Senate Debates Torture

(Reposted from thread that disappeared)

Call your senators (again). Call Reid's office. Call!!!

Washington, DC
Phone: 202-224-3542
Fax: 202-224-7327
Toll Free for Nevadans:
1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)

Reno
Phone: 775-686-5750
Fax: 775-686-5757

Las Vegas
Phone: 702-388-5020
Fax: 702-388-5030

Carson City
Phone: 775-882-REID (7343)
Fax: 775-883-1980

Or EMAIL/FAX!!! Here's something from the NYTimes you can cut & paste & email/fax to your senators & Reid's office:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html
These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

List of senators with phone numbers & webforms:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

It is, evidently, who some of us in this country are.

I too feel ill, Casey. I am begging everyone to call immediately.

As I was teaching class this morning (Romanticism into Classical Imperialism--how timely), I was cueing videos and in between the tapes, the in-house campus television station was showing news from CNN. The reporter matter-of-factly stated that " the Senate is expected to pass the torture bill today." She then went on to some Hollywood crap.

I had to stop myself from bending over double, so brutally did I feel kicked. I simply cannot believe this is the country I grew up in.

I cannot live in a place where the legislature is "expected" to kill the Constitution and democracy. Is this 1938 Germany?

I've once again sent an email to Dayton (he was against the version that did not have habeas corpus in it anyway) and told him to vote NO on S 3930.

I even sent an email to that idiot Coleman, told him to vote NO or I would most assuredly vote against him in his next election (like I would anyway), and copied and pasted the flawed parts madame has above in the email.

Then I sent a kudos email to Leahy.... He spoke words I've thought, written, read in other people's writing....

Like everyone else, I just can't believe that torture, habeas corpus, and immunity from war crimes is even being discussed as a serious piece of "legislation."

WHAT?!?!?

Who was that on the floor (I can't see the names on the WMV screen online, so must listen) who spoke out against this trash... and then capitulated and said he'd vote for it and let the Judiciary figure it out...?

SHAME on him!!! He just listed all the reasons not to vote for this trash, and yet he's going to vote for it?!?! For SHAME!!!

Cool, seemingly non partisan site with interactive map - see history of area over time in seconds

Who has controlled the Middle East over the course of history? Pretty much everyone. Egyptians, Turks, Jews, Romans, Arabs, Greeks, Persians, Europeans...the list goes on. Who will control the Middle East today? That is a much bigger question.

http://www.mapsofwar.com/index.html

Okay....

WHAT are they voting on? The whole bill? Or just the section about habeas corpus?

Spector ammendment fails by 3 votes :( several others offered up.

Habeas Corpus portion

Kerry talking now about how Iraq war resolution was offered up to fast and look what happened then.

Kit Bond talking now evidently he is one of those people who love Bush and the non-oversight of the Administration, pretty much oh shucks lets let them do what they want to keep us safe. He is arguing against and oversight ammendment offered up by several Democrats.

Thanks, April... I finally figured it out. I heard one too many aye votes by Dems, finally figured out it was for only the habeas corpus section. As near as I can tell, the most damning thing that can be used against Lieberman by Lamont is that - if I heard correctly - Lieberman voted against keeping habeas corpus.

WHAT the hell is wrong with the Dems who voted against habeas corpus?!?!?

Liked Kerry's speech about the haste, not able to trust He Who Shall Not Be Named Because His Name Is Evil and his previous LIES... and I liked what Rockefeller had to say about haste, etc. What IS the hurry anyway? ALL of this could have waited until after election day. I said earlier I knew DimWit would try to RUSH this horror through before election day in case he ended up with a Dem majority after Nov. 7, but he still would have had a neoCon majority between Nov. and Jan anyway....

We need full texts of these speeches, pro and con. We need a full list of who voted for or against habeas corpus.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3930:
There are 2 versions of Bill Number S.3930 for the 109th Congress
1 . Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Introduced in Senate)[S.3930.IS]
2 . Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[S.3930.PCS]

I found the above online, regarding this piece of toilet paper.

I haven't found anything about what else has been voted on, whether everything except the habeas corpus was voted on before or if the full bill minus the habeas corpus will be voted on later. I just can't tell. The only thing I found online yesterday was the House version of the bill and the list of which reps voted for/against the House version of this insanity. I put it on the previous thread, I think.

Pete Domenicci (sp?) is speaking. What a driveling piece of flesh...!

The senator from New Mexico just unwittingly stated the crux of the problem, they want allow torture of suspected terrorists lets say the again SUSPECTED terrorists not known Terrorists SUSPECTED. Innocent people can be tortured if they are SUSPECTED terrorists this opens a whole can of worms I never ever thought I would see in this great country. We are a country dependant on the rule of law, they want to change that, what happens when we become a lawless country that does as it pleases to people who are suspected of a crime not proven but suspected? what does that say about us?

I know I should but I can not listen anymore I am going to pick my baby up from school and someday I will have to explain to her that at one time we were a great country who wanted to set an example of fairness and decency for others, and how all that changed. I am sick today and sad. so sad.

WASHINGTON - President Bush personally urged the Senate on Thursday to follow the House lead and approve a White House plan for detaining and interrogating terrorism suspects, saying, "The American people need to know we're working together to win the war on terror."

Bush met in the Capitol with Senate Republicans the day after the House passed the legislation that Republicans likely will use on the campaign trail to assert that Democrats want to coddle terrorists.

"People shouldn't forget there's still an enemy out there that wants to do harm to the United States," Bush told reporters after the closed-door meeting.

Senate action expected soon
Barring any last-minute hiccups, a Senate vote Thursday would send the legislation to the president's desk by week's end. The House approved a nearly identical measure Wednesday on a 253-168 vote.

Standing with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, both Republicans, Bush spoke briefly and took no questions.

He said the House-passed legislation "will give us the capacity to interrogate high-value detainess and at the same time give us the capacity to try people in our military tribunals."

"I urged them to get this legislation to my desk as soon as possible," Bush said. He said discussion of the legislation occupied "much of my discussion" with the majority-party Republicans.

House approval
The House approved legislation Wednesday giving the Bush administration authority to interrogate and prosecute terrorism detainees, moving President Bush to the edge of a pre-election victory with a key piece of his anti-terror plan.

The mostly party-line 253-168 vote in the Republican-run House prompted bitter charges afterward by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., that opposition Democrats were coddling terrorists, perhaps foreshadowing campaign attack ads to come. Democrats responded that the GOP leader was trying to provoke fear.

Even as the House debated the bill, senators of the two parties agreed to limit debate on their own nearly identical measure, all but ensuring its passage on Thursday.

Republican leaders are hoping to work out differences and send Bush a final version before leaving Washington this weekend to campaign for the Nov. 7 congressional elections.

The legislation would establish a military court system to prosecute terror suspects, a response to the Supreme Court ruling in June that Congress’ blessing was necessary. While the bill would grant defendants more legal rights than they had under the administration’s old system, it nevertheless would eliminate rights usually granted in civilian and military courts.

The measure also provides extensive definitions of war crimes such as torture, rape and biological experiments — but gives Bush broad authority to decide which other techniques U.S. interrogators can legally use. The provisions are intended to protect CIA interrogators from being prosecuted for war crimes.

‘Strengthening our national security’
In a statement issued after the vote, Bush, who will visit GOP senators Thursday morning, urged the Senate to approve the measure and congratulated the House for its “commitment to strengthening our national security.”

Hastert’s comments were biting. He said in a statement that Democrats opposing the measure “voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists.”

He added, “So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan.”

In response, Pelosi, D-Calif., said Democrats feared the House-passed measure could endanger U.S. soldiers by encouraging other countries to limit the rights of captured American troops. She said the bill would be vulnerable to being overturned by the Supreme Court.

“Speaker Hastert’s false and inflammatory rhetoric is yet another desperate attempt to mislead the American people and provoke fear,” she said, adding that Democrats “have an unshakable commitment to catching, convicting and punishing terrorists who attack Americans.”

During the debate, House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, all but dared Democrats to vote against the legislation.

“Will my Democrat friends work with Republicans to give the president the tools he needs to continue to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, or will they vote to force him to fight the terrorists with one arm tied behind his back?” Boehner asked just before members cast their ballots.

Democrats said they wanted to tone down the powers the bill would give to Bush and the limits it would impose on terror-war suspects’ abilities to defend themselves during trials.

Said Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio: “This bill is everything we don’t believe in.”

Overall, 219 Republicans and 34 Democrats vote for the legislation while 160 Democrats, seven Republicans and one independent voted against it.

During the often partisan debate, some Democrats contended the bill would approve torture.

“All Americans want to hold terrorists accountable, but if we try to redefine the nature of torture, whisk people into secret detention facilities and use secret evidence to convict them in special courts, our actions do in fact embolden our enemies,” said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va.

Others vehemently opposed language that would give the president wide latitude to interpret international standards of prisoner treatment and bar detainees from going to federal court to protest their treatment and detention under the right of habeas corpus. Supporters of the bill have said eliminating habeas corpus was intended to keep detainees from flooding federal courts with appeals.

The bill also gives the president the ability to interpret international standards for prisoner treatment when an act does not fall under the definition of a war crime, such as rape and torture.

“It gives too much leeway to the president,” said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. “And I think when you tamper with the Geneva Conventions ... you hurt our ability to protect the troops.”

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15044215/

suspected terrorists - giving aid to terrorists etc. - very open to interpretation by He Who Shall Not Be Named

according to newspaper accounts, the Republican line up to the mid-term elections will be that Dems want to "coddle terrorists."

Posted by: DiAnne at September 28, 2006 01:02 PM

By no means would Dems coddle, but screw that, Dems CERTAINLY won't torture another of Gods creations, no matter how highly or lowly evolved they are.

Hastey the Hyppo

Posted by: DiAnne at September 28, 2006 01:02 PM

neoCons need to be REMINDED that the ILLEGAL war in Iraq (the invasion of which is a WAR CRIME, and the order to invade UNCONSTITUTIONAL - since war powers belong to Congress, not the "alleged" POTUS) is CREATING MORE CRIMINALS WHO COMMIT TERRORIST ACTS...! How is that "coddling terrorists...?"

I am so furious that to even begin parsing about this despicable piece of legislation that will provide political cover for a despot in the world court makes me violently sick.

Then to top it off, painting Democrats as WEAK on terrorists and then making this PART OF AN ELECTION STRATEGY FOR MIDTERMS.

These are the very same people who looked at Abu Ghraib and said it was reminiscent of a college hazing.

We are damned.

Posted by: Fe at September 28, 2006 01:25 PM

Indeed we are... feel safer NOW?

Hazeus Corpses

Furthermore, when the legions of newly inspired terrorists simmering in the microwave that is Iraq begin dispersing in the coming years to say, the United States, what resources will this country have in place or at it's disposal to defend the American soil and it's citizens?

What's that in the road, a head?

Posted by: monkey at September 28, 2006 01:39 PM

Errrr.... what makes you think they've thought ahead further than getting this horror passed so they can make themselves exempt from war crimes or even further ahead than Nov. 7...?

According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. “It’s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That’s more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces,” says Woodward.

Intelligence shows Iraq violence will worsen in 2007:

The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. “The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], ‘Oh, no, things are going to get better,‘” he tells Wallace. “Now there’s public, and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know,” says Woodward.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/28/woodward-book/

Good on Teddy for reminding them about previous war crimes legislation by Republicans (Bybee), and DoD, war crimes in Nam, McCain's previous torture... etc.

Go Teddy!

coddling apparently is there poll driven word of the day, look to see it by this evening on your local Republican campaign commercial

Posted by: NonnyO at September 28, 2006 01:41 PM

I was actually hoping that the electorate was thinking beyond Nov 7 with that statement, but what the hell was I thinking?

No Wake Zone

This is very depresssing. All of this. I went in the grocery store earlier and at the checkout, I said to the clerk, "They're voting to approve torture today. What do you think about that?"

Her reply, "Oh..they are? I hadn't heard that."

No sign of distress in her face. No sign of approval either. Just a 'Oh well...' type of look.

Then I come here and see all your comments. I can see that you're as down as I feel.

Well, screw it everyone! So today may be a bleak day for America. I can't change their grandstanding in DC today.

But I can fight back. I'm grabbling my precinct stuff and rolling with it. If Rove and Bush think that we're going to be whipped out here, I'll simply prove them wrong. Because for all these Republicans who think torture is necessary, all they have to do is look back at WWII and how Jews and dissenters where tortured then for opposing Hitler. All they have to do is look at our own independence from other countries and how people were tortured there so they moved here to make a better life free of torture at a King's whims.

So just screw it everyone! Pick yourself up and make calls to your neighbors, hold a sign outside your local church, "Who would Jesus torture now?", I don't really care what you do...just go out and make a statement in public that will bring 1/2 plus 1 voter to our side!

Posted by: Ira at September 28, 2006 01:47 PM

Agreed, although it is oddly hypocritical framing considering coddle is a cousin of the compassionates.

Posted by: monkey at September 28, 2006 01:47 PM

But the electorate isn't thinking beyond the "plot" of the next "reality TV" show.... They haven't gotten to Nov. 7 yet....

And Nov. 7 will pass with the same blankness that Suz experienced in the face of the store clerk.

They have NO idea yet what this bill means, the vagueness of it, how it puts our troops in danger of being tortured in the same way as The Evil One will approve torture, free of impunity or responsibility for his war crimes....

Posted by: NonnyO at September 28, 2006 01:59 PM

Most have no idea what's happened since election night 2000... can anyone name a good day from a national perspective since the Prince of Darkness came to town?

Posted by: monkey at September 28, 2006 02:03 PM

I met all of you.

Oh...but I bet that wasn't quite what you meant.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/28/legal_residents_rights_curbed_in_detainee_bill/

Legal residents' rights curbed in detainee bill
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | September 28, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A last-minute change to a bill currently before Congress on the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay could have sweeping implications inside the United States: It would strip green-card holders and other legal residents of the right to challenge their detention in court if they are accused of being ``enemy combatants."

An earlier draft of the bill sparked criticism because it removed the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their detentions in federal court. But changes made over the weekend during negotiations between the White House and key Republicans in Congress go even further, making it legal for noncitizens inside the United States to be detained indefinitely, without access to the court system, until the ``war on terror" is over.

It is unclear who initiated the changes. The bill, which also sets up a new system of military trials for terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, passed the House yesterday and is expected to be voted on in the Senate today, before Congress breaks for midterm elections.

Human rights advocates yesterday lobbied against the bill.

``This would purport to allow the president, after some incident, to round up scores of people -- people who are lawfully here -- and hold them in military prisons with no access to the legal system, whatsoever, indefinitely," said Joe Onek , senior policy analyst at the Open Society Policy Center, a Washington-based advocacy organization

Other last-minute additions to the bill include provisions that would broaden the definition of enemy combatant to include anyone who gives material support to enemies of the United States and its allies, and would prevent detainees who have been released from US custody from suing the US government for torture or mistreatment.

But the part of the bill that worries advocates for immigrants most is the one stating that ``no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

``Habeas corpus" is the legal mechanism that gives people the right to ask federal courts to review their imprisonment.

In the original bill, the section banning ``habeas corpus" petitions applied only to detainees being held ``outside the United States," referring to the roughly 450 prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. But in recent days, the phrase ``outside the United States" was removed.

The White House did not respond to questions asking why the restriction was extended to people in the United States.

But at a press conference after the changes were made, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley praised the bill as ``a legislative framework that allows us to capture, detain, and prosecute and bring to justice terrorists."

{Click on link for more.}

Posted by: monkey at September 28, 2006 02:03 PM

For the people of the United States or the world... um... no, I can't think of a single good day since election night, and the worse day of the SCOTUS decision of 2000.... Seriously, I've been trying to think of a good day, and I just can't remember any.

However, the most fortunate day in the life of the Prince of Darkness was Sept. 11, 2001, as he is so fond of reminding us. For him, that was a good day....

Posted by: NonnyO at September 28, 2006 02:26 PM

9:11 is Republican Standard Time (RST)

Mourning Has Broken

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_el_se/connecticut_senate
Poll: Lieberman leads Lamont in Conn.
HAMDEN, Conn. - Sen. Joe Lieberman has a 10-point advantage over Democrat Ned Lamont among likely Connecticut voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

Lieberman, a three-term Democrat running as an independent after losing the party nomination in a primary, is favored by 49 percent to 39 percent over Lamont in the three-way race. Republican Alan Schlesinger trails with 5 percent.

Click on link for more....

{{{Anyone besides me think Lieberman's lead is an artificial lead promoted by neoCons supporting him? Lamont could decimate the lead if he comes out with ads saying that Lieberman voted against habeas corpus, and if Lieberman votes in favor of the entire bill, it could be fairly said that he is in favor of endangering our troops because he endorses torture, just as The Evil One does, and fairly label Lieberman as a DINO.... It depends on what the wording of the final bill will be, but it seems like it will be too vague, and it could be "interpreted" any old way The Evil One wishes. But it could work to Lamont's advantage. I hope he has good staff members that can spot these loopholes that will, I'm sure, be involved so that the war criminals can "interpret" it any old way they want to.}}}

Was Frank Zappa clairvoyant?

These lyrics are from a song that appeared on his 1967 album "Freak Out", as part of a 3-song suite entitled (drumroll, please): "Help, I'm A Rock" (ahem) ...

----------------

It can't happen here
It can't happen here
I'm telling you, my dear
That it can't happen here
Because I been checkin' it out, baby
I checked it out a couple a times

But I'm telling you
It can't happen here
Oh darling, it's important that you believe me
That it can't happen here

Who could imagine
That they would freak out somewhere in Kansas
Who could imagine
That they would freak out in Minnesota
Who could imagine
That they would freak out in Washington, D.C.

But it can't happen here
Oh baby, it can't happen here
Oh baby, it can't happen here
It can't happen here
Everybody's safe and it can't happen here

--------------

it's been a long time comin' gonna be a long time gone,
Otter

Mourning Has Broken
Posted by: monkey at September 28, 2006 02:29 PM

Yes... it certainly has....

And need we remind you, Senator Warner, that The Prince of Darkness and his whole administration who have wrong-headedly and incorrectly "interpreted" our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and our Laws prohibiting war crimes need to ALSO be held accountable for THEIR war crimes and unconstitutional activities and LIES to Congress, the people of this nation, and the world (and lying to Congress is an impeachable offense, remember?)...?!?!?

WHY is it all the Republicans so conveniently FORGET the war crimes, and high crimes and misdemeanors of the entire Bu$hCo administration?!?!? WHY do NeoCons have such a terrible problem with amnesia when it comes to the spoiled frat brat's crimes, but have no problem whatsoever repeating the frat brat's LIES and brainwashing talking points?!? Reality disconnect?

Posted by: Otter at September 28, 2006 02:37 PM

I don't think I've heard that song... but the words are chilling....

Ye gods and little fishes, but we're going to have to get a transcript of today's proceedings and deconstruct what the morons have spoken today. I can't keep track of all of them in my head, even if I can think of retorts as they speak....

Olbermann: Threatening letter no joke
Keith Olbermann responds to the New York Post's report

By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
MSNBC

The Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, The New York Post, may have just impeded an FBI investigation into terroristic threats.

I know this because I was a recipient.

The Bureau asked us not to report any of the details so that the person or persons responsible would not know any of the threats had been received by any of the targets -- and we of course complied.

I still cannot confirm many of the specifics -- again in order to make the jobs of the FBI and the New York Police Department a little easier. But I find it necessary to respond to the genuinely shocking tone with which Murdoch's paper reported the event, and the string of factual errors they made either through negligence or a premeditated disregard for the truth.

“Powder Puff Spooks Keith," reads the headline. The article then gives the details of the event which we were asked not to divulge.

"The caustic commentator panicked and franctically called 911."

There was no panic.

And if that needs to be independently verified, I'm happy to authorize release of the 911 call recording. In fact, from my own sense of the thing, I was confident there was no danger.

My first inclination was to wait until the start of the next work day to notify authorities. But the remote possibility that any delay might have endangered others, led me to reverse my decision.

"An NYPD HazMat unit rushed to..." then the paper helpfully reveals the location of the event, "but preliminary tests indicated the substance was harmless soap powder. However, that wasn't enough to satisfy Olbermann, who insisted on a checkup."

The results of part of the preliminary tests referred to did not come back for nearly six hours, and the other results did not come in for about 14 hours.

And I made no insistence on a checkup.

The officer in charge of the 18 or so police officers who responded, asked that I follow their protocol: a decontamination shower at the scene, the bagging and sealing of the clothes I was wearing at the time of the incident, and my transportation to an emergency room.

I mean, not to overdo this, but they had to melt my keys and my wallet.

"He asked to be taken to..." -- and forgive me for not mentioning the specific hospital -- "where doctors looked him over and sent him home."

In fact, I was there ten hours before they permitted me to leave, even after several forceful requests by me and my employers to the New York Department of Health, that I should be released.

Incidentally, I apologize if those were too forceful.

Apologize for the requests -- not the commentaries that obviously inspired the event I'm talking about, and the Post's mocking of police and FBI efforts, and its endorsement of terroristic threats from the Radical Right.

We will not be intimidated here.

"Whether they gave him a lollipop on the way out isn't known. Olbermann had no comment."

What they gave me on the way out was not a lollipop, but a prescription for Cipro, the antibiotic most frequently used in the event of exposure to Anthrax.

And one of the reasons I offered no comment, was obvious: the authorities asked me not to.

Also, a New York Post reporter attempted to gain access to me by falsely identifying herself as a friend of mine.

And, most relevantly, the New York Post never called NBC News or MSNBC seeking any comment. They would have been told that the FBI had requested we try to keep this quiet.

But of course that would have interfered with the New York Post making fun of a terror threat.

It's almost melodramatic to ask why the New York Post would choose the side of domestic terrorism, rather than choose the side of the FBI.

It's interesting too that Murdoch's paper was able to get a jump on this story so quickly -- nearly as quickly, as if they'd known it was coming.

Lastly, it's remarkable that this was actually printed by any newspaper, even in the current political climate, even in the wake of my editorial stance here, even with Rupert Murdoch's international reputation.

A month ago when reporter Steve Centanni of Murdoch's Fox News was kidnapped in Gaza -- along with his camera-man -- that network reached out to the others, this one included.

They relayed that the authorities there had urged everyone to keep reporting of the kidnapping low-key, and to a minimum, because it was believed the kidnappers did not know they had gotten hold of some one 'recognizable.'

We -- and every other major news organization -- immediately and thoroughly cooperated with Murdoch's request.

Now, in a return case, Murdoch's newspaper did not even make the single phone call that could've told it the potential damage it was doing.

So, next time a Fox or a New York Post employee is in distress -- or the government is investigating something endangering them -- and Murdoch's people ask us to hold a story?

Of course we will do so.

On this end, we're still human beings.

And Americans.

And we'd never have any problem choosing whether to support the terrorist, or the FBI.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15036633/

Posted by: Suz at September 28, 2006 01:50 PM

Suz knows. I absolutely agree. I'm mad as hell now & I'm doing every damn thing I can to fight back & help my district candidate win this mid-term election.

Mark Kirk, my current rubber stamp rep, supports torture & has endangered our troops even more by voting yes on this bill. I'm actually thinking of making a poster & silently standing in our town square with words to that effect.

Posted by: NonnyO at September 28, 2006 03:09 PM

One word answer: Money

WHOOSH!!! Wow, DimWit hasn't even gotten his official authority to be the dictator and arbiter of the laws and morals and ethics from the Senate yet, and already he's PUSHING for war with Iran.... Click on link for more....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_go_co/congress_iran_1

House approves Iran Freedom Support Act

WASHINGTON - The House voted Thursday to impose mandatory sanctions on entities that provide goods or services for Iran's weapons programs. The vote came as U.S diplomats continued to press the U.N. Security Council to penalize Tehran if it fails to end its uranium enrichment program.

House sponsors of the Iran Freedom Support Act said they expected the Senate to act quickly on the measure, sending it to President Bush for his signature this week.

The bill, passed by a voice vote, sanctions any entity that contributes to Iran's ability to acquire chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The president has the authority to waive those sanctions, but only when he can show that it is in the vital national interest.

"It would be a critical mistake to allow a regime with a track record as bloody and as dangerous as Iran to obtain nuclear weapons," said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., sponsor of the measure. "Enough with the carrots. It's time for the stick."

But critics questioned the need for unilateral action when the United States was pushing for a multinational approach to Iran's alleged nuclear program. "It is, if you will, a cruise missile aimed at a difficult diplomatic effort just as they are reaching their most sensitive point," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore. "The timing for this legislation could not be worse."

The measure codifies existing economic sanctions against the Tehran government that have been in effect since the takeover of the U.S. embassy in 1979 and states that the president must notify Congress 15 days before terminating any of those sanctions.

It also approves assistance for human rights, pro-democracy and independent organizations and states that it is the sense of Congress that the United States should not enter into agreements with governments that are assisting Iran's nuclear program or transferring weapons or missiles to Iran.

"If we fail to use the economic and diplomatic tools available to us, the world will face a nightmare that knows no end," said Rep. Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

But others warned that language in the bill supporting democratic change in Iran would only antagonize people in Iran who might see parallels to U.S. regime change objectives in neighboring Iraq. It's time, said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, "to give assurance to Iran that we are not going to attack them."

Whoops! Sorry for the double post. My screen wasn't moving and I should not have clicked on Post again. Moderator, please remove one of them?

You seeing double again NonnyO? What have you got in your coffee? ;)

IRC anyone...?

US Imposing Sanctions on Thailand
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5390284.stm
Our friend from Thailand (& news reports) indicate that Thaksin (the one overthrown in a coup) was unpopular with the Thai people. "He's kind of like Bush," is how he was described.
Another example of our government wanting only systems they ordain helpful to their "interests."

Well, no coffee today... I thought I had double posted... urg....

Oh, phooey. I don't know why, but this is the first time I can't get to IRC. I get a 'connecting' message, then it says it timed out....

Am I doing something wrong?

Kucinich is right.

But others warned that language in the bill supporting democratic change in Iran would only antagonize people in Iran who might see parallels to U.S. regime change objectives in neighboring Iraq. It's time, said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, "to give assurance to Iran that we are not going to attack them."

Posted by: NonnyO at September 28, 2006 03:32 PM

"Regime change" is a framing utility for trying to linguistically legitimize global dictatorship.

Re the torture legislation, if it can be used on "suspected terrorists" living in America, then we have confirmation of what the camps built by Halliburton in the US might be for, & more reason to question Patriot Act & national identity cards & checkpoints & passports with biometrics. Anyone who questions that we are evolving toward a police state hasn't taken a flight lately. Ostensibly, most anything can be done for our "protection" or "security."

What does ACLU have to say? Amnesty International?

CNN: New Woodward book, "State of Denial" likely to provide ammunition for Democrats in midterm elections.

According to book, the Bush Administration has intelligence that the situation is likely to worse in '07, but they refuse to release it.

Posted by: Cyrano at September 28, 2006 04:06 PM

I don't trust Woodward. He seems most interested in selling books. He has changed from a once idealistic investigatvie journalist trying to protect our country into a sycophant.

Wonder if there will be a new reality show about the ill-fated Iraqi Police Academy?!

On a slightly other topic (but they're all related, under the heading "inept management") - Ira was talking about the supposed economic upturn whereby the DOW was at 2000 levels. Big deal. That means that AT BEST the economy has averaged FLAT over 6-1/2 years! That is pathetic! Our stock holdings are minimal yet under Clinton there were days we made more with them than at work! We now have to work 11 years more than we anticipated at the rate things were going under Clinton. I took at least a 50 percent pay cut. It took our son almost 8 years to get through school. We wanted to travel & now the dollar is down so much that in Vegas and San Francisco (we had to travel domestically due to less money & less safety for Americans overseas) we kept meeting Europeans and Brits who were here because their currency would go so far. They were joking about it, as though they'd won the lottery!

Then looking at one of our papers today, there is a big cover story about COUPLES who have to move back in with parents of one spouse or the other so they can save up to possibly afford a house. Our 25 year old son has had to move back home so many times - one dwelling was changed to business use, one was torn down to make condos. Yet all of this will be touted as economic progress under Bush's two stolen terms.

Re Woodward - Wow - I just read something about that in the coffee shop. Maybe it was The Stranger. I'll dig a little.

This is almost exactly what I read:

Woodward: Bush Covering Up Iraq Violence

From CBS
"60 Minutes” will air an interview of Bob Woodward this Sunday.

In his new book, “State of Denial,” Bob Woodward reports that Iraqi insurgents attack our troops over 100 times per day—far more than what Bush has disclosed publicly. Also: Key intelligence predicts the situation will deteriorate in 2007 before getting better. ("60 Minutes” will air a Woodward interview this Sunday.)

Yes, we know Woodward frequently acts as a White House stenographer, but he also surfaces real game-changing news.

