We Do Not Torture, Mr. Reid.
Senator Harry Reid, fearful of doing anything that would anger the "Jack Bauer independent" vote, has said:
"We want to do this," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. "And we want to do it in compliance with the direction from the Supreme Court. We want to do it in compliance with the Constitution."
There is no way to torture in compliance with the Constitution. First because the United States is a high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions, and second because the Bill of Rights specifically prohibits both cruel and inhuman punishments, and it specifically states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"
Torture is unreasonable by definition. It is unreasonable because it does not work.
There is a mad and unseemly rush on the part of Democratic Senators to sign on to this legislation. The House caucus has no such rush, since they know that their assent is unimportant, and because there is a realistic understanding in the House that this is an issue the base cares about.
As someone who travels abroad, it is an issue which strikes home. Harry Reid is safe from retaliation, so is George Bush, and all of the other personages who now so easily bargain away the rights that ordinary people have. They are protected by the might of the US military, its law enforcement officials, and the Secret Service. To even threaten their persons is crime, and will result in investigation and probable detention. Ordinary people like myself do not have these protections, and must thread through threats to our persons and our livelihoods all the time. Travelling abroad, without the thick armor of the US military and Air Force One, it is we that those who seek to realiate against will grab and kidnap and kill.
It is difficult to muster support for a Senator who puts my life at risk, so out of an election strategy of dubious reliability.
It is a simple point, but one that is clearly lost on so many of the out of touch elites which clutter the Democratic Senate caucus: if the West cannot live up to its own standard of justice, then there are those willing and eager to charge, try and convict us in the court of terrorism. A court which is in session in the shadows and the corners of the world, and which is only adjourned with the help of our allies and co-belligerents. Should the United States continue to prove that it puts its temporary political interests ahead of the issues of global security, then the favored and trusted role that the United States has in international affairs will be reduced, and eventually rescinded. Our advantages of past good will have been expended, and now we rest solely on the reality that no other nation is yet ready to take our place, and no other nation is yet palatable to enough other nations. But these are malleable facts, and subject to change in rapid and unexpected ways.
I have written to my fellow progressives before, and said so privately to many of them what follows. The present generation is not ours. They are morally crippled, and while we must work for them, and work with them, their moral failings are too obvious to ignore or excuse. The torture, they borrow and squander. They have launched a war of aggression based on deception and falsehoods, they have violated sacred treaties with our allies, and upon which the leadership of the United States rests. As the segregationists were noxious facts of existence in the 1950's, so are the toturers and other craven capitulators to Bush in the present. Bush is fighting two wars and losing both of them. It is almost obvious beyond words that whatever he is doing is wrong, and by whatever reasonable means accountability can be brought to bear, it must be. Otherwise, we add to the acts which push us farther from the moral leadership upon which our super-power status rests.
These acts will have their cost, and that cost will, of needs, be paid.
It is an old myth, that of Wotan whose power rested on oaths carved on his spear. And as one by one he violated those oaths out of expediency, his power waned, until finally the spear was shattered.
Torture is not a tactic of war, it is a tactic of religion - specifically, it is ritual human sacrifice. "Coercive interogation" does nothing for information gathering, but is instead a way of demonstrating the dehumanization of enemies. The purpose of torture is to spit the victims out as a warning to others. It is no different than the Assyrians who used to impale rebels or flay them alive and plaster the skins to the walls of cities.
When Wotan fell in myth, it was the end of the world. When the Assyrians fell in history, their capital was destroyed. America should be aware that by violating our own laws, and leaving no reasonable means of accountability, we leave ourselves exposed to the judgement of those who follow after us.
We are fighting monsters, and we must not become monsters in turn. St. George did not slay the dragon by becoming a dragon, but by hewing closely to that faith that comes from a just and righteous cause. The just and the righteous do not torture, nor do they mince and parse words to disguise such acts. This "compromise" is indeed compromised, and it is destined to become a bleeding sore that will only heal when we drink from the cup of justice, and burn away the sins of our fathers.
That y'all in Congress have decided to allow George Bush to tell everyone he is going to break the law with signing statements, and then do nothing, is your political modus vivendi, for which you are digging a hole that is reaching past the pre-Great Depression Congress and down towards the ante-bellum one. However, to permanently endanger America's place in the family of civilized nations, is another matter entirely. We do not grant the rights in the Genevea Conventions to protect those who we combat or catpure, but to protect ourselves, and uphold our principles. This is a war of Civilization, and this torture "compromise" and any who vote for it, are a blow against civilization.
JohnW1141
Its not Harry Reid, its the vacuous public he tries to please
because he knows the vacuous public, armed with vacuity, votes.
Most of the public is a mile wide and an inch deep when it comes to understanding what the hell is going on in Washington DC. The Republicans know this and they use it successfully. Listen to C-SPAN's Washington Journal or go to some of the political chat rooms and you see the public in all its splendor and glory. The Forces of Wingnuttery are here and still living in their mythological world where all of Bush's foul ups are traced to someone else, preferably Clinton. This is the enemy, not Harry Reid, this is what Reid has to contend with....at least until and if his party can regain some power.
Listen, if you want to start a real war with the conservatives, if you want us to stand tall and be called liberals, I'm with you. If you want to erase the stain put on the word "liberal", I'm with you. If you want to enumerate and defend liberal programs throughout history, I'm with you, but take heed, it will be a long war before we can turn this around and the enmy is formidable.
For the time being, I'm willing to side with Reid, wait until this election is over, then declare the war. First step, dump the DLC.
September 27, 2006 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with JohnW1141. Standing on principle is wonderful. But folks, we don't have the guns. The only reason we are even in the game at this point is that this particular radical right-wing administration is so completely corrupt and incompetent that even the most detached voter can see it. It is so bad that it is impossible to hide.
The resources available to the Republican party are enormous. They are backed by giant communications companies, a very large fund-raising apparatus and a major religious movement. If this administration had been a tad more Nixonian in its skill and execution, we wouldn't be talking about a possible return to power today.
Because of the advantages the other side has, Harry Reid has a tricky game to play. He needs to avoid giving the Republicans anything that could change the apparent course of this election, and at the same time, he doesn't want to give away the store either.
This situation points out a critical fact. Even if, by some miracle, we regain power in November, we are still out-gunned by the radical right. Maintaining power may be even more difficult than acquiring it. In other words, if we want our government to execute our agenda, we will have to build an infrastructure as large and as powerful as that possessed by the Republicans and the radical right.
September 27, 2006 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
This legislation is simply giving dictatorial powers to a man who has already assumed them. It amounts to substantively abolishing the Constitution, because without the Great Writ, there is no effective check on the abuse of power. Hell, the nobles had figured that out at Runnymede.
The real question is at what point does the opposition actually decide to oppose. With Bush at his absolute weakest, with electoral victory before them, with the votes to block this measure in the Senate, still they cringe and do nothing.
The candid public must wonder if so craven a leadership will actually oppose even if it gains the majority. You persuade people you will fight for them by fighting. The Demcratic leadership always retreats, usually without even firing a rhetorical shot.
Is Reid so naive that he actually beleived the kabuki from McCain, Warner and Graham? That seems to be official story, so when they folded, as everyone outside of Washington knew they would (remember those hearings Warner was going to hold about torture at Aub Graib), the Dems folded with them? I am also hard-pressed to believe that the "don't tread on me" West is so keen on getting rid of habeas corpus.
September 27, 2006 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
John Cole: http://balloon-juice.com/?p=7357
The problem is that millions of Republicans do believe as John Cole but aren't doing what he's doing (sadly supporting the Dems), because the Dems are remaining silent. I suppose Amy Sullivan will write another article about how the Dems are really being clever. They're not clever -- they're cowards, which makes then slightly less evil than the gleeful torturers.September 27, 2006 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Democrats refuse to stand up for what is so obviously right, legally, morally, ethically, any way you can think about it unless you're one of the psychotics on the right wing of politics and religion, then why should we stand up for them? Are we supposed to believe that once they're in power again, supposedly after this election, that they will reverse these obscene laws on torture and 'detainee' 'trials'? They certainly won't have the votes to overturn the moral midget's veto of any proposal they pass. And in the meantime how many people must suffer and die because of Democratic moral vacuity and political calculus?
I thought I had already seen the depths the Democrats could sink to as they try to out-Republican the worst bunch of politicians to ever set foot in Washington. Reid et al have just shown me that the bottom of the cesspool is nowhere in sight yet.
To coin a phrase, when the Democrats stand up, then we'll stand for them. Normally my response to such things would be to hold my nose and vote for Democrats. Not this time. Not any more. That would simply be sinking to their level and slapping down my own sense of right and wrong, putting another crack in my own sense of integrity. Not this time. Not any more. I'll waste my vote on Greens and other progressives and liberals this year.
All the subtext these few years about the Democrats being the only ones to save the country from the whackos and the psychos and the moral and ethcial cesspool of Republicanism has come to nothing. If the Democrats wish to join the Republicans in shredding the Constitution, in destroying the ethics and integrity of that document, of American government, of once powerful political values, then they do it without my help, as feeble and tiny as my one vote may be.
There is no long view here. You stand for what's right or you do not. You cannot say you'll stand for what's right only after you get some power. If you will not do it now you will not do it then. You cannot be trusted. And neither can you inspire or lead. You only give comfort to the enemy across the aisle. You only give pain and death to the victims of corrupt American policies. All those in Washington who sign on to these laws, whether Republican or Democrat, have done nothing less than drive a stake into the heart of what America used to mean.
September 27, 2006 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141\\
Isn't this how Nader felt in 2000 when he got 90,000 votes in Florida? Gore lost by what, 4 or 500?
September 27, 2006 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nader and 2000 are not relevant.
The Democrats now are in effect saying "We join the Republican administration in legalizing torture and other destructive policies now. Please support us."
And I am saying I will not do that.
If a Democratic candidate comes before the voters where I live and powerfully refuses to support such things and convinces me that he will stand and fight such things and stand against the Democratic leadership that supports such laws, then I would likely vote for him. Absent such a candidate I'll cast my votes elsewhere.
Political pragmatism is no excuse for sticking a cattle prod up an Arab's ass.
September 27, 2006 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's talk crass poliical strategy. Harry Reid reportedly (and if the reports are incorrect, I apologize) wanted to grant unanimous consent to shorten the time for debate on the Torture Authorization and Habeas Elimination Act for crass political puposes. What would that achieve? (1) Because the bill is obviously unconstitutional -- as even Ken Starr has suggested re the habeas provisions -- Dems. who respect their oath of office would be forced to vote against it. The press would report that Dems. are divided, and Republicans would attack them for voting against a "bipartisan" bill to protect national security. Don't suppose you got a "no attack ads if you don't filibuster" promise, Harry? (2) By failing to stand up for what everyone knows they believe in, Dems. would be shown to be weak, divided girlie men. Do you want someone afraid to stand up to George Bush to protect you from Al Qaeda? (3) Here's the real genius: by not insisting on 30 hours of debate, Reid would enable endangered incumbents (who would be from which party?) to get back home to campaign earlier.
September 27, 2006 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stirling,
It goes beyond our safety and well being it goes to who we are. "We hold these truths..." defines us, defines this nation. To compromise on the rights of humankind is to compromise the very existence of this nation.
September 27, 2006 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boo hoo hoo. The Democrats aren't in power.
Boo hoo hoo. The Republicans have so many resources.
It's actually very simple -- you're either for torture or against it.
The majority of this country says torture should "never" be used. So what makes the Dems giving in (or just silence) on this issue even more ridiculous is it's politically stupid. It's one thing to go along with a war when 70% of the country think it's a good idea (not principled, but...), but this is just dumb.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
September 27, 2006 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes indeed, But here's the rub: How far will you, the rest of us, go to fight for what is right? Will you make temporary political alliances to inch closer to what is virtuous? Will you slog away for years and years of political maneuvering to move the gargantuan body politic? Will you face the reality of the enormous effort required?
By all means we need to hold forth the shining image of what America should be and may have once been and we need to correct and criticize, even try and punish as required those that are wrong. But can we afford to stand on the hill shouting and distain from climbing down and actually acting and working, applying our efforts where they will be effective?
I think we share a deep fear that the Democrats are as craven as the Repugs and we may share the deep desire to find a knight, as Stirling alludes to, to banish the vipers. But what if that knight is us? What if we are being called to face our fears and to act valiently? It may well be up to us to find the way, the path that is true. Does that path include doing what the squeamish resist? I'm not sure, are you?
September 27, 2006 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I understand you correctly (and perhaps I am not), you are saying we should support those who support torture to help them get into power so they can then not support torture? If so, how then are we supposed to trust them?
As for shouting and not working, the Democrats have chosen in this seminal case to do neither. They choose instead to give up and walk away, afraid that someone will call them a name or throw a rock at them.
Debate on this legislation should be the most contentious and hard fought in the history of the country. Reid et al have decided it's not worth it.
If, as has been noted elsewhere, a majority of the country is against this legislation, and still the Democrats will neither speak nor fight against it, then I think we are sorely mistaken to trust them to guide this country to sanity.
Isn't that what the conservatives did for forty years? They busted their butts to bring us their empty and corrupt ideology and they succeeded. Liberals and progressives can do as much, can fight in the dirt and mud of the trenches, yes, but when the leaders abandon them and go over to the enemy, then what? We can fight on as individuals, as small groups, we can keep the flame alive, and, given the direction the Republicans are taking us, pay a terrible price over the years. But in time we'll reclaim the desert.
Osama bin Laden, dead or alive, if his intent was to destroy America, must be chortling up his sleeve as first the Republicans and now the Democrats carry his water.
September 27, 2006 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141
Nader and 2000 are certainly relevant to this topic. Nader wanted to beat the enemy the same way you do.
Nader should have ran for the Senate or the House, instead, he used your thinking and ran for the Presidency. We see where that got us.
In PA, the National Organization of Women were backing the pro-choice Green candidate while he was on the ballot because Bob Casey is pro life, as is Santorum. Backing the Green could very well have ensured a re election for Santorum which would have went a long way to help Bush continue appointing right wing judges, not to mention 2 more years of no oversight by the Senate.
This election is about control, I can't afford your kind of principled stand this year.
September 27, 2006 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW seems to think that the Democrats can show how tough they are by letting the Republicans lead and then thanking them. That's part of the problem for us politically, not just morally, and it has nothing to do with Nadar's decision to run as a third party or even about his political platform.
We should say that Bush seems to think it's more important to betray democracy and endanger our troops than to combat terror, we're appalled, and we refuse to go along.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 27, 2006 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a real problem with that. The legislation:
(1) does not exclude american citizens from being declared enemy combatants;
(2) immunizes ALL prior acts of lawbreaking under the war crimes act;
and
(3) depends, for its (un)constitutionality, on the continuing good health of Justice Stevens.
It also ignores the fact that the D's will not be able to pass amendments to this for fear of being soft on terror. And in the meantime, the case goes through the courts, the legislation takes effect and people disappear. And to think that a Democratic president "would never" take advantage of these expanded powers is simply naive.
It says a lot for the state of this country that there's any consideration over the filibuster at all. For chrissake, only 10% of the senate knows what it says.
September 27, 2006 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
i've never felt better about being an annoying radical with little connection to the democratic party beyond pulling the dem lever in most of my previous moments of voting. as for the future, i'm making a list: any dem who votes for torture and an end to HaCorp will never receive another dime, word, or modicum of effort of support from me.
frankly, i'm not surprised that it's come to this. truly, did anyone think that once bush broke one aspect of the constitution, he'd stop at destroying all the rest? this is why i'm with those who believe godwin's law is in ashes, and that it's time to call this political descent into fascism by name, loudly.
further, this is where i think they are taking us. everyone should visit a prison, so they can see exactly what it is the republicans have in store for us.
...and Stirling, you are many things, but "ordinary" is hardly one of them. ;-)
September 27, 2006 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141
You're taking a page out of the right wing playbook; misinterpret what the opposition says (or seems to think) then attack your misinterpretation.
September 27, 2006 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could easily conclude a couple of things from your remark.
One would be that you support the torture and murder of prisoners of war in order to gain a likely short term political advantage.
And two, you, if given the chance at power, would be just as bad as the people in power now.
I would like to think that neither of those is true.
There is great power to be gained in standing on principle. Bush sticks to his guns and has amassed tremendous power. Now his lies and hypocrisy and amorality and ethical vacuity are coming back to undermine what his crowd has built, but when people believed him he was untouchable.
These people on the other side aren't going to go away, no matter what happens in November. There's a long slog ahead, the longer because the Democrats appear to have no one who will fight them with the ferocity necessary to put them down. If I recall correctly, the Democrats have already let it be known that should they win the House they will not engage in hard-hitting investigations aimed at dislodging Bush and his crew.
We draw strength from what we believe and from a constant re-examination of what we believe. To give that up is to give up any legitimate claim to power, and to give up the means to hold power once claimed. Reid et al, by giving up this fight, have weakened the party, have alienated voters, and have probably weakened their chances in November. Had they come out strongly on these things, the people would have been given a clear choice of leadership, and if there is anything that the mass of people want, now and through history, it is powerful leadership. Bush gave them that. Bush's leadership is built on sand. The Democrats are simply offering more sand.
As for Nader and 2000, perhaps the pragmatic move would have been to run for the Senate or House, as you note. I was angry about his run. You should also note that Gore did not fight furiously for those votes, after the election. Kerry followed him in not fighting for the votes in Ohio. Would things have been different had Gore won? We can't know. Perhaps they wouldn't have been as bad, but the Republicans would have likely succeeded in crippling Gore as they did Clinton. Would 9/11 have happened? We can't know. Iraq? The rest of it? We can presume some probabilities. We can't know.
The one thing we can do is to know what we stand for and to fight for it. In fact you could say NARAL, in its narrow agenda, did just that in Pennsylvania. The other side of that coin asks why the Democrats would put up a candidate so obviously repugnant to an important constituency? I suspect they could have done better.
The other side has power because it fights, hard, for what it believes, however misguided and offensive we find those beliefs. The Democrats apparently will not stand and fight as hard or harder for what they supposedly believe. You can't win a war if you fight on quicksand.
September 27, 2006 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not saying we should support those actions by anyone and that we should be loud and clear that we do not support those actions. However we can still support the best available politicians that will have the most likelihood to advance progressive causes. We then dump them as better opportunities arise. We need to take responsibility to shape our leadership, not to passively await the perfect, new leader if we truly believe what we want is worth working and fighting for. It will not be easy, nor fun.
September 27, 2006 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here, check this out
http://www.cafepress.com/vanosfortexasag.46155369
September 27, 2006 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am with Ariel Dorfman on that one.
The minute we even begin to discuss whether torture should be allowed or not, we've lost.
A civilization that has to explain to its citizens why torturing is bad (or good) is not one I want to be part of.
If legislation was being considered to lynch Harry Reid's brother that might get the Dems in power, would Reid go along with it?
US politics has become a game of "Cowardice meets tyranny." Nauseating.
September 27, 2006 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent!!
September 27, 2006 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree that we should support the best available politician - but there have to be limits on what to accept even then. The torture bills are a case in point. Does the best available support them? If so, can we vote for him? I say no. Or perhaps he doesn't support them, but is unwilling to fight against them. Can we vote for him? I can't. And dumping them later, as you suggest, is obviously not so easy given current election and campaign laws. We have Roman politics, Senators wearing the purple and impossible to dislodge, absent assassination a la Brutus and Caesar, or massive political dislocation and chaos, as we seem to have now. Odd that a war in the Mideast offers the best chance for cleaning house at home. Is it possible that all that Iraqi blood may create some good in America?
What if the best available is a Green and the others are Demopublicans? Do we vote for the Green or the DemoDemoPublican? Can we vote for a Zel Miller because he carries a D by his name? I used to think that there was no question here, just vote for the Democrat. I can't think that way anymore.
I suspect the battles aren't going to be won or lost in the voting booth. They'll be won or lost long before the citizenry gets to the booth. I think JohnW1141 is correct in positing a 'vacuous' citizenry. The Republicans worked hard to fill the vacuous brains with right wing noise. If the Democrats cannot pull themselves together enough to create a long-term strategy for planting liberal leftie noise in the vacuum, then they will fail in the long run, and the country will fall to the proto fascists. (There must be a better term than proto fascist. Anyone got one?)
September 27, 2006 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141
"I could easily conclude a couple of things from your remark.
One would be that you support the torture and murder of prisoners of war in order to gain a likely short term political advantage.
And two, you, if given the chance at power, would be just as bad as the people in power now.
I would like to think that neither of those is true."
If you could "easily conclude" those things I'm wasting my time
trying to trade opinions in a respecful manner.
September 27, 2006 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141
As far as I know, neither Harry Reid or any Democrat has come out in support of torture. Nor have I seen any Democrat talk about torture other than to condemn it.
September 27, 2006 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, I kinda came to the same conclusion.
Jan Knaus
September 27, 2006 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141
How do I create that highlighted box of other's posts as you did? I've been cutting and pasting, I don't like the results.
September 27, 2006 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
My remarks were not meant to be disrepectful, but to point out that your words express a disavowal of a principled stand on the matter under discussion, which was support for torture and so on.
If Reid et al are going to be silent while Congress and Bush support torture and the other matters, then Reid's action, or inaction, is supporting those things. If you choose to support Reid's position, then it is no difficult thing to conclude that you (or anyone) support those things.
Let me put it this way. I think it is logically absurd to refuse to fight against legislation that condones and legalizes torture, and to also say you are against torture. I'm sure Reid would say he is against torture. But he won't fight the legislation. So no matter what he says, his actions support torture and the rest of it.
You've aligned yourself with Reid's position in your first post. You seem to think that political expedience trumps a fight against legalizing torture.
So I guess the question is can you make the case that supporting Reid's position is not an act supporting torture, given that Reid's position does in fact support and enable the passage of the legislation. If you can, then by all means do so.
Please note that I am not engaging in a personal attack. This is about the argument you put forth.
September 27, 2006 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what I do, it took me awhile to figure this out:
type "" your message here ""
only don't use any of the double quote marks. It's html.
September 27, 2006 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Use
, putting your cut text in the middle.September 27, 2006 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I messed that up. The next guy got it right though.
September 27, 2006 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141
September 27, 2006 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141
WhatdoIknow,
GOT IT! Thanks.
September 27, 2006 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite all I've said above I'm still galled by how little it takes to get the Dems leadership to trade in so much. For crying out loud, what are they afraid of, some potential cudgel the Repugs may wave over their heads? So what! Face that with skill and courage when the time comes, but now is the time to be patriots! They must think so little of the Constitution and of themselves.
OK now I'm thinking out loud, but it is really hard to believe this. Either we are terribly mistaken in our consensus opinion about what the bill actually contains, the bill that will actually be voted on (I understand there's still some shiftiness going on) or there's something else happening. Is Reid smoking out some Repugs who aren't really that willing to go along, then ...yeah RIGHT! ah well.
September 27, 2006 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something everyone needs to remember here: torture was and is already illegal. That hasn't stopped the Bush administration. Nor have reams of purple rhetoric stopped the Bush administration. So no matter what happens with the torture bill and no matter what the Democrats say or don't say the Bush administration will go right ahead and do what it wants.
That being the case is any of this histrionic handwringing worth it? Let alone sitting out this election?
Until the Democrats have some electoral success there isnlt even a prayer of stopping the Bush administration from anything it wants to do. And this torture stuff is pretty trivial compared to the things they can do and may yet do.
September 27, 2006 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: You should also note that Gore did not fight furiously for those votes
Gore fought all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. Beyond that there was nothing else to be done-- short of armed rebellion, if that's what you're regretting didn't happen.
Re: The other side of that coin asks why the Democrats would put up a candidate so obviously repugnant to an important constituency?
Because he and his postions were actually NOT repugnant to a sizeable block of Democratic votesr in that particular state, and he could therefore win the Senate seat.
Is there no sense of strategy here? If the Dems retake the Senate (or even if they come very close) it won't matter what Casey's opinions on abortion are, because far right ideologues will not be be able to pass the Senate.
September 27, 2006 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they vote for this bill they vote for torture. They are nothing but Vichycrats.
September 27, 2006 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
We also compromise the very existence of Western civilization. In the clash of civilizations, we are surrendering more than 1000 years of Western values.
September 27, 2006 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vote for the Green. When you've got Democrats voting for torture and against habeus corpus what damage can a vote for a Green do?
September 27, 2006 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gore could have followed his heart instead of the DLC Republicans and embraced green positions. Nader was simply ahead of his time. If I'd know what I know now about the DLC centrists, I'd have voted for Nader in 2000 too. If Gore had run as his own man instead of the sum of some emotionless focus group he might have won.
September 27, 2006 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
An infrastructure if it is to have any value at all needs to be built upon a strong foundation. When you are willing to throw out the rule of law, you have no foundation.
September 27, 2006 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for the record --> Gore DID win.
And how many are dead because of voter fraud, because of the Supreme Court's appointment of Bush, and because of all that has come after?
Jan Knaus
September 27, 2006 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is touchy, but isn't the argument over whether a strong stand will be prey to portrayal as weak on terror, defense, etc.?
If so, there is a weak analogy with Nader, but only that. There is no third party in the Senate, exactly, and no close vote to worry about almost winning. I see only the spin issue as a worry. That is countered with a preemptive attack.
Instead of worrying about looking weak, act strong and call the current policies for what they are: misguided, dangerous, and illegal and unconstitutional.
September 27, 2006 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again I implore that everyone look beyond politics, and I do understand the stakes in November. Even though I am not a Democrat nor a Republican, I stand in active opposition to this present executive, and deeply desire his policies repudiated, but what is at stake here supercedes all partisan concerns. This is defense of the Constitution, it is preventing the Dreamtime America from disintegration within our consciousness.
There also needs to be some understanding that this is an issue which slashes across traditional linear ideations of politics. Not every head popping up behind right-sided barricades is presently a target. There have been defections over this, and once the implications finish bubbling up through some thick skulls, there will be more.
If the government gets away with stripping these persons of their natural rights to due process and habeas corpus without first securing a righteous conviction against them, there is not one liberty that remains secure in the possession of the people, Not One. This is not something that would be lost upon the hard core second amendment crowd, if they can be made to understand. Their right to keep and bear arms becomes anemic without due process protections.
The government is not legitimately an omnipotent entity. It must again be restrained, and placed behind its constitutional limitations, or We, this generation of Citizens, have failed America.
Do not allow the obfuscation of the truth with pleas of security, and claims that POWs have never been afforded these protections in the past. Bush, by his tyrannical determinations of the humans as 'criminal combatants', and not POWs is what drastically changed the game. They are held as 'criminal', obviously from their given title, Due Process of Law now Controls. If anyone whines about how it may lead to the release of terrorists, forcibly point out that it was Bush himself who redefined these humans as criminals. POWs, protected under the umbrella of the Geneva Conventions was fine with me, in fact I opposed this presidential finding of dubious constitutionality from the first time I heard of it, just after September 11, 2001,
I have previously stated the justification for my claims that the Guantanamo Bay detainees are held in violation of the 5th, 6th, 8th and 13th Amendments, as well as Article 6; clause 2 of the US Constitution on TPM boards. They are still valid, and can be viewed here.
To those violations, I claim that the Senate's proposed legislation also violates The United States Constitution; Article 1; Section. 9; clauses 2 and 3:
The legislation is not 'suspending' habeas corpus, do not let them weasel here. They are intent upon stealing habeas corpus from humans, and never returning it. Making the legislation applicable to past actions, is transparently an ex post facto law,
September 27, 2006 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree, JPF. It may be histrionic handwringing, but I draw the line when fundamental Constitutional rights are undermined by Congress (and dangerous powers granted the executive- especially this one). On 9/11, I, as many others, said to a friend that our fearless leaders would use this attack by a small band of terrorists to push their warped agenda. I could not have realized how small I was thinking. The whole GWOT long-war paradigm in which everything has changed and, therefore, some new fascism is needed to protect our feeble, trembling countrymen from Boogieman Bin Laden is the biggest hoax that I have witnessed in my life.
What I have wondered since 9/11 is how low will the Dems go? Yes, Bush has been doing what he wants anyway (illegally). But the problem with acquiescence from the Dems is that they legitimize his unconstitutional overreaching (and they have conceded SCOTUS appointments that will acqiuiesce, too) . This goes back to Daschle et al. and the original Patriot Act. Bush said, “I’m the WAR PRESIDENT fighting a new (and never-ending) kind of war, so I need special Superman powers.” The Dems, blinded by 9/11 and, being politicians, secretly wishing we had been attacked with a Dem in the WH, bowed to our immaculate Commander-in-Chief. The more he has demanded, the lower they have bowed. It is no wonder that the MSM plays it along WH lines. If the Dems agree, it can’t be wrong. And the Dems cannot see why the country thinks they are weak!
September 27, 2006 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really not understand?
For many members of TPM Cafe, the rights of humans take precedence over concerns of party.
It would be advisable for you to comprehend. This is a battle line, and your fence-sitting is blocking our lines of sight. It would be best if you'd choose a side, but barring that, keep your damn head down.
A progressive, whose excessive tolerance, has made them willing to deal with repressive forces is unimpressive and regressive.
Is a 'progressive' just a
"liberal who is ashamed to admit it"?
September 27, 2006 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do not trivialise or equivocate the import of this, do not perform situationalist pirouettes rationalising your willingness to engage in Faustian compacts, and do not defame with anthropomorphisms. Hand-Wringer?
Not Even Close!
I will with pride tirelessly bleed your party in the future if it acquiesces to the rights of humans for short trerm political gains.
September 27, 2006 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
September 27, 2006 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks!
September 27, 2006 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here’s a modest proposal.
We are about to legalize torture of suspects that have not even been found guilty yet. (This is the proper way to treat those we know are guilty.) Everyone knows, torture when done on behalf of what is good and right, (us, that is) why it’s a great way to change human behavior.
So, why not legalize the torture of those who have been found guilty of various crimes against proper Christian society? Oh, I know all about that cruel and unusual punishment stuff in the constitution. But, that’s just a g__ damn piece of paper! How valuable is that compared to the public safety in our Fatherland? (Oops, I mean “Homeland“.) Congress could even do this by a simple majority vote on a bill that has a provision in it to remove the new law from any sort of judicial review.
We could parole the minor convicts and assign a behavior mod squad to each of them. (Major convicts could just be tortured daily in their cells. They‘ve got is coming, no?) I mean why limit torture to only suspects when it could be so effective on the guilty as well. Gives a whole new gloss on New World Order. America Uber Alles in the New American Century!!
September 27, 2006 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was the shock of 9/11 that stampeded the American voters in this direction, one of support of war and torture. It is going to take another shock to turn them around. Much as it goes against the grain, the reality-based assessment has to be that the voters don't exhibit any collective wisdom and don't have any wish for freedom over security. It is faith-based nonsense to say that if you stand up, you won't get run over by the herd, that these are people not buffalo.
The anxieties the electorate seems to be showing, of concern over the war in Iraq, Bush's low ratings are not because they believe some principles have been violated, that torture is wrong, or that Bush is wrong, or the Constitution is at risk, but that the plans aren't working. It is the distress that the bus has a flat tire, not the distress of being in a vehicle that is taking them to the wrong and unintended destination.
The sheeple need another salutory shock in order to change course. Maybe having to greet everyone with "Heil POTUS" will be that shock. Maybe things won't have to get that bad. The fact is that the majority of the electorate have become a moral cipher.
September 28, 2006 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd wait until this whole thing plays out before passing judgement on the Democrats handling of the issue. I agree that it's galling that they chose to not raise their voices early and loudly; you'd think the basic values of this country would be something they would reflexively defend.
OTOH, by staying on the sidelines, they may well have led the administration to overreach. It's very hard to make a rational case for passing this legislation in the form that it apparently currently is in. It's entirely possible that 41 senators, including half a dozen republicans could well decided that this legislation is just too half-baked to be passed.
The media has finally noticed the issue, and I don't know about you, but I've been making my phone calls.
If I were betting, I'd still bet on passage, but they've only got two days left, and they still don't have the contents of the bill nailed down.
Finally, the debate and media coverage that has taken place has made it hard to make the "democrats are soft on security" label stick. There are clearly meritorious reasons for opposing this legislation that have nothing to do with security and everything to do with basic American values. Given that the republicans can pass anything they want, and have kept much legislation off the floor running out the clock may have been the best plan the democrats had.
September 28, 2006 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Gore did fight for the votes. But not down in the streets. When Delay sent his crowd of shirt and tie young goons to intimidate (successfully) the Palm Beach vote counters, working in their office recounting votes, where was the response? There was none. Those people should have been arrested, charged and tried. When I say 'furiously' that's the sort of thing I meant. I should have specified that.
Gore made the mistake of thinking he was dealing with honorable people instead of thugs. Kerry made a similar mistake, with less reason, having seen them operate for four years.
As for Gore 'winning' the election, as noted elsewhere here, no, he didn't. Not under the system used in this country.
September 28, 2006 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see people in the streets demanding torture, carrying battery cables, water boards (whatever), hell why not go back to the experts, branding irons, iron maidens, cat'o nine-tails. If torture is what is required to keep us safe then let's do it right!
September 28, 2006 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, then what? What happens when "we've lost"? Do we stop caring? Do we pack up our tents and head into the desert? What the hell are we supposed to do, having "lost"? Maybe I'll just retire to my cushy position on some ivy league campus, or my yacht in the Mediterranean, or my pied'a terre in Paris...oh wait, I'm indentured to my credit card companies, I have a child in college, I don't have anywhere else to go.
So we've lost, what does that mean? Time for the koolaid?
We never lose. We never win. All there is is the struggle.
September 28, 2006 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it wonderful. The original post insists that torture is failed policy and failed politics. Our intelligence expert in his post keeps insisting on how torture leads to bad intelligence, and so many others, too, talk of the risks it brings to our military operations and our troops. Yet the thread, naturally, quickly degrades uniformly into the idealists clinging to the Constitution and teh politically "savvy" like jw insisting on the priority of politics.
What happened to the post? And what evidence is there that a craven capitulation to Republican leadership on this issue makes the Democrats seem stronger? If this were an argument in local politics about whether the Democrats are again "soft on crime" for focusing on, oh, little things like gun laws, policing, economic development, and, yes, fact-based methods for collecting evidence, rather than abandoning rights and abusing the accused, we'd be long past that. There's indications, as in the Spitzer campaign, that he sidestepped the old priority of the death penality as an issue this way. But we seem never to learn.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 28, 2006 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
One of the glib (sort of) observations one heard in favor of violating the Constitution and allowing torture in certain situations was that the Constitution was never meant to be a "suicide pact." The implication was that there might be situations in which you'd want to torture a terror suspect to get information that might be used to prevent the imminent deaths of thousands of innocent people.
.
I reject that. In fact, I'd say that in some ways the Constitution is indeed a "suicide pact"--in the sense that it embodies certain principles that we should all be willing to die for. In this regard, the argument that torture "doesn't work anyway" actually weakens the moral component of the objection to torture that really matters--which is that the constitutional guarantees of due process and protection against cruel and unusual punishment should be timeless and inviolate. Cost-benefit calculations--however valid--only provide a wedge for less-savory considerations to enter in.
.
I'm guessing most Americans would say they're willing to die for their country. But they also should be willing to die for the principles for which it stands, every last one of us.
September 28, 2006 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call me crazy, but isn't torture unreasonable because it's unethical regardless of whether it works or not.
Tom
September 28, 2006 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Call me crazy, but isn't torture unreasonable because it's unethical regardless of whether it works or not." Of course. I don't mean to imply it's not a moral issue or one about preserving not just democracy but the very rule of law, something much more fundamental. I just think we're ceding the ground too quickly to the pragmatists out to "help" us.
I think we're getting past that generally on Iraq and terrorism, understanding that there's no longer a triumphant, happy, warlike America to pander to. But we can still say when we're being manipulated. Again I'll compare it to the death penalty. When someone pulls the soft on crime line, it's true that, for many of us, they're being immoral on the score of the death penalty. But their support of the death penalty may not even matter to them. They just want to snooker us to pursue their own agenda. Same here.
Bush may not even care whether we can torture anyone. He just got caught without a fear card to play elsewhere in the war on terrorism and with embarrassing news about torture. He's hoping he can now boast of torture, turning all this around. So it's fine for us to say, how horrible. But we also have to call the usual spade a spade. It's not the war on terror: it's a war on the political opposition. If they have to torture a few people from the Third World to get away with that, they could care.
So I don't want to hear people saying we should capitulate on political grounds, and while I understand you saying, it doesn't matter since there's right and wrong, it does matter. A lot.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 28, 2006 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when do we have to fight an enemy by our rules?
As I understand this, we are not at war with Afghanistan or Pakistan or India or Russia or Israel or Egypt, we're at war with a band of thugs on the other side which would compare slightly to what would happen if Donald Trump loaded up a Virgin Atlantic Airliner with the Airline's owner and flew a bunch of wall street computer geeks with programs on Sprint to send viruses to the Oil fields in Saudi Arabia while another airplane of U.S. Marines flew into a Mosque in Mecca or Medina Saudi Arabia.
The odd fact is that if the President federalized the California National Guard to go into Los Angeles and clean up the MS13 and Crips and Bloods, he'd have the same political red tape making that happen too.
September 28, 2006 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently we *do* torture, Mr. Stirling.
Both the House and Senate passed the offensive legislation with overwhelming majorities of Republicans (7 reps and 1 senator against), and with a healthy bipartisan contingent of Democrats (40 to 160 in the House, and 12 to 32 in the Senate). The Democrats largely absented themselves from the debate and forewent even the possibility of a filibuster.
We have had our differences, but I have always considered you a person of conviction and principle.
Please accept my condolences on your country.
September 28, 2006 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fully agree, but I would like to add that as a permanent resident, I wistfully look at phrases in the Constitution that refer to "the people" or "all persons" rather than "citizens".
"The people" could well be "The American people", but "all persons" seem to refer, well, to all persons. I guess that the "living Constitution" evolves in the direction of having fewer and fewer "persons", while "penumbra" reveal more and more executive power.
September 30, 2006 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just checked and the word "citizen" does not appear in the Bill of Rights. "Person" is used mostly, and "people" is also used. I think all legal procedures have, until now, applied to any "US person".
Interesting piece in the NYT today suggests we are following in the footsteps of Rome, which responded to a "terrorist" attack (in 68 B.C. the port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped) by awarding special powers to a military commander, Pompey. He proceeded to invest the Middle East, setting up multiple garrisons and enriching himself.
Does sound kind of familiar.
September 30, 2006 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The right of the people" expressed in the fourth amendment is not a universal bar to the government, and applcable only to lawful residents of the USA.
But the phrase "No person shall be held" that begins the fifth amendment is an absolute bar against the government's taking of life liberty and or property from any human without first securing a judgement in a judicial process that follows due process of law. It is a universal, applicable to all humans that the government has seen fit to prosecute as cirminal, which is the class that the detainees fall into since they have been declared, contrary to the Geneva Conventions, which as a recognised treaty entered into freely by representatives of the government is the supreme law of the land (US Constitution Article VI; clause 2), as 'unlawful combatants' in an immoral and weaslie attempt to escape the duty flowing from their oath to protect and uphold the US Constiturion, by creating a third class of governmentally detained, neither POW nor Cirminal. This is an obsence nonconsensual act coerced upon the Dreamtime America. Due Process of Law stricly defined by the US Constitution's obvious dictates, without equivocation is the only lawful option the government has. They have abdicated their right to rule over a free people, and now govern using force and tyranny.
The sixth is even clearer regarding it's applicability to all humans, equally. It begins with "In all Criminal prosecutions". That both sitting houses in our legislative branch of the government could easily ignore this obvious statement of the Constitution, should be a wake-up call to any and all true lovers of liberty. The government has consciously walked well beyond their clearly marked boundry of legitimate operations.
This is largely the very same government that failed America systemically on September 11, 2001, and has arrogantly refused to make an honest accounting of their failure with the American public ever since. Instead of pressing attack against our true enemy, they manufactured cause for an immoral war, and let our enemies escape. How many different ways must they prove their incompetence, deceit and dishonour before America awakens and throws the bastards out of our government that exists soley for us and receives its scepter of authority only from us?
September 30, 2006 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Garbage, Reid swore a solemn oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, not to predicate his decisions upon polls. Is he devoid of personal honour? I haven't checked the roll yet, so pray tell me, just how did Mr, Reid vote? In defense of the Constitution, or with the majority who defamed it?
September 30, 2006 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's hard to find an escape from the simple and inclusive "all" of the 6th Amdt. Prisoners of war need not face prosecution, and their liberty is suspended only temporarily. Their life and property are not at risk. "Unlawful enemy combatants" are by the government's own definition criminals ("unlawful"), and should be prosecuted or redefined as prisoners of war.
There are some apparently legitimate questions raised here and elsewhere about how to handle non-state fighters captured in battle. The reverse question has not been adequately addressed: If military action leads to captures that don't fit into previous categories, perhaps it is the military action that is nonsensical.
I feel the choice of soldier/criminal is still applicable. There is another traditional choice for unofficial actors, spies, but this choice also leads to criminal prosecution. Note that we have not had to torture any later-prosecuted spies.
I do not personally see a problem with captures; if they were captured in battle in Afghanistan, whose previous government was run out of town but did not surrender, they are soldiers. If they were captured in Iraq, whose previous government effectively surrendered, they are criminals. If someone is captured in Yemen or Pakistan, he is a terrorist, to be handled as either a criminal or spy (a special class of criminal).
September 30, 2006 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/259/
YES
Thomas Carper, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Joseph Lieberman, Robert Menéndez, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Kenneth Salazar, Debbie Stabenow
NO
Daniel Akaka, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Maria Cantwell, Hillary Clinton, Kent Conrad, Mark Dayton, Christopher Dodd, Byron Dorgan, Dick Durbin, Russell Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Daniel Inouye, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Herb Kohl, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Blanche Lincoln, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Barack Obama, Jack Reed, Harry Reid, Paul Sarbanes, Chuck Schumer, Ron Wyden
September 30, 2006 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to tie some loose ends. Captured people are not criminals but criminal suspects.
Then there is a question of the suzereignity: what is the legal basis of judicial or extra-judicial powers of our military in Afghanistan and Iraq. Treaties with the local governments?
September 30, 2006 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems that a particular law would be called on, whether the host nation's law or an international "crime against humanity" law.
What feels hard to sustain is detaining someone indefinitely because he might want to someday do something against us. It is a personalized version of preventive war.
October 1, 2006 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's the dilemma, because the Republicans are clearly worse than the Dems, who are anywhere from fairly good to bad on many issues. So without a parliamentary system a vote for the Greens is,unfortunately, a vote for the Republicans.
Tom
October 1, 2006 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no way that the US government would consent to jurisdiciton to try either its agents or its soldiers at an international court for "crimes against humanity."
If the US military captures someone that's taken up arms agaisnt them, then that person gets Geneva (or should, any way). Those that are treated well (and known to be treated well) are more likely to surrender. Those that believe that they'll have bamboo placed under their fingernails, etc. will fight to the death--for themselves and their buddies.
And who is this flaming lefty that's been a member for all of one day that's downgraded all your messages to a 1?
October 2, 2006 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's been disappeared; shared the IP address with another vile flamer.
He was gunning for a few of us that tangled with him previously.
October 2, 2006 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, what is relevant is the continuing defamation heaped upon persons who voted for whom they perceived was the best candidate in 2000. Isn't that truly the manner in which persons should vote?
You advocate the same reprehensible status quo that offered Bush/Gore in 2000 to begin with, and you are being dishonest by not including Buchanan's take-down of a viable 3rd party in the analysis. Had the good old GOP soldier, Buchanan, not chased these voters into th ewaiting arms of the Republican Party, they would have easily shifted the vote the other way in Florida.
October 3, 2006 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly what I've been saying. So, if a bumpkin like me can see that as well as an informed analyst such as yourself, why the hell can't the Dems? What is going on?
I wonder what their actions would have been (i.e. filibuster) if the vote had been taken post Foleygate.
October 6, 2006 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink