home

Time to Filibuster

By TChris, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 07:03:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

It isn't surprising that Republicans would sell out the Constitution and endanger the country by supporting the president's proposal to weaken the Geneva Conventions and to try detainees without the fundamental protections of due process, but it should be shocking that Senate Democrats apparently won't use their power to stop this un-American bill.

An editorial in today's NY Times succintly explains seven key problems with the bill. Will its call to action fall on deaf Democratic ears?

There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don't blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they'll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won't remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They'll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation's version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

< Birthday and Open Thread | Iraq Poll: Please Leave >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Time to Filibuster | 21 comments (21 topical)
    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#2)
    by soccerdad on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 07:53:21 AM EST
    The ears of the Dem leadership are not deaf. Its time to come to accept the fact that the Dem. leadership is behind the war. Their only wish is that it was going better.

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 07:57:14 AM EST
    SD - Perhaps the Demos understand that in war you can't tie the hands of those who are fighting it, and that the public understand and condemn the Demos actions in doing so.

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#4)
    by soccerdad on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 08:04:11 AM EST
    PPJ - perhaps the Demos support the illegal war of occupation being fought for geopolitical power. This war has nothing to do with terrorism except that it is creating more. Historically Demos and repubs have been very similar in promoting interventions for US interests ( read corporate interest) see Kinzer's latest book. And in the past imperialistic interventions have often been shrouded in patriotic sounding crap much like this one.

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#1)
    by jarober on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 09:49:42 AM EST
    1) These are not uniformed combatants. Therefore, they don't get POW level rights 2) POWs are not supposed to be tried in civil courts, period. Even if you granted them POW rights, military tribunals would be the appropriate (and legal) process 3) Whyt do you believe that non-citizens who conduct non-uniformed combat - with civilians as shields - deserve full American constitutional rights? What is the benefit of citizenship if anyone on the planet is to be granted full constitutional protections? I think you've forgotten the responsibilities that go along with the rights.

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 09:55:03 AM EST
    Tchris... It isn't surprising that Republicans would sell out the Constitution and endanger the country by supporting the president's proposal to weaken the Geneva Conventions What kind of twisted logic is this? Endanger the country by wanting to actually "get tough" with terrorist who don't go by...(and never signed) the GC? Ask anybody that was in the Hanoi Hilton how much the Geneva Conventions (that Viet Nam actually signed) helped them! No sir Tchris...it's you and your ilk that are endangering this country. I'm sure you are one of those (great minds) that think if we just leave, everything will be alright... (They'll leave us alone ...) forgetting completely the years of violence against America before anybody even considered going into Iraq. Talk about your coolaid drinkers! BTW..the constitution was never meant to "protect" the enemies of the US... but I'm sure you already know that don't you? Giving these animals constitutional rights they are not entitled to will further endanger this country! Go ahead... filibuster... The American public is about to show the Dems (yet one more time) just how tired they are of you kissing up to our enemies!

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#7)
    by killer on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 10:22:24 AM EST
    IMHO, supporting the constitution CANNOT reduce this country. I also believe that this country and what makes it great are not the dirt it lives on or the individual lives of it's citizens. As an example, Habeus Corpus is written into the Constitution for all persons, not just citizens. I believe that makes legislation waiving Habeus unconstitutional. If you want a country without the protections of the 1st, 2nd, 4th or other constitutional guarantees, that is your choice, but I will speak out against policy positions that I feel degrade the constitution. Some rights under the Constitution are granted to citizens (voting for example) others are granted to persons or U.S. persons. As for the idea of trashing constitutional freedoms to "save lives", I suggest that kind of action is counter to the founding principles of this nation. We have faced much more fearsome enemies in our past (remember "duck-and-cover"?) This enemy cannot threaten our nation by itself, it needs people within this nation to choose to destroy those things that make us great.

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 10:52:31 AM EST
    Killer writes:
    Some rights under the Constitution are granted to citizens (voting for example) others are granted to persons or U.S. persons.
    Killer - Actually all rights not specified are:
    IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
    The question becomes, who are "the people?" The Preamble says:
    We the People of the United States
    That indicates that the constitution is for citizens of the US, not the world. Now, if someone is legally visiting the US, then they should be afforded the same rights as citizens, because we let them in. Now comes the point. If you are here illegally, or if you have attacked the country, why should we grant you the same rights as citizens??

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#12)
    by killer on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:05:05 AM EST
    Jim, I hear your position, but the preamble has no legal standing. Also, you say "Actually all rights not specified are" The rights specifically enumerated include Habeus, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, press, "well organized militia", you get the idea. I believe that the Constitution has been ruled as to whom it applies to by the SCOTUS. We don't need to guess as to who these rights apply to.

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#13)
    by killer on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:14:03 AM EST
    Oh, yeah. I just read the prreamble, and it does not say "we establish these rights for ourselves and no others". I don't think the preamble was written to limit who the bill of rights applies to. Here's just one example of my point- Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. While "privileges or immunities" is for citizens, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" DUe process is granted to all persons, without limitation. BTW, equal protection is also granted to "any person". I believe that any limit of this to any person is a limit to all persons.

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:50:58 AM EST
    killer - The Preamble defines who the constitution is for. You say it has no legal standing. Horse hockey. Without it the remainder of the document would be undefined. It says: "We the people of the United States..." It doesn't say, "We the people of the world... It certainly doesn't say, "We the people who have been attacking the United States in Afghanistan....or Iraq..."

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#15)
    by killer on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:56:23 AM EST
    "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." This is what the preamble does. It establishes the Constitution. Once established, the constitution defines for itself who it applies to. And again, SCOTUS has defined who that is.

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:33:04 PM EST
    And, of course, no innocent person has ever been caught up in this court system. Never happens, so we don't need to worry about making sure that the people we bring in are actually terrorists before we start starving, drowning or breaking them. Maher Arar? Mani al-Utaybi? Figments of your imagination. The system is infallible. And killer is right. The government may not deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process. That's set down as a categorical restriction on the power of the government, not a right reserved to the citizens.

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#17)
    by killer on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:43:57 PM EST
    Here's a little slice of commentary by Joseph Story (look him up under SCOTUS) "Its true office," wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries, "is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them..." Offered without comment.

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#18)
    by killer on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:52:43 PM EST
    Here's a little slice of commentary by Joseph Story (look him up under SCOTUS) "Its true office," wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries, "is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them..." Offered without comment.

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 03:40:49 PM EST
    I think the Democrats have just lost any chance to regain at least one house--people will see no difference between the parties. Further, people will perceive the Democrats as being "skeered" without balls, without a clear definition of where they stand, which should be on the side of Americadn justice for all. Obviously, they don't care and I am about to agree, that they do indeed, want this war and possibly one with Iran. In any event , after this cowardly capitulation to a president such as George Bush, no less, there is little doubt in my mind they would endorse, whole heartedly, an invasion of Iran. I would bet on it.

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 03:40:49 PM EST
    Posted by JimakaPPJ September 28, 2006 08:57 AM Then you have no problem, in a future war, with an enemy of the U.S. capturing and holding our troops, or an innocent American citizen who is visiting that country, and denying them the right to due process. I do hope to see you here supporting our enemy's right to do that, because that's exactly what Bush is getting. I fully expect our government, especially the Republicans, to demand that the enemy government either state the reason for detention or else release our people immediately. I then expect the enemy to say, simply, "Yeah, right." As for this legislation speeding through Congress, Bush has had 4 years to take care of this and actually bring the guilty detainees to trial and prosecute them. In 2002 Sen. Spector proposed to Sen. Durbin a plan to work together to create legislation that would give the President the power to try them. Durbin accepted, but Bush wasn't interested. Until now, that is, conveniently before an election, when he wants to ram it through. I'm all for legislation allowing our government to prosecute the terrorists. But seeing as how there will be innocent detainees as well as guilty ones, they all deserve fair treatment. You would, JimakaPPJ, want nothing less for our own troops, right?

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 03:40:49 PM EST
    I've called up my two Senators (Mikulski and Sarbanes) and urged them to filibuster the Military Commissions Act, a.k.a. the More Torture, Less Habeas Corpus Act. For all the good it'll do, but you gotta do what you can.

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 03:40:49 PM EST
    BTW..the constitution was never meant to "protect" the enemies of the US... Well, the U.S. Constitution doesn't exactly let the captured enemies walk, now does it? So they are all guilty until proven innocent. Right?

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 03:40:49 PM EST
    An unlawful enemy combatant is defined as anyone that a military tribunal determines is an unlawful enemy combatant. That could be you. ''(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.--(A) The 5 term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means-- 6 ''(i) a person who has engaged in hos- 7 tilities or who has purposefully and materially 8 supported hostilities against the United States 9 or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy 10 combatant (including a person who is part of 11 the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or 12 ''(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the 13 date of the enactment of the Military Commis- 14 sions Act of 2006, has been determined to be 15 an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant 16 Status Review Tribunal or another competent 17 tribunal established under the authority of the 18 President or the Secretary of Defense.

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 04:44:43 PM EST
    See a tongue-in-cheek visual of the Grand Opening of "Tortureland"...here: www.thoughttheater.com

    Re: Time to Filibuster (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 07:27:20 AM EST
    WC.... So they are all guilty until proven innocent. Right? Yes! When we captured German/Japanese soldiers on the battle-field, I think we all assumed they were guilty of shooting at us? And NOBODY (including them) would ever even consider the possibility of giving them 'legal' rights and access to our court system! Tell me I'm wrong.... Killer... I don't think the preamble was written to limit who the bill of rights applies to. Give me a good educated guess on how long you think this counrty will last if we actually grant 'citizen' privileges to our enemies! Viserys.... The government may not deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process. So, according to you, everybody that was ever killed in any war with the US has a 'legal' right to sue?? C'mon...you do know how stupid that sounds don't you? You honestly think the founding fathers wanted this???

    Time to Filibuster | 21 comments (21 topical)