CBS:

Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward tells Mike Wallace that the Bush administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence, especially against U.S. troops, in Iraq. He also reveals key intelligence that predicts the insurgency will grow worse next year.

In Wallaces interview with Woodward, to be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday, Oct. 1, at 7 p.m. ET/PT, the rpeorter also claims that Henry Kissenger is among those advising Mr. Bush.

According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. “It’s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That’s more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces,” says Woodward.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060928_woodward_bush_violence/

Ostensibly, most anything can be done for our "protection" or "security."
Posted by: DiAnne at September 28, 2006 04:05 PM

Precisely.

THAT is why we should have been able to read this ENTIRE bill in its FINAL form BEFORE it was voted on, before anyone proposed any amendments (which are being voted against anyway).

All this RUSH, RUSH, RUSH, to get legislation through before it's even in it's final wording, and mostly at the end of any legislative session, is just a major royal pain in the arse.... and borderline unconstitutional, since it doesn't give any reps or senators time to deliberate or debate any of it. Shoddy government, at best. But DimWit gets by with it, session after session.... Byrd warned us....

Q: How many "terrorists" have been captured in the U.S?

A: Possibly 1

Knowing the answer to that question will explain why habeus corpus will be denied, torture encouraged, and a greater number of prisons built. America is now a police state and I wonder how many foreign tourists will be willing to travel here knowing that they could disappear? Not only that, lets start a betting pool predicitng Keith Obermann's last day on National T.V., Cindy Sheehan's last anti-war vigil, and Karen Bradley's last lecture.

John Kerry: Oppose Torture, Preserve America’s Moral Authority, Protect American Troops

“It leaves our moral authority in tatters if the president who seems to have been for torture before he was against it is given a blank check by a Congress that would rather duck the issue and dodge the debate.”

Senator John Kerry spoke today about national security at Johns Hopkins SAIS and addressed the failure of Congress to stand up to Administration’s policy on torture. Sen. Kerry opposes the so-called “compromise” in the Senate. Below are excerpts from Sen. Kerry’s remarks:

“We must start treating our moral authority as a precious national asset that does not limit our power but magnifies our influence. That seems obvious, but this Administration still doesn’t get it. Right now – today -- they are trying to rush a bill through Congress that will fundamentally undermine our moral authority, put our troops at greater risk, and make our country less safe.

“Let me be clear about something—something that it seems few people are willing to say. This bill permits torture. It gives the President the discretion to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions. No matter how much well-intended United States Senators would like to believe otherwise, it gives an Administration that lobbied for torture just what it wanted.

“The only guarantee we have that these provisions really will prohibit torture is the word of the President. But we have seen in Iraq the consequences of simply accepting the word of this Administration. No, we cannot just accept the word of this Administration that they will not engage in torture given that everything they’ve already done and said on this most basic question has already put our troops at greater risk and undermined the very moral authority needed to win the war on terror.

“It leaves our moral authority in tatters if the president who seems to have been for torture before he was against it is given a blank check by a Congress that would rather duck the issue and dodge the debate. It is time for the United States Senate to make clear what presidents from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton knew for certain but this Administration prefers to muddy: on the issue of torture, there is no compromise. America will not weaken the values that make us strong.

“We need to restore America’s moral authority in the world, and we do that by leading according to our best values. That’s how we need to define America, and that’s how we need to define our foreign policy.”

Today it’s a offical we can longer say America Does Not Torture. Nor can we ever claim that our country is great because we have checks and balances in place to make sure no one man ever has all the power. No American is safe and I am not talking about from terrorists, I am talking about from this Administration given the Administration broad interpitation of other laws we can safly presume they will do the same here meaning that at some point in the future we will hear of American being detained in special camps because they are "Suspected Terrorists" I guess we all just trust that all the hyperpole about Ameircans who do not support this Administration being terrorists coddlers friends and supporters was just that a little politicing and we trust that they would never in a million use this law against us. I am sorry I do not have that kind of trust or faith in the man who would be king.

September 11,2001 accomplished so much more than the terrorists who attacked us ever thought it would. As we go around the world promoting American style democracies we are as I write this moving farther and farther away from the things we have always held dear. Other countries have struggled with terrorism far longer than we have and today we tell them to become democracies that it will help stop terrorism does anyone else not see the ironies in these statements. One attack 5 years ago changed the very fabric of our democracy yet we expect these people to have the courage to stand up to tyrants, to change their countries to be more like us. We have the nerve to tell them: we are better than them, smarter than them, and more right than them. When we as Americans have become cowards, children cowering in the dark, wanting someone anyone to protect us by whatever means that person deems necessary. Notice I say person not people not our government but a single person vested by his party to totally take control of what we the American people have the right to have a voice in. Over the last 5 years we have watched the coronation of a king today we watched in horror at they crowned him.

I cried today and I said something I have never thought I would say thank God my peace loving beautiful baby girl who believed so passionately in the Idea that is America that she argued, begged, badgered people to pay attention is not here on this earth to see this.

Today I cried not only for my children but for all our children because at the end of the day it is our children who will pay the ultimate price for the poor judgment shown by not only our President but our elected officials people charged with overseeing the Administrative branch people put forth by our constitution to make laws and have oversight of those laws and the biggest part of their job to make sure we uphold the constitution of this country they have failed us, they failed me, and you and even those who still believe they need to cower in the dark.

We can not promote democracy even as ours goes done the drain we can not claim we want to make someones life better while our own goes down the drain we can not and should ask people in other countries to take a chance at Democracy when our own fledgling democracy could not stand one great test.

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

Everytime this administration tramps on the constitution in the guise of keeping us safe I think about this quote. I guess he would know since he was one of our Founding Fathers, but maybe this is open to broad interpretation like all those other pesky laws and bills and agreements.

Newsweek interview with Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign ...

NEWSWEEK: There have been a lot of critiques from both sides on the war in Iraq. Some say critics are appeasing the terrorists. Others say dissent is part of a healthy democracy.

John Ensign: When you are at war, leaders have a heavy responsibility to be careful what they say. Back in the Civil War, Robert E. Lee used to read the Northern newspapers. He saw the discord in the North and that is the reason he drove to Gettysburg. These extremists around the world are looking at the division here in America. It is emboldening them. They think America is weak.

But polls show growing public dissatisfaction with how things are going in Iraq.
I think that has a lot to do with leadership. We need statesmen right now. We don't need politicians taking polls and have their governing based on polls. We need people who will have the courage to do what is right.

NEWSWEEK: You have visited Iraq on a number of occasions. What is going on in the country right now?

Ensign: Most of the country is pretty positive. Baghdad obviously is not a great place. There are major challenges to winning this whole war against Islamo-fascism [or] whatever you want to call it. Iraq is the central front in that war. Osama bin Laden said that.

NEWSWEEK: Do you think U.S. troops should be involved in civil strife within Iraq?

Ensign: This is not about civil strife in Iraq. This is about a war. This is a central front in the war against people of the radical Islamic faith. They have tried to hijack a great religion.

NEWSWEEK: But what about the fighting between Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites?

Ensign: Some are trying to turn it into that. But it is much bigger than that. We cannot afford to allow the enemy to win in Iraq. The positive news is the Iraqi police force [and] the Iraqi defense force is getting better. The better they get, the sooner we should get out of there.

NEWSWEEK: What about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld? A number of Democrats and Republicans have been calling for his ouster.

