Thereisnospoon at Daily Kos informs us that we need to “Calm The Fuck Down Already” regarding the passage and imminent signing of H.R. 6166 and S. 3930 into law. The gist of the argument: it will all be fixed, so don’t take it out on the Democrats who voted yes. I won’t mince words: Spoon’s appeal is partisan bullcrap.
| Thereisnospoon says… | I respond… |
| I swear to freaking God. Everybody needs to take a freaking chill pill on this torture legislation.
Yes, torture is awful. Yes, the bill purports to eliminate the right of habeas corpus. Yes, American citizens are included. Yes, these are fundamental American values. Yes, Democrats should stand up for those values. Yes, yes, yes. Yada yada yada. But please end the incessant hand-wringing, and try to remember how government–even under this administration–works. This bill doesn’t change SHIT. Not today. Not yesterday. Not tomorrow. Nothing. |
Yada yada yada? Removal of the constitutional right of habeas corpus is not a matter of “yada yada yada.” It is important because it protects the weak from the powerful.
How government — especially under this administration — works is that once George W. Bush signs this bill, it becomes law. Immediately. So it will change shit, possibly today. And what it will change is that previously illegal behavior of the Bush administration will gain full legitimacy of law. Possibly today. |
| And again, this bill doesn’t accomplish SHIT. Let’s look at a few points, one by one, shall we?
1) Congress has NO authority to decide if these things are legal or not. That’s up to the COURTS to decide. It’s up to the COURTS to decide how the Geneva Conventions–which are American Law–are construed. It’s up to the COURTS to decide whether habeas corpus does or does apply to all persons (as it so clearly states in the Constitution). Every piece of this Unconstitutional bill is beyond the scope of the Congress to legislate. It’s dead on the courthouse door–and doesn’t change anything in the meantime. |
Until a court issues an injunction to stop the implementation of this law, it will have the force of law. It’s not dead until the federal courts do something about it.
And what has happened to the Supreme Court and the federal court system under George W. Bush? It has been stocked by right-wing authoritarian judges by the dozen. The Supreme Court is currently run by a man who thought it fitting to arrest a twelve year old girl for eating a single french fry on the DC Metro. We do not have the liberty-respecting court system of previous decades. So pardon me for having little confidence in the COURTS. And who let these judicial nominees slip through without a single fight? Without so much as ONE filibuster? The Democrats, who with each nominee told the American public that they were going to let this one go to save up their “ammunition” for the next fight, when they’d really bring out their big guns and make a stand. Really. No, really. Really really this time. OK, next time. |
| A Democratic congress will easily reverse this bill. When the subpoenas start coming and Bush is on the hotseat for his crimes, there will be a MAJOR tailwind and drive to remove even the pretense of this horrible legislation. Bush is the Emperor without Clothes–and this butt-cover will blow right off when the winds kick up.
Of course, without a Democratic congress we won’t have that. And if you hand-wringers refuse to support Democrats, or some other drivel, on the basis of their reaction to this legislation in the face of political pressure, we won’t get a Democratic congress. |
And the when the Democrats are in control they will fix this, if we only shut up now?
What, the same Democrats who said they were holding their ammunition on the Iraq War in 2002, so they could advance their agenda in 2003? The same Democrats who slapped down Howard Dean in 2003 for saying the obvious, that the war in Iraq wasn’t making America safer, saying in whispers that it was inappropriate to voice the truth until after the 2004 elections? The same Democrats who failed to filibuster the installation of Alberto “Torture” Gonzales as Attorney General in 2005, because by golly they had to save their ammunition for the federal judge nominations coming down the pike? The same Democrats who failed to filibuster a single federal judge’s nomination, because by golly they were going to save their fire for the supreme court nominations, when they promised, promised, promised to stand up and fight the good fight? The same Democrats who failed to fillibuster the nomination of John Roberts, because gosh darn it wouldn’t be prudent after all right now, but later, with that next justice, by gum that’ll be a good one! Those Democrats? The same Democrats who failed to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito, because h-e-double-toothpicks, someone might call a Democrat some name for it? The same Democrats who put up a one-day fuss in 2005 over the Republicans’ broken promise to deliver a report on manipulation of Iraq War intelligence, a report that was already years overdue? The same Democrats who then let the deadline pass? The same Democrats who aren’t saying jack shit about the issue, even though the report has STILL not been completed? Those Democrats? Those Democrats are really going to fix things, just you wait, really this time, no really really, if we shut up AGAIN? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me seven times, shame on me. |
| So get over it. Let the Republicans have their meaningless political theater. It changes absolutely nothing, and it will be struck down by the first, second and third courts that get their hands on it.
And then send some REAL Americans–the ones with (D)s after their names–to Congress. Because that’s what REALLY matters here. Chill. |
Thanks to the judges that the Democrats let onto the courts, I no longer have Spoon’s confidence in the courts.
And sending Democrats to Congress is “what REALLY matters here”? Let the Constitution be shredded; some Democrats have offices to win? That is not only an upside-down set of priorities, but is also wholly unrealistic. 65-34 is the margin by which the Constitution was shredded in the Senate. 16 of those 65 Senators would have to lose their offices in the 2006 elections, and every single one of their 16 replacements would have to take a pro-Constitution stand, in order for the Tyranny Act to be overturned. No one is suggesting this will happen. Incumbent Democrats like Bill Nelson will win re-election, but are on record voting against the Constitution. Challenger Democrats like Sherrod Brown may defeat incumbent Republicans, but are also on record voting against the Constitution. Even if the Democrats win majority control of the Senate, even by a wide margin, there will not be even a bare majority to overturn this act. A Democratic Party win in 2006 does not change the balance of power between Constitutionalists and Anti-Constitutionalists. |
The only way to get this abominable law overturned will be to change the hearts and minds of Senators already in office. Moral cowards who fail to speak their true moral values, who capitulate over and over and over again in vain hope, will change no one’s heart and no one’s mind. Americans who believe in the Constitution need to speak more, not less, if things are to get better.
well, yeah, conservatives are probably reading these threads with a great deal of satisfaction.
well, yeah, it’s probably not a good idea to let the emotion of the moment goad us into electing more Republicans a la Ralph Nader.
but dammit, I WANT to see Jim throw a tantrum and pound his fist on the floor and let out some bloodcurdling Tarzan yells. We’ve had enough fear-based politics, why not let some other emotions take over for a change. I want to see this kind of injustice mocked and ridiculed and derided before “they” decide IrregularTimes is on some Nixonian “enemies list” and tell them shut the fuck up forever. It’s time for some righteous rage.
RIGHTEOUS RAGE!
You know what I want to float: The suspicion, just the suspicion, that these Democratic so-called “strategists,” the ones that keep telling Democrats to be weak, roll over and take a chill pill, are God damned Republican moles.
Filibustering a bill that would have allowed torture was a good idea from every conceivable point of view–not just moral, but strategic. Here’s the scenario:
Democrats filibuster this week, and one of two things happens:
1. Republicans give up and go home to campaign on the heels of a Democratic victory. Democrats win.
2. Republicans go nuclear to defend the torture–which keeps the whole damn ugly business in the public eye right through election day. Democrats win.
I know the nouveau-elite over at Dailykos hate all the so-called liberal hippie dippie fringe who whines and moans about stuff like torture, yada yada yada. But for God’s sake, IH and Alan are as pissed off as I am. This is not a partisan, fringe issue, it’s torture.
I know the whole thing’s a horse race to Dailykos, so I don’t expect morality to enter into it. But don’t they even want to WIN? Really makes me wonder who’s stuffing money into their hands. What the hell kind of Bizarro-world America is it where you’re not going to win if you show courage against torture.
Yeah, I know. Hippy dippy, yada yada. How very naive of me to care about torture when it’s the political horse race that counts. Just remember this while you play your red-map, blue-map risk: There’s another word for people who actually, sincerely give a crap about torture–VALUES VOTERS.
Nixon had his dirty tricks goon squad, so I wouldn’t put it past Rove to have some similar strategy, but I don’t think the disarray of the Democrats is quite that complicated.
Senators and reps know their disricts, and they know exactly what they can get away with saying or not saying. They are looking for reelection and they will not get too far away from what their bosses, the constituents, elected them to do. I really think it’s that simple. There’s only so much leadership the elected official on this level can provide, then they just have to listen to the voters–it’s up to the national party’s budget to influence the public’s opinion.
The whole ‘caring’ thing is vastly overrated. Sure, emoting matters on a personal level, but let the political bedfellows find whatever motivation they want for getting on the bandwagon, as long as they do get on. That said, those who work in the public sector rather than the more lucrative public sector generally do have altrusitic motives about influencing policy. If you start to flaunt those motives publicly then you’re not altrusitic any more, are you.
Dailykos is a pretty big frogpond, but I like to hop around over there when something is going down just to get an impression of what is happening on the Democratic ‘street.’ It’s like reading an Icelandic saga where they just keep piling up dry,laconic details until an understated picture emerges.
Don’t underate the horserace aspect. If you want to implement policy, you have to roll up your sleeves and do the math, do the homework.
I wish Irreglartimes would quit trying to paint itself as liberal fringe. If the right wing had not shifted the country’s politics so much to the right, IT would look more in the center, wouldn’t it. People don’t want to vote to the left or to the right, they want to be in the center. IT should not be trying to lead the nation to extremes, it should be restoring the nation’s lost, oh so very lost central values.
“Patently unconstitutional on its face” says Arlen Specter. His reasons for failing to uphold his oath, though unacceptable, are worth reading.
Matt, you’re right, it is worth reading, as a study in bizarre thinking. If I read Specter right, he’s saying:
1. Unless we passed something, the tribunals system would become an untenable mess.
2. I hope the courts overturn this, because the system we just passed is an untenable mess.
3. Then we can pass something that makes sense.
The non-convoluted solution is:
1. Pass a bill that is not an untenable mess.
But the unconstitutional majority made up of most Republicans and some Democrats just can’t manage it. This is a sign that it’s time for some House cleaning… and some Senate cleaning too.
If I may read between the lines a bit, he is saying:
-Bush doesn’t respect law passed by Congress any more than he respects orders to report for national guard duty; if Bush disagrees with a law he just has his lawyers write a signing statement then does whatever he wants.
-Bush does respect law after it has been challenged by the supreme court.
-In order to get the president to follow the law, we must write a law that is so patently unconstitutional it is immediately challenged in the courts. In this way the signing statements no longer have meaning becasue the court has already ruled on the material the signing statement disputed.
It seems the new dysfunctional Republican procedure for a bill becoming law is now: passage by both houses of congress, signing statement by president, review by supreme court.
Pingback: Irregular Times: News Unfit for Print » I Still Have Not Calmed Down: Military Commissions Act Debacle Continues