Anyone have any word on Democrats' take on McCain detainee bill?

[beachmom]

The suspicions and doubts that I spoke of the last couple of weeks are echoed by Digby here:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115874017905197162

I predict that McCain and Graham are prepared to do the big el-foldo on all that and take the "victory" on amending the Geneva Convention which was never really in dispute in the first place. They will be heroes, the president will claim victory like he always does and everyone will get exactly what they need. (Man, I'll bet Joe Lieberman is kicking himself that he didn't get a piece of this. It's his kind of bipartisan deal.)

But regardless of how this Geneva/torture Kabuki comes out, let's not forget that the McCain, Warner, Huckelberry bill is already a very, very bad bill that no Democrat can in good conscience support.

From a link he gives, there is this opinion of the McCain/Warner/Graham bill:

In particular, the McCain-Graham-Warner bill, like the President's, would prevent anyone detained in Guantanamo Bay (or any other detention facility outside the U.S.) from challenging what has been done to them in court except as an appeal from the decision of a military commission.

That means that if the government decides never to try an individual before a commission, but just holds them in prison indefinitely, there is no way that they can ever get a hearing on whether they are being held illegally-- because they are not in fact a terrorist; or a hearing on whether they are being treated illegally-- because they have been abused or tortured or subjected to one of the Administration's "alternative sets of procedures"-- a.k.a. torture lite.

Digby think this is another IWR 2002 moment:

But what in the hell are the Dems going to do if McCain makes a deal and this thing gets to the floor? Are they actually going to vote for a bill that eliminates habeas corpus for terrorist suspects? Because if they don't, you know what the Republicans are going to be saying, don't you? After all, the saviors of the republic and guardian kinghts of the constitution say this bill is ok. The only reason the Dems can possibly have for opposing it now is that they are terrorist loving cowards.

I have to assume the Dems have good reasons for letting McCain run with this. But they are certainly placing a lot of trust in a man who is running for president from the opposing party. If Democrats in 2006 end up voting for this McCain/Warner/Graham monstrosity based on nothing but McCain's word they have learned nothing. Unless they are willing to filibuster a month before the election, which I seriously doubt, the Republicans will have backed them into exactly the same corner they did with the Iraq war resolution and the Homeland security bills in 2002. I'm not going to believe it until I see it with my own eyes, but I'm worried.

Once again, I'm not a legal expert. I agree with Sandynsea that these "enemy combatants" shouldn't be able to file frivolous lawsuits, but I think it unacceptable that these people rot in jail without being charged with a crime, and no recourse. Or have we entered a brave new world, where such rules are necessary to combat Islamic Extremism? Thoughts on this are welcome.

[beachmom]

1. Speaking of McCain -- this is good -- a "McCain Weasel Watch" site

http://www.senatemajority.com/john_mccain_weasel_watch_on_detainees

TOP FIVE MCCAIN “INTEGRITY” STANDS


1. SWIFT BOATS.

“Maverick” McCain said of the Swift Boat ads: “I deplore this kind of politics.”

John McCain famously criticized the ads run by “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” against Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election. The ads, which accused Kerry of lying to get his war medals, were “dishonest and dishonorable,” said McCain. “I deplore this kind of politics,” he added.



But later, McCain praised the company that made the Swift Boat ads.

The Stevens, Reed, Curcio website features this praise from McCain:

"I couldn't have been happier with the work SRCP did in my last campaign. They are a very talented group of professionals whose creativity, hard work and accessibility set them apart from most others in their industry." -Sen. John McCain



And McCain used that same firm himself.

Go to the site to read the rest.

[Mass]

2. From all I read and the emails I received, Levin and Specter will

propose an amendment to the bill to try to solve these problems, but several organizations have asked that Democrats vote for the McCain bill if they cant modify it because it is better than the Bush bill or no bill at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x103250

[beachmom]

3. Thanks for that update, Mass -- that's great that the amendment

is bipartisan.

Okay, this makes me feel a little better. I didn't know if it was "fringe left" talk to criticize the McCain bill, and am heartened to see Specter's name on that amendment.

[karynnj]

4. How do they explain that it is better than no bill?

Wouldn't that just leave us with the Geneva Convention?

[whometense]

5. I have the same question.

To me, the only answer is a filibuster. The status quo (Geneva Convention, habeas corpus, Bush is a criminal) sounds good to me too.

[Mass]

6. Me too. This puzzles me terribly.

But the dems seem aligned with the McCain-Graham Bill. They voted it out of comittee unanimously and you do not hear anybody really protest (except for those who want the Bush's bill).

[karynnj]

7. I agree with the IWR analogy

My best guess (or is it hope) as to why we have not heard Kerry speak on this is because he is both pushing behind the scenes for fixing things and does not want to criticise the 3 Republicans who are currently working to prevent Bush's monstrocity.

