I'm sorry, but is this the way our congresspeople talk on the floor?

"Heal America's moral black eye?"

You know, there are writers waiting tables in America. Give one of them a six figure job so that I don't ever have to read about America's moral black eye ever again.

And you started with this gem: "The September 11th terrorist attacks posed a defining challenge for the United States. Our nation was savagely attacked; our peace and prosperity threatened. A swift and decisive response was necessary."

Argh! Stop it! I can't take the cliche anymore!

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

If political opportunism is what it takes to close Gitmo, then bring on the political opportunism.

I'll take all the political opportunism in the universe if it gets us positive results. Perhaps you're nostalgic for the good old days of 2002-2003?

The fact that the scales are dropping from the eyes of prominent Democrats is something to be celebrated, but I suppose we have another case of pretending we're powerless progressives again being steamrolled by the Administration and the chattering classes, reduced to complaining, as opposed to showing the magnanimity that can come from having more of Congress and popular opinion at our backs.

We ought to clear every concrete block, stick of wood, and piece of sheet metal off the place, plant a bunch of trees, and deed it back to its rightful owner, Cuba.

Sorry people, but I can only praise Rep. Harman on this one. No one else has put this on the political agenda, much less on the legislative one. I recall only Al Gore making the admniistration's consistent infringement of civil liberties into a speech. It's even a show of courage to visit the place and report back this honestly. And sure it's not a mindless of militarism to say that Bush's policy has made us less safe and polarized the world. Besides, she gets an early dig in at the Bush priorities in invading Iraq. Finally, she is back visiting us here, unlike the other one-shot politician appearances we have seen.

If we want to disagree with her strongly on something else, disagree with her strongly on something else. Bush has probably broken U.S. laws at Gitmo, although he could claim up until, oh, a couple of years ago that he had to be taken to court to learn that and although too many Americans are complicit. But he has certainly committed crimes against humanity, and let's take some pride in reasserting the idea that America is not supposed to do that.

Last, it's another reminder that politics does make a difference. I can't believe that a new Democratic president won't close the place down without much fanfare early in the next term. If you want more purity than that, vote for Nader, but don't blame me for the crimes.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

She's on the right side of this issue. Thank you Rep Harmon.

I believe in redemption. When she sees this effort through, she will get much praise from me. I will certainly read the legislation she have provided. Any chance she could add it to the TPM documents collection.

We may not always agree on every issue, but the restoration of Habeas and closing Gitmo are big big wins.

Thank you Rep Harman. Feel free to call on us to step up to the plate to support your efforts, if the President or other opposition tries to deny your efforts.

Ira Glass' This American Life had a program a couple of weeks ago about Habeas Corpus called "Habeas Schmabeas". It was about Gitmo.
A majority of the prisoners at Gitmo aren't the "worst of the worst" as Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush say they are. The CIA has those guys at undisclosed locations around the world. Some of the Gitmo guys are there because somebody sold them out for a few pieces of silver. Not scooped up on the battlefield (whatever that means) as Bush says.
After hearing these stories, it's hard not to make the comparison to Nazi or Soviet concentration camps. Dick Durbin had it right when he made the comparison. He had it wrong when he apologized for saying so.
Gitmo is the gulag of a rogue nation.

http://www.thisamericanlife.com/Radio_Archive.aspx

It's all OK with Rush Limbaugh, though. His website has a Club Gitmo section where shittohead fascist wingers can buy orange Club Gitmo gear.

Destor23, I just rated Allsburg's post a 5 to counteract your 0. You may obviously disagree about whether or not to be polite to Rep. Harman, but this is absolutely not a troll comment and your rating as such was completely inappropriate.

Withdrawn like a sullen teenager.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Anything that gets the whole Guantanamo operation closed down, including giving up the lease on the land, has my approval. For that I applaud Congresswoman Harman.

I do wish she could express herself on the subject without resorting to Bushisms though. Al Qaeda is a small threat to our country, along with other small groups of malcontents willing to kill themselves for their cause. There may well be some hardened criminals at GITMO, but I don't believe we have any reason to assume that there are. Just because the Bush administration says something, doesn't mean it is true, and the record shows the odds are that it is a lie.

I am also glad to see Rep. Harman come to her senses about the fake GWOT - she has done that hasn't she?

Hoppy in Sacramento

Al Qaeda is a small threat to our country, along with other small groups of malcontents willing to kill themselves for their cause. There may well be some hardened criminals at GITMO, but I don't believe we have any reason to assume that there are.

I agree with you - I think that anyone paying attention to Gitmo (and there has been a lot of information to pay attention to - it's a legal black hole, but not so much a news black hole) would realize that there are few high value detainees there, or at least there weren't until recently.  And the individual risk imposed by Al Qaeda is rather small, at least compared to everything else that might do me in on my morning walk.

