Congressman Conyers:Editorials on Yesterday's Activity

[cal04]

I thought I would mention a couple editorials from the Washington Post and the New York Times.

It seems the Administration might have been a little disingenuous in its negotiations and didn't really offer a deal at all. In the New York Times:


(Senators John Warner, John McCain, and Lindsay Graham) wanted to bar evidence obtained through coercion. Now, they have agreed to allow it if a judge finds it reliable (which coerced evidence hardly can be) and relevant to guilt or innocence. The way coercion is measured in the bill, even those protections would not apply to the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.

The deal does next to nothing to stop the president from reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions. While the White House agreed to a list of “grave breaches” of the conventions that could be prosecuted as war crimes, it stipulated that the president could decide on his own what actions might be a lesser breach of the Geneva Conventions and what interrogation techniques he considered permissible.

It allows the president to declare any foreigner, anywhere, an “illegal enemy combatant” using a dangerously broad definition, and detain him without any trial.


The public needs to re-evaluate the credit it has given to the "independent voices" in the Republican party. It hardly seems like any check was provided on the President's desire to continue mistreatment and torture of detainees.

The Post covers the immigration vote yesterday. Lamenting an ineffectual series of immigration bills and the passage two days ago of the modern day poll tax (voter ID), the Washington Post hopes that the Senate will put the breaks on this bill. Others hope that the House may jeopardize the Senate military tribunal language by asking for more extreme measures.

When we are left hoping that the Republican "moderates" will save us from codifying torture and voter suppression as national policy, we are in big trouble. The urgency for a Democratic takeover in Washington couldn't be more clear.

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000554.htm#comments

Immigration Ugliness
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092101655.html

A Bad Bargain
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/opinion/22fri1.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=login&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

[BattyDem]

1. It's always Conyers!

Every time I'm on the verge of losing all hope, John Conyers provides a glimmer of light in the darkness.

FINALLY ... a Democract has said something about the torture bill, not because it's the right political move to make, but simply because it's the right thing to do.

I love you, Mr. Conyers! :loveya: :patriot:


PS - Yes, I know Bill Clinton said he was against it during his KO interview, but I was waiting for an incumbent Democract to speak out.

[cal04]

2. I'll second that. Thanks BattyDem

I couldn't have said it better. This man is truly a gem!
:hi:

[Solly Mack]

3. recommend so it won't get lost in the mix

Thank you in advance! :)

[BattyDem]

4. A kick for Conyers

:kick:

[bananas]

5. Two more votes needed to put this on the greatest page. nt

[mmonk]

6. There's no such thing as a republican "moderate"

these days. They're all friggin rightwing looney IMO.