What if the bill was for slavery?

[boolean]

Who here would say "All that matters is that we WIN in November!"?

Don't you guys get it? We're talking about TORTURE. This isn't some fucking political partisan nonsense. This is a violation of human rights. This isn't the typical "controversial" issue like guns and drugs and crime and abortion. We are talking about government sanctioned torture.

Don't give me this "they don't have the power" bullshit. They should've made a stand at the very LEAST. The republicans are war criminals and the 33 democrats who voted with them are enablers.

TORTURE IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE.

[eallen]

1. Slavery was a partisan issue in the decades preceding the Civil War.

And the abolitionists won virtually no political victories until the south rebelled, initiating war. I'm not sure what lessons lie there.

[pnwmom]

2. It's a political issue, unfortunately, because Bush has made it so.

We can't let him win by turning on each other.

If John Conyers was in charge of the House, this would never have come up for a vote. That's what we have to fight for.

[Tesha]

37. If Democrats stood together on this, we'd kill Bush (politically) with it.

But as usual, we have a large number of the Democrats
more willing to hang separately than hang together.

And once again, we're easy to paint as the party with
no particular principles or core values that we'd
finally die for.

Tesha

[sandnsea]

3. It ISN'T about slavery

That's the kind of arguments they're using to get the bill passed. I don't like this bill, I don't like the way the debate has gone. It doesn't change the fact that there are people who trust the military to not torture people and don't believe the Constitution extends to foreigners, especially in a time of war. That's the reality we're dealing with and beating up 160 good Democrats because a portion of our country thinks that way is flat stupid. This isn't a party problem - it's generally a regional problem, same bunch who always vote with Republicans.

[Armstead]

4. It's a unity and principle problem

Why do the Republicans get away with so much?

Because when push comes to shove, they fall into line.

Democrats can't seem to get together and take a unified stand on anything.

The Democratic leaders should have come out against this in a very loud way from the beginning.

This should a clear party-line vote -- the only way it shouldn't be is if enough Republicans have an attack of conscience and cross the aisle.

[sandnsea]

7. 7 Republicans voted no

They don't fall straight in line. I guarantee you if it had only been 7 Democrats, we would have still had "7 traitor" threads because I've seen it before. There are people on this board who would have a fit if ONE Democrat voted against the party. That's what they do. This is a regional problem, people who think more conservatively. We will never truly change the direction of this country until we learn how to reach these people and change their minds.

[bowens43]

41. If every democrat voted against this the result would be the same.

Without control of congress we are powerless.

[MrPrax]

10. Yes, it's GENERALLY a regional problem

Affects the region in red...

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

12. 160 Democrats Voted Against Torture

Most every Democrat in the Senate voted for the Spector Amendment. Most every Democrat will vote against the torture bill overall. The ones who don't are responding to the thinking of the people in their areas. If we don't stop ranting against Democrats and start presenting our views in a way that those people can HEAR, then nothing will ever change.

[MrPrax]

16. LOL...

Let's give that FACT an even bigger headline, shall we...

160 Democrats Voted Against Torture

(so when Commander Cuckoo Bananas talks about a 'clash of civilizations', which one are you? The Headcutters or the Dog Handlers?)

:rofl:

Oh let's give it an even bigger headline, because it's a fact...

160 Democrats Voted Against Torture

[sandnsea]

20. How does that help anything?

Walden voted for this bill. How does your little rant help convince voters in Eastern Oregon to vote against Walden? THAT is the issue.

[bowens43]

43. You're right.

34 dems voted for this bill. 219 republicans voted for this bill. Which party do we want to see control the house? The party that voted overwhelmingly against it or the party that voted overwhelmingly in favor. this is very basic. anyone should be able to grasp the fact that opposing a few democrats at the cost of ensuring a republican win is ridiculous.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. Reports say that the bill is not limited to foreigners.

The president can dissappear you at will by invoking the "T" word, and your family, nor any court need ever know.

[sandnsea]

27. Did you educate anybody on that?

Or did you just rant about the traitorous Democrats?

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. The only advantage a democrat who votes for torture has over a repub

Is that it might be possible to bludgeon some sense into the sociopathic democrat, if democrats retake power.

This also has the side benefit of decreasing the likelihood that sociopathic bills would be presented to said sociopaths.

If my representative voted for this, I'd campaign my ass off against him in the primary.

[sandnsea]

33. That wasn't my question

What did you do to educate people regarding the specifics of this bill?

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. This

http://www.thedailyworld.com/articles/2006/09/22/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/04opinion.txt

Some historians say that the dark ages ended and the modern age began on June 15, 1215, at an English meadow named Runnymede. It was there that the foundation of civil society was created; the document which eventually became known as the Magna Carta. Its original intent was to settle disputes between King John, Pope Innocent III and the English Lords. The primary effect of this agreement was to prevent the king from ruling entirely by whim and to assure that his actions were bound by law.

The collection of documents which comprise the Magna Carta are the lynchpin of all western common law societies. It was the primary template for our own Constitution.

Among the things that the Magna Carta did for the citizenry was to guarantee that if the king were to throw you in a dungeon, you were guaranteed an opportunity in court to ask why you were being held.

Prior to that, it was common practice for the ruler to throw his detractors and rivals in dungeons where they died anonymous deaths. This principle eventually became known as Habeas Corpus or literally, “produce the body.” This principle is embodied in our Constitution as “No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

It is difficult to envision a more important legal principle in a free society. What good are other freedoms if the king can throw you in a secret dungeon, anonymously, for as long as he sees fit?

Fast forward 800 years. Based on the false premise that a free people cannot be safe, the U.S. Congress is considering a variety of bills to legalize torture. Each of those bills have two other, less-discussed elements, 1) the bills would substitute the defendant’s access to our court system with military tribunals — which are secret and answerable only to the President and, 2) repealing the principle of habeas corpus.

Under any of the bills currently being considered, the president has the authority to dissappear anyone, at will, to secret prisons all over the globe and never say why, except to invoke the “T” word and call it a national security issue.

Liberals ridicule conservatives for wanting to re-create the 18th century. This gives them entirely too much credit. They’re apparently aiming for the Dark Ages.

Sadly, Democrats are afraid of speaking out on the topic for fear that they will be seen as insufficiently supportive of totalitarianism.

[sandnsea]

45. Kudos

I had already seen that, I didn't know it was you. Did it get in the Register Guard too, because I don't remember reading it in The World, although I may have. Excellent and I thank you very much. It might have been helpful to include a "call to action" instead of the defeatism that would leave people with the notion that there's no point in them doing anything and there's nobody on their side. That's why people don't vote and don't write a letter or pick up the phone.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Torture is not a partisan issue

You are absolutely correct.

The House of Represent ives voted yesterday to gut the Geneva Conventions and abolish the Sixth Amendment.

I am proud as an American to point to how instrumental my country has been in the establishment of international humanitarian law and aghast at how our court appointed junta disregards and mocks it.

This could not be more absurd if the bill were one to re-introduce slavery.

[Armstead]

6. I must disagree -- The GOP has made it a partisan issue

The principle should be non-partisan.

But the GOP have decided to go along in lock step on it.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Point taken

There should have been no bill. There should have been no debate.

[Hugin]

8. Interesting question... I wonder what the bill would be called?

It most certainly wouldn't be called 'slavery'.

The Bushites would probably call it the 'Freedom to work' act.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

11. I suspect I know who one of the sponsors would have been...

Paging Senator George Allen (R-Va-hopefully not for much longer)

[Hugin]

21. I bet you're correct!

But, as our Legislature is proving itself to be irrevelant... Such a bill
will never come to pass.

[Greyhound]

14. I think they would package it as a tax cut for the workers. n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

15. The Property Rights and Compesation Freedom Act of 2006

EDITED to add 1c.

1. Any employer, to include corporations, has the right to own any of his employees.
1. No employer shall be deprived of his property, including employees owned, without just compensation.
Congress shall make no law depriving any person, real or artificial, of any employee owned by him without due process of law.
3. The right of the owner of an employee to dispose of his property as he sees fit shall not be infringed.
2. Any person, real or artificial, has the right to collect wages payed on the labor of any employee he owns and to compensate said employee as he sees fit.

[SledDriver]

18. I think you got it exactly right!

[Hugin]

22. I think I've seen a sci-fi movie with that plot once...

or was it a civil war documentary. I can't recall.

:scared:

[KansDem]

17. Probably something like the "HARPHWSA" Act...

"Helping Americans Rediscover the Pride of Hard Work and Sense of Accomplishment" Act

[Hugin]

19. Good guess! Slaves would be known as "Volunteer Laborers". nt

[rrasile]

44. It's no guess

just look at the minimum wage bill. We're all slaves, we just don't want to admit to it. Hell every place you go some son of a bitch is ordering you around.
We need to all stand up and say FUCK NO. Starting with the Military then the women. I'll tell you that will slow those bastards down. No bad ass to fight for you and no women to ease your pain at night.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. Debate on the Property Rights and Compensation Freedom bill

SEN. McCAIN: This sounds an awful lot like slavery. Unless somebody can convince me it isn't, I will have to oppose this legislation.

SEN. FRIST: Let me calm the fears of my good friend and colleague, the senior senator from the great state of Arizona. This is not slavery. Slavery is a racist institution that involved only the ownership of darkies. This bill makes no mention of the race of the kind of person who may become an owned employee. Anybody can be an owned employee.

SEN. ALLEN: That's right, anybody. Macacas, queers, even Jews like me.

SEN. INHOFE: Even a good, white Christian man with a family. He will have the freedom under this bill to sell himself into sla -- oops, pardon me -- to any employer willing to buy him or his family. It would be a good way for some people to get out of debt, since we made bankruptcy more restrictive last year.

SEN. McCAIN: Well, I still don't know. Some people might still call this slavery.

SEN. FRIST: Well, then, to alleviate the fears of my good friend and colleague, the senior senator from Arizona, I will propose an amendment to this legislation. Will the clerk please read the amendment?

CLERK: The Secretary of Labor shall withhold funds for support of Occupational Safety and Health and federal support of workman's compensation to any state that does not enact into law legislation deeming the characterization of the ownership of employees by the word "slavery" as slander or libel.

SEN. FRIST: And thus, by an act of Congress, it isn't slavery; and no one can call it slavery without slandering the good employers and property owners of our great nation. I hope that calms the fears of my colleague.

SEN. McCAIN: Well, I still have problems with this; I don't know.

SEN. FRIST: Well the clerk please the second proposed amendment to the Property Rights and Compensation Freedom bill?

CLERK: The department of the Interior shall authorize one billion dollars to the upkeep of the Hoover Dam, the maintenance of the Grand Canyon and the preservation of wildlife in the Sonora Desert.

SEN. FRIST: Now, are the fears of the senior senator from the great state of Arizona alleviated?

SEN. McCAIN: Sold!

[Lisa]

46. you need to include the word "Liberty" in there somewhere

According to Bush administration rules, no legislation name is complete unless it includes the thing which it is designed to erode (like the "Healthy Forests Initiative", or the "Patriot Act").

[BlueEyedSon]

13. The congressional Repubs would line up behind Bush anyway

What do you think would happen?

[LSK]

23. WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION?????????????

PLEASE PROVIDE ONE.

[boolean]

30. FILIBUSTER

FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER

[LSK]

31. FILIBUSTER DOES NOT EXIST IN THE HOUSE

[boolean]

35. Yeah, well

It doesn't look like they're even planning to filibuster it in the Senate.

At the VERY LEAST they should've voted against it!

At most, they should've walked the fuck out. Christ, can't they even make a STAND?! Even if it passes, even if they can't do anything to stop it, why can't they make a fucking stand? Why can't they show the people that there is a goddamn alternative opposition party?

[LSK]

24. START CALLING SENATORS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2244362

[KG]

26. there are those on this board that would justify dems voting for it

if it meant dem getting a few more votes. no doubt in my mind.

the adolescent political thinking of some on this board is amusing.

the moral cowardice is sickening.

[LSK]

29. then why are those same urging people to call Senators???

Tell me, when was the last time the Dems won a vote in the House??

Because you dont understand how Congress works, you want to accuse DUers of being moral cowardice?

Adolescent political thinking???? Then tell us, what exactly would an adult do??? Please tell us YOUR SOLUTION.

[KG]

32. too funny.

[LSK]

34. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2244362

[bowens43]

40. what's adolescent is offering up

congress to the republicans because a few dems voted in favor of this bill. Those who say these dems should not be elected even if it means losing congress sound like a bunch of spoiled children.

[indepat]

36. Thankfully W doesn't want it or the lock stepping Congress would provide it

in direct contravention of the Constitution, but who give a shit what the Constitution says or means?

[bowens43]

39. It's a straw man argument but I would.

If our party had 34 members vote in favor of slavery and the opposing party had 219 vote in favor of slavery, as it was with the torture vote, I would say that the most important thing would be for the party that only had 34 vote in favor of slavery to control congress.

[warrens]

47. Good, vote for the Republican nt

[mhatrw]

48. Neither are War Crimes, Habeas Corpus or the 6th and 7th Amendments.

Fuck electioneering by being scared. It always backfires anyway.

[On the Road]

49. Damn Right it Backfires

That's what so frustrating about it. I believe if Kerry had taken a clear stand againt the Iraq War from the beginning, he'd be president today.

Hopefully, over the next few years, Democrats will be in a stroner position and attempt to repeal this law. To do that while having to tiptoe around party members who supported it takes all the wind out of the sails and makes it much more difficult.