Amy Goodman reported this morning that democrats in congress...

[mike_c]

...have no intention of filibustering the "compromise" republican military tribunals legislation that rescinds habeas corpus, legalizes coercive investigations, aka torture, defines just about everyone who struggles against U.S. hegemony as an "illegal enemy combatant," whether foreign or domestic, repudiates Geneva Convention protection for POWs, institutes secret trials with a direct conduit to an Amerikan gulag, and legitimizes the Bush administration's claims of "emergency powers" in "war time." According to the report-- which I heard in the car-- congressional dems do not want to appear "soft on terrorism" during the run up to elections.

What congressional dems are demonstrating is far worse than softness on terrorism-- it's acceptance of totalitarianism. This bill is a shameful attack on basic civil rights. More to the point, it is an attack on some of the most fundamental principles that this country stands for. Habeas corpus is absolutely necessary to prevent despotism-- it is the strongest line of defense against unlawful detention. It is the foundation of our system of justice because it gives the accused the right to question why they are being detained-- and it compels the government to release them if it cannot provide evidence justifying their detention. It is incomprehensible to me that patriotic men and women would stand silent while the foundation of our nation's system of fair justice is torn down. If Goodman's report is true, congressional dems are shamefully selling our nation's future for the most illusionary of short term political expediencies. In their rush to appear strong on national defense, they will participate in the nation's destruction.

National security is about much more than creating a security state in the U.S. It is first and foremost about protecting the principles that distinguish the U.S. from dictatorships and the regimes of petty despots. That Americans would be willing to throw away their principles so cheaply is galling enough, but our leadership's cowardice in wanting to avoid a political confrontation over it is far worse. I am ashamed that we are even having this conversation in America-- I am even more deeply ashamed that my leaders don't think protecting our fundamental human rights is important enough to even make any noise about.

If this bill passes we will all be "illegal enemy combatants." Do not doubt that this administration will go to such extreme lengths to silence its critics-- after all, who would have believed that we would be having this debate in the first place just a few years ago? If this bill passes our representatives in congress will have used OUR authority to strip away the very principles that America stands for, in essence signing our names to the death certificate of democratic ideals.

[BuyingThyme]

1. Thank you, Mike C.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2199029

[mike_c]

71. wow, that's a pretty powerful thread...

...and many folks seemed not to get your OP at all-- or maybe I missed the point instead-- but it sure sounded like you were chiming the same alarm I'm sounding in my OP.

[BuyingThyme]

84. It got locked

when the Greatest Page tally hit 30, but I knew there would be others.

And when yours gets locked, there will be more still.

[bobbolink]

2. Of course they won't.

So, let's hear AGAIN how very wrong Nader was.

Now that we've LOST THE COUNTRY.

Go ahead, let's heap it all on Nader. Afterall, it couldn't be complicit Dems, it all has to be because of Nader.

Even though what he said was RIGHT.

[grasswire]

4. it was?

Not in my book. He lied.

[buff2]

5. If Nader would have kept his ass out of politics..........

We wouldn't be in this horrid mess today. I hate that creep almost as much as I hate Bu$h.

[bobbolink]

8. Thank YOU!! I *knew* we could hear more about how it's NADER's

fault!

Thanks for not disappointing!!

[cynatnite]

12. people say the right words all the time...

it doesn't mean a damn thing. Nader has zero credibility with me.

Now, if you said 'Chomsky was right', then I would agree, because he was.

[BuyingThyme]

11. The fact of the matter is that Nader and Bush are the same thing.

That's why Bush supported Nader.

[Greyhound]

20. How many times do you require that this absurd claim be debunked,

and why aren't you commenting on what is happening right now?

"Our leaders" are going to submit, no surrender, to the elimination of the founding principle of every system of justice in the western world, a principle that goes back to the 11th century!

Wake up, Nader is a non-issue, Gore lost FL because of election fraud and an immensely shitty campaign (thanks once again to Donna Brazile).

[kerry-is-my-prez]

35. Nader took money from the Republicans - consorted w/Grover Norquist, etc.

don't expect too many people here to worship him or even condone his actions.

[Greyhound]

36. No expectation at all. Just wondering why you are trying to re-fight the

wrong battle 5 years after it was lost. The subject of the OP is totally outrageous and the Democrats do have the power to stop it, but they want to put some polls in the field first, just in case it is unpopular.

Gee, I wonder how we've managed to keep losing for 14 straight years and 32 of the last 40?

[DaveT]

53. Excuse me?

The "dems" have the power to stop it? How?

If 41 Senators agree to participate in a filibuster, they can keep legislation from passing by participating in a filibuster. Which would do two things:

1. Play into Rove's plan of making this election about Terror. All this talk about the difference between the Pugs and the Dems conveniently leaves out a little matter about The Voters. Do you want to bet the future of the country on how well The Voters understand the value of not torturing terrorists?

Do you think it is just a coincidence that the GOP is bringing this crap up just before the election recess? It is their one hope of getting people's minds off of the failure in Iraq and the failure of the economic recovery to deliver tangible benefits to most Americans.

Yeah, you know and I know that Bush has no intention of using this fascist machinery on "terrorists." But when the TV networks, cable news, talk radio and all the religious kook email chains and phone trees get done with it -- do you really believe that the The Voters are going to grasp the logic of reciprocal treatment of POWs? Polls consistently show that a huge majority of Americans would always junk the entire bill of rights on general principle.

Yeah, the "dems" just need to "stand their ground" and just tell the truth and they will win -- bullshit. When our political enemies have control of the national news media, how are "the dems" supposed to get that truth out to The Voters?

Have you noticed what happened with Bill Clinton? He is the most talented TV performer in politics and he did a hell of a job wiping the floor with Chris Wallace's ass. And what has happened since then? The MSN calls it a "temper tantrum" while Condi Rice and every hack in the Right Wing echo chamber have cranked out a barrage of baldfaced lies that get played as straight as if they were the lyrics to "The Star Spangled Banner." These lies are easily debunked by the public record -- are you hearing any talking heads other than John Stewart mocking them for their anger or condemning them for their partisan mendacity?

