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 | #

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 | #

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.

I'd agree with you if you were right. But the experts aren't unanimous.

See this Ross report you keep ignoring. He talked with a number of CIA officials involved. And they all -- even the ones who weren't in favor of these techniques -- confessed that they gleaned good intelligence from the interrogations.

They got names of AQ associates in the US, etc. And it's panned out.

That's not me talking. It's Brian Ross, who interviewed the people involved.

So you can keep saying that waterboarding, etc. produces bad results. But you can only do so in contravention with the facts like these.

Are you suggesting that they lied to Ross? Even the ones who don't approve of these interrogation techniques?
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 10:19 pm | #

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.

Well that's just perfect. I'm sure you were singing that same tune when McCain was opposing GWB on this? Nah, didn't think so.

Like I said, it's nice to have his support on this. And the same goes for the 12 Democrats in the Senate who weren't just completely off the reservation.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 10:22 pm | #

Hey, you guys with the string of invalid arguments—appeal to authority holds no value in logic. You can actually make a judgement for yourself, and outline your reasoning.

That's how it's supposed to be done. For example, McCain's support for the bill has no bearing on whether or not it supports torture.
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 10:23 pm | #

Glenn:

Nonetheless, it is fair to say, given how lopsided this vote was (both in the House and the Senate), that the Republicans are the party of torture, indefinite and unreviewable detention powers, and limitless presidential power, even over U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. By contrast, Democrats have opposed these tyrannical, un-American and truly dangerous measures. Even if Democrats didn't oppose them as vociferously as they could have and should have, this is still a meaningful and, at this point, critically important contrast.

Feel free to campaign on defending the "constitutional rights" of al Qaeda to be free from "torture." (sic)

A sure winner, that argument.

You can see how successful by looking at the latest poll in deep blue Connecticut, where that Lieberman is kicking the crap out of the netroot's candidate Lamont.

Of course, how many folks from Connecticut were murdered on 9/11 because the US were extending al Qaeda the rights of criminal suspects and sicking the FBI after them...
Bart | 09.28.06 - 10:23 pm | #

Bart—

This bill takes away YOUR RIGHTS, too. Now, you can legally be taken to a secret prison, with no legal protections, and tortured. At will, by the president of the United States.

Pragmatism about elections is bullshit. Are you an American or a fascist?
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 10:25 pm | #

That's how it's supposed to be done. For example, McCain's support for the bill has no bearing on whether or not it supports torture.

Well, again, I don't think it does support torture. "Torture" is an awfully vague word, don't you think?

Hell, I think it's torture to listen to Barry Manilow records. If somebody locked me in a room with a loud loop of Copacabana blaring, I'd break before the second verse.

But the point of McCain's support is that he's the only one of the 100 Senators who actually endured torture -- real torture.

And his support on this issue is vital. And you know that, I'm sure. You're just saying this now because he opposes you.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 10:26 pm | #

"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?"
-Glenn Greenwald

Once the Torture Bill is signed, the Republic is gone forever. Nothing short of a revolution or civil war will stop it. It took the Civil War to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act. So no, I don't think the country can be saved. It's over. Benjamin Franklin predicted this over 200 years ago:

"There is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

The American people are sheep and sheep are only good for three things: meat, wool and getting fucked in the ass by Texans. Such creatures aren't fit for democracy, which is why it was taken from the American people so easily.
Heyward Jablomey | 09.28.06 - 10:27 pm | #

Imsnooping—

If you ever experience what this bill allows, and I certainly hope you don't, you'll KNOW the meaning of torture.

Meanwhile, try to learn the meaning of habeas corpus.
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 10:27 pm | #

You are dense Imsnooping. The main argument, beyond the fact that torturing is unreliable is that it is immoral. You have NO moral superiority, no moral high ground if you torture and you have NO argument against other people torturing OUR people. Torture is unreliable. That is a fact. Using apocryphal examples otherwise cannot change this fact.

Are you cool then with other people torturing me and the troops? No more war crimes right? Because if we do it then there is no way we can get pissy if they do it.
Terminus_Est | 09.28.06 - 10:27 pm | #

The American people are sheep and sheep are only good for three things: meat, wool and getting fucked in the ass by Texans.

And there you have it.

That about does it for me. Thanks for the conversation -- I wish it could've been a bit more adult and civil than it was. But emotions are running high, I guess.

Now, onto the NSA surveillance bill....
imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 10:28 pm | #

"Torture" is an awfully vague word, don't you think?

No, not really. It's adequately defined in the Geneva conventions. Bush was in violation of these provisions, which why he asked Congress to give him a free pass. In an act of extreme cowardice, they complied.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 10:29 pm | #

Heyward Jablomey—

You, sadly, are right. The unanswered question is, will we be like the Czechs against the Soviets? Or will we quietly submit to our enslavement?

Meanwhile, everyone is arguing about torture, which is a tremendous evil; but the scope of this evil law goes well beyond that...

I don't know the answer. On a hopeful note, I offer this thought:

Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible.
— George Orwell
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 10:30 pm | #

I will never forget what happened here on this black day, September 28, 2006. The Democratic Party we have today is a shadow of what it will someday become when people of character stand up and demand, with pride, social justice and personal liberty. Our "leaders" now have the worst of both worlds: They are terrified of the opposition, yet are terrified of their own supporters. They sacrificed the opportunity to filibuster this humiliating legislation, yet in the end demonstrated they are more afraid of us than Karl Rove. They are right to feel this way.

Let it end now. September 28, 2006.

No more. Grow a pair or get the mother fuck out of the way.
Chris Paris | 09.28.06 - 10:30 pm | #

You have NO moral superiority, no moral high ground if you torture and you have NO argument against other people torturing OUR people.

You're joking, right? You think the jihadists will treat our guys better if we don't waterboard?

For crying out loud, they behead people on videotape! They don't care what we do or don't do.

To be sure, if we ever sunk even remotely to their level, that would be an awful thing. But there's simply no equating what they do with what we do, or have ever done.

Are you cool then with other people torturing me and the troops?

Of course not. But I'm under no delusion that their treatment of Americans they capture will improve if we all of a sudden become nice guys.
imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 10:31 pm | #

You'd think that if there was any shred of truth to the ravings here that the ACLU would be all over it.

"Nothing could be less American than a government that can indefinitely hold people in secret torture cells, take away their protections against horrific and cruel abuse, put them on trial based on evidence they cannot see, sentence them to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and then slam shut the courthouse door for any habeas petition," said Christopher Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "But that's exactly what Congress just approved."

Its a good thing that Imsnooping is here to document who needs to suffer under the Benevolent judicial system of the United States - not that his testimony is necessary. It can always be beaten out of another prisoner.
edwin | 09.28.06 - 10:31 pm | #

If anyone is looking for a ray of hope here, I suggest Glenn's earlier link to Mona on the torture of US POW's in North Vietnam.

http://inactivist.org/ andrew_mcc...orth_vietnamese

The North Vietnamese government had none of our democratic restraints on government and should have been far more intractable than ours. Yet it turned out to be susceptible to pressure. Once word got out what the North Vietnamese were doing, they began changing in response to international opinion.

Now in that sense, our government may be less tractable than North Vietnam. We are the world's only superpower. But we have far more avenues to publicize what Bush is up to. I say shine the bright light of publicity on this administration's abuses, and let shame do what law could not.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 10:31 pm | #

Bush has (hypocritically) spoken out about even "degrading treatment". In June 2003, he said:

"Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control."

Can you believe that? By the way, defenders of torture, do you disagree with Bush's statement here that opposes not only torture, but also degrading treatment?
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 10:32 pm | #

that this piece of shit, er, travesty upon our name, was not filibustered by durbin or obama is beyound me, i can only vote for their opponent in the next primary, if our dear leader let's us have one...
tofubo | 09.28.06 - 10:34 pm | #

Enlightened Layperson—

That is a wonderful thought, but this administration knows no shame. They only understand fear, which is why they use fear against us.

When they fear that we will no longer follow them—well, the secret is, we can defeat them EASILY. But this won't happen unless we, as a people, realize this a refuse to cooperate.
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 10:34 pm | #

My answer to today's vote was to buy another 300 rounds of 30 cal ammo. One needs to be armed up when Civil War version 2.0 starts up.

I'll be fighting on the side of freedom, liberty, the Constitution, against the cowards that prefer to be told what to do, what to think, who to fuck, who NOT to fuck, how to live, what personal belief system is acceptable, etc. We'll be the good guys (obviously) and they (the Barts, the Imsnooping, Bush, Cheney, McCain, etc) will be the nasty monsters trying to crush the same.

See you on the front lines.
Terminus_Est | 09.28.06 - 10:35 pm | #

You're joking, right? You think the jihadists will treat our guys better if we don't waterboard?

I think a lot fewer young men will feel they need to become jihadists if we don't waterboard.

But what do you care. You'll excuse anything.

The fact is: torture is barbaric and torture supporters are no friends of mine. It is no better than beheading people for propaganda reasons. It's sick.

They think they're doing the right thing, too, you know.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 10:37 pm | #

The filibuster couldn't be done, because they didn't have the votes. I'll oppose those Senators and Reps (at least in the primaries) who didn't vote against this travesty, but punishing those who voted against but didn't filibuster is just stupid. They didn't filibuster, because they couldn't.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 10:37 pm | #

Terminus_Est—

There will be a surprising level of agreement among Red States and Blue Staters once obviously innocent people start disappearing. I'll be resisting more like Gandhi, but if you prefer guns...I certainly wouldn't try to stop you!
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 10:38 pm | #

Imsnooping: This isn't about torture. It's about interrogation -- and, not only that, but about having some checks and balances in place on that.

Bullshit on the first part, and bullshit on the second.

I am an interrogator. It's what I do, and what I have done for the past 14 years. I teach it too.

This isn't about interrogation. Torture doesn't work to get info.

If you don't believe me, try looking at the writings of Hans Scharff.

Try reading this, or this For why it's bad (apart from the perfectly valid utilitarian aspects) try this.

As for the "checks and balances", I've read all 94 pages of the bill, and I don't see them. I see the president, through his agents, defining what constitutes a grave breach. I see that pain, and mental suffering, which are not "prolonged" are acceptable.

I see thta coerced evidence can be used to confirm that someone is an "unlawful enemy combatant", and that such "unlawful" combatants (and please show me the clause in the Conventions which carves out that exception, because in 12 years of teaching people about the GC, I've never seen such a one. I must be blind, or stupid, or both; please enlighten me, that I may be informed) can be tortured.

That's a circular piece of logic, and it's not any sort of check.

Since there isn't anyone, other than they president who can decide what makes one an "unlawful enemy combatant" and there is nothing to limit it to non-citizens (or even to those who are actually, you know, combtants) where is the check?

What is the balance.

There isn't any.
Terry Karney | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 10:39 pm | #

I wish it could've been a bit more adult and civil than it was.

There's nothing civilized about torture and supporters of torture deserve nothing but contempt.

No more fucking around. A line was crossed today.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 10:39 pm | #

Terry Karney—

thank you!
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 10:40 pm | #

Thanks, Enlightened Layperson, I had missed that earlier.
ej | 09.28.06 - 10:40 pm | #

The fact is: torture is barbaric and torture supporters are no friends of mine. It is no better than beheading people for propaganda reasons.

Wow. OK, so now Jay Rockefeller, John McCain, Dick Lugar, and Frank Lautenberg are no better than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

Like I said, just remember these things you said next time you're wondering why people think you guys are nuts.

Maybe if you'd practice just a teeeeny bit of nuance, you could be taken seriously by people who aren't similarly stark raving mad.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 10:41 pm | #

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 |

As if it matters. How in the ever loving world does it logically matter who believes in your "rule of law" anymore Glenn? Or our vision of "American principles?" How does it matter if 3 Senators agree with us?

Believe in the "rule of law" - whose rule of law are we speaking of here Glenn? We are through the looking glass and yet you still hold out that there IS a rule of law OTHER than The Decider? In the abstract yes, in memory yes - but in reality? It has happened Glenn. It is over. For the love of pete you have been writing about it for months and yet you still refuse to see/admit what we are now presented with in cold hard fact. What will it take? If Judge Taylor gets smacked down will that convince you? I just find it astounding.

I know, I know you are going to say "we have to keep fighting" but what are we fighting for now? Or perhaps the better question is how do you defend and fight for a "rule of law" and "American principles" that simply no longer exist? Torture is now an "American principle". Due process is fantasy. It no longer exists. These are our principles and laws, not yours and mine perhaps but ours none the less. I don't see anyone but us complaining. Not the American people. Not the "opposition". And I mean complaining! Really outraged and ready to take drastic measures. Does today not warrant drastic measures?

I have said it before, many times. We had our chance to do something. Our (the American people) - We had our chance to do something and instead we chose to hope that the "Rule of Law" and craven politicians would save us. They both failed. It has been happening for at least 6 years and it culminated today.

So now what? We still can take some direct action I suppose but we do so knowing that, by the rule of law, we are no longer "American citizens", guaranteed certain rights and liberties, standing up for American principles but rather we would be "terrorists" undermining Dear Leader and the Fatherland.

All I know now - what I learned today is:

There is no law but "The Decider" and evil and fear are his prophets.

.
- | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 10:42 pm | #

My guess is, the innocent people who are political opponents of the administration won't start disappearing until after the next elections. And maybe well after.

Then, everyone except the true believers (i.e. people who are good at evading reality) will be with us.
Publicus | 09.28.06 - 10:43 pm | #

There's nothing civilized about torture and supporters of torture deserve nothing but contempt.

It's hard to interact civilly with those who don't respect basic human rights and dignity. And why should you? It's a fools game. And that's another reason why this legislation is bad. You think the rest of the world hate America NOW? Just wait.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 10:43 pm | #

After waterboarding, you'll confess to any damn thing that you're asked to.
You better hope it's a confession they are after. If they want to know where the terrorists are and you don't
know, they will say "Let's try this again, only for a little longer..."
Absolute sickness. And who didn't see this coming.
nuf said | 09.28.06 - 10:43 pm | #

I'll be resisting more like Gandhi, but if you prefer guns...I certainly wouldn't try to stop you!

I saw this shit coming over a year ago and got my tools and started stocking up on ammo then. Sorry, I'm military and don't do the Gandhi thing. It's just not me. I'm too "in your face". I do admire the Quakers and others of that sort, however, for their clarity and moral authority. Things that the GOP and their enablers don't understand at all.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 10:45 pm | #

Imsnooping, I'm the one who called you a waterboard baby.

I gotta say, that's a heartwarming story about the Sheikh who took a waterboarding for twenty minutes before breaking and spilling all this vital information.

I think its a lie. Somehow, I don't think that you're privy to high level interrogations. I don't think that if you were privy to high level interrogations that you'd be sharing it. I don't buy the extraordinary length of time for resistance, that sounds like the sort of typical 'made up' detail that emphasizes why we've got to be tough on these Islamic supermen. And frankly, I don't see that there's any verification or validation of reliability or usefulness of information.

Now, the story's crap. Maybe you're lying on purpose. Maybe you believe it. Don't matter.

A person who support torture would lie at the drop of a hat. A person who supports torture would believe any old shit.

I've seen a lot of vile things in my time, and the one thing that every piece of vileness that one person has ever worked against another has in common is this: An excuse. There's always an excuse.

At the end of the day, excuses don't cut it.

You stand for something or you don't.

You stand for torture. There ain't no more to be said.

You can make all the excuses you want. But frankly, in that, you ain't different from the lowest pedophile, claiming he was seduced by the wiles of that five year old boy currently undergoing reconstructive surgery. It's still just an excuse, and there ain't a lick of difference between you and him.

The world is a complicated place. But some things are simple.

There's right, and there's wrong.

There's always an excuse to do the wrong thing. It's easier. It's more convenient. It's tough to do the right thing. Costly. Expensive. The other guys don't do the right thing. The other guys will beat us if we do the right thing. Excuses.

Jesus said, and perhaps you should think about this, about doing the right thing, "It's no big deal to do the right thing when its easy and convenient. If it was always easy, everyone would do it and it wouldn't mean anything."

Kennedy was no Jesus, but he was a real man, unlike that wad of dough you got in your Presidency now. He said, "We do it, not because it is easy, but because it is hard."

You've chosen the low road, the devil's path, you've chosen the easy way, and you're full of excuses. You've chosen torture and lies, and you've patted yourself on the back for your 'sophistication' and your 'hardheadedness' dealing with the 'real world.' Sorry, its just excuses.

You complain about Godwinism. Phht, like I care what a Nazi thinks. And you ain't better or worse than that.

You chose torture.

Take it up with God. Make your excuses to him.

I'm done talking to you.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 10:46 pm | #

This isn't about interrogation. Torture doesn't work to get info.

But it isn't about torture, one. And, two, I come away from reading this Ross report questioning the assertions that it doesn't work. Who wouldn't?

Here are CIA agents -- some of them who believe as you do -- admitting that all 14 AQ detainees gave up solid information as a result of waterboarding. One piece of information led to the thwarting of a plot against the Library Tower in LA.

Now, how can you read that and then say, with a straight face, that it "doesn't work"? Were these cases just anomalies?

As for the "checks and balances", I've read all 94 pages of the bill, and I don't see them.

Er, go read the Hamdan decision and its instructions to the administration on how to go about legally establishing the detention and tribunals regime he had in place.

They told him to go to Congress and have a statute passed.

Ostensibly, all 3 branches of government are now in sync about how to do this. And you say that it's "bullshit" that this is about checks and balances?

Taking it from the authority of one branch to having the blessing of all three?
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 10:46 pm | #

Like I said, just remember these things you said next time you're wondering why people think you guys are nuts.

"you guys?" I don't know who you think "we guys" are, I speak for myself.

And I stand by everything I said.

And if anyone excuses this stuff in my physical presence, we'll probably be in a fight. (hasn't happened yet with any of the people i've harangued today, folks are appalled, and the news isn't covering this.)

I just get a little mad when my government betrays the Constitution. Awfully uncivil, huh.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 10:48 pm | #

Imsnooping,

You're a monster, plain and simple.

Where are your morals?

How do you plan to explain your stance to God when it comes time for you to be judged?

I know I'll have things to answer for when my time comes, but being complicit in the evils of this regime won't be one of them.

I may be goin' to Gitmo, but where are you going?

WWJT? No one!
burnspbesq | 09.28.06 - 10:48 pm | #

Wilson's HR 5825, Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act was passed by the House. Roll call vote (232/191). 18 Dems voted yes.
ej | 09.28.06 - 10:49 pm | #

Imsnooping, I'm the one who called you a waterboard baby.

Oh, that was you? Nice to meet you.

I gotta say, that's a heartwarming story about the Sheikh who took a waterboarding for twenty minutes before breaking and spilling all this vital information.

I think its a lie.

You don't even know who I was talking about, do you? "The Sheikh"? It was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. He was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks -- and probably the single highest ranking AQ member we've capture to date.

If it was a lie, then a lot of people lied about it. According to Mr. Ross, even some of the CIA agents who opposed coercive interrogation conceded that it had worked with KSM.

I can't say I know how many people Ross talked to. But it was more than one. And it was corroborated.

And it absolutely flies in the face of everybody here saying that coercive interrogation yields unreliable results.

The people who work in the Library Tower in LA are alive this very day because it worked -- according to what Ross found out.

The best you can do is say that it's a lie. Because, if it's not a lie, where does that put you?

I'll tell you where it puts you: it puts you in the position of arguing against things that stop terrorism from occuring. It puts you in the position of, unwillingly, allowing more terror to occur.

Not a good place to be.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 10:51 pm | #

No Christian can support torture.

The early Christians went to their deaths rather than take up arms against the oppressing Romans.

Do Americans have any principles or are we going to be the Romans, torturing the powerless?
prunes | 09.28.06 - 10:51 pm | #

Wilson's HR 5825, Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act was passed by the House. Roll call vote (232/191). 18 Dems voted yes.

More good news. I hope the Senate can take this up before they leave.

It's something that should take place *before* the election -- no matter what your position on the matter.

These are the things elections are about. They are not worthless, useless, pointless votes like gay marriage or flag burning.

This is damned important stuff -- pro or con. And voters deserve to know where their representatives stand on these matters.
Imsnooping | 09.28.06 - 10:53 pm | #

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

Soviet States of America.

Hey that's mine. I get royalites. M&M bags are good payment. :D

BTW- Why is congress giving Bush more power since he's already failed at everything.
James | 09.28.06 - 10:53 pm | #

I'll tell you where it puts you: it puts you in the position of arguing against things that stop terrorism from occuring. It puts you in the position of, unwillingly, allowing more terror to occur.

I'd rather "allow" terrorists than make them.

I'd rather "allow" terrorists than give up my rights.

I'd rather "allow" terrorists than give up my soul.

I guess I'm just not that afraid of terrorists.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 10:54 pm | #

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.

Yes, it's always amazing how they can decide to do the right thing after they know their votes don't matter. I think this was a calculation of splitting the difference. Maybe they've begun to realize that their base can't be entirely taken for granted anymore and has to be thrown a rhetorical bone every now and then, sort of like what the R's do on gay marriage. Now they can say they tried, and since the bill passed, the R's can't claim that the great manly warrior savior hero was prevented from pertectin' us from the evildoers. They still don't have any clue that this means anything beyond poll numbers.

I don't think it's stupidity. Some people just prefer to live in a dictatorship. Democracy is just too messy for some people.

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. If you've ever had the displeasure of hearing Rush or reading Ann Coulter, or any of their ilk, they have been making it perfectly clear for years that there should be no place in the America they want for anyone who disagrees with them. And make no mistake: they do speak for a significant fraction of America. If they pretended to value the *liberal* ideals which founded this nation it was only out of cynical jingoism. If they can convince people that following Christ means hating the people God wants them to hate, how difficult do you really thing it was to convince them that being an American patriot means silencing the wrong ideas?
Dread Scot | 09.28.06 - 10:54 pm | #

Any and all claims of American moral superiority are now null and void. In fact, they're laughable.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 10:59 pm | #

Thanks for the greeting, but I can't say that it's been any pleasure to meet you.

As for the Shayk. Nope, couldn't be bothered to scroll all the way up and write it out proper like. Especially considering it was such a self serving bullcrap of dubious provenance. There might be grains of truth in it here and there. But so what, the devil's fond of wrapping truth around his lies.

Now if you'll excuse me, you ain't the sort of person I have any wish to talk to.

If you feel the need for a discussion, well, there's certainly a higher power that you can peddle your excuses to. I'm not thinking you'll get far.

For myself, it's all simple. There is Good and there is Evil. You chose your side, it's the side of torturers and liars. What could I say to this? There's nothing to discuss.
Den Valdron | 09.28.06 - 11:02 pm | #

IMsnooping: I just realized which "plot" you're talking about.

And you have got to be kidding. You're talking about that "Library Tower" plot from a couple months back, right?

That was totally discredited, the "plot" amounted to nothing other than idle speculation, no weapons had been procured. It was as trumped-up as the non-Muslim "terror cell" in Florida.

I can't believe I just spent all this time arguing against that bullshit. You can take your boogeyman plots and nearly drown yourself with them.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 11:03 pm | #

The tone (and content) of much of the news coverage today was qualitatively different than it has been since the Rovian hijacking of national attention away from the Iraq debacle. The ongoing coverage of the NIE, the continuing reverberations of Clinton's shredding of the Paper Fox, and the new Pentagon-Paperesque glimpses of Woodward's new book are just three examples.

I have a pretty good political sixth sense, and I feel a quantum shift in the air.

Believe it.

Now is not the time to abandon Democrats. Now is when they need us the most to stand strongly behind them. Glenn, I salute you.
DCLaw1 | 09.28.06 - 11:04 pm | #

worthless, useless, pointless votes like gay marriage or flag burning.

At least I agree with you on something.
prunes | 09.28.06 - 11:04 pm | #

The most shocking thing about what has happened this last week is the complete abdication of responsibility by the MSM to inform Americans about what is actually going on in gov't. The things that have gone on this week are not secrets that need to be protected, they are old-fashioned political hit-jobs of the most transparant variety.

The Press today does whatever it has to to maintain it's own place at the trough in Washington. That means upholding the powers that be, which happen to BE Republicans. They are owned and operated by a dwindling number of ever more powerful corporate players who call the news in the way that best serves their own greedy interests. Most of today's journalists also care more about their own careers than they do about performing their Constitutional responsibility as watchdogs over power, so we have a system rigged to help keep Republicans in power and stuffing money iunto the pockets of those who report the news.

The MSM in America has become so contolled by right wing backers that very few Americans even know what happened today. For the MSM to allow Rove to use them like his own personal propaganda machine is pathetic.

A serious MSM would have made it clear last week that everything Bush is saying and doing is all politics--having nothing to do with fighting terror or protecting America, but just a tactic to allow them to call Dems pussies once again.

They'd have spelled it out for people that it was Rove's idea for Bush to tell congress that they either had to give him the powers of a monarch or be called "weak on terra." The cravenness of this approach would have been called to the attention of those listening by actually allowing Dems to respond equally. Of course the Repubs could try to defend it, but once people really understood the game, Rove's usual amoral willingness to do anything to keep a hold on power would have been self-evident.

The MSM would have made it ubandantly clear to all listening that the powers Bush was asking for were unprecedented in both their scope and the extent to which they undo the most basic priciples of American govt. This would have been spelled out as the fact that it is, not just the opinion of those who disagree with Bush, equal in force to any counter-claims of Bush and Rove.

When a few Repubs stood up to Bush, an honest MSM would have explained that the supposed Rebel Repubs like McCain could never openly sign on to such an outlandish power grab, (especially since Bush is so unpopular right now) and they would need to be able to claim they stood up to Bush to maintain face at home. Rove, being the politician he is, knew they needed to distance themselves from this shameful power-grab, so Rove pretended to compromise, but when the bill was actually voted on it removed almost all the compromises and gave Bush the original outrageous power he demanded. The fact that McCain and Graham folded utterly to Bush in reality would have made it impossible for them to still claim to have stood up to Bush. In fact, for them to still be able to make that claim with a straight face in the MSM is as about pathetic as it gets.

If the MSM had actuially done its job, the Dems who then stood up to the bill would have had the luxury of an informed public, so when Rove and Bush then proceeded to call them cowards for trying to stop his power-grab, people would have seen it for the craven poltical hatchet job it truly is.

Simply making the blatant political machinations known to people is just what the press is supposed to do. Doing so would not make the press "Liberal," regardless of what righie wingnuts try to claim. If one side or the other happens to be making paticularly amoral attempts to manipulate the public, this should be made clear. Today's Rightwing Media always call it as if its just one guys claim against anothers, even if one is clearly right and the other clearly wrong, or worse.

For Rove to be able to pull this same hatchet job over and over without him looking like the slimeball he really is requires a press completely cotrolled by the right, and willing to pretend Rove hasn't manipulated the whole scene and lied and demanded truly unAmerican powers for king Bush.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 11:05 pm | #

God save the King.
anwaya | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 11:07 pm | #

Any and all claims of American moral superiority are now null and void

They always were void. That was part of the problem – a big part of the problem. The US never took a close look at what democracy was inside the US and what it was in other countries. There were lessons to be learned – important lessons, hidden by the lies Americans told about themselves to each other.

There are some things that Americans can be proud of. Perhaps it can be summed up in one name. Martin Luther King. Extreme bravery. Unremitting fight for justice. Compassion. Selflessness. It is why the US became a nation. It happened over and over in the United States. A single person taking on the entire US in the supreme court because the government was wrong. Hopefully, it will continue to happen. It is something that is in part missing from Canada. It is something that an American can truly be proud of.
edwin | 09.28.06 - 11:12 pm | #

If we only had 1 national leader who had the balls to stand up, take charge and tell us what to do next. Where is our new Martin Luther King? Outside of buying a rifle, there is nothing I can do to stop the Nazification of America.

I'd really rather not become a violent person, but I am ready to drop what I am doing and meet a national leader who has a plan on how to take back America. Where is the Million Man March to save America? Where are American Constitutional Promise Keepers? Where is Abbie Hoffman and Tom Hayden? Come on Oprah!!! Lead us out of the torturing Republican wilderness!

It's Revolution Time! Let's Roll!
deathbyinches | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 11:17 pm | #

DCLaw1 Now is not the time to abandon Democrats. Now is when they need us the most to stand strongly behind them. Glenn, I salute you.

Suck it up boys and girls. Vote for the Democrats and then hold them accountable. If you let go now, it will be game over. True, it's 2 out in the bottom of the ninth and nobody on, but it ain't over till it's over.
Think about it.
nuf said | 09.28.06 - 11:18 pm | #

Thanks for being so sane, Glenn. It helps in these horrible times.

But there's simply no equating what they do with what we do, or have ever done. says this new lurking horror, Imasnoopingnazi.

The problem with thinking yourself exceptional just because you're You, is that it isn't reality based. What made America exceptional was its commitment to the rule of law, its fairness, and its Constitution/Bill of Rights which were by and large respected by its citizens. Without those things, we're just another two bit banana republic. And, yes, "we" can be just as bad as "they" are.

I don't know whether torture works or not and frankly, I don't care. It's wrong, you know? (Guess you don't.) What would also "work" to prevent terrorism from the Middle East would be to liquidate all Muslims. Would you be for that? It sounds pretty practical and you seem a very practical fellow.

Lots of things "work". My lawn mower's broken and I don't feel like spending money to buy a new one -- got that dentist visit coming up first -- and my neighbor down the street just got a really nice new mower. What would "work" for me would be to go take his, thereby preventing me from having to choose between a crummy lawn and a bad tooth.

Plenty of things "work" but that doesn't make them right.

Why do I feel like vomiting?
Svensker | 09.28.06 - 11:19 pm | #

This says it for me, as clearly and concisely as possible. Imsnooping, Bart, Shooter, this is for you. I will be praying for your souls, but the key to your eternal salvation is in your hands, and I don't have much confidence in your ability to use it properly.

... if we think we should protect our “way of life” because of its inherent moral rightness, then surely we as Christians can agree that torture is never a valid tool. Immoral practices so corrupt our way of life that any pretense to the moral high ground would be absurd. Ultimately, torture is a terrorist tool, and by using it we ourselves become terrorists.
Walking the moral high ground is costly, and one cost is accepting that some tactics are immoral and, thus, unavailable for those who choose the high ground.
...
"Power is a fleeting thing. One day your souls will be required of you.”

http:// imitatiochristi.blogs.com...re_and_its.html
burnspbesq | 09.28.06 - 11:25 pm | #

It's Revolution Time! Let's Roll!
deathbyinches | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 11:17 pm |

You will be treated like the "terrorist" you now are (under the new and improved "rule of law") but if you are serious you may want to check this out. I will be there.

.
- | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 11:26 pm | #

How about this for strategy? The quickest way to get the GOP to overturn this law is to start now and elect Democrats, including a president in 2008.

I suspect the remaining GOP members of Congress would suffer whiplash, reversing their positions so quickly.

Until then, I can't think of anything that would stiffen the spines of the Democrats in Congress like an election win, even a partial one.

This also might have a dampening effect on the Bush/Cheney/Rove administration abusing their new powers. Think of it as "civil disobedience." I'm sure that's what Rove and crew think voting for Democrats should be considered (or maybe they think it's treason).

We've seen some people busy here tonight, displaying their happiness with an authoritarian government, not to mention their lack of empathy for their fellow humans.

Does anyone here imagine that there are not many such people? I know personally individuals who would eagerly torture or kill anyone they thought was affiliated with terrorists. They'd do it in a second on the say-so of any authority.

These people vote. If you don't want them to control the government, you had better be prepared to vote as well.
Charles | 09.28.06 - 11:37 pm | #

Imsnooping: Can you lay claim to having interrogated anyone? No, Then stop telling me how to do my job. Stop trying to tell me what tools I need, (like this gem, 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 I do this. I am one of those experts you claim [and would you be so kind as to name a couple of them, and their bona fides) because; in a word, you are wrong.

You say war isn’t nice. Swell of you to notice. Can you lay claim to having been in one? I can. And it doesn’t need the sorts of things you are saying are all right (like say, waterboarding, which you are on board with).

Care to show me where, in the case law, as well as in the Constitution, it says people who aren’t citizens have no protections? You can’t, because they do. When the Constitution limits a right to a class, it limits it. It says things like, No citizen, when it’s limited to citizens. It says, "no person," when it isn’t.

The rights it enumerates are secured by, “We the people” they are not grants from on high. The Declaration of Independence says all people have those unalienable rights. That sentiment may have been observed more in the breach, than the observance, but the principle is there, and the founders clearly meant them to stay there (just go back and read the Federalist Papers. Glenn’s done a great job of pointing to relevant parts.

What I want to know is when did all the folks like you, who think the “Left” to be made up of spineless fools, become such cowards and slaves?

Yes, the attacks on That Tuesday were horrific, but they were small potatoes when it comes to real risk. We lost more than 10 times that number in highway fatalities last year alone (and I make this comparison, in part, because you are telling me how the utility of torture makes it useful, so a means based evaluation of the harm done to justify it seems fair enough). How is ten percent of one year's highway deaths worth giving up essential security for temporary safety?

Because this principle (that the president gets to declare people anathema, and toss them into our own Chateau D’If) will come back to bite ordinary Americans, and I wonder why I, a weak-kneed, lily-livered, lacking in the steely resolution of the stalwart Republicans who call me traitorous (despite going to war I thought a bad idea, hell, despite my doing what most of those accusing me have never done, which is to enlist, and stay in for 14 years) can’t seem to take the words of Patrick Henry to heart, and tell those of us who do that we just don’t get it, and aren’t fit to defend freedom.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, to be bought at the price of Chains and Slavery? I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty, or give me death.” I am willing to risk some random death (the odds, since 2001, of my being killed in a terrorist attack are 6/100,000) in exchange for knowing my country isn’t whisking people off the streets and torturing them. I don’t want to be protected, if that’s the price.

I have more scruples than that. I fear death less than I am willing to sacrifice human decency.
Terry Karney | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 11:42 pm | #

Thanks for your service and courage, Terry.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 11:47 pm | #

Oops, the penultimate graf was supposed to read,

I wonder why I, a weak-kneed and lily-livered, left-wing loon; lacking in the steely resolution of the stalwart Republicans who call me traitorous (despite going to war I thought a bad idea, hell, despite my doing what most of those accusing me have never done, which is to enlist, and stay in for 14 years) can, and they can’t, seem to take the words of Patrick Henry to heart, and tell those of us who do that we just don’t get it, and aren’t fit to defend freedom.

Sorry for any confusion. I was a little heated when I ripped that off.

Oh, and Punblicus, you're welcome. Sadly I'll be doing this song and dance all week (and month, and year, and, at this rate, decade). I never thought I'd be spending so much of my time saying what I thought was obvious about torture.