But, we have not heard him praise it to the degree that many Democrats have. My hope is that this is because he will speak against it if it is - in its final form - unacceptable. The reason for this hope is that if he doesn't do that, what does that mean about:

- his whole last R, about moral leadership in the Faneuil speech
- his many interview comments that, we do not torture
- his Pepperdine speech - and the answer their on torture

I hope they get something that is genuinely acceptable - but if they don't the Democrats need to argue fro morality.

[ProSense]

8. It appears that

Bush could be in more trouble than the GOP debate is letting on:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2838985&mesg_id=2838985

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2839022&mesg_id=2839022

[sandnsea]

9. Trying to avoid the 2002 mistake???

I don't know, but maybe they're deciding that voting on war during campaign season was a bad idea and so they're trying to avoid doing that sort of thing again. Do they break this Friday or next? I don't think they're going to get a vote on this. Maybe they're avoiding saying too much as a party so people can run as they need to in their own districts. :shrug:

I don't think they should vote for something that doesn't meet the standards of the Geneva Conventions though. I'm sure glad they weren't in charge during WWII or we probably would have been just as guilty as Germany and Japan, and who knows how much worse our own Japanese camps and the like would have been. What a damned mess.

[beachmom]

10. Son of a bitch!!!!!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/21/181250/633

I agree with Markos. This was no compromise. This was capitulation.

NEVER trust the Republicans. They need to be KICKED OUT of Congress!!

[beachmom]

11. Digby rightfully gets to say "I told you so"

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115887905021624458

Democrats have been COMPLETELY outmaneuvered, and it's because they wouldn't stand up when it mattered. Sigh. I'm just resigned to this . . . so what's Senator Kerry going to do?

[babylonsister]

12. I can't believe it. They all sold their souls. nt

[sandnsea]

13. Do we have the bill yet?

I would really like to read the actual bill before blowing a gasket. From the very beginning it seemed to me that most didn't understand that the Court was actually directing that legislation be written. It HAS to be written, at some point. NOW we have ALL the Republicans behind a particular piece of legislation - and if it's got the torture and habeas problems - then Democrats can go after ALL of them instead of getting caught in the crossfire like we always do. We have to wait and see what's actually in the bill though.

[beachmom]

14. This from the NY Times is ominous, though

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said the agreement had two key points. “Classified information will not be shared with the terrorists” tried before the tribunals, he said. And “the very important program of interrogation continues.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/washington/21cnd-detain.html?hp&ex=1158897600&en=de9fcc034b5a3f71&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Two weeks ago, that was the big beef -- they said that it was wrong not to read the charges to terrorists, who may face the death penalty. And "program of interrogation" sounds to me like torture.

But, you, who have remained cool headed throughout, are correct that the devil is in the details. Maybe Frist is an idiot. I don't know. But it doesn't look good.

I agree there needs to be a bill, but if it's a bad bill which will become law for a long time, it's better to torpedo it and start over after the elections.

[sandnsea]

16. Hadley says "framework for compromise"

So I'm not sure what that means either. I'm hoping it was becoming too big of a distraction and they decided to bury it. If that's the case, I hope people on our side are smart enough to hand them a shovel. We surely don't need to let them kick their in-fighting over to our side. I hope the Dems either have a strategy or let the House Repubs tear it up some more.

[TayTay]

15. The problem with this was never the Kerrys and Feingolds

it was the Reids, the Nelsons, Lieberman and so forth.

The Democrats will split on this. I think that Sen. Reid has been holding back the Dems on this because he wanted to see how it played out for the GOP. (Again, I am far less than thrilled with Reid. Maybe this will finally be the thing that divorces Reid from his admirers on DKos.)

This might end up similar to the Alito filibuster, only there will be even more pressure on any Dem who steps forward to champion this to shut up because it will be 'hurting the Party's chances in Nov.'

This is a make or break issue for the real base of the Democratic Party. And this could make or end any Democrats ability to run in '08 (given the intensity of feeling all around.) The stakes couldn't be higher.

It is immoral. Hmmmm, yes it is.

[sandnsea]

17. We should really kick it to the House Repubs

and let them continue fighting over it, if we can. I'm still waiting to see what's actually IN the damn thing, but if the House is still not happy and Hadley says it's a "framework for compromise" - then maybe we should just shut up and hope we can wait it out.

[beachmom]

18. Immoral is right. And yet I feel in the total minority on this in my

own country. As I've told you guys before, my husband is German, so I have an idea what it's like to be from a country that has had to live with the shame of their own history. This Bush presidency is going to be a very dark chapter for our history books for many shameful acts, and I would prefer that it not get even worse. John Kerry voted for the IWR in good faith and got completely burned by it. He has learned from that and will never trust Bush again. But Republicans in Congress not only don't get what's at stake here, they are gladly endorsing it. So we will have a Congress going along with illegal, immoral acts of the executive branch, instead of doing their jobs of stopping it. I'm glad I did some work for my local Dem party, but talking to these voters, it's like they have NO IDEA what their government is doing, and are more concerned about -- you guessed it -- guns, abortion, and the looks of the candidates. It makes me fall into despair, like I'm paddling against a powerful current, getting nowhere fast. And yet, I will fight on, for there's nothing else I can do.