Ensign: It is not a number of Republicans. The president has full confidence in Rumsfeld. We are at war and it is time to not only be behind our troops but to be behind our commander in chief.

NEWSWEEK: You have billed yourself as a fiscal conservative. What has it been like for you to be in Congress while the deficit has ballooned along with governmental spending?

Ensign: That has been the biggest frustration since I've been here. I believe when you are at a time of war, when we had Katrina, we should have reprioritized our spending.

NEWSWEEK: Why do you think a GOP-controlled Congress and White House have had a difficult time controlling spending?

Ensign: The deficit would be under $100 billion dollars [this year] if it weren't for Katrina and the war.

moreon...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15046056/site/newsweek/page/2/

Kerry Opposes Senate's Failure on Torture Compromise

“If, in a few hours, we squander America’s moral authority, blur lines that have for decades been absolute, then no speech, no rhetoric, no promise can restore it.... Mr. President, I wish I could say this compromise serves Americas’ moral mission and protects our troops. But it doesn’t. No eloquence we can bring to this debate can change what this bill fails to do.”

Below is John Kerry’s full statement from the Senate floor today in opposition to the Senate “compromise” on torture:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President. The last week before we leave for a long recess is always extraordinarily busy—particularly when an election is only 42 days away. Sadly, it’s too often part of how business is done in this institution.

Today, the leadership of the Senate has decided that legislation that will directly impact America’s moral authority in the world merits only a few hours of debate. I am talking about moral authority that is essential to waging and winning a war on terror, and that is critical to the safety of American troops who may be captured.

If, in a few hours, we squander that moral authority, blur lines that have for decades been absolute, then no speech, no rhetoric, no promise can restore it.

Four years ago, we were at a similar situation. An Iraq War Resolution was rushed through the Senate because of election year politics – a political calendar, not a statesman’s calendar. Four years later the price we are paying is clear for saying to a President and an administration that we would trust them. Four years later, there is enough blame to go around and each of us must assume our share of the responsibility.

But today we face a different choice – it is to prevent an irreversible mistake, not to correct one. It is to stand up and be counted so that election-year politics do not further compromise our moral authority and the safety of our troops.

Every Senator must ask him or herself, does the bill before us treat Americas’ moral authority as a national asset that does not limit our power but magnifies our influence? Does it make clear that the United States government recognizes beyond any doubt that the protections of the Geneva Convention have to be applied to prisoners in order to comply with the law, restore our moral authority, and best protect American troops? Does it make clear that the United States does not engage in torture - -period?

Mr. President, a veteran of the Iraq War whom I know, Paul Rieckhoff, wrote something the other day that every Senator ought to think about as they wrestle with this bill.

He wrote that he was taught at Fort Benning, Georgia about the importance of the Geneva Conventions. He didn’t know what it meant until he arrived in Baghdad. Paul wrote,

“America’s moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets of Iraq. It saved innumerable lives, encouraged cooperation with our allies and deterred Iraqis from joining the growing insurgency. But those days are over. America’s moral standing has eroded, thanks to its flawed rationale for war and scandals like Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and Haditha. The last thing we can afford now is to leave Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions open to reinterpretation, as President Bush proposed to do and can still do under the compromise bill that emerged last week.”

We each need to ask ourselves, in the rush to find a “compromise” we can all embrace, are we strengthening Americas’ moral authority or eroding it? Are we on the sides of the thousands of Paul Rieckhoffs in uniform today, or are we making their mission harder and even worse, putting them in greater danger if they are captured?

Paul writes eloquently,

“If America continues to erode the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, we will cede the ground upon which to prosecute dictators and warlords. We will also become unable to protect our troops if they are perceived as being no more bound by the rule of law than dictators and warlords themselves. The question facing America is not whether to continue fighting our enemies in Iraq and beyond but how to do it best. My soldiers and I learned the hard way that policy at the point of a gun cannot, by itself, create democracy. The success of America’s fight against terrorism depends more on the strength of its moral integrity than on troop numbers in Iraq or the flexibility of interrogation options.”

Mr. President, I wish I could say this compromise serves Americas’ moral mission and protects our troops. But it doesn’t. No eloquence we can bring to this debate can change what this bill fails to do.

We have been told in press reports that it is a great compromise between the White House and my good friends, Senator McCain, Senator Warner, and Senator Graham. We have been told that it protects the “integrity and letter and sprit of the Geneva Conventions.”

I wish that what we are being told is true. It is not. Nothing in the language of the bill supports these claims. Let me be clear about something—something that it seems few people are willing to say. This bill permits torture. This bill gives the President the discretion to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions. This bill gives an administration that lobbied for torture exactly what it wanted.

We are supposed to believe that there is an effective check on this expanse of presidential power with the requirement that the President’s interpretations be published in the Federal Register.

We shouldn’t kid ourselves. Let’s assume the President publishes his interpretation of permissible acts under the Geneva Convention. The interpretation, like the language in this bill, is vague and inconclusive. A concerned Senator or Congresswoman calls for oversight. Unless he or she is in the majority at the time, there won’t be a hearing. Let’s assume they are in the majority and get a hearing. Do we really think a bill will get through both houses of Congress? A bill that directly contradicts a Presidential interpretation of a matter of nation security? My guess is that it won’t happen, but maybe it will. Assume it does. The bill has no effect until the President actually signs it. So, unless the President chooses to reverse himself, all the power remains in the President’s hands. And all the while, Americas’ moral authority is in tatters. American troops are in greater jeopardy. And the war on terror is setback.

Could the President’s power grab be controlled by the courts? After all, it was the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan that invalidated the President’s last attempt to consolidate power and establish his own military tribunal system. The problem now is that the bill strips the courts the power to hear such a case when says “no person may invoke the Geneva Conventions . . . in any habeas or civil action.”

What are we left with? Unfettered presidential power to interpret what—other than the statutorily proscribed “grave violations”—violates the Geneva Conventions. No wonder the President was so confident that his CIA program could continue as is. He gets to keep setting the rules – rules his Administration has spent years now trying to blur.

Presidential discretion is not the only problem. The definitions of what constitute “grave breaches” of Article 3 are murky. Even worse, they are not consistent with either the Detainee Treatment Act or the recently-revised Army Field Manuel. These documents prohibit “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” defined as “the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendments.” The definition is supported by an extensive body of case law evaluating what treatment is required by our constitutional standards of “dignity, civilization, humanity, decency, and fundamental fairness.” And, I think quite tellingly, it is substantially similar the definition that my good friend, Senator McCain, chose to include in his bill. And there is simply no reason why the standard adopted by the Army Field Manual and the Detainee Treatment Act, which this Congress has already approved, should not apply for all interrogations in all circumstances.

In the bill before us, however, there is no reference to any constitutional standards. The prohibition of degrading conduct has been dropped. And, there are caveats allowing pain and suffering “incidental to lawful sanctions.” Nowhere does it tell us what “lawful sanctions” are.

So, what are we voting for with this bill? We’re voting to give the President the power to interpret the Geneva Conventions. We’re voting to allow pain and suffering incident to some un-defined lawful sanctions. The only guarantee we have that these provisions really will prohibit torture is the word of the President.

The word of the President. I wish I could say the words of the President were enough on an issue as fundamental as torture. Fifty years ago, President Kennedy sent his Secretary of State abroad on a crisis mission – to prove to our allies that Soviet missiles were being held in Cuba. The Secretary of State brought photos of the missiles. As he prepared to take them from his briefcase, our ally, a foreign head of state said, simply, “put them away. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.”

We each wish we lived in times like those. Perilous times, but times when Americas’ moral authority, our credibility, were unquestioned. Unchallenged.

But the word of the President today is questioned. This Administration said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda, that they would exhaust diplomacy before we went to war, that the insurgency was in its last throes. None of these statements were true, and now we find our troops in the crossfire of civil war in Iraq with no end in sight. They keep saying the war in Iraq is making us safer, but our own intelligence agencies say it’s actually fanning the flames of jihad, creating a whole new generation of terrorists and putting our country at greater risk of terrorist attack. It is no wonder then that we are hesitant to blindly accept the word of the President on this question today.

The President said he agreed with Senator McCain’s anti-torture provisions in the Detainee Treatment Act. Yet, he issued a signing statement reserving the right to ignore them. He says flatly that “The United States does not torture” – and then tries to bully Congress into allowing him to do exactly that. And even here, he has promised to submit his interpretations of the Geneva Convention to the Federal Register -- yet his Press Secretary announced that the Administration may not need to comply with that requirement.

We have seen the consequences of simply accepting the word of this Administration. No, the Senate can not just accept the word of this Administration that they will not engage in torture given the way in which everything they’ve already done and said on this most basic question has already put our troops at greater risk and undermined the very moral authority needed to win the war on terror. When the President says the United States doesn’t torture, there has to be no doubt about it. And when his words are unclear, Congress must step in to hold him to hold him accountable.

Mr. President, the Administration will use fear to try and bludgeon anyone who disagrees with them.

Just as they pretended Iraq is the central front in the war on terror even as their intelligence agencies told them their policy made terrorism worse, they will pretend America needs to squander its moral authority to win the war on terror.

They are wrong. Profoundly wrong. The President’s experts have told him that not only does torture put our troops at risk and undermine our moral authority but torture does not work. As Lieutenant General John Kimmons, the Army’s deputy chief of staff for intelligence, put it:

“No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that. Any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility. And additionally, it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. We can’t afford to go there.”

Neither justice nor good intelligence comes at the hands of torture. In fact, both depend on the rule of law. It would be wrong – tragically wrong – to authorize the President to require our sons and daughters to use torture for something that won’t even work.

Another significant problem with this bill is the unconstitutional elimination of the writ of habeas corpus. No less a conservative than Ken Starr got it right: “Congress should act cautiously to strike a balance between the need to detain enemy combatants during the present conflict and the need to honor the historic privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.” Ken Starr says “Congress should act cautiously.” How cautiously are we acting when we eliminate any right to challenge an enemy combatant’s indefinite detention? When we eliminate habeas corpus rights for aliens detained inside or outside the United States so long as the government believes they are enemy combatants? When we not only do this for future cases but apply it to hundreds of cases currently making their way through our court system?

The Constitution is very specific when it comes to Habeas Corpus. It says “[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” We are not in a case of rebellion. Nor are we being invaded. Thus, we really don’t have the constitutional power to suspend the Great Writ. And, even if we did, the Constitution allows only for the writ to be suspended. It does not allow the Writ to be permanently taken away. Yet, this is exactly what the bill does. It takes the writ away—forever—from anyone the Administration determines is an “enemy combatant.” Even if they are lawfully on US soil and otherwise entitled to full Constitutional protections and even if they have absolutely no other recourse.

Think of what this means. This bill is giving the administration the power to pick up any non-U.S. citizen inside or outside of the United States, determine in their sole and unreviewable discretion that he is an unlawful combatant, and hold him in jail—be it Guantanamo Bay or a secret CIA prison—indefinitely. Once the Combatant Status Review Tribunal determines that person is an enemy combatant, that is the end of the story—even if the determination is based on evidence that even a military commission would not be allowed to consider because it is so unreliable. That person would never get the chance to challenge his detention; to prove that he is not, in fact, an enemy combatant.

We are not talking about whether detainees can file a habeas suit because they don’t have access to the internet or cable television. We’re talking about something much more fundamental: whether people can be locked up forever without even getting the chance to prove that the government was wrong in detaining them. Allow this to become the policy of the United States and just imagine the difficulty our law enforcement and our government will have arranging the release of an American citizen the next time our citizens are detained in other countries.

Mr. President, we all want to stop terrorist attacks. We all want to effectively gather as much intelligence as humanly possible. We all want to bring those who do attack us to justice. But, we weaken – not strengthen – our ability to do that when we undermine our own Constitution; when we throw away our system of checks and balances; when we hold detainees indefinitely without trial by destroying the Writ of Habeas Corpus; and when we permit torture. We endanger our moral authority at our great peril. I oppose this legislation because it will make us less safe and less secure. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you.

Newsweek interview w/Republican Sen. John Ensign ...

NEWSWEEK: There have been a lot of critiques from both sides on the war in Iraq. Some say critics are appeasing the terrorists. Others say dissent is part of a healthy democracy.

John Ensign: When you are at war, leaders have a heavy responsibility to be careful what they say. Back in the Civil War, Robert E. Lee used to read the Northern newspapers. He saw the discord in the North and that is the reason he drove to Gettysburg. These extremists around the world are looking at the division here in America. It is emboldening them. They think America is weak.

Q: But polls show growing public dissatisfaction with how things are going in Iraq.

A: I think that has a lot to do with leadership. We need statesmen right now. We don't need politicians taking polls and have their governing based on polls. We need people who will have the courage to do what is right.

Q: You have visited Iraq on a number of occasions. What is going on in the country right now?

A: Most of the country is pretty positive. Baghdad obviously is not a great place. There are major challenges to winning this whole war against Islamo-fascism [or] whatever you want to call it. Iraq is the central front in that war. Osama bin Laden said that.

Q: Do you think U.S. troops should be involved in civil strife within Iraq?

A: This is not about civil strife in Iraq. This is about a war. This is a central front in the war against people of the radical Islamic faith. They have tried to hijack a great religion.

Q: But what about the fighting between Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites?

A: Some are trying to turn it into that. But it is much bigger than that. We cannot afford to allow the enemy to win in Iraq. The positive news is the Iraqi police force [and] the Iraqi defense force is getting better. The better they get, the sooner we should get out of there.

Q: What about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld? A number of Democrats and Republicans have been calling for his ouster.

A: It is not a number of Republicans. The president has full confidence in Rumsfeld. We are at war and it is time to not only be behind our troops but to be behind our commander in chief.

Q: You have billed yourself as a fiscal conservative. What has it been like for you to be in Congress while the deficit has ballooned along with governmental spending?

A: That has been the biggest frustration since I've been here. I believe when you are at a time of war, when we had Katrina, we should have reprioritized our spending.

Q: Why do you think a GOP-controlled Congress and White House have had a difficult time controlling spending?

A: The deficit would be under $100 billion dollars [this year] if it weren't for Katrina and the war.

moreon...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15046056/site/newsweek/

One of Wolf Blitzer's sources at Simon & Schuster has told him that this book has information that is "election altering".

There is a God.

More on Woodward:

A new Bob Woodward book says President Bush has deceived the public on the level of violence in Iraq and that Henry Kissinger is an important adviser to Bush on the war.

Log on to http://www.cbsnews.com for details.

