nightmare. A nightmare.

In Texas a few years ago, a man was dragged behind a pick-up truck till dead because he was black. a nightmare, a nightmare.
euphronius | 09.28.06 - 1:56 pm |

--And the first was punishment handed down by an Iranian court. The second was a heinous crime and treated accordingly.

Great argument.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:01 pm | #

Nothing against Indians whatsoever, who knows, maybe life in Fiji is better. But I'll take our form of government over Sharia any day, even if Alec Baldwin is president.
Anonymous

Fiji is a tiny island, you moron!

Try this one on for size:

Japan suffered through two nuclear attacks and invented the Walkman and builds great cars.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:02 pm | #

Well, now pickup dragging (or it's equivalent) will be allowed by our courts, so you're happy, right?
prunes | 09.28.06 - 2:03 pm | #

I am saying it first. A terrorist nuclear strike here may be a good thing. Always look on the bright side. It's a very Republiican thing to do. If torture is good, so is nuclear destruction!
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:04 pm | #

The Bush defenders are cowards who prefer an authoritarian state to the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The people who founded this nation belived in this ideal:
Live free or die.

The Bush defenders belive in this:
Live free until we can imagine some scary enemy, then create an authoritarian state to protect us.

Pathetic.
nine | 09.28.06 - 2:05 pm | #

That's true. Every single argument in favor of torture would apply equally well to:

a) pre-emptive nuclear strikes
b) the torture and rape of children
c) genocide
d) eugenics

The fact that such fallacious arguments have to be pulled out proves how irrational and animalistic the desire for torture is.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 2:05 pm | #

A 16-year-old girl was recently stoned in Iran for being nothing more than a smart-ass. That is a nightmare. A nightmare.

I believe this story fell under the term 'urban legend', or do you have first-hand testimony affirming it happened?

It happened but it wasn't all that "recently". 08/15/2004

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opini...9/ ixportal.html
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 2:07 pm | #

. . . [O]ur Government is controlled by people and their followers who literally don't understand and, worse, simply do not believe in the defining values and principles of America."

Yes. That appears to be at the very heart of the matter. I wish someone would ask Bush what America means and what being an American means.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:08 pm | #

But "Anonymous," you're implying that without these new laws, we're under threat of INVASION and subjugation by Muslim extremists! That's just bullshit. Plain, unadulterated bullshit.

Even if a terrorist group detonated a nuke inside the US, as horrific as that would be, we STILL wouldn't be in danger of foreign invasion and occupation.

The only threat to our way of life is ourselves. And today it looks like we're putting one of the final nails in our own coffin.
JTL | 09.28.06 - 2:08 pm | #

Anonymous' crap about "Islamofascism" is so much propaganda, distortion and misinformation. He cites no sources and just makes wild assertions. He knows less than I do about Islam, and I don't know much but I know more about it than Kristol, Bush or Krauthammer.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:11 pm | #

Bush didn't even know that Islam was divided into Shi'ia and Sunni until well after the Iraq invasion.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 2:13 pm | #

It happened but it wasn't all that "recently". 08/15/2004

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opini...9/ ixportal.html
Paul Dirks

I don't doubt that it happened. I do tend to discount western sources reporting on these incidents WRT to the details and back story.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:13 pm | #

Thanks for your response, Anonymous. I would expect that almost every one here actually agrees with you that there are people out there who want to do us harm, and we need to protect ourselves from them.

Where we disagree is our perspective on whether “those problems dwarf a few tapped phone calls and some waterboarding.” When you hear the phrase – “this soldier died for his country” - what do you think? What did he die for? To me, he died protecting his family, their way of life; he gave his life so that they and their friends and neighbors could continue to reap the benefits that we have here. But it’s also something a little deeper. We talk about how our soldiers die to protect freedom, and that’s the difference. We, here in America, are in an experiment, I believe. We started out a couple of hundred years ago trying something different, as far as how we governed and treated each other, and how we treat others. When those soldiers put on their uniforms, they’re not only defending their families; they’re defending that experiment; that way of life. And for many of us, when you give up the right to privacy, when you give up the idea that there are basic dignities associated with just being another human, regardless of what that person might have done, then you’re abandoning that experiment; you’re turning away from those ideas that are, at least to me, are an integral part of being in a free society. And so, I would argue, it’s those things, those ideas which do the dwarfing, compared to some men that want to do us harm.
JimLanc | 09.28.06 - 2:13 pm | #

Glenn,

You seem to imply that it is no longer possible for Democrats to filibuster this bill. Is this true, or can they still do it (ignoring for the moment the equally serious question of whether or not they would, even if they could)?

And if it is still possible, from a procedural point of view, when and how would that happen? And has anyone done a straw count of who would or might support it, and who's already said that they wouldn't? Aside from Ben Nelson and probably Lieberman, are any other Dems likely to not support a filibuster? We only need 41, and a Repub or two might even join us.

And if a filibuster fails or is never attempted, is it possible to find at least 7 Repubs to vote against this bill? E.g. Snowe, Collins, Specter (yeah, I know), Sununu, Smith, Chafee, and...?

And even if it passes, won't the first case in which it is employed be appealed all the way to SCOTUS, and isn't it likely to declare it unconstitutional? And if that happens, won't that just cause the major constitutional crisis that any serious observer of the past 6 years knows was always inevitable? And if Dems control congress then, won't take make it all the harder for Bush to win it?

Like Hunter, I'm not ready to give up on this, and believe that these horrible intermediate losses are not necessarily final or fatal. Our system still leaves us with various recourses to prevent permanent and open dictatorship.

And if our system fails us, there's always the way of our founding fathers and mothers, as Lawrence Wilkerson alluded to in a highly publicized speech last year. And I suspect that there are more than a few men and women like him who are more than ready to go all the way to save our democracy.

Sorry to invoke some tired old cliches, but I still believe that it's darkest before the dawn. And that you sometimes have to take several steps back before taking even more forward. And that what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. And so I prefer to light some candles instead of cursing the darkness.
Kovie | 09.28.06 - 2:14 pm | #

I really, really thought Democrats in the Senate would manage to kill this, and I had to believe that there was a procedural kill in the works. Well, there wasn't, and I stand rebuked. My assumption is that we simply didn't have the votes for a filibuster. I base that only on the fact that we voted en-masse against the bill, so there must have been some reason other than craven cowardice for that lack.
steve davis | 09.28.06 - 2:15 pm | #

Bush didn't even know that Islam was divided into Shi'ia and Sunni until well after the Iraq invasion.
prunes

I know. The demonization of Iran, one of the more progressive Islamic states (since we knocked off the most secular, Iraq, thanks to the geniuses doing out foreign policy) must occur to make a pre-emptive attack on a non-aggressor state acceptable to the public. Does this sound like a backward Islamic state?

Shia Islam also permits muttah - fixed-term temporary marriage - which is now banned by the Sunnis. Muttah was originally permitted at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and is now being promoted in Iran by an unlikely alliance of conservative clerics and feminists, the latter group seeking to downplay the obsession with female virginity which is prevalent in both forms of Islam, pointing out that only one of the Prophet's thirteen wives was a virgin when he married them.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:17 pm | #

Byrd is proposing a 5 year sunset be added to the bill. I had not heard about that before.
formerrepub | 09.28.06 - 2:19 pm | #

Edwin,
I stand corrected on the sequence in the poem. The fact remains, however, that they can come for a lot of us now and the safeguards for doing anything about it are evaporating.

I always thought the quote "those who would surrender liberty for security deserve neither" (I may have butchered this quote too) as a warning, but it is now an apt summary for the ease in which these rights are being "compromised" away.

Sadly, however, I'm not saying that we don't deserve liberty because at the root of this "compromise" by our elected officials is a fundamental misunderstanding amongst voters of exactly what price they are paying to keep playing Bush's GWOT.

Ignorant of history, and the tyranny that motivated our Founders, evidently we are doomed to repeat it. I just didn't think it would happen this quickly.

It's like the analogy of the frog being boiled slowly. The heat was just turned up significantly and only a few even noticed. Most felt the change as the warmth of security and will undoubtedly realize too late that when you throw away the rights of American citizens like Padilla, no matter how vile they are, you are throwing away your own rights as well.