[TayTay]

19. You are not in the minority

Tweety had a poll on Monday (I think) on this issue and 41% of Americans favored Bush, 51% favored keeping the law as is and obeying the Geneva Conventions.

This is still America. There are a number of people who are ruled by fear and will surrender any rights in order to get a fase sense of security. There are more who will not.

Politically (sorry for being crass and bringing politics into this) it is a fascinating issue.

[beachmom]

20. This will be interesting -- Sullivan LOVES John McCain, but

I think he is in for a big disappointment. After a chilling George Orwell quote about language, he says this:

I intend to study very closely the language of the Senate deal on "alternative interrogation techniques" before commenting further.



I am indeed waiting to pounce, because if this deal amounts to allowing torture as well as wholesale denial of rights, and Sully goes on and on about how brave McCain is, shall we say, he WILL be receiving another e-mail about his hypocrisy. We shall see, we shall see . . .


(In case you guys don't read him, he has been documenting the torture for a long time. He may be a conservative, but on this issue, he has been very good at exposing the truth about the evil done in our names.)

[beachmom]

70. Whoa -- looks like Sullivan is coming out AGAINST the "compromise"

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/the_torture_com.html

After a long quote by Vladimir Bukovsky who was tortured in the Gulags, he says this:

It is one of history's great tragedies that American conservatism, born in part in resistance to Soviet torture, should end by endorsing it in America, by Americans. And not just endorsing it, but brandishing the use of it as a tool to gain re-election and maintain power. If there is a conservative soul, and I believe there is, the current "conservative" leadership is bent on destroying it. And the resistance must not waver. I'll post my take on the torture compromise bill shortly.



I know we all snicker at his defense of "conservatism", but whatever the hell he wants to call moral values, looks like he is going to diverge from McCain. For that I'll give him a point or two. But will he still support McCain in 2008 after this? That indeed is the question, and I'm not holding my breath.

[beachmom]

21. Okay, guys, we've got the bill

Marty Lederman has two posts.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/senators-snatch-defeat-from-jaws-of.html

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/three-of-most-significant-problems.html


Any legal experts, please read, and tell me what you think. Marty thinks the new bill still allows for torture, even waterboarding, but he wants to be proven wrong, and also said this was his initial reaction. He REALLY wants to be wrong.

[ProSense]

22. Two editorials:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2840375&mesg_id=2840375

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2840646&mesg_id=2840646

[Mass]

23. If the Washington Post agrees it is a bad deal, it is a bad deal

They are not known for their dovish positions on these issues.

[beachmom]

24. Yep. Don't mean to sound meladramatic, but this is war

This bill must be stopped by all means necessary. Are we America or are we not America? That is the fundamental question.

[whometense]

25. Just wrote a post on this,

which isn't actually up since blogger is misbehaving.

My blood is boiling.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon gives us the cliff notes version of the whole sorry spectacle that is the republicans' shiny new Up with Torture compromise.

If this "compromise" legislation is enacted -- and it can now be stopped only by the invisible, impotent congressional Democrats -- the United States will be a country that has formally legalized torture, and the president's "interrogation program" will continue unimpeded, with firmer legal authorization than ever before. And the American people, through our representatives in Congress, will have embraced and approved of the use of torture. Far and away, it is the impact on our national character that will be the most significant and enduring result from this "compromise."

Please note, those who still think McCain is an ok guy, that all his self-promotion as a "maverick" served only to up his anti-Bush cred while giving Bush cover to enact his form of cowboy justice. A slick maneuver, and one demonstrating his complete lack of a moral core.

Is it too much to hope that there is a filibuster in our future?

I'm hoping for a red-hot Kerry email today.

[TayTay]

26. It's not Kerry who is the problem

From the story on what Dems with actual oversight powers say:

But Democrats have said they support the measure as long as the plan is sound.

“No blank checks, no vague terms,” said California Rep. Jane Harman, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Harman, as the panel’s senior Democrat, is one of four members of Congress who had extensive, classified briefings on the CIA detention and interrogation program.

The agreement was hailed by human rights groups and seen by many as the president caving in when his usual Republican support crumbled. But White House officials said the end result includes enough legal protection for the CIA program to continue.

From: Detainee deal revives Republican hopes to take offensive on terrorism issues
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer

Source: English Politics News
Date: September 22, 2006

[whometense]

27. Wasn't blaming Kerry.

Not at all. I know perfectly well where he stands on this.

I just want a red meat email.

Do you think they may actually filibuster?

[beachmom]

28. This whole thing makes me sick

If Kerry were to pull an "Alito", then everybody would lash out at him that he was ruining their chances for the election. But if he stays largely quiet, even if he tries to put some amendments up and votes no on the bill, that doesn't feel right either.

Digby really showed how much this thing is a trap. It's just awful.

[whometense]

29. I know exactly how you feel.

These people just flat-out suck.

That was what I meant last night when I posted that pathetic, wussy post about Rove. They have no honor, they wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit them in the ass, they lie and smear and lie some more with complete impunity. They tell us the skies are clean (clean full of particulate matter) and the water's pure (pure arsenic). ANd yet they continue to get away with this.

If anything, McCain is more perverted and machiavellian than Rove, since he was on the receiving end of Rove's tactics and torture, and yet he ditches his morals for political gain. And what's up with Warner? He knows better, I know he does. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE??????

I haven't commented on your posts about Digby because I had this sick feeling in my stomach that he was absolutely right all along. I sure as hell hope there's a countering plan by Reid for this bullshit. But I'm not real hopeful.

Still, I can't see how anything short of a filibuster will do.

[Mass]

30. It is my understanding that the Democratic leadership said they will go

with the compromise.

I do not understand why they can and I do not know who the media meant by "the Democratic Leadership" and if some Democrats oppose the bill. I am at a loss to understand why they would support that.

[whometense]

31. If that's true, it's beyond pathetic.

I assume the leadership includes Reid. But Durbin? The democrats have been very quiet on this.

If they were counting on McCain to give them cover, then they are truly fools.

Just saw this diary on Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/22/21657/8949

Walk out of the Capitol
by Bob Johnson

Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 02:16:57 AM EDT

It's time to shut down the government.

Torture.

The gutting of habeus corpus.

And now this.

An attack on Iran.

These people are lunatics. Insane, fascist, psychotic, psychopathic, sociopathic lunatics.

Our Democratic leaders must throw political calculation ito the wind. The future of our Republic is at stake. We must shut down the government.

Hillary Clinton, this is for you. Barack Obama, this is for you. Joe Lieberman. go fuck yourself. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, time to stand up and say, "Enough is enough." Rahm Emanuel, I know you're a political prodigy, but we cannot afford to calculate any longer.

Throw down the gauntlet to these thugs and let Amrica decide: Do we want to live in fear and destroy the essence of what made us a great nation, or do we want to become all the things we've long despised? (more...)

I'd just change it from Walk Out to SHUT DOWN.

[karynnj]

39. Not sure of the accuracy of NYT reporting

I hope this comment was NOT on this bill as the article implies.

"Democrats have put their trust in Senators Graham, McCain and Warner to push back against the White House, and Thursday they signaled that they intended to continue cooperating. “Five years after Sept. 11, it is time to make the tough and smart decisions to give the American people the real security they deserve,” said the Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada."

They do add:

"Still, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he would press to change a provision in the proposal that would deny detainees a right to challenge their captivity in court."

Levin's bill adds a little.

I had the same feeling reading Digby - Although in a way, the Republicans did a far more sophisticated trap here. They position McCain as a hero while giving Bush what he wants. The gains seem almost non-existant.

The trickiest thing is that the actual details of the legislation may be classified - if some comments were correct (hey, it has to be right, it was on the internet) If this is the case, that really really sucks.

I will throw something, hopefully lightweight, at the TV if I hear one more time how being held as a POW gives McCain moral credibility on this issue. Understanding, yes. Moral credibility, no. He didn't choose to be a POW and he didn't return home saying that just as VN broke the GC in his treatmant, we need to be strong in assuring our country won't break the GC. What he did do, is go to Boston in 1984 and compaign against a man because 13 years before that man did ask the country to live up to its moral values, such as not breaking the GC.

Even in 2004, the slug said he didn't understand why Kerry did what he did - and Kerry had to speak about that.

[TayTay]

32. Oh, I know that. That's a given

I don't think it's up to him and I greatly fear what the Reids, Nelsons and Lieberman will do. If Jane Harmon in the House is any indication, it's the Quisling Dems who will sell this one out. Sigh!

[whometense]

33. Oh, good.

You know, for me Kerry is the one and only given.

I'm afraid you're right about the quislings, though. Why they haven't yet figured out that accommodating Bush is a no win proposition, 100% of the time, is beyond me.

I also hate that they're giving the lefty freepers more reason to whine about the "spineless dems."

[karynnj]

36. The NYT editorial page thinks it's a bad deal

but their reporting calls it a victory for the 3 Senators

[sandnsea]

42. Yep, it looks that bad to me too

I'm not a lawyer, I only play one on DU. :) (I was a legal secretary at one time though - oh and I slept at a Holiday Inn once)

I read the compromise language before I read what anybody said and the two things in that first blog piece are what popped out at me too. You can't invoke Geneva unless somebody in our own justice system has decided to prosecute a crime?? WTF??? And the defining of war crimes and torture are so broad as to be meaningless, not to mention passing it off to the President. It's ludicrous, it's really bad, Democrats should fight tooth and nail. I've got nothing on it in my email which makes me very nervous.

[whometense]

34. Here's Charlie Pierce's last word,

and it's a beauty, as usual: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/09/post_1477.html#010031

THE SILENT PARTY. You worthless passel of cowards. They're laughing at you. You know that, right?

The national Democratic Party is no longer worth the cement needed to sink it to the bottom of the sea. For an entire week, it allowed a debate on changing the soul of the country to be conducted intramurally between the Torture Porn and Useful Idiot wings of the Republican Party, the latter best exemplified by John McCain, who keeps fashioning his apparently fathomless ambition into a pair of clown shoes with which he can do the monkey dance across the national stage. They're laughing at him, too.

The New York Times has the right of it here, limning the pathetic gullibility at the heart of the "compromise." There is nothing in this bill that President Thumbscrews can't ignore. There is nothing in this bill that reins in his feckless and dangerous reinterpretation of the powers of his office. There is nothing in this bill that requires him to take it -- or its congressional authors -- seriously. Two weeks ago, John Yoo set down in The New York Times the precise philosophical basis on which the administration will sign this bill and then ignore it. The president will decide what a "lesser breach" of the Geneva Conventions is? How can anyone over the age of five give this president that power? And wait until you see the atrocity that I guarantee you is coming down the tracks concerning the fact that the president committed at least 40 impeachable offenses with regard to illegal wiretapping.

And the Democratic Party was nowhere in this debate. It contributed nothing. On the question of whether or not the United States will reconfigure itself as a nation which tortures its purported enemies and then grants itself absolution through adjectives -- "Aggressive interrogation techniques" -- the Democratic Party had…no opinion. On the issue of allowing a demonstrably incompetent president as many of the de facto powers of a despot that you could wedge into a bill without having the Constitution spontaneously combust in the Archives, well, the Democratic Party was more pissed off at Hugo Chavez.

This was as tactically idiotic as it was morally blind. On the subject of what kind of a nation we are, and to what extent we will live up to the best of our ideals, the Democratic Party was as mute and neutral as a stone. Human rights no longer have a viable political constituency in the United States of America. Be enough of a coward, though, and cable news will fit you for a toga.

However, because I know it is vital for the Democrats to "recapture" the good Christian folks, there's a passage from Scripture that seems apropos: "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it."

-- Charles P. Pierce

More from Ezra Klein here: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/09/post_1475.html#010029

...More in-depth analysis is available here. So Bush got, basically, everything he wanted. The other day, in TAP's weekly editorial meeting, a few of us were puzzling over the motivation for McCain's actions. Why would he sacrifice his accelerating rapprochement with the right over this issue, particularly right before the 2006 election. Various theories were bandied about, from a realization that Republican voters no longer venerated Bush to thoughts on a possible independent candidacy. Our honorable editor man, however, leaned back and offered the novel interpretation, "Maybe McCain just believes in this, and is doing what he thinks is right."

I was sort of struck by that. It had barely even occurred to me that McCain, whatever he did or did not think right, retained motives distinct from his presidential ambitions. It seemed like a good reality check to my preternatural cynicism: These are still people up there, and they deserve to be analyzed as such. But scratch that. As happens so often these days, my cynicism proved not to be too great, but totally inadequate. McCain postured and orated, but when it came down to actually protecting prisoners, folded to the White House. And now the feckless, cowering Democrats who yoked their hopes to his independence have no basis for opposition. What a shameful day on all sides. Oh. And good morning.

--Ezra Klein

[beachmom]

35. I concur with them

Kerry is not the problem here, but . . . he missed an opportunity on Hardball to condemn that damned bill. He should have condemned it right then and there, but he was trying to be a team player with the Dem leadership, but they have proven themselves to be a team determined to lose. I think he needs to go his own way with these people. The social security comparison no longer applies. It isn't enough to not support evil. You must act against it.

I agree with Whometense. To hell with that pathetic team, I want to see red meat from Mr. Kerry, the sooner the better.

[TayTay]

37. We didn't have a bill at the time of the Hardball interview

That's why Sen. Kerry's comments were in there to the effect that 'if you want us to write the rules we can do that, including what is an isn't allowed.'

Kerry also said, paraphrasing, 'There is no acceptable torture, period.'

[beachmom]

38. The Bush bill was out and universally condemned by anyone

who values human rights.

That's why I criticized Sen. Kerry at the time. Perhaps you are referring to the McCain/Warner/Graham bill -- that hadn't come out yet.

But as I say here, I understand why he didn't get specific that day -- the leadership had a strategy to stay mum while McCain and Bush fought, which seemed smart at the time, but seems ill advised now.

Edited to add: I'm really criticizing the leadership here. The Democrats were all united on this idea of staying quiet. Well, I think it was a bad idea, but overall, I certainly can't criticize Sen. Kerry for going along with the leadership that early in the game. This is Harry Reid's failure, and it's time for Kerry along with other good Dem senators to break ranks.

[TayTay]

45. He didn't get specific because he blanket condemned torture

There is no acceptable torture, period.

Beachmom, I don't understand what is squishy or unclear about that. There is no acceptable torture, period. Why do you find that to be a grey area?

I also heard Kerry talk about this Administration as being a moral failure. This regime's policies are not just wrong, not just bad, they are immoral which is a call to conscience and not just dull policy review.

Sigh! I don't know how much clearer you can be than There is no acceptable torture, period.

It is immoral for old men to send young Americans to fight and die in a conflict without a strategy that can work – on a mission that has not weakened terrorism but worsened it.

It is immoral to lie about progress in that war to get through a news cycle or an election.

It is immoral to treat 9/11 as a political pawn – and to continue to excuse the invasion of Iraq by exploiting the 3,000 mothers and fathers, sons and daughters who were lost that day. They were attacked and killed not by Saddam Hussein but by Osama bin Laden.

And it is deeply immoral to compare a majority of Americans who oppose a failing policy and seek a winning one to appeasers of Fascism and Naziism.

[beachmom]

50. Here is the transcript and here is my beef

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733559/

MATTHEWS: Senator, what did you make of President Bush really throwing the hot potato up to Capitol Hill and to the U.S. Senate to set the rules on torture of our prisoners in Guantanamo, on holding and creating tribunals to try these people, especially the really bad guys. Were you surprised he threw that to you guys to decide?

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I don‘t think it‘s a hot potato, and I welcome it. We ought to do it. We‘ve been urging to do it for a long time. We want to do the standard that Lindsey Graham, the Judge Advocate Corps, John Warner, former undersecretary of the Navy—

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

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

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

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



RIGHT THERE -- in bold. WRONG. He is NOT adopting a policy of common sense. The bill advocates for legalizing torture and all kinds of terrible things. That's my beef in a nutshell. All the other stuff is great and in line with Sen. Kerry's moral values. But that bold statement is too generous to the president. His bill was terrible, and I can only surmise that the Senator had not been briefed on the draconian nature of the bill at that time. However, now that we have a bill, I think he can use his words below to argue that the bill must be stopped.



MATTHEWS: What do you think is appropriate torture?

KERRY: There is no appropriate torture, period.

MATTHEWS: What is appropriate ...

(CROSSTALK)

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

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

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

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

MATTHEWS: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KERRY: Absolutely.

[TayTay]

53. I don't understand what you are saying.

There is no acceptable torture.

Where is that contradicted?

[beachmom]

56. He didn't say that the Bush bill legalized torture

You're saying, John Kerry says there is no acceptable torture, so . . . John Kerry is against the bill.

But he didn't say that. He never condemned the BILL.

This is not about JK's moral values, it's about specifically pointing out that Bush's bill advocated torture. He doesn't say it. And I wanted to hear him say that.

[ProSense]

60. He says it here:

This seems to me to be as clear cut an issue as we can possibly have. As Kerry said, "We must start treating our moral authority as a precious national asset that does not limit our power but magnifies our influence. Only this week did the Administration finally recognize that the protections of the Geneva Convention had to be applied to prisoners in order to comply with the law, restore our moral authority, and best protect American troops. Let me say it plainly: No American president should be for torture before he’s against it."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2006_09_09.html

Kerry has said many time over he's against torture, not in our words, but in his. The hardball interview didn't change that! Nothing in the quote you cited says he condones torture. This part is relevant too:

And, finally, he admits what all of us have known under the ground for a long time, that we have these secret prisons which the United States doesn‘t condone.

"Common sense" is Bush's acknowledgement now, which is clearly obvious, that he has engaged in such actions.

[TayTay]

61. I think you are picking nits

How can you for a bill that legalizes past torture when you have said there is no acceptable torture?

[beachmom]

63. Well, the Republican "rebels" specifically condemned the bill

that came out. Sen. Kerry did not on Hardball. He didn't even mention that the bill they were discussing legalized torture. That just bugged me.

But . . . if he comes out strong now, then it doesn't matter what he did or didn't say on Hardball.

[ProSense]

64. And obviously they were being disingenuous! n/t

[wisteria]

67. I thought they didn't support particulars in the bill. The rest of what

is being contributed to the "rebels" is media spin. I think both of us know that if a Dem came out and questioned anything, he or she wouldn't be labeled a maverick or a rebel. This is an extremely tough situation the Democrats find themselves in and Kerry should vote no, but I don't think him coming out along will be of any benefit. Maybe I am wrong, but I think there is nothing the Dem's can do to change the outcome of anything unless they gain the seats they need in either the house or the senate. Unfortunately, there are some smart people who aren't ready to condemn torture all together- especially when dealing with these frightening terrorists we are dealing with now. They might go along simply because they think it might be more effective than say, trying to win them over and gaining their trust.
I feel for Senator Kerry. Today is a tough day to be a US Democratic Senator.

[beachmom]

68. Tough day is right. I completely agree. n/t

[sandnsea]

65. He was speaking of Congress writing a bill

Which is what the court ruling said. Congress had to legislate on the tribunals. He's absolutely right that these terrorists need to be brought to justice - and let me remind you that we couldn't have a better example of the point that this IS a law and order matter than a bunch of terrorists ON TRIAL.

So that's what he was talking about. There are two parts to the bill - the trial procedures and the "interrogation" procedures. He isn't going to support torture but believes we should get on with trials and do it in a way that meets constitutional standards and that Bush should stop fighting it.

He was saying he wanted to write the legislation and get it right. Unfortunately, these rubberstamp Republicans didn't do that.

[beachmom]

66. Those are good points, Sandnsea

I also understood them that way -- that CONGRESS should write it. I think we need to chuck Bush's bill and the compromise bill, and start from scratch.

[sandnsea]

69. I agree

Like I said last week, I respected the approach that this was too important to politicize. We gave them a chance to work with Bush and get this right, and once again Republicans have abrogated their oversight responsibilities. They're rubberstampers. Democrat cannot, in good conscience, stand with this bill. That's the morally right way to go and frankly, it's the politically smart thing to do too. I just hope our "tough on defense" Democrats get it and no, I'm not holding my breath on that.

[karynnj]

40. He also spoke against torture in the response to a question

at Pepperdine. His "vehement" reject was appluaded. He has been out enough to realize that "no torture" is getting applause in Boston (that was a loong standing ovation - not all from the clever wording) to Iowa to a conservative CA campus. I hope he pushes the issue - the Republicans will go haywire, but this is an issue of morality.

[Mass]

41. I could not agree more. This and the rollcall piece reported by

Huffington where some leading Democrats say they want to move the debate away from Iraq and security, really give me pause. We lost the two last elections (at the legislative level) because we were afraid to attack Bush on these issues. And we try a third time?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/deja-vu-all-over-again_b_29977.html

[ProSense]

48. I agree with the point

that jumping to condemn Chavez, and I could careless what he said, was stupid. I would have understood criticism, but those broad America stands with Bush statement were uncalled for!

As far as the Democrats entering this debate, I still say they shouldn't have. The condemnations of the resulting bill is clearly a product of Republican maneuvering and deception. I like this comment by Conyers after the House vote:

Blogged by JC on 09.20.06 @ 11:48 PM ET

A Do-over

Today in the House Judiciary Committee we defeated the Bush Administration's military tribunal legislation, a bill sought by the President so he could continue his program of countenancing and encouraging torture.

Democrats, voting with unity, were joined by a number of Republicans to defeat the bill 17-20. That was until later in the day when, in a despicably cynical maneuver, the Republicans employed a rarely used legislative procedure to re-take the vote. The second time they succeeded.

Republicans will go to extreme lengths to disguise the immorality of this program and the dissension rife within their party. This do-over vote the Republicans conducted today demonstrates how willing they are to trash the democratic process to advance this despicable program.

There is no clearer indication that our country urgently needs new leadership, and oversight, in Congress.

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000552.htm

[whometense]

51. bravo, Conyers.

[karynnj]

43. When will they vote - should we be calling our Senators?

Should we be lobbying our favorite Senator to lead a filibuster?

I doubt a country that would punish a party for being against torture, would elect Kerry. Especially after 1971 and the comment on Bush being against torture after he wa sfor it.

[wisteria]

44. If the Dem's make a move on this "new" compromise, it must be done

collectively. There is more validity in numbers and unity. I don't think it will be effective for one or two Dem's to go it alone- even though we have the higher ground on this. Some Americans are using this issue to lash out at the terrorist and treat them as they have treated us. We have to be careful how we proceed. Our outrage should be clear and easily explained. We should appear strong and determined and ready to convince the public that we are absolutely correct on this issue. And,we should present our own bill, which upholds the constitution and the G. Convention.
I must be dreaming huh?

[beachmom]

46. Like Tay said upthread, this will probably split along

Alito fault lines. I agree with you that unity is better, but look what unity got us in the last round? All Dems united in remaining silent while they gambled that McCain would do the right thing. And now he hasn't, we're utterly screwed. But perhaps the liberals can get together at least. I guess nobody will do anything until next week.

[whometense]

47. Rosa Brooks writes in the Los Angeles Times:

Via Dan Froomkin: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/09/22/BL2006092200703_pf.html

(with great clarity, IMHO)

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-brooks22sep22,1,64734.column?coll=la-news-comment

Bush isn't stupid. He understands that it's far too late for him to leave a legacy that won't be a source of shame to future generations. So he's going for second best: a congressionally delivered 'get-out-of-jail-free' card.

[ProSense]

49. Which is the same point

made in this CSM article:

Now Mr. Bush is trying - after the fact - to establish a legal foundation for a secret CIA program that has operated since 2002. The problem is that some of the wording in Common Article 3 leaves Americans who participated in the interrogations vulnerable to war-crimes charges.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0921/p03s03-uspo.html

Bush screwed up royally and everyone knows it!

[sandnsea]

52. Dems should fight this

I was willing to withhold judgment and let the thing play out - but it's absolutely ludicrous to believe the CIA or military can police itself. That's what this bill does, nobody can make any legal claim that they've been tortured, it requires a whistleblower type situation to bring criminal charges. Outlandish. It's so bad that I don't care if one or two Dems have to go it alone - I'll lose considerable respect for any Dem that doesn't stand up against this or explain REALLY CLEARLY why this doesn't say what I think it says.

[whometense]

55. Me too.

This seems to me to be as clear cut an issue as we can possibly have. As Kerry said, "We must start treating our moral authority as a precious national asset that does not limit our power but magnifies our influence. Only this week did the Administration finally recognize that the protections of the Geneva Convention had to be applied to prisoners in order to comply with the law, restore our moral authority, and best protect American troops. Let me say it plainly: No American president should be for torture before he’s against it."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2006_09_09.html

[karynnj]

54. If we want all of them ro get behind it, all the more reason

to try to push. What I don't get is why the Democrats won't fight this. Whether they fight this or not, the Bush plan is to paint them weak on security. They are selling their souls for "for a pocket full of mumbles such are promises" to quote Paul Simon. Even when the poll shows that 51% of Americans want the GC as they are.

Either way is a gamble - why fold?

They need to think about what John Kerry said of losing in 2004 - pointing out he still had the important things his family and his integrity. From all of Kerry's statements, I will be shocked if he votes for a bill with torture in it. I just hope he has a lot of people on his side.

I don't think they can have an alternative bill - there's not time and Idoubt they could get it on the calendar. I don't think an Amendment could fix it - but there may be a clever way to do so. If not, trying to defeat it and keep the status quo may be the best option. There have to be some vulnerable Republicans - Chaffee fr one.

[whometense]

57. I was thinking about Chafee too.

Voting for this bill will not help his re-election prospects.

What about Holy Joe?

I'd love to see a united re-framing of the issue. Not "good bill or bad bill", but take the question back to its moral roots. Torture is never acceptable. Approving torture means endangering the troops. It's so simple. Torture, finally, doesn't even work.

[karynnj]

58. Should we send a query on the Halaka (Jewish law) on torture?

I suspect that it doesn't approve of waterboarding.

[whometense]

59. I'd bet that's right.

Though you probably know more about the actual law than I do. ;-) Converts are always better informed!

[ProSense]

62. Here is more analysis and a short, but stinging condemnation of McCain

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2841148&mesg_id=2841148

[whometense]

71. Amnesty International email

Mobilizing:

Dear Whometense,

Yesterday, President Bush and several members of the Senate struck a deal on human rights. In the process, they dealt away America's commitment to fundamental human rights principles.

Make no mistake about it, this deal is a betrayal of the America we believe in. No human rights activist can remain on the sidelines in the days ahead. Call on your Senator to oppose these dangerous provisions. We are literally days away from action in Congress on a proposal to:

* Abandon the rule of law and give the President the freedom to interpret the Geneva Conventions any way he sees fit.
* Provide immunity to those responsible for past human rights abuses.
* Exempt from prosecution those who authorize treatment traditionally considered torture.
* Strip detainees of access to US courts.

The soul of our nation is in jeopardy. Everything we believe in is on the line. That's why we're mobilizing the entire Amnesty community. We're going into action today and we won't stop until every last Senator has made it clear whether he or she is willing to stand up for the America we believe in.

Please act today. Those behind this dangerous deal are doing everything they can to quickly build momentum. We have to break that momentum and we have to do it now.

We implore you to call Congress immediately.

If America renounces the Geneva Conventions like President Bush wants to do, nations all over the world will follow. American soldiers will be placed in greater threat of torture and cruel treatment when captured, not just by one or two rogue nations, but by many nations that follow America's lead.

Call 1 800 AMNESTY and our operators will connect you to your official or call the Congressional switch board directly at 202-224-3121. Let the person on the phone know that you are a constituent, and tell them that the deal President Bush has struck is a betrayal of the America you believe in. Ask your Senators and Representative to stand firm in defense of human rights.

After you've made your call, tell report back on how it went here.

Thank you.


Larry Cox
Executive Director
Amnesty International USA

[beachmom]

72. This is great, because it means it won't be the blogs alone

I hope we can win this. As I said upthread, Andrew Sullivan came out against the bill in addition to the WP and the NYT. We need a movement and a consensus that this is NOT what we want America to become.

[ProSense]

73. The torture bill, Rep Markey's take:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2841519&mesg_id=2841519

[TayTay]

74. Markey's a good man

I heard him call Iraq a festering oozing swamp at a backyard cookout this summer. Good man.

Okay, I will call my Senators and ask them to tell those friggin bastids in the White House that Americans do not torture. (Honestly, how could it come to this? My father would roll over in his grave if he knew the United States of America was contemplating okaying torture. Motherfucking bastids. I hope they all burn in hell.)