So it is on for today. Detainee Rights bill up

[TayTay]

They are unsure how it will go. There may or may not be a cloture vote on this amendment today. It depends on whether or not they keep this as an amendment or strip it out as a bill on it's own. So, there may be a vote on a bill that no one knows about, hasn't read and doesn't understand. This is democracy in 2006 in America.

[beachmom]

1. As a constituent, have you called Sen. Kerry's office on this?

He still hadn't made a decision yesterday (per Imus), because the language kept changing. I have no criticism for him here -- it seems nobody knows what's in the bill. Still, with the vote coming, surely he has decided by now, right?

[TayTay]

3. Yeah, now that it is actually on the schedule

But again, what the hell is being voted on? What do I ask him to do? Vote against cloture, ahm, I think, if it comes up, unless the leadership is unable to figure out a way to separate the amendment out and make it a bill.

Oh, and what version of the bill and based on what?

Dear Sen. Kerry, please don't vote for torture, though I can't for the life of me figure out which vote that will occur on. Ahm, I think it may come up in two hours, or late tonight, or maybe not at all. But just in case, please don't vote for getting rid of habeas corpus, though I really have no idea if that is in there either. I guess what this comes down to is that I have to trust you and every other Senator to uphold the Constitution, though I can't even tell you what bill or amendment that might threaten that.

I hope this is clear as a bell and thanks for paying attention.

Thank you very much.

TayTay, a constituent.

[beachmom]

4. Okay. Sounds good! :)

Just looking for a little sanity anywhere I can get. That's all really.

I have C-SPAN on now, and they're paying tribute to Jeffords. Very nice, but what about the torture??? I'm obviously quite single minded at this time.

[TayTay]

7. We all want to be, which is why this is so awful

This was done on purpose to not allow the Democrats to get to their base and bring about grass roots action. The filibuster in Jan at least had a definite vote to take action around. This is like trying to straighten out a bowl of spaghetti, I suppose you could do it, but it's going to be messy and the end result is going to be dubious at most.

[wisteria]

6. Who keeps changing the wording? I figured this was all settled

after McCain and the other "rebels" worked out the compromise with our awful president.

[TayTay]

10. Ahm, maybe, the White House was still writing it last night

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601638.html

The Senate-White House negotiations centered on what is known as a "court-stripping" provision that bars U.S. courts from considering habeas corpus filings by detainees over their confinement and treatment. It affirms the Bush administration's assertion that it has an incontestable right to hold persons detained as "unlawful enemy combatants" for the duration of the battle against terrorism.

"Habeas has to be resolved," and it will most likely be addressed on the Senate floor, John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters after meeting with Hadley. Senate Republican leadership aides said that the floor debate could begin today and that the legislation setting rules for military commissions, as they are known, might be combined with a bill to create a new fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Three foes of the habeas corpus provision -- Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) -- introduced yesterday an amendment to overturn the administration-backed provision by allowing foreign nationals in military or CIA custody to challenge the legality of their detentions after one year.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the suspension of the habeas corpus process, predicted that the Specter amendment "will be defeated, I think, in a bipartisan fashion, with a solid vote." But Graham said he has been exploring a different amendment on the matter, which he declined to describe.

Ahm, Dear Sen. Kerry.

I have no idea what will be in the final bill because the morons in the White House keep changing it. But, whatever it is, don't trust the WH and vote against them. I figure that is the only safe bet.

Tay, a constituent.

[beachmom]

12. You are a most excellent constituent, Tay

Staying informed, giving advice and all that stuff.

Good God, these people are the WORST!

[whometense]

18. that is an EXCELLENT email

Are you going to send it?? I dare you. If you don't, I might steal it.

[karynnj]

23. Whome - I didn't see your response before saying the same thing.

I really thing it would at minimum amuse his staff.

[TayTay]

24. Take it

It's about the clearest thing I have written about this all day.

I sent this under my name and address and phone number:

Dear Senator:

I can't for the life of me figure out what is going on in the Senate today regarding the rights prisoners of war should have to a trial and to not be tortured.

The safest thing to do is not vote for anything the Bush Admin wants, they are not trust-worthy and don't care about the Constitution.

I have no idea what will be in the final bill because the morons in the White House keep changing it. But, whatever it is, don't trust the WH and vote against them. I figure that is the only safe bet.

Tay

[whometense]

26. Ok, I adopted it.

Here's my (very slightly altered) version, sent to both Kerry and Kennedy:

Dear Sen. Kerry/Kennedy,

I have no idea what will be in the final bill today because the morons in the White House keep changing it.

But, whatever it is, PLEASE don't trust anything the White House says, and vote against them. Your constituents will bless you for it.

whometense
a constituent

I love the morons line - had to keep that in.

[karynnj]

22. I dare you to send that one

It is perfect - may be add only you trust him. I think his staff might like it!

[wisteria]

2. I was thinking maybe we should call or e-mail Repubs and Dems

and express outrage and asked them to vote against this amendment. This really is a dangerous bill. Anyone could be considered a threat, arrested and tortured without any recourse. People just think it wouldn't happen to them, just actual terrorists.
Maybe, the Dem's have something planned. They have been very quite about this.

[TayTay]

5. Where is Sen. KErry this morning?

REPS. MCDERMOTT, MURTHA, MICHAUD, SENS. CLELAND, KERRY HOST CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING CONCERNING POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER


Published Date: September 25, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. (7th CD), issued the following press release:

Veterans Supporting Veterans

Inspired by One American Veteran Walking on Behalf of Every American Veteran

To Testify and Speak: - Mr. Ron Zaleski, a Vietnam-era Veteran who is walking the 2,160 mile Appalachian Trial barefoot in hopes of inspiring action to provide mandatory PTSD support for Veterans - Rep. Michael Michaud, one of Congress' leaders on Veterans Health Care - Mr. Garett L. Reppenhagen, Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation - Mr. Patrick Campbell, Iraq-Afghanistan Veterans Association

Personal Stories of Heroism, National Perspective of PTSD

As many as 40,000 additional U.S. casualties in Iraq will come from psychological wounds The Unmet Need as our Soldier Heroes Come Home

"Let no one doubt the pain and suffering soldiers will experience from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder," Rep. Jim McDermott said. "Let no one doubt America's commitment to ease their pain."

"There is no higher honor for a soldier than to comfort and protect another soldier," Senator Max Cleland said. "I want every American soldier coming home to know they are not alone."

"America's soldier heroes are coming home, and we must welcome them with open arms and open hearts," Rep. Jack Murtha said. "They served their country and America must meet their needs."

"The wounds of war are not always visible, and we cannot sit back and wait for people to ask for help. We have to be proactive," said Senator John Kerry. "Those who have stood for us should know that we stand with them, today and always."

"For too many veterans the war doesn't end when they return home. When the battle rages and replays in their hearts and minds, then home is no haven. They should not be left to deal with these challenges alone. As a nation we must make sure they have the support to make the long journey to be truly at home," said Rep. Michael Michaud.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Congressional Briefing and Testimony

9:00 - 10:30 a.m. - HC-9 - The U.S. Capitol

News Conference

10:30 - 11:00 a.m. - HC-7 - The U.S. Capitol

************

Trying to help veterans, as usual.

[wisteria]

9. How nice.

One would think McCain would want to be a part of this also, even if it is only Dem's participating now.

[Mass]

8. Amendment s proposed by Kerry on the bill

SA 5056. Mr. KERRY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5036 proposed by Mr. FRIST to the bill H.R. 6061, to establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 96, after line 19, add the following:

SEC. 11. EXPEDITED REVIEW.

(a) In General.--

(1) THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT HEARING.--Any civil action challenging the legality of any provision of, or any amendment made by, this Act, shall be heard by a 3-judge panel in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia convened under section 2284 of title 28, United States Code. The exclusive venue for expedited review under this section shall be the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

(2) APPELLATE REVIEW.--An interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order of the court of 3 judges in an action under paragraph (1) shall be reviewable as a matter of right by direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice of appeal filed not later than 10 calendar days after such order or judgment is entered and the jurisdictional statement shall be filed not later than 30 calendar days after such order or judgment is entered.

(3) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION.--It shall be the duty of the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of any matter brought under paragraph (1).

(b) Other Provision.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, section 950k(b) of title 10, United States Code, shall read as follows:

``(b) Review of Military Commission Procedures and Actions.--Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or section 11 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.''.



SA 5057. Mr. KERRY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5036 proposed by Mr. FRIST to the bill H.R. 6061, to establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end, add the following:

SEC. 11. ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERROGATION OF ALIEN UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Annual Report Required.--Not later than January 31 each year, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to Congress a report on the interrogation of alien unlawful enemy combatants under the custody or control of the United States during the preceding calendar year.

(b) Elements.--Each report under subsection (a) shall set forth, for the year covered by such report, the following:

(1) The types of interrogation methods utilized.

(2) The types of information gathered as a result of the interrogations.

(c) Form of Reports.--

(1) INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES.--Each report under subsection (a) shall be provided to all members of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives in the form of a written and oral classified briefing.

(2) CONGRESS GENERALLY.--Each report under subsection (a) shall be otherwise submitted to Congress in unclassified form, with a classified annex if appropriate.

(d) Unlawful Enemy Combatant Defined.--In this section, the term ``unlawful enemy combatant'' has the meaning given that term in section 948a(1) of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 3 (as added by Senate amendment No. 5036).

[TayTay]

11. This must go to GD

and to GD P right away. There must be more amendments on this from our good Dems. We need them out there.

How on earth can this be discussed in two minutes which is what will happen later on. The Republicans are most evil people ever in this country. They are doing damage to this country that even the Civil War didn't do. Gawd, these people suck.

[whometense]

15. It is astounding how far from anything

approaching common morality these criminals have galloped.

Yes, criminals. The only freaking point to this freaking bill is to cram through the get-out-of-jail-free cards for Rummy, Georgie, Big Dick, et al. How is it that the repukes in congress can see this p.o.s legislation as in their own best interests? How do they sleep at night?

This is the very worst kind of corruption there is - morally bankrupt.

[blm]

31. Is this in GD yet - I haven't seen it.

.

[wisteria]

13. Well, it doesn't stop the interrogation methods used, but it holds

those in charge of over site and administering it, accountable by having them maintain reports for review by Congress yearly.And, it will serve as a reference on what methods work and which ones don't. This will give Congress some authority and hold the administration accountable to a small degree. "If" the administration follows the requirements for the reports. This administration isn't to good at following laws.
This is the way I interpret this. What do you think?

[beachmom]

17. Since the bill is so convoluted, this is the right way to go

McCain and the WH keep claiming it prohibits torture. What Andrew, the WP, NYT, etc. are saying is that they skirt around it and will still be allowed to torture.

Kerry is saying make it cystal clear. They claim they won't torture -- well, they have to prove it every year! And it will NOT be in the shadows but out in the open. The court he mentions also serves as a way to give detainees due process, which is much better than a military tribunal. Would everyone agree that it restores Habeas Corpus?

I think Kerry sees this bill the way we all do. And, he's saying "fine, you want to torture -- then ADMIT it".

[TayTay]

19. See the Leahy Amendment for that

which Sen. Kerry should co-sponsor. It only went up on the 25th, but that deals specifically with torture.

SA 5058. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5036 proposed by Mr. FRIST to the bill H.R. 6061, to establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


On page 83, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 93, line 4, and insert the following:

SEC. 6. REVISION TO WAR CRIMES OFFENSE UNDER FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE.

(a) In General.--Section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following new paragraph (3):

``(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or''; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

``(d) Common Article 3 Violations.--

``(1) GRAVE BREACH OF COMMON ARTICLE 3.--In subsection (c)(3), the term `grave breach of common Article 3' means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:

``(A) TORTURE.--The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

``(B) CRUEL, UNUSUAL, OR INHUMANE TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT.--The act of a person who subjects another person in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, to cruel, unusual, or inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

``(C) PERFORMING BIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS.--The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.

``(D) MURDER.--The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this section, one or more persons taking no active part in hostilities, including those placed out of active combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.

``(E) MUTILATION OR MAIMING.--The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this section, one or more persons taking no active part in hostilities, including those placed out of active combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring such person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of the body of such person or persons, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.

``(F) INTENTIONALLY CAUSING SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.--The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.

``(G) RAPE.--The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.

``(H) SEXUAL ASSAULT OR ABUSE.--The act of person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages, or conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with one or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.

``(I) TAKING HOSTAGES.--The act of a person who, having knowingly seized or detained one or more persons, threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or release of such person or persons.

``(2) DEFINITIONS.--In the case of an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3)--

``(A) the term `severe mental pain or suffering' shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(A) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2340(2) of this title;

``(B) the term `serious bodily injury' shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(F) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 113(b)(2) of this title; and

``(C) the term `sexual contact' shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(G) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2246(3) of this title.

``(3) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO COLLATERAL DAMAGE OR INCIDENT OF LAWFUL ATTACK.--The intent specified for the conduct stated in subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) of paragraph (1) precludes the applicability of those subparagraphs to an offense under subsection (a) by reasons of subsection (c)(3) with respect to--

``(A) collateral damage; or

``(B) death, damage, or injury incident to a lawful attack.

``(4) INAPPLICABILITY OF TAKING HOSTAGES TO PRISONER EXCHANGE.--Paragraph (1)(I) does not apply to an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3) in the case of a prisoner exchange during wartime.''.

(b) Construction.--Such section is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:

``(e) Inapplicability of Foreign Sources of Law in Interpretation.--No foreign source of law shall be considered in defining or interpreting the obligations of the United States under this title.

``(f) Nature of Criminal Sanctions.--The criminal sanctions in this section provide penal sanctions under the domestic law of the United States for grave breaches of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949. Such criminal sanctions do not alter the obligations of the United States under those international conventions.''.

(c) Protection of Certain United States Government Personnel.--Such section is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

``(g) Protection of Certain United States Government Personnel.--The provisions of section 1004 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd-1) shall apply with respect to any criminal prosecution relating to the detention and interrogation of individuals described in such provisions that is grounded in an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3) with respect to actions occurring between September 11, 2001, and December 30, 2005.''.

[beachmom]

21. Agreed -- JK should co-sponsor this one

"We do not torture. Period."

[karynnj]

25. It is sad that there will NOT be 100 co-sponsors of this

This whole bill should not be handled in the short time allowed. This should also be the main thing covered right now. I says where we as a country are going. (If we vote for this, rather than a Kerry was right, we will have a Teresa was right moment - this is 4 more years of Hell.)

[beachmom]

14. I like it. Solves the habeas corpus and interrogation problems

in one big swoop. It'll make them think before they torture if they have to put it in a report.

[whometense]

16. he is a clever fellow,

isn't he? :loveya:

[whometense]

20. Some good commentary on the subject

from Matthew Yglesias

Rogue State
Lawbreaker and torturer -- that's America, loud and proud.

“The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture,” George W. Bush explained in a June 2003 speech, “and we are leading this fight by example.” Oh, the irony!

Intriguingly, at the time he seemed to have a good grasp of the relevant issues. “Freedom from torture,” he said, “is an inalienable human right.” True. “The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control.” Also true. And lastly, a straightforward recognition of who the torturers of the world are, and why they do it: “Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit.”

Last week, we learned that among those spirit-crushing rogue regimes was the government of the United States of America, which is now “leading by example” in the field of hair-splitting and wink-nod authorizations of torture. Thanks to the recent “compromise” between the hard-core torturers in the Bush administration and “moderate” Republican torture opponents, we continue to live in a country that does not officially endorse the infliction of “severe pain.” That would be torture, you see. “Serious pain,” however, is fine. That's merely cruel and degrading treatment. (The president used to be against that, too, but, well, things change.)...

...Consequently, the United States now presents itself as what amounts to the globe's largest and most powerful rogue state -- a nuclear-armed superpower capable of projecting military force to the furthest corners of the earth, acting utterly without legal or moral constraint whenever the president proclaims it necessary. The idea that striking such a posture on the world stage will serve our long-term interests is daft. American power has, for decades, rested crucially on the sense that the United States can be trusted and relied upon, on the belief that we use our power primarily to defend the community of liberal states and the liberal rules by which they conduct themselves rather than to undermine them...

...It's a grim future brought to us by grim and deranged men -- by people who seem to have developed an unhealthy level of admiration for America's enemies. (They want the country they run to transform itself into a facsimile of its evil adversaries.) It's a future in which it may become increasingly hard for decent citizens of this country to say truthfully that they're proud to be Americans.

[whometense]

27. Durbin's speaking now.

Excellent - comparing the rush for this legislation to the IWR.

[Mass]

28. Excellent!

[whometense]

29. but now he seems to be endorsing the

McCain/Warner/Graham bill. Threading the needle??

Are they discussing the Bush bill, or the compromise one? Or both?

Never mind - a brief moment of buttering up the opposition. Now he's speaking against provisions in the compromise bill. Whew.

[Mass]

30. I had to leave the room and I missed this part.

[whometense]

32. Anyone watching the senate?

C-span announcer just said that Frist and Reid are conferring privately right now to try to find a way bring the torture bill to the floor as a standalone bill.

[whometense]

33. Frist now on floor

S.3930 Ack! Help! I'm drowning in bill numbers - no idea what's going on.

Lots of dem amendments. 60 minutes for all of them? Or each?

Now Reid. Leahy gets 45-50 minutes. Not enough time, but we're "where we are." "glad we have an opportunity to improve this bill." Whatever that means.

[TayTay]

34. No Kerry amendments allowed to proceed n/.t

[whometense]

35. Does that secure his no vote?

I have no idea what he's going to do. He was pro-fence at one point, wasn't he?

Shorter Frist: "Be afraid; be very afraid." :thumbsdown:

[TayTay]

36. Ahm, again the bills and rules just changed.

I think this is now a separate stand-alone bill.

So Kerry should be able to vote no the whole way through.

However, he may not be allowed to speak. There is only 5 hours to debate everything in it and that's equally divided.

[whometense]

37. these people just flat out suck

Though I think you already mentioned that this morning.

No discussion. THAT is what the senate is supposed to be all about. :sarcasm:

What are they voting on now?? I had to attend to some work and got lost.

[TayTay]

38. Leahy's bill on Habeas Corpus suspension

It is an abomination to discuss doing away with Habeas Corpus. And abomination.

[whometense]

39. so we can assume,

(surprise, surprise) that one of the compromises Reid made was to sell out Kerry's amendment?

[beachmom]

40. I don't understand. Why isn't Kerry's amendment allowed?

Forgive me my lack of expertise of the Senate. I thought you could offer an amendment. Or is it that the two sides agree to how many amendments will be offered.

[TayTay]

41. It seems that Sens Reid and Frist made a deal

The Detainee bill would be broken out of the Secure Fencing Act to stand on it's own. Reid agreed to allow only 5 amendments to the bill, none of which were authored by Sen. Kerry, and to allow 5 hours of debate to settle the future of free access to the justice system for all people.

This is what we got. What we give up is priceless.

I am not a big fan of Harry Reid. Apparently, part of what got this through was the promise by Reid not to filibuster the bill.

[beachmom]

42. So Karl Rove has won

His plan was to either target Dems who vote against torture as weak on terror OR demoralize the base if Dems didn't fight it.

I'm feeling demoralized. But, I'm still going to work hard and get Dems elected in my area, I tell you.

And why does Harry Reid, EVERY SINGLE TIME, undercut Kerry more than any of the other senators?

[wisteria]

43. Do you know which amendments were allowed? n/t

[TayTay]

44. They were by name

I think there were two Levins, a Kennedy and a Leahy. I'm not sure of the other two.

[beachmom]

45. When is this 5 hours of debate? Today?

So the Democrats have 2 1/2 hours to plead their case, and then there will be a vote?

Wow, that's something else. Why didn't Harry Reid fight this? All they had to do was delay it a couple of days. Why did he capitulate?

Edited to add: I'm very sad that I can't even hear Sen. Kerry speak on this. I wanted to hear all of his arguments, and now he's been muffled . . . by his own leadership.

[_dynamicdems]

52. It's horrible.

The political atmosphere over the past couple of weeks has been so toxic. I'm boiling mad at Repugs, Dem leadership and the effing pundits. It all BITES big time.

This is just about the final straw. Harry Reid and the rest of them have their noses up Karl Rove's backside. This is backbone?

[_dynamicdems]

51. A truer statement was never made.

They certainly do suck.

:banghead:

[ProSense]

46. I hope that more

than a handful of Democrats vote no. If this Congress approves torture, every last one of them should be branded a traitor!

[beachmom]

47. Mydd: this debate is NOT over

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/9/27/14112/4703

There are two debates going on, one internal and one in public. In public, the Democrats are rolling over, hence the anger at moral scolds like Obama. In private, it looks like the Democrats are not rolling over on this. They are furious about this compromise, which eviscerates Habeas Corpus. Here's video of Ike Skelton, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Skelton is objecting to this bill, though a few days ago Skelton was saying "I will need to look at the final bill carefully, but elements of the compromise I have seen are promising." He's angry that the Democratic amendments were turned down.


The Senate is where this bill can be stopped. The key Senators to move are the Maine Republican Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. If we can shift them, we can stop this bill from being passed.


Anyone from Maine here?

[whometense]

48. oh beachmom, you are the BEST!!!!

Thank you so much for that link!!! It now makes sense to me, and I'm so relieved. I didn't believe they were rolling over at all, though Harry Reid is definitely (and probably permanently ) in my personal s***house for being such a jerk to Kerry.

[blm]

49. Post this in GD and tell them to start hauling ass on this bill and drop

all the political jockeying for position while we lose our moral code in this country.

[beachmom]

53. Please kick and rec

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2850019&mesg_id=2850019

[whometense]

54. Done

with pleasure!!

[ProSense]

50. Thanks Beachmom!

If you post this in GD, please add this contact link (found at Taylor Marsh):

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress

[ProSense]

55. So let me get this straight:

Some people believe that it's okay to condone torture to save one's political ass?

Effing traitors. I want the Democrats to take back Congress, but there will be a bunch of effing traitors to principles and human rights among them!

[Democrafty]

56. Not necessarily.

I'm working for a Democratic majority because I'd love to have a whole Congress full of Kerrys and Boxers and Mendezes (sorry, pluralization can be awkward), not a whole Congress full of Harry Reids.

I take your point, of course, but I do believe that a shift in power can mean the end of these kinds of compromises.

[ProSense]

58. I understand the point about

compromise, but being against torture shouldn't require bipartisan compromise. It's un-American, more important, it's inhumane. I would expect a Congress filled with Republicans to denounce torture, but it's obvious they would rather protect a deceitful president than do the right thing.

[Democrafty]

59. Good point.

I'm sick of having to be so "partisan," when the truth is, we'd just like to see our government do the fair and humane thing.

[Mass]

57. Did they explain why they stopped the discussion on the bill and

went to morning business?