HaloScan.com - Comments

Well, at least the smattering of negative comments about the bill by Republicans can be used to tarnish them on the campaign trail.

Assuming they weren't voting for the reprehensible sections of the bill, I do wonder what about the bill these 12 dems did find necessary?
Dan D | 09.28.06 - 7:19 pm | #

I'm ill.

Welcome to the Soviet States of America.
other Lisa | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 7:23 pm | #

Glenn:

A couple of questions:

1) Would a UD citizen be considered to have standing if they were detained and if they argued that the prevention of being able to make a writ of habeus corpus was a denial of thei Constituional right. It wuldn't actually be bringing a writ (yet). Could the court here this?

2) Can individual states preclude the Federal government from detaining a prisoner or extraditing a prisoner without due process. Is it possible that some states (Massachusetts?) will move to protect their citizens from these new tyrranical powers (well at least so long as they are within that state's borders). Can federalism save us?
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 7:24 pm | #

I have said it before and I will say it again. This atrocious cave-in before this band of traitors to our constitution will cost the Democrats dearly. They do not deserve to win back either the House and Senate, and I believe they won't. They have proven to me that the Republicans are right: Democrats are cowards! Let History be the judge.
Matt | 09.28.06 - 7:25 pm | #

I for one welcome our new torture-monkey Republican overlords...
r€nato | 09.28.06 - 7:26 pm | #

Let's try a retyping of that first question:

Would a US citizen be considered to have standing if they were detained and if they argued that the prevention from being able to file a writ of Habeus Corpus was a violation of their Constitutional right? It wouldn't actually be bringing a writ (which is precluded by this ridiculous bill). Could the court hear this?
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 7:27 pm | #

Seriously, what do we do now?
Rob McMillin | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 7:27 pm | #

Why do we believe the same won't happen with FISA, again?

Time constraints? That's it?
Kagro X | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 7:28 pm | #

Someone had made the argument that many in the "middle" don't trust the Dems to stand up to terrorism because they have been so inept at standing up to Bush and the Republicans. I used to think this is hogwash, but after today I'm not so sure.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 7:29 pm | #

Ok, we lost this, big time, on both moral and policial counts.

My only question now is: What next?

What can and should we do now to fight the existance of this soon to be law? Wait for a case to come up with clear standing to challenge it in the courts, or file a challenge right away on its merits (or lack thereof). Is the latter even possible?

And can we reverse this law next year via legislative tricks if we retake the majority--knowing, of course, that Bush will veto any direct attempt to do this and that we're not likely to have override numbers?
Kovie | 09.28.06 - 7:30 pm | #

the Republicans are the party of torture, indefinite and unreviewable detention powers, and limitless presidential power,

OK, so NOW is it OK to call them fucking Nazis?
r€nato | 09.28.06 - 7:30 pm | #

I've thought of these words a few times over the past couple of years, but now they seem more real to me:

"The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated." Justice Robert H. Jackson, From Opening Statement before the International Military Tribunal
ej | 09.28.06 - 7:30 pm | #

Where is "the law" that protects us now you bitches? The law will save us! The law will save us!! It can't happen here, can it? *wimper*

lol... rofl

.
- | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 7:33 pm | #

I want a party I can support and vote for and the only one that shares my values doesn't have the spine to defend them from terrible attacks like this. Will someone, somewhere, please hold Democrats to account for their bizarre, cowardly behavior? Why are they repeating this failing "strategy" of staying silent on these critical issues that they could have stopped with the force of their opposition if they chose to stand against them? Do they really think they can win the majority be rolling over?
Rian Mueller | 09.28.06 - 7:33 pm | #

Is the Executive branch now vested in a "FUHRER" instead of "president"?
Alex | 09.28.06 - 7:34 pm | #

Well, at least the smattering of negative comments about the bill by Republicans can be used to tarnish them on the campaign trail.

Campaign trail?? Campaign trail. That is truly hilarious.
- | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 7:34 pm | #

If we're going to have a dictatorship, why can't we at least have a competent dictator?

If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.

you got your wish, George. Congratulations.
r€nato | 09.28.06 - 7:35 pm | #

Yes, it is now officially OK to call the Republicans fucking Nazis. They have proved it and even claimed it with their overwhelming support for this law, which kills the America that was. The Dems who voted for it, and even those who didn't, but who made no effort, concerted or otherwise, to alert the public to this rape of the Constitution about to take place, and thus to marshall public opposition, along with greater opposition by they peers. The Dems are the new Vichy government.

This is absolutely appalling and sickening. EVERYONE in Washington should be truly ashamed of themselves tonight, yet few of them have the moral intelligence to even know they should be feeling something they're incapable of feeling.
Robert1014 | 09.28.06 - 7:35 pm | #

. . .will cost the Democrats dearly. They do not deserve to win back either the House and Senate, and I believe they won't. They have proven to me that the Republicans are right: Democrats are cowards! Let History be the judge.

There are two posibilites here Matt. Either you are not willing to still work and fight for what is right -- what this country is based upon.

Or you are another plant. A disparing Dem on the outside, but posting disparing Dem crap as a republican, on the inside.

If you are the former. Buck up. If you are the latter, nice try.
michilines | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 7:38 pm | #

Oops! I meant, "The Dems who voted for it, and even those who didn't, etc. etc...are a disgrace."
Robert1014 | 09.28.06 - 7:38 pm | #

I honestly have no idea what the fuck those 34 Democrats were thinking. But this is all feeling very Weimar to me. Serious question: at what point does one emigrate? These laws can be turned against dissenters very quickly, and complicity is going to make legislators and their constitutents slow to turn against the White House.

Not to be absurd, but it really does seem time to start getting paranoid about the domestic ambitions of the Cheney coterie.
Aaron | 09.28.06 - 7:38 pm | #

Man, Im from NJ. What the hell am I going to do? both Lautenberg and Menendez voted for this bill...guess i'll see what the socialist candidate is up to...this seeming glibness is actually masking boarder-line despair...
howler | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 7:40 pm | #

michilines | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 7:38 pm |

Just. doesn't. get it.
- | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 7:40 pm | #

Show me the cloture on one important bill that has stood, and I'll be happy with the Dem's performance.
MobiusKlein | 09.28.06 - 7:41 pm | #

I guess the final tally explains why there was no attempt at a filibuster. Reid never had the votes from a quarter of his own caucus. Sleep tight, everyone... I'll write again from Canada.
ryan | 09.28.06 - 7:41 pm | #

Oh what the fuck's the difference. It passed.

Our very own Enabling Act. How nice.

The democrats could have mounted SOME kind of defense, but they chose not to.
semper fubar | 09.28.06 - 7:41 pm | #

I emailed my Democratic Senator earlier today, letting him know how unhappy I was that he voted against Specter's habeas corpus amendment. I also explained my objections to the bill itself and let him know that I would not vote for him in November if he voted for passage of the final bill. Ben Nelson lost a Democratic vote because of his vote today, and I have no qualms with encouraging others in Nebraska to do the same.

I'm pissed.
shoddy | 09.28.06 - 7:41 pm | #

renato,

"OK, so NOW is it OK to call them fucking Nazis?"

What makes you think they have sex?

Rob
Desert Son | 09.28.06 - 7:42 pm | #

I honestly have no idea what the fuck those 34 Democrats were thinking.

Just to be clear -- 12 Democrats voted FOR the bill. 32 Democrats voted AGAINST it.
Glenn Greenwald | 09.28.06 - 7:42 pm | #

Thanks for the list, Glenn. I cringed when I heard Rockefeller and Landrieu vote aye. When Lieberman voted aye, I was not at all surprised. Go to hell, Joe.

No wonder the dems horsetraded a filibuster for attempted amendments. They didn't have the votes. I expected this of the Republicans (Chafee excepted), but I was hoping Democrats knew better.
Richard 23 | 09.28.06 - 7:43 pm | #

Yeah, buck up! There's still jobs 'n healthcare!
Kagro X | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 7:43 pm | #

They're debating HR 5825 on the House floor right now.
ej | 09.28.06 - 7:45 pm | #

Warren Olney 9/28/06
http://www.kcrw.com/cgi-bin/db/kcrw.pl? show_code=tp&air_date=09/28/06&tmplt_type=Show
[podcast not available yet, but should be there tonight or tomorrow]
Will Marshall was evasive but was finally forced to admit that yes, the Capitol Hill Dems had ceded their moral proxy to McCain, and the Dems didn't have a plan B ... however, claimed Marshall, it was simplistic and unrealistic to assert that the Dems should've had a plan B ... I was prejudiced in advance but I was still taken aback at how nauseating Marshall could be.

Warren Olney is sharp. I'd advise anybody with something to hide to stay off his show.

