« Read It And Weep | Main | Procedure Ain't Enough »

February 15, 2007

Comments

You had me Katherine. I was going to sign – until I clicked the link and read the ridiculous language and rhetoric. Its not about habeas – it’s about politics and slamming BushCo. If you know of another link to sign the same petition without that political spin please post it and I will sign on.

If you know of another link to sign the same petition without that political spin please post it and I will sign on.

as far as i could tell, the only real rhetoric was in the optional 'tell a friend' email text (which you could change if you wanted).

i signed the petition through a little form on Josh Marshall's front page. there's no rhetoric there. but, it does take you to the page Hilzoy links, after you've signed.

cleet: It’s a campaign commercial. I’m willing to sign the petition, but I am not willing to endorse all the political crap on that site. I'll check out Marshall...

1) I noted that it was sponsored by a presidential campaign, so yeah, political.
2) the language I think you may objecting to is the default text in the "email 5 friends" box, not the petition itself, so you're not signing on to it you don't endorse it. Not sure about this though.
3) The petition's probably less important than calling your reps anyway.

OCSteve: I was going to sign – until I clicked the link and read the ridiculous language and rhetoric. Its not about habeas – it’s about politics and slamming BushCo.

Can you explain what you saw as "ridiculous" about the rhetoric?

And why you're perfectly prepared to be against repealing habeas corpus, but apparently angrily unwilling to associate yourself with a petition that "slams BushCo" for repealing habeas corpus?

You've always struck me as being a reasonable person. This willingness to oppose what BushCo does, but unwillingness to say that you oppose BushCo, reminds me irresistibly of the Whigs, who named themselves His Majesty's Loyal Opposition at the very beginnings of party politics in GB, to make clear to the monarch and to those loyal to the monarch that they just opposed what the King's minister's did in the King's name: they weren't disloyal to King George, no indeedy-do...

Eh, I probably wouldn't have bothered to comment if I'd read Katherine's comment immediately above mine. (I didn't sign the petition, on the grounds that I didn't want to muddy the waters by having non-US citizens sign it - so I missed whateveritwas in "E-mail five of your friends". And Katherine's (3) is definitely right - a letter or a phone call or a fax lends far, far more weight than an online signature on a virtual petition.

And why you're perfectly prepared to be against repealing habeas corpus, but apparently angrily unwilling to associate yourself with a petition that "slams BushCo" for repealing habeas corpus?

I’m OK with the petition – I didn’t want to sign on from that site because to me it would be implicitly endorsing other things said there that I don’t agree with, at least when expressed that way. Can I be against repealing habeas and also be against a senior Senator and presidential candidate’s web site reading like a far left blog?

And yeah I’m angry – mostly at myself for taking the position I initially did on this and for it taking a lefty blog to pound some sense into me.

Apologies for being grumpy. If it’s any consolation I was also quite grumpy talking to Cardin and Mikulski staffers this morning.

OCSteve: You could do just as well by emailing your Senators yourself.

Fwiw, I had been meaning to post on this bill, and have therefore read it in its entirety. As far as I can tell, it's very good, changing a bunch of things that needed changing, some of which I hadn't noticed -- e.g., there's a part in the original act that says that evidence can't be excluded on the grounds that it was obtained w/o a warrant, and this bill sensibly restricts this to evidence seized outside the US. So: no need for a warrant on the battlefield in Afghanistan, but the government still needs a warrant here at home.

I'd love to hear from lawyers, if there's anything about it I missed. If you're reading the text of the new bill, it held to have a copy of the old MCA handy, so that you can interpret "section 1,005,369, subsection z, subpart (13 1/2), paragraph aleph-sub-nought, after the word 'snuffleupagus', is changed by changing the word 'and' to 'xylophone'.

And, what I meant to say before: the text of the old bill is here.

OCSteve: I didn’t want to sign on from that site because to me it would be implicitly endorsing other things said there that I don’t agree with, at least when expressed that way.

Perfectly understandable. I hadn't read further than the text of the petition itself.

Apologies for being grumpy. If it’s any consolation I was also quite grumpy talking to Cardin and Mikulski staffers this morning.

I certainly have no stones to throw at people for getting grumpy. ;-) Neat that you talked to the staffers.

Hilzoy: after the word 'snuffleupagus', is changed by changing the word 'and' to 'xylophone'.

The sad thing is, no one outside the ObWi crowd would understand why this made me giggle so hard.

Both OCS' senators are on board, I'm sure. His efforts might be better spent calling friends in places where senators are in play. Maybe John Warner could rethink his position . . .

Well, I just agreed to go to an Obama fundraiser, so I'll have the chance to ask him to cosponsor it in person.

Yes, they are on board.

Sorry – I don’t know a soul in VA - although I can drive there in about a half hour and find a phone so that the right area code shows on caller ID…

Thanks for the link! I'll sign and pass it on pronto.

@OCSteve: Just as well for you not to sign onto the petition; it puts you on the Dodd for President email list. That's its purpose.

The legislation, though, is substantive and not an electoral tactic. You're lucky enough to have two Senators who'll probably vote for it, but write or call and encourage them to become co-sponsors. It's S.576, 'Restoring the Constitution Act 2007'.

Mikulski
Cardin

Piling up co-sponsors early after introduction is helpful in persuading fence-sitters to support the bill.

Off to work on Warner and Webb.

Nell, does it? I worried about that but after I didn't start getting emails I thought it was okay.

And you're sure about the bill #? It's not on Thomas yet...but if you're sure I'll update the post.

Nell: but write or call and encourage them to become co-sponsors.

That was the grumpy part - I wanted to know why I didn't see them listed as sponsors. Anyway I've emailed as well.

Katherine: Thomas has summary info here:

Related: John Cole links to an interesting Vanity Fair article about Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift (of Hamdan fame). Good article about his life and experiences.

While you're co-sponsoring Dodd's bill, don't forget about the Ministry of Love at http://ministryoflove.wordpress.com
We were protesting the MCA before it was all trendy...
thanks,
O'Brien

OCSteve, does it really MATTER who is supporting the bill and why as long as it is being supported somehow?! The point is to endorse the rights of the detainees.

You sound like the one who's playing the cynical politics game here.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad