I read Henley's post last night and was thinking Oh shit, this passed? Why haven't I seen anything, and frantically flipping around ObWi and various news sources not finding anything. Thanks for the pointer. Fuck.
34 Democratic Ayes. I do not know how to find out quickly which of the Ayes are Democrats. Or how to punish them.
I do not know how to find out quickly which of the Ayes are Democrats.
The democrats are in italics, and also in disgrace.
I think I actually hit the newsstand this morning. This is fucking bullshit. I'm going to call Obama again today. And Durbin.
It hasn't passed the Senate yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it does soon.
I'm not dead sure, but a quick scan of the names I know at that link makes it look as if Democrats are in italic, Republicans in roman. Not that I doubted him, but my guy Charlie Rangel is an italic Nay.
(Not that a 68-vote swing would have defeated the measure. But Fuck.)
I gave Stephanie Herseth money the first time she ran. That's not happening again.
2008 primary, those 34 need to be purged. I don't want them in my party.
You chose this. Well, there's no need to be snippy about it, as Al Gore used to say.
those 34 need to be purged
Ah, do we have to have this conversation again?
I don't want them in my party.
I don't want them in my country; but perhaps that's a bit extreme.
Agree with FL. We need to win first. Then we can punish.
Sherrod Brown and Harold Ford voted Aye. Ptui.
I'm a little in agreement with 11, I certainly want Brown and Ford to win their Senate races, but also this vote is just disgusting. And I don't think craven capitulation is the way to win votes, though Labs's post above makes me even more pessimistic.
Motherfucker. I just gave fucking Harold Ford money.
Call and demand your money back!
9: Oh, you're right. And as Weiner says, I do still want that pusillanimous shithead Ford to win -- I don't even regret giving him money, really.
The 2008 primaries I'm talking about are the ones in the world where the electorate is firmly enough behind us that we can punish people.
Herseth, like Melissa Bean here in Illinois represent a necessary component of a majority. I thought it was clear she'd be more "conservative" than blue-state Metro-area Republicans even before she was elected. The vote from her that matters is the one right after the session opens; everything else is less important. This is why Lieberman and Zell Miller needed to be tolerated until they went off the reservation. Knocking Lieberman out in the primary was a risk worth taking in Connecticut, but in other places we need Democrats any way we can get them.
Seriously, if I didn't read a bunch of blogs I would have *no idea* what's in this bill. The only talk about habeas corpus and the details of treatment has been in a very small niche. It would have been really useful for someone important to get on the news saying "this bill says indefinite detention and keeping people awake for a week: do you want that?"
oh what's the fucking point. I'm pretty sure that sometime in the next couple decades people like us will be thrown in jail for expressing the sorts of opinions we express here. If I'm lucky my son and daughter will be able to visit me in prison. And all of this will seem perfectly reasonable to the vast majority of Americans.
Pwned and Weiner-pwned, I concede.
I still won't be giving Herseth any more money, no matter how desperate her seat becomes. And I think we're dead wrong to say that we need this, tactically. I'm willing to suffer harmful votes on ethanol, tactically, or gun legislation, maybe even the really ridiculous stuff like parental consent—but habeas?
Thinking back, I can only attribute my donation to Herseth to the insidious influence of blogofascists, because I swore under my breath on a daily basis that I'd never so much as visit South Dakota, back when Daschle was Senate Spine Displacer.
18: Same here. I read the Tribune's coverage of the bill on my way to school this morning and it gives almost no indication of what the bill actually says. If I didn't read this blog, and hadn't looked at the damn bill myself, I seriously wouldn't know what was happening. I'm writing a piece today for my piece of shit school "paper" today, so maybe at least a bunch of law students will know what's in the damn thing. Maybe.
Any ideas about other stuff we can do besides calling our senators? I'm at a loss.
The news coverage is appallling. Some say it gives the President too much power! Some say, of course, that aliens mutilated their cattle.
16: Between this Aye on this bill, and his immigrant-baiting television ad I saw the other night, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to stomach voting for Ford in November.
