Sunday Discussion Group

September 24, 2006

The debate in DC over whether and how to torture — I still find it painful to type those words — gripped the political establishment for a couple of weeks, and Dems on the Hill took an entirely passive approach. It wasn’t necessarily because they didn’t care, it was more part of a deliberate strategy: Republicans were beating each other up over the issue, and Dems decided not to help break up the fight.

Whether that was a sound strategy or not is open to some debate. Now that the Three Stooges and the Bush White House have struck a “compromise,” of course, Dems, who have invested literally nothing in the discussion thus far, have to decide what to do about a critical moral, legal, and national security issue. Michael Froomkin set the stage quite well:

The Democrats, having until now largely chosen to stay quiet on grounds of political expediency, now face a moral choice about how hard to fight the destruction of habeas corpus and the ratification of de facto unreviewable power to torture.

First option, block this horror — filibuster if needed — and risk paying a political price: For a taste of the ‘vote for us or die‘ campaign that’s in the works, see this utterly repulsive ad already being run by Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-CT). And recall that Johnson is supposedly one of the nicer Republicans (and a new friend of Sen. Lieberman’s).

Second option, do the usual infective stuff and pay a different political price (the base will turn on you, as will anyone else with some decency). Plus earn a black spot in history.

Let’s flesh the details of these choices out a bit. I’m with Prof. Froomkin on the substance, but I’m willing to concede that competing voices within the party can make a compelling argument for either option.

The first option has the benefit of the moral high ground, but a) isn’t politically pragmatic; and b) is probably the choice Republicans are hoping Dems will take. Nevertheless, Dems could show some backbone, take a firm stand on human rights, and filibuster the “compromise” on torture. They might also consider some carefully-crafted amendments that could offer nominal improvements to the bill, or, at a minimum, put a few Republicans in awkward positions.

In fact, the Dems could raise quite a fuss in this debate if they choose to. A few good senators could simply read every quote Warner, McCain, and Graham made the last couple of weeks about protecting U.S. troops, moral standing, America’s values, etc. Maybe some Dems could track down Colin Powell, who’s been eerily quiet since the “deal” was announced, and some JAGs who recognize the “compromise” as a scam. In a nutshell, force a real debate about abuse, habeas corpus, abandoning the Geneva Conventions, after-the-fact immunity for war crimes, and an unjustified expansion of extra-constitutional presidential power. It may be out of fashion to stand up for American values, but that won’t change as long as Democrats stay silent.

Given that set-up, Door #2 may sound craven, but the argument is not entirely without merit. Dems didn’t engage in this debate because the rules were fixed in advance — with 44 seats in the Senate, they couldn’t win anyway. The best they could hope for is the three-headed “maverick” monster could keep Bush relatively in check. They didn’t, but that’s not the Dems’ fault; it’s the problem of having so few decent, principled Republicans left.

As this argument goes, Rove & Co. want nothing more than to see Dems filibuster a detainee policy, six weeks before the midterm elections, so there’s no reason to give them what they want, especially if it’s bound to fail. It’s not as if a sizable portion of the public is going to vote on this issue anyway. If Dems want to make a difference, create a check on an out-of-control executive, and stop a misguided agenda, they’ll need to start winning elections. Making it easier to label the party “weak on terror” isn’t the way to make that happen.

This may not be the morally superior tack, and it won’t win anyone any “Profiles in Courage” awards, but with 44 votes, we were going to lose anyway. From here, the key is to figure out how to lose with the least amount of political damage.

So, what say you? How badly have Dems screwed this up? And what, if anything, do they do now? Option 1: fight like hell, stick to principles, stand up for basic decency against the GOP onslaught. Option 2: sidestep unwinnable fight, embrace pragmatism, get ready to hit the GOP over Iraq for the next six weeks.

Discuss.

They should just slime the GOP where the GOP is the slimiest. As an afterthought they can mention the detainee policy after they mention all their opponent’s other weaknesses. This close to an election, the advice the Dems need to be to told by those who’ve got their ear is, ‘It’s not all about you.’ It depends on how pivotal the election really is and how much protecting the play in the joints really matters in the particular, but generally, taking care of that margin with everything you’ve got is what matters now.

  • If they really want to make this detainee policy a centerpiece, they need to demonstrate a lot of coordination and discipline to really make it happen, so that they don’t end up sounding as if they’re all alone on it.

  • All that is needed for evil to triumph is for enough good men to do … nothing. The Dems are doing damned good job of it, too.

    Give up Habeas Corpus without a whimper? Compromise on torture and the Geneva Conventions? What have we come to? Are we mad? Is getting elected and on the gravy train that addictive?

    I’m strangely reminded of the McCarthy hearings, during which we gave so much away through inaction and fear, until finally counsel Robert Welch had the courage to say “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

    I don’t know how that Welch comment morphed into “Have you no shame”, but it doesn’t really matter. The actual transcript (there’s also an audio) is still riveting, fifty-two years after seeing it on TV when I was 14. My blood still boils when I think of McCarthy and, even moreso, of Roy Cohn. Above, you quote “the base will turn on you, as will anyone else with some decency”. When? This administration, headed by the Regal Moron and the Bush Crime Family, are a legion of stooges. And these are hardly funny.

    I have the feeling that the country I grew up in evaporated under Reagan and all who followed him, that it really doesn’t matter anymore who “wins” because we’re all losers. We used to pride ourselves on being a nation of laws not of men. In the last generation we’ve become a nation of cowards. We deserve what’s coming.

  • It is take no prisoners time. The Dems should declare that NOTHING, not one single bill from the White House will receive a Dem vote, and even the most slightly egregious will be filibustered. The President has no moral standing to claim the benefit of the doubt and the Dems should publicly claim the moral highground and declare stopping this man as the most moral imperitive in politics today. Scorched earth.

    Ain’t going to happen, but we can dream.

  • The republicans’ war criminal absolution act should be spotlighted. This isn’t about American policy, it’s about protecting war criminals sitting in the white house needing something besides a pardon as backup. Call it what it is, and point to bush’s first act as president, to wit, renouncing recognition of the world criminal court. One doesn’t reject membership in the world criminal court without purpose.

  • ***The Democrats…now face a moral choice about how hard to fight the destruction of habeas corpus and the ratification of de facto unreviewable power to torture.***

    This, in a nutshell, is the entire argument at its most elemental point.

    Herr Bush “denied” inter-American wiretapping, and then admitted it.

    Herr Bush “denied” intra-American wiretapping, and then admitted it.

    Herr Bush “denied” the very existence of “secret prisons,” and then admitted their existence.

    Herr Bush “denied”—and contues to “deny” that we have tortured prisoners, and has now (in a round-about way) admitted it.

    Herr Bush continues to insist that “we do not torture,” but simultaneously demands legislation that would circumvent the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and permit “aggressive interrogations.”

    And finally, each and every dictator who implemented such atrocities against “foreign nationals” eventually—as a means of retaining power—was systematically led to the necessity of implementing those same said atrocities against his own citizens. With Herr Bush’s track record on “honesty and ethical integrity”—are YOU prepared to take the chance that we are not but a mere step or two from having—as Professor Froomkin so eloquently put it—“having the destruction of habeas corpus and the ratification of de facto unreviewable power to torture” become not only the destruction of those right—but the destruction of those rights as they apply to YOU?

    The peaceful alternatives to a full-fledged and very messy domestic rebellion are beginning to slip from the grasp of the American People. If the Democrats cannot take action now, they will, at the very least, bear partial responsibility for the commencement of such rebellion….

  • Why can’t the Democrats take a page out of Rove’s playbook? The Republicans want Democrats to oppose the the bill, they perceive it as a strong point in their favor, something to use in attack ads. Well, attack them where they feel strong, and keep attacking. I am not a strategist or in advertising, but surely we have seen enough examples by Rove & Co. for for the people who are good at this to come up with attack ads of our own. I mean, c’mon, we’re talking about legitimizing torture.

  • The easiest way to lose the election is to let the opposition control the debate which is exactly what is happening.

    Ed Stephan, are you a liberal or a neocon? This sounds personal but it’s not. It’s about the topic of conversation and what is said. Go up and read what he wrote. It plays right into the hands of the neocons. They want liberals to huff and puff about issues that are non issues like Haebus Corpur and handling POWs, torture, which is exactly what his post does. Get with the mind of the voters or you won’t get elected and whatever is being done will cotinue. The first step is to win the election, any which way you can.

    What do voters, not Liberterians think about Haebus Corpus? Most, the vast majority don’t have a clue what Haebus Corpus is. The ones that do know also know the Lincoln and FDR, Mr Liberals both suspened it during time of war. We’re at war!!! Everybody knows that. So they think Bush must be doing the RIGHT THING. Back off at double time. It’s a trap, an ambush. It makes liberals look like terrorists supporters that would spend tax money to get the jihad warriors we’ve caught $500 an hour lawyers to “get them off” so they can do it again. BFNews for Democrats. How easy would it have been for Democrats to notice that both Lincoln and FDR suspended Haebus Corpus and therefore it must be THE RIGHGT THING TO DO. That would have defuse the bomb, neutralized the issue and distanced Democrats from Liberterians.

    What do voters think about torturing prisoners? They think that Americans NEVER do it but SHOULD. They don’t believe prisoners are being tortured. Give it up. It’s a trap, an ambush.

    Voters are IN FAVOR OF torturing prisoners and doubly so in this case where they are sneaks that hijack airplanes, suicide bomb and do all the things the news is filled with. Yes, we’ll get back to Iraq and the war just as soon as everyone knows the administration is DOING THE RIGHT THING. They don’t have a clue about what the right thing is. It’s all perception created by sound bytes.

    Voters are just hearing what they can easily say is liberal BS. We know the president will win the argument one way or the other. How easy it would have been for liberals to say WE NEVER TORTURE PRISONERS BUT EVERYBODY ELSE TORTURES OURS. That neutralizes the issue, leaves the voter thinking the Democrats would also DO THE RIGHT THING.

    Make the argument about leadership to WIN THE WAR. Americans love winners and ignore losers. Do you feel ignored? That’s what they, the GOP wants.

    The contest is to see who the voters will choose to lead and not who has the moral high ground. The GOP has been claiming the moral high ground going back to the civil war or even earlier based upon Christian values. The average voter sees the moral high ground as Christian values, evangelical sex protocol mostly with a pinch of love thy enemies just after you extract two eyes for one and knock every tooth out. We’re always right because we’re both Americans that never torture but most of all we are Christians. This is a Christian country isn’t it?

  • Making it easier to label the party “weak on terror” isn’t the way to make that happen.

    Which sets up the classic “Catch 22.” If Dems filibuster the bill, they’re weak on terror. If Dems step aside and let this thing be railroaded through, they’re weak on terror because they don’t have any ideas.

    Of course this particular conundrum is entirely of the Democratic establishment’s making.

    If the Democrats are destined to lose anyway, they may as well go down swinging hard. Somethings — like human rights and the last shred of the nation’s integrity — are far more important than political expediency and the slight chance of winning a majority in either chamber of Congress.

  • I suspect 18-35% of Americans at most favor torture…

    If this is so… then:

    First option, block this horror — filibuster if needed — and risk paying a political price is the sound path.

    If this is not so…

    If a greater percentage of Americans favor torture, and there is a “political price” to pay for being against it, then the USA has gone Nazi and needs to be exposed as such.

    How do you expose the torturers from the non-torturers?
    With a filibuster.

  • I don’t know for sure but I strongly suspect that the pope whacking the Islamic hornets nest and the Pakistan president saying he was threatened with “bombed back to the stone age” are not accidents but are part of a much larger plan.

    What would we do if there was an oil boycot? Right now your tank is full, maybe. What would you do if there was no gas at all? Democrats should be beating on energy with the biggest sticks they can find, scientists that are real scientists and not nut cases worried about global warming. Voters don’t give a hoot about pending anything as much as pending being out of gas. If people were all that forward thinking no one would have been in New Orleans the day the storm hit.

    THE MIND OR THE VOTERS. GET WITH THAT OR LOSE THE ELECTION.

  • Express doubts and reservations, promise to revisit the issue after proper investigations are conducted with subpoena power behind them. Pencils have erasers.

    Sux, but likely the best we’re gonna get.

  • I would strongly support a filibuster, if it came to that. But why not turn this ‘anti-terror’ legislation around on them? Let’s load it down with our entire shopping list of expensive, but necessary things? Let’s triple the amount of modern personal body armor deployed to Iraq. Let’s put some comprehensive port security programs in there. Let’s put a troop withdrawal schedule in there.
    When the repubs reject those, filibuster the bill and then hammer them in the campaigns for turning their backs on real security while cheerleading torture.

  • Bill,

    This is disgusting. What proof do you have that Americans are willing, even eager, to break out the torture instruments because “everyone else is doing it”? I’m afraid most decent people feel a little ill at the mention of waterboarding and beatings.

    And this statement — “They want liberals to huff and puff about issues that are non issues like Haebus Corpur sic and handling POWs, torture, which is exactly what his post does.” — is fucking idiotic. What the hell do you think the issues are if not the fate of Habeas Corpus, the treatment of POWs and torture?

    And unlike the “War on Terror,” WWII and the Civil War were real conflicts where the U.S. didn’t have to resort to torture to “win.”

    If the “War on Terror” is truly a clash of civilizations, can you tell me why we wouldn’t take the higher moral road — namely providing a fair trial and humane treatment to POWs?

  • They have to do something. There comes a time when “it’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees.” If such a time is not now – when the Republicans are destroying the very basis of what is meant by “a government of laws, not of men,” as was originally crafted by The Founders – then when is it?

    We are witnessing the destruction of the Republic!

    I dislike sounding shrill here, but upending the legal basis of the country, which will be followed by the giving-over of all power to the Executive when they pass the “snooping” bill, means that we will have destroyed everything that has made this country what it has been in the world for the past 217 years. If we overthrow the things about us that were why we were attacked by the terrorists, what reason is there left to fight the “war” on terrorism?

    At a minimum, I will agree with CB when he says this:

    Dems could raise quite a fuss in this debate if they choose to. A few good senators could simply read every quote Warner, McCain, and Graham made the last couple of weeks about protecting U.S. troops, moral standing, America’s values, etc. Maybe some Dems could track down Colin Powell, who’s been eerily quiet since the “deal” was announced, and some JAGs who recognize the “compromise” as a scam. In a nutshell, force a real debate about abuse, habeas corpus, abandoning the Geneva Conventions, after-the-fact immunity for war crimes, and an unjustified expansion of extra-constitutional presidential power. It may be out of fashion to stand up for American values, but that won’t change as long as Democrats stay silent.