That was the point of the poem, but thanks for pointing out the mistake.
david | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 2:19 pm | #

I agree JimLanc, freedom is what it's all about. It's also precisely what the islamofacists want to take away from us.

I think it's a given that freedom exists on a continuum, and that there are two sides to the coin. I give up the right to steal your car so I can get the right to keep my car to myself.

We are very free, among the most free on earth. I am willing to give up a few liberties (this is a setup for a deluge of rude comments but I don't see a way around it) in order to gain important protections--protections from islamofacism, and protections that keep me safe.

Was anyone in this country really put out by the SWIFT monitoring of wholesale financial transactions in Europe? Am I really oppressed because I can't take a Coke on an airplane? Does anyone at this site really think Americans will be rounded up and tortured?

If you do you have bigger problems than this government.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:21 pm | #

Thanks for your response, Anonymous. I would expect that almost every one here actually agrees with you that there are people out there who want to do us harm, and we need to protect ourselves from them.

Many more now than ever before. And we don't thank trolls around here. It only encourages them and some ofd them actually get paid to spew this nonsense.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:21 pm | #

Anonymous @ 2:21 pm

Don't encourage this moron.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:22 pm | #

From Paul Dirks at 2:07pm:

It happened but it wasn't all that "recently". 08/15/2004

Thank you, Paul. I'd heard there was dispute about the details.
yankeependragon | 09.28.06 - 2:22 pm | #

formerrepub - How are you staying so up-to -the -minute on this? url please? Thanks!
bamage | 09.28.06 - 2:23 pm | #

That was the point of the poem, but thanks for pointing out the mistake.
david

Sorry for being snappy with you. It wasn't that long ago when I pointed out exactly the same thing to another blogger and was effictly told to … off. I to some extent took it out on you.
edwin | 09.28.06 - 2:26 pm | #

Okay, so the goodwin law can be finally put to rest as any kind of legitimate criticism. This is Facism, flat out, going directly along the path to Nazi nightmare time. The tragedy is that we should know better....we at least had a clear example in Germany's experience. I never want to hear again that there's something invalid or less than legitimate in pointing out the truth....we're screwed just like the Germans who stood up to Hitler. The work camps beckon.

We have become so obese and ugly as a nation. Can I have another piece of chocolate cake?
Emily | 09.28.06 - 2:28 pm | #

Does anyone at this site really think Americans will be rounded up and tortured?

Do you really believe that either you or your children will EVER be subject to Islamic rule in America?

Be honest.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 2:28 pm | #

Shockingly, the answer to the oft-asked question "what can we do?!?" is NOTHING.

Presuming a *peaceful* democracy and respect for and adherence to the laws of the land (however abhorrent they may turn out to be), the only thing to be done is to get elected, to elect a like-minded person or to pursue a legal challenge (and, if I'm understanding what is unfolding, this latter option may not be available).

As I have always found the most fervent and eloquent dissent amongst the people of the US (e.g., bloggers such as Mr. Greenwald and, indeed, the posters to this latest blog) and not amongst the elected politicians (and, sad to say, definitely not amongst your Democratic Party), it seems to me there is only one thing to be done:

Engage. Run. Get elected. Never lose sight of what needs to be done (despite the obstacles posed by the American political system).

Simplistic? Stupid? You tell me. I think its your only option (unless there is another way to give life to the "Spirit of '76" without violence). Just don't tell me its none of my business, because, frankly, the conduct of American politics has become the world's business.
A Concerned Canadian | 09.28.06 - 2:29 pm | #

Don't be so quick with the Neimoller quote.

The actual text is in question but he did end up joining up with Adolf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar..._Niem%C3% B6ller

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Many variants derived from this phrase have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/ Ben...njamin_Franklin
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:30 pm | #

From Anonymous at 2:21pm:

I agree JimLanc, freedom is what it's all about. It's also precisely what the islamofacists want to take away from us.

Considering there is no such thing as an 'islamofascist'? I've yet to hear you name a single group or organization that poses a credible threat of successfully overthrowing our system of government via simple terrorism.

I think it's a given that freedom exists on a continuum, and that there are two sides to the coin. I give up the right to steal your car so I can get the right to keep my car to myself.