Glenn Greenwald had to answer some sharp questions, but unlike Will Marshall, Greenwald was well-prepared and was defending American values.
sysprog | 09.28.06 - 7:46 pm | #

Incidentally, if I gave offense, I apologize. I'm trying to hang on to my sense of humor, and my sense of humor is turning decidedly grim.

Although I still think it's a decent point about the sex thing. When was the last time you heard someone getting a nice piece of elephant?

Führerprinzip

[shudder]

Dark day. Dark, dark day.

Rob
Desert Son | 09.28.06 - 7:46 pm | #

Dear r€nato,

OK, so NOW is it OK to call them fucking Nazis?

You made me blow my beer right through my nose! Great comment!

I guess the Republicans cannot now allow either the House or Senate to change hands. And, of course, no Democrat can be president, because then a Democrat would have dictatorial powers - clearly unacceptable.

So, I look for a "national emergency" and postponed elections next.

But, I won't give up. Keep trying to do the right thing and get America back to where she was.
Toby Tobiason | 09.28.06 - 7:49 pm | #

Glenn-

I understood the tally. But you know, this is the first peep I've heard out of those 34 Democrats. You know in retrospect, I wonder if it would have been a good idea to get out in front of this a little....

Shite.
Aaron | 09.28.06 - 7:49 pm | #

What makes you think they have sex?

because they are always fucking us in the ass.

Or is that the Democrats? Hard to tell these days.
r€nato | 09.28.06 - 7:49 pm | #

Sorry, 32 democrats.
Aaron | 09.28.06 - 7:50 pm | #

Glenn: That's not so bad. 73% of all Democrats support Democracy and the rule of law. Doesn't that just make you want to go out there and vote for them?
edwin | 09.28.06 - 7:50 pm | #

r€nato,

"because they are always fucking us in the ass."

Yeah, but rape isn't about sex, it's about power, and that's what this is.

Rape isn't a word I use lightly. But a rape of the Constitution, and of the very fiber of the nation, is what is happening.

No kings! NO KINGS!

Rob
Desert Son | 09.28.06 - 7:52 pm | #

We should think of the 12 Democratic ayes as branded with scarlet "T"'s. We should particularly remember this when their next primaries come around and be sure to mount challenges.

(reposted from Taylor thread; I accidentally posted it in the wrong place)
crust | 09.28.06 - 7:53 pm | #

I understood the tally. But you know, this is the first peep I've heard out of those 34 Democrats. You know in retrospect, I wonder if it would have been a good idea to get out in front of this a little....

You have no argument from me there. I just wanted to make sure the tally was clear. I am very ambivalent about the Democrats here (the ones who voted against, I mean - I'm anything but ambivalent about the ones who voted for).

Yeah, they did the right thing in the end. And yeah, a lot of them gave nice, stirring speeches and said the right thing. And they got more votes against than I thought they would. But all that happened only once it was a fait accompli that they were not filibustering and the bill was passing. A lot of this was cynical, not real.

Still, there are some True Believers in the rule of law and in American values in the Senate and the House, and the overwhelming majority of them happen to be Democrats. That's a distinction I think we can't afford to overlook right now.
Glenn Greenwald | 09.28.06 - 7:54 pm | #

Is anybody else as sick of Arlen Specter as I am? He does this EVERY time.

He'll get up in front of the cameras and make a grand speech about how Bush is breaking the law or how this set backs law '900 years' and then backs down and votes the party line. He does it EVERY time.

What a hypocrite.
JJ | 09.28.06 - 7:57 pm | #

this is the end my friend everyone mark this day and date and remember when we lost our democracy. this is so sad and maddening! i guess we'd rather live in fear instead of democracy god help us.
juslin | 09.28.06 - 7:57 pm | #

Hey, almost 1/3 of Senate Democrats voted for torture. And roughly 1/4 of the House. Isn't that spifferiffica? Ai't that terrifico? Don't it just make you want to cream your jeans, if you're a Bush.

What does this really mean? What it really means is that the 2006 election don't matter, except to a few wonks.

Reality: Even if the Senate *and* the House change hands, there'll still be 12 Democratic Senators and 40 Democratic House members still on their knees to do the Presidents bidding. 52 critical Democrats without guts, without conscience, without integrity of any sort. Enough 'co-operating' Democrats to squash any subpoena, or investigation, or trace of spine.

We're so screwed.
Den Valdron | 09.28.06 - 7:59 pm | #

Still, there are some True Believers in the rule of law and in American values in the Senate and the House

I'm not so sure I believe that.

What bothers me about the Democrats is they build the machines that make these abuses possible. Then when a power-hungry maniac like Bush takes over, they say, oh, but we would have been so much better! We only kidnapped a few men and sent them to be beaten and tortured in prisons in faraway countries. Who gives a damn! The cult of personality has merely been transferred to the Republicans.
Rob McMillin | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 8:00 pm | #

I'm not so sure I believe that.

You don't believe there are ANY people who genuinely believe in American principles or the rule of law in the entire House or Senate - not Feingold or Leahy or Conyers - none of them?
Glenn Greenwald | 09.28.06 - 8:04 pm | #

For the record I am not a troll. I am disgusted with my country and NO ONE should get a free pass for gutting the constitution. The Democrats cannot trade our constitution for a win in November. It is a hollow victory. The Republicans will always be around to call them "soft on terrorism" and they do not have the mettle to fight. This bill should have been filibustered and the Democrats are cowards. They should all resign, or they be kicked out.
Matt | 09.28.06 - 8:05 pm | #

There's some good news in all this. It settles a long-running bar bet.

Turns out, Ann Coulter's standard for treason is right after all!

Or at least, it now has the force of law.
Kagro X | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 8:07 pm | #

Democrats in favor (12) - Carper (Del.), Johnson (S.D.), Landrieu (La.), Lautenberg (N.J.), Lieberman (Conn.), Menendez (N.J), Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.), Pryor (Ark.), Rockefeller (W. Va.), Salazar (Co.), Stabenow (Mich.).

Lautenberg???? Why? Is it to help Menendez win in Nov? The rest are generally expected though I expected more of the likes of Stabenow.
Joe | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 8:07 pm | #

Does anybody remember Mary Landrieu's rousing floor speech against the administration a couple of weeks ago? This in particular:

"Americans are tired of boneheaded Republican leadership that alienates our allies when we need them the most"

And so of course, she votes to INCREASE Bush's power to do just that. So much for voting one's conscience. Unbelievable.
Mary Eliz | 09.28.06 - 8:08 pm | #

The Democrats have betrayed their base. Something, by the way, the Republicans have learned not to do. I wonder what Howard Dean thinks about his party now?
Matt | 09.28.06 - 8:09 pm | #

Think of this as a teachable moment. Most people have no real idea what "star chamber", "habeas corpus", "bill of attainder" or "ex post facto law" mean. Now, when we teach about our history and our founding fathers, we will be able to use contemporary American examples.
John Emerson | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 8:10 pm | #

"There are two posibilites here Matt. Either you are not willing to still work and fight for what is right -- what this country is based upon.

Or you are another plant. A disparing Dem on the outside, but posting disparing Dem crap as a republican, on the inside.

If you are the former. Buck up. If you are the latter, nice try."

This type of crap really sets me off. It was the Dem leadership that failed miserably. They are the only ones with the power to DO ANYTHING at SHORT NOTICE. No matter how many calls we make or words we type on blogs from the grassroots, or hours we volunteer during elections, nothing happens but cheap talk when the Dem LEADERSHIP is required to ACT at short notice. No matter how much we call and write letters and "buck up" it is THEY who have the power on capitol hill. We can't go and vote in the Senate. We can't filibuster. We can't get a spot on TV or radio, or send out press releases. THEY HAVE TO! Each one of us is just ONE voice out of millions.

Now we've got some very pissed off foot soldiers like Matt THIRSTING for a leader SOMEHWERE to step forward and FIGHT. Look at the abysmal record of Dems fighting. Clinton finally fights back FIVE YEARS TOO LATE and we all fall over ourselves. The UK Member of Parliament Gallaway comes over here and bitchslaps the Republicans and we CHEER that SOMEONE is FINALLY fighting back. But Obama and the rest of them DO FUCKING NOTHING.

And you come here and scold someone who is friggin tired of waiting for leadership? Someone who has most likely has been waiting YEARS for some leadership to emerge?

One of the best models for leadership is the military. Where else do you find people WILLING TO GET KILLED following their leaders? The armed forces understand how important strong leadership is to WINNING. When the shite hits the fan, it's usually because of a LACK OF LEADERSHIP. And that applies here to.

Well, you don't fix the leadership problem by telling the grunts to "buck up." We had a saying: Lead, Follow, or Get Out Of The Way. We're more than ready to follow once someone we've already elected to lead stands tall and LEADS BY ACTION. The problem is with the leadership, not the foot soldiers.

TELL THE LEADERS TO BUCK UP.

Save your scolding for them.

Here endeth the rant.
Bob | 09.28.06 - 8:11 pm | #

Frankly I thought I was able to see the big picture and vote/contribute to all Dems just for the pragmatic reason of getting rid of the GOP. But this just crosses the line. This Brown in Ohio and Ford really harmed our Country today. It's a sad fact but this country is going down hill.
padcrasher | 09.28.06 - 8:11 pm | #

What can happen?
whig | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 8:12 pm | #

The Democrats have betrayed their base. Something, by the way, the Republicans have learned not to do.

You must know some different Republicans than I do, most are furious that their social issues have been completely ignored for years and that the so-called 'small government' party has expanded to record limits.

They either vote Republican because they are still scared to death of terrorists, or because they are vehemently pro-life.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 8:14 pm | #

I clipped a number of House floor speeches about this yesterday at http://www.canofun.com/blog/vidb...g/ vidbydate.asp as well as a few from the Senate debate (after I watched the HP pretext hearing). My own Democratic (?) congressman voted for this.
Cof | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 8:15 pm | #

Just so the trains keep running on time.
dick tuck | 09.28.06 - 8:16 pm | #

Mark my words: A lot of people are going to stay home on Election Day because of this stupid, cowardly "strategy". Do the Dems really think they can win over conservatives with these kinds of votes? I would be laughing if it were not so SERIOUS!

The Democrats have lost the election today, as well they should.
Matt | 09.28.06 - 8:19 pm | #

I remember reading someplace, a writing by a German on the Nazi era. It was all about how they focused on preventing the excesses. They built this horrid machine, but they were very concerned that it not go too far, not get too out of hand. It simply did not occur to them that their whole system, their whole nation, was corrupt. That the fact that the abuses were occurring was a simple fact of the monstrous nature of the thing that they were a part of. Which was why they could never control these abuses.

In the end, all their compassion and concern lead to pointless blitherings around the edge. With a concern that Jews be killed humanely, without excess suffering or bloodshed. They were part of the machineries of horror, and they refused to realize that. They simply refused to accept the totality of what it was they were a part of, and felt that the solution was to just try and combat what they termed excesses, to make it nicer.

That's your 32 Democrats. That's Russ Feingold. And Leahy. And Conyers. And Obama. That's it, Glen. That's all they are.

They're the guys insisting on painless gas chambers, and curtains on the concentration camp barracks. They're the guys concerned about decency and excesses.

And they don't make a damned bit of difference to anyone about anything. They sit there secure in their ineffectuality, proud of their helplessness, self-absolved of responsibility while the world goes to hell around them.

The concentration camps will be built all around them, and they'll shrug their shoulders and say 'Well, I tried.' And then they'll just keep on being sympathetic and friendly and ultimately, oh so carefully ineffectual. Because deep down, they don't have the stomach to do what it takes to have a real fight.

You want their future. Their future is all about sitting on the sidelines, its all about polite cocktail party chatter, and long faces and liberal sympathies. It's all about bowing out and caving in, keeping their mouths shut, and when its all decided, taking just enough of a stand that will allow them to hope no one will get mad at them.

The Republicans turn my stomach. The rogue Democrats turn my stomach. But those 32 Democrats? Fuck em. They found their role, and they found their place. It's on their knees.

They're as much a part of it as the worst. They're just there to make it look okay.
Den Valdron | 09.28.06 - 8:21 pm | #

Bravo to the Senate for making sure this president and his successors have the tools necessary to defeat terror.

Kinda hard to call the GOP the "party of torture" when the only Senator there who actually has been tortured supported the bill strongly.

This isn't about torture. It's about interrogation -- and, not only that, but about having some checks and balances in place on that. This is precisely what the Supreme Court implored Congress to do in the Hamdan ruling.

This is a critically important contrast, Glenn. You're right.

Most of the Democrats are simply not equipped to lead the nation in wartime.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 8:22 pm | #

JJ,
Are you from PA? If you aren't, rejoice. I am from PA, and Specter is sickening.
Jimmy the Saint | 09.28.06 - 8:24 pm | #

Tell ya what, Imsnooping. You go waterboarding for five minutes, tell us how much fun it is.

Then maybe you're qualified to talk about torture.
Den Valdron | 09.28.06 - 8:26 pm | #

Most of the Democrats are simply not equipped to lead the nation in wartime.

Because, of course, Republicans have done such a WONDERFUL job of doing that, in Iraq, Afganistan, the "GWOT", Vietnam, etc.

You're so funny.
Kovie | 09.28.06 - 8:29 pm | #

Mary Eliz,
You expected anything more? A lot of the Dems have rolled over for Bush since the beginning.
Jimmy the Saint | 09.28.06 - 8:29 pm | #

IMsnooping provides a perfect example of why the Democrats behavior today is so stupid. Does Sherrod Brown think he can insulate himself from the negative sound bites and attack ads. He stood against the constitution! Conservative Light go home!
Matt | 09.28.06 - 8:29 pm | #

Kovie,
With the leadership the Dems have shown in the Senate, why should we hold out hope? They cave to practically everything Bush wants, instead of fighting for what is right.
Jimmy the Saint | 09.28.06 - 8:31 pm | #

I'm a realist, and the Democrats in red states did not have a choice.

The movie, a documentary, "Red State".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z...hBZrkC2ps& eurl=

and from the clips, and what I know about it, it's easy to see why torture, and throwing away habeas corpus is now the norm.

Let's face it. Those who voted for the bill know and want to please their constituencies. No logical argument could be made to those who live in middle America.
prabhata | 09.28.06 - 8:34 pm | #

To the person who suggested I go waterboarding, I can't lay claim to. But a friend's son went through the SERE training and, as part of that, did get waterboarded.

That's right. We actually, ahem, torture our own soldiers.

He didn't like it and broke within 20 seconds. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed endured it for over 2 minutes -- before finally spilling his guts and giving up vital information.

There are obviously lines we shouldn't be crossing. And that's part of why this bill makes so much sense -- to draw those lines, but in a way that protects the tools we need to gain vital information.

I wish we could jusk as these jihadists nicely what they know. But, unfortunately, the world ain't that pleasant...especially the world of warfare.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 8:34 pm | #

I'm just thinking outside the box here as I have no legal training but shouldn't some crazy law like this that excludes judicial review, something so blatently unconstitutional, enable someone to bring suit without having a rock solid standing claim? I mean radical laws that exclude the courts should trigger radical judicial measures.
padcrasher | 09.28.06 - 8:35 pm | #

B.S. The Dems are just as responsible for all of it. Nice try Greenwald. No dice.

Peace
Human | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 8:36 pm | #

This was posted in the comments section over at Obsidian Wings:

So: I just talked to a staffer at Reid's office, who says that they can't filibuster now, as it would take unanimous consent; and that they did this because they didn't have the votes for the filibuster, so tried instead to change some of the more awful parts of the bill. I asked who were the six Senators who would have voted for cloture; the staffer declined to tell me, but added: not Senator Reid, I can tell you that. He added that some Senators were in very close elections.

I said: look, I'm out here trying as hard as I can to make sure that people who stick up for the Constitution are supported by their constituents in turn. I'm sure a lot of other people are as well. We're doing it because we think it's the right thing to do, even though in most cases it doesn't particularly benefit us. And all we ask in return is that our Senators try to do the right thing as well, especially when it's this important.

He said he would pass that message along. He seemed nice, if somewhat dispirited.

Posted by: hilzoy | September 28, 2006 at 04:38 PM

Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall.
fad | 09.28.06 - 8:38 pm | #

Padcrasher....

This is precisely what the Supreme Court instructed the president and Congress to do when they ruled in Hamdan.

The courts will have no problem with this. And the majority in the notoriously moderate Senate was pretty big.

Moreover, the very namesake of "the McCain Amendment" dealing with torture gave his blessing.

This is a good bill. We've got to make sure our intelligence folks have the tools they need to do the job we ask them to do.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 8:40 pm | #

What is to stop this Administration from declaring anyone they don't like to be an enemy combatant? There appears to be no mechanism to stop this from happening, except for whatever goodness may exist in their dark hearts.

I like to believe that things are never as good or as bad as they seem, but I have never been more depressed about the state of our nation than today. Please tell me this travesty can be overturned by the Supreme Court. Please tell me in two years with a different President this "law" can be applied in a constitutional albeit voluntary manner. Or maybe not applied at all.

A prediction: if there is another successful terrorist attack in this country, and if there is any involvement at all of US residents or citizens - Martial Law and a bloodbath of secret detention and torture.
Thomas G. Ballou | 09.28.06 - 8:41 pm | #

This is the point where everyone is faced with a decision - what are you going to do now? The choices are pretty simple:

- Flee. Run away, move away

- Give up - welcome the new order and try to find a quiet place where you can blend in and hope you will be left alone

- Stand up and fight

I don't know about you, but I chose to stand and fight.

