TPMCafe | Talking Points Memo | The Road to Victory Is Not a Detour

Lee Feinstein

Posted by Lee Feinstein
September 8, 2006 5:45 AM | Reply | Permalink

Especially since I have been critical of many of your other posts, Lee, I just wnated to jump in here and say I'm with you on this.

Posted by Dan K
September 8, 2006 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink

Do you have a link? Any context re: what he said and why?

It sounds to me like Reid is responding to the strawman attack that Dems don't want to protect the country, etc.

I really don't see Reid saying that Democrats are not going to fight against legislating torture. That certainly goes against everything the Democrats have been fighting for all along this year. If Reid is really saying that, then he's an outlier. He's out all alone, just like Lieberman is on Iraq.

But this just looks way too much like something being pulled out of context.

Link, please.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Posted by cscs
September 8, 2006 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink

Here's what Democrats need to say.

1. There's no need to rush on the military tribunal thing. Failing to have a tribunal doesn't mean that the terrorists go free, it just means they sit at Gitmo without charges just like hundreds of others have for years.

2. Families have to "wait for justice" because Bush held these terrorists secretly for 3 years. The notion that the Democrats are responsible if they make people wait a couple months after Bush has made them wait 2 years is absurd.

3. What was gained by making these detentions secret instead of public is a question Democrats need to constantly ask. If the interrogation methods were in fact legal as the President claims, then they could presumably have been used whether the detention was public or private. So what was the reason for the secret if not to violate US and International law?

4. Much was lost by making detentions secret.

A. Propoganda value for our side -- the world seeing these people go through a trial like criminals is valuable to our side as is their admission of their roles in 9/11.

B. Keeping secrets from our own investigators - If publicly detained, anyone from the FBI or other departments could have interrogated them as well. An FBI agent of other government agent might have had a case they were working on that would have been aided if they could talk to one of these people. But they never had the chance because they could never even know these people were in custody. The problem with secrecy is that it often restricts information from your own people as well as the enemy. This is how information in one branch of government fails to reach the other branch.

5. Demand a report on how many people were detained in these secret prisons total and how many were actually guilty of being terrorists. If we look at past experience, we see that 90 percent of those at Abu Ghraib were not terrorists and that a large percentage at Gitmo have also been found to be non-terrorists. Andrew Sullivan has the best accounting of this on his blog at http://www.andrewsullivan.com Also demand to know how many who were NOT guilty of being terrorists were interrogated using "alternative" methods.

6. Demand an accounting of the information gleaned from the use of "alternative" interrogation techniques and demand that it be prepared before the election so that the America people can decide whether this is a subject their votes should turn on. (yes, be explicit about your intentions. Nothing wrong with this.) The accounting should ask for what useful information was obtained, how much was not duplicative of information obtained elsewhere, how much turned out to be false and what the impact of the false information was on both the US understanding of circumstances, US policy and US actions.

Anyone have anything to add to this list?

Posted by CommonDreamer
September 8, 2006 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink

cscs, I saw it in this NYT article; it's near the bottom of the 2nd page.

Glenn
I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts. - Mark Twain, Wearing White Clothes Speech, 1907

Posted by Glenn (ges)
September 8, 2006 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink

I think that Reid is saying that it isn't a "Republican vs. Democrat" thing; rather, it's Democrats and leading Republicans with military experience vs. the president.

Posted by Bob Bobstein
September 8, 2006 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink

In the article, I wish they had included the question he was actually answering. I would like to see the Dems come out as forcefully as Graham did in that same article.

“It would be unacceptable, legally, in my opinion, to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has played a key role in the drafting of alternative legislation as a member of the Armed Services Committee and a military judge. “ ‘Trust us, you’re guilty, we’re going to execute you, but we can’t tell you why’? That’s not going to pass muster; that’s not necessary.”

Glenn
I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts. - Mark Twain, Wearing White Clothes Speech, 1907

Posted by Glenn (ges)
September 8, 2006 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink

Thanks. So, here's the context:

But Senate Republicans remained divided over the White House proposal.
On one side, Mr. Graham and Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Warner of Virginia have argued that the system must provide enough fairness guarantees that the nation would feel comfortable having American troops tried under it. This is important, they argue, to repair a national reputation that has been damaged internationally by revelations of abuse at Guantánamo Bay and at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and to set a model for how other countries might try American troops.
On the other side, Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama have shown more inclination to endorse the president’s proposal. Mr. Cornyn said after a round of meetings Thursday that he still supported the president’s approach on classified evidence, but that he hoped the differences could be bridged. “We’re trying,” he said.
Democrats have essentially said they would back Senators Warner, Graham and McCain, leaving the Republicans to lead the fight against the administration, and allowing the Democrats to avoid political fallout from challenging the administration while maintaining their criticism of the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq.
“I think you’re looking for a fight that doesn’t exist,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, told reporters.

I actually don't think that's a bad strategy. Let the GOPs go after each other.

It certainly strikes me as very different than what the post implies, that the Dems are simply taking a pass on determining whether the Bush torture policy goes through.

I guess my biggest concern would be that anything with the name "McCain" attached to it usually means: talk tough, but when it comes down to it, give in to Bush.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Posted by cscs
September 8, 2006 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink

That was the sense I got, that the Dems were trying to stay out of the intraparty debate the GOP is having. However, I really would like them to state, unequivocally, that they support the premise of the Graham-McCain bill, if not the actual bill. I don't know the particulars, but it sounds like it reflects our traditional sense of justice as a country. At this point, I'll support the efforts of anyone from either party who is trying to get this country back on track in relation to what we say we have stood for for the past 230 years. We've got to start walking the walk again as a country. I hope that Warner, McCain, and Graham stick to their guns and that the Dems find their voice and articulate that these may be the baddest of the bad, but as a nation, we need to show that we mean the things we say about justice and democracy.

Glenn
I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts. - Mark Twain, Wearing White Clothes Speech, 1907

Posted by Glenn (ges)
September 8, 2006 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink

The problem with this is that it gives up a lot of control of the process to the Republicans and sets up the Democrats with a situation where they have to accept whatever the Republican moderates come up with or risk looking extreme.

It also allows the Republicans complete control of the narrative that comes out of it. I think it's a big mistake.

Better to state explicity what the bill must contain for Democrats to support it and why. Things like the requirement that there be very clear criteria for who is tried by these tribunals so that they are not used in cases only loosely related to terror. Plus a court of law should decide, not Bush, whether a defendant meets those criteria. There are, I'm sure, other issues that should be stated.

And remember this bill is going forward in tandem with bills to legalize torture and warrantless surveillance. It's not just that we have silence on the tribunal bill. We have silence on everything.

Posted by CommonDreamer
September 8, 2006 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink

Well, we have very little control over the process. And how much of the perceived silence is really just Dems not getting quotes in the papers? If the news media sees this narrative as McCain, et al, versus Bush, there's no room in that story for Dem voices.

Obviously Reid made a statement somewhere, but all that ran was the one quote, one that fit the narrative.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but just questioning whether there's real silence or "mediated" silence.

I've actually been impressed about the amount of coverage the Dems have gotten over the last few weeks. I'm sure that's because the news media is finally getting around to realizing that the American public is against the war in Iraq, so now getting a dissenting quote fits that narrative.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Posted by cscs
September 8, 2006 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink

Well, here's my fantasy:

7. Demand a high level Congressional investigation into:
a. the use and misuse of intelligence to send our soldiers into an unnecessary war based on false pretenses and
b. the willfully unconstitutional flauting of saws such as FISA to spy on American citizens

--for the purpose of evaluating whether these rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Jan Knaus

Posted by CVille Dem
September 8, 2006 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink

We have cowardice on everything. If it wins a district in Ohio, Democrats will gladly trade the 4th amendment. You want the 1st amendment? Just give us a Senate seat.

Posted by bluebell
September 8, 2006 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink

There was never a good reason to hold these people in secret prisons in other countries. The only reason for doing so was to be able to torture them whenever their questioner felt a desire to do so. If we actually had any evidence against any of them they could have been jailed in this country, afforded the full protections of the Constitution, which, after all does form the foundation of our laws, and if the evidence was real any US jury would have convicted them. A plea bargain could have been arranged to allow them to give any information they had in exchange for not being subject to the death penalty.

But, the neocons, under Bush, get a kick out of torturing folks, so that wasn't acceptable. Oh, and I almost forgot, most of them very likely were guilty only of looking like Arabs.

As far as (forbidden word) goes, of course the House Judiciary committee should be investigating this to see if an (forbidden word) was the proper course of action. That would bring all of the nasty secrets of the Bush gang out into the sunlight, and reveal that our real enemy resides in the White House.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Posted by hoppycalif2
September 8, 2006 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink

John Kerry in an interview on Hardball last night helped make the Dem strategy/talking points clear to me. I thought he did a good job of tying it all in with failure at the "war on terror" because of many of Bush's moves hurting our rep. His tone was very sure & strong--overall, a tone of "it's about time these screw-ups let Congress clean this mess up" and "we know exactly what needs to be done and can do it if they let us." I agree with what I saw as his stress on trials--I have been reading a lot of the excellent articles in this week's New Yorker on al Qaeda et. al., and it's ever clearer that publicly trying more of these guys is/was an important thing to do.