Posted by: April at September 28, 2006 04:22 PM

I also am "glad" my parents (whose birthdays would have been Tue. and Wed. this week, were they alive) are dead so that they can't see the dissolution of the United States of America as they knew it.... Both were staunch Dems, and even though the funeral for one of my mom's brothers was on election day in 1964, my folks stopped off to vote before we headed out of town to her brother's funeral. They took their voting seriously.

I've been thinking of them both all day, hoping I wasn't defaming their memories in being glad they couldn't see the US hit this horrible low point today. Both of them had hearts as tough as melted butter when it comes to kids, and they would have been horrified over the national debt to be passed on to the future generations, over their youngest grandson with the guards in Afghanistan where he does not belong because he is the father of two young sons who won't remember him when he gets back. I honor my parents' memories, but I'm glad they can't be here for this. It would have broken their hearts.

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama (AP) -- President Bush counterpunched at Democrats on Thursday, saying their criticism of the war in Iraq has turned their party into one of "cut-and-run" obstructionists.

At a GOP fundraiser, Bush accused Democrats of using a new intelligence estimate that ties the war in Iraq to rising extremism to win votes in November.

The National Intelligence Estimate -- compiled by leading analysts across 16 U.S. spy agencies -- concluded that Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for jihadists, who are growing in number and geographic reach. If the trend continues, the analysts found, risks to U.S. interests at home and abroad will rise.

The greatest danger to America is not the U.S. military presence in Iraq, but rather a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from the war-torn nation, Bush said.

With 40 days left before the Nov. 7 elections, Bush is pushing back against Democrats who point to setbacks in Iraq, a resurgence of violence in Afghanistan -- and now the new report -- as evidence that the nation needs a change in political leadership.

The stakes in the war -- and the election -- are high, Bush said.

"Five years after 9-11, Democrats offer nothing but criticism, and obstruction and endless second guessing," Bush said. He said the Democratic Party -- the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman -- has become the "party of cut-and-run."

If Democrats really believe the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has made America less safe, then they should make that case to the American people, Bush said.

"Saddam Hussein's regime was a serious threat," Bush said, adding that had he not been removed from power, the former Iraqi leader would still be killing innocent people, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and firing at U.S. pilots.

"Americans, Iraqis and the world are safer because Saddam is not in power."

more...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/28/bush.ap/index.html

... and Republicans, the party of Lincoln, are nothing but a bunch of F***UPS!!!

Republican are no longer the Party Of Lincoln had Lincoln been around today he would be a Democrat for sure, because todays republican would have argued for peoples rights to own slaves it would have impeeded their ability to make money and hurt the economy to make them give up slaves.

BRB gonna hold my nose and turn on SoftBall with Chris Matthews

"Americans, Iraqis and the world are safer because Saddam is not in power."
Posted by: monkey at September 28, 2006 04:47 PM

After what's happening today in the Senate & House, I see no difference between the morality & humane ideals of Iraq under Saddam Hussein than those same moral values/ideals in the US under Bush.

I thought I was pissed by the Senate bullcrap, these comments by the Idiot Supreme re: 'cut & run obstructionist' has my blood boiling over.

Hey Dumnuts, your lameass party controls all branches of the federal govt, in case you hadn't noticed. The only obstruction going on is of the facts and truth, by YOUR bootlickers.

To the STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID people who have ALLOWED this country to be sunk under the weight of a collosal baffoon who couldn't drink his way out of a paper bag, I say...

YOU SUCK!

Saddam Hussein would have been the U.S.'s best hedge against an emerging Iranian hegemony - a hegemony that would have been unthinkable had not Bush facilitated an unprecedented alliance between the Persians of Iran and the Arabs of Iraq.

Bush is utterly clueless about the negative impact that he's had on the geopolitical equation.

Softball headlines news Allen a racist wow, I guess thats more important than anything else today.

I guess at least they are talking about a Republican wrong doing. But its not the biggest issue of the day :(

Gee, when Saddam was in power, I dont recall a terrorist haven in Iraq, or seeing 100's of dead tortured Iraqi's showing up in the streets on a daily basis, or a global jihad based in Iraq.

I haven't heard Saddam brought up in months, suddenly, he's the threat again.

F YOU W

Monkey

He has to bring him up, Clinton forced the issue quite by accident I am sure. Iraq is losing him poll numbers and support after all the hard work Bush has done in the past month trying to focus primarily on terrorism, he got yanked back hard to Iraq by peoples not supporting it and as long as he is focusing on Iraq and Saddam no one will (In the MSM that is) will push real hard about the Clinton statements not that they would have anyway

Anyone wanna place dibs on how long it will be (God forbid) before we see an American soldier or citizen on TV being treated in the manner in which we have officially told the world how to treat others?

Then what?

Anyone wanna place dibs on how long it will be (God forbid) before we see an American soldier or citizen on TV being treated in the manner in which we have officially told the world how to treat others?

Then what? How will this hysterical nation react?

We condem that organization or nation tell them how wrong they are threaten to retaliate oh wait that would be what they will be doing Duh

Sorry for the echo... I'm twice as P.O.ed as I thought.

HOW can ANY specific acts be forbidden or allowed under Common Article 3...??? How much more clearly can it be stated that ALL forms of torture of any kind whatsoever, anywhere, at any time is strictly prohibited...? WHAT needs clarification?

Common Article 3 is a short read, written in concise elementary English.... WHAT is not to understand???

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/e160550475c4b133c12563cd0051aa66?OpenDocument

International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Part I : General provisions

ARTICLE 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Geneva Rules & the War on Terror:

Q/A r/t Geneva Convention before it was "altered" for "clarity" - can see where things were headed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4879942.stm

Posted by: madame defarge at September 28, 2006 03:24 PM

You do it the weekend of the 28th and I'll join you. (I'll be in your neck of the woods that weekend.)

The bill gives the president license to undermine enforcement of the most basic human rights protections in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Moreover, it would strip the courts of their historical and constitutional role as a check on the executive branch. As a result, the president would have new authority to decide much of the scope of authorized conduct and the severity of any punishment, giving him unparalleled power to unilaterally determine whether the federal government can carry out cruelty and abuse.

Also, the bill undermines America’s commitment to due process by allowing convictions on the basis of evidence that was literally beaten out of a witness or obtained through other abuse by either the federal government or other countries. Government officials who authorized or ordered illegal acts of torture and abuse would receive retroactive immunity for many of these acts, providing a "get out of jail free" card that is backdated nine years. Further, the bill fails to commit the government to consider violations of the McCain anti-torture amendment criminal acts under the War Crimes Act.

A recent addition to the bill expands who can be designated a so-called "enemy combatant." Anyone the president designates an enemy combatant could be arrested and detained without charge indefinitely and without access to the courts.

http://www.aclu.org

Among other things, the legislation would:

Permit the executive to convene military commissions to try "alien unlawful enemy combatants", broadly defined, in trials that would provide foreign nationals with a lower standard of justice than US citizens accused of the same crimes. This would violate the prohibition on the discriminatory application of fair trial rights.

Permit unfair trial procedures, such as the use of coerced evidence in military commission trials.

Give the military commissions the power to hand down death sentences.

Endorse executive power to determine who is or is not an "enemy combatant", and endorse the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), the wholly inadequate administrative procedure that has been employed in Guantánamo to review individual detentions.

Prohibit any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols as a source of rights in any action in any US court.