home

Bill To Restore Habeas Defeated

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:09:54 PM EST
Tags: habeas reform (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Spector-Leahy bill to restore the right of habeas corpus to detainees has been defeated. An "aye" vote of 60 Senators was needed. The final tally was 56 to 43. The nay votes included 42 Republicans and Joe Lieberman.

The roll call vote is here.

What it means: Executive imprisonment without judicial review. President Bush can continue to designate and detain individuals as "enemy combatants" and they have no meaningful ability to challenge their confinement.

People for the American Way:

Once, people the world over had faith that America was a country where you couldn’t just suddenly ‘disappear,’ taken away by the police in the night, never to be heard from again. Guilty or innocent, you would have your day in court.”

No more.

[More...]

The ACLU is heartened by today's vote because while it fell short of 2/3, it got more than a majority.
"Today's vote was a victory for those seeking to restore both the rule of law and our nation's Constitution," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office. "The Military Commissions Act of 2006 stripped away one of our most fundamental rights -- to challenge your imprisonment by the government. While the amendment ultimately was not filibuster proof, a majority of senators have made it clear that they want to restore the right of habeas corpus."
< O.J.'s Bond Set at $125,000 | Norman Hsu Waives Extradition, May Have Boarded Wrong Train >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bill To Restore Habeas Defeated | 50 comments (50 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Important to note (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by LarryE on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:28:51 PM EST
    It's important, I think, that we note that the bill was not defeated, it was filibustered. The 60 votes were those needed to cut off debate and get to a vote on the bill itself.

    What that means is that Reid and Company could have kept the amendment on the floor, forced continued debate, and scheduled cloture votes day after day if necessary to attempt to break down the resistance. They could have make as big a stink as possible after each and every failed cloture motion, denouncing the "no"s as opposing a cornerstone of Western democracy that has survived wars, insurrections, and civil disturbances for 800 years but apparently is to die an agonized, waterboarded death at the hands of a cabal of power-hungry jackals and their sniveling Quisling toadies.

    Okay, they wouldn't have said it quite that way. But they could have. And their passive failure to push the measure further is almost - almost - as disgraceful as the maneuvering of those who blocked it.

    Well, it WOULD have been filibustered (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kovie on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 05:07:19 PM EST
    had Dems actually forced Repubs to do this. I'm sick of all these "Oh, ok, so you're threatening a filibuster? No problem, I'll schedule a cloture vote in 5 minutes...".

    I don't understand this Dem strategy of letting Repubs effectively take the lead and set the agenda. Reid knows that they're not going to pass let alone have Bush sign 90% of what they try to legislate, so his only real advantage right now is forcing Repubs to play their obstructionist hand to the point of negative returns. Make them actually filibuster every last bill that they seek to block, and let the public know who is actually stalling this congress.

    I know that everbody piles on Dems as spineless, gutless, cowardly, etc. But I suspect that it's actually more like cluelessness. I think that they literally don't know how to fight back. Of course, they also lack those guts, from what I can see. You don't need to be assured of victory each time for it to be worth fighting the Repubs. Sometimes you win even by "losing"--in the PR battle for '08. If polls show that the public is even more upset with the Repubs--which I believe such an approach would show--then Repubs will have to reevaluate their strategy.

    It's really not that complicated, and actually doesn't require all that much courage. In war, smart strategy and a favorable position often trump valor. E.g. Pickett's Charge. Let's make THEM suicidally charge up that hill, rather than simply call every battle a draw because some idiot Dem pollster says "NO! Don't fight the Repubs! Voters will turn on you!". Ech, I can't stand those morons.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#19)
    by LarryE on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 05:48:04 PM EST
    it WOULD have been filibustered had Dems actually forced Repubs to do this

    Distinction noted and acknowledged. That has indeed been the deal: Dimcrats propose bill, GOPpers say "we'll filibuster," cloture vote held, cloture fails, bill dropped, GOPpers denounce "do-nothing Congress." Rinse and repeat.

    I do, however, disagree that its cluelessness. It is gutlessness, a fear of what might be said about them if they do such-and-such, whatever that might be.

    Parent

    I'm not convinced that it's just gutlessness (none / 0) (#33)
    by kovie on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:24:21 AM EST
    I've thought about this a lot and think that while certainly there is more of that to go around, there is also a strong element of cluelessness. Remember, they hadn't been in the majority in both houses for 12 years, during which time a whole new generation of Dems have come up with no experience of being in the majority, while the older, pre-'94 generation forgot what it was like being in the majority (which, really, they lost in part by being so arrogant and complacent)--and became quite good at being an ineffective and weak minority party.

