(perhaps naive) question about the torture bill.

[Kali]

What are the odds if something like this does go all the way through, that the courts themselves (Supreme Court) rules against it?

Could dems that voted for it also be counting on something like that?

[emmadoggy]

1. I've been wondering this too, although

it certainly DOES NOT excuse the Dems who voted for it. There is NO EXCUSE for voting for this abomination.

[mike_c]

3. this bill directly repudiates the founding principles of American justice

Anyone who votes for it is a traitor, IMO. Anyone who fails to do whatever they can and allows it to pass through negligence is unworthy of office. Legislators represent the people-- their authority is derived from the consent of the governed-- and when they allow this monstrous bill to pass they will do so in our names. For all intents and purposes they will sign our names to their acquiescence. I am OUTRAGED by this betrayal.

[mike_c]

2. it will certainly be challenged, but in the meantime...

...people being held in secret prisons or at Guantanamo will remain in indefinite detention without trial, continuing enduring abuse, etc while the challenge works it's way through the federal courts.

It is also a rather convoluted bill with numerous different provisions, all of which will have to be challenged separately unless a single case can address them all. Some, like legitimizing the Bush admininstration's emergency wartime authority, will probably never be directly challenged, IMO. Plus, as the act is worded, the lawyers challenging it could conceivably be charged as "unlawful enemy combatants" themselves-- I know that sounds ludicrous, but lawyers for prisoners at Guantanamo have already raised the possibility.

[Bandit]

4. You mean the right wing extreme court that has been installed?

Yep they are going to overturn what the GOP wants. Sure just keep thinking that all the way to Gitmo....

[Kali]

5. well, wasn't a recent decision by that court part of the reason for this

bill?

By the way, I am not in agreement with the dems that voted for. I would have stood my ground, but then I have let principles get in the way of long term goals before, so just trying to understand what the thinking is. I feel there is a workable balance in the universe between those that stand on principle and ideals and those that are able to compromise. We do need both to progress. Without ideals nothing would progress, but without compromise nothing would work.