I can at least take comfort in the fact that his likely replacement as my 9th district representative will be Steve Cohen.
It's not even front-page news on the Times, is it? The bullets from this opinion piece should be splashed all over A1.
24: You know you have to. He's better than the alternative, horrifying though that thought is. I wouldn't shake his hand, or Herseth's, but I'd vote for either.
If the democrats in the senate had any spine, they would filibuster the shit out of this. Just read the constitution, over and over again. Maybe throw the magna carta in there for spice.
There's a cheesy Kipling poem (but I repeat myself) on Magna Carta that would make some fine filibustering material. Shit, stand up and sing show tunes, whatever -- just don't let the bill through.
This is not internet chat exaggeration: this bill really makes me want to throw myself under a train.
It is internet chat exaggeration (and if it isn't, please go talk to someone) but I know exactly how you feel.
Does the NYT article not suggest that Senate Democrats promised not to filibuster in hopes of amending the habeas provisions? (I knew that would come to no good.)
Screw 29. I want to throw the Party under a train.
I am so fucking sick of the "some say" bullshit. Ugh. I miss you, my fantasy of a useful press.
I'm not exagerating when I describe how down I feel, but I am when I blame it solely on politics. I've actually been struggling with a real depressive episode all week. I'm not actually going to throw myself under a train, though. I've been throgh enough of these to know how to cope.
31: Fucking shit. You're right, I missed that. Jesus H. Christ on a goddam pogo stick what is wrong with these people.
"so long as the pain we cause doesn't qualify as 'extreme' or involve a 'substantial risk of death'."
LB, I believe that's inaccurate.
The real standard is: "so long as the pain we cause is not deemed "extreme" etc. by the President or his authorized agents."
In other words: the question of whether it actually *is* extreme, or actually *does* risk death, is completely irrelevant.
The only question is whether the President feels like declaring it so. Which would mean, of course, is calling the law in on his own deputized torturers. Which ain't going to happen.
I may be wrong about the implications of the bill here, and I'd be happy to hear otherwise. But given that there is no role for the judiciary in any of this, what else can it amount to?
33: Okay, but make sure you've got someone taking care of you, or whatever else you need.
35: You've got it right, of course. And regardless of the quality of the pain actually inflicted, it has to be intentional. Someone who meant to inflict not-quite-extreme pain and screwed up -- not a problem. It's the thought that counts.
I also really hate the widespread use of "detainee" language, as it seems to me to be 100% playing into the repellent party line of "we aren't talking about people who have been arrested and this has nothing to do with the criminal justice system, this only applies to a special category of person, the 'detainee,' who is totally a terrorist and not anyone you personally would know."
And it sounds so innocuous. We're just detaining these folks for a few hours or millennia to ask them some questions and maybe beat them to death a little.
37: But we won't even be able to ask if they screwed up, because we're not allowed, because that right in that Constitution there is just for pretend.
Right. Was the original intent of the founders that Al Qaeda fighters should have habeas rights? I should think not -- they'd never even heard of Al Qaeda. (This argument, with minor tweaking, works equally well for the War On Drugs. You know that's next.)
They're voting right now on the Specter et al amendment. Debate was good from our side, although I have no idea why no one ever asks Graham what
-- Hey, Sununu voted aye! --
happened with those motion he likes to talk so much about.
CC, is my perception accurate that the Specter amendment if passed could be gotten rid of in House-Senate conference to reconcile the two bills?
(I mean if both the amendment and the bill passed.)
They accidentally sweep up an American in there and he's a detainee with no habeas rights either. Al-Qaeda may be something we can be uncertain whether habeas applies (but we should still not be assholes and let them use the courts), especially since we can't seem to figure out if they're fighters, terrorists, etc, but there isn't a whole lot of uncertainty on general habeas.
The courts are supposed to be a cheque. Hell, we don't send prionty mail without a receipt, we gonna say that people don't need a paper trail?
ARRRRRG.
Are we really seeing liberty sacrificed? I just find that hard to believe, hard to comprehend really, but it's possible. I think I don't really believe that's happening because I can't believe we'd actually let it happen, that our elected representatives, themselves citizens, would willingly hand us over to dictatorship. Maybe that's not what they're doing. Or maybe they don't realize they are.
Conference presents a scheduling problem. But of course conference is always an issue.
We have 4 Republicans that I've counted so far. Need a couple more, but who knows who's gone to lunch.
45: If I read it right, habeas is only stripped for aliens, not American detainees. It's still filthily disgusting, but not that broad.
BL, where do you think dictators come from? Mars?
48- okay good, Cala was scaring me. As long as we only lawlessly torture other people. That's immoral, but not insane. I'm actually feeling much better.
48: What if someone says he's a citizen and the government disagrees? Do they have a hearing about that?
50: You should be ashamed of yourself.
Didn't get DeWine. You know, that's who one ought to focus on getting rid of.
Didn't get Collins. See you all at 1st St NE.
"But other provisions of the bill call even this limitation into question. What is worse, if the federal courts support the president's initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.
Legal residents who aren't citizens are treated even more harshly. The bill entirely cuts off their access to federal habeas corpus, leaving them at the mercy of the president's suspicions.
We are not dealing with hypothetical abuses. The president has already subjected a citizen to military confinement. Consider the case of Jose Padilla. A few months after 9/11, he was seized by the Bush administration as an "enemy combatant" upon his arrival at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. He was wearing civilian clothes and had no weapons. Despite his American citizenship, he was held for more than three years in a military brig, without any chance to challenge his detention before a military or civilian tribunal. After a federal appellate court upheld the president's extraordinary action, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, handing the administration's lawyers a terrible precedent.
The new bill, if passed, would further entrench presidential power. At the very least, it would encourage the Supreme Court to draw an invidious distinction between citizens and legal residents. There are tens of millions of legal immigrants living among us, and the bill encourages the justices to uphold mass detentions without the semblance of judicial review.
But the bill also reinforces the presidential claims, made in the Padilla case, that the commander in chief has the right to designate a U.S. citizen on American soil as an enemy combatant and subject him to military justice. Congress is poised to authorized this presidential overreaching. Under existing constitutional doctrine, this show of explicit congressional support would be a key factor that the Supreme Court would consider in assessing the limits of presidential authority."
Sorry for the length.
Does anyone know where I can see the bill that was passed by the house?
Oh, Americans can still be subjected to the military Star Chamber courts we're setting up. It'll just be harder to legally disappear them forever with no hearing at all.
Landrieu voted aye, so, so far as I've heard we've only lost Nelson (NE). Plus 4 makes it all about the turnout.
52- why? I'm not saying I support this. I most emphatically don't. It's just that I took what Cala was saying to be true, and worried we were standing on the edge of a very dangerous cliff.
I see instead from 48 that this is bad, but not fundamentally dangerous for our very democracy. Which makes me feel better.
The text of the bill is linked from the NY Times article -- you can get to it as it was introduced and as it was passed here.
48-51. Damn.
Three amendments to go: Rockefeller, Kennedy, and Byrd. Not sure what they are.
61: If 'we' can do something this barbaric to any 'them', there is no assurance that 'them' will not spread to include you or I. My guess is that the next step is a citizenship-stripping process for Americans found to be 'enemy combatants', after which point those Americans will no longer be 'us' anymore.
If anything about this reassures you, your head is in the sand.
BL, do you think we are in such a state of rebellion or invasion that the public safety requires that ordinary court process for anyone be interrupted?
Say, though, that quote from John Boehner ("It is outrageous that House Democrats, at the urging of their leaders, continue to oppose giving President Bush the tools he needs to protect our country") sure does fill me with great joy and pleasure, and a feeling that all's right with the world.
I guess it does have the upside of inviting a joke on the theme of "the tools he needs, starting with me."