By that logic, I have the right to look at you cross-eyed, and you have the right to shoot me in the head if I do. QED.

We are very free, among the most free on earth. I am willing to give up a few liberties (this is a setup for a deluge of rude comments but I don't see a way around it) in order to gain important protections--protections from islamofacism, and protections that keep me safe.

And which ones are prepared to give up, exactly? Unlawful search and seizure? Privacy in the bathroom? Your first-born child?

Spell out exactly how far you're willing to go to 'gain' these etheric 'important protections'.

Was anyone in this country really put out by the SWIFT monitoring of wholesale financial transactions in Europe? Am I really oppressed because I can't take a Coke on an airplane?

Now you're being silly again.

Does anyone at this site really think Americans will be rounded up and tortured?

"Are being rounded up and tortured?" Pray tell, just who do you think is presently gracing the barbed wire enclosures of Camp X-Ray? Who do you think is being sent off Eastern Europe facilities, or being rendered to Syria and points further east?

If you do you have bigger problems than this government.

Perhaps, but not as big a problem as you will have when you try to look in the mirror tomorrow morning.
yankeependragon | 09.28.06 - 2:34 pm | #

This is an awful day. I have written both of my Senators (D. Ill) several times without reply. Senator Obama's lack of voice and effort was particularly disappointing.
But...enough navel gazing and fighting the anonymous trolls. What can be done?
Challenge the legislation in court. I have not read it to know who would have standing (theoretically we all do since we are all at risk)but between the lawyers for the Guantanamo detainees and the ACLU, someone must have an idea how to fight this thing. Whoever takes up this task (and looks like they have the ability to do a good job) should be supported financially and any other way we know how.
Elect Democrats. The craven record of the Democratic leadership shows that we need new leaders and new voices. As disgusted as we might be with the party as a whole, the only real chance for change is to take control of Congress and that will only happen if we elect more Democrats. Based on the various ads on Kos, there seem to be plenty of candidates who are willing to speak out against this madness and they should get as much money and support as you can give.
Continue to speak out against this madness, not just here, but in the newspapers and with neighbors and friends. I've been sending Glenn's columns on this to everyone I know and plan to start penning a few of my own. The bottom line on this travesty should be that it has nothing to do with terror and is purely a naked grab for power and an attack on our freedoms. Even some of the conservatives are starting to see it and most of this discussion can be framed in their terms: concern for untrammelled government power, original intent of the founders, strict interpretation of the Consistution etc. The person who asked about the NRA had a good point: they can't accept restrictions on firearms but they can accept this?
The optimist in me hopes that this will be a turning point: the waking up in a drunk tank with no job or family left that blots out the denial and starts the recovery. The realist says it's time to get working and the pessimist says it's time to move to Mexico. But if these rights and our Constitution are as important as we say they are, the only thing we can do is fight harder.
wil gorgias | 09.28.06 - 2:35 pm | #

Shockingly, the answer to the oft-asked question "what can we do?!?" is NOTHING.

A Concerned Canadian

Bullshit! You can invade! We will welcome you with flowers and candy. Really! Honest!
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:37 pm | #

Does anyone at this site really think Americans will be rounded up and tortured?

They already have been.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:38 pm | #

"Does anyone at this site really think Americans will be rounded up and tortured?

Do you really believe that either you or your children will EVER be subject to Islamic rule in America?

Be honest.
prunes"

No prunes, I don't. But I live in Manhattan, and do I think I could be killed by these people? Absolutely.

Plus you don't need enforced Sharia to feel the effects. Even now we have lost the freedom to publish cartoons, or to see this Mozart opera, or to say much of anything about the Muslim religion without a firestorm. In Europe it's worse.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:38 pm | #

No prunes, I don't. But I live in Manhattan, and do I think I could be killed by these people? Absolutely.

Then I'd appreciate it if you voted to pay with your taxes for greater security forces in your area and keep your hands off my Constitution.

Even now we have lost the freedom to publish cartoons, or to see this Mozart opera, or to say much of anything about the Muslim religion without a firestorm. In Europe it's worse.

You want to give up the right to habeas corpus, one of the most sacred institutions of the civilized world, because a couple nutters got pissed about some cartoons?!

Why weren't you this scared of abortion clinic bombers? You are being completely irrational.

It's embarrassing to watch grown men act this way.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 2:44 pm | #

I am keeping up with this by watching CSPAN 2. Sometimes I have to change the channel because the Repubs are so ridiculous.

Today I am home and disgusted and frustrated.

I am not a fan of Byrd, but right now he seems to be the best we have.
formerrepub | 09.28.06 - 2:45 pm | #

Terrorists can only take our lives - it takes Republicans to take our liberty and freedom away.
donna | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 1:47 pm

Right on, donna. One could add in "...Republicans and a few spineless Democrats..."
Bryan Hayward | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 2:47 pm | #

Anomymous sez at 2:21 I am willing to give up a few liberties (this is a setup for a deluge of rude comments but I don't see a way around it) in order to gain important protections

How do you decide which liberties are expendable, and which aren’t? Are there any provisions in the current round that are being debated that make you cringe; second guess just a little? The right of habeus corpus – it’s ok to get rid of that? The right to torture others – that’s ok too? The right to have elected officials engage in looking into your correspondences without any oversight – still ok? Where would you draw the line?

And how have you decided that you’re getting important protections in return? There’s lots of information out there that torture, for example, simply isn’t an effective information gathering technique.

Sorry, I just don’t find you very convincing, Anomymous.
JimLanc | 09.28.06 - 2:47 pm | #

Does anyone at this site really think Americans will be rounded up and tortured?
Yes. If it were not true, there would not be a need to eviscerate all laws that prevent it. There is another difference between you and this board. Most of the people on this board probably do not give a damn whether someone is American or not. Torture is not acceptable.
edwin | 09.28.06 - 2:47 pm | #

Now Warner and Byrd are in a verbal fight.
formerrepub | 09.28.06 - 2:48 pm | #

Kennedy's amendment was a brilliant piece of work. It is, literally, a no-win vote for the GOP. They vote for it and hamstring Bush on torture because it lays out exactly the types of treatment that we declare to be war crimes if committed against our troops. If they vote against it then they are saying that all the procedures (tortures) listed are OK to use on our troops.

POW!
Terminus Est | 09.28.06 - 2:49 pm | #

Plus you don't need enforced Sharia to feel the effects. Even now we have lost the freedom to publish cartoons, or to see this Mozart opera, or to say much of anything about the Muslim religion without a firestorm. In Europe it's worse.
Anonymous

Can we kill our own extremist fundamentalists first? I mean before we go tearing around the globe wiping out the rest of them? What religion are you? Whatever it is, I don't like it.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:50 pm | #

Torture is not acceptable.
edwin

But I might enjoy torturing this moron : Anonymous @ 2:38 pm
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:52 pm | #

Even now we have lost the freedom to publish cartoons, or to see this Mozart opera, or to say much of anything about the Muslim religion without a firestorm. In Europe it's worse.

We only lose the right "to publish cartoons, or to see this Mozart opera, or to say much of anything about the Muslim religion without a firestorm" if we cravenly choose to do so. There are no jackbooted Cartoon Police who go door-to-door in search of contraband funnies.

I believe that lunatics of whatever stripe or religion can be dealt with using the laws of a civilized country (without eliminating Habeas Corpus and without legalizing torture, for example).

OTOH, enshrining barbarism into Federal Law puts the whole power of the state on the side of whichever brute of the moment manages to control the government. From the FBI to the IRS, the whims of the Executive are enforced by guns and bayonets.

Can you see the difference?
Ames | 09.28.06 - 2:56 pm | #

Obama live now on senate floor in support of Byrd's 5 year sunset amendment. Let's see what he has to say about the bill itself.

FILIBUSTER!
Kovie | 09.28.06 - 2:57 pm | #

It is with deep regret that we mourn the passing of the United States of America. Born September 28, 1787 Died September 28 2006.
For more than 200 years she lit the world with a beacon of freedom. Though she sometimes fell short of the magnificent ideals that were embodied by that light, she constantly strove to reach them even in the darkest times.
She was murdered today with little protest on the floor of the Senate as the people of what we once called the "new world" again took up the yolk of tyranny they cast off in 1776. Indeed far from settling for the limited tyranny of King George the third they have vested their tyrant with the powers of King John, the detested tyrant from whom the first sparks of freedom were wrested by Magna Carta.
How her people can walk a step today without hanging their heads in shame is beyond my comprehension.

In memory of the passing of this great nation I leave you with some words from our own Scottish declaration of independence known as the declaration of Arbroath. On which your own declaration was partly based:

"It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

I would say rest in peace, but for a sin as great as this it is a certainty that her people are going to burn in hell both in this world under their self imposed tyranny and in the next.

Her people have my sympathy and deepest pity.

John
John | 09.28.06 - 2:57 pm | #

Does anyone at this site really think Americans will be rounded up and tortured?

Your ignorance of history is only surpassed by your willful blindness to the facts of human nature.

Do you think we're a better breed now than when the Constitution was written? The whole point of that document is that we're not ruled by angels, but by human beings, with all the flaws and potential for evil that implies.

Why the hell do you think the framers of our system of government deliberately chose to distribute power, to set up checks and balances? Was it on a whim, or because history demonstrates again and again what happens to societies when power is unrestrained and unaccountable -- and it ain't pretty.

I've been tangled in this mortal coil for over fifty years, and for all but the last six of them, I've had to endure the likes of you screeching about the rule of law and the evils of big government. Just like your other favorite Shibboleth (fiscal responsibility), you've betrayed your birthright for the illusory power to punish a world of enemies.

Let's get real: It's not that you believe Americans will never be rounded up and tortured, it's that you believe your type of American will never be rounded up and tortured.

And the fact that the flip side of your statement is that it's ok with you if non-Americans are rounded up and tortured only underscores the utter vileness of your moral relativism.

What a revolting little Good German you are.
grouchomarxist | 09.28.06 - 2:58 pm | #

From Anonymous at

No prunes, I don't. But I live in Manhattan, and do I think I could be killed by these people? Absolutely.

I work on Gold Street, just six blocks from Ground Zero, live in the Bonx, and have to take the train to and from work every day. Were it not for a quirk in timing the morning of 9/11, I would have been in Tower Two when those planes hit. I've also lived in London through various 'silly seasons'.

Please don't think the rest of share you knee-jerk fear of every remote possibility. Some of us are actually still living our lives and getting stuff done here.

Plus you don't need enforced Sharia to feel the effects. Even now we have lost the freedom to publish cartoons, or to see this Mozart opera, or to say much of anything about the Muslim religion without a firestorm.

Similarly we can't joke about the cruxifiction, criticize the "Left Behind" series, flash a nipple on television, or question the conduct of our elected leaders without a firestorm.

Then again, I doubt you fully appreciate what the Sharia represents, any more than you've bothered to study the Qu'ran, have you?
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 2:59 pm | #

I'm not a lawyer. But it seems very suprising to me that a law the strips habeus corpus, in effect removes the court from the equation, will not be ruled unconstitutional. There must be some other route to gaining standing besides being on the recieving end of unlawful detention. Can't a relative of a detainee or Congressperson initiate a suit?
padcrasher | 09.28.06 - 3:01 pm | #

For the record, YES, I believe Americans will be rounded up and tortured.

It's happened before in our history; this just gives it greater legal grounding.

By virtue of the power this law gives the President to declare as "enemy combatants" any Americans who, by his view, "support the enemy," we have here a law which erases the right of free speech, the right to petition our government, the right to peaceably assemble...in short, this law will criminalize dissent.
Robert1014 | 09.28.06 - 3:03 pm | #

Also, I live in Manhattan and work just a few blocks from the former WTC site, the destruction of which I was witness to that day.

I vehemently OPPOSE every action this traitorous, cowardly, criminal White House has taken or proposed in their propagandistically-misnamed "war on terror."

I am far more afraid of an unfettered American government than I am of terrorists of any stripe.
Robert1014 | 09.28.06 - 3:06 pm | #

If the Dems have capitulated en masse by a priori agreeing on cloture, does that agreement hold on Jeffords? Cannot Jeffords lead a filibuster regardless of any agreement by the Dems with the GOPers?
Terminus Est | 09.28.06 - 3:14 pm | #

Glenn:

As soon as the bill passes, can one assume