Tonight is the time for a moment of silence and reflection on the active rejection of the core principals that made this country great by a majority of our Congress. Tomorrow (and every day after that) it is time to stand up and make a difference.

Here's what I suggest:

The quickest way to start making a difference is to work to get Democrats elected in November. Yes, a number of them stood silently (or activeley assisted) while a bunch of authoritarians raped our Constitution and crapped all over this country's values and reputation, but there would be a change in tone if the Republicans lost control of one or both houses of Congress. It would set the administration and their media enablers back on their heels, shed some light (through investigations) on all of the nasty illegal activities and corruption that has been kept hidden, and force the debate to move toward the center instead of the current battle between the radical right and the hard right.

The other thing you can do every day is make sure that the rightwing, Rush Limbaugh inspired lies and deceptions do not go unchallenged. Don't let your brother-in-law or neighbor or coworker spout the Hannity talking points without standing up to them. Watch Olberman and listen to Air America or other Progressive radio shows (and keep going to the best blogs on the side of Right, like this one).

Longer term, I think that progressives need to take over the Democratic party. It is easier and quicker to do this than creating a new party from scratch. Look at how much a bunch of fundamentalists and anti-taxation and pollution wackos have done to change the Republican party. We need to do the same thing to the Democrats but in a better direction. It means staying committed and not letting defeats discourage you. Think long term and keep moving forward.

The process is simple - get involved directly with one or more campaigns this election. Volunteer, go to some events, get to know the lay of the land. Then get involved early before the primaries for the 2008 elections and build up networks of like-minded people to push the local party structure in the right direction. Get into a position of leadership if you can. Find good people to run for local offices and help them get elected.

It's Valley Forge time people. You can either sit around and be defeated waiting for someone else to do things for you or you can start doing the hard work to make a difference. The choice is yours.

Geekmouth
Geekmouth | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 8:42 pm | #

Hmmm ... I wonder if I could parlay my IRS experience into a job with the Canada Revenue Agency? The regime wouldn't dare kidnap an employee of the Canadian government off the streets of Ottawa, would they?

On second thought, never mind. Of course they would. See y'all in Gitmo. Sooner than any of us think.
burnspbesq | 09.28.06 - 8:46 pm | #

What do we do now?

What can we do now?

I'm so sick at heart... there are no words to describe my despair.

Any one of us - all of us - could disappear tomorrow, never to be seen again, with no one ever knowing what happened to us.

I don't know what country this is. I don't even know what to do to fight what we've become. The political process is dead and the law is on the fascists' side.

It just took 6 years. That's stunning... it took the Nazis longer to take over Germany, and they had a thoroughly demoralized, bankrupted, post-war country to work with.
CaseyL | 09.28.06 - 8:47 pm | #

1)My apologies for assuming that Reid had a filibuster or procedural block up his sleeve. He just didn't have the votes for it, and unfortunately, as the minority leader, he just doesn't have any plums he can offer or withhold to force party members into a straight party vote.

2)In response to one commenter here, there is language in the bill that makes it clear this ONLY applies to non-citizens. That's small comfort, but it does mean that MOST of us are not in danger of getting rendered off without access to habeus corpus.
steve davis | 09.28.06 - 8:47 pm | #

Oh good grief, Casey. Quit being so melodramatic. The Nazis? The Fascists?

You wonder why your view of matters doesn't go very far saying things like that?

Godwin's Law, anybody?
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 8:48 pm | #

IMSnooping: This is a good bill. We've got to make sure our intelligence folks have the tools they need to do the job we ask them to do.

Tell me, IMSnooping, were the Japanese (that we hung for war crimes) who gave the water treatment to our troops in WWII justified in doing so?
prunes | 09.28.06 - 8:50 pm | #

Godwin's Law, anybody?

Please explain what you mean by this.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 8:51 pm | #

Jimmy,

Yeah, I guess I did expect something more. I thought that surely a Democratic senator from freaking Louisiana, after all the administration's screwups with Katrina, would have enough chutzpa to make a stand - if not for the country as a whole, then for her constituents who're increasingly looking to the Democrats this fall. My boyfriend lives in Baton Rouge and he says even though LA is a red state there are more people thinking about voting Democrat - or anti-Bush, anyway, than he's ever seen before.

I expect congressmen and women to REPRESENT the people. Most Americans don't support torture as a national policy. So voting against this bill should go without saying, right??

I just can't believe we're even having this debate, it makes me sick.
Mary Eliz | 09.28.06 - 8:51 pm | #

Godwin's Law, anybody?

Godwin's law has been suspended due to the extremely close similarities between the current American regime and the Third Reich. Godwin's law was never meant to be absolute. When a government does fascist things, it's stupid not to call them fascist. Bush is a fascist. It's that simple. He's not Hitler, but it's still early in the game.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 8:52 pm | #

Godwin's Law, anybody?
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 8:48 pm

Godwin's Law went out the window at 6:37 PM ET on September 28, 2006
ej | 09.28.06 - 8:53 pm | #

"We've got to make sure our intelligence folks have the tools they need to do the job we ask them to do."

How exactly is torture needed to "do the job" again? This is where the GOP talking points always trail off. They have no answer to the fact that torture doesn't actually generate more accurate information for the interrogating party.

*crickets chirping*

Thought so.
avh | 09.28.06 - 8:59 pm | #

Mark my words: A lot of people are going to stay home on Election Day because of this

Because of this? I doubt it. I know it energized me, and most of the people I talked with about it today. The good thing about a GOP-led Congress betraying American ideals is that, well, it was a GOP-led Congress that did it. Not too many people will remember the particulars by the election; it's the sound-bite that's important, as always.
Susan | 09.28.06 - 9:00 pm | #

Being in Texas, both of my Senators are lowlife scum, but my Congressman, Lloyd Doggett, is great.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 9:02 pm | #

"Only non-citizens"?

You jackass.

First off, the Constitution doesn't only apply to citizens. There's nothing in the Consitution that says "these rights apply to citizens only."

Second off, the interpretation and implementation of the new law is at Bush's absolute disposal. If he decides to unilaterally strip you of your citizenship in the process of disappearing you, what are you going to do about it? You'll have no counsel, no recourse to a court hearing, no contact with the outside world at all.

No one will know what happened to you. No one will be able to contact you. No one will be able to go before a court to petition on your behalf. And no one will want to, because anyone who does risks being disappeared as well.
CaseyL | 09.28.06 - 9:03 pm | #

Tell me, IMSnooping, were the Japanese (that we hung for war crimes) who gave the water treatment to our troops in WWII justified in doing so?

I don't think waterboarding is across the line of interrogation tactics, no. Is it pleasant? Of course not. But there's a reason that we actually put our own people through it in resistance training: it happens.

If you have a better suggestion for how to break detainees and get them to talk, I'm all ears. But that's the problem: you don't. Nobody does.

It takes some coercive tactics. And part of what we're debating here is what is and is not acceptable.

I find myself back at the same old place with your objections: I really, really wish the world were as you wish it were than as it actually is.

It would be a better place, and I mean that. But the world is what it is.

And whether it's setting up internment camps for Japanese-Americans, as the great wartime president Roosevelt did, or the temporary suspension of habeus corpus, as another great wartime president (Lincoln) did...sometimes winning wars requires us to do things we'd rather not do.

And this is nowhere near those things that FDR and Lincoln did.

Oh, and Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus was of American citizens -- those who actually enjoyed the protection of the US Constitution. So, let's not compare that to this.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 9:05 pm | #

I am amazed by the powerlessness expressed in many of these posts. You bounce between voiced helplessness and angry resistance. There is a far more powerful (both personal and political) option. I declare myself an enemy combatant of this shameful government. My weapons are peace, truth and a firm belief in our shared humanity, domestic and abroad. From this source, I am able to overcome fear and act with integrity.

Ghandi brought down the mightiest empire in the 20th century without violence. Think and act with conviction.
Dave | 09.28.06 - 9:05 pm | #

It takes some coercive tactics. And part of what we're debating here is what is and is not acceptable.

I imagine just about anything would be acceptable to you.

Anything is acceptable the administration, anyway:

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 9:07 pm | #

How exactly is torture needed to "do the job" again? This is where the GOP talking points always trail off. They have no answer to the fact that torture doesn't actually generate more accurate information for the interrogating party.

Well, A) I don't think "torture" is needed. But I don't think there's any torture being authorized by this bill.

But, B, we do need to use coercive interrogations. And those who do the interrogations are pretty unanimous about that. They're the experts on it and I think they should have the tools they say they need.

As for them being effective, did you catch Brian Ross' report on ABC about the interrogations of Ramzi binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed?