    So, without excusing their mostly inexcusible behavior so far, I suspect that in many ways they literally don't know how to do this, like blind men groping an elephant in the dark and trying to figure out what it is. Add to this clueless contingent those who are corrupt, cowardly, complicit and cynical, and you have the makings of a very ineffective and pathetic majority--in name only, really.

    From a political point of view, I still think that there's time for it to get its act together before the Repubs are able to pose a viable challenge for their majority in either house, which they are highly unlikely to regain in '08. So it's not yet panic mode--politically, as the real-world consequences of their ineffectiveness is obviously palpable, serious and tragic. But if they don't get their act together within a couple of years, Repubs are going to pose a threat in '10--and make life miserable for any Dem president who wins in '08.

    I'm still looking for leaders to emerge, as Pelosi and Reid are clearly interim stand-ins for whoever takes over for the long run in a few years. There are some bright spots within the ranks, like Tim Ryan, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Jay Inslee. But they're going to have to make a move soon, and push their way through the ranks to the leadership level, or else craven shmucks like Hoyer and Emanuel will take over. And that would be a disaster for progressivism--and the country. Their brand of corruption might be more legal than the Repubs' kind--being smarter it's only natural. But it's still corruption, of the moral and ethical sort.

    Parent

    While anything is possible, ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by LarryE on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 07:18:14 AM EST
    ... I suppose, the argument that the party leadership, which has been in Congress for decades (e.g., Reid, 20 years in the Senate; Durbin, 14 years in the House, 10 in the Senate; Pelosi, 20 years in the House) is that clueless about how the game is played just doesn't impress me much.

    Parent
    I'm not trying to impress you (none / 0) (#37)
    by kovie on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 07:44:15 AM EST
    But your rather condescending tone does impress me as rather rude.

    And if you re-read my comment, I said that the long-timers hadn't been in the majority (for any sustained period of time at least in the senate, and not at all in the house) for 12 years. There is clearly a different political calculus that applies to the minority than that which applies to the majority, and you don't get to figure out the other side's calculus just by simply observing them. When you're in the majority for years, you think in terms of what legislation to put on the floor, what hearings to hold, what witnesses to call, how to keep the minority in line, etc. You don't learn these things in the minority, which is where these Dems have been for the past 12 years. Like everything else, political muscles atrophy from disuse, and a different set of them apply to the minority than to the majority.

    I also wrote that it wasn't JUST cluelessness. But if you're a big fan of "there can only be one possible explanation of everything in the world" thinking, then be my guest. Complexity isn't something that everybody's ready to handle.

    Parent

    I don't get it (none / 0) (#43)
    by LarryE on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 01:01:44 AM EST
    The bottom line is that I just do not accept that the failures of the Democrats in Congress are due in any measurable degree to their having, in essence, forgotten what it was like to be in the majority they once held - or, more bluntly, due to incompetence, aka "cluelessness." I say it's their refusal to use the powers available to them, not their ignorance of how to do so.

    I really don't get how in your mind that disagreement constitutes rude condescension or demonstrates I am "a big fan of 'there can only be one possible explanation of everything in the world' thinking." Nor do I understand why the only alternatives you can see are agreeing with you and an inability to handle complexity.

    I thought we were merely having a civil disagreement. Apparently I was wrong. As I had - and have - no intent of giving offense here (I guarantee you that if I had intended to offend you, you would have no doubt of it), I'll drop the subject.

    Parent

    It was the words "do not impress me" (none / 0) (#44)
    by kovie on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 01:50:02 AM EST
    which, to me, came across as condescending. As in, you'll need to do better next time if you want to impress me. Maybe it's just me, but I took it the wrong way. If I over or mis-reacted, my apologies. I've been involved in a few heated and/or silly discussions lately here and elsewhere so perhaps I'm a little overly sensistive these days.

    In any case, I still contend that cluelessness has something to do with it, even though I don't doubt that gutlessness does as well. Politicians are not necessarily the brightest people in the world. This is especially true of Repubs, but is also true of some Dems. Some of the things I've heard coming out of their mouths have been truly and breathtakingly stupid.

    And I believe that this stupidity, along with their deer in the headlights approach to anything that seems even remotely politically risky, strikes me as clueless--as well as gutless. I mean, some of the stances that they've failed to take, that everyone views as gutless, were so NON-risky that only a moron would view them as risky. Is there such a thing as being gutless in the face of non-danger? Isn't that essentially being clueless?