MATTHEWS: Senator, what did you make of President Bush really throwing the hot potato up to Capitol Hill and to the U.S. Senate to set the rules on torture of our prisoners in Guantanamo, on holding and creating tribunals to try these people, especially the really bad guys. Were you surprised he threw that to you guys to decide?
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I don‘t think it‘s a hot potato, and I welcome it. We ought to do it. We‘ve been urging to do it for a long time. We want to do the standard that Lindsey Graham, the Judge Advocate Corps, John Warner, former undersecretary of the Navy—

Republicans have been advocating that. What the president did was capitulate to common sense and is finally doing something we‘ve wanted to do for a long time. We ought to do it quickly and get it done.

MATTHEWS: Which is to legislate the authority of the tribunals?

KERRY: You‘re darn right. You‘re darn right. These people should have been brought to justice a long time ago. But what it also underscores is that the president had an illegal, unconstitutional structure for detaining people that he was destroying, in a sense, the reputation of our country and hurting the values of our country in other lands where we need people‘s support.

And, finally, he admits what all of us have known under the ground for a long time, that we have these secret prisons which the United States doesn‘t condone. So, finally, he is adopting a policy of common sense that is in keeping with our values and the Congress ought to move rapidly and we ought to do what is appropriate under appropriate standarDana s.

MATTHEWS: What do you think is appropriate torture?

KERRY: There is no appropriate torture, period.

MATTHEWS: What is appropriate ...

(CROSSTALK)

KERRY: And we‘ve been arguing that for a long time. They have been arguing to be allowed to torture. This is the first administration in American history the vice president of the United States says we should be allowed to torture. They argued for torture, for a loophole that allowed them to do it. Now, the president stands up and says the United States doesn‘t torture.

Well, I think that they have ignored the fact that the Geneva Conventions were not in place because we are nice. They weren‘t put in place to be soft. They were put in place to support and defend the interests of our troops in the battlefield, so that if young Americans are captured, we know that we‘ve done the best to be able to have them treated properly.

MATTHEWS: The president—maybe it‘s a matter of wording. The president said he‘s using tough interrogation techniques? How do you read that?

KERRY: Those are legitimate, if they‘re not torture. I mean, there are techniques which are legitimate under military practices. I mean, it‘s not a—you know, it‘s not a—I mean, this is not softball.

MATTHEWS: Right.

KERRY: It‘s war, it‘s tough, and the fact is that there are tough situations.

MATTHEWS: Is waterboarding in or out, as you see it?

KERRY: But there are things that are short of torture.

MATTHEWS: How about waterboarding? You make a guy think he‘s drowning?

KERRY: If we start going down a whole series of ...

MATTHEWS: But isn‘t that what he‘s asked to do in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, to basically legislate what‘s in and what‘s out in terms of how we treat prisoners in terms of interrogation?

KERRY: Well, if they want us to do every single particular practice, we can do that. We can write the manual for them we‘re happy to do it. And it shows, again, the ineffectiveness of this administration that they‘re unwilling to do that in keeping with American values. I‘m happy to do it.

The bottom line is that we need to prosecute these people, we need to bring them to justice, we need to be tough in the world. I think what‘s happened is this administration has lost that toughness, in a real sense, because they‘re more rhetorical than they are substance in their ability to be able to do things.

Other countries won‘t follow them. Other countries don‘t listen to them. Other countries aren‘t there in and supportive. They‘ve divided the world. They‘ve taken our own allies, many of whom were there ready to do almost anything after 9/11, and they‘ve pushed them away from us.

What I think they ought to be doing is figuring out how to fight the real war on terror, which is not in Iraq. They need to get out of Iraq and get our troops focused on the real war, and use some military special operations in order to go after people, but also do a much better job of law enforcement and intelligence—which I said two-and-a-half, three years ago—is the real core way in which you‘re going to stop terror activities and stop terror activities and find terrorists.

MATTHEWS: As a senator, you‘re going to have to legislate the new tribunals to try these people.

KERRY: Terrific. We should get it done and we should do it in a week.

MATTHEWS: Should they be susceptible to capital punishment? Should that be in line with this?