Or (BL) is it that you think the words any person do not include human beings born outside the United States?
LB I think you misunderstand. Nothing about this 'reassures" me. I think it's terrible. I feel better than I did 45 minutes ago only because I thought, mistakenly, that it was actually far worse than it is -- that those next few steps were being taken today, all at once. I'm glad they're not. That doesn't mean I'm happy. There was some element of facetiousness in the wording of 50. Perhaps this is not a topic that is well suited for facetiousness. Regardless, I don't think I have reason to feel "ashamed of myself."
Okay, LB or someone, help me out (I'm trying to get this piece done). What does this bill really say about torture? How does it expand (or diminish, which I'm guessing it doesn't), the gov't's ability to torture people?
Brock, meet 64.
If I am not mistaken, the legal residents being invidiously separated from citizens include some regular commenters to this blog. I don’t feel an ounce better when only some people I know are thrown to the wolves, rather than all of them.
Also, isn't there an ex post facto law problem with the 1997 retroactive date? Wtf?
Kennedy's was something tweaking the definition of 'grave violation of Article 3', prohibiting a broader range of conduct, I think. But I haven't seen the text.
70: Sorry I snapped at you, I did misread the facetious tone. (And of course it's not inappropriate, at least here.) I thought you were thinking of the difference between citizens and aliens as genuinely morally significant here.
The Specter amendment failed 51–48.
73: No ex post facto problem. You can't make conduct criminal ex post facto, but you can make it uncriminal -- the reason for the prohibition is that it would be wrong to punish someone for conduct legal at the time committed. The same consideration doesn't operate in reverse.
75: It is morally significant. If you don't think Padilla was worse than this, you're stone crazy. This remains awful.
I don't think Padilla was worse than this.
Wait, I'm checking up on this vote. A staffer told me that, but the numbers aren't making sense to me.
Watching C-SPAN is so depressing. Where's Sen. Jeff Smith when you need him?
Kit Bond! We can't say what we won't do, because that helps the terrorists. So we need to say we'll do everything.
How does it expand (or diminish, which I'm guessing it doesn't), the gov't's ability to torture people?
Don't rely too hard on me -- this is off the top of my head and may not be accurate. If Charley weighs in, he's right and I'm wrong. That said, as of yesterday, Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions was the law of the US, and any violations were prohibited:
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Now (if this horror has passed), only 'grave violations' of Article 3 are against the law, and 'grave violations' are limited to acts that intentionally inflict severe or serious (elsewhere defined as 'extreme') pain, or mutilation, or rape, or performing biological experiments, or taking hostages -- the acts listed in Sec. 6 of the bill. This makes it legal for us to intentionally inflict non-extreme pain, (and, whoops, to unintentionally inflict extreme pain), to humiliate, and to degrade.
81 -- 48-51 is what was announced from the chair.
51 was my point. How are you going to prove that you're an American citizen and entitled to these rights if you're a (mistaken) detainee, and detainees (by the power of magic) have no legal recourse?
It's not officially stripped, but short of tattooing your passport on your ass I'm not sure how you're going to get a chance to prove it. Call a lawyer? Detainees don't need lawyers. Get a court date? Oops. Hope that there's a media circus? 'Some people say....'
Oh, yeah, and sort of engaged to a potential long-term permanent resident. Not happy about this.
85: That's not a legal problem. If 'they' want to throw you in a box and not let you call a lawyer, they can do that now whether or not you're a citizen -- they just have to break the law to do it. Under this, a citizen detainee who manages to communicate with the outside world isn't going to be barred from court to show that she's a citizen -- she's got that right. She may be practically prevented from exercising it, but that could happen to you or me now, or could have happened at any time in the past.
83 -- I think that's correct. I also deprives the prisoner of any way to complain about even grave violations. Except to the people committing them. Foxes and henhouses.
There's another practical problem: The next step is to try to cut off lawyers -- if DOD wanted to torture one of my clients again, they know that I'll be down at the prison in 6 weeks, and will hear all about it. Once we're shut out, this consideration goes away.
On the other hand, looking over the bill, comments 35 and 37 now appear to be wrong. Assuming a prosecution is ever brought against a 'grave violator' of Common Article 3, section 6 of the bill seems to say that the courts, rather than the President and his agents, get to interpret the law on what constitutes a 'grave violation'. I'm not sure if that changed recently, or if I'm misreading it now.
With regards to the citizens vs. aliens stuff, here is what Bruce Ackerman has to say: "The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States."
LB, the difference between before and after is that before, now matter what they thought of Cala's citizenship, they'd know they were in the wrong. Now it's just a matter of her word against whoever has denounced her. If they think she's not a citizen, they're not going to let her get word to the outside that she's in custody. They don't have to Mirandize her, etc.
88 -- I haven't looked at that provision, but I recall there being much talk about deference to the President's conclusions on the question. There may well be text on that . .. .
Oh I see. But habeas is only suspended for non-citizens -- that's a relief. [Cue belligerent comment from LB]
If they think she's not a citizen, they're not going to let her get word to the outside that she's in custody. They don't have to Mirandize her, etc.
I thought that there were provisions for a federal hearing on whether she was properly classified as an enemy combatant.
Right. If I'm just a detainee, I have no way to appeal to the courts. If I'm a citizen, I do, but first I have to convince the people currently waterboarding me that I am a citizen so I can get a lawyer so I can talk to my family so I can &c.
Seriously, this has me worried enough with regards to my cuppycakesugarpie that I could be talked into immigrating the other way.
89: Yep.
90: True. Man, this all makes me sick.
92: You, I can tell, are kidding.
93: There are provisions for such hearings, if the government feels like having them. There are no provisions for letting a detainee go because he hasn't gotten a hearing yet and it's been too long.
my cuppycakesugarpie
Not to worry, I'm pretty sure felines and infants are safe.
Are Idealist and baa around? Just asking.
God, this makes me feel sick to my stomach. Also, this reaction.
I feel fucking hysterical. I just called Obama and Durbin again, and got a few of my friends to do so, too. Do you guys think there's any chance the Dems will filibuster this?
See 31, 34 above. I don't know if it's true, but the Times seems to say that there was a no-filibuster in exchange for being able to vote on the amendments deal. So I think not.
100: I'm just as happy they're not. I think I would be unforgivably unpleasant to anyone who expressed support for this bill now, and while I'd rather enjoy the process, it shouldn't be anyone who I want to remain friends with.
93 -- There's no requirement that they actually have them. And no time limit. It's all left to the whim of the Executive. And Cala's not going to get a lawyer, or any access to whatever evidence that they rely on. They're not going to tell her who denounced her.
It's just too bad that the Canadian government won't announce a reciprocity provision: any law passed in the US which would allow a Canadian to be held indefinitely without due process will be met with a Canadian law allowing the RCMP to hold Americans indefinitely without due process.
48-51 is what was announced from the chair.
Three votes. Oh, you know who is among the 51 Nay votes? The "conscience" of the GOP: McCain, Graham, and Warner. Hypocritical assholes.
Is a roll call of the vote on the amendment available?
Vote count. Note that Nelson (NE) fucked us. Are there any other amendments even under consideration for this bill? I can't believe that Dems would will away the filibuster for this outcome. I mean it: There must be some other amendments in line, or the Dems mean to brake whatever promise they gave to Frist.
Only Nelson, though. Not bad. I mean, still horrible, but the Senate Democrats held the line.
This doesn't really say anything new, but is worth reading.
My half-hearted defense of this would be that is is almost certainly a political stunt, designed to put the Demonrats on the defensive (whether or not it passes). It will likely be struck down in court soon enough (though long after the November elections), and will in any event have relatively limited real-world negative effects. The farm bill probably did more to increase net human suffering than this will. Though there is admittedly something especially pernicious about toying around with human rights, and torture for goodness sake, but it's not as if we haven't been doing that indirectly through third-world proxies ever since the Cold War. Fears that innocents will be swept up in droves and mistreated are probably unfounded.
There, that's the best I can do. I hope everyone is having a nice day.
Fears that innocents will be swept up in droves and mistreated are probably unfounded.
Of course, if they aren't? We'll never know.
[Godwin instance composed and not posted]
From where I'm sitting 114 looks rather more like a Godwin instance posted and not composed.
Innocent foreigners have already been swept up in droves and mistreated.
It all depends on what the meaning of 'drove' is.
116- Suspects, you mean? I don't think "innocent until proven guilty" applies to foreigners. Or at least we haven't always historically acted as if it did.
FWIW, I'm neither playing trolling nor just playing devil's advocate. I'm trying to convince myself that this isn't such an incredibly bad thing. Or rather is incredibly bad, but not abnormally bad in the context of all the other incredibly bad things that have happened over the past six years. I'm not sure how it's going so far.
I don't think "innocent until proven guilty" applies to foreigners.
It does.
I'm trying to convince myself that this isn't such an incredibly bad thing.
Why? Seriously, what's the advantage in thinking this is okay?
Brock, I mean people who have been acknowledgd by their U.S. captors to be innocent. People who have been released, or who have been cleared of all charges but are still being held (like some of CharleyCarp's clients I believe), or people like Dilawar who were beaten to death even though everyone realized they had connection to terrorism.
I don't want to be mean, but I have to quote Jeanne here:
So let's just say from the get-go that anyone who hopes this story is wrong is a fool.
120- First point: I beg to differ. Japanese internment camps? Native Americans?? I said "I don't think" but meant it more firmly. And anyway I don't mean foreign people living here and being tried in our civilian courts, I mean suspected enemies of the state internationally. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a maxim of warfare.
Second point: so I can sleep better at night.
Also, 111 totally pwned by 25.
I think the proper response to this is anger, and planning for tomorrow. Trying to reassure ourselves that it ain't so bad won't change the world for the better.
121- of course. I'm not trying to defend that. In fact, I'm going to stop trying to defend any of this. I wasn't trying to affirmatively defend it anyway, just posit that it was less than catastrophic. I don't think anyone's in the mood for that discussion.
maxim of warfare
[Insert standard liberal outrage over inappropriate use of the term "warfare" when applied to the Whatever on Whatever.]
Also, my understanding is that habeus has pretty much always been a part of the rules of war when dealing with POWs, which is why the term "enemy combatant" was invented.
Japanese internment camps?
Foreigners? What the fuck do the internment camps in which we put American citizens of Japanese descent have to do with the rights of foreigners?
Innocent until proven guilty isn't a maxim of warfare.
The goddamn Geneva Conventions are. And under them, foreigner or not, you're a prisoner of war with all sorts of rights, or you're a detainee who's entitled to have their case heard in a regularly constituted court. There's no 'maxim of warfare' that lets us lock people up forever and maltreat them.
Also, my understanding is that habeus has pretty much always been a part of the rules of war when dealing with POWs,
No, not really, but there are all sorts of other protections POW's have.
LB, see 124. I'm not going to responding to 126, especially in light of 104. I think you're misunderstanding where we are in disgreement, which may be nowhere.
Sure, it's all fine, if we overturn it it's probably only a couple years of someone's life and reversing a 900-year-old principle, and it probably won't happen to anyone I know because we're white enough not to look Muslim. Who cares about that?
I am too angry to type. I have an urge to be doing something, but that something is most just yelling from the rooftops.
Called my Senator, but he's a dickhead.
Me? I'm already qualified for an Irish passport, and will be eligible for one from HM Government next year. I don't know whether I'll find the energy to renew the battered blue U.S. passport I've been carrying for the last 20 years, or to renew my little boy's. He ceaselessly identifies himself as American, but I might have to break him of that.
When do we start dismantling the Statue of Liberty, anyway?
To be clear, "Demonrats" in 112 was a typo.