Dems haven't had an opportunity to read the "torture compromise" yet.

[gully]

Can we give them time to examine the legislation and respond, before we crucify?

[seabeyond]

1. oh NO. NO NO NO we must attack and call them pro TORTURE

and say how worthless and spineless and repug lite they are ALL before anyone knows shit. and then if a dem on du dares to say, say what....? dems embracing torture? we are attack supporting torturist democratic officials

all so smells a stinky smell

[gully]

2. I believe about 50 such threads have been booted to the

"greatest" page already. Amazing.

[Union Thug]

3. Dems should say, there is no room for compromise on the torture

issue. And then wave copies of Malleus Maleficarum in the air

[gully]

4. Agreed.

eom

[Skidmore]

12. Dems should say there is no room for compromise on torture AND

refuse categorically to vote on any legislation that they have not been given time to read. On the second point, they should have been doing this from the first time it was attempted. Refuse to vote on any measure not adequately presented for review.

[gully]

19. Yes they should. Unfortunately R's will spin it as "interrogating"

vs. "torture."

"Gosh Beave, we're not torturing anyone, we're just "interrogating terrorists" who wish to do America harm."

[sufrommich]

5. But it's so much more dramatic

to denounce our own!Screw reasoning.

[gully]

6. So true.

And, we need more drama these days. Life is so dull without it.

[seabeyond]

8. bahhahahah. you know, peaceful is dramatic in such a peaceful

kinda way..... it is my zin. my yin to my yang.

[misternormal]

7. What the hell does * have on all of the politicians...

... on the hill, that so many of them are ready to just kiss his ass???

I think this "compromise" is one of the best examples of ass kissing done with the "Something is better than nothing" mentality. I am sick of these people, that are supposed to be working for the American People, going off on their own and compromising on this issue.

[seabeyond]

9. the republicans are kissing ass, not dems. and the republicans

have the power, not the dems. with the republican power, they are able to shut down the dems. reality. need republicans out and dems in. then we kick the republicans ass, not kiss it

[gully]

17. Hear hear!

nt

[sufrommich]

24. Bravo! eom.

[gully]

13. Well, on Republicans he's got "money."

I'm sure those who compromised were threatened in a financial way. Democrats don't have to rely in R's for $$ so, I am very hopeful that they'll oppose this.

[sufrommich]

15. So far

I've only read of republicans compromising with other republicans.The one that gets me is John McCain,a recipient of torture,agreeing with a compromise.I hope he dreams of his willingness to put others in the same place nightly.Yes,I agree,they aren't working in the best interest of the American people.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. Since Republicans don't seem to have a problem making statements and

getting out in front on the issue, why can't Democrats make strong statements in advance of reading it to avoid being a week of news cycles behind?

Like: "We are strongly opposed to torture and completely reject its use by the United States, on moral grounds. We are dismayed at the emphasis that the Bush administration has placed on tactics that appear to be torture. We will be closely examining this legislation, and are resolved to reject any provision that in any way condones or exonerates acts of torture. We will make further statements completing our review of the legislation."

And similar statements on arbitrary imprisonment and removal of habeas corpus, a pillar of Western law since the Magna Carta and one of the fundamental legal protections against tyranny.

Torture. Tyranny. These words must be used.

[gully]

14. They hoped that the R's would bloody themselves longer.

I think this whole thing was a ploy myself. After all if the "nobel" John McCain thinks this bill is ok, it must be right?

:eyes:

I only hope they examine it closely because the argument is going to be "interrogating terrorists" vs. "torturing possible innocents."

"The Democrats don't want us to be able to interrogate terrorists and save American lives." Can you hear it already? I can. But, Dems have to do what is right, regardless of the spin. And, we have to find a way to insert truth into this when we don't have sympathetic media to do it.

[spanone]

11. Think about it. A compromise between Republican factions.

This cannot be good for the dems anyway you look at it. You can bet that this torture 'compromise' was entirely crafted with politics in mind.

[gully]

16. You are spot on. And, as I've said it's going to be spun thusly:

"The Democrats don't want us have the authority to 'interrogate terrorists' thereby saving American lives."

*puke*

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

18. If the Democrats wait too long to say anything (IMHO they already have),

then the spin is whatever the Republicans want it to be, plain and simple.

"Not having the media on your side" is no excuse when you don't even try or say anything. As the Chavez brouhaha shows, Pelosi can certainly be motivated to make a statement to the press when she wants, eh?

[gully]

20. The compromise leg hasn't been up for review yet. It would be premature

to comment on something when they don't have all the info. Even if they know what it consists of (generally speaking.)

Dems have to have time to examine before we comment, or we'll be called "obstructionist" "reactionary" "terrorist sympathizers" etc.

I say we don't have to rush into their trap, we have to weigh this VERY carefully. This is an orchestrated attempt by the RW to get Dems on the record as being "soft on terror." As such we better damn well have our ducks in a row before we f around.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

22. I suppose we just disagree. Democrats could be on the record, with a

statement similar to the one I posted above, as AGAINST ANY TORTURE and on the lookout for anything condoning it, exonerating past acts, or providing loopholes, and that being the number one priority. I think that would be better than total silence and allowing the Republicans to dominate the news cycles for weeks first.

[gully]

25. They are on the record as being against torture. It was a "given"

that Americans were against torture. Seems a shame to have to clarify! But, the fact that we do, demonstrates the importance of getting Dems in the majority in the congress/senate.

I'll give it sometime myself before I pass judgment.

[seabeyond]

23. much better to shoot ourselves in foot, lose election to appease

the dems that yell the loudest without reason. dontcha think?

[BurtWorm]

29. The torture legislation can be signed into law before election day

and then it will be too late.

[gully]

31. True, if it is voted into law by the majority party.

Some speculate it will be tabled until after the election?

Unfortunately, again - it will be framed as "interrogating terrorists" vs "torture." I wish Dems were in the majority so we weren't in this position.

[sufrommich]

21. All the more reason

to wait until they can read the compromise and take it apart point by point.The republicans will accuse them of having a "kneejerk" response if we argue against what fuzzy info we have now and accuse them of "playing politics":crazy:

[gully]

26. Right!

And given how this will be spun, we better cross our T's.

[BurtWorm]

28. Of course.

The Dems should have been demanding a seat at the table. Legislation this important should not be left in the hands of the Torture Party.

[gully]

32. Do you think we'd have gotten a seat?

They don't care if Dems approve of their measures. We're the minority party.

R's met in an attempt to box Dems into an impossible "weak on terror" position before November, they weren't about to let us partake. The compromise wasn't about anything but their own political posturing. It was about "Republicans finding middle ground" and making Democrats look weak in the process.

We're in another no win situation. We are about to disagree with a former POW who himself was tortured and initially came out against the Bush admin - moderate/maverick who is thought "fair and reasonable" by many.

Granted we can't under any circumstances support "torture legislation" but we have to frame this forcefully and hope the media/public gives a shit about the truth.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Study this: Torture is unjustifiable under any circumstances.

What else do they need to know?

[gully]

30. They need to find out if "torture" is in the comp legislation before they

"respond."