by hilzoy
There seems to be a new draft of the "compromise" bill on military tribunals and detention. I haven't read it through in its entirety. However, a few points:
First, it still strips alien enemy combatants of habeas rights. It also still contains this horrible provision:
"(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(c) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who --(A) is currently in United States custody; and
(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." (p. 82)"
That's the one that effectively removes our system of extraterritorial detention from judicial oversight.
Second, the Washington Post notes that the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant' does not preclude US citizens from being designated as unlawful enemy combatants. This is not new: the previous version of the bill didn't rule that out either. Nor does this strike me as a bad thing: if a US citizen went off to fight with al Qaeda against the US, he or she would seem to me to be properly described as an unlawful enemy combatant (at least, if we leave aside questions about whether we should use that term at all.) Moreover, a lot of the provisions of the law specify that they apply only to alien unlawful enemy combatants.
The problem with the new definition isn't that it allows US citizens to be unlawful combatants; it's that it's both broad and (it seems to me) vague. It reads (copying from Balkinization, since the pdf doesn't allow copying):
"(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."
The 'purposefully and materially supported hostilities' part has, I think, two possible readings: (1) someone has purposefully done something in order to materially support hostilities against the US; and (2) someone has purposefully done something, and the government believes that that something materially supports hostilities against the US. To see the difference, consider this example:
"Could a “little old lady in Switzerland” who sent a check to an orphanage in Afghanistan be taken into custody if unbeknownst to her some of her donation was passed to al-Qaida terrorists? asked U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green.“She could,” replied Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle. “Someone’s intention is clearly not a factor that would disable detention.” It would be up to a newly established military review panel to decide whether to believe her and release her."
On the first reading, the little old lady would not be an enemy combatant, since she did not know that her money would be sent to al Qaeda, and thus did not purposefully aid it. On the second, however, she would: she purposefully sent her money to the charity, and thus purposefully did something that, unbeknownst to her, materially supported hostilities against the US.
There's a big difference between the two readings.
We also need to know what, exactly, count as "hostilities". Marty Lederman points to a statement from yesterday's Judiciary Committee hearings that makes this clear. It's by Bradford Berenson, who describes himself as "Associate Counsel to President Bush from January, 2001 through January, 2003":
"We thus found ourselves after Rasul with hundreds of our nation’s most vicious enemies suing our military and civilian commanders in federal court seeking writs of habeas corpus. Indeed, now that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al Qaeda mastermind of 9/11, has been transferred to Guantanamo, it may not be long before he, too, can continue his aggression against the United States, this time through our own court system."
So according to someone who was one of the administration's lawyers for two years, filing habeas corpus petitions counts as aggression against the US. By that standard, on either of the two readings, CharleyCarp and I, along with any of you who have taken material steps to secure habeas rights for detainees, are all enemy combatants.
Nice to know. I thought I was sticking up for my Constitution and its values, and doing what I took to be my patriotic duty. Silly me.
The point is not that I believe that this retired administration official's rhetorical excesses might actually be turned into explicit policy. The point is rather that I don't see much in the bill that would prevent that. It's terribly written and very confusing, and a lot of its worst effects are not obvious when you read it quickly. It's also 96 pages long. We should not so much as consider messing with our Constitutional rights by passing a bill written in haste, whose drafts are still being worked on even as we speak, with a little over three days left before the Congress goes into recess. There is no time to have anything like the kind of debate we need to have; there isn't even enough time to feel the slightest confidence that we understand what the bill does.
Even if this bill did not have the appalling habeas-stripping and case-blocking provisions I mentioned above, and even if I had absolutely no objections to its contents, I would still feel that it would be a horrible mistake to pass a bill dealing with such important issues in this slapdash way. Laws are complicated things, and it takes time to figure out what effect changes to them will have. The administration and Congressional leaders have had years to work out a bill that would address their concerns. Pulling one out of their collective hats at this late date is no way to amend basic constitutional rights. When they insist that "time is running out", we ought to reply: and whose fault is that, exactly?
In any case, though, the worst features of the old bill remain in place. In my opinion, it should still be filibustered.
In my opinion, it should still be filibustered.
Well that certainly qualifies as a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.
Off with your head!
Posted by: Ugh | September 26, 2006 at 01:15 PM
In my opinion, it should still be filibustered.
Voiceover: My opponent, Osama bin Democrat, refused to allow Congress to give our military and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to fight terror. Osama bin Democrat would weaken America and embolden the terrorists. The choice is clear. This November, vote for a strong America. Vote Republican.
"Hi, I'm Demagogue J. Republican, and I approve this message"
Posted by: cleek | September 26, 2006 at 01:19 PM
Posted by: KCinDC | September 26, 2006 at 01:25 PM
"And whose fault is that, exactly?"
Well, the Founding Fathers. For scheduling elections every two Novembers. Plus the stipulation that there shall be 90 days of demagoguery proceeding such events. Then, there is, of course, the improvement to year-round demagoguery provided us since that November in 2000.
Posted by: John Thullen | September 26, 2006 at 01:44 PM
Wait a minute. If they grab you (U.S. citizen) off the street a render you to Tajikistan, you become an alien in U.S. custody. Could this kind of nonsense (the bill, not my raving) come under the heading of "giving them enough rope to hang themselves"?
Posted by: Jimbo | September 26, 2006 at 01:44 PM
Jimbo: If they grab you (U.S. citizen) off the street a render you to Tajikistan, you become an alien in U.S. custody. Could this kind of nonsense (the bill, not my raving) come under the heading of "giving them enough rope to hang themselves"?
Jose Padilla says no.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | September 26, 2006 at 02:09 PM
I'd direct you to where you could buy my "Enemy Combatant" t-shirts but I'm afraid that would be sufficient "cause" for the gummint to rendition my butt and inflict some of those old/new supplemental interrogation techniques on my old bones...
Posted by: bsa | September 26, 2006 at 02:18 PM
"The point is not that I believe that this retired administration official's rhetorical excesses might actually be turned into explicit policy."
Bilal Hussein, Pulitzer Prize Journalist, Held Without Trial ...Beyerstein of Majikthise
There is no doubt in my mind that the US is one or two events away from...however you would wish to characterize political opponents and journalists disappearing.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | September 26, 2006 at 04:13 PM
Leahy is quoted at Eschaton as making a good stand on this, but he seems to think the habeas-stripping applies only to non-citizens.
Posted by: Anderson | September 26, 2006 at 04:54 PM
There is no doubt in my mind that the US is one or two events away from...however you would wish to characterize political opponents and journalists disappearing.
Well, that's just it, isn't it?
Say that the feds had grabbed James Risen or Dana Priest as an "enemy combatant."
PowerLine et al. would've immediately concluded that they were working with terrorists & that's how they got their info, or something to that effect.
Cheney would go on TV and imply as much.
And without habeas, that would really be the end of it, unless and until the feds changed their minds, or a new sheriff entered the White House.
A law that enables such things, on its face, is CRAZY. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.
Posted by: Anderson | September 26, 2006 at 04:57 PM
Okay, I officially give up. This is like the stampeded, process-shredding method by which the Patriot Act was pushed through.
Here's where the language the Post story focuses on and that hilzoy's studying is tucked away, according to commenter cboldt at Balkinization:
Amazing, except for the fact that we've seen it all before, so it shouldn't amaze us. In the face of this kind of maneuvering, the only responsible position is to filibuster, to refuse to deal with these issues until there's time to deal with them honestly. (Of course, that should have been the position two months ago when we could all see this coming, but that donkey's been beaten to death here, so I'll not say any more on that.)
It's now after 5:00, so presumably, whatever habeas-saving amendment is going to be filed has been filed. Unless the dictatorship-facilitating Frist and McConnell decide to scrap that bill and push one of the others they have in their back pocket.
ETA for our official transition to the dual state: Saturday morning about 2 am.
Oh, wait: It won't become official until the dictator signs it (along with a signing statement that repudiates whatever faint limitations the eventual legislation might put on him).
Posted by: Nell | September 26, 2006 at 05:19 PM
Anderson: as I read the bill, at least the version I downloaded from Balkinization this morning ;), only "aliens" are stripped of habeas rights. The "enemy combatant" definition is (imho) unacceptably broad, but the habeas-stripping part is limited to alien enemy combatants.
The idea of passing something like this as an amendment to the fence bill is beyond absurd.
Posted by: hilzoy | September 26, 2006 at 07:34 PM
The idea of passing something like this as an amendment to the fence bill is beyond absurd.
What are you talking about? Those two things are completely related. It says right here in Robert's Rules of Order under the definition of "germane," to wit "closely or significantly related, or, in the case of torture, the same as a border fence."
Posted by: Ugh | September 26, 2006 at 07:41 PM
Anderson--I think hilzoy and Leahy have it right.
Did that fence move actually work? Obama's intern/staffer referred to it in the past tense to me....
Even Obama's phone guys are too charming, I ended up being much nicer than I had intended to be.
Posted by: Katherine | September 26, 2006 at 07:45 PM
I'm not a huge fan of Atrios (not a huge antifan either), but I think he has it right on Obama:
The guy needs to speak up this week. What does he have to lose?Posted by: KCinDC | September 26, 2006 at 07:58 PM
"...but the habeas-stripping part is limited to alien enemy combatants."
1)My comment of 4:13 does not mention nationality nor does it mention legality.
2) Stuff written and deleted after re-re-reading hilzoy's post. At this time, I do not need to get more negative than what was written.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | September 26, 2006 at 08:05 PM
Lederman also points out that the habeas-stripping applies to all aliens claimed to be enemy combatants, not just illegal combatants:
Also, as far as the "alien" restriction goes, hasn't there been talk of the ability to strip people of their US citizenship?
Posted by: KCinDC | September 26, 2006 at 08:45 PM
Where have von and Charles gotten to lately?
Not trying to be snarky, I'm actually interested to hear what they have to say.
Posted by: Another Andrew | September 26, 2006 at 09:00 PM
KC, I thought that was Biden Atrios was referring to, though now that you mention it, it probably is Obama.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | September 26, 2006 at 09:07 PM
Who labeled Joe Biden a rock star? (Maybe Joe Biden...)
Posted by: Katherine | September 26, 2006 at 09:30 PM
Biden a rock star, LJ? I guess things really are different in Japan.
Posted by: KCinDC | September 26, 2006 at 09:31 PM
I dunno; Biden could possibly be the Tom Jones or Engelbert Humperdinck of the Senate...
Posted by: hilzoy | September 26, 2006 at 09:36 PM
Well, here, rock star generally means pre-pubescent 'idoru'. I'm taking the Rolling Stones as sort of a prototype for over there.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | September 26, 2006 at 09:46 PM
"...but the habeas-stripping part is limited to alien enemy combatants."
Ah--first good news I've heard this week. Tho I was getting excited that the statute would be struck down by SCOTUS. Thanks, y'all.
Posted by: Anderson | September 26, 2006 at 11:05 PM
Uggh, the Daily Show's Moment of Zen had Laura Ingraham saying that the popularity of "24" was a referendum on torture (I think she said "agressive tactics").
And I'm still a bit boggled about Pervez Musharraf as the guest.
Posted by: KCinDC | September 26, 2006 at 11:32 PM
"...but the habeas-stripping part is limited to alien enemy combatants."
Imagine Giving
Oops! Marty Lederman says maybe not
Posted by: bob mcmanus | September 27, 2006 at 11:02 AM
Yeah, I saw that, Bob, & left a question in comments. I see that Hilzoy was asking the same question at Balkin's "spineless Dems" post.
IIRC, the Administration still hasn't conceded that the President's Article II powers don't allow him to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen who's an "enemy combatant" (Padilla). They turned Padilla over to the courts rather than have that question resolved.
And as noted upthread, it would be very Yooish to conclude that being an enemy combatant renounces one's citizenship, thus making oneself an alien.
But it does seem as if Marty Lederman has something else in mind, which I hope he'll explain.
Posted by: Anderson | September 27, 2006 at 11:12 AM
There is a clarification at Marty Lederman's site, seemingly replying to hilzoy's post over there as well. The essence is a loose wording in the unlawful enemy combatant definition on page 4 of the draft; definition (i) specifies aliens; but in definition (ii) the writer left out citizenship or locale; it could be anyone the secretary of defense wanted to arrest.
There was a thoughtful examination of the various parts of the draft law as well at the Georgetown law faculty site by John Mikhail two days ago now. Mikhail is helpful on understanding the Bybee language in the draft law; that was predictable, given, as Berenson highlighted early in the week at the committee hearing, the current draft is a restatement of the DTA from December 2005, as well.
Posted by: John Lopresti | September 27, 2006 at 01:48 PM
I think there are two distinct issues. One: can the President detain any enemy combatant indefinitely? If so, then it's hugely important that the definition of 'enemy combatant' that these idiots are proposing to write into law with the barest gesture at debate is so vague and capacious, and one part of that is: it's important that it includes citizens. (Myself, I don't see the fact that 'enemy combatants' includes citizens as itself the bad part; it's what we do with that designation that makes it bad. But surely a citizen can be an enemy combatant. Think John Walker Lindh.)
Two: does the habeas-stripping part, in particular, apply to citizens, or only to aliens? This is my question. But Marty's clarification covers (1), not (2), while Jack Balkin, Kevin Drum, and others assert (2) that citizens could have their habeas rights stripped.
I don't see that, but the reason could be as simple as: there's a new draft that Jack Balkin has and I don't.
Posted by: hilzoy | September 27, 2006 at 02:14 PM
I don't see that, but the reason could be as simple as: there's a new draft that Jack Balkin has and I don't.
If he had it, he'd post it--that's the only thing I can say with any confidence.
Posted by: Anderson | September 27, 2006 at 02:40 PM
This is a bit of synchronicity. If you aren't familiar with the story of Tokyo Rose, it might be a good time to get up to speed, as she was an American citizen trapped in Japan who was forced to do propaganda broadcasts by the Japanese, and due to perjury, was stripped of her citizenship.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | September 27, 2006 at 02:55 PM
From the FBI link that LJ provides:
a series of American-speaking women
Isn't that George W. Bush's second language?
Posted by: Anderson | September 27, 2006 at 03:35 PM
Leahy is going a good floor speech right now on c-span2.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 27, 2006 at 03:39 PM
Leahy is going a good floor speech right now on c-span2.
Well, let's hope he's persuasive 'cause I don't think a floor speech has changed anyone's mind since Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (and maybe not even then). He could be Atticus Finch and it wouldn't matter.
Posted by: Ugh | September 27, 2006 at 03:47 PM
Yes, a floor speech is only a tip of an iceberg. Are you streaming it, Ugh?
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 27, 2006 at 03:54 PM
Yes, a floor speech is only a tip of an iceberg.
Sometimes, an ice floe is just an ice floe.
But, as always, I would love the Democrats to live up to CC's faith in them.
Posted by: Anderson | September 27, 2006 at 03:59 PM
Sometimes, an ice floe is just an ice floe.
Granted.
My representatives in both houses are going to vote to uphold the rule of law. I'm sorry that other people are sending representatives to Congress who won't do so.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 27, 2006 at 04:08 PM
Btw, torture opponents, Eugene Volokh is linking to Jonathan Rauch's defense of torture as "much worth reading even if you disagree with him." What is it with EV and torture, anyway?
Posted by: Anderson | September 27, 2006 at 04:32 PM
Are you streaming it, Ugh?
Sadly, no, ObWi is distracting enough.
Posted by: Ugh | September 27, 2006 at 04:36 PM
Anderson,
I am willing to read VC on legal matters, but when it comes to politics, my motto is Never Mind the Volokhs. Just another example of bloggers going outside their area of expertise.
Posted by: Dantheman | September 27, 2006 at 04:41 PM
They're voting now on Levin's amendment which would undo the changes made by the Admin last night. I suppose the Specter/Leahy amendment will be next.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 27, 2006 at 04:42 PM
Lost Levin amendment on nearly a party line vote. Now Specter is introducing the Specter-Leahy-Dodd-Dorgan Amendment, which strikes habeas stripping. He's discussing the Suspension question right now -- we'll see if he's been able to get anyone to go with him. (Chaffee went with Levin on the prior amendment, offset by Landrieu).
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 27, 2006 at 05:13 PM
I think I'm glad, for a change, to not have cable tv.
I can't bear to watch good voted down, and evil voted for.
When it happens, I'll read the text.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 27, 2006 at 05:34 PM
I can't bear to watch good voted down, and evil voted for.
Evil's "in" this year.
Posted by: Ugh | September 27, 2006 at 05:36 PM
Evil -- it's the new good!
Posted by: Anderson | September 27, 2006 at 05:38 PM
(Taking off from the Josie & the Pussycats movie, of course, not Milton.)
Posted by: Anderson | September 27, 2006 at 05:39 PM
I don't have cable TV either. But I can stream the audio.
Anyway, they're going to vote tomorrow. So we get another shot at the Senators tonight.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 27, 2006 at 06:15 PM
So we get another shot at the Senators tonight.
Hey, buddy, if I were going to take a shot at anybody, it wouldn't be a senator, it'd be --
Oh wait. You meant that figuratively, didn't you. So did I!
Posted by: Anderson | September 27, 2006 at 06:20 PM
Anyway, they're going to vote tomorrow. So we get another shot at the Senators tonight.
Here's hoping there's some good left in the world, or at least the senate.
Posted by: Ugh | September 27, 2006 at 06:24 PM
I would love the Democrats to live up to CC's faith in them
As previously noted, my problem isn't so much 'the Democrats' who by a vast majority have been in the right on these issues. It's the Mississipians, Texans, Coloradoans, and, yes, Virginians, who keep sending people to Congress who vote wrong, and support evil, who are the real problem. People from such places who think I, or, more to the point, Sen. Obama, can change their culture are going to have their faith disappointed every time.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 27, 2006 at 06:29 PM
It's the Mississipians, Texans, Coloradoans, and, yes, Virginians, who keep sending people to Congress who vote wrong, and support evil, who are the real problem.
Yep. And the Dems' efforts to educate these people, in the instance of the torture issue for ex, amount to ... what?
The astonishing ignorance even of the supposedly educated (see the Volokh thread I linked above) on the subject of torture and coercion, is just amazing. If the Dems can't take a loud, shot-heard-'round-the-world stand on THAT issue ... then what?
Posted by: Anderson | September 27, 2006 at 06:32 PM
Mississippians don't want to hear from Yankee liberals. IMO.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 27, 2006 at 06:36 PM
Charley, besides Landrieu, Ben Nelson (Nebraska) also voted with the Republicans against the Levin amendment.
Did they vote on Specter's amendment, or is that put off until tomorrow too?
Posted by: KCinDC | September 27, 2006 at 06:36 PM
Mississippians don't want to hear from Yankee liberals. IMO.
Well, that goes to the Dean/Emanuel debate, I suppose. One could certainly tailor an anti-torture method to the average American. "We're America, we're better than the Nazis and the Commies, there are some things we just don't do," etc. It writes itself.
Posted by: Anderson | September 27, 2006 at 06:41 PM
Levin lost 54-43. I was trying to listen to the vote, but people kept coming in trying to talk to me about legal business. Sorry I missed Nelson.
They did not vote on Specter -- who gave good account of himself, I think, in fighting off Graham, Kyl, and Warner. I think there's something like 40 minutes of debate time left, but it might be 30.
There's rumor that another amendment might be introduced if Specter fails -- send me an email KC, and I'll tell you what I know offline.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 27, 2006 at 06:42 PM
It writes itself.
Yep. And that's pretty much what was said. And what our folks have been saying for weeks. And what the numerous distinguished letter writers (retired generals, retired diplomats, law professors,retired judges) have said. the argument on the other side is 'they're not like us, and they don't deserve what we have.'
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 27, 2006 at 06:46 PM
Or we could
v
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 27, 2006 at 06:49 PM
Yep. And that's pretty much what was said. And what our folks have been saying for weeks.
CC, people who attend to the news sources that you and I do, are well aware of that. But were we talking about 1% of the population?
Or we could
v
Gary, it's futile, but it's not *that* futile. (Y'all go to his blog & check his link on the "176 lines from Star Wars most improved by substituting the word 'pants.'" Much needed on this grim day.)
Posted by: Anderson | September 27, 2006 at 06:51 PM
Evil -- it's the new good!
Sadly, Good is the new pink :/
[And that's a fantastic movie, Anderson. More people should watch it!]
Posted by: Anarch | September 27, 2006 at 06:51 PM
Also, since I was teaching all day: what the heck ended up happening? Where do we stand? Which bills are on the floor, have been voted down, still need opposing?
Posted by: Anarch | September 27, 2006 at 06:56 PM
Anarch, the Military Commissions bill is pending, and there will be a couple more attempts to amend it. Most of the 2 hours alotted for debate on the Specter-Leahy-Dodd-Dorgan amendment, which strikes the section stripping habeas, was had this afternoon, but there's a little time left over for tomorrow. They'll vote on it after that.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 27, 2006 at 07:16 PM
'they're not like us, and they don't deserve what we have.'
The split here is a classic cultural divide. I have no idea what you think Sen. Reid, or Sen. Obama, or Sen. Clinton can say that would move Mississippians from approving of this view, as espoused by, for example, Sen. Lott. Or Sen. Warner, who presents with gravitas Trent Lott cannot even dream to achieve.
The only shot here has been to appeal to the consciences of Republicans who have them. Have Specter (and his allies)* won enough votes? We'll find out in the morning. I'm not holding my breath -- and think we'll have to win this on Suspension grounds.
* If you know anyone in Maine, call them tonight.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 27, 2006 at 07:28 PM
Why are the Maine Senators key? Is that just how the alliance is shaking down?
Posted by: Anarch | September 27, 2006 at 07:39 PM
They may have declared themselves and I just don't know it. They're a better bet than Mississippi's senators, even if they have declared.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 27, 2006 at 07:50 PM
And I'm sure that your Sen. Feingold is all the way on board, and think Kohl probably is as well.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 27, 2006 at 07:51 PM
They're a better bet than Mississippi's senators, even if they have declared.
Writing to Lott on the habeas issue, I extolled his vote on the McCain amendment of yesteryear. Cochran ... well, not so easy.
Posted by: Anderson | September 27, 2006 at 08:11 PM
"It's the Mississipians, Texans, Coloradoans, and, yes, Virginians, who keep sending people to Congress who vote wrong, and support evil, who are the real problem. People from such places who think I, or, more to the point, Sen. Obama, can change their culture are going to have their faith disappointed every time."
I let the first one go.
Okay, so this is my fault as a Dallasite for not changing the hearts and minds of Tom DeLay and George Bush and oh, maybe 5-10 million other Texans in order to not merely get Democrats elected, but liberal Democrats elected from Texas. How much grace time do I have, Charlie? 5 years? Ten? None?
Have I already failed? Should I move to a swing state, although that would really solidify the right wing hold on Texas? Hey, why don't you move down thisaways, every Democrat helps.
Well, at least we got a plan. I am on top of it. I'll work on the Hispanic vote, etc. Give me a generation or two, even though the problem is centuries old. We got some new voters in from Katrina. Meanwhile it's all my fault. I honestly will grant you whatever comfort you need.
Or maybe you can stop saying "you Texans sent" the animals to Washington. I mean, Molly is on her third bout of cancer.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | September 27, 2006 at 08:19 PM
Bob, I'm not blaming you personally. Any more than I take your comments about my positions personally. I think it is a cultural thing, though, and as long as Texas (and other 'similar' places) stays in the cultural place it is in right now, there's nothing any of us Yankees can really do about it.
We can't fix your politics. Our efforts to do so over the last 40 years have made things worse, because Texans are a prickly and independent lot. They hate being lectured by people who act like they think they are morally superior, and, imo, hate it so much they'll vote against interest.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 27, 2006 at 08:38 PM
I was going to say something about a possible lesson, in that 20-30 percent of the nation can get their way, so "Blues" could keep that as a strategy...but the "Red" think that they are obstructed by a minority. The "Reds" aren't getting everything they want, by a long shot. Just too much for my tastes.
We just keep chewing on each other, generation after generation. What a country.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | September 27, 2006 at 08:48 PM
Thank you, Bob. Charley, you may not mean to offend with your remark, but you have.
Posted by: Nell | September 27, 2006 at 08:54 PM
Eyes on the prize, folks. We're all tired and frustrated (and in my case scared sh**less this bill will pass) but let's take it out on those who deserve it, not each other.
Posted by: Anarch | September 27, 2006 at 10:11 PM
In the spirit of comity and mild tipsiness: no matter what happens tomorrow (I am not optimistic) thanks to everyone who read, cared, and tried to do what they could. It means...well, probably not much to the prisoners who are and will be harmed by this. But it means a lot to me.
Posted by: Katherine | September 27, 2006 at 10:30 PM
Ditto. But unlike Katherine, I get to thank Katherine ;)
Posted by: hilzoy | September 27, 2006 at 10:56 PM
And let me thank Katherine, hilzoy, CharleyC, and everyone else who's taken action on this.
Me, I'm a slug (and still at work to boot), but will happily join bob's campaign should it come to pass.
Posted by: Ugh | September 27, 2006 at 11:01 PM
Katherine and Charleycarp, you made this personal.
It hurts like hell.
Thank you.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | September 27, 2006 at 11:05 PM
We can't fix your politics.
That'll work out, then, because we don't want you fixing our politics. We're working on it ourselves.
What I want is for the leaders of my party in the Senate to stop slowing down the fixing process by kicking in the gut the people doing the fixing.
There was no reason to accept that legislation had to be passed before the recess. Reid, Durbin, Levin, and Leahy could have been saying from August on that they wouldn't be stampeded into a vote on torture or detainee process before the election recess.
Leahy's floor speech today called it for the stunt it is, and very effectively. But why wait until the day before the vote? Was that even considered as the way to go at it from the beginning?
There's a lot more than "culture" involved in who ends up sitting in Senate seats.
Posted by: Nell | September 27, 2006 at 11:05 PM
Nell, I'm not sure how much Leahy could have done.
I think it's important to recognize the differentiation within the Democratic caucus on this. There are Markeys and Meehans and Nadlers and Leahys as well as Nelsons and Landrieus.
(I am disappointed in Durbin, though from what I hear he made a damn good speech today).
I keep meaning to do a post on Ed Markey--my Congressman for two more days--but I've not had time.
Posted by: Katherine | September 27, 2006 at 11:15 PM
Sorry for not achieving comity yet with that last, but felt I had to make one try at explaining why Charley's remark stung.
I'm very, very grateful for the information and time Charley's put into discussion here. ObWi readers are privileged to have the benefit of his expertise. And Katherine's, and Hilzoy's. The grief and dread I feel wouldn't be so intense but for the understanding of the issue you've instilled.
Thanks.
Posted by: Nell | September 27, 2006 at 11:20 PM
hz, Marty Lederman basically is agreeing with you on your citizen concern.
The Center for Constitutional Rights has a comment that seems to agree, as well.
Posted by: John Lopresti | September 28, 2006 at 12:02 AM
Obama's speech.
Posted by: hilzoy | September 28, 2006 at 12:05 AM
Interesting. Trying to do the right thing, but very much feeling his way.
I could've written a better one. ;)
Posted by: Katherine | September 28, 2006 at 12:22 AM
I know you are working hard at fixing Virginia politics, Nell, and wish you all the best. I do not think that this one would have come out any different no matter what Specter, Leahy, Levin et al had said in August, because I don't think the people who voted with the government (and will vote with the government tomorrow) would have been moved by anything that could likely have followed in their constituencies. It's a long term project and, I think, has to arise from within much more than look like it is being imposed from without. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.
I'm sorry to have offended anyone. I don't think I tossed the first stone (looking back over a longer period than this thread), but it doesn't matter in the least. We all look forward to the day that you all are not complaining about how my representatives are too cowardly to protect you (and all of the rest of us) from the folly of your representatives. I know that you guys want this even more than I do, and that's why I don't mean it personally. Again, sorry for the hurt.
And Bob, I had to run out of the office in the middle of writing my last, and so didn't wish you the best of luck with the cancer.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 28, 2006 at 12:23 AM
John, I certainly don't agree with that CCR press release.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 28, 2006 at 12:25 AM
I could've written a better one. ;)
You already have, any number of times. ;)
Posted by: liberal japonicus | September 28, 2006 at 12:53 AM
"I could've written a better one. ;)"
I am probably unlikely to be able to vote for you, but I predict today that I'm going to say I knew you before you were in Congress (and so take my calls, darnit!).
And the place will be much improved when you're there. (So say we all!)
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 28, 2006 at 01:38 AM
"And Bob, I had to run out of the office in the middle of writing my last, and so didn't wish you the best of luck with the cancer."
Cancer?? Are you talking to me? Or about Texas? 11:05 may have been misinterpreted, but I will leave it.
I will take much of the blame for any ill-feeling. I started it. I have repeatedly seemingly devalued other's deepest values and efforts, but it is not because I do not consider those efforts very valuable, or other people's work heroic. I do.
One Degree ...via Dymaxion World today
"Further global warming of 1 °C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know."...
Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes." ...Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York
I believe this. If we got the politics right in ten years, in twenty years millions upon millions will die anyway. And I haven't a clue as to how to get the politics right. I may be wrong, but I believe this, and other more proximate disasters.
So I am staring at the Apocalypse. I should be doing more, and feel guilty and hypocritical. I lose my perspective, and forget that all and any acts of kindness remain valuable. I shouldn't force my priorities on others, if they are even my own priorities. Cause I walk my dogs in the woods, and hug the lady, and sweep the leaves, and stay up late watching Kung-Fu movies, and cry a lot.
Who am I to judge anybody. I am so sorry if I judged you or Katherine or hilzoy. I think I have hurt my betters when they have needed help. Not good.
...
PS. No cancer. None in the family, and I would never let it happen. The diagnosis would be answered with a request for a lot of pills. I have seen long lingering progressive diseases, and I won't do that to those around me.
OTOH, a cousin this week had a quad bypass with two grafts. All my older male relatives went before they were sixty, after bypasses. I am 56, a heavy smoker, overweight, and I hope I don't wake up one morning. Get lost in a dream. Soon please.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | September 28, 2006 at 03:34 AM
CharlieC; CCR's bulletin seemed like one attorney's reactions to denial of access to a client. I could understand that exclusion's motivating a reporter to write about the experience as portent for the future if SB3930, the commissions bill, were to pass. Even the NYT article in the morning paper today is addressing the lax language about citizens and nationality in draft SB3930 in terms very similar to CCR's polarized article. If the vote on the Levin amendment is a guideline, if we were to see Snowe and Inouye vote instead of being absent, all that would be needed then to halt passage of the bill, in a very close vote would be three more senators. Besides Snowe and Inouye not voting, McCain also did not vote. Actually, Leahy though he voted Yea, withheld reservations regarding Levin's compromise on the habeas issue. I appreciate that you folks are following developments closely.
Posted by: John Lopresti | September 28, 2006 at 04:27 AM
Gary, I believe Bob was referring to Molly Ivins, not anything in his personal life.
Posted by: KCinDC | September 28, 2006 at 09:26 AM
KC, I think that was CharleyCarp, not Gary. (I was tempted to put some other name in there for KC, just to keep the string alive)
Posted by: liberal japonicus | September 28, 2006 at 09:39 AM
D'oh! How'd I do that? Apologies as necessary to both Charley and Gary.
Posted by: KCinDC | September 28, 2006 at 10:20 AM
"Gary, I believe Bob was referring to Molly Ivins, not anything in his personal life."
Ahhhh. Now I get it. Yes, as another example of a beleagured Texas liberal.
I always have more context in my mind than gets on the page.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | September 28, 2006 at 10:49 AM
Hm, I thought CharleyCarp was just tweaking me as the Mississippian hereabouts, as on past occasions.
One of the nice things about being from Mississippi is that when someone says, "your state sucks!" you can just nod & say "yup."
Also an advantage I have in following Miss. State football.
Posted by: Anderson | September 28, 2006 at 11:38 AM