The democratic politicians don't have the luxury of ignoring the grim and pathetic truth about how Bush and Rove have maintained control of politics since 9/11 through a racist fear of swarthy "terrorists."

Yes, the "dems" are afraid of that political strategy. You should be too.


2. Rolls the dice on holding 41 senators together in the most brutal political fight at least since the days of school busing -- or maybe even the Civil War. The one thing that would be even worse for the country than the Democrats in Senate rolling over for this outrage would be to try to filibuster and then watch as a handful of Quislings and Liebermans abandon ship, giving Bush a huge Congressional "victory" on this very issue.

There are huge consequences for the future of the Republic before us now. Rove's gambit is working to a T to divide and conquer the opposition. Here we are on DU arguing with each other about Nader and 2000.

Instead of the Democratic Party leading a unifying campaign to mobilize the 60% of the country who oppose the manifest failures of the Bush Administration to deliver on its own promises of victory in Iraq and prosperity at home, we see the same old shit -- terror -- ripping us apart.

The Democratic Party has no disciplinary mechanism to force Joe Lieberman and Mary Landrieu to hold on for the duration of a filibuster. As Will Rogers said it better than anybody ever, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'am a Democrat."

For grass roots progressives to despair now because the Dem Caucus in the Senate cannot fight with the same internal discipline that our fascist enemies impose upon themselves is an unmitigated catastrophe.

The lefty logic that blames the politicians for the feclessness and controlled ignorance of the voters is our biggest weakness.

Now more than ever, we must keep our eyes on the absolute necessity for unity in opposition to Bushism. If our so-called "leaders" disappoint us, that is just something we are going to have to cope with -- because there is no substitute for winning this election with majorites to big to steal.

[mike_c]

65. you call for "unity in opposition" but then say they shouldn't do anything

...to stop this. This bill is so toxic that senate dems MUST do whatever it takes to prevent it from passing. Filibuster, walk out, whatever.

I agree with you completely about the "feckless and controlled ignorance of the voters" but that makes it even more incumbant upon the political leadership-- the folks who represent those voters and who act in their names-- to stand firm against this bill and others like it.

You've described the perfect catch-22: do nothing, and dems give away the foundations of American justice with barely a whimper. Do what it takes to stop this atrocity, and they play right into Rove's clutches. You've described dem senators as cornered and out of options. Under your scenario, they are going down regardless, so why not at least go down fighting? There really is a RIGHT thing to do here, even if it's not the most politically expedient thing to do. No one who stands by and allows this bill to proceed without doing their utmost to stop it can avoid the stain of complicity.

[bobbolink]

86. yup, poor helpless, powerless Dem leaders...

"What would Thomas Jefferson do?"

[Greyhound]

115. OK, I've walked away and counted to ten, about a thousand times...

What is it that you don't understand about the consequences of removing habeas corpus? This is the very foundation, the most fundamental principle, of our entire justice system, without it we have a full-fledged, official oligarchy, supported by the most awesome military on the planet.

This is far more important than elections, politics, or party. "But wait", you say, "it would be unconstitutional and the SCOTUS will strike it down." That may have been true in the past, but thanks to our leaders and their bone dry powder, we can no longer count on enough justices to do what is right in spite of their political leanings, IOW, no more Powell or O'Connor types to moderate the conservative leaning of the Court.

Do you really want to put the future of this country, possibly for a hundred or more years (think of all our present day problems that started with the Courts of the 1830's), in the hands of the far-right, neo-conservative, corporatists that are now a clear majority?

[grizmaster]

119. Sorry, but Big Dog just proved that fighting is the proper response

Caving in on legislation that eliminates rights that go back to the Magna Carta is cowardice pure and simple.

If dems can't stand up against torture and the elimination of habeus corpus what can they stand up for?

[doctor_garth]

122. oh sure forget principles

winning an election is more important. Torture is ok as long as we win.

That's pervert.

[depakid]

24. Ummm Many Democrats are supporting this bill

In those cases, and many others Nader was clearly right.

There's not a dimes worth of difference between the parties. And the Dems have proved it time and time all year long.

[gully]

78. Actually it's a small handful of Democrats

And a vast majority of Republicans. Further if Nader was right, why are you here and not at Free Republic?

[femrap]

106. RFK, Jr. once said that 95% of the repugnants

are corrupt and about 75% of the Dems. That sounds pretty spot on to me. If this 'Anti-Law' bill is passed this week, we need to make very sure that we write down the names of the Dems that vote for it....and then make sure they face competition in their primaries.

I am so focused on Subpoena Power...I pray that once we get it that the Dems will know how to use it. God and Goddess...that is a scary thought, isn't it? All of this work and they don't use the Subpoena Power.

Have you heard of the Doomsday Project that is being set up at DOJ by the regime. They fear that we will get Subpoena Power so hordes of attornies are preparing for that....they will fight every subpoena and hide every bit of evidence. Gonna make Nixon look like a Teddy Bear.

[EFerrari]

43. Nader didn't pack the Supreme Court. I don't like what he did

in 2004 or what he's been doing since. And, I've never voted for him.

But, really, at least lay the blame where it really belongs. Bush was selected in 2000.

And don't tell me Nader made it "close". Our crappy election systems made it "close". Stealing the votes of hundreds of thousands of black voters made it "close".

Our willingness for those black voters to be ripped off made it "close", not Ralph Nader. He's just a blip in the history of rotten elections.

[earthside]

121. Gore Won in 2000. Period.

Let's get this straight. Gore got the most votes in Florida in 2000. He got the most votes nationwide.

Bush and the radical Republicans STOLE the election with the assistance of the Supreme Court.

Continuing to push this "it's all Nader's fault" just falls right into the radical Republican frame that liberals, progressives and Democrats are too disorganized, too contentious, too muddle-headed to govern.

David Cobb did not cost Kerry the election in 2004, either. Kerry couldn't make his mind up about the war and he didn't have the stomach to expose the radical Republican cheating in Ohio.

Until these whining "blame Nader" folks stop casting around for someone else to blame for the spinelessness of the inside-the-beltway Democrats -- there are going to be many more losses to come.

