WP, Froomkin: Senate vote "defining moment for this nation"

[DeepModem Mom]

Bush Rules
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, September 28, 2006

Today's Senate vote on President Bush's detainee legislation, after House approval yesterday, marks a defining moment for this nation.

How far from our historic and Constitutional values are we willing to stray? How mercilessly are we willing to treat those we suspect to be our enemies? How much raw, unchecked power are we willing to hand over to the executive?

The legislation before the Senate today would ban torture, but let Bush define it; would allow the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant; would suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus; would immunize retroactively those who may have engaged in torture. And that's just for starters.

It's a red-letter day for the country. It's also a telling day for our political system.

The people have lost confidence in their president. Despite that small recent uptick in the polls, Bush remains deeply unpopular with the American public, mistrusted by a majority, widely considered out of touch with the nation's real priorities.

But he's still got Congress wrapped around his little finger....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

[jackstraw45]

1. Media is complicit in letting us get to this point...

Well said but ironic coming from someone working in the Corporate Media.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Froomkin is a frequent critic of the media. From the article --

"The kind of emotionless, he-said-she-said news coverage, lacking analysis and obsessed with incremental developments and political posturing -- in short, much of modern political journalism -- just doesn't do this story justice.

So once again, I'll go to the editorials and opinions first...."

[Tribe Killer]

23. Why

is Keith Olberman the only person (other than Stewart and Colbert) who is willing to get in their face about this? Does the majority of the public even know what's going on? And if they do, why aren't more people flipping sh*t over this?

[DeepModem Mom]

24. Welcome to DU, Tribe Killer!

The only other place I've seen the media do its job on this is in opinion pieces in the print press as Froomkin says. If only TV news, where most people get news (if they get any) get it, would step up. The public needs to be educated by the press on issues like this. They taught Constitutional principles in schools once upon a time, but I don't think they do now.

So the public doesn't know what's going on. And aside from the factor of the press leaning Right, I'm not sure our media knows the significance of what's involved here. You're right -- our ignorance in this country is a dangerous thing.

[AX10]

2. I've never seen anything like it.

The Congress plays dead for the little nazi everytime.

[Hav]

4. "would immunize retroactively"

I'm not sure but didn't Berlusconi did the same thing? Oh, I forgot, he's just another fascist.

[fob]

6. That's what confuses (irritates, angers)? me. Wouldn't this be a

get out of jail free deal for Lynndie "dog leash" England and her boyfriend and whomever else was thrown to the wolves to cover rumsfelds abu ghraib crimes?

[VP505]

5. Ya, it's a

red letter day alright, the letter is "F" for Fascism or "F" for fucked, your choice, either one applies. Anybody have any idea on how the rank and file can go about getting a change in party leadership, I understand Reid made a back room deal NOT to filibuster this crap? If true it's time for a change.

[illinoisprogressive]

7. Why Does Congress Roll over for Bush???

These are grown adults. supposidly with some amount of brains (at least more than Dear Leader) and yet they roll over for him everytime. why. There are more of them and they know how unpopular this dimwit is. They know the majority of Americans are not impressed with thier total obidience to dimwit. They know they are in deep trouble because they roll over for Bush every time. But, like some lovesick teen in the throws with the badboy they run after him everytime knowing he's just using them and laughing at them.
Why. Why do they turn thier backs on thier oaths. Why do they stomp on the constitution and why do they treat the history, moral highroad this country always lived by and roll in the muck with the dimwit?
Why do they have no self respect when it comes to a little, dirty, evil immature boyman????

[grasswire]

14. it's a trap for candidates

Rove has convinced members of Congress that if they don't support these anti-terrorist laws, they'll lose elections. He might be blackmailing some of them, too.

[symbolman]

21. Not only that Rove

creates disheartened DEMOCRATS, who finding torture morally repugnant, become so angry at the boxed in Dems who DID vote for this that they refuse to Vote for DEMOCRATS at all, that they feel that ALL DEMOCRATS let them down..

that is the Icing on this Rove " bullshit" cake.

Think about it, how to keep US from voting, they need margins to win, and those pissed off enough to NOT vote for democrats gives the GOP the edge it needs to SNEAK the Diebold vote, that 3 percent or below where they can refuse to Open the Ballot boxed and RECOUNT.

This guy is obvious, plays chess with human lives, treats us like an ant farm, and is actually a one trick pony, tho sly.

[PurpleChez]

18. That's one of my biggest questions...

these people thought Ronnie Reagan was a living saint, but most were able to accept the idea that he could make mistakes, that it was OK to disagree with him now and then. I don't have any respect for congressional Thugs, but I acknowledge that most are highly educated men and women with a great amount of governmental experience. So how do they stomach their own cult-like adoration of and obedience to Chucklenuts? I don't believe that it's simply because he helps them stay in power. There's always some of that in play, but their deference to this idiot is unprecedented.

[Fresh_Start]

8. GOP approved concentration camps

Joe Liebermann jumps aboard the bandwagon.

Joe volunteers to man the gas chamber if he can't get one of the juicier jobs involving blood.

I'm angry.

[DemExpat]

9. I am totally sickened by this news

:puke:

DemEx

[deacon]

10. k + r

[mhatrw]

11. It's so disgusting.

Our 230 year old experiment in a democracy that respects the inalienable rights of its subjects is now coming to an end with nary a whimper.

This isn't about whether we are or are not too squeamish to waterboard terrorists, folks. Everybody hates terrorists. Nobody wants to coddle them. Sure, many of us don't think torture should ever be legal, for many reasons including the potential for even worse abuses than those that we've already seen at Abu Ghraib and the fact that the information gleaned from this sort of questioning is almost never reliable. But the torture aspects of this bill are no more than the sensationalistic cover story for a wide ranging assault on the fundamental rights of US citizens (as well as all other human beings in the world).

This is about the same people who told us the best way to fight terrorism was to start a war that had nothing to do with it now telling us that we all have to give up our basic right to a fair and speedy trial at the whim of our monarchical executive. This bill reverses over 790 years of Anglo Saxon legal tradition starting with the Magna Carta and extending through our revered Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If any terrorists actually hate us for our freedoms, then we are about to make a lot of new terrorist friends.

Who in our entire nation has the courage to stand up for our Bill of Rights? The cynical, desperate Republicans are trying to use the "soft on terror" label as a bludgeon to beat the cowering, spineless Democrats while our 220-year-old Bill of Rights is raped and pillaged in the process!

Yes, the Supreme Court might save the day by striking down the most perversely unconstitutional excesses of this law, but what does it say about the political landscape of our country that both the legislative and executive branches are conspiring to undo the 6th and 7th amendments as their election strategy?

Every single individual defending this disgusting assault on the nearly 800-year-old principles of common law makes me physically ill. Are we really that afraid of a few crazies with box cutters that we can't just man up for ourselves against them like the passengers of Flight 93 did when and if the time comes? Are we really that gutless that we have to cede infinite power to our monarch in our mewling belief that only thus can we be delivered from the scary Muslim bogeyman? What can the "scary terrorists" possibly do to us that's worse than what we are about to do to ourselves?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

12. "Deeply unpopular .. but he's still got Congress wrapped around his...

little finger."

And how could that be? With pitiful desperation, Congress clings to their clearly unhinged leader, despite widespread public outrage at his insistence on the fiat power to torture and imprison people indefinitely. That suggests the constituency for Congress is not the majority of the people, but some powerful minority.

And that minority IMO is the wealthy few who pay the bulk of Congress's tab at election time. If they want to keep their jobs, House members must be confident of reelection every two years, and therefore must ceaselessly seek out large bribes from those for whom $100,000 is pocket change. Senators enjoy four years of respite before their situations match those of House members.

What was Dubya's first priority in 2001? Why it was the "tax cut" that shifted trillions of FICA payroll tax revenues to the top few percent of unearned income beneficiaries. Why was Bill Clinton impeached as soon as he became a lame duck in 1998? IMO, to begin paving the way for rolling back Clinton's slight increase in tax rates solely in the upper brackets. Republican money-men still were furious about 1996, when their "Senator for Sale" candidate Bob Dole fell short.

Under Clinton, the nation enjoyed eight years of peace and prosperity, and accumulated a $5 trillion budget surplus, which Dubya promptly returned to its "righful owners". That kind of fiscal responsibility, more likely if Democrats take back Congress in 39 days, must be avoided at all costs, if most of Congress is to keep the big bribes coming, and enjoy continued job security.

[countryjake]

13. And so many still haven't the faintest idea why what happened today is bad

It's just like the wire-tapping thing; they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to hide, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists! I'm so sick of hearing people use that word to excuse this steamroller we call government...I've resisted most thoughts of 9/11 conspiracies up til now, but maybe I'm not so sure anymore. With this willing compliance of all our congresspeople, it seems as tho they're getting just what they've wanted, all along.

It ain't enough to beat, murder, and imprison the poor and the minorities anymore, folk who clearly understand that they have never had protection given them by the principles this nation pretends to be founded on...no, now literally everyone could potentially feel the fire, even those who live under the illusion that they have a vested interest in "democracy".


From the New York Times editorial he quoted:

"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."

[woodsgirl]

15. Fascism

Bush stole 2 elections...has never bothered to do anything for US. He is killing and torturing with tax payers hard earned money. Is it time for a revolution? We are officially a terroist state. Children are being sexually assaulted and held for CIA purposes. We may have an ability to vote in Nov. and we may not. Could we have a list of who voted for and who voted against this bill? I have a feeling my senators Snowe and Collins voted yes.

[countryjake]

17. Snowe didn't vote, but Collins gave an Aye.

Here's the roll of Senate votes:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259

[countryjake]

25. Here's the vote on the same thing in the House from Wednesday...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml

[Chipster]

16. Article 131 - Hello? Hague? Let's Talk!

Dan Froomkin writes that today's Senate vote on Bush's detainee legislation, following yesterday's House vote, marks a defining moment for our nation. No doubt, but let's get specific.

For starters, passing a bill after the fact, "ex post facto" in Constitutional legalese as in this case, permitting actions that can be characterized as violating the Geneva Convention, begs for Constitutional review.

Over the past weekend, with some fanfare, the Sunday morning talk shows heralded the White House compromise with Republican Senators Lindsay Graham, John Warner, and John McCain as a triumph. But was it really?

Not in view of the fact that in the vaunted compromise "The senators agreed to a White House proposal to make the standard on interrogation treatment retroactive to 1997, so C.I.A. and military personnel could not be prosecuted for past treatment under standards the administration considers vague."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/washington/22detain.html?hp&ex=1158984000&en=aee43ae197a95cb4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

And just what will the administration consider vague? Want to venture any guesses?

Let's review the obvious: that as a treaty, with the advise and consent of the Senate (as our Constitution requires), the United States was a signatory of the Geneva Convention.

And what, specifically, did the US sign on to?

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Article 17

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Article 84

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.

Article 87

Prisoners of war may not be sentenced by the military authorities and courts of the Detaining Power to any penalties except those provided for in respect of members of the armed forces of the said Power who have committed the same acts.

Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishments, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden.

III. Judicial proceedings

Article 99

No prisoner of war may be tried or sentenced for an act which is not forbidden by the law of the Detaining Power or by international law, in force at the time the said act was committed.

No moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to induce him to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused.

No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel.

Article 105

Particulars of the charge or charges on which the prisoner of war is to be arraigned, as well as the documents which are generally communicated to the accused by virtue of the laws in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power, shall be communicated to the accused prisoner of war in a language which he understands, and in good time before the opening of the trial. The same communication in the same circumstances shall be made to the advocate or counsel conducting the defence on behalf of the prisoner of war.

Article 130

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.

Article 131

No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.

Article 132

At the request of a Party to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted, in a manner to be decided between the interested Parties, concerning any alleged violation of the Convention.

If agreement has not been reached concerning the procedure for the enquiry, the Parties should agree on the choice of an umpire who will decide upon the procedure to be followed.

Once the violation has been established, the Parties to the conflict shall put an end to it and shall repress it with the least possible delay.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Let's talk about violations of the Constitution, and the Geneva Convention.

[Theodora]

20. Unconstitutional

And see Teacherkens diary in DailyKos Sept 28, "THERE IS
ONLY ONE POLITICAL ISSUE"

[Chipster]

26. Our American Enabling Act

teacherken nailed it: "...we now have had our equivalent, as another diarist pointed out today, of the Enabling Act that removed any further check upon the grandiosity and obscenity of Hitler's visions for his rule."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/28/23488/7731

[ProgressiveEconomist]

19. 'Terrorist'='Trafficked to the US for a $78k Pakistani-equivalent bounty'?

Would knowing about huge money incentives for mislabeling people as 'terrorists', and about hundreds of 'terrorists' already released from Guantanamo because it was decided they had been wrongly charged, change any minds about torturing 'terrorists'?

Amnesty International says (see http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20496534-1702,00.html , an Amnesty International press release at http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGASA330382006 , and a GD thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2253704 ):

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'"The road to Guantanamo very literally starts in Pakistan," said Amnesty's Claudio Cordone, commenting on the report. "Hundreds of people have been picked up in mass arrests, many have been sold to the USA as 'terrorists' simply on the word of their captor, and hundreds have been transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Airbase (a US base in Afghanistan) or secret detention centres run by the USA," he said....

"A large number of war on terror detainees have been literally sold into US hands by bounty hunters who have received cash payments in return, typically $US5000 ... ," it said....

The report said that 300 people - previously labelled as "terrorists" and "killers" by the US government - have since been released from Guantanamo Bay without charge, the majority to Pakistan or Afghanistan. "Many detainees remain unaccounted for, their fate and whereabouts unknown," it said, saying they include a baby and a 13-year-old Saudi boy called Talha, according to reports. "More than two years later, nothing is known about the fate and whereabouts of Talha and the other children and women," said Amnesty."'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GDP per capita at purchasing power parity in the US ($41,399) is 15.6 times what it is in Pakistan ($2,653), according to IMF estamates for 2005 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita.

Multiplying the typical $5,000 bounty for a so-called terrorist makes the Pakistani equivalent amount $78,023.

[Bandit]

22. "would suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus; "

It doesn't suspend it, it eliminates it forever.....