KERRY: Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you about the president, the timing of these almost daily—these daily now scheduled events involving terrorism. It‘s September, late in the single digits of September. We‘re coming up on September 11th, the fifth anniversary. We‘re coming up on an election. Do you believe that the president‘s speeches are timed for political purpose?

KERRY: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe he‘s sincere in what he‘s saying?

KERRY: Mostly.

MATTHEWS: Where not?

KERRY: Well, I think the president knows full well that he‘s exaggerating success. I‘ll give you a classic example. Today, the president of the United States said that the terrorists are on the run. Today—in Afghanistan. Today, the NATO commander said we need more troops because of the way in which the Taliban have re-taken over the southern part of the country, which is real.

The president is saying they‘re on the run or the NATO commander on the site, in country, commanding the forces saying I need more people because the Taliban is resurgent. I‘ll take the NATO commander.

And I think a lot of people in Washington are fed up with this public relations campaign on terror. The president is busy doing exactly what they did in 2002, exactly what they did in 2004. You know, the president is more interested in ginning up terror, scaring the America people, and not really fighting the war on terror in a way that protects the American people.

I think there is a better way to fight the war on terror. I believe we can do a better job of protecting America. And the test of whether or not they have made us safer is very simple. There are more terrorists now in the world who want to kill Americans than there were on 9/11.

MATTHEWS: How do you know that?.....

MORE @

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Sept. 7
Read the transcript to the Thursday show

Posted by artappraiser
September 8, 2006 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink

Thanks. Keeping this country safe and upholding the values of this country for which people have fought and died are not mutually exclusive activities. In fact, we do a disservice to those who have died when we sacrifice justice and liberty for security.

Glenn

Posted by Glenn (ges)
September 8, 2006 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink

Actually, that's pretty good. I'm sorry I missed it.

Posted by Dan K
September 8, 2006 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink

The bottom line is that we need to prosecute these people, we need to bring them to justice . . . . Sen. John Kerry

Assuming that he's referring to the "Ghost Prison Eleven," this call for trials seems a bit cavalier.

Presumably, these men were "arrested," because they exhibited certain patterns of relationships or because others had accused them of being members of or acting on behalf of al-Qaeda. The information/intelligence which convinced the US government to "capture" them may not have been sufficient to get by a probable cause hearing let alone a jury trial.

Assuming that the government employees and contractors who interrogated them were competent and were acting in good faith (that is, they were seeking true facts and not merely confessions), we must assume, as well, that the government is now convinced that these eleven are guilty of conspiracy, at the least.

But who among us can say with any assurance that they would be convicted in a court of law?

What do we do with them if they're acquitted? "Return them to the battlefield"?

Posted by Ellen
September 8, 2006 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink

Your post made me start asking myself the questions you asked and started me thinking. What follows is what I discovered in myself.

At this point, those of us on the outside looking in can only proceed on presumptions and assumptions. We can't say with any assurance they will be convicted, but shouldn't we find out? The alternative to trials seems to be to keep them in perpetual detention or perform summary executions; both of these are a guilty verdict without trial, or we could just release them. If they come to trial and are acquitted, yes, we release them; that's the way our system works. Does this sound like being soft on terrorists? Yes. Does it sound like us being true to our traditional view of justice? I think so. I believe that if we sacrifice this traditional view of justice in the name of a new justice or expediency, we might as well move bin-Laden into the White House because he's forced us to substantively alter our beliefs. At whose feet should we lay the blame for the mess in which we find ourselves? Bush? Congress? Ourselves? Yes. The Bush administration decided to create the black sites and use whatever means they used to capture and question these people; Congress gave tacit approval by not even wanting to exercise oversight and at times, gave outright approval to the administration's policies; we, as a country, voted these people into office. It's time we started to right some of the mistakes that have been made. Trials for these people seems to be a good place to make a start.

Glenn

Posted by Glenn (ges)
September 8, 2006 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink

Jan ...

Demand a high level Congressional investigation...

Maybe they can expand further on this news item over at A Nose Embedded in the Noise: Dan Bartlett needs a fresh roll....

~OGD~

Posted by OldenGoldenDecoy
September 8, 2006 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink

.
Come on now... Is Mr. Feinstein putting us on, or for the sake of argument is he trying to lead everyone here to believe that he's so out of the loop as to not know what the heck is up with Senator Reid and the Democrats?

It's only a mouse click away.

Has anyone here even taken the time to go to that front page of the Democrats.Senate.gov site ???

Senator Reid has presented a hellavu lot more than, "...not much..." and “I think you’re looking for a fight that doesn’t exist...” As Artappraiser pointed out with the Hardball/Kerry interview, there is a plan. Below, you will find out what it is...

In the meantime as to Mr. Feinstein's narrow complaint about the "military detainees" and the torture issue and the percieved quiet stance of the Dems in relationship to the Graham, McCain, and John Warner versus Cornyn, Jeff Sessions, and Orrin Hatch debate, my personal take is to stay out the way and don't take the bait when there is a pack of Republicans pissing on each others' legs...

Now here ... if anyone is even slightly interested in what Senator Reid had to say, in the FULL context:

Washington, DC — With President Bush delivering another of his public relations speeches on national security Thursday, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) delivered the following remarks detailing that – five years after 9/11 - more must be done to win the war on terror and make America safe. Reid made the remarks during an event where Senate Democrats unveiled their Real Security Act of 2006, an aggressive plan to take action on the real lessons of 9/11. A fact check on the president’s address today follows below.
--- snip ---

“Yesterday, President Bush announced he’s transferring 14 terrorists from secret prisons to Guantanamo Bay, so they can be tried before military panels.

“I want to know what took him so long. He’s had years to bring these murders to justice, and he’s waited until now – two months before an election – to do it?

“It’s a cynical - - but typical - - move from the Campaigner in Chief.

“If President Bush and Republicans in Congress are serious about protecting the country, they’ll stop frightening the nation and start doing something to make us safer.

“They’ll change course in Iraq, implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations and finally bring terrorists to justice.

“Of the 450 detainees, plus the 14 new additions at Guantanamo, not a single detainee has been brought to justice. Now the White House wants Congress to clean up their failures. Democrats will work with the military lawyers, listen to what Republicans like John McCain have to say, and develop a system that is tough and smart.

“This is not a question of will. It’s a question of competence. From Katrina to Iraq to the war on terror, this White House has proven incapable of doing the job. And rather than acknowledge their mistakes, they use fear.

“This policy of fear will not win the war on terror."

September 07, 2006 (complete text)

And if by chance anyone has actually taken the time to absorb the entire statement released above, and you've made it this far, then go back over to the press releases and avail your self to the Democratic six-point plan:

SENATE DEMOCRATS ANNOUNCE MAJOR SECURITY LEGISLATION

Real Security Act of 2006

Change the Course in Iraq.

Provide Better Tools to Bring Terrorists to Justice.

Implement the 9/11 Commission Recommendations.

Refocus on the War on Terror.

Protect Our Transportation Systems.

Equip Our Intelligence Community to Fight Against Terrorists.

If you go to the link those six-points are each detailed with a fairly sensible approach on accomplishing each catagory.

Rather than allowing ourselves to be distracted by the deficit-disorder media-induced-psychosis we are all being hammered with, or sidetracked by the comments as exhibited here by Mr. Feinstein, take the time and organize your thoughts along the lines of the leadership....

“This Bush policy of fear will not win the war on terror."

~OGD~

Posted by OldenGoldenDecoy
September 8, 2006 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink

What do we do with them if they're acquitted? "Return them to the battlefield"?

Would you ask that about prosecuting Mafia kingpins?

Prosecuting, win or lose the individual case itself, is an important part of this kind of "battle." You demystify the perp(s), take away some of their recruiting power and other powers, inform the sympathetic public(s) about what they are really up to, possibly convincing them to lose that sympathy, possibly gain future informants, etc. Of course, as with any other battle, the fights have to be picked smartly.

But just hiding them away for years is not "fighting." There appears to be some benefit to not charging immediately, or several EU countries would not be creating the laws to enable them to do that. But at a certain point, a few weeks, not several years, the benefits of trial take over the benefits of any info. that can be gained before charging. (I myself haven't decided what I think on that.)

More and more it looks to me like the Embassy bombings trial was the only really successful thing we have done so far in the "war on terror." Info. from it even helped lead to the capture of some of the 11. And it also seems ever clearer to me that it built on the trials of the gang involved in the '93 WTC bombing, that there was more there than most "terror warriors" knew was important at the time.

Of course, we do not need another Moussauoui trial; it was mishandled. Some things may still come of it, though, that we can't foresee. We don't need to act like we did with that 9/11 trial in Germany, refusing info. that prosecutors there needed. We need another Mary Jo White. Too bad, mho, that these are going to be military tribunals and it's not clear how public the info. from them is going to be. But it's a step in the right direction.