    They have to get up and say this everywhere – not just in the Senate, and not just on the talk shows where the scum running them will edit the result to ruin them. They have to go out to the country and stand on the steps of every courthouse in every city and speak against this. They have to defend the last ditch, or they may as well resign, because the next step will be for George Bush to nominate his horse for the next Supreme Court vacancy, and 55 Republicans will happily say yes.

    It may not look like it, but this is the greatest crisis in the history of the country, more important than the Civil War. This is about what happens to the Republic – does it live or die?

  • I’m only advocating winning the election!!! My evidence is the polls. All they have to do to say our prisoners are tortured is mention that McCain was a POW in Viet Nam. Everybody knows he was tortured. The kneejerk reaction is to torture the prisoners we have. Now McCain endorses the interrogation bill. “It has to be right” doesn’t it? Only someone who wants to lose in November will oppose it.

    During WW2 soldiers and Marines bragged about shooting the precious few Japanese that gave up on national radio and the written press, (predates TV) and not one word of protest from the public. The protests were all about how well we treated the “Nazis” in our POW camps while our boys they had were frozen and starving. While Americans ate potatoes because meat was rationed the Nazi POWs chowed down on steak and eggs for breakfast. Read the editorials during WW2. That’s how Americans feel about it and why.

    We can’t get any changes made until we win the election. We can’t win the election without identifying with what the voters are thinking. We can’t change their thoughts, only map our positions into them. Democracy is NOT majority rule but it is majority pick the leaders. Know the majority thoughts and get with them or lose.

    We should be saying WIN THE WAR. Where? Everywhere. How do we win? First we win the election and get control. Then we declare victory and bring the troops home, for example only.

    If you say you are going to declare victory and bring the troops home you will lose the election. Say WIN THE WAR.

    We are NOT WINNING THE WAR right now because there is a pack of lying, cheating, stealing stumble bums in charge, Bush in partiucular and Republicans in general. The voters must “throw the bums out” or we will keep losing.

    Americans hate losers. Where do super bowl losers go after they’ve just lost the super bowl? To hell while the winners hold victory parades and go to Disneyland. Americans love winners, hate losers.

    Don’t ever mention presiding over a loss which is exactly the perception Rove is painting of Democrats. If it takes shoving hot pokers up prisoner’s rear ends then we’ll do it. Do what? Say that because the voters expect our leaders to talk tough, be mean, and gentle and loving too of course.

    No win the election no do nothing. Let the GOP control the agenda and react negatively to their non-issues and lose the election. Lose the election and all is lost. No holds barred in love and politics.

  • I believe that there is an increasingly large segment of the populace that would like to have some serious check on the administration, and have been wondering where the Democrats have been. It seems to me that the assumption that standing against this bill would be politically bad may be false.

    It shouldn’t be too hard to make the case that this ‘compromise’ isn’t good enough for our country. That we, as Americans, stand for more than this, and that, as Democrats, we aspire to a stronger, more inspired, and more righteous America than these Republicans have decided upon.

    It’s got to be about standing for something better, not just about opposing the Republicans. It has to be loud, and it has to be about making the point that the Republicans, left to their own devices, just screw things up, EVEN WHEN they oppose their own President, like with this bill. What they came up with sucks.

    Democrats have to use this bill as the opportunity to establish the idea that, even with the big three senators helping, the Republicans are driving the bus into the ditch, transforming the traditional soul of our nation, and fundamentally not doing a good enough job.

    If anyone accuses them of not being tough on terror, they should laugh, and quote the new national intelligence report, saying “We can’t help but do better than these jokers are.”

  • Attack, attack, attack. Never retreat. Turn the 527’s loose with millions of 15 or 30 second ads showing
    pictures of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Castro, and Bush. Write in HUGH letters: What do these men
    have in common? Answer -They all have tortured people. One of them wants to do more.

    When the Repukes scream foul, just say they are a bunch of angry losers.

  • Here are a couple of provisions from the agreement:

    (a) IN GENERAL. No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or
    any protocols thereto in any habeas or civil action or proceeding to
    which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee,
    member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States, is a
    partyas a source of rights, in any court of the United States or its
    States or territories.

    (3)INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT. (A) As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the
    United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva
    Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative
    regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave
    breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

    These are literally frightening. For those who don’t know, “habeas corpus” is Latin for ‘produce the body.” In the criminal context, it means that the government has to produce evidence against people that are being held or release them.

    The first section I quote literally means that a prisoner cannot say you are holding me in violation of the Geneva Convention. Doesn’t that, uh, sort of eviscerate the Geneva Convention??

    And as for the second part, I thought that the Judicial Branch interpreted the laws in this country….

  • Stand against it, & lose gracefully. I am at a loss as to how the Dems can be blamed for this by history, for not being able to stop the party in power. I am personally appalled by this debate, but I realize most Americans aren’t. They won’t be until it is turned against our own citizens on a wider scale.

  • Tom, I’m afraid you’re right. We are “Witnessing the destruction of the Republic.” Democracy is still a tender sprout that can eaisly be stepped on and crushed which is exactly what is happening. There’s two words here, Republic and Democracy.

    A Republic need not be a Democracy and the reverse. Republic simply means the monarch will be elected by a subset of the people. The Vatican is a good example of a Republic that is not a Democracy. The pope, a monarch with dictatorial power is elected. His power extends beyond this life as he has the power to condemn to hell, according to the Catholic church. All religions are dictatirships, monarchies with the biggest minister being the dictator.

    A Democracy is a government on auto pilot. The constitution is the driving force that determines direction. There are no leaders, monarchs as such but rather “servants of the people” who’s job is to see that the auto pilot, the constitution is honored. So Tom, you must have noticed the shortage of toilet paper in DC, why they are doing what they are with the constitution.

    This is relatively new. It dates the evangelical movement that is less than 50 years old. What was perceived to be religious predjudice was officially eliminated by two things that coincide, the civil rights movement and the ecumenical movement begun by pope John 23rd, early 1960s.

    I see the ecumenical movement as the primary cause. It is attempting to establish Christianity as the global ruler with midevil type of fiefdoms run by ministers. In the end the Catholic church hopes to establish the pope as monarch of the world. “Billy Graham has had several meeting with the pope” more than hints at what’s up.

    Democracy is characterized by individual rights and the rule that says if no one is hurt then no crime was committed while religion demands all sorts of victimless crimes be enforced. That’s easiest to see with Muslim morals police no doubt.

    All this leads to, RELIGION IS THE GREAT ENEMY OF DEMOCRACY. Religion allows people to be just as free as God’s representative feels like at the moment.

    Have you seen http://www.hoax-buster.org Democracy will go down fighting. If liberals don’t learn how to fight soon it will go down without so much as a whimper of protest which is about all hoax buster is at this time, a whimper and not a roar. December 7, 1941 change a lot of minds in a flash. It was liberal minds that changed and it was liberals that won that war beginning unarmed in less time than we’ve been at war in Iraq beginning with trillions of dollars worth of “shock and awe.”

    So Tom I don’t have a plan to stop it and only hope that electing liberals will at least blunt the attack on the constitution. It’s coming form God you know and maybe we should bow our heads, pray and give up. That’s what the Jews did in Nazi Germany. Hopefully this won’t be that bad but then there’s those who speak out. Burnings at the stake will draw great crowds. Americans love that sort of thing. Anything to entertain the righteous I always say. Well, nearly always.

  • Bill,

    Nevermind. I see now you’re a nutter. No one should should have taken your comments seriously in the first place.

  • Attack, attack, attack. Shrinking from this fight is wrong. Democrats are suffering because they have shrunk from too many fights already; and in this case, the moral high ground is clear, and it belongs to us. We cannot let pragmatism dictate our stance on torture. Tax cuts – sure; but torture? Never.

    Put a bit more faith in the voters to understand the depravity at the heart of this compromise; after all, for all our whining about the voters electing Bush twice, there’s a strong case to be made that they never elected him at all. The message should be: the bill authorizes torture, the senators caved, the administration is morally bankrupt.

  • Torture is immoral and elimination of Habeas Corpus is a radical departure from the norm. On the other hand, at the moment we aren’t capturing many new terrorists and those that we have captured recently are in the judicial system, for example, the ragtag group the FBI arrested in Miami. So it could be argued that opposition to this bill would be mostly symbolic. But this assumes that the status quo will hold and there will be no new terrorist attacks during the next two years. This is a shaky assumption given the new NIE whose contents were leaked this week. It could also be argued that should Democrats retake both houses of congress, then the law could be rewritten. While that is true, it is unlikely that Democrats will have a veto proof majority even if they take both houses. The decision not to vigorously oppose the legislation, even though it is immoral, is a bet that there will be no new terrorist attacks.

    If Democrats stand opposed to the bill and it passes anyway and, in turn, fail to retake at least one house of congress, BushCo will spin this as a mandate to torture. This will of course only be of practical importance if there is another terrorist attack.

    Should Democrats retake at least one house of congress then the investigations can begin. Once the putrid core of BushCo is revealed for all to see Democrats may have the support they need to reverse this, as well as, other bad laws of the past six years. This is our best hope and only hope.

    I therefore say that Democrats should focus on retaking at least one house of congress and their strategy on this particular legislation should be guided by that goal. Here is my suggestion for a strategy.

    Do not vote for the bill, but do not filibuster it either. Explain that you are not voting for the bill because there is no urgency on the matter. A vote a can wait until after the election.

    In conjunction with the first point, Democrats should explain why BushCo. has created this false sense of urgency. To wit, the primary purpose of the bill is not to help protect the American people it is to protect the administration from the consequences of their past actions. Elizabeth Holtzman does a good job of explaining this today in the New York Sun

    Under cover of the controversy involving the military tribunals and whether they could use hearsay or coerced evidence, the administration is trying to pardon itself, hoping that no one will notice. The urgent timetable has to do more than anything with the possibility that the next Congress may be controlled by Democrats, who will not permit such a provision to be adopted.
    Creating immunity retroactively for violating the law sets a terrible precedent. The president takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution; that document requires him to obey the laws, not violate them. A president who knowingly and deliberately violates U.S. criminal laws should not be able to use stealth tactics to immunize himself from liability, and Congress should not go along.

    To this end, the Democrats should, as I have said elsewhere, start calling this legislation the The War Criminal Amnesty Act of 2006.

    Finally, do not help the Three Stooges burnish their image as independent operators. This runs counter to the important Rubberstamp Republican Congress meme which I believe has resonance with the voters. Democrats must hammer home that the whole “negotiation” between the Stooges and BushCo. was nothing more than Kabuki theatre.

    Let’s give Rove his due. Putting this bill forward, while simultaneously moving the Al Qeade prisoners to Guantanamo, was brilliant. It has left Democrats with few good options and may demoralize and split the base. Don’t let that happen.. Vote in November and bring a friend with you.

  • At the very minimum the Democrats should demand a full hearing of the compromise in committee or on the Senate floor. It appears that even the journalists reporting on this are confused about the real contents or meaning. An overwhelming majority of the public does not have a clue. The Republicans need to provide answers instead of couching their words under the cloak of national secrecy that the media allows them to do. Only the Democratic opposition can force them to answer the pertinent and essential questions.

    In our democracy, why are such crucial issues being decided in such an undemocratic manner?

  • Man o man, we ARE in trouble.

    Are we really having a debate ON THIS BLOG whether democrats should or should not support the elimination of habeas corpus and torture?

    Are we seriously debating whether we should or should not enact laws that take away the protections of the Geneva Conventions and put their interpretation in the hands of one man? A man, who by the way, has shown himself to be at worst a sadistic psychopath, and at best a bumbler with a nearly unbroken track record of failure in everything except getting himself elected.

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    Are you really thinking that maybe we should consider the possible “political expediency” of going along with such abominations?

    This is just unbelievable to me.

    Is there NOTHING worth taking a stand for? I guess based on what I’m hearing here, there certainly isn’t anything approaching the “Give me liberty or give me death” kind of heroism that brought our frail little democracy into being.

    Jeezus, I am disgusted by this whole discussion. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

    So, yeah, for the record, the democrats should filibuster this execrable piece of legislation. I don’t care if it’s ultimately successful or not (well, of course I do care, but that’s not the point) . Anyone who votes for this piece of dung is nothing more than a shitstain on our history, and I will have no part of them.

  • It is plausible to Dems to have remained silent while Bush and the Senate Republicans negotiated how to make torture and perpetual detainment without habeus corpus into official U.S. policy, and then immediately take the high ground and come out against it. Their silence firmly links Republicans to Bush and to torture, whereas earlier participation would have made them part-owners of whatever hideous compromise the Republicans cooked up with Bush. Without that, the arguemnt becomes, “You voters put the republicans in control, and until you elect more of us and fewer of them we’re completely unable to stop them from doing whatever they want. Look carefully at the horrors they come up with when they hold all the reins. If you don’t want America to stand for torture, secret prisoners, and disappeared detainees, you are going to have to vote out your Republican representatives and vote in some Democrats.”

    However, they probably don’t have much time to start making this argument before looking more like opportunists than opponents standing on principle.

  • Attack, attack, attack. The President of the United States says he doesn’t care if American troops are tortured, tried, convicted, and executed with secret evidence. Do you agree him?

    This is so hard. Are the Democrats actually paying their consultants for what they are getting?

  • Option 1. Always Option 1 – otherwise, we are no better than the scum who are running our country into the ground at present, as well as our ever- growing list of enemies.
    I would bet that a huge percentage of veterans would go for Option 1, as the worm can turn on a dime. This is all about bush and company covering their asses for past crimes, as well as a crass political game being played by McCain, Warner, Graham, etc. Bunch of hypocrites – they fit right in with this bush/cheney/rove crowd. God, I despise these people.
    Think about it: the United States of America is actually debating whether torture is an approved policy of the country. Unbelievable.

  • N. Wells, I could almost agree with your argument as far as strategy goes, but that would presume that the Democrats in fact will rise up and oppose this piece of shit legislation when it comes to a vote. I don’t get then sense they have any intention of doing that.

    I think they’re just going to mew and go along with it. Maybe try to put a little lipstick on the pig by offering up a weak amendment or two (which will be rejected), but in the end vote for it.

    However, I think the more appropriate, and certainly the more moral approach would have been to oppose this whole mess form the outset, and in a few simple words, explain why. America Does Not Support The Use of Torture. Pretty simple.

    At the end of the day, I’m coming to the sad realization that the democratsic leadership probably in fact has no problem with this legislation.

    That’s pretty discouraging.

  • It pains me to say so but I fear Ed has it exactly right. I have always believed in the power of organizing and have 40 years history on the front lines to back up my belief. But I am starting to feel that as a nation we are so lost and our institutions so flawed that perhaps our actions as individuals may be as significant as what we can do together.

    If I find the notion of institutional torture to be unacceptable to my concept of a moral life but organized opposition is futile then maybe the best I can do is tell my children what it felt like to be part of what John Lewis has called the “Beloved Community.”

    To me the test remains our national attitude toward capital punishment. With DNA we now cannot deny that innocent people have been and continue to be put to death. Yet, our killing machine continues and it is considered political suicide for any politician, except from the most liberal district, to oppose this barbaric practice committed in our name.

    This is not the world I thought my children would inherit.

    Richard Arvedon

  • semper fubar, save the debate until after you’ve won the election. Otherwise debate is all you’ll ever get.

    Jim B got is straight. That’s the old fashioned liberal way, guys named Halsey and Patton, attack, attack and then attack. That will win the election and then the results of the debate can be made law. Otherwise we can go to Hyde Park and bring our soap boxes.

    brainiac, of course I’m a nut. I was evangelisized before I could walk. What’s your excuse?

    When the great battle between good and evil actually takes place it will be to determine which FAITH rules the world, good Christians or evil Muslims. The Muslims just won another round. Thialand just became an Islamic state.

    Now just where does Democracy fit into this scheme of things? If liberals abandon Democracy it’s dead. Democracy is on life support right now. This is a Christian nation isn’t it? We got motherhood, apple pie and the evangelicals to tell us how to turn maidens into mothers while they eat the pie.

  • brainiac, get over your negative education, http://www.hoax-buster.org/learninglies

    We were all taught lies and forced to memorize them while we were to young to think for ourselves. Lies can be converted into truths under the proper conditions said Joseph Goebbles. It’s one theing to be ignorant and something else to embrace lies thinking they are truths. That’s negative education, below ground level, in the hole.

  • Attack, attack, attack. Bush and the GOP have been after bin Laden for five years. Maybe they don’t want to find him.

    This is so hard.

  • I have to agree with brainiac on this one.

    And why are the Democrats so terrified of being accused of being soft on terror now? No matter what they’ve done, they’ve been accused of being soft on terror. This isn’t new. And it hasn’t adversely affected their poll numbers, the last I saw. Americans are sick of the Bush administration.

    If they’re so afraid it will “work”, then they DESERVE to lose this election go-round because there won’t be any difference between the two parties’ position on terror. Never mind that they believe they’ll win more votes to go with this legislation to avoid the “soft” label.

    If it comes up before the November election and Democrats don’t vote against it, then they’ll lose my vote for certain. I won’t vote for Republicans but won’t vote at all, since it doesn’t matter. Dems will KEEP more votes by voting against they legislation than they’ll gain by voting for it.

    Not too long ago someone said that Democrats MUST stand up for the right thing, even if it costs them elections. That time has arrived.

    And I agree — ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK, and ATTACK some more. Where are the Dems’ balls? Give us heroes and courageous men and women, not wimps.

  • To reprise my final point (#3 above): We used to pride ourselves on being a nation of laws not of men. In the last generation we’ve become a nation of cowards. [Sad to say,] we deserve what’s coming.

  • If the choices are grovel and lose or fight like hell and lose then it’s really not a choice.

    So much ground has been lost already that another attempt to triangulate a loss masquerading as a stalemate is worse than useless and it’s unpatriotic to boot. What can Dems stand for if we don’t stand for this. It’s the coddling of criminals. It’s the gutting of a great country so a few bastards can do their masters of the universe schtick.

    Can Dem politicians do it? Are they disgusted enough? Are they independent enough as individual American’s? Do they understand the implications of what’s happening? Do they have the fortitude and focus that is necessary to stand and speak directly to the American people and the world to explain why ShrubCo is wrong and what right looks like and why we have to get back on track if we even remember where the tracks are?

    ShrubCo/RepubCo/CorpCo KNOWS what it wants. And it’s going for it. The corrupt few will tell the complacent many how it’s all going to be because they have the willpower and determination to shove their desires forward. Just because what they want is f**ked up doesn’t mean it will die a natural death. Dems have to kill it. Not compromise with it. Not learn to live with it. Not postpone dealing with it until the weather is nicer or until they can get in just 9 more holes.

    It is past time to confront the B.S. that is close enough now to breathe it’s rancid breath in our faces. Dems deal with it now and with fire in the belly and with a gut wrenching fear of losing. Or we lose it all. And the time has come to see it that way. Right now.

  • Attack, attack, attack. President Bush is an admitted war criminal. Now he’s demanding that we all become war criminals.
    Republican Sen. or Rep_________ of your state or district agrees with him.

    For good measure, use video clip of Bush throwing his shit fit in the Rose Garden.

    Really hard, hard work.

  • I think I’m in mourning. I have that flat feeling of walking through a neighborhood after a fire (or after Katrina). I just can’t believe that torture is being promoted by this government openly and without shame. I’m thinking that The Greatest Generation will hold onto its title for a long time, because the pissant generation that is now in charge of things has no recognition of real human values. Everything that I have thought would never happen in this country (again?) just makes me feel stupid and naive as the outrages each come up for a vote.

  • Hate is in the mind of the maligner.

    Read Orwell’s 1984 and it will all become clear.

    “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” — James Madison.

  • Attack, attack, attack. No apologies.

    Next up. A 15 second religious zealot wedge ad.

    President Bush wants to torture people. What would Jesus say? What would Jesus do?

    It’s so hard.

  • Jim B

    I’d add one word to your ad:

    President Bush wants to torture innocent people. What would Jesus say? What would Jesus do?

    Or perhaps Jesus wept.

  • At the very minimum *block* the abomination; afterall, there’re not many days left before this Congress disperses for campaigning — what’s the effing hurry all of a sudden? During October , *pound* against it, from every angle; make it a big, big issue. After Nov 7, stall some more, till January, when we can kick it out of court entirely.

    I’ve long ago given up on *all* Repubs in the Congress, even those few I used to have some respect for, but any Dem who would wouldn’t stand up against this piece of s*** should be taken out on a wheelbarrow then tarred and feathered. For shame, to be even considering it!

    And I agree with anney; if Democrats vote for this inhumane horror, I’ll be inclined to stay home saying “pox on both your houses” (though, in my case — VA Senate — I doubt our challenger would dream of voting for such a criminal piece of “law”).

    And, anyway… Suppose the Dems fold, once again. Let’s even suppose that — as the result of such weak moral spine — they actually garner some votes (I doubt it, but let’s suppose). Suppose they do take control of one or both houses…

    All this dishonor would be for nothing, because this piece of legislative crock will have given the bastards a retroactive blanket pardon for all their crimes. So the Dem majority would still be powerless… Not to fight is not only abhorrent but not very smart , either. And that’s just short term.

    Long term… Doing nothing is bad enough; *actively collaborating* in hopes of surviving one day longer than your fellow victims is just plain *stupid*. It doesn’t work and the punishment is much harsher, too.

  • Actually, anney, I think it’s better without your addendum. If you say “Bush wants to torture innocent people” you’re just making it that much easier for your opponents to say “No, no, no… You silly person you. We want to torture guilty people. Bad evil people who want to kill you. No one wants to torture innocent people like you or your family. Evil terrorist people are the only one’s we’d even think of torturing. Why do you want us to les terrorists go free? You think terrorists should eat steak and live in 5-star accomodations while we politely ask them to tell us where the nuclear bomb is, don’t you?” And so on and so forth. It just gives them an opening to talk about how they’re really just after the bad guys. It opens the door, if you will, for the pro-torture side (and it pains me that we have one of those) to change the topic to whether the people being tortured are innocent. That’s completely beside the point.

    The problem isn’t that Bush wants to torture innocent people. The problem is that Bush wants to torture any people. No matter what they have or will have done, we should not be torturing them. The thing that we apparently need to convince people of is that our government shouldn’t be torturing anybody at all, let alone the innocent. Remember, most folks seem to think that everyone held in our various secret prisons is guilty, otherwise we wouldn’t be holding them.

  • Filibuster by repeatedly and endless describing in excruciating detail what these “alternative methods”. Waterboarding doesn’t sound so bad to anyone who has never suffered it (oh they get a little wet) go into great detail on the abuse suffered by torture victims at abu ghraib. And point out that this is not what America stands for.

  • Tenebras

    My consciousness has been burned by knowing about those many detainees who were tortured at Abu Ghraib, the children sodomized, women raped, and some dying of torture. Later we found out that 80-90% of the detainees were innocent of any wrongdoing.

    I shouldn’t have suggested changing Jim B’s ad — it’s great just as it is. But I’d sure like to throw into America’s face particularly the torture of innocents that Bush authorized when the Republicans charge Democrats with being soft on terror if they object to the bill..

    That damned bill would allow Bush to continue ordering the torture of people at his own pleasure, some of whom don’t know anything about Al Qaeda or terrorism. I’d call them innocents, too.

    And you are right. No people should be tortured, guilty or innocent.

  • Attack, attack, attack.

    We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Bush and the GOP have nothing to offer but fear itself.

    Two things bin Laden and Bush have in common. They both want you to be scared. Are you going to
    let bin Laden tell you how to vote?

    Hello Dems, anybody home? This is so hard.

  • anney, I know just how you feel on the Abu Ghraib thing. I’m still reeling about the idea that we have both houses of Congress tripping over themselves in the mad rush to make more ways of torturing people legal. I mean, where the hell did that come from?

    Sigh. I’m going to bed. It’s late here. Possibly it’s late everywhere…

    Tenebras

  • Attack, attack, attack. Only sick monsters commit torture. (Insert photos of monsters here) Sick, despicable, monsters.

    It’s hard, hard, work.

  • Semper Fubar’s post pretty much states my position. If we’re not going to make a stand here, what are we ever to stand for?

    Torturing our prisoners is evil. Making them stand trial on torture-based evidence, or not allowing them to see the charges is evil. We must not permit it, not in the name of political expediency or anything else. It is sickening that we (as a nation, not as a blog-commenting organization) are having a debate.

    • Comments are closed.