The Specter/Leahy amendment was defeated by a 51-48 vote. Olympia Snowe is apparently dealing with a funeral in Maine and is not in DC. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is the only Democrat to vote against the amendment. I have no idea why he can’t vote for these amendments, especially since he knows they will fail and that he is going to vote yes on final passage. The Republicans voting yes were Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, Gordon Smith of Oregon, John Sununu of New Hampshire, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. All four of those states voted for Kerry.
Byrd wants to provide a five year sunset for torturing people.
I can’t quit crying. So full of rage and …
Got a long letter from State Rep David Wu regarding torture, illegal detention centers (being built for us citizens who like to protest this stinking regime) and impeachment and how it’s our duty to stop DOMESTIC terrorists… namely Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield et al.
Welcome to the “NEW AMERICA” – torture, abuse of power, concentration camps but give the folks Monday Night Football and the “We Don’t Do Politics Citizens” will be happy.
Yesterday, our country’s spirit was slaughtered (actually it was rounded up, illegally detained and then tortured) Sig Heil!
“WAR IS PEACE
SLAVERY IS FREEDOM
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH” ~ 1984 (and George W. Bush Policies)
My country is dead.
THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE NOW!!!!!
Well, I am watching the show….quite a show it is, my stomach has not settled down from watching yesterday so I hope I can tolerate it. Actually I am feeling quite tortured.
John Warner is just responding to Byrd, he said this congress has “exercised a high vigilence on this president.” Well yeah sure they have.
What is the hell byrd saying. It is ok to torture for 5 years then cut it out, you guys. Has he gone and lost it totally!!?? My oh my, how our land has changed. How the leaders of our land are so screwed up. I used to respect byrd…I find it very difficult to do such nowadays.
Warner is such a dick head. Just who do these guys think they are anyhow. Warner ought to know better. Well, they all out to know better. Their conduct is unbecoming of a senator or congresscritter. I simply have to go to relieve this nausea I have that surcomes me.
One of these days, this will all come around to bite them in the butt. If this shitten things passes, we will not be allowed to visit our of USA for fear of being detained by another country. Just look at the example we are setting for the world on this and we are surely doomed. I am as sure of this as I am taking my next breath.
Brenda, it’s a little more complicated than that. Byrd is specifically relating to the military commissions, in addition I think the feeling is that this will pass and they (Dems) want to at least get some checks and balances into the bill. Different members have taken up different issues, in their amendments…they are only allowed 5. Well that’s my interpretation anyway.
It’s even more complicated than that.
Once this bill passes it will be hard to get rid of it. Even if the Dems take the Presidency, the GOP will have a filibuster. And if Dems take the Senate, but not the White House, the GOP President can veto anything and it will require 67 votes to override.
That makes the sunset provision especially important.
“The GOP will have a filibuster”
And why don’t the Dems have a filibuster NOW? That’s the elephant in the room. If they don’t fight now they have nothing to stand on. I think anything short of a filibuster could ruin all our hopes for the Dem majority in at least one house. I know it will be hard for me to drag myself to the polls.
Ya know what Dave, me too. I find it hard to keep my hope and looking forward in a positive state of mind when I listen to shit like this. We should not be having this debate at all. Everyone should stand up for the right thing to do. NOt politically correct thing to do. This adm has thrown all the international treaties apart and thrown us to the wolves.
The only reason this is happening now is that they want to CYA and now that Iraq is drowning and probably will not be winnable, they can’t stand that they are standing there with egg on their faces. I am not sure just how I feel right now about this whole bunch of temper-tantrant ppl. I would like to just jerk them by their ears and sit them down for a very good look at the faces of their ppl they represent..not the party but the ppl….hell, you all, we all are doomed no matter what politics we are, if this adm gets away with much more. The poor republican ppl are in our boat right now, too, and they sit silent as to the infringement to our rights on this. We all have to abide by the rule of law, not just a few…I just can’t believe what I am hearing from everyone today on the senate floor. Anyhow, thanks for letting me rant today
Please read my comment below, sunsetting is only regarding the ‘commissions’ not the whole bill. I would prefer a sunsetting of the whole bill, but this part is better than none.
Do you have a different understanding of amendment.
you’re right. But the sunsetting of the commissions is the same thing (almost). In order to reauthorize, they will have to get cooperation (including revisions to the law and other concessions). Whereas, without a sunset they can keep it the law of the land under almost any foreseeable circumstance.
And I say that affectionately as a resident of the red hell that is Nebraska.
He is running against a multi-millionaire retarded little puke (Pete Ricketts, er, Dick Scurvey, whatever). Ben is the lesser of the two evils running in this race, and that’s saying a hell of a lot of the evil that is running under the R.
He’s running for re-election in the suburban fringes of hell (i.e., north of Kansas). He’s running as a guy that gets along with the preznit. Really – he is and his commercials highlight that fact.
I hate him. I feel so effing dirty that I’ll have to vote for him because he has a frickin D after his name.
These jackasses all better hope there really is no god, because if there is a god their just desserts are waiting.
born 7/4/1776
died 9/28/2006
That’s it. The gig is up. They knowingly wiped out habeas corpus. They knowingly said the president can interpret the Geneva Conventions any way he wants with no review, even though the Constitution says that treaties are the law of the land, and they cannot be abolished by statute.
Under this law, anybody accused by a cop of being connected to support of terrorism–such as those guys just sent to prison in California for the “crime” of sending money to Pakistan for earthquake relief–can be held forever, and tortured, with NO RECOURSE TO THE COURTS AT ALL.