And, it is pathetic once again that Democrats in the Senate will not fillibuster the shred-the-Constitution 'torture' legislation. They didn't fillibuster Alito or Roberts ... they never seem to learn.

[robinlynne]

44. You've got to be kidding.

[HardRocker05]

72. Yep; denial aint just a river in egypt. dems will do anything to avoid t

taking one iota of responsibility for their dismal political standing, and for the fact that they have been complicit nearly every step of the way in the repuke destruction of american democracy.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. How very wrong Nader was

He was very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very wrong.

By about 100 trillion nickels' worth of difference, in fact.

:evilgrin:

--p!

[bobbolink]

9. Exactly! That's why we're watching the Dems letting it flush!

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. Being right ain't enough.

One must be right and also be be prepared to place ones ego in a subservient position to ones intellect.

Nader shares a big helping of the blame for where we find ourselves.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. Nader schmader

This is a failure of the Dems who are in office NOW.

Yeah, yeah, they're in the minority. But that is no reason to avoid standing up for what's right.

It's easy to stand up for what's right when everyone is with you. It's not so easy when you're in the minority, but it's MORE IMPORTANT.

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. When you stand up alone for what's right...

it's important to recognize that you may be diluting the efforts of those who are standing up for "what's good enough" in their fight against outright evil.

You saints and demons can just fight it out. I'll be standing over here with the easter bunny.

[HardRocker05]

74. What a straw man; dems haven't even *tried* to do jack in the last 6 yrs,

and then they have the nerve to criticize nader.

[gully]

80. Nader said Gore = Bush and Nader supporters have the NERVE

to come here and talk shit?!

Get a clue

Gore = NO 911, NO TORTURE BILLS, NO GONZALES, NO PATRIOT ACT, NO DISMISSING KYOTO, AND ON AND ON AND F-ING ON.

[nam78_two]

103. seriously

anyone who says Gore=Bush, I have now words even for that sort of lunacy :eyes:

[lumberjack_jeff]

82. Uh, it isn't the job of the opposition party to "do jack".

The opposition party, at best, opposes.

If Gore had been awarded the position that he won, we wouldn't be the opposition party, 9-11 wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be debating torture, wiretapping and whether we should be bound by archaic concepts such as due process.

Nader deserves a share of the blame.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. Allowing torture is in no sense "good enough"

:-(

[lumberjack_jeff]

98. You're suggesting that President Gore would be pushing this?

I think you've forgotten how we got into this sorry state.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

99. Who said anything about Gore?

I'm talking about today's crop of 34 spineless idiots who voted to shred the Constitution.

[lumberjack_jeff]

100. Those spineless idiots didn't arrive in a vacuum

They are a product of their political environment.

2000 Bush (s)elected.
9 months later Bush allows a big terror attack.
Be scared.
a few months later Bush starts a war.
Be more scared, and don't speak up if you don't want to be called unamerican.
a year or so after that Bush starts another war
Bush amps up the rhetoric - mainstream media helps
2004 election, the terms "swiftboating" and "diebolding" enter our lexicon
Now it's time for the 2006 election. This country has gotten so bad in the last six years that elected officials actually have to consider the political risks of opposing wiretapping and torture. torture fer chissake!

The costs of losing the White House in 2000 were greater than any of us ever imagined at the time. There would be fewer spineless idiots today were it not for Nader in 2000

[nam78_two]

104. yep

:thumbsup:

I don't get people who seem to think Gore's getting elected in 2000 wouldn't have resulted in a world radically different from the one we live in :shrug:

A "principle" is great..but I don't get "priciples" that say that minimizing damage is somehow an unworthy goal :shrug:

Jeez it may not make a difference to the person talking about it per se...but it would make a difference to all the lives, human and non, that have been affected by the catastrophe that was the 2000 election.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

105. The cost was compounded by Dems not calling bullshit on

the whole concept of a "war on terror" from the very beginning.

The proper response would have been to track down the perpetrators and leave it at that. The "war on terror" has created more terrorists than were ever out there.

Oh, and they didn't fight back against swiftboating or diebolding, not until damage had already been done and not in great enough numbers.

There are too many Dems willing to vote with Bush, and something needs to change. Perhaps the party leadership needs to sit the DINOs down and tell them that if they continue to vote with the Evil One, they will get well-financed primary challengers.

[davekriss]

142. Bush's Folly

"The proper response would have been to track down the perpetrators and leave it at that. The 'war on terror' has created more terrorists than were ever out there."

I watched a Booknotes on CSPAN2 this weekend where the author (Jessica Stern?) speaks of the "three R's" motivating terrorism, i.e. retribution, revenge, and renown (iirc). According to the author a heads on "war on terror" using conventional weaponry and standing armies is the height of all folly, all it does is amplify the motives behind terrorism, expands the base from which the terrorists draw support and recruits, and ultimately will lose the war.

What she recommends is that, yes, we pursue the perpetrators as criminals, arrest and punish them, and of course pursue aggressive intelligence and counter-intelligence operations. But she also stresses (what for us here seems common sense) that the U.S. needs to win the hearts and minds, not of the disaffected terrorists, but the more moderate populations from which they draw support. What is the effect of a "shock and awe" campaign that devastates an innocent civilian population? Will they perceive the death of family and friends, and the diminution of their life chances, as justice or injustice? How about when we add Abu Ghraib, or train forces to execute the Salvadoran Solution (death squads), or pass the Miltary Commissions Act that leaves interpretation of the Geneva Convention to the Pretzeldent? Will they seek retribution and revenge? Will some seek renown? The answers are obvious.

Instead of driving a wedge between the terrorists and the moderate population, we've drawn them together. Instead of isolating the terrorists into relative impotence, we've emboldened the populations around them to hide, support, and fight for them.

Bush's War on Terror seems completely insane when judged on the stated objectives held up for their efforts. But it is not insane. I contend that the War on Terror has nothing to do with a defeat of terrorism, which like "communism" before serves as the lifeblood of the profit-making machine they seek to sustain. Terrorism is used to manufacture consent for actions that are the extreme opposite of altruism, but how many soldiers would brave danger and spill blood if they understood that they fight to improve profits at the transnational corporations backing state power? All else is clever theater. Bush has given them the necessary motivating narrative.

This War on Terror, like the War on Communism before it, is cover for a stark imperial agenda meant to further the advantages of the few. It is an external manifestation of class war, of which there have been many internal manifestations, the latest being pending law that allows the Pretzeldent to declare any of us to be unlawful enemy combatants, suspend habeas corpus, and detain us indefinately while tickling us with waterboards and rubber hoses.

There's that ol'Confuscian curse, "may you live in interesting times." Unfortunately, the times are interesting indeed!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

143. Yes, it's pretty obvious that Bush LOVES the "war on terror," because

it's carte blanche to do any damn thing he wants.

[Patchuli]

69. He helped lose 2000 to neo-cons

He can shut the heck up now in my book.

[gully]

76. What he said was "right?" There is no difference between the two

major parties?" You think that's RIGHT? Clue, we would NOT be debating TORTURE if Dems were a majority. Additionally, a small handful of Democrats actually support this leg, as opposed to the majority of Republicans.

[cynatnite]

3. "last line of defense from arbitrary executive power"

That's what Pelosi said.

This thing really scares the shit out of me.

[KG]

6. i mean really, is anybody surprised?

is there ANY important issue the dems won't roll over on?

[DancingBear]

22. No, but remember this

It's VERY important to elect a Dem Congress this year, so they can act like the spineless majority, instead of the spineless minority.

I can not stress this enough.

Oh, and the fact that 95% of all Democrats have no backbones is solely attributed to Nader.

He surgically took them all out.

In the night.

While everyone was sleeping.

He is a mean man.

[elehhhhna]

77. Obviously not. Won't even defend the Goddamn Piece of Paper.

[originalpckelly]

10. Well, I say we vote every incumbent out of office if they give up...

in every state and district. We will still have control of Congress, but none of the people will be spineless.

[davidwparker]

34. I agree. If we take the House, then we have to clean house. The Dem

party is filled with the weak and spineless. It's collusion. Reid keeps his powder dry for just the right moment. LOSERS!

[femrap]

107. Reid needs to go....I can't stand the

sound of his voice.

[davidwparker]

132. I'm listening to Thom Hartman now and they are talking about

whether the Dems will filibuster the Bush Torture Bill. They are balancing torture against how it would look to voters in the midterm. If that's not the state of dismal Dem leadership I don't know what is.

Give me Clark in either slot in 2008.

[femrap]

139. I'll take Clark, too.

Had my eye on him for a while now. If things get bad enough before '08, I wouldn't mind if he and his retired buddies did a little coup d'etat to save our Democracy!

I write that and at the same time think that those are the kind of words that a fascist president would use to put folks in a detainee center. How far we have fallen......

[mmonk]

13. After giving it my all this election,

my days of participation are over. I'll just be an advocate for the ACLU and Center for Constitutional rights from that point on. We're in the last straw category (and to think I was worried mainly about losing ADA and the illegal war in Iraq).

[Eric J in MN]

14. What if the majority of Democrats vote against the...

...Military Tribunals bill. Then will you keep participating in candidate campaigns?

[mmonk]

26. If it's a false vote, no.

If there's a chance to stop this and they try everything including the filibuster if nothing else works, yes. We only have one constitution. Anyone or any group that can throw it away doesn't represent me. The republicans already don't represent me. The dems can continue to if they do everything in their power to stop this.

[mike_c]

31. the issue is that they won't keep it from coming to a vote...

...that they know they'll lose on a party line divide. This bill is not just more politics as usual. It is an assault on the most fundamental principles of democratic justice. It will make the president a king, for all intents and purposes. It cedes the rule of law in favor of the rule of men. It returns us to medieval justice-- and I mean that literally, not as hyperbole.

Patriots should do everything in their power to prevent this bill from passing. A filibuster should be a foregone conclusion, not even an option. If the dems let this happen, they will have stood by silently while the most basic democratic principles we've struggled to uphold for centuries-- since the Magna Carta-- are pulled down and trampled by the republicans. It is CRIMINAL for the republicans to do this. It is SHAMEFUL for the democrats to stand by and allow it without fighting.

[countryjake]

48. It's time people realize who is complicit & who is not...

and understand that we will all soon be considered "enemy combatants" to those who seek or hold office in our government's judgement halls.

[femrap]

108. You are 100% right.

And I fear that the Dems don't have the wherewithal in them to stand up.

Of course, I had my comeuppance with the Dems over Johnny Bob Taliban and I-Lie-too....so I am not as shocked as some Dems are now. I have felt the betrayal.

The Dems are afraid of being called 'soft on terror.' Goddess almighty....wtf makes the difference if you can torture now or 2 months from now. Stall the damn bill until after the elections....there has to be a way to do that. AFTER ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION.....I really do think that the American people can understand that.

This regime is gonna start putting people like you and me in detainee centers....dissent will be squashed.

Honestly, there are people on DU who could spin the Dems out of this situation better than Reid or Dean or Pelosi.

[bbgrunt]

15. how sad. I've noticed a distinct lack of discussion of this on AAR.

[Joanne98]

16. Sometimes I think it's all in the plan.....

And they just fake fight for the cameras.

[stepnw1f]

41. Fuck Every Dem that Voted for Torture

fuck them all.

[NotGivingUp]

79. sadly, i have thought the very same thing. n/t

[dkofos]

17. They will still have their dry powder.

THEY WON'T HAVE MY VOTE

[annabanana]

18. We must BANG THE POTS IN THE STREETS

If this isn't worth ginning up the blog machine, what is? If there was EVER a time to phone, fax & email your Senator, this is it. Also holler at Reid a little too, he sure as hell deserves it!

[Dogmudgeon]

19. Why should they filibuster it?

One way or another, Bush will get his way. If they filibuster, the Press will focus on that, and they will be demonized while the heat is taken off the Idiot Bastard Son.

If they don't filibuster, Bush will be supporting torture during an election season. Of course, about two hundred people on DemocraticUnderground.com will scream "TRAITORS! WHORES!" and wail and gnash their teeth instead of Taking Back The Streets and Speaking Truth To Power, but the TRAITORS! WHORES! will survive.

Of course, when the Democrats actually DO something, we still scream "TRAITORS! WHORES!" which is another post topic entirely.

Right now, all the elected Democrats need to do is sit tight and shut the fuck up. The Republican Party and Team Bush are spinning out of control. Even those who support Bush are having some major qualms, as a quick perusal of the radical-right websites will demonstrate. Unless WE fail to go after the MSM, the Republican Party will suffer a series of long-term breakdowns and defeats that could well destroy it entirely between this November and 2016.

History has made the American Republican Party obsolete, clownish, and a deadly political risk. Conservatives of good conscience (who may not even fit the modern definition of "conservative") are going to have to rebuild their party, start a new one, or face their own fears of being chucked into Gulag Dubya.

--p!

[Greyhound]

25. Because if you don't stand up for what is right, you stand for nothing

at all.

Yeah, that "we're not *" strategy has been working so well.

[mike_c]

29. all they need to do is "sit tight and shut up" while Bush and his cronies

...destroy our nation. That's what you're saying. I don't buy it. It is craven.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Because if nobody stands up and says NO

then the people will believe the lies that they are being barraged with by the Coordinated Complicit Bullshit Media System.

The Democratic Party leadership has once again demonstrated that they are the leaders of the Noposition Party.

[mmonk]

47. Sit tight while our laws are shredded?

No thank you, I'm not as dumb as the people in Germany in the 1930's were when Hitler asked for and got dictatorial powers.

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. Why join them in spinning out of control?

The bad guys want to wiretap. The bad guys want to torture. The bad guys want retroactive immunity for war crimes. The bad guys want the authority to send americans to an anonymous dungeon without the right to appear in court.

Why the fuck would anyone worthy of the title "american" feel compelled to join these psychotic despots?

This isn't a little bit totalitarian, it's the whole goddamn boot.

[grizmaster]

123. The reason they SHOULD filibuster is that it WILL focus the press on it

How can standing against torture and for habeus corpus that goes back to the Magna Carta be the wrong fight?

[mike_c]

21. if this passes the justice dept won't even have to resort to secret trials

...except to make a point. Without habeas corpus protection, they can simply imprison folks without charge and lock them up indefinitely, with no access to legal recourse at all. Why bother trying someone unless there's a political or propaganda angle? Once declared an enemy combatant, the accused simply disappear into the gulag. This is the America we are rushing toward with all the haste we can muster.

It shocks the hell out of me. When I was a kid during the Cold War we were raised on tales of "evil empires" and "tinpot dictatorships" where people disappeared into secret prisons, had no legal rights, were convicted in "secret trials" where they never even saw the evidence against them, or whether there actually was any evidence. This is what America is becoming, right in front of our eyes. OUR LEADERS ARE GIVING US UP TO AVOID APPEARANCES!

How shameful is that? How craven is that?

[Skidmore]

23. Well, the Democratic party can reimburse me for the long

distance calls I've made if this is true. I can't really afford them now but I'm trying to do my bit to preserve the Constitution. It is as though NOTHING in terms of feedback fazes them nor do they have an endgame in sight beyond the first week in November. How the hell do we get them to take this seriously?

Damn them all.

[leftchick]

27. aw shit!

:cry:

I thought shock and awful was my low point but DAMN! I have not been this distraught my entire adult life!

:cry:

Why in the fuck can they not see what is happening to this country. And to us? They really care more about themselves and politics than the country.

:cry:

omg I wanna crawl in a hole.

:cry:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

28. It seems that democracy in America is over. My friend has been saying

this to me for a long time (politically very informed and active guy nonetheless) and though I was cynical, I never really believed this until now. I always held out a little hope.

Now, I don't know.

Or I'm afraid I really do know.

[EFerrari]

32. Look at this POS letter that Diane Feinstein sent me.

It says nothing, and roundly. They won't do anything. How they expect to win elections if they won't protect the basic civil rights of their constituency is just BEYOND me.

:mad: :nuke: :mad:

Dear Mrs. Ferrari:

Thank you for writing to me about the War Crimes
Act. I welcome the opportunity to respond.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary has already
held one hearing on the War Crimes Act, and may hold others as well.
The War Crimes Act has never been used to prosecute war crimes, and
so much about its meaning and parameters remains unclear.
Nevertheless, I will keep your thoughts in mind as this issue progresses.

We have an obligation as a constitutional democracy to
engage in a serious dialogue about difficult issues like
protection of an individual's due process rights, while doing everything in
our power to protect our national security. I am also aware that this
issue extends beyond the Administration's immediate desire to prosecute
al-Qaeda detainees for war crimes, and reaches into the subject of
ensuring reciprocal treatment and the safety of our military and
government personnel in the field.

I firmly believe that detaining and interrogating
enemy combatants is a justified and necessary part of war. How
we find a proper balance is not an easy question to answer.
Nevertheless, the treatment of detainees must be conducted under the rule of
law and subject to the checks and balances upon which our
government is built. I will keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate reviews
legislation regarding the treatment of detainees or proposed changes to
the War Crimes Act.

Again, thank you for writing. If you have any
further comments on this issue, please contact my Washington, D.C. office at
[phone]. Best regards.





Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

edit: typos

[Greyhound]

37. Awww, that whole Magna Carta thing was really over-rated anyway.

Imagine the temerity of requiring evidence of a crime beyond the master's say-so.

As soon as they started lowering expectations for this election 4 or 5 months ago, I gave up. The Re:puke:s get outraged, and they flip 50(?) seats in 1992, but we have an international criminal running the country and we might get 14, maybe, if we don't say anything to upset anyone. Sheesh.

[EFerrari]

39. I wish with all my whatEVER that Democrats would start

upsetting people again.

Go up against Junior's PR with REAL, we'd win.

:(

[alarimer]

42. Protecting individual rights are more important than terrorism

There, I've said. They are of paramount importance. I don't care if it means an actual terrorist gets through the dragnet. If we have lost our rights, including habeas corpus, the terrorists have won. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Sen Feinstein. My (our) rights and our freedom are MORE important than security. I cannot stress that enough.

[EFerrari]

45. Protecting our defense contracts is more important than civil rights.

There, I've said it.

:(

[femrap]

109. The war machine is treated like a god....

I hate what has become of our dear democracy. I don't see why the Dems can't stall this bill...why can't these assholes come out and just tell the Truth....our Constitution will be in shreds if this law is passed. We will be like the Soviet Union of old.

[Moochy]

113. Doesnt' her husband have some defense contracts?

So tired of Di fi. So very very tired of her.

( Conyers with Subpoena? No, Pelosi is alleged to have said via WSJ it's off the table. But I guess if (D) get the majority we can take backsies on that promise... :eyes: )

[mike_c]

46. Franklin said it best....

They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I know, there is not consensus about whether Franklin was really the author, but the wisdom remains the same, regardless of who first said it.

[alarimer]

88. I agree with that

But people are so easily swayed anymore; I am losing hope.

[cool user name]

61. They're playing political ping pong with our rights.

That's what infuriates me.

Edit: Their to They're

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Gaa! What the hell is the matter with her?

The proper balance between the detention and interrogation of people is the balance between legal and illegal.

The US signed the Geneva treaty. The US is also subject to the constitution. Both of those technicalities are violated by this law, and the good senator knows that because the bill prohibits civilian courts from evaluating the law on its (absence of) merits.

Elected officals who vote for this forfeit the moral right to call themselves americans. Democrats who vote for it forfeit the right to be called our representatives.

Habeus Corpus; it's not just a good idea, it's what ended the dark ages.

[mike_c]

57. "...forfeit the moral right to call themselves americans."

Yep. Couldn't have said it better myself. This is a direct attack on the principles of American justice. People who voted for this are enemies of America, IMO. Certainly they are enemies of my America.

[cool user name]

62. Awesome quote!

Habeus Corpus; it's not just a good idea, it's what ended the dark ages.

I see a new sig line in my future!

[alarimer]

91. How can a bill prevent courts from ruling on legislation?

That is the court's job. And we need civilian authorities (courts and others) to oversee military and security matters; otherwise we'll just be ruled by a military junta.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. Rightwingers interpret Article III of the constitution...

... as giving the power to the congress to decide which areas of law that courts have a jurisdiction to review.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n3_v48/ai_18020719 <----- for an example of their rationale. It's from the national review. Hold your nose.

The Republicans are using this theory as a loophole to pass unconstitutional laws. Reason 996 why Republicans are unfit to be public servants.

[alarimer]

96. Ah! So the Constitution IS open to interpretation after all!

Such hypocrites. They want strict construction when it suits them, yet want to interpret it the way they want to when it suits them.

[cosmicdot]

112. she must have slept through Gore's constitutional crisis speech

she was there ..

"To all of the distinguished guests who are here, Senator Dianne
Feinstein..."

speech snips

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of
our government. Our founding fathers were adamant that they had
established a government of laws and not men. They recognized that the
structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution, our
system of checks and balances, was designed with a central purpose of
ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law." - Al Gore


GORE: For example, after appearing to support legislation sponsored by
Senator John McCain to stop the continuation of torture, the president
declared in the act of signing the bill that he reserved the right not
to comply with it.

Similarly, the executive branch claimed this it could unilaterally
imprison American citizens without giving them access to review by any
tribunal. And when the Supreme Court disagreed, the president then
engaged in legal maneuvers designed to prevent the court from
providing any meaningful content to the rights of the citizens affected.

~snip~
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600779_pf.html


How I wish she had been Liebermaned in the primary.

She and her husband have certainly profitted well off of the Bu$h regime.
It sickens me.

The moment she voted for the 2001 tax cut, the ribbon-cutting agenda-kick-off bill of the Bu$h agenda, she lost my vote ... she was for the estate tax repeal ... she said the Medicare Rx bill was better than no bill at all ... imo she shares blame for Alito getting on the court ... has she said nary a word about election fraud?

http://feinstein.senate.gov/releases01/tax_cut_reconciliation.html

she obviously wasn't bothered by the 2000 coup or its ramifications (probably thought about the promise of profiteering )

she has helped to enable this mess

her 2005 Personal Finance Statement is so large, it's in 5 parts at opensecrets.org

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/candlook.asp?CID=N00007364

If the Democrats cannot persuade the American people by invoking our Founding principles, appealing to them on moral grounds, relating the damaging effect of such legislation on our troops and people and reputation, utilizing history, etc.; and, for once in 6 years stand up and fight like its 1776 ... it's damning of them, and this country is most certainly lost. Pseudo-leaders for corporate profits.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA)
Top Contributors

1 DeBartolo Development $58,800 - a Florida property company
2 PG&E Corp $50,000
3 Qualcomm Inc $39,647
4 Walt Disney Co $35,900
5 Gap Inc $31,900
6 AG Spanos Companies $30,400
7 O'Melveny & Myers $29,800
8 University of California $25,850
9 Cisco Systems $24,500
10 Wells Fargo $24,250
11 AKT Development $24,246
12 Occidental Petroleum $23,600
13 Northrop Grumman $22,750
14 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips $21,748
15 Edison International $21,400
16 Preston, Gates et al $21,307
17 Time Warner $21,183
18 Oaktree Capital Management $20,800
19 Latham & Watkins $19,800
20 Oracle Corp $19,400

[flyarm]

33. call Reids office..tell them you will not work for party, you will not

donate money, you will no longer knock on doors, stuff envelopes , register voters, or even vote if nessesary ..if the dems do not fillibuster..

get serious people, they are signing your name on this crap, stealing your rights ..it is time to get tough with the dems!!

i just called Reids office and said the same..

and i was an elected delegate for the state of Fla..and i let them know that..and i said i am done ..and will not show up this weekend to hand out candidates flyers all day Saturday and Sunday if they do not fillibuster..i will sit out the rest of the Campaign if they do not fillibuster...

i said no more $$$$$$$$ from me will ever go to another candidate..i will no longer do the public speaking i do for the democratic party...i will not do another thing for the dem party unless they fillibuster..

i said i will do my work with the ACLU and try to protect the rights of Americans that the dem party is abdicating their duties to.

I am serious now..this is my children and my children's children's rights..

I said i will not sit back and allow this to be done without a fight even if i am a one woman fighting it!
fly

[BuyingThyme]

40. Thank you.

[cool user name]

38. Excellent post ...

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[killbotfactory]

49. But you would want them to look weak on national security, would you?!

:puke:

[mike_c]

50. the House has voted to undermine much of what the nation stands for....

Good to know they're strong on security-- we'll all feel safer in the Amerikan security state.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. Shame!

It's come to this.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Who believes that we're not in the midst of a descent into fascism?

Personally, I think it's irreversible; yet through romantic delusions I still find myself compelled to fight it.

Kicked and wholeheartedly recommended.

[nini]

58. Maybe they're looking forward to 'interogating' the current admin

after they get booted out?


:evilgrin:

[femrap]

110. Heard of the Doomsday Project?

The Regime has set the attornies at the DOJ to work on this project....if Dems get Subpoena Power, they must be stopped. Hide all evidence and fight all subpoenas.....gonna make Nixon look like a Teddy Bear.

[cool user name]

59. People need to take the opening post ...

and email it to their friends, post it on other message boards, and get the word out.

Of course, I would obtain mike_c's permission before doing so.

[mike_c]

63. no need to ask permission-- it is hereby granted to anyone...

...who wants to spread this message. I cannot overstate how chilling this bill is. That the House would rush to destroy the foundations of American justice simply because the president wants it is appalling. So much for checks and balances. Everyone who voted for this bill today in the House betrayed their country, IMO, and they betrayed it IN OUR NAMES. In doing so, they signed our names to the betrayal. I am so angry and disappointed that I don't know how to express the depths of my disillusionment with what passes for political leadership, and expecially the "opposition party," in this county!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. They're saving the filibuster for something "important".

Perhaps a cut in congressional pay would qualify as "important" seeing as how minor issues like war-crimes, habeus-corpus, kangaroo courts, unlawful detention, and innoculating the president and his lackeys against prosecution aren't "important" enough.

[JerseygirlCT]

68. The driest powder around... nt

[Jcrowley]

67. K&R

Measure defines war on terror
Bush's proposal makes U.S. effort equivalent to war
By Siobhan Gorman
Sun Reporter
Originally published September 27, 2006

A little- noticed provision in President Bush’s proposal for the treatment of suspected terrorists would for the first time legally endorse the fight against terrorism as equivalent to war, lawmakers and national security lawyers say….

Critics of the provision, such as former CIA counsel Suzanne Spaulding, said it could amount to a back-door endorsement of the disputed wartime presidential powers that Bush has asserted, potentially strengthening his hand in court battles over the National Security Agency’s warrantless spying and permitting defense and intelligence agencies to launch operations in the United States.

“Does it allow the president to basically define the war on terrorism as broadly or as narrowly as he wants?” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat. “The answer is yes.”

more at:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.warlaw27sep27,0,670613.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2234346

[diamidue]

70. Get your house in order and look after your own.

Because it is becoming very clear that your government is not looking out for you.
I was asking the other day what exactly our Democratic leaders stood for nowadays. Now I know - torture, for one. And evidently continued war - according to Bill Clinton yesterday.

Disgusting.

[Pierzin]

73. thanks mike c, every American should be very concerned

about this. Just amazing.

[elehhhhna]

75. So, THEY ARE SOFT ON FASCISM here AT HOME?!! Eff terrorism,

OUR present 'Government' is the larger threat, imo.

[gully]

81. What Democrats do you support Mike?

?

[mike_c]

85. I presume that's a loaded question so I'll give it a qualified answer....

In the broadest sense, one of my senators, Barbara Boxer, my congressman, Mike Thompson --most of the time-- John Conyers, Russ Feingold, Maxine Waters, and of course, Dennis Kucinich. There are many more-- I mention those only because they came to mind first. I think Jimmy Carter was one of the greatest statesmen of my lifetime.

Equally, there are lots of democrats I don't support. I'm unabashedly liberal and I don't have much use for centrists or rightwingers, no matter what letter they carry after their names. Principles mean more than party to me. I'm not ashamed of that-- quite the opposite.

In the context of the current thread, I think anyone who voted for the Military Commissions Act today attacked America. They certainly attacked the principles America stands for. Another DUer has commented that he grew up on military bases during the Cold War-- I was also a Cold War kid-- and we were told that the kinds of provisions contained in the Military Commissions Act, along with other things we see in America today, typified oppression in the Soviet Union and that they were the reason the Soviets were our enemies-- because if we didn't fight them, they would export their oppression and threaten our freedom. Today the U.S. House of Representatives voted to surrender America to that very same darkness. However imagined the darkness might have been in the 1950s and 60s, it is certainly real today.

[gully]

87. I agree with you that any Democrat who voted for this law is guilty

of treason. However, I hope we'll also remember the MAJORITY who voted against?

[mike_c]

89. my OP was actually more concerned with the senate dems...

...who now must decide how they will fight this shameful legislation. Democracy Now! reported that Reid had decided that senate dems would NOT take a strong stance against the MCA. That is also, in my estimation, surrendering America without a fight.

[gully]

90. I'll wait for Reid's actions on that.

I hope it is not true. But, then again the term "strong stance" may be open to debate?

[bloom]

83. I agree - it is shameful. nt

[Nikki Stone 1]

92. "acceptance of totalitarianism"--Yup.

Does anyone get the feeling that America is being destroyed from within?

[Danger Mouse]

95. So...is that it?

Is that going to be how it ends? Bit by bit, America is dismantled?
And now, what will be left? How sad. How comical. How absurd. How vile.
I never imagined this. Then again, 'It's can't happen here,' right? Right??
It is happening here. It is 1984. It is Facism.
We have perhaps one chance left now.
Before America is gone, perhaps forever...