In KSM's case, he broke after more than 2 minutes of waterboarding (which is quite a long time). At that time, he spilled a lot of information and, according to Ross' report, it was all genuine and useful...and even led to the thwarting of a plot to hit a building in Los Angeles.

So, yeah, I think it's effective. If it weren't, I doubt seriously that the CIA would be asking for this.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 9:09 pm | #

And this is nowhere near those things that FDR and Lincoln did.

First of all, the legality of those actions is not clear, nor is the necessity.

Secondly, we do not now face anything like the threat they did, despite the efforts of power-hungry mobsters to convince us otherwise.

Also, please answer how you think Godwin's law applies. By your usage, it's clear you've never read it.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 9:09 pm | #

And those who do the interrogations are pretty unanimous about that.

This is a lie. Interrogators have filed dissensions which state that waterboarding endangers US troops. If you have any evidence that 'most' interrogators claim this is necessary, please provide it.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 9:10 pm | #

Rob McMillin asked, "Seriously, what do we do now?". I agree. But read this @ Kos...."to strip the court of judicial review via habeas corpus...even though the constitution does not allow you to except in cases of invasion or Rebellion" Doesn't this give us hope that the court will overturn this based on that statement from the Constitution? Glenn, please tell me that it's likely this criminal legislation will be overturned by the court. And isn't there a way to accelerate the process to get in their hands?
timotis | 09.28.06 - 9:11 pm | #

I imagine just about anything would be acceptable to you.

Well, uh, no. As I said above, the entire idea behind this bill is to draw that line.

Not everything is acceptable. But not everything ought be unacceptable either. And that's precisely the point.

We've got to have the tools our intelligence professionals say they need to do their job. And I have to defer to their expertise in this area.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 9:12 pm | #

I'd prefer to defer to the Constitution, but thanks.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 9:13 pm | #

Glenn, please tell me that it's likely this criminal legislation will be overturned by the court.

But the Congress is doing precisely what the court just directed them to do. If you read the opinions in Hamdan, their problem wasn't so much the "what", it was the "how."

They felt like it was too much authority to give to one man. I actually happen to disagree with that and agree pretty strongly with, particularly, AJ Thomas' dissent.

They gave the administration a roadmap for getting the tribunal process square with the Constitution. And that's, in part, what this bill today was.

They're not going to overturn something they told the president to do.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 9:15 pm | #

Geekmouth - You almost had me. Stand up and fight! then we "must get Democrats elected". Hehhe. You're pretty funny.
Human | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 9:16 pm | #

yo snoopy. could you please substantiate this claim:

"And those who do the interrogations are pretty unanimous about that. They're the experts on it and I think they should have the tools they say they need. . .
So, yeah, I think it's effective. If it weren't, I doubt seriously that the CIA would be asking for this."

_____________________________

This whole debate is obscene. As someone said earlier, "it is a dark, dark day."
manonfyre | 09.28.06 - 9:17 pm | #

I'd prefer to defer to the Constitution, but thanks.

Me too. But there aren't any constitutional problems here....certainly not with regard to the interrogation tactics, anyway.

The courts may have a problem with the exclusion of habeus corpus, I don't know. But they didn't seem to voice much concern about that in the Hamdan ruling. Their chief concern seemed to be the lack of a Congressional imprimatur on the tribunal process.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 9:18 pm | #

prunes: Tell me, IMSnooping, were the Japanese (that we hung for war crimes) who gave the water treatment to our troops in WWII justified in doing so?

prunes: I don't think waterboarding is across the line of interrogation tactics, no. Is it pleasant? Of course not. But there's a reason that we actually put our own people through it in resistance training: it happens.

So, after WWII, we hung men for war crimes that were not really war crimes?

Or are what were formerly war crimes no longer war crimes?
prunes | 09.28.06 - 9:18 pm | #

Oops, the second quoted prunes was IMsnooping.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 9:18 pm | #

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/0...icer- to_28.html
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 9:18 pm | #

Our "intelligence professionals" didn't ask for this. Our "intelligence professionals" know torture doesn't work -

Wait. Let me restate that.

Torture works just fine if what you want are coerced confessions to imaginary crimes.

Torture works just fine is what you want is an intimidated populace.

Torture works just fine if what you want is tyranny.

And this isn't only about torture. It's also about eliminating habeas corpus. It's also about indefinite detention for anyone Bush decides he doesn't like anymore. It's also about eliminating any checks at all on Presidential power.

Is it possible that you don't get that? That this bill gives Bush carte blanche to do whatever the fuck he wants to, to whomever the fuck he wants to?

It's not possible for you to be that stupid.
CaseyL | 09.28.06 - 9:21 pm | #

It's not possible for you to be that stupid.

I don't think it's stupidity. Some people just prefer to live in a dictatorship. Democracy is just too messy for some people.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 9:23 pm | #

Lincoln temporarily suspended habeas corpus during a major insurrection where 600,000 were killed (in a much smaller population).

Five years after 3,000 die, Bush suspends habeas corpus PERMANENTLY.

For starters, HC was suspended in 1861. Nobody knew at that time how many people would die. And, frankly, it wasn't relevant.

Moreover, Article I Section 9 does clearly allow for the suspension of habeus corpus. A lot of people don't realize that -- but should.

But, more importantly, you're making an apples and oranges comparison here...and it has to do with the legal status of those involved.

Lincoln's order applied, exclusively, to American citizens who enjoyed the constitutional protections.

Here, we're talking about unlawful combatants. And you can't just ignore the distinction.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 9:24 pm | #

Franklin gave us a republic, if we can keep it.

We couldn't. I'm hoping for a revolt by the people—when American citizens who have committed no crime except for speaking truth to power start disappearing, we'll see if America is even worth saving.

Will we the people demand freedom? Or succomb to dictatorship?
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 9:26 pm | #

Moreover, Article I Section 9 does clearly allow for the suspension of habeus corpus.

Not under our current circumstances, which you'd know, if you'd read it.

Here, we're talking about unlawful combatants. And you can't just ignore the distinction.

Do you know the origin of the 'unlawful combatant' status? It was made up by the Bush administration to avoid oversight. IIRC, the metaphor they requested was the 'legal equivalent of outer space', i.e. a legal designation which was completely outside the normal courts.

Either al Qaeda are an army, or they are criminals. 'Unlawful combatant' carries as much traditional legal weight as 'evildoer', 'terror promoter', or any other non-defined term that pretends to be a legal one.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 9:27 pm | #

Here, we're talking about unlawful combatants.

Who gets to decide? What are the standards. What, you say that Bush gets to decide unilaterally? We're screwed.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 9:27 pm | #

What the hell is Colorado Senator Ken Salazar's excuse for voting for the detainee/torture bill today??????

He is not up for re-election for another 4 years!!!!!!!

Never again Salazar...not another dollar, not another vote...ever!
wtf | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 9:29 pm | #

Here, we're talking about unlawful combatants. And you can't just ignore the distinction.

You also ignore that this bill changes the definition of 'unlawful combatant' to a much broader category, that could easily include American citizens.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 9:29 pm | #

Prunes --

You don't understand. You're bullshitting about words. The basic PRINCIPLES of the United States have been CRUSHED. You or ANYONE can be made to disappear by the President AT HIS WILL, and be tortured in secret prisons. We have the same legal system, now, that STALIN did.

It doesn't even matter if Bush proves to be a nice guy and doesn't torture innocent people. THE REPUBLIC IS GONE!
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 9:30 pm | #

I am as appalled and disheartened as anyone by the Democrats' fecklessness on this bill (and my anticipated revulsion at their likely capitulation on Specter's bill when it actually comes around), but I don't believe that the twelve Democrats who voted for this travesty would have done so had the Democrats a majority in the Senate. That doesn't make them any less spineless, but as a practical matter, I think there is still hope that things could potentially change if enough Republicans are ousted in November.
Epsilon | 09.28.06 - 9:31 pm | #

You also ignore that this bill changes the definition of 'unlawful combatant' to a much broader category, that could easily include American citizens.

Indeed. There's nothing to stop Bush from declaring all left wing bloggers to be enemy combatants and have them sent to his secret gulag to be tortured. I don't think he'll do that right away, but there's no legal impediment to him doing so.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 9:32 pm | #

Imsnooping,

I'll bite--what distinction does The Constitution make?
. | 09.28.06 - 9:32 pm | #

Our "intelligence professionals" didn't ask for this. Our "intelligence professionals" know torture doesn't work

Sorry, but you're just wrong. I heard Gen. Hayden speak about this directly. And he's an intel pro going way back. He knows his stuff and has pretty strong bipartisan respect. Ask former Intel committee ranking member Nancy Pelosi about him...or current ranking member Jane Harman. He's a well-respected professional.

Moreover, go find the Brian Ross piece about the interrogations of KSM, Ramzi binalshibh, Abu Zubaydah, and various other AQ higher-ups.

He spoke of the information given up by these people. It was accurate and, in at least one case, it helped thwart a plot.

According to Ross, even some of the CIA officers who opposed these techniques admitted that they were effective.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 9:32 pm | #

We were warned:

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.

—James Madison
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 9:33 pm | #

More Madison:

It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.

—James Madison
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 9:35 pm | #

If the US is hit again by terrorists, the republicans will claim that this law has been proven necessary, and americans will back it. If the US is not hit again, the republicans will say it's because this law helped the government eliminate the bad guys. There is no downside for the republicans, and they know it. The brilliance here is not that they are arguing for torture, but that they are for "protecting america."
Winston Smith | 09.28.06 - 9:35 pm | #

STEVE - In response to one commenter here, there is language in the bill that makes it clear this ONLY applies to non-citizens. That's small comfort, but it does mean that MOST of us are not in danger of getting rendered off without access to habeus corpus.

You are simply mistaken. U.S. citizens can be declared to be "Unlawful enemy combatants" under this bill. From Sen. Reid's closing floor speech:

"Second, this bill authorizes a vast expansion of the President's power to detain people - even U.S. citizens - indefinitely and without charge. No
procedures for doing so are specified, no due process is provided, and no time limit on the detention is set."

And one more:

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

—James Madison
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 9:36 pm | #

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying the cross. Sinclair Lewis
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 9:37 pm | #

The courts may have a problem with the exclusion of habeus corpus, I don't know. But they didn't seem to voice much concern about that in the Hamdan ruling.

That's because it's the wrong ruling. Snooping and myopia don't really go that well together.
pseudonymous in nc | 09.28.06 - 9:37 pm | #

well, well, well, Steve "GROW UP!" Davis showed up to tell us it's really not that bad after all.

Hey Steve, still holding your breath waiting for that Phase II report?

It's OK Steve... at least you were man enough to admit how dead wrong you were about the Dems' brilliant strategy.
r€nato | 09.28.06 - 9:38 pm | #

"The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, to which we have no corresponding provision in our Constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 84
pseudonymous in nc | 09.28.06 - 9:39 pm | #

Those of you who are talking about limitations on the President's power form this bill are whistling in the dark. We know what it says; we know that it gives him the powers of a dictator. We can hope for the best.

But it's hard to believe that the president sought these power to not use them to their fullest. And even if he doesn't, some future president will.

The Constitution has been overthrown by those who have sworn to preserve, protect and defend it. By rights, they should all be impeached. Of course that won't happen. And some people, even on this blog, are defending or diminishing a dreadful event of historic proportions.
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 9:39 pm | #

The House is considering Schiff's amendment again, as JaO said they would in the previous thread. But, I'm not expecting a miracle.
ej | 09.28.06 - 9:41 pm | #

But there's a reason that we actually put our own people through it in resistance training: it happens.

I'm air force. I went through combat survival school. The Air Force has long since dispensed with conducting ANY training on resistance to physical forms of torture because it doesn't work. You CANNOT teach someone to resist pain or teach them to no respond naturally and reflexively. They only teach you what CAN be trained against: mental aspects of abuse.

You CANNOT teach someone to resist waterboarding. It is torture and acts on the most basic and reflexive level of ALL humans. NO human resists it so it is absolutely pointless to even try to "teach" it on the experience end to our troops. They CANNOT resist it and will do what ALL people do: make shit up to make it stop. They will give up everything they know plus everything they don't know and you cannot tell the difference. An innocent person will give you nothing but shit and a guilty person will give you reality and shit mixed together in a mess that cannot be separated into useful information.

Torture is morally wrong on its face. That is the most important thing. Accepting that, even if it did work (it doesn't and ALL interrogation experts know this and have declared this...the ONLY people that refuse to accept this are perverts that get sexual release from abusing other people and animals) it is still unacceptable because it produces no good information.

Get it? Torture doesn't work, and more importantly, it is unacceptable on its face. We are supposed to stand for something and be better than our worst enemies. Turns out we are no better, and are actually worse. These torture perverts are equally eager to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people with nukes as well.
Terminus_Est | 09.28.06 - 9:42 pm | #

Just in case anyone here forgets why the powers of our Constitution were divided:

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

—Lord Acton
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 9:42 pm | #

am as appalled and disheartened as anyone by the Democrats' fecklessness on this bill (and my anticipated revulsion at their likely capitulation on Specter's bill when it actually comes around), but I don't believe that the twelve Democrats who voted for this travesty would have done so had the Democrats a majority in the Senate. That doesn't make them any less spineless, but as a practical matter, I think there is still hope that things could potentially change if enough Republicans are ousted in November.

Exactly. Anyone can bash Democrats day and night. That's easy and they certainly deserve it.

But the question everyone has to answer is - do you believe that the country can be saved from the lawless authoritarians who have takne over, and if you do, what is the best way to go about achieving that?

Advocating a Democratic victory in November is not tantamount to defending Democrats or whitewashing their flaws. I see it as nothing more than an instrument to be used to preserve the things in this country which are worth preserving.
Glenn Greenwald | 09.28.06 - 9:42 pm | #

I linked to a Marty Lederman post at Balkin earlier today that has the statutory analysis as to why that is clearly, unquestionably the case. This bill has not one redeeming feature.

Well, it used to be that the problem was a president acting like a king. Now that the president has followed the SCOTUS' directions on how to set up a legal system for detaining, interrogating, and trying combatants...it's still not redeeming?

Even with 65 members of the notoriously moderate Senate voting in favor of it?

With Mr. Anti-Torture John McCain supporting it? Arlen Specter?

It has awfully broad support -- even the tacit support of the SCOTUS -- for you to say that it has nothing redeeming.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 9:43 pm | #

And just to add insult to injury, the senate also passed today the bill to build a fence along the southern boarder.

Are we sure it is to keep people out?
I divorced one like Bush | 09.28.06 - 9:44 pm | #

Torture is morally wrong on its face.

Yes, that's it. If we use evil, we become evil. There are certain lines that should never be crossed.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 9:44 pm | #

This is a very dark day; in fact, for our country I believe this is the darkest day in my lifetime (and I'm no kid). But I'm not a complete pessimist. We may rise from the ashes of this. We'll need to really care to do so. We'll need to be true Americans. But there is hope.

Remember:

Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible.

—George Orwell
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 9:45 pm | #

Look, we know that Bush has already been violating the Geneval Conventions. The punishment for these crimes is quite severe. That's why he requested this law, to escape punishment for his and his administration's crimes. Plus they get to keep torturing. BONUS!
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 9:46 pm | #

Imsnooping —

The bill will seem moderate until they come for YOU.
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 9:46 pm | #

You CANNOT teach someone to resist waterboarding. It is torture and acts on the most basic and reflexive level of ALL humans. NO human resists it so it is absolutely pointless to even try to "teach" it on the experience end to our troops.

I don't doubt that you're right. I imagine it can't be resisted -- which is exactly why I agree that we need the ability to use it.

But SERE still exposes their students to it. And that makes me think two things:

1) It's not torture. We don't "torture" our own military and intelligence personnel. The notion is nutty.

2) It's effective. Why else would they prepare our troops to resist it?

The Air Force may have stopped putting folks through this. But not all branches have.

And I just can't see fit to say that terrorists are due better treatment than our own folks.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 9:47 pm | #

And I just can't see fit to say that terrorists are due better treatment than our own folks.

I don't know, the way you say that, it's almost like they're presumed guilty before any evidence has been considered. That sounds pretty unAmerican to me. In any case, I don't think accused terrorists deserve better treatment than others accused of crimes. Just no worse.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 9:50 pm | #

Imsnooping —

You'll decide that it IS torture if you experience it firsthand. It's easy BS about it theoretically.
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 9:50 pm | #

Yes, that's it. If we use evil, we become evil. There are certain lines that should never be crossed.

Couldn't agree more. But the debate here -- or what should've been a debate, the Dems forgot to show up -- was precisely about where that line is and how we govern its placement.

I certainly don't agree that anything that seems to have been sanctioned here is "evil." But can't reasonable people disagree about such things?

If we sanctioned beheadings or drawing /quartering, I'd be right there with you. But this is, in the grand scheme of things, pretty tame stuff.

And I'm glad the Senate gave the president such a strong voice of approval.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 9:50 pm | #

Imsnooping didn't talk about Iran. He might as well have. His arguments fit perfectly for another war, another few hundred thousand dead – or maybe well over a million because nuclear weapons will probably be required. Murder, terrorist resistance and torture. The fool is working hard to defend us against terrorism by increasing the number of terrorists. The fool is working hard to defend our way of life by destroying everything we stand for. The fool lies to himself and tries to beguile us with lies. It's not torture, as the thin veneer of civilisation is ripped away exposing the savage underneath. Foaming at the mouth, he jumps up and down "It works! It works!" And so it does. Fangs appear on the mouth of Imsnooping. Spittle drips down his lips. The mere thought of torture has transformed the man. Imsnooping has shown that he is willing to descend far, far below the level decency of what we think of as civilised. I look at his rantings and ravings and cringe in embarrassment and shame.

It is not enough that graven images are made unto Bush, now I am to torture and die for him. This is the legacy and the glory that is the United States that Imsnooping is standing up straight and proud, and being counted for.
edwin | 09.28.06 - 9:51 pm | #

But can't reasonable people disagree about such things?

No, if you argue in favor of immoral acts, like torture, and dictatorial suspension of Constitutional freedoms, you are not a reasonable person. You are a coward, sir.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 9:52 pm | #

You'll decide that it IS torture if you experience it firsthand. It's easy BS about it theoretically.

No, I still wouldn't call it torture. But I can tell you this: I'd spill my guts awfully quickly if I were submerged in water that way.

And that's precisely the point. We've got to have some blessed interrogation tactic that is effective.

If these hardened terrorists spilled their guts for tea and crumpets, then that would be fine. Unfortunately, they don't.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 9:53 pm | #

As Dorothy would say, "Toto, I don't think we are in America anymore." At least not the America I grew up, one that provided the highest standards. Respect for American around the world has declined.

Why on earth was Iraq attacked, when Iran has long been the exporter of Islamic Revolution? Back to the movie, it seems the Bush administration is singing to themselves, "If I only had a brain."
RoxieAmerica | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 9:53 pm | #

Yes, the country can be saved. It starts by changing the congress to anyone who is not a republican. If it is a dem that can win, then you vote for them now. Then spend the next 2 years being active in changing the dialog such that the 08 election is about undoing what was done.

It is foolish to expect it in this next election because we need the office of the president to assure a super majority is not need to over turn a veto.

Let's spend the next hours venting and tomorrow we start the set up for 08.
I divorced one like Bush | 09.28.06 - 9:54 pm | #

Imsnooping —

You're arguing about torture (supporting it!) But this isn't about torture; hidden in plain sight in this bill is the END OF ALL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

If the president can make anyone disappear into a secret prison, and HE CAN, we don't have an America worth preserving. We've already GIVEN AWAY America. We've defeated ourselves—or surrendered to people in Washingon who wanted, and got, absolute power.
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 9:55 pm | #

No, if you argue in favor of immoral acts, like torture, and dictatorial suspension of Constitutional freedoms, you are not a reasonable person. You are a coward, sir.

Well, so says you. That's what you expect to hear from people from Austin, I s'pose.

But, then, I've got 65 Senators -- most of whom, I think, are reasonable -- on my side. And one of them has actually endured torture...5 years of it.

I don't mind resting on his moral authority on this matter. It certainly puts the lie to your charge here: that support for this bill is cowardly.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 9:55 pm | #

that support for this bill is cowardly.

I believe it is. History will look unkindly on this sad day.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 9:56 pm | #

Let's not stop there. Let us imagine the next step in the glorious American Empire.

We've got to have the tools our intelligence professionals say they need to do their job.

When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out that an armed confrontation does not make sense -- that it would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options through that filter. The "making sense" filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran.
Colonel Sam Gardiner
The End of the "Summer of Diplomacy":
Assessing U.S. Military Options in Iran
September 2006 (http://billmon.org/archives/002751.html)

And I have to defer to their expertise in this area.

It kind of says it all, no?(http://billmon.org/archives/002751.html)
edwin | 09.28.06 - 9:57 pm | #

Particularly appropriate here:

Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

—George Orwell
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 9:57 pm | #

The executive branch of our government is a criminal enterprise. The people who could stop the criminal acts are the republicans in congress. But they don't because they are scared of Rove, scared of terrorists, scared of Cheney with or without a gun, scared of their shadows.

I wouldn't be quite so hard on the democrats.
Lea | 09.28.06 - 9:58 pm | #

Imsnooping, yes, waterboarding is certainly effecive--at coercing false confessions. After waterboarding, you'll confess to any damn thing that you're asked to.

Thanks to this legislation, that "confession" can now be used as proof of guilt in a status hearing.

That's what you're standing for. And yes, it's evil. There's no room for reasonable disagreement.
Llelldorin | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 9:59 pm | #

IMSnooping...you're a fucking Nazi...even though you can't see it. Hell, the fucking NAZIs didn't know they were Nazis, if you know what I mean. They thought they were patriots fighting against "evil-doers."

You think this bill is good because it "draws a line."(sic) The line was already drawn: NO ABUSE of prisoners is acceptable EVER. A prisoner held in restraints, unable to respond to or fend off a physical assault on his person, cannot be so much as TOUCHED without the line having been crossed. A spit in the face crosses the line.

You don't believe that, of course, because you're a Nazi.
Robert1014 | 09.28.06 - 9:59 pm | #

Imsnooping—

But, then, I've got 65 Senators -- most of whom, I think, are reasonable -- on my side.

Is THAT the extent of your critical judgement? You will be a very content follower in the new dictatorship. Whatever our leader says is good enough for you.
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 10:01 pm | #

We've already GIVEN AWAY America. We've defeated ourselves—or surrendered to people in Washingon who wanted, and got, absolute power.

Publicus, can we suspend with the hyperbole? It's a serious matter and deserves serious discussion -- not this tripe.

You're basically echoing what the Supreme Court said in June. I, frankly, didn't agree with it. But they are, after all, the Supreme Court.

They found it the previous detention/trial regime an unconstitutional expansion of authority of the president. They further implored him to work with Congress to grant statutory blessing.

And that's what this is. So "absolute power"? How can you say that just several months removed from the Supreme Court knocking down the president's authority to do this of his own accord?

They told him he needed Congressional support. And now he has it -- which ostensibly means he has the support of both other branches of government.

And that's how our system works -- although I still maintain that Article II powers were sufficient. But that's a dead horse.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 10:01 pm | #

Imsnooping, you are a moron. I was there and went through it. I know from first hand experience. I am sure there are others here that have, you know, actually served and know of which I speak.

You know why they are exposed to it? To let them know what they are in for. You know what is demonstrated? You WILL give in and spill everything. You know what they tell us? Resist to the best of your abilities but know that in the end you will spill. You know the objective facts? Torture DOESN'T WORK! It is IMMORAL. The training was to show us, in brief, controlled measure what we are likely in for. It was NOT a demonstration of what we do to them. We were being taught about the bad guys.

I was exposed to the forced nakedness, hypothermia, SOME sleep deprivation with loud noise, claustrophobia (except I am not claustrophobic so that didn't work). I was exposed to stress positions. I saw others exposed to other stress (rolled up towel around the neck to prevent neck injury and shaken violently...they didn't do it to me and those like me because it takes an unusually large/powerful person to do this to someone who is above average in size/mass).

They did everything under strict control and there was ALWAYS a safety word. You could opt out if you were not mentally capable of dealing with it by speaking the word. This also got you drummed out of your combat position and either out of the military or into a noncombat position. Safe words, strict control, limits on what could be done (no mock executions, no electric shock, no actual physical, nor even intense mental, torture - no possibility of pain, maiming, death). Hell, the stress positions were handled such that it was like taking a particularly tough isometric exercise class.

All controlled and limited and with the point of teaching us to deal with the mental stuff. Nakedness, yelling, forced labor, moderate stress positioning...all mental exercises. It isn't that way with the Bush/Rumsfeld sexual games. They kill people. They happily and insanely enjoy torturing, actually torturing, innocent individuals. That is the worst of it but it is equally unacceptable to torture "guilty" persons.

By your definition, the Revolutionaries of our own war deserved torture because they were unlawful combatants by the British definition. Which side of the Civil War deserved torture because they were unlawful combatants? Why did George Washington hate America when he ordered humane treatment of Brit prisoners after they had tortured/murdered colonial illegal combatants? Is it OK to torture non-Christians? I'm a non-Christian you fuck. Is it OK to torture brown people? Yellow people? Blacks? Red? Where's the line? Why is George Washington such a superior human being to EVERYONE in the GOP today? Is it de-evolution?
Terminus_Est | 09.28.06 - 10:04 pm | #

You want this case explained. It’s simple—just like all of them. This morning a captain laid a charge that this man, who is assigned to him as a servant and who sleeps before his door, had been sleeping on duty. For his task is to stand up every time the clock strikes the hour and salute in front of the captain’s door. That’s certainly not a difficult duty—and it’s necessary, since he is supposed to remain fresh both for guarding and for service. Yesterday night the captain wanted to check whether his servant was fulfilling his duty. He opened the door on the stroke of two and found him curled up asleep. He got his horsewhip and hit him across the face. Now, instead of standing up and begging for forgiveness, the man grabbed his master by the legs, shook him, and cried out, ‘Throw away that whip or I’ll eat you up.’ Those are the facts. The captain came to me an hour ago. I wrote up his statement and right after that the sentence. Then I had the man chained up. It was all very simple. If I had first summoned the man and interrogated him, the result would have been confusion. He would have lied, and if I had been successful in refuting his lies, he would have replaced them with new lies, and so forth. But now I have him, and I won’t release him again. Now, does that clarify everything? But time is passing. We should be starting the execution, and I haven’t finished explaining the apparatus yet.”

Franz Kafka, The Penal Colony
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 10:04 pm | #

Is THAT the extent of your critical judgement? You will be a very content follower in the new dictatorship. Whatever our leader says is good enough for you.

Well, not really. I'd think this way even if they hadn't supported it so strongly.

But I was specifically responding to him calling me unreasonable, etc. etc.

That's a pretty hard thing to say when you have that kind of broad support, don't you think? Support that included all but one of the liberal Republicans. Support that included McCain, Hagel, Lugar, Graham, etal. Support that included 12 Democrats.

No, I support it regardless of what they had said. But I think it's pretty hard to call my position "unreasonable" when I'm in the company I'm in.

FWIW, I don't think your position is unreasonable. I just think it's weak.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 10:04 pm | #

Imsnooping—

What rights do you have left if the President can take ANYONE to secret prisons and torture them?

That's not hyperbole; that's the law.

As for the Supreme Court, do you expect THEM to protect you? Maybe, but by all appearances, the administration is violating the rulings of the Supreme Court under the excuse of "national security." And you seem to OPPOSE any protections for our inalienable rights by the Court...
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 10:04 pm | #

Imsnooping—

I've got nothing against you. I actually want to protect you and your rights...and ALL of our rights.

I don't want anyone who's innocent to disappear into secret prisons. But that's already been happening. And with this new law, it will happen more frequently, and with impunity.
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 10:07 pm | #

More Kafka--"The basic principle I use for my decisions is this: Guilt is always beyond a doubt. Other courts could not follow this principle, for they are made up of many heads and, in addition, have even higher courts above them. "
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 10:07 pm | #

You know the objective facts? Torture DOESN'T WORK!

I'm sorry, but you must keep ignoring my reference to the Ross report about KSM and the 13 other high-ranking AQ detainees. Even according to CIA critics of these techniques, they worked.

So, with all due respect to your service, you're wrong. And there's documented evidence to support that.

It isn't that way with the Bush/Rumsfeld sexual games.

Er, if you're referring to Abu Ghraib, let's not forget that those folks were not given a medal -- they were given a court martial.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 10:09 pm | #

"Do you know the origin of the 'unlawful combatant' status? It was made up by the Bush administration to avoid oversight. IIRC, the metaphor they requested was the 'legal equivalent of outer space', i.e. a legal designation which was completely outside the normal courts."

Hate to nitpick, but the term 'unlawful combatant' can be found in the language of Ex Parte Querin, the WWII case of Nazi saboteurs. However, the term "enemy combatant" was indeed created by the Bush administration, and they consider the two to be synonymous.

To whomever cited Japanese internment camps, I think your argument loses persuasiveness when you look to one of the darkest moments in our nation's history to justify this bill.

And, yes, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Afterwards, he went to Congress and addressed them on his own accord--not by the decision of a Supreme Court ruling--and justified his decision.

The problem with your defense of waterboarding is that this bill not only legalizes it, but that it allows the president to interpret the Geneva Conventions according to his whim. And, I'm no lawyer, but from my understanding it not only makes waterboarding permissable, it makes other acts of torture justified on the president's say-so.

Why it is so easy for you to dismiss the habeas corpus rights of non-citizens is beyond me. Habeas corpus is such fundamental common law right that, I believe if one truly espoused American/Westernized values, they would not wish it do be denied to anyone on account of their race, color, creed, sex, or country of origin. Now, when a human being is in our custody, and truly wish to spread democratic ideals and exemplify justice, it should be our DUTY to afford them the most basic of rights fortunately afforded to us.
Stephen Premo | 09.28.06 - 10:09 pm | #

Imsnooping, thanks to today's work, you'll get your dearest wish. More and more suspects will be tortured. Most of them will confess, to stop the pain. You can chalk up lots and lots of "successes" in the War on Terror.

And if you're really, really lucky, one or two of those confessions might even be true. The vast majority will be nonsense. We know this. That's why Czarist Russia didn't use torture--because coerced confessions don't actually provide useful info.

In the meanwhile, we won't get a scrap of help from the free world--because after today, we aren't part of it.
Llelldorin | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 10:10 pm | #

Imsnooping, answer me this. Why is it that all you...perverts...are so hot for torturing people, innocent and guilty alike, for false and unreliable (provably and de facto unreliable) information rather than calling for another method that is equally unreliable but absolutely without pain or anguish? Drugs can get you information of equal unreliability without harming a hair on someone's head yet that is NOT what is sought. It is specifically psychosexual abuse.

Do you get hard thinking about torturing someone? Do you get hard torturing little birds? We already know that Bush got hard as a kid torturing little animals, he's admitted it... Why not abstain from sick sexual gratification from abuse and torture and rely on your hand? Get the information you want with drugs.

Why is it necessary to specifically use torture? What is wrong with you?
Terminus_Est | 09.28.06 - 10:11 pm | #

Why do we need to be able to torture, anyway, when every single expert on this subject says that the information gotten under torture is notoriously unreliable? It's bad intelligence.

So, why do we need these "tools"?

Best explanation I've ever heard is that torture is really about demonstrating the power of the state.
other Lisa | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 10:12 pm | #

Is this not Martial Law?
Ed | 09.28.06 - 10:13 pm | #

Best explanation I've ever heard is that torture is really about demonstrating the power of the state.

Exactly. Saying torture is about the information is like saying rape is about the sex. It's power baby, and it FEELS GOOD! If you're a pervert, that is.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 10:14 pm | #

And if you're really, really lucky, one or two of those confessions might even be true. The vast majority will be nonsense. We know this. That's why Czarist Russia didn't use torture--because coerced confessions don't actually provide useful info.

Well, we've thwarted at least one attack (in LA) because of information we gleaned from waterboarding. That is a fact.

I realize you don't think that you're saying that you'd rather the attack have gone forward. But it is, after all, what you're saying.

What if that was the only piece of information we had to stop it? I don't know that to be the case. But neither do I know it not to be.

So, FWIW, I can deal with getting some bogus information from these interrogations. I'm sure some of it will be. But that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

I just don't want us having some new "9/11 Commission" asking what the hell more we could've done to stop the most recent attack. We shouldn't ever again have to ask what more we could've done.

It would be unforgiveable.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 10:15 pm | #

It was close, but buh-bye, Schiff-Flake-Inglis amendment.
ej | 09.28.06 - 10:16 pm | #

So, with all due respect to your service, you're wrong. And there's documented evidence to support that.

You idiot. If you put your innocent neighbor in with a criminal and torture them both and ask questions about the same crime, the will BOTH admit to it and give conflicting details because one or both is making shit up to make it stop.

The experts are unanimous (like the scientific community is unanimous on global warming, by the way) that torture is unreliable as a means of getting actionable intelligence. They are unanimous that there are better methods that rely on psychological tricks rather than physical torture to get to information.

You are singularly unphased by the the fact that MOST of the people we are holding and torturing are innocent. We have mistreated/tortured innocent people but that's OK with you. It is better to execute 100 innocent people if it means killing one guilty person. Better to torture an entire village of people to get at one bad actor than to let that one bad actor get away. Better to use torture rather than other methods that are more reliable that don't involve any pain or suffering.

You are a war criminal.
Terminus_Est | 09.28.06 - 10:16 pm | #

Do you get hard thinking about torturing someone? Do you get hard torturing little birds?

Heh. Cute. But don't ever wonder why people don't take folks like you seriously on these matters.

When you do wonder why, just think back to this question and you'll have your answer.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 10:17 pm | #

"Kinda hard to call the GOP the "party of torture" when the only Senator there who actually has been tortured supported the bill strongly."

Given his flippant attitude on the subject, I'm starting to wonder if McCain and that other blowhard Sam Johnson really were tortured by the Vietnamese. It seems kind of fishy. Can anyone imagine an actual rape victim voting to legalize rape and give amnesty to rapists? Didn't think so.
Heyward Jablomey | 09.28.06 - 10:18 pm | #

I just don't want us having some new "9/11 Commission" asking what the hell more we could've done to stop the most recent attack. We shouldn't ever again have to ask what more we could've done.

Ah. We are beinning to move in an entirely new direction. Welcome to the final solution.
edwin | 09.28.06 - 10:19 pm |