And the damned whimpering Democrats made some fancy speeches. But they had the power to block this, and they didn’t, because they’re STILL afraid of being painted as weak on terrorism by this terrorist administration.
I need to go watch V For Vendetta about five times in a row while drinking a lot of alcohol and buying a lot of guns.
Hi Armenius, correct me if I am wrong but seems as if Warner is arguing against sunseting the whole deal while the amendment is specifically reg. military commission. On another note, won’t this bill then go to conference, between the house and senate.
I have a question also about taking this to Supreme court, will that have to have a specific case to bring it to them, or can the bill be challenged on constitutional grounds.
You’re right–the deed hasn’t entirely be done. I haven’t been able to follow the Senate proceedings for the last several hours, so I’m not sure what has happened this afternoon. I don’t think this kind of thing will be corrected at all in conference. But I do think it will be overturned in the Supreme Court. I took Constitutional Law in 1980, so my recollection doesn’t mean much, but I do think they need a specific case to challenge the law: but with a major deal like this, they will certainly have such a case available immediately, and the Supreme Court can definitely turn on a dime when they want to.
Meta comment: I wrote the above comment about 2:30. It erupted out of me just as I arrived in my office after a long drive.
I just noticed that there is a top recommended diary at DKos by “Mikey”, which was posted today about 12:30, that starts out just the same.
Birth and death. Hard not to notice.
Oh Booman I just realized that you put this line above
“Byrd wants to provide a five year sunset for torturing people.” I believe that is incorrect as I wrote further upthread…according to Byrds reading and comments it only applied to commissions.
Below is an email I received from a right-wing acquaintance and yes, a friend, although we do not see eye to eye politically. He sent me this email story to show how he sees the difference between Repubs and Dems on security issues. Comments from this group would be welcomed!
There’s only one possible way to reply to that:
THAT IS THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD.
THAT IS THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD.
Well maybe now you have some idea why dems cannot get through to these folks! Instead of this off the cuff fluff answer, maybe you should think a bit on what is being said here! Just a suggestion.
What makes you think I haven’t?
OK, I will admit to hyperbole. It may not be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard, but it’s definitely within the top 10 for this week.
Because you see, I DID think about it, and it is a story based on lies and assumptions all around. It’s just a way of reinforcing the little cage the Tories have built for us and too many of us seem to be happy in. A more accurate story would go something like this:
REPUBLICANS:
(sound of running feet)
Don’t worry, kids, I’ll fix this by beating up the guy at the convenience store.
CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS:
What would the Republicans do? We can’t afford to alienate voters.
PROGRESSIVES:
BLAM! BLAM! BLAMBLAMBLAM!!!!!
“See, kids, anybody who thinks we’re against guns or soft on defense doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”
It is all about perception in a post 9/11 world. If folks feel you will talk or fiddle while Rome or America is burning, they will not vote for you. If they do not vote for you, you cannot win. Weak politicians such as the current crop of Dems are still aware enough of this pervasive fear of terror and the doubt voters have in supporting anyone not strongly against terror or crime that these Dems just cannot take a unique stand.
I guess my point is to suggest a new learning and teaching paradigm for the Dem party. If the Repub position on preventing terror and standing up to threats is wrong, then the opposition must both teach voters why it is wrong while at the same time assuring these voters that the alternative position is sound as well as respectable. Let me just say that if 9/11 did not happen, this task would be much easier, but post 9/11, I am just not sure how to do it. I also note that many here turned against Israel’s attempts to defend herself through force when she was attacked, and to the fearful American voter out there, this is another reason to doubt the judgment and intentions of many in the progressive community. I personally know what you are all thinking that the old Repub reactionary paradigm will only lead to more war, but the reason why I posted the first story was to show how many Americans see this kind of overly questioning reaction by Dems/progressives in the face of potential danger as weakness.
Do you understand?
I think we’re on the same page. The problem is that the lies and stereotypes that Republicans have used to define the Democrats are pretty powerful ones, and we’re not helping any. Until we start telling better stories and backing up our words with our actions, they are going to think Democrats are like the straw man in the story you posted.
This, by the way, was in part how I came to be Omir the Storyteller. I wanted to get some progressive themes out there, nicely sugar coated perhaps, but a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, as they say. I wanted to help define Democats and progressives, not in terms of a bunch of weak-kneed eggheads who think they can talk their way out of a flashing scimitar attack, but in terms of Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson and the wolf in the Aesop fable who decided it was better to starve and be free than to be a fat slave.
But there’s three components to this process. One is coming up with better stories than our enemies have. The second is to back up those words with actions, as I said earlier. And the third is to dispel the stories they tell. That can be a tough one. As was pointed out to me a long time ago, the English were spreading rumors as far back as early Elizabethan times that the Spaniards — with whom they were at war — were lazy and indolent. That stereotype has not entirely dissipated, even though it’s been almost 400 years. But we have to try. When presented with lies and distortions like the story you posted, we have to confront them as best we can. “Really? All the Democrats I know would have shot the bastard dead without a second’s thought. They’re pretty keen on defense, you know.” Depending on the mood of the moment, I might or might not say that the Republican ran as fast as he could and beat up a clerk at the local 7-11, or that it was a good thing he was wearing his brown pants that day.
My preferred method for doing this would be to bring back the spirit of the Revolutionaries who were willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of liberty. They didn’t cower under their beds or go out shopping at the threat of being brought to heel by the mightiest army on the planet. They stood up, they fought, and they by God won. Where is that spirit now?
But as I say it’s a rough road and I don’t have any more guidance on the path than just a couple of steps in front of me. But I’m trying my darnedest to take those steps.
You said at the beginning of this that you welcomed comments. I hope that’s still the case.