[Individualist]

97. Apparently

[Jelperman]

101. Gutless Cowards

If the Democrats don't filibuster the most vile thing to come out of Congress since the Fugitive Slave Act, which took a civil war to overturn, then I'm done with them. If this passes, it's the end of the Republic anyway. What happens in November will mean nothing since the rule of law will be dead and buried forever. Worrying over congressional elections at that point will be as futile and absurd as trying to salvage the tires from the Ryder truck Timothy McVeigh used in Oklahoma City.

[Greyhound]

116. It's 1937 or 1938 and we are the Germans.

Well actually, we are the gay, jewish, gypsy, sympathizers.

I can't believe that so many, even here where people claim to pay attention, can't or won't see this abomination for what it is. :dunce::banghead::dunce:

[gulfcoastliberal]

102. Fantastic OP. Too bad the DLC and their corporate cronies are calling the

shots of the majority of dem votes.

Edit - Recommended!

[wagthedogwar]

111. as Rosevelt once said...

"I need you to make me do it"

unless you get off your ass, bang pots, stand on your lawn and scream, protest in the hallways of Congress, have a fit, go on strike or just sit on your car honking your horn until the police come, nothing will change.

So prepare for 'General Strike' Oct 5. turn the mother out!
Spread the news, prepare to SHUT IT DOWN.

http://www.worldcantwait.net/

On October 5, people everywhere will walk out of school, take off work, and come to the downtowns & townsquares and set out from there, going through the streets and calling on many more to join us - making a powerful statement: "NO! THIS REGIME DOES NOT REPRESENT US! AND WE WILL DRIVE IT OUT!" NO MORE!

--it's up to you.

[gulfcoastliberal]

126. Thnks for this action site - Iam all over i!

Printing flyers an telling everyone I know! Thanks!

[Moochy]

114. Error: You've already recommended that thread. n/t

[BelgianMadCow]

117. I sadly agree, but would like to point out (for hope) that

they were discussing the Specter amendment (and he was quite good in the debate, I hardly know him so this is outsider perspective) and they did not vote yet on that. The Levin amendment was voted down.

Warner said there are two amendments left to discuss and vote on after Specter's. It is thursday now.
There has to be a vote on cloture.

I think not all chances are off the table for this bill to net get passed before recess.

50th rec, even if it is reluctantly in the sense that it were not Dems who started torturing in Abu Ghraib during a war that they didn't start.
Clinton showed how to stand up to the neocon spin machine. It can be done, and I find this a make or break issue.
Specter's arguments against this bill were pretty strong as well. He said "we're abolishing a principle that has been around since the Magna Carta". If a repub can oppose, why not Dems?
The country IS already behind them. Okay, it will get spun. But what will the people think? In my opinion : "there is the alternative ". Now they often only see repuke light.

In any case, never give up!

[Reader Rabbit]

118. Torture *is* terrorism, you stupid fucks!

That should be our message to these numb-nuts. :mad:

Fuck. I can't believe this is happening in my country.

[doctor_garth]

120. cowards

What surprises me is the surprise of some. Like Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky always say, there's only one party in America with two wings, the conservative wing, known as Democrats, and the reactionary wing, known as Republicans.

The entire DU community owes Ralph Nader an apology.

[oc2002]

127. I think your right.

Democrats? what Democrats?

[Octafish]

124. Sure miss Wellstone.

Where are the leaders?

[grizmaster]

125. Anybody have a link to which Congressional cowards voted for torture?

I want to know who to call with praise and who to vilify till my dying day.

[mike_c]

128. the real isue is the senate, IMO....

This bill would have passed the House regardless. It would have passed on a simple party line vote. The real issue is that senate dems can block it with a filibuster quite easily-- congress is getting ready to break, so they only have to hold out for a few days. They've been reported as unwilling to appear soft on terrorism, and of course the repigs are making the most of that issue. So the real question is whether the senate dems will do a gut check or whether they will roll over and do nothing while one of the worst pieces of legislation in a century sails through unimpeded. This bill could be stopped dead in its tracks. But will it be stopped?

[grizmaster]

129. It appears the Senate will fail that gut test

and frankly my gut wants to vomit because of their spinelessness

[EVDebs]

130. A chance Dems needed to take

...by letting the R's institute enough 'rope' to hang themselves come Nov. 7th. The more odious stuff they put 'on the record' the more charges to bring and the easier the whole 'house of cards' falls !

The only drawback is time is of the essence. Getting control of the House (at least) allows for the investigations; finding out how much of the stuff done under * that is irreversible will be the hard work.

[grizmaster]

131. once they've decriminalized their crimes, what do we charge them with?

[EVDebs]

135. When cops break the law, 'acting under color of authority'

is part of the charge...appropriate, wouldn't you say ?

[grizmaster]

141. color of authority is for when you are breaking the law

if they've made torture legal what crimes can we charge those who gave the orders with?

[EVDebs]

144. After Nov 7th we'll all get a chance to find out. Don't dispare. nt

[bdamomma]

133. Amy Goodman is speaking only the truth.

[PhilipDC]

134. No chance of a filibuster

Folks, there is no opportunity for a filibuster. 3rd reading and a final vote were already agreed to in the unanimous-consent agreement yesterday in which the Democrats got their amendments on the floor for consideration. Did they even have 40 votes to block this? I doubt it.
I'm as liberal as anyone, but going off and forming a separate Liberal Party makes absolutely no sense. Then, the Republicans would get 58% of the vote while the Democrats got 27% and the Liberals 15%. Talk about handing over absolute power!

[Ganja Ninja]

136. We've already seen how this administration is willing to mix in ...

political opponents with terrorists on the no-fly lists. Once this bill passes the mask comes off. We will officially have crossed the line from democracy to police state. Anyone could be disappeared at any time. If/when that happens you can never be sure if the cops pull you over if you're ever going home again. That being the case we should all take the necessary precautions and act accordingly.

[emmadoggy]

137. "What congressional dems are demonstrating is far worse than softness on

terrorism-- it's acceptance of totalitarianism."

Yup. Nutshell, right there.

[kentjay]

138. the founding fathers are rolling over

in their graves.

[GeorgeGist]

140. Soft on terrorism is the paradigm...

so they surrender to the cowards who encourage it ???