Unprepared for the Utterly Predictable
The other day I wrote the following regarding the ongoing debate in Congress over military tribunal legislation:
Well, in a development that should come as a surprise to no one, McCain & Co. have done exactly that. They've reached a "compromise" with the White House on tribunal legislation and plan to fasttrack the bill for a vote in the next few days.
Having remained silent on this issue until now, and indeed having expressed public support for McCain, the Democrats are in no position to mount any kind of serious resistance to this bill. Some will vote against it out of conscience. Others will hold their nose and vote for a bill that scales back the War Crimes Act (retroactively), gives the president the unreviewable discretion to interpret our Geneva obligations, and strips away the habeas corpus rights of all detainees. The Democrats will once again look fractured and weak.
Worst of all, the Democratic leadership appears to have been caught entirely off guard by this utterly predictable development. If you read through the stories in the New York Times and Washington Post, it's pretty clear that the reporters sought out Democrats for comment but no one had anything relevant to say. The only mention of the Democrats in the WaPo piece comes in the very last paragraph:
That's pathetic. Didn't anyone even consider what they might say if McCain and friends did the "el-foldo"? Have Democratic consultants and strategists ever heard of contingency planning? I mean, anyone with half a brain had to see that this was a very real possibility. There have been hints of it in the press all week long. But no one even bothered to come up with a soundbite? Good grief.
Anyway, the proposed legislation itself is rather convoluted. I hope to write more about it at some point, but I just don't have time tonight; it's not yet clear to me what concessions, if any, the White House made to get McCain, Graham and Warner to sign on. What is clear is that, because the Democrats chose to sit this one out, the final product will necessarily fall within a very narrow spectrum of possible bills. It was never a question of whether the legislation was going to be good or bad; it was just a question of how bad.
For some good snap analysis, check out this post by Marty Lederman. He's updated it several times already.
[O]ur Democratic leaders are sitting on the sidelines, allowing this important fight to be waged by Republican proxies: McCain, Warner, Graham, Powell.
. . . the Democrats have been burned by this strategy before. Remember, Republican Arlen Specter talked a good talk when it came to holding the administration accountable for its blatant law-breaking, but in the end his "compromise" surveillance deal gave the White House everything it could ever have hoped for, and more. It wouldn't surprise me at all if, as others have pointed out, this is all an elaborate kabuki dance that will end in a compromise which gives the White House almost everything it wanted. When you allow others to fight your fights, you tend to get screwed when they prematurely surrender.
Well, in a development that should come as a surprise to no one, McCain & Co. have done exactly that. They've reached a "compromise" with the White House on tribunal legislation and plan to fasttrack the bill for a vote in the next few days.
Having remained silent on this issue until now, and indeed having expressed public support for McCain, the Democrats are in no position to mount any kind of serious resistance to this bill. Some will vote against it out of conscience. Others will hold their nose and vote for a bill that scales back the War Crimes Act (retroactively), gives the president the unreviewable discretion to interpret our Geneva obligations, and strips away the habeas corpus rights of all detainees. The Democrats will once again look fractured and weak.
Worst of all, the Democratic leadership appears to have been caught entirely off guard by this utterly predictable development. If you read through the stories in the New York Times and Washington Post, it's pretty clear that the reporters sought out Democrats for comment but no one had anything relevant to say. The only mention of the Democrats in the WaPo piece comes in the very last paragraph:
Democrats sounded a cautious note about the Republican accord, calling attention to the past Republican division rather than taking a position on the compromise.
That's pathetic. Didn't anyone even consider what they might say if McCain and friends did the "el-foldo"? Have Democratic consultants and strategists ever heard of contingency planning? I mean, anyone with half a brain had to see that this was a very real possibility. There have been hints of it in the press all week long. But no one even bothered to come up with a soundbite? Good grief.
Anyway, the proposed legislation itself is rather convoluted. I hope to write more about it at some point, but I just don't have time tonight; it's not yet clear to me what concessions, if any, the White House made to get McCain, Graham and Warner to sign on. What is clear is that, because the Democrats chose to sit this one out, the final product will necessarily fall within a very narrow spectrum of possible bills. It was never a question of whether the legislation was going to be good or bad; it was just a question of how bad.
For some good snap analysis, check out this post by Marty Lederman. He's updated it several times already.
15 Comments:
You are so right! I've got to hand it to the Democrats. The strategy of allowing the Republicans to "thrash out" their differences on the treatment and prosecution of detainees has played out exactly as planned...for the Republicans. Don't let anyone convince you that you can go to the well too often...that is if you are a Republican and your opponent is a fully inept Democratic Party.
Amidst a trend of favorable polling data and a firestorm of speeches by the President to refocus the voting public on their fear of terrorism, the Democrats stood in the background for the past two weeks and watched what the GOP will call the difficult work of creating legislation that preserves our commitment to civil liberties while at the same time providing our determined President with the essential tools needed to pursue those who seek to kill us all.
OK, perhaps I'm being too harsh. There is a possibility that in the past two weeks the Democrats were able to devise their sixth iteration of a campaign slogan and strategy to roll out with less than 50 days to the election. Perhaps they could call it "Fifty States, Fifty Days...But Never Fifty Percent"? It's catchy, it's succinct, and it may well be accurate come November 8th. Arrgghh!
Read more here:
www.thoughttheater.com
I tire of becoming excited about Democrats' renewed sense of self, which we have seen glimmers of now and then, only to consistently, without question, be let down--again. I cannot see the logic of this deafening silence. Here is an issue that is inarguably clear cut: this speaks to our fiber as Americans. Yet, Democratic leadership stands idly by.
It is frustrating as all hell to be a liberal sometimes.
You're proceeding from the assumption that the Democrats, as a group, oppose a bill permitting the government to kidnap and torture anyone they want, to hold them forever without a trial, and if they do deign to grant a trial, to use secret evidence against the accused.
You assume that all good Democrats oppose this.
You are wrong. Probably a majority of the Democrats in Congress think torturing people is just fine, as do a majority of Republicans.
That's why you're not seeing any coordinated resistance. The Democrats support this.
alas, we have lost our way
we have a government only now concerned with breaking laws. these laws did once protect citizens, they are gone.
since they can, now they wish to change laws to fix what they have done, and to allow them to do worse.
it is us that they torture now, and our citizens don't appear to care enough to express their feelings. Or do they simply not care? I wonder
Was ralph right?
not to get too academic/critical-theoretical about the whole thing, but someone somewhere should mention the fact that McCain's predictable roll (once again) serves the Administration not only on a political level, by sanitizing and legitimize the President's torture fetish ('if it's okay with McCain', says the average Joe, 'it's okay with me'), it also on a perhaps more subliminal level lends credibility/legitimacy to the 'strategic' end of the Administration's apparently unquenchable desire to waterboard.
To explain (and again, forgive the grad-school pertinance of the point), one crucial plank in the platform of those who oppose the pro-torture policy has always been that torture doesn't work. You don't get good information that way - i.e., you don't get what you want. Experts agree.
A cold hard look at John McCain's political career begs to differ, however. Ironically, this man, whose legend and moral standing rests upon the fact that he has experienced and withstood torture, also happens to stand (albeit, as I say, on some unconscious level) as exhibit A in defense of the idea that 'hey, maybe torture DOES work, after all'. Just look at McCain. He puts up a fight every time, or seems to - says the right thing, claims he'll do the right thing - but apply enough pressure to the guy, and he gives in EVERY SINGLE TIME. Indeed, even if all those inmates at Gitmo and the secret prisons in Europe were as tough and 'stand-up' as John McCain - and Jesus knows they can't possibly be - then it's a good bet the thumbscrews are yielding good results. 'Cause even John McCain - JOHN MCCAIN, our resident war hero/torture victim - winds up giving up the goods.
Every.
Single.
Fucking.
Time.
I am dismayed. All I can see on both the right and the left is moral bankruptcy. I would console myself with the fact that I'm not American, that it's not really my business...
But it is. The US is THE world power, and if it consciously turns its back on fundamental principles of justice, it will be bad for everybody. It's never represented them perfectly, but at least it was a nation with a conscience and a desire to live up to certain standards, unlike the alternatives. You are now taking a significant step away from that. I can only hope it's reversible and that someone will have the moral backbone to do that in the relatively near future.
It really does boggle the mind; first, that anyone, but particularly the leaders of what was supposed to be the shining beacon of enlightened democracy for the world would think that such shameful acts should be not only tolerated but legally sanctioned; second that the so-called "opposition" would not say a single word against it. Apparently they were all too busy condemning Hugo Chavez.
I guess now we're "The Species Formerly Known As Homo Sapiens".
There is no effective leadership in the Democratic Party. Hasn't been for years. Up here in the state I live in, they've been serving us up party hacks regularly in place of effective candidates. What passes for party leadership here is pathetic.
And in the GOP, the situation is just as bad. The only difference is that the GOP has entirely abandoned scruples and is openly seeking to perpetuate their power through fear, intimidation, and lies. The Democratic party has only mastered the lying so far.
Of course, there's the old saw about how, paraphrasing freely, when your opponent is in a fight with a runaway chainsaw, the best thing to do is to watch and wait. But that implies that there really is a chainsaw, and not just an illusion.
I get this weird feeling of cognitive dissonance every time I hear the term "Democratic Leadership" whether in reference to the "Council" of that name or applied to anybody. I just don't think there is any such thing.
Seems to me also that virtually everyone who could have been a real leader in the Democratic Party has been emasculated or is dead or was, like Hillary Clinton, immune to the procedure, having no balls either actually or figuratively.
So AL,
Being the legal expert that you are, what EXACTLY will be required to undo all this assuming a rational congress and president end up in control? What would it take to overturn all the wrong being done?
Is it even possible? If it IS possible..is it even probable?
Is it even possible?
Are you asking if it is possible to change torture policy once the CIA gets a "green light" to do so? The same CIA that JFK wanted to break into 1000 pieces and throw in the wind? The same CIA that did nixon's dirty work?
You can't be serious - this genie ain't goin' back in the bottle.
If it IS possible? Is it even probable?
Only if done carefully, with the full support of the global community. It will probably have to be part of a larger "human rights" initiative to more fully demonstrate that it is the decent, right thing to do.
Of course, if there is a war tribunal and the chimperor had to answer to the rest of the world - then it would be possible. Is that probably - OF COURSE NOT! CHIMPY IS JUST ENABLING THE AGENDA OF A GLOBAL SET OF INTERESTS THAT IF FULLY INVESTED IN THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!
PLEASE answer this question: How can they even think about agreeing to make their changes to the War Crimes Act retroactive?
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
That seems pretty plain. No ex post facto law. Isn't this unconstitutional on its face?
The Fool, the constitution is "just a god damn piece of paper", remember?
Hey fool. Who pays any attention to the constitution any more if they ever did?
The oath of office requires the "upholding and defending of the constitution." Is it a high crime or misdemaonr for one who has taken that oath to violate it? Only if we pay attention to the constitution. Noticed anyone doing that lately?
I watched Frist on Crooks and liars. He talked about this legislation. It was chilling. He continued to mention, as an argument for the legislation, that there had been no attack on US soil and that the American people would accept the legislation on this fact. What he was saying was that in protecting American lives, we as Americans can torture, kill, start illegal wars, dictate political makeup of foriegn governments. We have some sort of right to cause mayham around the world.
When George Stephanopolis pressed Frist on the issue of waterboarding he continued to bring up the fact that there had been no attacks on US soil. He kept justifying torture. What message does that send around the world? I care about Americans, the rest of the world is expendable.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home