But I'm not sure, even though I don't like it, that Rep. Harman's rhetoric isn't politically sensible.  I doubt that most Americans would instantly agree with you and I.  Given that, framing the argument in a way that appeals to me ads an extra step to the fight: convincing everyone else that the risks are overblown, and that Gitmo is, er, the San Francisco of the Fog of War (sleep deprivation has hit me hard of late). 

To the extent that the bill accomplishes what you or I might want it to accomplish, then I say use the rhetoric that will be most palatable to most voters.  To the extent that the rhetoric might warp the outcome, of course, well, then I think you choose between bad courses of action (longer debate, likely defeat and more time in Gitmo for the detainees vs., say, continued unjust imprisonment of some in a post-Gitmo world).

Another case of false dilemma. Harman is a political opportunist as most politicians are. We wish politicians were NOT opportunists, but it does not follow that Harman's calling for the closing of Gitmo --which we support-- implies that we are also supporting her political opportunism, which we don't.

Allsburg, I've rated the above comment a 5 to counteract your 0 rating. As I defended your comment below, I am tracking back to defend Destor's here.

Troll ratings are for people who are being completely unproductive, not people who you disagree with. Do not abuse the rating system.

I think what helps politicians focus is the expression of power, which in a democracy is, in part, manifest by the public's righteous indignation. Personally I think this is better than a situation like we have with Bush who does not bend to the will of the people because of some scruple about personal "prerogative".

Ultimately, in a democracy, the fate of the country rests in the hands of the people. We hope and pray that in the long run the American people will do the right thing. Systems that depend on the judgement of the political class alone, or on the judgement of one individual alone--history has shown--eventually fail. Let's just hope we don't fail.

The Restoring the Constitution Act, introduced by Chris Dodd in the House, largely repeals the MCA.  

I do hope that we get an answer to your question: is the Harman Bill complementary to the Dodd Bill, or does it include it (and possibly go even further, by repealing rather than just gutting the MCA)? 

But I'm not sure, even though I don't like it, that Rep. Harman's rhetoric isn't politically sensible.

I'm not so sure that calling Al Qaeda our "biggest problem" helps either the Gitmo situation or the Democrats. Al Qaeda = Terrorism = 9/11. Bush's poll numbers are low, but the one area in which he consistently garners fairly high approval ratings is for his handling of terrorism. From Gallup on Wednesday:

Forty-seven percent of Americans say they approve of the way Bush is handling terrorism. Bush receives 39% approval on the economy, 35% on foreign affairs, and 30% on Iraq.

Why hand him this issue when (a) it is not true, and (b) it is not needed to close Gitmo, which has real reasons like legitimacy, moral black eyes(?), etc.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Nietzsche

I think there is a key difference with Harmon -- this is not a case of "the scales falling from her eyes" --- she has been well aware of everything that has been going on. Nor is it a case of her being responsive to her constituency; her district was not demanding a "bush rubber stamp" at any point and then suddenly switched their positions.

Instead, its a case of someone jumping on a bandwagon....then trying to run to the front of the parade as if she was a leader.

My primary point is that while Harmon is doing the right thing now, she is simply not to be trusted. She is motivated by fear of losing her seat, and the minute she feels comfortable again she is likely to return to form -- just as Lieberman temporarily changed his stripes in order to get re-elected, then returned to form once he had gotten back into the Senate.

Glad to hear there's an effort to close Gitmo. Please, while you're at it, don't forget to close the other secret prisons the US is maintaining overseas. It's time for us to seriously begin looking at the whole legal foundation for detention and interrogation outside the criminal justice system. Within the criminal justice system, we have a wide range of clearly defined checks and balances that protect the rights of the detained. Outside the criminal justice system rules are much less clear. The administration has been able to exploit this ambiguity, claiming on one hand that it can detain certain people under its military powers but on the other hand, insisting that the normal military rules don't apply. We need to create a much clearer body of law that specifies exactly under what situations the government can detain and interrogate people and that disallows detentions and interrogations outside this clearly defined legal framework. The law also needs to specify due process for protecting the rights of the detained and interrogated if they are held outside the ordinary criminal justice system.

The classic exposition on this dilemma was written by Edmund Burke, English Parliamentarian, back in 1774.  The shorter version:  Do we elect a politician for his/her brain or his/her mouth?  The longer Version can be found at The Speech to the Electors of Bristol. 

aMike

Haven't we already released plenty of prisoners because we had nothing on them?

Many of these guys we locked up were basically just lists of names we were given, names which we paid for...

That's the problem. We don't have "terrorists" locked up. We don't even know who we have locked up.

And the more we call this a "war," the more we keep missing the real target. 

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...