    If I refuse to go outside on a very cold day because I'm afraid of getting sick, am I gutless, or clueless? I'd say both, but probably more of the latter than former, seeing as cold weather generally doesn't make people sick by itself. Similarly, if these Dems refuse to meaningfully take on Bush and the GOP because they're afraid of upsetting those precious swing voters as being too far-left, despite the fact that the majority of them are WITH us on the issues these days, does that make them gutless or clueless? Both, clearly, although I'd say that it's much more of the latter than most realize.

    This might sound like a silly analogy, especially since it's based on what archeological evidence suggests is a myth, but these Dems reminds me in a way of the ancient Israelites who escaped bondage in Egypt, who were so used to being powerless victims that it took 40 years in the wilderness to root out their whole generation and allow a younger and tougher-minded one to take over, before they were deemed ready to have their own country. I give this example for its allegorical value, not religious (and despite being Jewish I'm not at all religious). And I see these Dems as similar to those meek Israelites, too cowed by years of powerlessness to be able to be in charge.

    Of course, it's more than just gutlessness and cluelessness. To a great extent, I think that many of these Dems also exhibit yet a third bad trait, complicity. I think that a lot of them just don't care, being only interested in getting reelected, enlarging their majorities, and become ever more powerful. It's quite common to find among every group that's gone through tough and discouraging times certain people who would cynically exploit them and their fears and naivite for their own ends (to return to my analogy again, Dothan and the golden calf--false solutions for false fears). Folks like Hoyer and Emanuel aren't clueless OR gutless so much as they're cynical. And they ALL have to be rooted out of the party if they cannot or will not do what's right.

    Again, sorry if I misstepped. Happens sometimes on the internets. :-)

    Parent

    From what I understand (none / 0) (#38)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 08:51:43 AM EST
    There was a rule change at some point so that you can't actually "force them to filibuster" anymore. That's the problem. And it can't be changed until 2008, unless we attempt a Reverse Nuclear Option to bring back the filibuster, which would actually be really entertaining.

    Parent
    This rings a bell (none / 0) (#42)
    by kovie on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:03:29 PM EST
    as I seem to recall reading something about this a while back. Do you have any links or further information on this? Was it an actual rule, or a "gentlemen's agreement" between Reid and McConnell?

    In any case, like everyone else I simply do not understand why they continue to roll for the Repubs. Do they not want to fight, do they not know how to, or do they not think that it's necessary or will help? And do they not realize that NO ONE respects people who won't fight for what they claim to believe in. If this is about Lieberman, I seem to recall another rule that says that even if he switches to the GOP, the senate remains in Dem hands. So let him bleeping flip already, as he's already done that in everything but name. Perhaps we could even entice Hagel to switch to independant, since he's already with the Dems on everything concerning Iraq.

    I don't get this. I just don't. It's surreal, like seeing a bunch of adults do a deer in the headlights thing as they try to deny reality and act as if nothing's going on while they keep getting run over by a bus. Some of them are going to get primary challenged and lose their seats, quite deservedly. Others are going to lose their leadership positions, quite deservedly. Their gutlessness and cluelessness truly perplexes me. The country is behind them, so WTF are they doing, caving into the Repubs over and over and over?!?

    Parent

    It goes back further than that (none / 0) (#45)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:49:21 AM EST
    I don't have time to look it up, unfortunately, but it was an actual rule change. The closest approximation is the rather ineffective "Democratic filibuster" we saw this summer. However, I've been informed that the Democrats could simply change the rule, and rule changes (obviously) cannot be filibustered.

    As to why they don't, well, I guess they've got too much on their plate voting to condemn progressive organizations.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#47)
    by kovie on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:29:32 AM EST
    rules changes CAN be filibustered--by "Independant Democrats". Lieberman would undoubtedly vote against it, which would hand it over to Darth Vader. And I'll give you one guess as to how he'll vote.

    Parent
    Took the words right outta my mouth (none / 0) (#9)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:48:30 PM EST
    Filibustered.

    Parent
    Habeas not so effective anyhow (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 10:35:50 PM EST
    With the advent of right wing jurists, a twenty five year lurch to the right in the SCOTRP, and AEDPA, etc., habeas aint what it used to be.

    We are no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of petty men.

    Remember the Bush v. Gore decision stunk so bad they wouldn't even sign their names to it.

    Habeas is alive and well in the Ninth Circuit. (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 01:42:03 AM EST


    Parent
    Don't worry folks this can't happen to you (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:33:07 PM EST
    unless you are a foreign national.

