According to Jack Balkin, the decision says that if the administration wants to continue these practices, they can do so if they get legislative authorization from Congress. It's their Congress, their party: make the case to them.

 "Unreal.

Damn. They are one bunch of relentless jerks."

Well, I disagree that Reed is a relentless jerk.  He is, however, very misguided on this issue.  Our President, our country, has just been deemed by our own Supreme Court to have committed War crimes - violations of the Geneva Conventions.  But, Reed sees this as a plus for the Republicans???  Are our American voters so crass, so barbaric, so un-Christian, that they will think it is good that we are a nation committing war crimes, with a President ordering that war crimes be committed?  I refuse to believe that.  What Democrats need to do, is crawl out from under their beds and point out what this ruling means - that Bush = Milosevic, both leaders who ordered war crimes.  We need to make sure the voters know that they voted in a man who is a war criminal.  

This is part of the whole pattern of crime in the government, and that crime is Republican crime, committed by Republicans, to favor Republicans.  Our real problem is that we are so afraid of Karl Rove, the boogie man, that we just can't seem to find the courage to say these things.  Do we really have that much disrespect for Christian America? 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Well, that is the Rove response alright. But what is the point? The proper response is to quote Hamdan's lawyer who said "I think he (Hamdan) was awe-struck that the court would rule for him, and give a little man like him an equal chance," Commander Swift said. "Where he's from, that is not true." If Rove, Bush, Cheney, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and apparently you, get your way, it won't be true of America either. What is the point of wining if "winning" means America ceases to be America?

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

The LAST thing the D's need to do is fear Karl Rove. The only way to deal with a bully is to kick him in his jewels.  If six years of cowering democrats and the sorry spectacle of Dianne Feinstein burnng the Bill of Rights on the Senate Floor hasn't convinced you, this won't. 

John Yoo was on NewsHour with a former prosecutor who filed an amicus in the USG's case; John Marguiles of the Northwestern University law school, and  Neal Katyal, at Georgetown University Law Center who represented Hamdal.

 Yoo: So I bet what's going to happen, as President Bush said today, they're going to go to Congress, and, as they did at the end of last year, get another statute which overrules these same justices again, who've been overruled in their Detainee Act of 2005.

But that's going to take a lot of effort and political time and energy, which the court could have saved the president and Congress, if they had just left things alone and let the president and Congress fight between themselves over these matters.

NEAL KATYAL: That's exactly right. And let me say, you know, I respect Professor Yoo a lot on some things, but on this, I think, when he says the court could have saved the country a problem by basically letting the president do what he wanted, I think that fundamentally misunderstands the Constitution and the separation of powers.

As Justice Stevens today for the court said: We have a government of divided powers, and the president can't just make the rules up as he goes along and act as the prosecutor and judge and jury in these things.

Some body's got to take a stand or just re-open Star Chamber.

I do not trust the Congress, democrats and republicans as presently constituted with this president to do anything other than let the American legal system as presently constituted work its course.  Hard cases make bad law, but these jokers make even worse mischief.  The risks hardly outweigh the dangers.

I hope it stalls. It is ironic in the extreme that it Osama bin Laden's driver to show America once again how much of heritage of justice it has frittered away in just five years.

I don't think the aforementioned issues will do anything to convince Independent voters to vote Republican.

Yes. It was the Independents and their votes that have given GWB the edge based on the terrorism issue. They seem to be over that now. Without them, Bush's pull has no push.

Click here for the Users Help Forum.

Yoo:

But that's going to take a lot of effort and political time and energy, which the court could have saved the president and Congress, if they had just left things alone and let the president and Congress fight between themselves over these matters.

Wait a minute. It's the administration that's caused the problem here. It's the administration that decided to invent a whole new legal fabric in order to deal with a bunch of jumped-up international criminals.

In this country we have one of if not the most highly evolved judicial systems on the planet, a system that has been able to cope with just about every bizarre civil and criminal challenge thrown at it.

Meanwhile, we in parallel our highly evolved UCMJ, which has also been tested again and again and never found to be wanting in a way that could not be fixed without becoming unrecognizable.

On a larger scale, we've dealt in the past with various malefactors on a world historical scale. Systems were evolved and are still in place for the treatment of criminals whose behavior transcends national borders. Nuremburg alone was proof of the confidence we can place in such efforts.

But no, the administration insists it has to rearrange everything, mostly in the interest of simplfication, apparently. Really, what the administration wanted was something akin to a lynching. In the dust and confusion of the immediate aftermath of 9/11 I'm sure lots of people would have enjoyed some "rough justice", even though it would have been an insult to our country. Now, much later, the administration is still trying to insist on their mob-appealing travesty.

So the problem is not being created by the courts. Far from it.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Isn't that a freaking scandal?!?!?!

Doesn't that say all there is to say about the present danger?

"Harsh penalties".... You mean instead of the lenient penalties that the current federal code metes to those convicted of terrorism-related crimes?

First, it will be interesting to see what "they" are guilty of -- and who "they" are, since for 5 years we have basically taken the word of the Prez that these were such dangerous folks. Except of course when a good friend like Tony Blair put in the good word for a couple of his nationals, then out came a baker or a cab driver or someone's cousin's younger brother who had been hanging out in Afghanistan at a really bad time.

The Dems and everyone else should just note that the American system of justice is ready and willing to deal with the crimes committed, and stop the criminally insane in the WH. Gitmo and the choices it represents were an out and out disaster for this country.

It might be helpful for the Democrats to come up with a serious policy. However, it is more important that they come out swinging at Rove. They need to take a page out of the John Murtha or James Webb playbook. Don't cower, don't apologize, don't dance around with 10 point plans. Call Rove and Bush what they are cowards and failures.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

confidential reports to Congress on the danger to the country from these prisoners...

Like those confidential reports on WMD the Congress bought a few years ago? At least understand that openness might expose the utter b.s. these depraved, morally disgusting nearly four-year long incarcerations are founded on. (And exposing the moral depths of the Repubs helps the Dems!)

Think: if there were ever evidence enough to convict these illegally imprisoned men in real courts, then we never would have had a Gitmo and the illegal kangaroo court procedure in the first place. There is suspicion based on unreliable witnesses (the unreliability centering on the fact that many of the 'witnesses' were paid (a lot in desperately poor Afghanistan) by the head to turn people in as 'terrorists'). That's about it.

As someone implied earlier, this Reed Hundt 'strategy' is the end result of consistently shutting up the Democratic Party base's moral outrage, over torture, over abuse and killing of Iraqi civilians, over the 'no reason' waste of American lives in Iraq, and over the repeated rape if not obliteration of the constitution. Now, after accompanying the Republicans all the way down this long road down into moral hell, Reed Hundt and the conventional thinkers' stale game plan is "Keep that whimpy 'me tooism' going, it'll work eventually!"

What's to stop Bush from predominately ignoring this ruling via gimmicks like the "Presidential Signings" and classifying any piece of information that might be used against him?

It's not like he's at risk of being impeached by his own party.

Umm, can we, as Democrats, fire Bob Schrum and whoever else does polling/issue framing for the Congressional Democrats, and hire Reed instead?

Please?

Pretty please?

Take these persons into an open court, secure convictions against them using due process of law; then, and only then, hang em high.

OGD- I just voted on your post. I hope it comes up for discussion. I am amazed that some Democrats are not rejoicing at this death knell for Bush’s monarchy-in-waiting instead of urging Dems to take a page from their playbook. The SC ruling not only refutes the administration’s claim about the AUMF granting implicit powers, it overturns the whole Woo doctrine of unrestrained executive power in time of war:

Whether or not the President has independent power, absent congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 637 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring).

Besides restoring rules of law like the FISA controls, it reinstates the Geneva Conventions, affirms Constitutional checks and balances that Bush has ignored, and moots some of those 750 signing statements. So, military tribunals and denying due process are unconstitutional. Torture is unconstitutional. Unwarranted spying is out. Rendition and secret prisons are unconstitutional. Any thoughts of going after the press for exposing secret (illegal) programs will be rethought. I know it won't effect much at this time, but eventually, Constitutional authorities have to recovered. Of course, Congress can come back and re-ordain Bush as Supreme Ruler but I don’t think they dare.

Daniel:

You may wish to refer to Bush and his cabal of cronies as cowards and failures. Don't let me stop ya'... But to be more succinct and in all truth, under the bright sunshine of our Constitution they are derelicts in their collective duties to the Constitution and tyrannical in the execution of unlawful orders under the guise of national security. Lawbreakers of the highest order ...

~OGD~

waltdv1 wrote:

"Reed is absolutely correct on this. For all the valid criticisms of Guantanamo I have yet to hear anyone offer a reasonable alternative. The Democrats will not win in November by merely offering criticism - they need to offer leadership."

In order to lead, a leader must communicate guiding principles. The guiding principle of the Democratic Party has generally in the past and ought to be that we follow the Constitution even in times of war. I don't recognize a "reasonable alternative" to that.

The Supreme Court has just smacked down the Bush War Doctrine. If the Democrats can't take up the gauntlet on that fight, then we effectively no longer have a democracy and the November election is moot.

-Dave Adams-

“But that's going to take a lot of effort and political time and energy ,which the court could have saved the president and Congress, if they had just left things alone and let the president and Congress fight between themselves over these matters”. – John Yoo

This Republican Congress fight with this President? My god man! I must say I never regarded you as much of a lawyer; but to be so naïve, too. I don’t think of you as an honorable person. I think you are craven and opportunistic - Mr. Yoo, you did your job, which was to find the “legal” cover this president needed to do whatever the hell he wanted. In the course of it you went from obscurity to sinecure didn’t you? With a few strokes of your pen, and some tortured legal perspective you attempted to eviscerate our Constitution. I think it’s disgusting. And the Supreme Court found your reasoning weak and shallow and wrong.

“Take a lot of political time and energy “. Well, it just might take some time and energy. My Constitution is worth it! Our very system of government is now at stake. I don’t care one wit how much time and energy it takes to “smack” this President into reality. I only hope it can be done. And if it takes the threat of some type of legal action against him I say, “bring it on”! And if the legal action proves successful, I say, “mission accomplished”.

I fought for this country, and swore to defend the Constitution “against all enemies foreign OR domestic”. I truly believe we have domestic enemies to our Constitution – Bush and Cheney (and Yoo). I want them to suffer the consequences of this malfeasance – I want punishment - sure, swift and severe.

Gees, I’m sweating, and my heart is pounding, and I don’t think I’ve ever been so pissed in my life. My friends, including my closest, died fighting under our Flag, and committed to our Constitution. I want the President accountable for what he has done. I want answers under oath. I want the President to explain what he meant when he said the Constitution is “just a goddamn piece of paper.

We are Americans. We believe in fair play, and fair trials. Evidence, witnesses, and no secret Soviet tribunals. This President only believes that we should do what he says. Believe what he tells us. Be afraid if he says we should – well, screw him!

I just want him and the Vice-President to answer to the American people. They work for us. They don’t get to torture, and maim, and kill in my name. They get to be questioned, cross-examined, and explain why they did what they did. And if we find their answers unacceptable, we get rid of them!

usmc0311, I wish I could rate your post a "5"...

-Dave Adams-

Mike

Umm, no, thank you.

I'm not impressed at all by any anyone who beging with beginning with tactics as dos Mr. Reed.

We have lost election after election by thinking at the tactical level without explicitly making tactic the servant of principle. And I hold it a matter of faith that the majority of Americans are smart enough to understand principle and have enough integrity to stand by it, if the policital leadership does the hard work of explaining it and defending it. Do that, and then the only tactic people need to worry about is defending the principled position against unprincipled opponents without themselveds becoming equally unprincipled.

Listening to the analyses of who makes up the prisoner population of Guantanamo, it looks as though most are innocent bystanders -- an embarrassment to the Administration. I think it goes something like this: there are about 400 prisoners of which about 30 are probably real felons with sufficient evidence to hold up in court. There are maybe 50 more who might -- might -- turn out to have played a role in something making them worth bringing into court. (Don't quote my numbers! My memory isn't that good...)

The rest should not have been picked up, much less held this long. Putting them "on the street" -- or on trial, if the Administration dared -- would only reveal that Guantanamo has been a cruel holding tank for dozens and hundreds of innocents. This "killers on the streets" meme is absurd. There will probably be more "killers on the streets" in the US over this long Fourth of July weekend than anyone's going to find at Guantanamo Bay.

The same report (on NPR yesterday) reveals that there are no signs the prison is going to be shut down. In fact, new buildings are being built -- including something like an elaborate new "intelligence center." Any explanations for that?

How about a call to rise about epithets and name calling, and set policy in the interesting of forwarding the principles and welfare of the United States and its citizens?

"While you are fighting the great battle and responding to every move made by your enemy, what is your destiny?" - Mama's last words to young Karl.

dc

"I think he (Hamdan) was awe-struck that the court would rule for him, and give a little man like him an equal chance," Commander Swift said. "Where he's from, that is not true."

This apparently was also the reaction of Zacharias Moussaoui when the jury did not impose the death penalty. (It's a little hard to tell what the guy really thinks, because he seems to be badly off his rocker.) But if the goal here is to win hearts and minds, this is the way to do it: show these guys what "government of laws and not of men" really means. (A lesson we could use in this country, too.)

The Democrats and opponents of the Administration's approach have a very simple position going forward:

1. It is a military problem, the military has established legal processes, direct them to do their job.

2. Trust the military to solve the 500+cases, it is not too much to expect. 

3. The mistake was to let civilian lawyers (with only academic experience) working in the Justice Department in Washington DC make military battlefield decisions.

4. Don't divert Congress from current unsolved issues to fiddle around with military justice.

There's doubt about the reliability of the "just a goddamned piece of paper" story.  Doug Thompson of capitolhillblue.com is the ONLY person who has reported that, based on anonymous sources, and he has been known to get things wrong.  I'm not saying it couldn't have happened -- if Bush could make the "it would be easier if this were a dictatorship" remark, he's sure capable of this one -- but I'd like to see it coming from an independent source before I put too much weight on it.

So "cutting and running" is good not bad which is why Poppy Bush did it in Iraq, and why Cheney supported it then, and why Reagan "cut and ran" from Lebanon. 9/11 didn't happen from cutting and running. Hitler lost because he refused to cut and run in Russia, and so did Napolean..

George Washington and Sam Houston made, ah, extensive use of cutting and running. It was known as "retreat," back in their day.

I simply don't understand why the Democrats are wasting there time defending and/or running from the 'Cut & Run' position when they could be attacking the Republican War Policy espoused by McCain, Frist et.al that is captured in the Rovian Phrase "Stay & Pay."

The Democrats need to give it back to Rove the way he is giving it to them by framing the issue for the voters as a choice between 'Cut(our losses) &(let the Iraquis) Run (it)' or the 'Stay & Pay' position of Bill Frist and the Boys.

As I understand it naturalized citizens can only have their citizenship revoked if they committed perjurty on their original entry or other forms that allowed them to get their citizenship.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Politcally, Mr. Hundt is right of course, much as those who have suggested that Democrats should support a muscular foreign policy devoted to Democratizing and Modernizing the Arab-Muslim world (giant mall palaces and 9/10 naked arses on television being the leading indicators of modernity, no doubt) are right. Much as those who counsel Democrats to support an enforcement-only immigration bill and not even mention what should be done about those already here (except perhaps deport them to Madagascar). Best to go even further in fact, propose a wall worthy of Hadrian (and no doubt just as effective), a lava moat, sharks. Mr. Hundt is right, just like those Wise Men who urged Mr. Clinton to return to his home state to turn the execution of a drueling retard into a media spectacle.

The suspension of Habeas Corpus and prison camps worthy of Adolf did not win the Civil War. The suspension of civil liberties and the internment of Japanese-Americans did not win the Second World War.

And the bugging of every phone in America, indefinite detention of prisoners, or the creation of a separate justice system for detainees will eliminate or radically diminish the threat of radical Islamism, however unlikely it is the dumb middle (let alone the dumber right) of the American electorate is liable to be convinced of this.

But if Democrats are not going to be the ones to say so out loud, who will?

The fact of the matter is that most of those being held at Guantanamo are Arab and Afghanistani kids caught up a war between the Taliban and Northern Alliance, not brilliant masterminds of international terrorism. Either treat them as prisoners of war - with all the rights and obligations therein - releasing them as soon as hostilities in Afghanistan are declared over. If they are international criminals try them in federal courts or the Hague. And if they are none of the above put them on planes and send them home.

One day we will learn just how many were none of the above, and we will - or at least should - feel ashamed.

For now, Mr. Hundt's comments remind me why I am not a Democrat.

"I don't want Democrats standing up for the Constitution and never winning another election."

I do want Democrats standing up for the Constitution.  It is up to us to win elections, but standing up for the Constitution is not a negotiable position.  I'm going to assume you mistyped when you posted that statement. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

If the Democrats don't start standing up for the Constitution there may not be many more elections.

I find it a little disturbing to think that Democrats should develop a Gitmo policy not based on the facts and what will best serve justice but rather as a way to counter whatever we think Karl Rove might say about Supreme Court decision.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

 I don't want Democrats standing up for the Constitution and never winning another election. 

Daniel, please re-read this sentence and see if you really stand behind it.  Do you see it as, either -- or?  The republicans evidently do.   That is the philosophy that has gotten the Bush crime family where they are. 

If winning an election is more important than the entire basis of our country, then it is probably time to start a new country.

Jan Knaus

...we are not at war with Iraq. We liberated them, remember, so now we're at war with them?

Great point, Phelicity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd like the Supremes to define 'war' as it's used in the Constitution. Afterall, we seem to be constantly having one so it's about time it gets defined constitutionally. 

So would I!  Don't have too much to add, just wanted to second your thoughts!

Jan Knaus

Brat.

I didn't mean Reed. Since you put up a rather excellent post, I'll forgive the dig. However, please do note C'ville's rather excellent refute.

"Are our American voters so crass, so barbaric, so un-Christian, that they will think it is good that we are a nation committing war crimes, with a President ordering that war crimes be committed?"

Um, yeah. That would be an affirmative there, Hoppy sir. We broke International Law just by invading Iraq, and, forgive me if I'm mistaken here, we Dems said that very thing, but guess who won. Bush the war criminal.

I used to work in your fair city, kitty-corner from the GAP by the embarcadero. There's a bakery near there called sweet joanna's. Best cranberry scones I ever tasted. They were so good, I always bought two, so I could share. Maybe they're still there.

Over the years, Capitol Hill Blue has shown itself to be unafraid to publish controversial articles, which immediately exposed them to attacks regarding their credibility. The great majority of the time, the story Capitol Hill Blue published turned out to be truthful, and when it did not, they have shown themselves to be honourable, and to quickly retract the story with a published apology.

Capitol Hill Blue's editor, Doug Thompson, recently wrote that they still stand behind their report that Bush called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper".

"...we have published stories that either proved to be wrong or could never be verified. I was burned by a source on what we thought was a major story about whether or not Bush knew intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was false. The source lied to me and used a fake name. I issued a public apology and pull the story from our database. It happened again in 2004 when we wrote Nancy Reagan had refused to back Bush's re-election effort. She came out publicly and said we were wrong. We retracted the story and apologized to our readers.

Earlier this year, we published a report that said a Secret Service report said Vice President Dick Cheney was drunk when he shot a lawyer friend on a hunting trip in Texas. A follow-up investigation convinced us no such report existed. We removed the story from our archives and apologized for it. I'm also a recovering alcoholic who must live with the fact that I did some incredibly stupid, unethical, immoral and illegal things when I drank.

Some of our more controversial stories have yet to be proven or disproved. Sources told us last year that President Bush referred to the Constitution as a "goddamned piece of paper." No other publication has confirmed the story but our sources remain firm on it and neither the White House nor members of Congress present at the meeting have denied the story. They simply refuse comment. It remains in our database because we believe the story is true."

Doug Thompson, "In the end, all we have is the truth", Capitol Hill blue, June 20, 2006

Late in 2005, Thompson also offered some insight into why he believes the veracity of the report:

When a GOP operative first emailed me about the White House meeting where Bush called the Constitution 'just a goddamned piece of paper,' I put it aside as one of many reports I get about the President’s temper tantrums.

[. . .]

We get tips about Bush’s temper and his comments all the time. Most of the tips don’t get used because we don’t go with information from just one source. The tip about 'the goddamned piece of paper' seemed destined for the byte bin until a second aide, in casual conversation, mentioned the comment.

So I called a third source who has confirmed information in the past. At first he was defensive.

'Who told you about that?' I told him I’d picked it up from two other sources.

'Look, you know how the President is,' he said. 'He gets agitated when people challenge him.'

All I wanted to know was did the President of the United States call the Constitution a 'goddamned piece of paper.'

'Yeah. He did.'

Doug Thompson, "Where there's smoke, there's ire", Capitol Hill Blue, December 12, 2005

Thompson has also defended Capitol Hill Blue's integrity, as well as his own:

...So the next time somebody calls Capitol Hill Blue a 'garbage site' or claims I’m a clown, ask them for their qualifications and background. Did they get their information from credible sources or some anonymous poster on a partisan bulletin board or a blogger with a political ax to grind?

My bio can be found on this link. I put my name on everything I write. And I stand behind what I write. I’m an arrogant, stubborn, driven bastard who takes no prisoners and backs down from no one.

When I’m wrong, I admit it. Thankfully, I haven’t had to do that very often.

When I’m right I don’t give a damn who doesn’t like it or what they say about it.

An editor who taught me a lot once said: 'If you piss off both sides you’re doing your job.'

That’s good enough for me.

Doug Thompson, "Consider the source", Capitol Hill Blue, December 11, 2005

So, unless you have substantive evidence that this report is false, I will take Doug Thompson's word on it. It's good enough for me.

Workerbee, Yeah, divorce is so tough. It is so commonplace that it normally doesn't get acknowledged for the trauma that it inflicts.

OK, off thread:

But re your post-name, my house has a beehive that I am trying to coax to a new location. Problemo--> probably 40 pounds of wax and honey once they are seduced to leave and no longer flap their little wings to cool the whole mess off! Where is the hive? Right over my computer!

The fun never ends here in divorce-land! Hey, good luck!

Jan Knaus

I went to the military because of the discussion in the case decision about Article 3, Geneva convention which deals with those detained in civil wars or non-trational war between states. My leap was that there were military proceedings to correspond to or meet the requirements of Article 3.

And if I am wrong why wouldn't the smart President still give the problem to the military since it is a battle thing and from what the military say it is very important to them how we treat those we detain since the military know that they too can be held. Let the military find a way to handle the problem.  If they need statutory changes let military justice/legal professionals propose them.

I have this weird thing about delegating jobs to those who should be responsible because they have the professional experience rather than giving jobs to highly motivated woefully unprepared people and organizations.

What is this situation really all about? The Dems are terrified that their left wing "big tent" will force them into making some policies that will lose the center and center right voters and cost them the election. So while Bush courts his right wing base so carefully the Dems ignore their base assuming they will vote anyway. So who has the right strategy? Clearly the Republicans have done better by not ignoring their base like the Dems.
Ideally the Dems should adopt a conservative foreign policy, but not a neoconservative one. Often foreign policy is bipartisan anyway so they should scour places like the Council for Foreign Relations for conservatives that don't agree with Bush, like those who used to work for Reagan and Clinton. Get them on board with the understanding they will have real input if the Dems win the presidency. Then Bush loses most of his real conservative base, as they will be prepared to vote for a basically conservative foreign policy. This is what Clinton did.
The Dems shouldn't care since those conservatives are isolationist anyway, and Dem philosphy is about helping the poor and disadvantaged, not deciding who to kill in other countries. The right will be reduced to supported their lunatic fringe against the Dems which will represent the conservative mainstream.
Also the Dems should be running on right wing conservative economic policy, and getting enough bipartisan advisors to make it look real to the center right. So this is good for everyone since this means reducing the deficit, getting rid of corruption, etc. Essentially it is probably running economic policy like Reuben again with a combination of McCain. Again good policy and good for the country.
So the real conservative base is stolen from the Republicans in economics and foreign policy, like Clinton did. The right then have to run against this on God, Guns, and Gays, or come to their senses.
Then the Dems can offer goodies to their own base, like raising the minimum wage, universal health care, cutting down the military budget again, tough ethical rules in Congress, etc. They cut and run from Iraq, and should in fact break it into 3 countries under the principle divide and conquer.
The Dems shouldn't be trying to please the far right with anything, just offering what the real conservatives want. In the last election they did the opposite, talking about God, Guns, and Gays all the time when the real conservatives (the silent right wing majority) wanted to see good economic housekeeping and minding our own business in foreign policy.
They should get all the generals who spoke out against Bush and make them into an advisory panel on getting out of Iraq.

The Dems can't win by only trying to say the Republicans are worse. The right wants to demonise the concept of retreat and conserving military resources as cut and running, and implying cowardice. In fact it is not cowardice at all but standard ways to run a military as any general will tell you. So the Dems can't do the right thing militarily until they fight the stigma associated with their correct strategy.
No sane general would advocate wasting soldier's lives to avoid emboldening the enemy or because Bin laden might think them chicken for doing so. This is Cheney's strategy and he has openly said this. Luring soldiers into a losing battle by calling their leaders cowards is no way to run a military.

Nixon did not believe the domino theory was in play in Vietnam. He traded blood for votes in '72 and punked the South Vietnamese gov real good.

Read about the treacherous "Decent Interval" at:

• University of Virginia, Miller Center of Public Affairs
• The Nixon Presidency — 30 Years After
• Seeking a ‘Decent Interval’ Exit From Vietnam

Then read Kissinger's Conversation with Zhou Enlai, 20 June 1972 (pp 27-37) at the NSA Archives.

Keep the memory of the Nixon dark/evil alive.

Thanks. :)

Try a beekeeper.

lol

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

RogerGathman

Reed is so right. The only way to build a humane, liberal alternative with a Democratic majority is to demand that every Guantanomo detainee be flayed in public before the trial. That would be even more brilliant than the brilliant General Rove! I recommend the tactics used by the French monarchy in the pre-Revolutionary years, where four horses were attached to the four limbs of the prisoner and urged to trot in opposite directions. It is the only way that good, decent Americans will have a chance to see that Democrats represent them too!

But this isn't all. To really undercut the brilliant General Rove, especially in the South, Dems can also come out for abolishing the Civil Rights act of 64 and bringing back Jim Crow! Southern working men, alienated from certain milksops on the far left of the spectrum, will then see the liberal, humane policies of FDR's party as their natural choice.

Thinking outside of the box like this is why I so love the DLC and all it stands for.

First you have to read the post I was responding to. I originally suggested that Democrats have to fight back by calling Rove and Bush for what they are cowards and incompetents. There was a response to that pointing out the Constitution is under atack. I agree with that.

However, if Democrats only complain about violations of the Constitution, are only seen as worrying about the rights of people at Guantanomo Democrats will never win another election.

My point was not that it is either /or but that Demcorats why do often only play defense and they need to hit back. They need to put Bush and the Republicans on the defensive or they will spend the next five months and I fear many years to come explaining why they will allow America to be attacked.

Remember if you are preceived as unwilling to defend yourself you are not likely to be seen as defending others.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

"Unless Congress declares war, we are not at war." I couldn't agree more, Hoppy, and that's sort of a back door to my point. But let the Supremes, by way of some case of course, challenge this president's use of the term in regard to Iraq. Perhaps, let's hope not, the Supreme's will be able to apply one their convoluted interpretations of war as expressed in the Constitution and voila, the president can declare war. If it goes the other way it opens to question everything from unitary government to domestic spying to whatever other horror is down the pike from this government. Certainly all the wars of the last century, some of which you cite, even though most were not constitutional wars felt like, looked like, killed like they were wars. Since this century is beginning to look like a repeat of the last, isn't it about time we at least applied some semantics to the term.

My apologies, too. But it is rather fascinating. I once did an illustration of how to build a beehive for a book I designed.

It was one of the few books I've paged that I had to actually finish reading it before I could finish the work on the pages, the story was so very interesting. About-- believe it or not- -a divorced woman who took up beekeeping in Maine because her young daughter urged her to.

Oh, and the only time an author EVER sent me a thank-you gift. It was a tiny jar of honey. From her bees.

Now back full circle, thanks for the smiles.

:)

Sorry everyone.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

"I recommend the tactics used by the French monarchy in the pre-Revolutionary years, where four horses were attached to the four limbs of the prisoner and urged to trot in opposite directions." This horrific method of execution was, according to Michel Foucaualt, used exactly twice, on regicides: in 1610 on Ravaillac, the assassin of Henri IV, and in 1757 on Damiens, the attempted murderer of Louis XV. Hardly a tactic, though the regular form of execution for brigandage, breaking on the wheel, was a slow death similar to cruxifixion.

Far more relevant to today's monarchic USA is Foucault's account of the bureaucratised torture of suspects by investigating magistrates. They had a little book, which advised them for example not to torture if they could convict safely without it, for there was always a chance that the suspect would hold out, in which case he or she would have to be released. It was also policy that suspects never be informed of the precise charges against them. These methods are the logical concomitant of absolutism. What is surprising is how very quickly the USA has slid down into them.

Thanks, that makes it clearer, but I feel like we are walking in one of those moon-bounce things; every step we take is blown up and used as a talking point by Rove et al.

The latest I heard in response to Pelosi's statement about the Supreme Court decision is that "Democrats favor giving special treatment to terrorists." (Pure Rove)

Every time a talking head asks about special treatment for the "terrorists" in Gitmo, someone has to sit back and say that many hundreds of those PRISONERS have been freed, presumably because they were found to be innocent: ie - they have been found NOT to be terrorists.

If a murder suspect is in jail, can we legitimately say, "The murderer's trial will be held next week?" NO, So why is it kosher to refer to these detainees -- who have NEVER had the opportunity to face their accusers, or even know their charges --terrorists?

Why? Because it suits the administration's propaganda. Because according to the Rove template, whenever anyone says what I just said, it makes them look like they are "soft on terror" to all the sheep who follow the Bush creed. It is those people who care less about the Constitution than they do the fear that has been stoked so successfully by this bunch.

We'll never win the Kool-Aid bunch, so forget pandering to them. It's time to educate swing voters.

By definition, they are people who listen, and pay attention, and think about their votes. How about giving them some facts? Some thoughtful evaluation of what we believe? How about ignoring, or LAUGHING at the absurd statements like the equivalent of "Democrats love terrorists."

I agree that if we only repeatedly sound like all we care about is the prisoners at Gitmo, then we continually lose ground. But our focus should be on the abuses of this administration, and also on the point that Hoppy brought up: the bottom line of the Supreme's decision is this -- The Bush administration has flauted the Constitution, which is the ONLY protection that every citizen has in common. Then we need to document all the signing statements, etc.

Fox News will refute it, but some thoughtful people just might pay attention. What do we have to lose?

Jan Knaus

When did stopping the World Wide Caliphate becaome a reason for warring uopon the secular Pan Arabist State of Iraq? If anyone were to proffer that one to my face, I would be unable to respond through my laughter. Bush has greatly aided the cause of Ummah with his waging of unjustifiable war upon Iraq, as he slept with the devils, the butcher of Andijon, Islam Kerimov, as well and the abrogator of Pakistani democracy, Pervez Musharraf.

In large measure, where the one world caliphate holds sway is in the central Asian Steppes, and it has been the repressive Kerimov government in Uzbekistan, as well as other kleptocracies in the region, who have empowered the idea through their martyring of poor muslims who desire an end to their long endured yoke of tyranny.

I would advise the Jamestown Foundation as a good starting point for looking into what is happenning in central Asia. Search for an author named 'Rotar'.

To a lesser degree a Nixon Center realist named Zeyno Baran is worth the reading regarding her research into Hzib ut Tahir, but her allegories to their following Marxist strategies is specious as well as suspect in my mind, and is more a product of her Turkish ethnicity than reality.

The blogger site of the 'moderate muslims' at Aqoul offer illumination, as they often do.

Jan

If Democratic politicans only express policy positions they are going to lose.

There are three, or at least three, different parts of this issue. There is the formulation of positions. Democrats never have a problem putting out position papers by the ream.

There is also the need to explain and educate the public about those positions. For example Bush's trampling of the Constitution needs to be explained. The public needs to be educated that just because they are "innocent" they have to worry about surveilance and other acts that trample the Constitution that are shortsighted and potentially dangerous in a democratic republic such as the United States.

Just as importantly Democrats have to fight back. When they are accused of being unpatriotic or soft on terrorism they must not whine about it not being fair or that Republicans should play nicer. Instead as Bill Clinton did, as John Murtha and James Webb recently have done you belt the Republicans back.

That was my point. Should the Democrats vigorously defend the Constitution absolutely and they should go to the public swinging about they ways the Constitution is being abused. But unless you never want to see the Democrats win office again they have to get tougher at the third part of the equation. Rove thinks the war on terror is a good political issue precisely because he believes Republicans will paint the Democrats as weaklings and the Democrats whining will prove them correct.

Daniel A. Greenbaum