I certainly never thought it would be a national debate, and that the good guys would be playing defense.
Terry Karney | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 11:51 pm | #

Harry Reid is a putz.
global yokel | 09.28.06 - 11:53 pm | #

A pox on both houses. And while all this was going on where was the man himself i.e. Bill Clinton? Why, he was over at Fox rearranging chairs on the Titanic just shortly after a big love fest with the wife of the Czar. I'm beginning to think that the Wallace ambush was a brilliant diversion. What a disaster. The Consitution has been flushed. The Dems really lived up to their symbol with this one. Jackasses indeed!
sparafucilli | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 11:54 pm | #

Thank you Terry for post.
m! | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 11:55 pm | #

Harry Reid is a putz.

Yeah, I kind of have to go along with you there, he got played. But you have to fight fascism with the putz you have, not the putz you wish you had.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.28.06 - 11:56 pm | #

I think Imsnooping's point (Bart has made it too) needs to be addressed. Is torture justified if it does give reliable information?

The ultimate pro-torture argument is always the "ticking bomb." Would you rather spare a guilty terrorist and let innocent people be killed. "Ticking bomb" scenarios are also the most likely to yield accurate information by torture -- narrow, specific and easily verifiable. There are three main elements to a true ticking bomb:

(1) Immediate, urgent danger;
(2) A prisoner known to have critical information about the threat;
(3) No other leads that can stop the threat.

I do not know how I would react to such a scenario, but I doubt that I would condemn torture if it actually happened. But I do know that such situations are extremely unlikely. Make a "ticking bomb" loophole in an anti-torture law and people in a position to torture will expand it. They will stretch the definition of an urgent threat to one that is less and less urgent. They will require less and less certainty that the prisoner to be tortured actually has critical information. And they will get lazy pursuing other leads.

And the capture of an Al-Qaeda leader is not a true ticking bomb. Only one element is met -- a prisoner with information. Imsnooping has admitted that it might have been possible to stop the plots with other leads. Plans for major terrorist attacks invariably create clues. Al-Qaeda leaders have documents and laptops when they are captured.

Doubtless it is more convenient to torture than to sort through documents and follow upon clues. But convenience is never grounds for torture.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 11:56 pm | #

Okay, now what? Time for some self-criticism? It wasn't just the MSM that downplayed the story of how this bill came to pass. It wasn't just the leaders in D.C. who trusted in McCain, but also many human rights organizations, and a lot of them still trust him! It's also unfortunate that many anti-Bush bloggers weren't as alarmed as Digby was. Rule of thumb: when Digby says to be alarmed, one should be alarmed.
Okay, what next? This story is still being downplayed. The MSM coverage (if any) of bloggers will say, "on the one hand, some crazy bloggers (and Senators) are upset, but on the other hand, respected torture victim John McCain says not to worry." This law is written in a deliberately confusing way, so most journalists can't or won't untangle it, they'll just give the benefit of the doubt to John McCain.
How should we counter that? We need to publicize how bad this law is. We need to publicize how hypocritical McCain is. We need to show how he sold out his morals for the sake of his ambitions. We need to destroy his reputation with human rights organizations. Senators do need to maintain comity and courtesy with their fellow Senators, so we shouldn't expect them to, but activists shouldn't hesitate to hack away at his undeserved reputation. The other side has built an ad hominem argument for torture and against habeas by using McCain, and we must try to demolish that argument.
SHOW AMERICANS HOW THEY'VE BEEN BETRAYED and be patient, it's gonna take a while.
sysprog | 09.29.06 - 12:00 am | #

God save the king, lest he torture us.
Mark B. in Austin Texas | 09.29.06 - 12:02 am | #

I just ran across the Greenwald comment regarding some points relating to the Hamden case.

"(5) Congress can reverse almost every aspect of the decision as it specifically pertains to these military commissions. It could abrogate any treaties it wants. It could amend the UCMJ to allow military commissions with the rules established by the President. It has already stripped the Court of jurisdiction to hear future habeas corpus challenges by Guantanamo detainees, and could act to further strip the Court of jurisdiction in these areas. We will undoubtedly hear calls by Pat Roberts, John Cornyn, Jeff Sessions, Tom Coburn (and perhaps Joe Lieberman?) et al. for legislation which would accomplish exactly that
padcrasher | 09.29.06 - 12:11 am | #

Come folks this is an easy one.

Start calling Federal Senators/ Congressmen, State Senators and Represenatives, TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, and ask what one should do if you are declared an "Enemy Combatant". Listen at the fumbling you'll get. Embarrass them. Call daily until you get some kind of answer, the call again.

Call NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN and ask them have they been given instructions on what to do if declared an "Enemy Combatant"?

Congress just handed America a Weapon of Mass Embarrassment (WME's) on EVERYONE.

Start using it by calling for instructions. Who should you contact for instant.

Have fun folks.

The war is on!
James | 09.29.06 - 12:16 am | #

Glenn:

Have YOU call anyone for instructions?
James | 09.29.06 - 12:18 am | #

Imsnooping,

You keep citing that Ross report that supposedly proves that torture works and is endorsed by CIA interrogation experts. Well, given that you appear to be the new Bart, Daleyrocks and Shooter (and as far as I know you're the same person), allow me to quote my own response to Shooter (as well as Bart) several days ago in which I addressed this dubious "proof":

In brief, in this report, Ross, talking to Bill O'Reilly on Fox--which itself should make you wonder about its veracity--claimed that unnamed CIA sources have told him that torture techniques employed on the 14 detainees who were recently released from CIA custody, including KSM, have yielded extremely value information, including the names of terrorists who were planning major terror attacks on the US, who were then captured, and their plots defeated.

Well, maybe. But given that Ross is citing unnamed sources--who work for a CIA that has been largely purged of non-Bush loyalists and whose track record on obtaining accurate and valuable intelligence and preventing terror attacks is not exactly exemplary--who refer to information gained, terrorists captured and plots broken up about which we have ZERO verifiable proof, in a media environment in which for years now we keep hearing about terror plots that turn out to be 14 year old boys fantasizing about blowing up planes and "second in command" Al Qaida leaders who turn out to be errand boys, well, I just have to wonder about the accuracy and perhaps even sincerity of this report.

You're asking me to blindly trust Ross, in conversation with perhaps the biggest liar on TV, in a climate in which the media has consistently and often willingly if not eagerly spread lies and disinformation that they've been fed by the Bush administration and its operatives, without any confirming evidence, and that's just not something that I'm prepared to do. Ross may or may not be sincere here, and what he's supposedly been told by his unnamed CIA sources may or may not be true, but absent proof, this doesn't prove ANYTHING.

Plus, I found it quite interesting that he also mentioned that some of his CIA sources told him that, in spite of its apparently spectacular effectiveness in extracting valuable information and saving thousands of American lives, they STILL don't support torture. Assuming that they're sincere in fighting terrorists and saving US lives--and I see no reason to believe otherwise--then why on earth would they nevertheless still oppose techniques that demonstrably accomplish this? Hell, if this was true, even I (and I imagine most here) would support torture in such limited instances--i.e. when the detainee in question was unquestionably a terrorist, on the order of a Bin Laden. But if CIA operatives think otherwise, one really has to wonder if Ross's other CIA sources were being fully honest--if at all.

The point is not proven. At all.
Kovie | 09.21.06 - 9:16 pm

And in case this isn't enough for you, here are the words of former FBI agent Coleen Rowley, who knows a thing or two about interrogation techniques:

A Missed Opportunity for Accountability
a 24-year veteran of the FBI, I know that using rough interrogation tactics to overbear a suspect's will is not only wrong ethically, it is ineffective. Subjecting someone to pain and humiliation doesn't compel them to tell the truth; it compels them to say whatever will make the pain stop. This generates bad intelligence.

But perhaps this is too "reality-based" for you. You're perfectly welcome to continue to wallow in your little fantasy Doom III world, but back in the real world, your arguments hold no water with thinking and serious people.
Kovie | 09.29.06 - 12:18 am | #

"Are you from PA? If you aren't, rejoice. I am from PA, and Specter is sickening.
Jimmy the Saint"

No Jimmy, I'm not. But I've seen Specter pull this same trick over and over again. Make a bold declaration of outrage and then fall back in line.

He's not fooling anybody now. It's pathetic. I've learned that he's not one of the Republicans you can count on for thoughtful restraint. Actually, after today I don't think there are any.

All we can hope for is a Democratic majority come November but even that doesn't provide much hope.

Does anybody really think this batch of Dems are capable of actually providing decent leadership from here on out? They seems so feckless.
JJ | 09.29.06 - 12:18 am | #

Enlightned layperson: Allow me to tell you, based on my experience, what the ticking bomb is...

A fantasy.

It's a cheap rhetorical device which rests on a host of assumptions, and they are, at root, false.

1: You know there is a bomb/buried victim/whatever.

2: You know (not think, know) this person in your power has the answer

3: Torture works.

4: You are capable of avoidig the pitfalls of torture (leading the witness, self-confirmation of false leads, etc.)

5: The subject will give up the right answer.

If, and only if, those conditions are met, can the ticking bomb scenario rise to the level of real-world example.

Since it can't, the whole thing is a ruse, a way to get those who don't see all those problems to admit that maybe torture can sometimes be justified.

At that point they have joined the camp of the torturers.

I won't do it. There are too many things which can go wrong, and torture is a moral evil.

This is one of those places where I have a mind like a devout fundamentalist. Some things are wrong, and nothing can justify them.
Terry Karney | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 12:19 am | #

The basic principle I use for my decisions is this: Guilt is always beyond a doubt.
-- "In The Penal Colony" by Franz Kafka
sysprog | 09.29.06 - 12:29 am | #

Terry Karney,

If Keith Olbermann had a Best Person in the World award, I'd nominate you without hesitation. And I suspect that there are many, many, many more thoughtful, courageous and truly patriotic people like you than there are chickenhawk cowards like the one you responded to (as I did just above).

Folks like you are one of the reasons that I continue to believe that we're going to win this in the end, and drive these despicable proto-fascists back under the rocks that they crawled out from under. Their gutlessness, stupidity and desperation will eventually do them in, and you're helping to make that happen.

Thanks for your years of service, on both actual and rhetorical battlefields. It's people like you who've actually kept this country safe and secure for over 200 years, not these loathsome and cowardly pretenders.
Kovie | 09.29.06 - 12:30 am | #

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If he can lie about that then he can lie about anything.

So, another salvo has been fired at the terrorists. The first certainly didn't go too well and now in the recoil from this the Constitution itself has been severely bruised if not fractured. Hopefully the courts will have remedies. As for the international shockwave? Embargoes, visa delays, derision at international events. numerous comparison to Nazis to name only a few. True shame has been visited upon us today.
sparafucilli | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 12:53 am | #

It's not much, but it's the only contrast we've got. Hard to feel good about it, so many eminent men and women voting to undermine one of the distinctive elements of post-dark-ages humanity. And it seems always to be this same number, these same Senators who vote in favor of defending the Constitution, almost all Democrats, but only thirty-four of them. Only thirty-four left. Even if the Democrats pick up four or five seats this fall, it won't take the number close enough to a majority to prevent further erosion of checks on the executive. But it's probably good that the Senate is finally being exposed for the creepy, furtive place that it is, for all to see. The Senate has always been a place of huge corruption. No shocker that was to my parents. They knew government was rotten to the core. Now it's mostly Democrats who are the conservatives in America.
NealB | 09.29.06 - 12:54 am | #

See, to me, torture (or whatever euphemism is currently popular with HWSNBN or Imsnooping or that ilk) is Just. Plain. Wrong. End of discussion.

Anyone who tries to say otherwise has no morals or principles & more than likely are sadists.
Auntie Roo | 09.29.06 - 1:09 am | #

land of the brainwashed

and the home ... of the ... Republican cowards
Another Winston Smith | 09.29.06 - 1:09 am | #

John: I turned on my US news channels to get a look at the thousands of protesters seething in a crowd outside the Caapitol building protesting the senates capitulation to tyranny.
No one seems to be there though.

