NYT: Deal Likely on Detainees but Not Eavesdropping: Dems will not block

[DeepModem Mom]

Deal Is Likely on Detainees but Not on Eavesdropping
By CARL HULSE and KATE ZERNIKE
Published: September 27, 2006

....Lawmakers in both the House and Senate said it now appeared doubtful that bills covering the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping program could pass both houses and be reconciled before Congress adjourns this weekend, an outcome that would deny Republicans one of the main achievements they hoped to take into the election....Republicans were optimistic about eliminating last-minute concerns over a separate measure laying out rules for interrogating terrorism suspects and trying them before military tribunals. They said they were hoping to send the bill to Mr. Bush by the end of the week for a signing ceremony that could help them kick off the home stretch of the campaign with a message that Republicans were taking strong steps to protect the nation from terror attacks....

***

Democrats, while being careful to say that they had made no decision to block the detainee bill, expressed rising concerns about changes to the proposal...The changes had been made over the weekend, as negotiators from the House and White House adjusted a compromise that had been reached between the White House and Senate Republicans on Thursday.

In one change, the original language said that a suspect had the right to “examine and respond to” all evidence used against him. Mr. Graham and his colleagues in resisting the White House, Senators John W. Warner of Virginia and John McCain of Arizona, had insisted that the provision was necessary to prevent so-called secret trials. The bill submitted late Monday dropped the word “examine” and left only “respond to,” reviving complaints about secret trials, this time from Democrats.

In another, the original compromise said that evidence seized “outside the United States” could be admitted in court even if it had been obtained without a search warrant....The bill introduced Monday dropped the words “outside the United States,” which Democrats said meant that prosecutors could ignore American legal standards on search warrants within the country. The bill also broadened the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant, from anyone “engaged in hostilities against the United States” to include anyone who “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.”...

***

Democrats, who have found themselves on the losing end of the national security debate the past two national elections, said the changes to the bill had not yet reached a level that would cause them to try to block it altogether....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27detain.html?hp&ex=1159329600&en=6a4643fc93717be9&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Mojorabbit]

1. Damn it! eom

[Drum]

2. dry powder, dry powder.

the wheel goes round and round....:eyes:

[central scrutinizer]

3. spineless weasels!!!

And the Democratic Party wonders how anybody could support a third party candidate. I wish I could stop payment on all of the checks I wrote to the Democratic Party the last couple of weeks.

[katsy]

4. not reached a level that would cause them to block it?

I cannot fathom what can cause a human being to become so twisted and evil as to condone torture PERIOD. I cannot believe what I'm reading. Torture of another human being... That is NOT an acceptable response from the Democratic leadership. Not at all.

Edited to add: I never wavered from voting Democratic EVER in my life. And I disagree with many votes that my Democratic leadership has made. But this is beyond the pale. I cannot accept this.

[mom cat]

17. Will smoke coming from the ovens of death camps be enough to

get the Dems to act? Or will it be too late to matter by that time? :grr:

[Kagemusha]

5. Waiving warrants could be done in DRUG TRIALS to AMERICANS now

A good friend just clued me in to that. You know how they call selling drugs material support of terror, right? Take, opium. That's money going to Taliban taxes. So all opium dealers, distributors, wholesalers, smugglers, etc, they're all materially supporting terror and can be declared enemy combattants.

And if the President deigns to put them on trial - which he doesn't even need to do here - he can use secret evidence collected IN AMERICA without constitutional protections.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Don't Worry, The Brave Congressional Democrats Have Got Your Back!

They'll use every tool at their disposal to ensure that Americans retain their basic civil liberties, and that America will live up to its obligations of providing basic human rights to combatants.

(mmmm... Golden Triangle... so shiny...)

[MsKandice01]

7. Am I in the Twilight Zone?

Do they NOT realize how serious this shit is?

[Eric J in MN]

8. Going along with Bush in voting for the Iraq War....

...before the 2002 election worked out so well for the Democrats.

No wait, it didn't.

[w4rma]

9. The detainee bill allows Americans to be tortured. That includes Senators.

This bill *must* be stopped at all costs. It is *not* a moderate bill. It is a radical Nazi bill meant, just as the eavesdropping bill is, to be used against political opponents (Democrats).

And this bill also removes the right of Habius Corpus.

It is unconstitutional, even though the bill says that judges are not allowed to look at it's Constitutionality. And while that judicial fight is being waged, Republicans will be torturing and imprisoning Democrats.

[William Bloode]

10. Any politician that votes for this....

Will never get my vote ever! I would infact do everything in my power to seek their removal. No matter which party they belong to.

[Solly Mack]

11. I have no words...well, no nice words anyway

[nebenaube]

12. this statement...

to include anyone who “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.”

Great! First they create a black market for drugs (mainly to exploit it).
After all, Reagan's drug war pushed the street price so high that kids were killing each other small amounts. Then there was the CIA smuggling cocaine, etc to fund black ops.
Somewhere along the line they busted the Cali cartel's operation and got their hands on a AS400 that was tapped into the phone exchange to keep tabs on underlings, (Cali also tracked client contacts in the US). 9/11 happens and the Cali datamining techniques perversely evolved into TIA while they are trying to link drug use to supporting terrorism, a few years of domestic spying goes by while they build concentration camps and talk about microwaving dissenters?

And then they propose to change the laws like this?

Damned fools, as they will make terrorists of us all...

[NightOwwl]

13. Maybe if they started standing up for what is right...

instead of rolling over for the Bush Administration on every single issue, they wouldn't be on the losing end of the national security debate.

Is it really that difficult for them to understand?

[hang a left]

14. Am I a fool to hope....

That the dems are planning a secret revolt?? It has been a good week ya know.

[GetTheRightVote]

15. I really, really hope you are right, hmmm.

:kick:

[bearfan454]

19. They fucking better be doing something here. nt

[kurth]

16. Why would a Democrat vote for ANY of the GOP bills?

The session is almost over anyway. Fuck them.

[The Stranger]

18. They'll vote for legislation that will one day intern them.

One man with courage makes a majority.