I recommend this week's The New Yorker issue ("Five Years After" Issue of 2006-09-11) to get a good reframing/big picture perspective of where we are at with this problem,
especially the articles by Jane Mayer
(Department of Law Enforcement:
Junior: The clandestine life of America’s top Al Qaeda source);
by Lawrence Wright ("Annals of Terrorism: The Master Plan; What will the next stage of jihad be?"--excellent, but not online, unfortunately), as well as the pieces by George Packer and Steve Coll on related.

Another thought I'd like to introduce here is Juan Cole's from over a year ago on the 7/7 London bombings; it still is interesting:

....Legislators in democratic societies who are thinking about how to respond to this problem should give serious thought to RICO-like laws that could be used to curb religious cults, which typically isolate members, indoctrinate them, manipulate them, and sometimes coerce them. Cults avoid scrutiny by harassing critics and whistleblowers, often in ways that police find it difficult to respond to. The enormous problems modern societies have had with groups like Christian Identity, the Koreishites, Aum Shinrikyo, and now al-Qaeda, suggests that current legal frameworks are inadequate to address this problem....

Finally a word about Kerry's capital punishment remark: generally, I am pretty anti-capital punishment. But recently learning that Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman issued a fatwa from prison giving Bin Laden and Zawahiri the ruling they desired to be able to kill millions of non-Islamic civilians makes me think hard on that in some cases. (Brought the Lynne Stewart trial into a whole new focus for me.) I guess I still like the Mafia analogy here--you want them alive to be able to watch what they are up to. Which brings up Ellen's initial point. If an accused perp is acquitted in the U.S. and let go, how much is he going to be able to accomplish without being watched? That's if another country doesn't pick up the prosecution. Whether or not you like the idea, or think it fair, with both the Mafia and terrorism, if acquitted in a trial, reality is you don't really get the benefit of getting your "good reputation back."

Posted by artappraiser
September 9, 2006 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink

There is a helpful chart in today's New York Times accompanying Kate Zernike's piece--print version title: "Crucial Senator Says a Few Problems Remain on Terror Tribunals"--,

it compares the Court-Martial system, the original Bush administration system, the Supreme court ruling in Hamadan v. Rumsfeld, and the new Bush proposal:

Chart: Major Issues in Bringing Terrorism Suspects to Trial

Posted by artappraiser
September 9, 2006 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink

my personal take is to stay out the way and don't take the bait when there is a pack of Republicans pissing on each others' legs...

And my own personal take is that while that may be a political side benefit to dems, in the end, there is no benefit to anyone in politicizing this. The issues involved are too important. As an individual pol, I don't know how you could live with yourself if you didn't go with your conscience on this, and while the general public may not know or care or understand what you did or thought, your informed voters will know, your "base" will know, and historians will also be checking if you supported the smart and right thing for your country....in the end, I think those who take this very seriously will be the ones who benefit, even those who are pro-Bush, but mostly those who are not. It's an issue where those who act with integrity and those who appear the least political will be the ones who will benefit.

Posted by artappraiser
September 9, 2006 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink

5. Demand a report on how many people were detained in these secret prisons total and how many were actually guilty of being terrorists. [...] Also demand to know how many who were NOT guilty of being terrorists were interrogated using "alternative" methods.

Yes, THIS would be of a tremendous value to rehabilitate the U.S..

Additionaly, those countries that are now falsely suspected for having harbored such detention facillities would surely love to learn where they were located. Also the countries where these interogation centras likely were located might benefit.

Posted by J M Olofsson
September 9, 2006 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink

I have no idea what the Democratic party thinks, but if you accept our Constitution, Bush's draft legislation would be considered a violation of Geneva convention...etc. Over there in England, the recent Sunday Times (September 10, 2006) had an opinion piece that ripped into this matter:

Bush’s last stand: turning the war on its head

Andrew Sullivan
....

How does this help the Republican campaign? Without describing them, Bush’s speech essentially said that without these interrogation techniques thousands of Americans would have been murdered, and so they have to be retained as options by the CIA. Wouldn’t this violate the Geneva conventions and American law, as the Supreme Court found? Under any rational interpretation, yes. But Bush has asserted that these techniques are not “torture” as he defines it and if Congress goes along with this, such techniques become legal with the president’s signature.

Hence, the question here is does Congress/President represent our founding fathers' intentions? Party affiliation has nothing to do with this issue, imho.

Posted by ABJordan
September 11, 2006 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink

November 16-20	Coming Soon
November 30-December 4	January 12-16

The Road to Victory Is Not a Detour

26 Comments

Leave a comment