    09/19/07 - Today, Senate Republicans blocked a vote on the restoration of habeas corpus for certain foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay and on American soil, allowing the President to continue asserting that he has the right to imprison those suspected of being "enemy combatants" indefinitely, without any means to challenge their detention in court.

    Now. Are the Demos, and you, saying that we should let a court decide whether or not these folks get bail??

    And actually, Combatant Status Review panels continue, so it isn't like they are just thrown in a hole and ignored.

    BTW - That is from the link in the post.

    BTW - Since these prisoners never had habeas corpus, how can this be about "restoring" it?

    Shouldn't the sentence read, "....giving of habeas corpus...????


    "unless you are a foreign national"=lie (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:54:29 PM EST
    José Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts.

    I'm sure you'll point out that Bush relented (after he was forced to) after destroying Padilla's mind through 5 years of sensory and sleep deprivation and constant beatings.

    So, Jim, you wanna volunteer for the Padilla treatment? It's your right as a citizen.

    Just ask José.

    Parent

    The problem for your attempt is that (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 05:34:04 PM EST
    this bill is about foreign nationals only, and as much as Jose may have desired to join up and attack, all he managed to do was join and plan.

    The other thing is that the SC has ruled, more or less, that we can not do that to US citizens which forced the government to bring Jose to trial. A position, BTW, I supported long ago, right here. I do seem to remember that along with a speedy trial I suggested a death penalty for treasonous acts.

    But given that the issue, if I understand correctly, is not completely settled, about a month ago, at the end of the trial, I made several attempts to see how we could protect terrorism suspects due process while ensuring the government has ample time to interview, question, etc.

    As you may remember my attempt towards a reasonable solution was unsuccessful, proving that the Left, in general, is more interested in "rights" than they are in "responsibilities."

    Parent

    The point (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 01:53:07 PM EST
    is that Padilla was, by your own admission, not that much of a bad guy.

    And yet they gave him the full on Kafka-Orwell "lock 'em up with no charges and beat 'em until he doesn't remember his name" treatment. And that's what they admitted publicly.

    And we're supposed to trust these guys to do the right thing in secret?

    You just don't get it, do you?

    Parent

    Huh?? Where do you get that? (1.00 / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 03:02:19 PM EST
    is that Padilla was, by your own admission, not that much of a bad guy.

    I seem to remember saying treason should be punished by hanging...

    And do you have any links?? He was evaluated and it as judged that he was okay for trial

    Parent

    BTW (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 05:37:43 PM EST
    I provided a direct quote from the link provided in the post and you had the gall to call that a lie.

    Thank you. Your actions demonstrate your abilities.

    Parent

    Don't yell; it hurts my eyes. (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 05:44:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Then get some sun glassess (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 06:01:34 PM EST
    Send scar the bill.

    Parent
    Should habeas corpus apply to this foreigner? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 06:10:05 PM EST
    Setpember 9, 2004

    The Pentagon has determined for the first time that one of the nearly 600 prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay has been incorrectly classified as an "enemy combatant".

    The man will be returned to his home country.

    Navy Secretary Gordon England has refused to identify the prisoner or his nationality.

    According to you, its ok to lock this man up indefinitely. How many more are there like him? You don't know. We don't know. What do we say to him? Ooops!? The one thing we do know is, Bush;s judgment is more than just suspect.

    Why are you afraid of the rule of law? And why are you so eager to live here, if you are not willing to live under the rule of law. You can get capitalism AND authoritarianism in China. Give it some thought.  

    Parent

    GITMO (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 01:52:14 AM EST
    has released hundreds of prisoners whose actual value in the so-called "long war" or GWOT or WWIV (if you ask Norman Podhoretz) or the clash of civilizations ( if you ask Samuel Huntington) we will never know. Many were picked up on hearsay, to settle local vendettas, or for reasons far removed from American national security.
    Habeas would allow such people to challenge their incarceration. It is not the same as the full  panoply of US civil rights: it is a fundamental limitation on the power of the executive. Doing away with habeas means giving Bush and whoever follows him in office a blank check with regard to detaining "unlawful enemy combatants,"  and preventing anybody so designated from challenging their detainment.
    This is fundamentally un-American and only made possible by the apocalyptic hysteria of permanent war crowd. It's well past time to return to a centuries old legal principle which made our liberty possible.

    Parent
    The subject is US citizens, but if you (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 08:39:01 PM EST
    want to discuss non-citizens....

    Now again, as we've mentioned, as in previous conflicts, we do not want to release someone who will return to the battlefield to fight Americans and our allies.  And this is the dilemma we have trying to strike a right balance.  And as you are aware, there's been at least 12 of the more than 200 detainees that have been previously released or transferred from Guantanamo that have indeed returned to terrorism.  So this is a very difficult process we're in.  We don't want to let people out who will come back, fight and kill Americans or anyone else in the world; at the same time, we are trying to strike the right balance in terms of their rights and their freedoms.  So it is not without risk.

    The link says 200, your link says 1 on 9/04. This link was to a briefing in late 12/04, so there appears to be a difference in information or else DOJ/DOD got very busy in three months.

    BTW - Note that of the 200 released, 12 had returned to terrorism. Guess they must be part of a Leftie "Catch and release plan.." Kinda like the "fish" must have killed at least 20 Americans to be kept in custody???? Guess these 12 applied for a second chance.

    Rule of law? How about laying down your snark shtick and show me the law that holding de facto prisoners of war is a violation if they don't get a bail hearing???

    So I think I will stay. This is the best nation on God's green earth even if you don't recognize that.

    Parent

    If you're so worried... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 09:21:33 PM EST
    ...about one of these guys ending up fighting again (if they ever did in the first place), why do you make no noise about all the weapons we've given away in Iraq that have come back to kill our men and women there, or innocent Iraqis?  Why no outrage about arming groups who will undoubtedly, at some point, turn those weapons back on our soldiers?  Because the Dear Leaders assure you it's alright?

    Your blithe lack of concern never ceases to amaze me.  As if 200 guys in a tyrant's hole is worth the blowback it has gotten us.  As if those 200 are all Dr. Evils, capable of single-handedly destroying the globe.  That is the effect of your paranoia.  Can you not for a second play devil's advocate with your own thinking?  Can you not even consider, for a few seconds of internal debate, that deciding to run a gulag has been a decidedly bad idea for a country professing to be the greatest on earth?  

    Parent

    Who said I'm not worried?? (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:04:25 PM EST
    Do you have a list of my worries?

    Reading your tortured logic is enough to make anyone worried.

    You see, I start from the view that the military will, in almost all cases will tell the truth. So when the guy says that 12 came to haunt us, I believe him.

    You believe the opposite. Try that for some internal debate.

    Parent

    So you just admitted 188 foreigners (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:45:52 AM EST
    were wrongfully detained. Yet you would not allow them to challenge their detention.  Maybe you should stop while you are behind?

    Why are you so fearful of the rule of law?

    Parent

    Nope. Not at all. (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 08:53:42 AM EST
    I think we had every reason to pick them up, and after some point in time our further investigation indicated that we should release them.

    That we let 12 go that we should not have is a testament to our basic fairness.

    Like it or not, we are involved in a war started by a group of radical Moslems. These people were not accused of robbing a Quicke Mart. I think we have been more than fair with the process.

    I further do not think that our constitutional rights apply to POWs, and they do not apply to people captured by our forces in the field, be they regular military or CIA. And saying that it would if they were brought into the US is a sophomoric argument. Saying that they should have habeas corpus rights is even a further detour into the twilight zone.

    As diogenes points out, if these people are POWs then they can be held under the GC until the war is over. If they are not POWs then they are enemy combatants. A much better name for them is guerrillas. The traditional punishment for them was death.

    Parent

    You miss the point- the only question is (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 09:24:54 AM EST
    was it due to intellectual dishonestly or obtuseness.

    Parent
    This wasn't plain enough?? (1.00 / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:32:16 AM EST
    I think we had every reason to pick them up, and after some point in time our further investigation indicated that we should release them.

    Now, if I think we did right in picking them up to start, why do you think I believe they were wrongly detained?

    They were rightfully detained until our review process determined that they should be released. If we had not released them then they would have been wrongfully detained.

    And 12 were wrongly released.

    Have a snarky morning!!!

    Parent

    I'll give you the benefit of a doubt- obtuse. (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 01:49:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Since it's so nice (4.66 / 3) (#11)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:56:20 PM EST
    why don't you go there and undergo it yourself.  Then, after a couple decades in a hole, you can come out and tell us just how pleasant it was.

    Propriety and site rules preclude me from responding apporopriately to the nonsense you've spouted here.

    Parent

    I have a better idea (1.00 / 4) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 05:23:54 PM EST
    Since you are the one protesting, I think it better still for you to go. That way you can speak with first hand experience rather than third and fifth hand information and claims.

    As for your veiled "nasties" I assure you that I know them all and am more than happy to heap a pile of them on you.

    Now, since we have both shown we can scratch, spit and otherwise mark our territories, perhaps we can tell us why you think that people who are de facto POW's should have the same legal rights as US citizens?


    Parent

    Confused (1.00 / 0) (#26)
    by diogenes on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 10:19:14 PM EST
    If the GITMO people are POW's then they can be held indefinitely (until the war ends) with NO habeus corpus, albeit with somewhat better conditions under Geneva Convention.
    If they are enemy combatants then they still have no habeus rights.
    Under what circumstances are either POW's or enemy combatants entitled to habeus corpus?

    My answer..... (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 09:18:56 AM EST
    under humane circumstances.

    Parent
    Well , since they've peeled off a few, maybe (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:21:23 PM EST
    if we keep pushing, they'll peel off some more.

    A while back, it think it was FDL had a post on how to work your congresscritter's attention when calling and writing - long, well-analyzed, heartfelt letters get even less attention than a quick postcard, cursing the guy for being a clown does not work (even when accurate and true).  If anyone  remembers where to find it and beats me to posting the link, go for it.

    The big thing I remember from it was that a couple hundred calls on a single issue is "a big thing".

    I don't think anyone's going to turn Lieberman, though.  He's making a virtue out of his strength in resisting both his constituents and common decency.

    How is he (none / 0) (#4)
    by HeadScratcher on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 02:37:57 PM EST
    How is he resisting his consituents? They knew what they were voting for when he was re-elected. It's not like this is a total shock.

    Now, for common decency...

    Parent

    Actually, he told lie after lie in his campaign (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 02:57:00 PM EST
    and the Connecticut media swallowed it whole.
    Go read this, for starters.

    Parent
    Thanks for posting the roll call. (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:22:55 PM EST


    It's too bad we're going to have to wait till '08 (none / 0) (#3)
    by kindness on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 02:16:51 PM EST
    before we change MANY of they tyrannies and totalitarian themes of the bush43 Administration.

    It's truly sad that only 6 Republican Senators voted for closure.

    You sure? (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 02:40:43 PM EST
    The Democratic Party I see will take that tyrannical/totalitarian ball and run with it baby.

    Parent
    It's disappointing (none / 0) (#12)
    by YatPundit on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:26:03 PM EST
    that TalkLeft is buying into the Republican meme that >60 votes means defeat.  This was a vote to stop debate.  It failed, so now Reid, et al, will meekly cower and say yassuh to the Republicans.

    If this issue was of importance to TalkLeft, I would have expected to see advocacy of forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster and stop the system to get what they want.

    oops... (none / 0) (#13)
    by YatPundit on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:41:37 PM EST
    make that <60 as in less than 60 votes...

    Parent
    Vote again tomorrow.. and Saturday (none / 0) (#28)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 10:37:25 PM EST
    To bad none of the Democratic senators really means it.

    Especially the LeaderSheep.

    Parent

    I expect wimpy behavior from Senators... (none / 0) (#34)
    by YatPundit on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:27:59 AM EST
    but when the blogosphere buys the GOP meme, we've got problems...

    Parent
    What Has Happened to the GOP? (none / 0) (#22)
    by john horse on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 07:11:39 PM EST
    What has happened to the GOP?  When and why did they sell their souls? I would have never thought that in my lifetime I would live to see one of our major political parties come out against habeus and for executive imprisonment without judicial review.  As Frank Zappa once wrote "it can't happen here."  Yet it has.

    I have friends who were once stalwart Republicans who now feel that this party has been taken over by rightwing extremists.  If you look at the number of GOP Senators who voted nay it becomes apparent that they aren't getting their party back.  Fortunately there are alternatives.  We'll keep the light on for you.

    John Horse (1.00 / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:08:26 PM EST
    What has happened here? We won't hold bail hearings for de facto POWs. That's what has happened here.

    Sounds like your friends are terribly misinformed.

    You haven't called them up and claimed this Demo bill has anything to do with citizens have you??

    Parent

    It Started Here (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 09:31:06 PM EST
    The Powel Memo

    Now the plan is well rooted. David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Michael Ledeen, Christopher and Peter Hitchens et al, as well as think tanks like AEI (PNAC) and corporate entitles like Carlyle  Group are the fruits of that memo.

    Parent

    Bill To Restore Habeas Defeated | 50 comments (50 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment