The NYT Opens Whole New Dimensions Of Shrillness

by hilzoy

Check it out:

"Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.

Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists — because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That’s pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them.

It was only after the Supreme Court issued the inevitable ruling striking down Mr. Bush’s shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism."

There follows a list of the most horrible aspects of the bill. And then:

"There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But 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."

Aaaiii! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Krugman R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn! Aaaiii! AAAAAAIIIIIIIII!!!!

And the worst of it is, it's all true, and not a bit of it is over the top.

Comments

[spartikus]

Why would they do something so stupid and risky?

Why would they do something so stupid and risky as invade Iraq?

There just doesn't seem to be an inherent understanding of just what is stupid and risky with this crew.

But you're probably right.

[lily]

Anarch, I called Senators Cantwell and Reid. I'm glad they voted the right way. I don't really understand people who express anger at the whole party. Twelve Democrats (well, really eleven because Lieberman shouldn't count as a Democrat)supported the bill. I would never vote for any of them,of course but I am proud of all thhe others. There is a real difference b etween Democrats and Republicans and this vote proves it. Republicans wanted this bill and wrote it--Democrats tried to remove the worst aspects. That's a very real difference. Republicanns marshalled nothing but ignorance, religious bigotry and hysteria in support of the bill. That shows what the Republicann party stands for. On the other hand many, many Democrats made eloquent appeals to decency, honor, reason and democratic principles in opposition to it. In the end all but one Republican voted for it. In the end all except 11 Deomcrats voted against it. I'm not mad at the Democratic party. If this country ever gets back to being what it ought to be it will be because of Democrats and in spite of Republicans.
This just makes me commit to working harder to support people like Webb, McKierney, Grant, Fawcett, Massa, Duckworth...

[Anarch]

I'm not mad at the Democratic party.

I'm not mad at the individual Democrats who opposed the bill. I'm furious at the party, because if the party can't muster enough discipline to stop a bill legalizing f***ing torture then they're not a party at all, they're just a collection of people with similar name-tags.

[Matt McIrvin]

Maybe Powerline would be all for it, but most Americans would not be.

Are you absolutely sure about that? I'm not so sure any more. I'm losing my faith in "most Americans" and think many, many Americans might be itching for a government smackdown on liberals.

Lindsay Beyerstein and others think the intent of this law is to clear the way for large-scale crackdowns on protesters once the Iran war push starts, and that B-list political bloggers--people a little less prominent, a little more radical, than Kos or Atrios--might be among the targets. I hope the rest of us are courageous enough to raise the stink if that happens; it might be hard to notice if they simply disappear.

Personally, I think it was mostly intended as a deliberately offensive law that would get Democrats to vote against it so that they could be attacked at election time. But I'm not willing to bet a lot on that.

[Jake - but not the one]

The saddest thing of all is that the MCA as passed may perfectly reflect the will of the American public. When the MCA says we will imprison and torture innocents and guilty alike and provide none of them recourse to justice, we have only acted in accord with the desires of the majority of Americans.

This is a strange land in which we live. I couldn't feel more alien were I born on some other planet.

Jake

[Slartibartfast]

Lindsay Beyerstein and others think the intent of this law is to clear the way for large-scale crackdowns on protesters once the Iran war push starts, and that B-list political bloggers--people a little less prominent, a little more radical, than Kos or Atrios--might be among the targets.

Well, I think there's a great deal of hyperventilation and possibly some anticipatory self-martyrdom going on there. Still, as a backstop, I'm considering some investment in personal firearms. I don't think it'll ever come down to this, but in the event that it does, I'd hate to be completely unprepared.

[liberal japonicus]

Matt, is Lindsay saying that on her blog or in comments? Just curious, cause I don't see anything like that at her front page.

[Matt McIrvin]

In comments on punkassblog.

[bob mcmanus]

"Still, as a backstop, I'm considering some investment in personal firearms."

Interesting, and wise. Dave Neiwert over at Orcinus has always said we are not in fascism yet, and considers the key indicator local thuggery, not governmental crackdowns. The National Guard moving into cities and campuses in the late 60s was not an indication of pre-fascism.

The point of creating and supplying and inciting amateur gangs to do the dirtywork is that you really can't control them once they are created. They control you, to an extent. Hitler and Franco were okay with that. Moqtada Sadr is less happy right now.

So...although Slart buying some long guns could not protect himself agains the US Army, the US Army will not be the threat id we go further downhill.

[otto]

"local thuggery"

Minutemen?