I hope that you're right, but I can't fathom why you think that. My general experience with the Bush administration is that it will be worse than you can imagine.
They actually covered this story on NPR. So, I have some hope, but I feared that the Graham amendment would sneak by under the radar.
I've been rather frantically spending all weekend trying to get people to call their Senators, myself. I'd urge everyone to read the linked accounts by Katherine and Hilzoy, so you have the relevant facts, and then call each of your Senator's offices ASAP to urge passage of the Bingaman amendment, and to explain as much as is necessary as to why.
It's almost as if people with blogs could tell other people about this immensely important thing they could do something about.
Does explaining really help? I called the senators and just gave them a sentence about "the rule of law," but I have a suspicion that the staffers basically log the calls as "pro" or "con." (I'm also pretty sure that they--Hutchison and especiallly Cornyn--are completely beyond hope, but thought I needed to express myself anyway.)
I have a suspicion that the staffers basically log the calls as "pro" or "con."
I'm almost certain that's correct. No need to be prepared for a disquisition, when all you really have to say is "I'm calling to let the Senator know that I strongly support a vote for the Bingaman amendment." You might even be able to pare it down to "Hello. Bingaman: Yes!"
Is there any use in calling another state's senators or representatives? For example: I have neither. Cf. my mention the other day of throwing rocks on the Lawn—that probably is my best available avenue for expressing my opinions to the lege.
Armsmasher - you could try calling your old reps from Texas. I sometimes call my parents' reps in Ohio under the guise of still living there.
You could go to Virginia and call John Warner's office from a payphone. Though maybe mild fraud isn't what you're going for here.
That thought's occurred to me in the past, but like Weiner hints at, asking Cornyn to do the right thing is like pissing in the wind.
Couldn't I call a Democrat for once? Isn't there some state that will whisper sweet nothings into my ear?
OK, get off my back. I called and emailed my Senator. I'm pretty sure he's still a dick, though.
Is there a possibility that Lieberman is still under the delusion that he might be president, and would listen to an out-of-state caller?
OK, I done my duty. At one office I identified myself as a state resident, and the other I didn't. It didn't seem to make much difference.
They won't listen to phone calls from people who aren't their constituents. Don't waste your time. The parents' state thing isn't a bad idea, though. You could also use a service like this one to provide fake caller ID information.
Phone calls are better, but they do actually read their email. However, they don't screen it for location very well -- I can attest to how poorly-programmed those web forms are, having written many of them. Copy the city and zipcode from the rep's district office and email them, using that info if the form asks for it.
Should we call our senators' Washington offices, or one of their local offices?
Copy the city and zipcode from the rep's district office and email them, using that info if the form asks for it.
Note that for areas beyond the river Phlegethon (Dis, 7–9th Circles, Cocytus) you'll need to use a Zip+4 code.
SB: The Official Senate Page lists Washington phone nos. for everyone.
You should use Washington office numbers—they host the better staffers. Home offices are pork-processing plants.
Thanks Weiner, 'Smasher.
This post is problematic to the extent it discourages calling (an effect it does not appear to have had on the people who commented).
Calling Schumer's offices over the weekend, I couldn't even get voicemail in either his DC or NYC offices. So I left a message with the Long Island one. I'll call D.C. as soon as I'm done with class.
I took it that Ogged's last sentence meant that we would make it no big deal by getting het up to call our Senators and thus moving them to support the Bingaman amendment (as the people who were worried about Y2K fixed the problem). I am not nearly so optimistic, but we should all call. Emerson, can you pretend to be still living in Oregon?
For example: I have neither.
Things I can look forward to!
I am cell phone only now. So, it doesn't much matter, but is there a 1-800 number. The thing that keeps me from calling more often is the phone bills.
I don't know why I didn't think of it earlier, but so long as I'm living under taxation without representation, why not call Graham's office? Freedom's just another word for I can call until someone picks up the goddamn line.
Hilzoy says Bingaman (and possibly another relevant amendment by Levin) will be voted on tomorrow, so there's still time to call.
Bingaman's very good about getting things to pass (he's the top Democrat by far in successful amendments), so this could definitely happen. Still call, though; they basically just log yes and no, but that counts.
The only Levin amendment I can find the text of isn't germane [scroll down], but that text was on the web before whatever events took place on the floor of the Senate today. And I can't find a record for today.
I was going by the comments just above and below the one I linked.
Graham is such an asshole. But maybe this provides some hope.
I had read those comments and wasn't trying to challenge the claim, more trying to offer new information and reporting my failure to find it.
Some news . I don't know what it means. My instinct is to fear that they threw out half the Magna Carta, but that's not based on any close reading--just the words "bipartisan compromise."
This is a huge improvement, but not (according to me) enough of one -- it still, for instance, leaves people who have been determined to be innocent, but who have not yet been released, with no way to challenge their detention.
When the Wurlitzer segues from "you're unpatriotic if you don't support offensive war" to "you're unpatriotic if you don't support decriminalizing torture," Godwin's Law will be rendered meaningless.
"Lawsuit abuse" by the detainees. In league with those dastardly trial lawyers, no doubt. Graham's such a creep.
I'm watching C-SPAN right now, Bingaman amendment lost (54-44), then Graham spoke in favor of his and corrected part of his previous lies (mistakes?) where he had said that U.S. soldiers didn't have the ability to appeal military court decisions to U.S. civilian courts, then Specter noted that a comment Graham had made about the Supreme Court being able to issue certiorari went against the plain language of the bill placing exclusive jurisdiction in the D.C. Circuit, and Specter continued to decry that such an important idea as stripping habeas corpus was being voted upon so soon after its introduction, because it didn't allow for an opportunity for judiciary committee hearings. Now they're voting on the revised Graham amendment.
Crap. I think. I don't really know the implications of the revised amendments, just that I don't trust Graham.
"I'm going to enjoy the Y2K feeling of saying it's no big deal...."
So how'd that work out?