No one has heard about it. The newsmedia's silence has been absolute on this matter. The only coverage has been the CSPANs and their coverage was likely no different during the debate leading up to the defeat of the flag burning amendment.
Even the Canadian media is unresponsive on this habeus corpus stripping, "OK" torture-defining bill.

So, enough whining, back to action. Does anyone have info on the stances held on this little matter by our many contestants for public office? I.e. what does Jim Webb's website have to say about his views on the matter? Or Sestak's?

I didn't call Landrieu's office in the lead up to this vote. There is nothing that an unconnect Louisiana constituent could say to her office, out of the blue, that would affect her vote. She campaigns on her family name, nostaglia, and her socially rightwing bona fides. She is entirely expendable, and likely to lose her seat in her next Senatorial election now that the Democratic machine in New Orleans has been evicerated by Katrina.
If her Republican challenger in the next election is not an aggressive theofascist, I will vote for him, and possibly fund him.
Fluffy | 09.29.06 - 1:13 am | #

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

This is a troll.

michilines | Homepage | 09.28.06 - 7:38 pm |

Just. doesn't. get it.
- | Homepage

You are the one that just doesn't get it.
Anonymous | 09.29.06 - 1:24 am | #

I turned on my US news channels to get a look at the thousands of protesters seething in a crowd outside the Caapitol building protesting the senates capitulation to tyranny.
No one seems to be there though. Clearly the maxim "give me Liberty or give me Death" has now been ammended to
"Give me liberty or give me cheaper gas for a few weeks"

John
John

Which is precisely why this won't hurt the Dems in Nov. In spite of the few actual loons here who were going to vote straight Green or whatever even if it hurt the Dem challenger or incumbent, and the obvious trolls and plants here, who were never going to vote anything other than Repuklican but claim otherwise. Sure, readers of this blog, and others, are rightfully pissed. I have been pissed since Kerry lay down and died on the campaign in 2004, but I don't act like a whiney child about it and cut off my nose to spite my face. There are lots of trolls and plants here. Ignore them.
Anonymous | 09.29.06 - 1:29 am | #

If you want to be a whiny little child about it, hold your breath until your blue in the face. It''l be just like being waterboarded. Anyone who votes in a way to help pukes and hurt Dems is no different.
Anonymous | 09.29.06 - 1:32 am | #

Given that this administration has established a six-year track record of treating "good intelligence" and "intelligence that comports with our preconceived notions" as synonymous, I hardly find it comforting that current CIA officials (that is, those that remain after six years of Bush) believe that torture has produced "good intelligence."

I'm sure it has. A few hours of waterboarding, and I'm sure these guys are saying exactly what the Bush administration expects to hear.

And so we lose ground while appearing to win.
Llelldorin | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 1:34 am | #

NealB, not 34, only 32.

32 Democratic Senators.

1 Republican. 1 Independent.

12 Democrats voted for torture.
Den Valdron | 09.29.06 - 1:38 am | #

How about this for strategy? The quickest way to get the GOP to overturn this law is to start now and elect Democrats, including a president in 2008.

I suspect the remaining GOP members of Congress would suffer whiplash, reversing their positions so quickly.

Great strategy and completely true, but let's take advantage of this new arrangement long enough to disappear them all. Then we can change it back.

Impooping: You don't even know who I was talking about, do you? "The Sheikh"? It was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. He was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks -- and probably the single highest ranking AQ member we've capture to date.

If it was a lie, then a lot of people lied about it. According to Mr. Ross, even some of the CIA agents who opposed coercive interrogation conceded that it had worked with KSM.

Your "facts" are fabrications and I suspect you know that.
Anonymous | 09.29.06 - 1:40 am | #

The pros on the "Ticking Timebomb" scenario:

The self-described civil libertarian, Alan Dershowitz, published a book in 2002 entitled, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge. In Chapter Four, he calls for the use of "nonlethal" torture in "ticking bomb" situations. Unfortunately, he neither tells us how we can be sure that an event is not imminent nor how we can be sure that the torture applied will not have a fatal result. On the surface, his recommendation of pushing needles under someone's fingernails appears to be a nonfatal technique. But, can we be sure of that in the case of an older source with a heart problem? As evidence that torture works, Dershowitz describes an event that took place in the Philippines in 1995. It seems the police captured one Abdul Hakim Murad after finding a bomb-making factory in his apartment in Manila. They beat him and broke his ribs, burned him with cigarettes, forced water down his throat, then threatened to turn him over to the Israelis. Sixty-seven days later he broke and told of terror plots to blow up 11 airliners, crash another into the headquarters of the CIA and to assassinate the Pope. Unsaid here is which of these purported plots were subsequently confirmed. Also, I find it curious that Dershowitz would argue for the use of torture in a "ticking bomb" situation based on a torture-interrogation example that took sixty-seven days to bring to fruition. According to WO Brian Copeland of the Navy/Marine Intelligence Training Course (NMITC), Dam Neck, Va., current Marine Corps interrogation doctrine is that detainee information is highly perishable and, in a tactical environment, has a shelf life of 24 to 48 hours.

The Marine Corps Interrogator/Translator Teams Assoc.

http://www.mcitta.org/torture.htm
Anonymous | 09.29.06 - 1:44 am | #

IMASNOOPING.

With this bill, I theoretically could claim I overheard you saying you wanted to bomb a building, and legally you could be detained for the rest of your life and and subjected to nearly any form of torture as long as the President said it was ok, and I am sure there are a number of techniques he'd approve of that could get you squealing in seconds about how yes, you really did plan to bomb a plane.

Your innocence is no protection, as innocence is something only proven by a trial, and now, there is no need for trials if you can hold someone forever for no reason.

That is the power of this bill.

It is a bill that gives the sole authority to oversee it to the President, present and future.

It is the sort of Bill that not only opens the door for a dictatorship, but puts out the welcome mat.
Nylund | 09.29.06 - 1:46 am | #

The Dems voted for the Bill.Full stop.
RIP USA.
contributor | 09.29.06 - 1:47 am | #

[Impooping's] "facts" are fabrications and I suspect you know that.
Anonymous

That's because they are the product of a tortured mind extracted under torture. It's unanimously agreed upon by the pros and experts that torture never produces reliable information, just fabrication.
Anonymous | 09.29.06 - 1:48 am | #

The Dems voted for the Bill.Full stop.
RIP USA.
contributor

Troll.
Black September | 09.29.06 - 1:52 am | #

I think this would be a good time to watch "V For Vendetta" again.
r€nato | 09.29.06 - 1:53 am | #

I'm not so sure I believe that.

Beliefs are no longer enough. Not one, not one acted.
The Athenien democracy fell, the Roman Republic crumbled and we are following in their footsteps. The difference is in communication. We follow day by day, hour by hour, our own decadence. We see it unfolding, live, which makes it all the more fustrating.
Why do peoples love tyrants? That question has been a constant thread throughout history. The real surprise is that our tyrant comes in the form of a petulant child and a mumbling iron-fisted monster who mirror what we have become.
Druthers | 09.29.06 - 1:55 am | #

Lets kick the whole bunch out! Time for a big change. Spread the word to every person you know. Print out the new law and make clear to every person the facts of this law! Since only MSNBC COUNTER POINT has actually discussed the new law. We must as patriots spread the news our selves. If the media refuses to do it's job then lets do it for them. Power to the people! I cried today, this is not America!
mari | 09.29.06 - 1:58 am | #

Frankly, we don't need new representatives, we need a new American people.

But reality will soon take care of that.
Lupin | 09.29.06 - 2:00 am | #

gotta hang on to whatever there is floating next to you. until it's just you, treadin' water, baby. here's to a well-lived life in whatever country this is now, eh? :)
Nezua Limón Xolagrafik-Jonez | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 2:01 am | #

I ment Count Down, MSNBC. Not Counter Point.
mari | 09.29.06 - 2:01 am | #

IMASNOOPING.

With this bill, I theoretically could claim I overheard you saying you wanted to bomb a building, and legally you could... because IOKIYAAR and the building is a Democratic precinct headquarters.
Anonymous | 09.29.06 - 2:06 am | #

You might want to read up on the war criminal that has been advising Bush (That's what Bush supporter Christopher Hitchens calls him) Henry Kissinger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Hen...Henry_Kissinger
Anonymous | 09.29.06 - 2:13 am | #

imsnooping:
You're joking, right? You think the jihadists will treat our guys better if we don't waterboard?

You moron, the point is that anyone - *anyone* - who captures our soldiers during *any* war can now do anything to them they want, that doesn't break any bones, create any nasty scars, or sound too bad when read in a dry voice to a sympathetic audience.

If, for some impossible-to-imagine reason, we ended up in a war with the UK, they'd be allowed to do these things to our soldiers, and we'd have no grounds to complain.

(And please, don't say that the UK is too honorable to do this kind of stuff; people would have said the same thing about us just a few short years ago.)

If we get in a war with China over freedom for Taiwan, they can beat our soldiers with rubber hoses, as long as they don't break the skin. Sure, our soldiers will claim they were beaten with rubber hoses, but the Chinese could say "even if we did - and we didn't - as long as it didn't cause serious injury, it's in line with American law for treatment of prisoners." Of course, they'd be lying in claiming they didn't, but Bush is lying when claiming the US doesn't torture; torture has occurred at his direction.

Only cowards are tempted to torture. Only those who don't care about justice fear fair trials and habeus corpus.

If we had a real man for a President, the country wouldn't be in this situation. Instead we've got a pathetic, yellow-bellied two-bit wimp with who needs a couple of lengths of yarn that are looped into spherical shapes.

After all, pussies like to play with balls of yarn, and he sure as hell needs a pair of balls, because he's shown no evidence of having any of his own.
LongHairedWeirdo | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 2:16 am | #

You know what the Dems remind me of in this fight?

That pathetic, dweeby guy you might have known, who was always whining that he doesn't know what the girls want, and trying to change to what he thinks they seem to go for.

You might feel some sympathy, but you also probably feel like smacking him upside the head and say "figure out what you want, be your own person, show a little passion, and then someone's going to find you interesting! No one wants a chump who's always trying to be what other people want him to be!"

They have just been handed a perfect club. "This isn't about terrorists; this is about the innocent people who are sure to be caught up in the web! But the Republicans don't care about the innocent people!"

And they think they're clever, by appearing tepid and wishy-washy.

And pardon the crudity, but *fuck me sideways*, they're still better than the Republicans.
LongHairedWeirdo | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 2:39 am | #

Monsieur Colbert explains the torture/habeas "compromise".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAJSHXMZZD8
[3 minute video] a clear explanation of how the bill is evil
Colbert Fan | 09.29.06 - 2:42 am | #

In memoriam

39. Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut disseisiatur, aut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terre.

1215-2006. Requiem in Pacem

Anyone want to join the wake? I've got cheese and beer.
Llelldorin | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 2:49 am | #

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?

Only if you yelled very very loudly from the underground secret pit of a prison the government is holding you in.

Nobody is going to be able to test legislation by filing a writ because they will have no access to lawyers or courts. It's a catch 22.

FISA isn't constitutional, IMO, and yet it still exists because nobody has challenged its constitutionality in court.

The constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools wasn't challenged in court until fifty years of indoctrination had passed. At the time it became law, Americans understood what challenging it meant - McCarthyism had long roots and memories. Once enough time had passed after the end of that particularly vicious time in our history, people thought long and hard about testing the waters -you always run the risk of having blatantly unconstitutional laws stand as settled law.

What happened today is a nightmare, and I don't know what anyone who calls himself an American can be thinking if he can vote for this bill.

The one that I don't understand at all is Jay Rockefeller. First it's a handwritten letter squirreled away in a safe in his office. Now it's an amendment for oversight over the CIA torture programs which fails to pass, and Rockefeller still goes ahead and gives Bush the power to kidnap, torture, keep forever with no oversight at all anybody that he wants. Does Bush have Rockefeller's wife or kids tied up in a dungeon?
Maeven | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 3:07 am | #

We need to elect a Democratic Senate, so torture bills will pass 55-54, rather than 65-35.
Kimmitt | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 3:14 am | #

Maeven,

Given your other remarks I find that your finding FISA to be unconstitutional to be curious. Why do you think it's unconstitutional? Do you buy into the right-wing notion that neither congress nor the courts can check the executive's powers in certain domains, and that in such domains it can and must be given free reign in "just trust me" mode? In what way is this compatible with or conducive to meaningful and sustained democracy? Sounds more like dictatorship to me.

Or is your conclusion based on more technical legalistic issues with FISA, that you believe could be remedied with an amended version?
Kovie | 09.29.06 - 3:19 am | #

Reading through the comments here, I've seen people articulate most of the (sometimes contradictory) thoughts that have gone through my head since learning of the passage of the legislation. On thought sticks out in my mind, however.

I do believe that we have been graced with the spirit of Ol' Scratch himself (Lucifer, the Monarch of Hell, etc.) through the posts of IMSnooping. I doubt that IMSnooping considers themself to be a medium for channeling the message of Ol' Scratch, but that is exactly what I felt when I scrolled through the posts here.

I'm a firm believer in good and in evil. IMSnooping's message is the worst kind of evil, worse than the evil of those who openly do wrong (murderers, thieves) because IMSnooping's message is dressed in the clothes of
ostensible "reasonableness," i.e., a polite tone and a "soft sell" of the position that torture is OK because it works. This kind of evil can quietly seduce you by convincing you that immoral acts are repeatedly necessary to accomplish common objectives.

There are moral ways of accomplishing our common objectives, however, and we must never, ever forget this point. We will not die or cease to exist as a nation if we adhere to the Geneva conventions. We will not die or cease to exist as a nation if we give suspected terrorists fair trials before we execute them or throw them in jail for the rest of their lives. We will not die or cease to exist as a nation if we require our government to comply with the terms of FISA before listening to telephone conversations.

We must repeat this message over and over. We must convince the people of the United States that the threats to our safety which Ol' Scratch seeks to exploit in tempting us to follow him down the path of self-destruction are nowhere near the scope of threats we will face once we irrevocably get on the that path with Ol' Scratch.

Yes, it is a dangerous world. Yes, there are people out there set on destroying our nation and our system. And yes we need to be vigilant. But we can be vigilant in a moral way and still prevail. And we need to maintain moral vigilance even when we suffer casualties.

And, most importantly, we must encourage our friends and neighbors to openly acknowledge that there are at least as many domestic threats to our form of government as we have known it as there are foreign threats.
Don de Drain | 09.29.06 - 4:02 am | #

So is Rove gonna rush a Gitmo show trial to fill the airwaves between now and the election?

I bet they're building the courtroom set and picking the best looking military officers this minute...and selecting the smarmyist "terrorist" they can find in the bunch to "star."
monkyboy | 09.29.06 - 4:14 am | #

Last eve when I heard the news I gonked out. Then, now that I'm accepting Reality...my heart, beginning yesterday...was thunking one of those fluttering sounds. Pain.

I came across the word Bebelos. Helped a little. I'm Glad, exceeding glad in a negative manner; I on the side of the bed thay...that (thay as in Teacher) has always been sensitive and pained, but as irony-of-irony would have it again...a certain joy within subsided some, but there none the less...one breath at a time...then step in the truthful direction. Again.

Who's are the real victorious segment members of society? Not those tormenting, pollute'n' and acting cruel, or those soundogging filthy bibeloi's speeches. eerrie...dessert mongrels.

Desert Son, I feel like a piece of elephant rolled over and nearly crunched every bone in my democratic aching body. If I had a elephant trunk, I'd think of a 1001 ways to use it.

Sirens call out to the nation.

good morn. It's dark, dank, and not a bird chirps yet. Where is the demonstration to commence? Can we anticipate to hear the thunderous sound of a pair of eagle wings speaking winged-words from a platform? Can we buy a ticket and speak/hear statesman of real freedom for awhile?

Will Dawn ever return? I believe we can expect to see the light of day again. Laws of nature are reliable.

I'm sad for the Poor foolish people who play politics every day. Pathetic?
brotherbruz | 09.29.06 - 4:37 am | #

I've had many hours to think things over now. There's a lot to say, but what's the point?

The party is over and the musicians have gone home.

The patient's dead. Unless anyone is into resurrection, doing or saying anything further is going to sound like JAO saying "Mister President, go tell it to a judge." Pitiful. Like the diary on Daily Kos explaining why this torture bill doesn't mean anything and anyone who objects to it is just whining.

"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"

Respectfully, Glenn, hell no.

And you know what? Neither do you, or at least, you won't in a week or so. I am sure you're in a state of shock and denial now but you're too intelligent to not recognize when a body has gone into rigor mortis.

You want to keep going on going on? Fine. But recognize you're talking about a corpse now, not a treatable patient.

I just read over Feingold's conveniently under the wire statement more carefully:

The legislation before us is better than that originally proposed by the President, which would have largely codified the procedures the Supreme Court has already rejected. And that is thanks to the efforts of some of my Republican colleagues for whom I have great respect and admiration.

Respect for McCain?

Feingold is a fucking whore and a phony, just like his friend McCain, the biggest fucking whore in the world, or as Mona would say, a putrid fuck. Having McCain as the salesman to sell this snake oil was the tantric orgasm of all cynicism: the kiss of the spider woman. I doubt whether he was even tortured. Did he say he was? Then he wasn't. He's genetically incapable of telling the truth.

You all want to dink around to amuse yourselves during the dictatorship which is now officially here? Do so.

But this is bow out time for anyone who chooses to deal with reality.

And you think things are bad now? Wait until the Guilianis, the McCains and the Murthas take over.

STAGE LEFT: Exit the smiling dictatorship.

STAGE RIGHT: Enter the brutal police state.

My advice to Glenn and all is to have a little fun in life. You'll be sorry if you wasted your time trying to breathe life into a corpse when the time comes when even fun is no longer possible.

Life is a moderately good play with a badly written third act. Truman Capote.

Ha. Wait until you see the third act of the United States of America which we now enter. Hint: it isn't going to be a comedy.

RE: Our once great country, the United States of America---well, Shakespeare put his finger on what's going to happen now.

For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds. ...

.
Eyes Wide Open | 09.29.06 - 5:02 am | #

One piece of information led to the thwarting of a plot against the Library Tower in LA.
LINKS PLEASE. This assertion bullshit is getting irritating.
TheDeadlyShoe | 09.29.06 - 5:08 am | #

By my count, Dems who opposed this bill can win and gain the House leadership. But with Stabenow, Menendez and Brown surrendering, we can't have the Senate.

Fine. It's a start. It's better than where we are now. Let's do that.

As to who to vote for if both major party candidates support torture and Bush: write in 'Marquis de Sade.'

That way, any close races that the Vichy Dems lose will have ready, measurable evidence of what this vote cost them.

The write-in campaign of Marquis de Sade is officially launched.
Kevin Hayden | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 5:22 am | #

hey sysprog,

thanks. A goat-cheese farmer, my family put up for a while when their rural bussiness faltered, gave me a paperback of Kafka's "In the Penal Colony." I browsed. I guess I was not ready...

I like to hear someone I trust second a motion. I have to go dig the book out of a storage crate, hidden, in the barn. Hidden not in the same place where the illegal moonshine kit use to be...

I hide what's most valuable under planks in the hog yard. No one looks there.

The book is stored in a hollow-bail of straw. Soon as light breaks, I may go sneak off behind the barn for a good read. I belive in real moral guilt too. Guilt can kill the political mental-patients if they don't confess a legitimate sorrow. Politicians are actually killing them self in slow moral-guilt of the 'ole suicide motion. stupid. Senators become like hogs running across planks in a stink-muck hog-yard. They now get paid handsomely to manage a slaughter house. butchers? Smell the strong odor and read that poem about a slaughter house in Chicago? What 'modern times.'
brotherbruz | 09.29.06 - 5:23 am | #

o brother. We no want to borrow Shakespearrean thought from ideas that come forth from Leo Strauss indexes. I still find book indexes fun to read too.

I may read Wendell Berry's 80's essay, "Why I will not buy a computer." Mine is about 'scrap.' This one is about forced to be needing to be thrown away, by me, and hauled involuntarily to the dump. I'll miss it. Some body has to throw out the trash?
brotherbruz | 09.29.06 - 5:36 am | #

It looks like Imsnooping is the lastest paid College Republican to disrupt this blog.

From the conspicous near abscence of bart, shooter and daleyrocks I would say that he is the relief pitcher brought in especially for the occasion. I'll have to give him credit for his ablility to crank out a large volume of BS in a short time.
marcus alrealius alrightus | 09.29.06 - 6:01 am | #

imsnooping:
You're joking, right? You think the jihadists will treat our guys better if we don't waterboard?

I think you are no better than the terrorists. Bush is worse. He has nuclears weapons now and will use them.
Anonymous | 09.29.06 - 6:40 am | #

UPDATE
Minor googling has revealed that is bullshit. KSM was captured in late 2002 or early 2003 depending on which source you believe. The library tower plot, such as it was (not much) was purportedly foiled in mid-2002. No matter what you think of torture, it doesn't send messages back through time.
TheDeadlyShoe

Precisely. Torture isn't about getting information or preventing terrorism. It's about blind hatred and fear and revenge. Just like lynching blacks.
Anonymous | 09.29.06 - 6:43 am | #

There are still sick, insane people in our population who believe these lies. The are still convinced their were WMDs in Iraq and Saddam and OBL planned the attacks because that is what they want to believe. They just want to kill all Muslims. Personally, I think we have signed our own death warrants and entered into a suicide pact with the Devil and the Devil is us.
Anonymous | 09.29.06 - 6:46 am | #

You're joking, right? You think the jihadists will treat our guys better if we don't waterboard?

Ask any military expert. They'll tell you that if the enemy can expect that, if captured, he/she will face torture, they will fight to the death rather than face that.

That's real good for our soldiers.
rosewatertiger | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 7:47 am | #

Fuck this country. When I leave this country I will give it the finger and leave behind 10 generations worth of memories to begin a new life far far away from this new Soviet American life.
John Doe | 09.29.06 - 7:54 am | #

"My other experience was when I was threatened be sent to Egypt in order to face further torture. That was where a man previously (Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi) had been sent and tortured. He confessed under torture that al Qaeda was trying to provide Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction. That was used as a justification to enter Iraq. "

(Moazzam Begg, British citizen detained in Bagram and Guantanamo for three years)

http://www.alternet.org/mediacul...aculture/42182/

That's precisely the reason why your administration *needs* torture: to build up fictional plots to sell to the public, in order to justify whatever political or military act they see fit.
a disgusted European | 09.29.06 - 8:04 am | #

"Torture" is an awfully vague word, don't you think?

Only to the morally bankrupt.

If you think you are a Christian, know this: The Lord God Almighty will hold you accountable. This was a test of your integrity and you and all Bush Cultists have failed miserably. On Judgement Day, try and explain to your Maker why your physical body, threatened by the "terrorists" was more important to you than your so-called Christian values.

Habeus corpus is meant to protect the innocent from unlawful imprisonment by the government. You and all the Bush Custists also now have to explain to your Maker why you do not want to protect the innocent.
sunny | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 8:47 am | #

You and all the Bush Custists also now have to explain to your Maker why you do not want to protect the innocent.

They have chosen Barrabas. Bush is their god.
Davis X. Machina | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 9:42 am | #

And one other thing: If you think Bush would not imprison the innocent, you are in effect saying he is infallible, that he cannot make a mistake-(nevermind he might actually do it on purpose, for spite or political reasons)

You are, if effect, equating him with God. That is BLASPHEMY.
sunny | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 9:54 am | #

Well it's perfectly obvious that sooner rather than later, some judge will declare this law blatanly unconstitutional and it will be overturned. This is the best thing that could have happened - this law is the noose these petty tyrants have affixed around their own pencil necks.

-drl
deSitter | 09.29.06 - 10:07 am | #

Imsnooping

There is only one issue here: The moral failure of permitting torture. America as an ideal have been compromised.

What you try to do is to shift the discussion to excuses for that moral failure. I hope someone is paying you well.
Rob Sommerville | 09.29.06 - 10:30 am | #

I'm late to the comments, but had to respond to this one from Imsnooping (by the way, Imsnooping, are you the NSA agent assigned to monitor this blog?):

"But the world is what it is."

That's a copout.

According to your analysis, "We need to be able to torture because the world is a bad place and sometimes you have to do bad things."

So, instead of trying to make the world a better place, you would rather go along with it and perpetuate the ill.

If that's your approach, fine. I wrote to a poster yesterday (it may be you, actually, in a different guise. Your handle is new here, so I don't know if you are a legitimate person or another plant sent here to sow discord. For now, I'll approach the argument from the standpoint that you are actually an individual and not a collective disruptor group sent to cause trouble at a blog that's trying to analyze the abandonment of the U.S. Constitution) saying that you can live in fear and do fearful things, or you can try to come over to our side and do something about it.

You said you're willing to listen to alternatives, but none are being proposed.

So, for the sixth time on these boards, I will once again, post alternatives. I don't imagine you'll read them, but I'm trying to silence the lie that continues to be distributed by the agitators in the emmploy of the monarchy that there are no alternatives.

1.) Police pocedure, not war. Use the military as a support mechanism for police procedure when necessary.

2.) Honest police procedure to demonstrate the rule of law works.

3.) Egalitarian implementation, with international cooperation, and without special consideration for a region just because it has resources or strategic advantage.

4.) Infrastructure building to offset the conditions that foment zealotry.

5.) Widespread education (we could use that in this country, too)

6.) Appropriate punishment via legal procedure.

7.) Intelligence gathering through surveillance, infiltration, informants, and cooperative international development programs.

As I've said on many occasions, it may be that these ideas aren't even very good, and so if you really are a legitimate participant in these proceedings, I would encourage you to search back through the various posts in the last few months and find the 7-step suggestion posted by William Timberman. He had some good stuff to say.

In the end, what I continue to hear from the monarchists is: "But we're at WAR!"

War seems to be all the monarchists have. "But the world is a bad place!" So that makes it alright for us to behave badly? Well, gee, thanks for clearing that up for me! You know, I've been needing some extra cash lately. Since the world is a bad place and it's o.k. for us to act badly, maybe robbing banks is the answer? That's what your logic suggests.

Rob
Desert Son | 09.29.06 - 10:33 am | #

For those of you who haven't figured it out. This bill does not apply to US citizens or legal resident alliens. Nothing has changed.
The Ugly American | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 10:42 am | #

James at 12:16,

Excellent suggestion!

Thanks! Going to try that one!

Rob
Desert Son | 09.29.06 - 11:05 am | #

Ugly American: Really?

I suspect you are pointing to this section.

‘‘§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions ‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

Which looks well and good and appears to prevent citizens from being grabbed at random.

So what limits are there in this clause of the bill, §948a. Definitions ‘‘In this chapter: ‘‘(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means— ‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant

Combine that with this ‘‘(c) DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS DISPOSITIVE.—A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter. and I don't see a whole lot protecting citizens on that front, when all is said and done.

Just about the only ray of hope is that the implications of this clause no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.’’.

But I'm not so sure that the declaration of "unlawful enemy combatant" (or its mere assertion of possibility, since those awaiting detremination of status have no right to habeas corpus, on any aspect of their treatment, and they can't invoke the Geneva Conventions either) won't trump that.

Jose Padilla was a citizen, and before this law was passed they held him incommunicado for years.
Terry Karney | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 11:16 am | #

If the statute is ambiguous on whether U.S. citizens can be unlawful enemy combatants, won't federal courts apply the doctrine of interpreting ambiguities to avoid constitutional problems, and interpret the statute so as not to include U.S. citizens?
lysias | 09.29.06 - 11:44 am | #

Speaking of court doctrines, I can imagine courts applying the clear statement rule, and requiring that a clear statement be required before habeas corpus can be suspended. How clear is the statement in this statute?
lysias | 09.29.06 - 11:45 am | #

Someday in the very distant future, this statute may be overturned, but that is a long way off. As soon as the President signs this bill people will begin dissappearing.

It's time to start a blog and central index to document the dissappearances and abuses that will inevitably arise from this legislation. Its best done in Europe or somewhere else where there remains a semblence of respect for human rights.

Oh Europeans, at times in the distant past, we Americans came to help you destroy various tyrannies. Now we are in great need of assistence here against growing tyranny. Please, someone step forward and start the Index of the Dissappeared outside of the American Jurisdiction lest they be abandoned and forgotten.
Nobody | 09.29.06 - 12:48 pm | #

Imsnooping piously lies:

"This isn't about torture. It's about interrogation -- and, not only that, but about having some checks and balances in place on that."

The fuck it isn't. It is about torture, fool, torture and about who can legally do it, and about removing constitutional checks and balances on the president's power. It's also about an assault on human decency and morality, and it's a watershed moment in the casting off by fascist rightwingers and their enablers of our nation's principles of freedom, the rule of law, and, with the negation of habeus corpus, even a cornerstone of Anglo-Saxon civilization.

Imstoopit doesn't want to acknowledge this bill legally vests dictatorship powers in one man, and undermines the footings of western civilization. All done in the name of freedom. Imstoopit and his ilk have become EXACTLY like the terrorists. The terrorists didn't undermine the freedoms of America, our principles and our morals. People like Imstoopit did.

That makes Imstoopit about as un-American as they come. Certainly as un-American as the people he and his crowd so loudly profess to protect us from.
gac | 09.29.06 - 1:17 pm | #

Imstoopit smugly palms off a falsehood while hinting about his own predilections: "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."

Vital information? How does Imstoopit know it was vital information? He doesn't. He can't. And if anyone ever could ask just what sort of information this was, the torturers will say they can't tell anyone because it's national security.

My God, Imstoopit is a mush-brained idiot.

And, by the way, why do people like Imstoopit always tout the times it takes to break different people under torture? I sense a fascination with that -- I've read several other rightwinger supporters who have mentioned this too -- there's a prurient interest, a fascination by these fascists with prisoners under the duress of torture. Imstoopit and like-minded thugs like talking about how long torture victims last before they cannot endure any more.

I think there's a streak of sadism under these rightwinger types. Breaking people really gives them a rise. It means control, punishment, pain -- and for people like Imstoopit, I also sense satisfaction. When satisfaction comes from inflicting pain on other people, whether done directly or by proxy, that is called sadism.

Imstoopit and the people he shills for are no different morally from real terrorists. They use many of the same methods, they create fear and gain strength off it, and they do not differentiate between civilians and combatants -- one can't possibly make that claim, not if any person can become an "enemy combatant" just by a say-so.
gac | 09.29.06 - 1:21 pm | #

Imstoopit: "I wish we could just ask these jihadists nicely what they know. But, unfortunately, the world ain't that pleasant...especially the world of warfare."

So the world ain't nice. Imstoopit thinks this excuses him and gives him moral cover for committing the same kinds of atrocities that helped make the world unpleasant in the first place. He is feeding his own excuse for his atrocities, and, as many in the military have argued, ensuring further atrocities against our people.

Imstoopit: "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."

Why do people like Imstoopit like to call torture a "tool"? Why do they like to describe unchecked unreviewable power as simply a "tool", as if it were as innocous as a carpenter's level?

This Orwellian redefining is a sure sign of a amoral, rightwing authoritarian, rationalizing his basic indecent tendencies with word games. Torture is merely a "tool"? The unchecked power to imprison at will is just a tool? The lack of habeas corpus is a tool??? Only in a sadistic dictator's toolbox.
gac | 09.29.06 - 1:27 pm | #

Imstoopit once again soft-pedals atrocities: "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 don't think torture is "across the line" then you really lack any morals, have no principles other than what ever you can to get what you want.

I'm talking directly to you, Imstoopit.

You seem to think because other low-life scum use this torture technique, that we have to, too. But you merely become low-life scum. Just like those you hold so unworthy of the basic rights of humanity as to be justified in torturing them.

Congratulations, dumbfuck. You have made the same case for having yourself tortured.

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

Heard this rightwinger whine before. It's both a childish illogical defense of the indefensible -- "Hey, Joey did it too!" -- and simply moral relativism. Which ironically the right has always foamed about when they see it on the left. But rightwingers, and authoritarians in particular, are never bothered by such a dual standard. Actually, that contradiction is another expression of the underlying amorality of the radical right. It's a willingness to use anything at hand to get what they want, regardless of any contradictions, morally or otherwise.

Look, stoopit, didn't your father ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? Or did your father just beat you and thereby inculcate in you your pathological need to dominate, control, humiliate and hurt others? No wonder the thought of "breaking" people trips your trigger.

I think you're a sick amoral person, with a streak of sadism at your core. You like dominating people, don't you? It must make you feel powerful and in control.

You and the sick people you make excuses for ought to be locked up for humanity's sake. We've already seen what fascists do when they get power.

And this from Mark B.

Godwin's law has been suspended due to the extremely close similarities between the current American regime and the Third Reich. ... When a government does fascist things, it's stupid not to call them fascist.

Thanks, Mark B.! Well put, and I think right on target in every respect. Just look at what Imstoopit is advocating. He wants a dictatorship. With fear. With torture. And disappearings. No benign despotism, no benevolent emperor here. Just torture for torture's sake, power for power's sake.

It's stupid not to call him a fascist.
gac | 09.29.06 - 1:34 pm | #

Prediction.

New Party will form, inspired by the outrage of the Democrat's cowardice and failure to win the 2006 mid-term elections.

Let's not forget these people are in the same hands as the Republicans. The difference is that the Democrats vote against their values, while the Republicans vote for them.
Ben Zolno | 09.29.06 - 2:34 pm | #

Sorry but I don't see a half-arsed attempt at stopping legislation to be an "important distinction" between Dem and Repub in the US Congress.

It's shameful what some will allow as a substitute for impassioned, patriotic dissent.
liquified viscera | 09.29.06 - 3:34 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

Please take your Kossack "concern troll" bullshit back to Daily Kos where the moronic Dem apologists now gather to wring their hands internally, while back-slapping each other externally for the BRAVE SHOW of Dem votes against the torture bill (even though they hardly spoke against it from its inception).

The real "concern troll" -- if there is indeed such a thing hiding behind such a horribly poor label -- is the Daily Kos-emulating Dem fellator.

Apologizing for spineless Dem pieces of shit is not patriotic, and it will not save the country. Back to Kos for you, Kossack Kocksucker.
liquified viscera | 09.29.06 - 3:38 pm | #

Glenn --

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?

Well they have had ample opportunity to prove it with their acts and words and opportunities for floor speech, filibuster, and alternative legislation.

Yet they chose to "prove" themselves with cowardly silence and a mealymouthed reduction to mere vote, and the votes were a foregone conclusion.

Where is your sense of outrage Glenn? Hiding behind optimistic hopes that you were wrong about the Dems?
liquified viscera | 09.29.06 - 3:41 pm | #

It's high time your pie-eyed optimistic apologizers for the Dems -- you Daily Kos Kocksuckers, you weakwilled pollyannas, you dumbfuck eedjits who think that responnding to Bushite trolls is real action --

it's time for you to do one last thing before you have another political thought or take another action toward your future

you must go get a copy of Erich Fromm's "Escape from Freedom" and read it, to understand why you and your fellow horseshit coward fuckhead pals are so fucking afraid to speak up against a tyrannical power like the PNAC and Carlyle Group and their buddies who have successfully stolen America from its people.

Jeezus, I could punch every one of you fucking cowards in the face and still you wouldn't get the cause of my anger, would you?

Fucking morons.
liquified viscera | 09.29.06 - 3:49 pm | #

Rule of thumb: when Digby says to be alarmed, one should be alarmed.

BETTER rule of thumb --

Fuck Digby. Fuck the idea of letting someone else be your proxy. Use your fucking noggin.
liquified viscera | 09.29.06 - 3:55 pm | #

Imsnooping is nothing but a sad troll, and those who respond to the troll are as useless as the troll him/herself.
liquified viscera | 09.29.06 - 3:56 pm | #

Now is not the time to abandon Democrats. Now is when they need us the most to stand strongly behind them.

oh jeezus fucking kroyste. wake the fuck up you deluded moron. the Dems are not our saviors. only WE can save ourselves. the Dems have proven that they cannot be relied upon.

get out of your litigation cave and wake the fuck up.
liquified viscera | 09.29.06 - 3:58 pm | #

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.

Yes, by all means, let's preserve the Democrats' ability to pretend to have our interests at heart, while acting contrary to that very notion.

What the fuck will it take for you to wake up? Being gassed to death? Being burned in an oven of human extermination? Seeing mass graves?
liquified viscera | 09.29.06 - 4:01 pm | #

And pardon the crudity, but *fuck me sideways*, [the Dems are] still better than the Republicans.

Wrong again, longhairedwierdo. Wrong again. They just proved to us that they are NO DIFFERENT. Weren't you paying attention?
liquified viscera | 09.29.06 - 4:05 pm | #

While the votes were being cast on C-Span, a caller said, "There is no longer an America. We no longer live in America. America is gone."
beervolcano | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 4:06 pm | #

Vote Libertarian.

It doesn't matter anymore whether you vote Democrat or Republican. It doesn't matter anymore if either of them wins because you "threw away" you vote for a third party. It's gotten THAT BAD. So if everyone "throws away" their votes, then the Ds and Rs will be SOL.

Just vote your conscience from now on. Because you KNOW that the difference between D and R is superficial and sometimes not even that.
Jake | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 4:09 pm | #

Eyes Wide Open | 09.29.06 - 5:02 am | #

EWO, it will be a welcome respite when there are more voices besides yours and mine who see that the patient is dead and the grieving over the corpse doesn't bring the patient back to life, and that the 3rd Day Risen is but a fable reserved for the deity following moron.
liquified viscera | 09.29.06 - 4:09 pm | #

Imsnooping writes:

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?

No, we cannot, because there are some things that "reasonable" do not do. "Reasonable" people do not molest children, "Reasonable" people do not burn crosses on someone's lawn and lynch minorities, "Reasonable" people do not fly airplanes into buildings and "reasonable" people do not support torture. I cannot agree with you on any of this because as far as I am concerned you are no more reasonable than a child molester, a member of the KKK or a Jihadist. You're not, if you support this you're either ignorant, morally bereft by any civilized standard of morality, or a sadistic degenerate. There's nothing "reasonable" about torture or your support of it.
M. Butterfly | 09.29.06 - 7:05 pm | #

Imsnooping writes:

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, is in my book, morally no better than a jihadist. If I had Imsnooping in my rifle's sights I would have no more compunction about putting him down than I would putting down a jihadist or a sick SOB like the gunman who stormed that classroom in Colorado the other day. The line we shouldn't be crossing is to use torture, period, that's the line, there's no shade of gray here, once you've decided to cross that line, for whatever reasons, you are morally no better than a jihadist.

As far as all of the valuable evidence we get from torture here's a bet IMsnooping, within two hours, using nothing more than items I can purchase at the Home Depot you will have confessed to the following:

1) Being the true mastermind behind 9/11.
2) The JonBenet Ramsey murder
3) The Nicole Simpson Brown murder
4) Being responsible for the creation of New Coke in 1985.
5) Being the shooter on the Grassy Knoll in Dallas in 1963.
6) Being a second shooter in Ford's theatre in 1865.
7) Being the fourth centurion on the hill Golgotha in 33A.D.

Seriously I can make you do this. Is any of it true? Who knows? But who cares if it is? It's wrong and evil and if you don't understand this then you are wrong and evil too, just like a jihadist, a Nazi, a communist or any other low life who likes to make human beings suffer.

As far as the "world of warfare" goes why do I get the feeling that you're another chickenhawk whose only knowledge of the "world of warfare" is from playing "America's Army"?
M. Butterfly | 09.29.06 - 7:26 pm | #

Thirty two Senate democrats, jumpin' Jim Jeffords and RINO Chafee voted to weaken the ability of the United States to defend itself from terrorists. The continuing effort to afford our sub-human enemy with a bill of rights is indeed something which the left will have to explain to voters in November. When it comes to protecting the nation and its citizens from terror, the "critically important contrast" between dems and republicans consists of an unrelenting desire on the part of the left to make it easier for Islamofascists to kill us. Conservative on the other hand would like to make it more difficult by killing the terrorists first.
OLDPUPPYMAX | 09.29.06 - 8:13 pm | #

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Dwight D. Eisenhower 1/17/1961

When people say things, it is human nature to evaluate the speaker, test whether we believe that he speaks as an authority. In 1961 this patriot, in a farewell address to the American people, warned us of the dangers that he saw. As a decorated five star general, a career soldier, he knew of what he spoke. This has been a long time coming. The sleaze and criminal nature of our leaders is real. It is up to every patriotic American to take back our nation.
Dave | 09.29.06 - 8:37 pm | #

Please take your Kossack "concern troll" bullshit back to Daily Kos where the moronic Dem apologists now gather to wring their hands internally, while back-slapping each other externally for the BRAVE SHOW of Dem votes against the torture bill (even though they hardly spoke against it from its inception).

The real "concern troll" -- if there is indeed such a thing hiding behind such a horribly poor label -- is the Daily Kos-emulating Dem fellator.

Apologizing for spineless Dem pieces of shit is not patriotic, and it will not save the country. Back to Kos for you, Kossack Kocksucker.
liquified viscera | 09.29.06 - 3:38 pm | #

Thanks LV. You are so wrong about me that it really makes this comment of mine seriously silly, but I can't resist. I guess I should have stuck with this stread instead of going to bed or to work.

Just for you though, since I haven't picked a fight on the internets yet, I'll give you a clue bat -- I have never commented on Kos. I can count on my fingers and toes how many times I have even read the site. On the other hand, I have read Glenn's blog from last November, and The Editors for lord knows how long.

I actually hope you check back on this because Randians like you have come and gone on this blog. The only one worth reading for substance was Mona. I now read her on the blog she contributes to. You, on the other hand, only caught my attention because you cut and pasted my words.

Happy Trails!
michilines | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 10:55 pm | #

Regarding Other Lisa's "Welcome to the Soviet States of America":

We must never forget that most Americans didn't particularly object to Soviet tyranny and persecution of dissidents -- that was an issue for intellectuals. The Red Menace they feared was the loss of the right to make a lot of money on your own.

In other words, most Americans support torture and the last thing they're concerned about is apprehension without being told why and trial without jury.
Russ Wellen | 09.29.06 - 11:04 pm | #

Taxes Support Torture & Terrorism!

Since it is a crime to give money to groups committing terrorist acts (Patriot Act, H.R.3162, Executive Order 13224, UNSC Resolution 1373), then giving money to our government is now a crime.

Revolution is neigh!
Tater | 09.29.06 - 11:09 pm | #

A moral person does not dismiss their principles to save their job or appear a certain way to certain voters. That's why it's called a principle.

Lives and civil rights are in the balance. There is no excuse for those Dems. To compromise one's values when faced with conflcit or challenge means simply, there were none to begin with.

This vote will go down in history as the death of The REPUBLIC of the United States of America.
uppity kitty | 09.30.06 - 2:10 am | #

michilines --

Well, you sure employed every one of your fantasies there. To ill effect, I might add.

"Randian"? what the fuck are you talking about? I am not a fan of Ayn Rand, I find her views oversimple and childish. Much like yours and your silly "concern troll" misreads. But usually, eedjits don't know they're eedjits, so that likely explains you. We can't talk to Ms Rand, she's dead, so we won't ever know if her game was a game or her true eedjit self. But you're well on your way to proving your own eedjit status. Keep after it!
liquified viscera | 09.30.06 - 12:52 pm | #

"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."

..Then again, Ghandi did not have a nation of overly litigious political hacks to work with.

Really, can any of you be bothered to state, just for the record, why it is that due process and law really matters? That is, for anything else than political purposes.

Can any of you be arsed to explain why it is that the principle truly matters in the grand scheme of things, and honestly, and with precision, point out the horrifying hypocrisy and disdain for the political process that most of the democrats and republicans alike espouses when legislating - again and again - bills that have no practical application - but is a symbolic act? And that they are doing nothing less than what you have asked them to do for years on end, when screaming for "competent" leadership?

Can any of you do that? Honestly put the blaim where it should be? I don't think so. I doubt it very much.
nipsen | 10.01.06 - 1:04 pm | #

I'm sickened and enraged. I'm from NJ. I sent emails to both senators about this. And they BOTH voted for it.
Way to uphold the Constitution, guys.
Habeus.
Fucking.
Corpus!
Anon | 10.02.06 - 12:47 pm | #

I'm not feeling inclined to surrender and to agree that the President has been given these ultimate authorities, end of story. The legislature still cannot pass an unconstitutional law and these things can still be brought before the courts. Hopefully, they will soon be.
k | 10.04.06 - 7:33 pm | #

http://www.women1.org/

a woman, or the feminine in men and women, seeks to share deep awareness of the world
in a sacralized communion. the presence of soft candle light, wild flowers, and the
rituals of dressing for the occasion are simply metaphors acknowledged and “lived out”
in honor of the moment. in honor of life. in honor of shared awareness of the infinite
in a moment.
pregnancy | Homepage | 01.01.07 - 1:04 am | #

best site
http://www.furnitures.org.in
pregnancy | Homepage | 01.01.07 - 1:09 am | #

http://www.flowers-shop.org

In modern times, people have sought ways to cultivate, buy, wear, or just be around
flowers and blooming plants, partly because of their agreeable smell. Around the world,
people use flowers for a wide range of events and functions that, cumulatively, encompass
one's lifetime
pregnancy | Homepage | 01.01.07 - 1:10 am | #

http://www.pregnancy.net.in

The period during which a developing fetus is carried within the uterus. In humans, pregnancy
averages 266 days (38 weeks) from conception to childbirth. Traditionally, pregnancy duration
is counted from the woman's last menstrual period, which adds roughly 2 weeks to gestational
age. This is how physicians arrive at a pregnancy length of 40 weeks (280 days).
pregnancy | Homepage | 01.01.07 - 1:13 am | #

http://www.pokkers.org

the most popular of a class of games called vying games, in which players with
fully or partially concealed cards make wagers into a central pot, which is awarded
to the player or players with the best combination of cards or to the player who makes
an uncalled bet. Poker can also refer to video poker, a single-player game seen in
casinos much like a slot machine, or to other games that use poker hand rankings.
pregnancy | Homepage | 01.01.07 - 1:15 am | #

bank fargo mortgage second well bank fargo mortgage second well bank fargo mortgage second well. arizona county mortgage yavapai arizona county mortgage yavapai arizona county mortgage yavapai.
mxfcjqsnd | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 1:20 pm | #

The American people should know that George W. Bush is not only a war criminal: for example, he is also a hate-crime criminal.

George W. Bush had better stop committing hate crimes.

George W. Bush hates black people (indicated at http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot...o-stokely.html) .

GEORGE W. BUSH MURDERED A JEW!

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/
Andrew Yu-Jen Wang | Homepage | 12.25.08 - 10:19 pm | #

Commenting by HaloScan