Update On Our Existential Struggle Against Ourselves

by hilzoy

Glenn Greenwald reports, and dKos' McJoan confirms, that Harry Reid says that Democrats will not allow the Specter bill (which would give the President the authority to conduct his warrantless surveillance program, subject only to a review of the entire program by the FISA courts) to pass:

"Sen. Reid stated flatly and unequivocally -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that the Specter bill was not going anywhere, that it would not be enacted. I then asked him how he could be so certain about that -- specifically, I asked where the 51 votes against the Specter bill would come from in light of the support it enjoys from both the White House and at least some of the ostensibly "independent" Republicans, exacerbated by the fact that all 10 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of it yesterday (at least they voted in favor of sending it to the Senate floor).

In response, Sen. Reid explained that our system does not allow every bill to be enacted simply because a majority supports it, that Senate rules allow minority rights to be protected, clearly alluding to a filibuster. Indeed, as part of that vow, Sen. Reid specifically referenced the fact that in the Senate, one does not need 50%, but only 40%, to block the enactment of a bill. He explained that rule existed to protect minority rights. When I asked him expressly whether the Democrats are committed to filibustering the Specter bill if doing so is necessary to defeat it, he said he thought that would not be necessary, but repeated that they would make sure the Specter bill did not become law. He was unequivocal about that a second time."

This is wonderful news. Especially given the Democrats' silence about the administration's torture bill, I'm glad to see that they are willing to stick up for something, and that that something includes our constitutional freedoms. Moreover, if the Republicans can't get a bill through in the three-ish weeks before they go on recess, they are unlikely to get this program authorized later -- whether or not the Democrats regain control of either chamber, they seem certain to pick up seats, and that can only harm the chances that any such bill will ever become law. Which is great.

And then there's the torture bill. On one side, we have the awful Warner/Graham/McCain bill (pdf), which strips habeas rights from anyone we detain outside the US, provides immunity for various war crimes committed since 9/11, and does other bad things. On the other, we have the vastly worse administration bill (also pdf). Marty Lederman identifies the basic issue:

"Should the CIA be legally authorized to breach the Geneva Conventions by engaging in the following forms of "cruel treatment" prohibited by "common" Article 3(1)(a) of those Conventions?:

-- "Cold Cell," or hypothermia, where a prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees, during which he is doused with cold water.

-- "Long Time Standing," in which a prisoner is forced to stand, handcuffed and with his feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours.

-- Other forms of "stress positions" and prolonged sleep deprivation, perhaps akin to "Long Time Standing."

-- Threats of violence and death of a detainee and/or his family."

(One source for these descriptions of the techniques in question is here. I can't wait to see apologists for the administration describe being kept in a cell at 50 degrees while being doused with cold water as 'having the air conditioning turned down', or being forced to stand for more than 40 hours as 'a little discomfort'.)

This raises several questions. The first is whether or not we should authorize the CIA to use these techniques. Personally, I can't believe we're even having this debate. We ought to stand for something: for fairness and decency and opposition to the kinds of things that, normally, only dictators do. And it ought to be easy to stand up for our values in this case: after all, experts on interrogation regularly inform us that the kinds of measures under discussion don't even work. Instead, though, we get the likes of Paul from Powerline informing us that the Warner/Graham/McCain bill is really just an attempt "to provide gold-plated process to terrorists who are hell-bent on killing as many Americans and other Westerners as humanly possible."

Indeed.

The second is whether we should be allowed to do this in violation of the Geneva Conventions. However often the President might describe the provisions of his bill that deal with the Geneva Conventions as simply "clarifying" their requirements, his bill actually abrogates them. It does so in a somewhat sneaky way, by declaring (pp. 78-9) that "Satisfaction of the prohibitions against cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment set forth in Section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (title X of Public Law 109-148; 119 Stat. 2739; 42 U.S.C. 2000dd) shall fully satisfy United States obligations with respect to the standards for detention and treatment established by section 1 of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, with the exception of the obligations imposed by subsections 1(b) and 1(d) of such Article." Most scholars seem to agree that Common Article 3 requires more than the DTA, (for a good explanation of why, see here.)

The crucial point is that we do not have the right to decide, unilaterally, what the Geneva Conventions require. For this reason, passing a law that says "henceforth, satisfying the requirements of the DTA will also satisfy the requirements of the Geneva Convention" is more or less on a par with one of my students telling me that henceforth, if she submits any paper whatsoever, she will have fully satisfied my requirements for getting an A. She can say it, but that doesn't make it so, since, whatever PowerLine might think, we are not living in Wonderland, (zip file), and George W. Bush is not Humpty Dumpty:

"'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'"

In thinking about this, it's important to recognize that the Geneva Conventions, like any other treaty to which we are a party, did not just descend on us from the blue. We voluntarily signed them, and in so doing we promised to abide by them. Presumably, we did so because we thought that the protections they afford us would be worth the restrictions they entail. If President Bush thinks that this is not true -- if he concludes that being a party to the Geneva Conventions, and accepting their requirements, costs us more than it gains, he could do the honest thing and announce his intention to withdraw from them. Instead, his bill simply states that something satisfies them, when that is plainly not true. What he is basically doing is announcing his willingness to have our nation break its word, and to do so simply to avoid the embarrassment of having to propose withdrawing from Geneva. And this is just plain wrong.

Moreover, as a lot of military leaders have pointed out, this puts our troops in jeopardy. To quote the letter signed by 32 former military and intelligence leaders:

"We have abided by this standard in our own conduct for a simple reason: the same standard serves to protect American servicemen and women when they engage in conflicts covered by Common Article 3. Preserving the integrity of this standard has become increasingly important in recent years when our adversaries often are not nation-states. Congress acted in 1997 to further this goal by criminalizing violations of Common Article 3 in the War Crimes Act, enabling us to hold accountable those who abuse our captured personnel, no matter the nature of the armed conflict.

If any agency of the U.S. government is excused from compliance with these standards, or if we seek to redefine what Common Article 3 requires, we should not imagine that our enemies will take notice of the technical distinctions when they hold U.S. prisoners captive. If degradation, humiliation, physical and mental brutalization of prisoners is decriminalized or considered permissible under a restrictive interpretation of Common Article 3, we will forfeit all credible objections should such barbaric practices be inflicted upon American prisoners."

Such military experts as NRO's Andrew McCarthy disagree, on the grounds that "Our enemies don’t give a damn about the Geneva Conventions". Similarly, the eminent strategic thinker Paul at PowerLine mocks "the absurdly naive claim that our treatment of detainees will affect how our bloodthirsty enemies treat our soldiers." Unlikely as it might seem, these experts on force protection miss the point, as, more importantly, our military's Commander in Chief did in his press conference:

"Q Sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit -- as they see fit -- you're saying that you'd be okay with that?

THE PRESIDENT: I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article III, we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite."

This is not about what we can expect that al Qaeda will do to captive Americans; surely no one expects them to pay attention to the Geneva Conventions in any case. Nor is it (entirely) about the specific standards for interrogations contained in the administration's bill. It's about the question whether countries who have signed a legally binding agreement have the obligation to either adhere to that agreement or withdraw from it; or can they instead take the Humpty Dumpty approach?

If we adopt the Humpty Dumpty approach to treaty interpretation, we don't just lose our right to protest when "our bloodthirsty enemies" follow our lead. We lose the right to protest when anyone at all decides to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit, even if the proposed reinterpretation is as bizarre as ours is. Nor do we lose the right to protest only if they adopt the very same interpretation we adopt; we lose the right to protest when they adopt whatever strained and unconvincing interpretation they choose. That, after all, is what we are doing.

If there were some way of constraining the possible future effects of passing the administration bill to future wars against al Qaeda, and of limiting the interpretations we have no grounds to protest to the very interpretation we have adopted, this part of the administration's bill would still be objectionable. The forms of interrogation it allows the CIA to engage in are morally wrong, and it is also wrong to break our word by violating a treaty we have sworn to uphold. As it is, however, we have another objection: that it will leaved us with no way to plausibly protest if, in some unforeseen future conflict, our adversaries choose to play their own game of Humpty Dumpty with the Geneva Conventions. And, as the former military and intelligence leaders wrote in the letter I cited above:

"This is not just a theoretical concern. We have people deployed right now in theaters where Common Article 3 is the only source of legal protection should they be captured. If we allow that standard to be eroded, we put their safety at greater risk."

When it comes to the safety of our troops, we need to decide whether to trust Gens. Powell, Shalikashvili, Vessey, Hoar, Turner, et al on the one hand, or PowerLine and NRO on the other. After wrenching deliberations a great deal of soul-searching much thought some thought thought, I trust the retired generals.

***

There is, however, one small glimmer of hope. Lots of people seem to think that the administration will manage to come to some sort of compromise with Senators Warner, Graham, and McCain. They're probably right, but I think there is a real chance that the two sides will not be able to agree. On the one hand, the three Senators seem to be pretty clearly committed to their position, and if one assumes (as I do) that all three genuinely care about the safety of people in the military, the statements by the various retired military leaders will probably strengthen their resolve.

On the other hand, George W. Bush seems to be constitutionally incapable of any sort of compromise. He does change positions when he isn't really wedded to any of them, but the idea of genuinely giving ground when he's really staked himself on some position doesn't seem to be part of his conceptual universe. And he certainly seemed to be wedded to this position in his press conference Friday: he was, to my eye, visibly angry at the very idea that people were defying him, to the point where he threatened not to continue interrogating people unless his bill passed. I don't really see him giving ground either, nor does it seem as though the House leadership wants to.

And remember: Congress is supposed to adjourn on Oct. 6, three weeks from now. That's not a lot of time to get bills passed in the House and Senate, go through a compromise committee, and have the conference bill pass both houses. If they haven't agreed on a bill by Oct. 6, they have two three choices. [UPDATE: They could also call a lame duck session, as baltar notes in comments. End update.] First, they could not pass a bill, in which case they might well have to start from scratch after the elections. In this case, the chances that Bush would get the bill he wants would go down dramatically, even if the Republicans maintain control of both houses.

Second, they could stay in session until they work it out. This would be a problem for them: the elections are coming up, and everyone in the House, and one third of the Senators, are up for reelection. Staying in session when they could be out campaigning would not be a good thing for them, and it would help the Democrats, who have fewer incumbent seats to lose.

The administration and the Republicans in Congress can read a calendar as well as I can, of course, and none of this will be lost on them. So they will probably do whatever they can to reach a compromise, and, as I said, most of the political analysts I've read think they'll probably succeed. But there is room for a tiny bit of hope, I think. And since it's the first I've had for a while, I didn't want to let it pass unnoticed.

Comments

[Gary Farber]

"(zip file)"

A non-zip, full HTML text of both Alice In Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass is here. Also here. Also here. Here. here.

There are far too many more on the web to count, given that it's in the public domain.

On Bush: "...to the point where he threatened not to continue interrogating people unless his bill passed."

That was particularly interesting, wasn't it?

[bob mcmanus]

Here is the kind of argument I want to have, a field hypothetical:

You are in free fire zone, and some soldier carrying his weapon walks up to his commander and says:"I tortured and killed a bunch of people including innocent civilians. I want you to not only help me cover up my war crimes but give me permission in writing to do it so more. Gotta warn ya, if you don't do this some people, won't say who, are gonna die. And I ain't gonna give up my weapon, so don't ask. So wot ya gonna do, boss?"

Golly gee, what do the boss do? "Hey, look over there, a Tyrannosaurus!" might be part of it.

[bob mcmanus]

Has any public legislature in anyone's memory or knowledge ever publicly debated the mechanics of freaking torture?

The Chair recognizes Senator Frist for 15 minutes:

Senator Frist:"I stand here in support of HR 1178. I realize that my Texas friends have some economic hardship after the oil embargo, and that the refineries could convert to mass Zyklon-B production in a few short months. But I have many arguments in favor of the carbon monoxide bill from the House.

1) Our dear friends on the left are always claiming we lack compassion. While the Zyklon-B may be quicker and more efficient, it is quite painful in the short application period. Carbon monoxide will simply put the little ones to sleep, and no one will be scared.
2)Our friends on the left claim we don't care about the environment. We do so care. The recycling of waste gases from Northeast and Midwest power plants will have, according to many scientists, a decided beneficial effect on global warming.
3)I would also like to say we can include the carbon monoxide program withing a pollution tax credit and waste exchange scenario. And use the existing natural gas pipelines. This is not a budget-buster.
I reserve the balance of my time.

Only in America.

[baltar]

You note that Congress has only two options with respect to passage of any bill: not pass anything (and punt it to the next Congress), or "they could stay in session until they work it out."

There is a third option: a lame duck session. They can take off on October 6th, and the return after the elections. They are still Congress until the new one sits.

(Actually, I don't know when this Congress expires and the next begins. I know this one can continue to work after the election, but I don't know what Constitutionally mandated expiration date this one has.)

I suppose this is a trivial point in an otherwise good post, but it is worth noting.

Oh, and if the Senate Democrats stand up (like you, via Greenwald, claim), I'll be surprised and delighted. I'm not expecting anything, however.

[hilzoy]

baltar: yikes, you're right. However,offhand, I would think that with the campaign pressures off, the support for the administration bill would drop. At least, I hope so. Most of the stories I read suggest that support for the admin. bill in both houses is soft.

However, thanks for the correction; I'll go fix the post now.

[Gary Farber]

"(Actually, I don't know when this Congress expires and the next begins. I know this one can continue to work after the election, but I don't know what Constitutionally mandated expiration date this one has.)"

The 110th Congress will be sworn in on January 3rd.

See the 20th Amendment to the Constitution.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

It hasn't changed since January, 1934. The prior Congress is still Congress until the new Congress is sworn in on the 3rd of January. Every time.

It's useful to actually read the U.S. Constitution.

[liberal japonicus]

I'll admit, something in me longs for the Dems to do the Texas Dem thing and leave to prevent a quorum, or have each Dem call Rule 21 in turn, until the on-off switch on the C-Span cameras breaks from overuse. But the fact is that the minority only has power if the majority has some respect, and sees the minority's action and thinks 'wow, since y'all are so strongly opposed to this, we better rethink our position" I'd like to see someone argue for the notion that this majority has any respect for the minority.

[Gary Farber]

"I'll admit, something in me longs for the Dems to do the Texas Dem thing and leave to prevent a quorum"

And leave the present interrogation policies of Bush in place?

[KCinDC]

I don't mean to be cynical, but didn't Reid promise a couple of months back that there'd be no congressional pay raise unless a minimum wage increase was passed to go with it? How'd that work out?

[Bruce Baugh]

I wish I had some reason to believe Reid this time around.

[bob mcmanus]

"But the fact is that the minority only has power if the majority has some respect"

This is backwards in most cases. The majority only has legitimacy with the consent of the governed. 55-0 sends a far different message than 55-45.

This doesn't speak to power. But the first amd most important step for a minority is to deny a tyranny legitimacy, and the symbols and legimating use of process and discourse. "I no longer care about your laws" is the liberating attitude.

"Furthermore, hegemony doesn’t sit on your chest and tell you what to think; it merely seeks to set the bounds of the thinkable" ...M Berube

To argue torture is to legitimate it, to move it into the realm of discourse. Simultaneously it moves the limits of what is acceptable in governance, what we will allow our leaders to say and do.

Moreover, torture is very special, since it is state-sanctioned physical violence. To argue torture is to put many other very dangerous policies into play.

[hilzoy]

Gary: "The present interrogation policies of Bush" are the unamended law as of now, according to which Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is binding on the CIA. Moreover, whatever Bush wants to do, he seems to be having some difficulty persuading the CIA agents to risk prosecution for war crimes. (Even with the insurance and all.)

The problem with his interrogation policies is not really the law, as I understand it; it's his (and his Justice Dept's) interpretation of the law.

[Gary Farber]

"I don't mean to be cynical, but didn't Reid promise a couple of months back that there'd be no congressional pay raise unless a minimum wage increase was passed to go with it? How'd that work out?"

There hasn't been a Congressional pay raise since 2005. The one Reid threatened to block isn't scheduled until January, 2007, with the new Congress. (Again, Congress is Constitutionally prohibited from voting a current Congressional payraise. 27th Amendment. "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.")

It seems difficult to fault Reid for not stopping something that hasn't happened yet. Or am I missing something?

[Gary Farber]

Hilzoy: "Gary: 'The present interrogation policies of Bush' are the unamended law as of now, according to which Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is binding on the CIA."

Right, thus my point that leaving things as they are: not a good idea.

[CharleyCarp]

As hard as I tried, I couldn't avoid seeing some of the President's presentation on Friday. One thing he said struck me: the people he's had doing all manner of illegal stuff are refusing to follow orders. He has to get torture legalized, or none of his subordinates will do it.

BTW, this is a clarifying moment for the people who support the President but oppose torture. Your opposition, voiced in the proper forum, could make a difference. Years from now, people will look back on this episode in horror. Don't miss the chance to do the right thing.

You know, the rules under the Geneva Conventions aren't just relevant for our soldiers. Any one of us who ever leaves the country could end up in the hands of a foreign government, based on rumor, innuendo, or mistaken identity. The rules we're talking about would apply to your treatment. They weren't considered vague, but now anyone who violates tham has a perfect defense: thanks a f*ing lot, Mr. president.

[bob mcmanus]

"Right, thus my point that leaving things as they are: not a good idea."

There is no probable outcome I find acceptable. I did not think the Graham amendment was acceptable. I do not want to leave things as they are.

I have no idea what you would find acceptable.

[bob mcmanus]

"The rules we're talking about would apply to your treatment."

I don't find this a compelling or relevant argument. In practice, any gov't attempting to use Bush practice as a justification for mistreatment of an American will not be able to use this defense. They will get bombed.

Which is the point. It is not an argument about laws or rights. It is an assertion of power, a declaration of tyranny.

[bob mcmanus]

"If this passes, Iran could kidnap Cheney on American soil, transport him to Tehran, torture Cheney, and they would have the law on their side."

This is absurd. Any variation of it is absurd, if I am mistaken in details. And, forgive me, a profound and desperate and deliberate mistatement of what arena we are playing in.

[Katherine]

Gary: no. This is not incorrect. As it stands now, violations of Common Article 3 by the CIA are war crimes. As I understand it (based on news reports) there are no OLC memos interpreting Common Article 3 as applied to the CIA techniques. Previous OLC memos had assumed that Common Article 3 did not apply. They would be hard pressed to find that these techniques are lawful under CA3, and if they somehow managed, they would probably have difficulty convincing the CIA to rely on their interpretation unless the war crimes act is amended.

Every single bill being debated is worse than the status quo. I realize it's politically impossible for the Democrats to preserve the status quo...well, actually, they could, in point of fact, filibuster habeas stripping. But I realize they won't, and I'm aware of the arguments against doing something. Let's please be clear on what these bills do, though. The administration bill and McCain-Warner-Graham are both much less restrictive on the CIA than Hamdan--this is even leaving habeas out of it, which of course one shouldn't do.

[Katherine]

By "this is not incorrect" I meant "this is not correct" or "this is incorrect."

[Katherine]

and by "the arguments against doing something" I meant "the arguments about doing so."

Sorry. Don't know what happened to my command of the English language.

[liberal japonicus]

Again, the egg breaking thesis surfaces. Gary suggests that the Dems all getting up and flying to Las Vegas is letting things stand as they are. Perhaps, but as Hilzoy notes, it's not 'law', it's an interpretation that needs to be thrown out. And I know that Rove, in a move that I think stands parallel to Gary's argument, would be able to throw out the idea (and have it amplified by the media) that the Dems aren't serious and are abdicating their responsibility, and therefore, whoever is around on the Senate floor should be able to decide what they want, because they are the only ones serious enough to stay.

Again, I can see that this kind of crap would get pulled, but at some point, leadership requires showing people what steps they need to take by demonstrating similar steps themselves. I've noted over at TiO the case of Ehren Watada. My feeling is that at this point, if the Dems do not show people how to resist these decisions by refusal to participate, they are not demonstrating leadership. Perhaps all this hinges on committee assignations and having to keep working with people in ways that I don't understand. But it seems to me that it is far past that point.

[John Thullen]

Bob McManus:

"To argue torture is to legitimate it, to move it into the realm of discourse. Simultananeously, it moves the limits of what is acceptable in governance, what we allow our leaders to say and do."

Well, the Republican Party is running on a single issue platform on the national level of arguing torture, in a midterm election. I repeat: torture is the centerpiece of the Republican Party's platform! Meanwhile, the Republican Party is relying on swiftboating their Democratic enemies at the state and local levels.

Some polls are showing Bush's approval ratings have bottomed and perhaps are rising as a result. Erick the Red at Bizarro World seems to think so.

They might pull this off. If so, the discourse has accepted torture. In which case, after November 2006, anything goes.

The American people will back anything. Democrats and Republicans, like Warner, McCain, and Graham, will spend two years standing back and watching as anything goes.

Mr. Bush has stated several times in recent weeks that he would not change a single decision he has made. Not one. This is called charisma and self-confidence by David Brooks.

In a documentary I was watching some of a little earlier this evening, they tell the story of another self-confident and charismatic leader: David Koresh.

Also from Waco.

[Katherine]

Okay, it looks like my point got lost since I couldn't write a coherent sentence:

I think Gary is simply incorrect about the current state of the law. To the best of our knowledge, all of the CIA techniques under discussion have been suspended in the wake of Hamdan. Please see Marty Lederman on this..

[Gary Farber]

"To the best of our knowledge, all of the CIA techniques under discussion have been suspended in the wake of Hamdan."

Okay, maybe we are better off with no further law whatsoever, insofar as there is no practical improvement of human rights on the table.

For the sake of anyone who needs clarification on my position, it's not as if I've not posted endless posts on the essentialness of letting Article 3 stand, unmodified; I think I've been quite repetitively clear, at considerable length, in post after post.

[bob mcmanus]

King of Pain ...Paul Krugman on Bush and torture, via Mark Thoma

[Jesurgislac]

bob: I don't find this a compelling or relevant argument. In practice, any gov't attempting to use Bush practice as a justification for mistreatment of an American will not be able to use this defense. They will get bombed.

Precisely. The US is the biggest military power on the planet, and while we have just seen that this has limits when it comes to taking over another country, it has no limits when it comes to destroying another country.

More to the point, a government can use the Bush justification for defense as mistreatment of prisoners/detainees, where the prisoners/detainees are not American. The soldiers of any army which allies with the US become potential victims at one remove of Bush's decision that the Geneva Convention means whatever he says it means.

[KCinDC]

Okay, apologies to Reid about the pay raise. The fact that three months had passed with no further mention, plus one too many articles about the House approving the raise that treated it as a done deal, made me assume the idea of fighting it had been quietly dropped. We'll see what happens in the next few months.

[bob mcmanus]

"where the prisoners/detainees are not American."

A good point, a better point.

[Nell]

Gary Farber: And leave the present interrogation policies of Bush in place?

Rather than enshrine them in legislation, redefine the Geneva Conventions, and strip habeas rights? Yes.

There is no freaking rush. This is the same "ooh, we have to act now" ploy that allowed Bush to use the Iraq war as an electoral club in the 2002 midterms.

THERE IS NO NEED TO ACT BEFORE RECESS. And yes, I meant to shout.

[cleek]

Meanwhile, the Republican Party is relying on swiftboating their Democratic enemies at the state and local levels.

and, it's working

what a country !

[Gary Farber]

"And yes, I meant to shout."

Comforting to know that I'll be shouted at after I wrote that I changed my mind 14 hours ago.

The Times has a good editorial (not a column, not an article), by the way.

[Gary Farber]

"and, it's working"

Relatively few people tend to actually click links, you know (referrer logs consistently prove this).

The story:

The battle for control of the U.S. Senate is getting closer—much closer. Little more than a week ago, our Balance of Power summary showed the Republicans leading 50-45 with five states in the Toss-Up category. Today, Rasmussen Reports is changing three races from “Toss-Up” to “Leans Democrat.” As a result, Rasmussen Reports now rates 49 seats as Republican or Leans Republican while 48 seats are rated as Democrat or Leans Democrat (see State-by-State Summary). There are now just three states in the Toss-Up category--Tennessee, New Jersey, and Missouri.

Today’s changes all involve Republican incumbents who have been struggling all year. In Montana, Senator Conrad Burns (R) has fallen behind Jon Tester (D). Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee (R) survived his primary but starts the General Election as a decided underdog. Sherrod Brown (D) is enjoying a growing lead over Ohio Senator Mike DeWine (R).

Four other seats are now ranked as “Leans Democrat”—Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Maryland, and Michigan.

Virginia is the only state rated as “Leans Republican.”

And the news from Virginia is good.

[cleek]

Relatively few people tend to actually click links, you know

i click them. i leave them. they're what the web is made of.

[Nell]

I did miss the comment where you took it back, Gary. Sorry. Hope your ears sustained no lasting damage.

The Democratic leadership's failure to take a 'cool your jets' line on detainee legislation is especially galling to me because it would be the strongest approach both politically and in terms of policy.

[Nell]

Rasmussen Report: Four other seats are now ranked as "Leans Democrat"

Of course, the fine people at Rasmussen meant to say "Leans Democratic"...

[Gary Farber]

Kudos to Katherine and Hilzoy.

[russell]

"Personally, I can't believe we're even having this debate."

There you have it.

We should not be having this debate. The correct response to a request to redefine Article III of the Geneva Convention to allow for inducing hypothermia, forcing people to stand while shackled for 40+ hours, and be subject to simulated drowning, is "No".

No. The answer is No.

Here is the solution to this problem.

Every swinging dick that votes for anything other than a total affirmation of the interpretation of Geneva that has been enshrined in the US Code, the US military code of justice, and international law for the last 60 years gets to find a new job this November.

There is no room for debate. There is no room for compromise and interpretation. There is no conceivable interpretation of "humane" that includes making someone stand naked in a room heated to 50 degrees while cold water is poured on them.

None.

Everyone who dares to raise a voice in defense of Bush's request should be publicly shamed.

Everyone who dares to provide the slightest measure of support for this agenda should be voted out of office, period.

Make them pay. When this bullshit costs them something, they will stop shoveling it out.

The answer is No. No debate, no Warner/Graham/McCain compromise, no only if it happens in Czechoslovakia, no even if the President says it's OK.

It's not OK.

The answer is NO.

Clear?

Thank you

[Gus]

It might be interesting to see Iran say it's going to "clarify" certain portions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.