If Sherrod Brown voted for the bill, I am dismayed, but I'm still supporting him. I cannot expect to agree with anyone 100% of the time, but I expect to agree with Sherrod Brown more often than I expect to agree with Mike DeWine.

First? Wow.

After 9/11 the Republican Party decided to embrace the theme of 1984 full force. They saw their chance ,for the first time in a Constitutional Governement, to run it like the old Soviet Union.

"I've been voting for Democrats, but I have to say that their poll-tested cowardice on the detainee bill over the past couple of weeks has been about as bad as anything I can remember."

At least the vast majority of Democrats voted the right way. I had hoped for better from at least a few Republicans like Hagel, Snowe and Collins in the Senate but they appear to be going along with the administration on this one.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml

34 Dems voted Aye, 7 Republicans voted Nay.

Note to Blue opinion leaders: I hate the torture bill as much as you do. Maybe more....But is it really a good idea to spread the "Democrats are cowards" meme six weeks before an election that might restore the system of checks and balances? Would it be intolerably rude of me to note that you're doing Karl Rove's work for him?

Is he saying Democrats should vote for it, or that dems shouldn't bash them for voting for it, or both?

At any rate, supporting something you're against so you don't appear weak comes off as pretty, er, weak. The Democratic party has no one to blame but itself.

I FULLY understand the frustration that the reader feels. Truly I do.

I'm sure we've all heard and read about "Get Out The Vote" efforts, and how they can swing a close election.

One of the purposes of the 'Torture and Repeal Habeas'Bill is to "Keep In The Vote"; ie. discourage democratic voters, and in doing so, suppress democratic turnout in November.

You are reacting EXACTLY the way Rove and Cheney and the other evil men of the Republican party want you to. You MUST resist the impulse!

Take down the names of those who are facilitating the Republicans in shredding the Constitution, and work like hell to defeat them in the 2008 primary. But DO NOT act now in a way that will further facilitate the actions of the Republicans over the next two years.

Yup. Tomorrow I change my registration to Independent.

I am looking forward to torturing and abusing lovely young Christian fundamentalist girls.

My representative was one of the 12 who didn't vote. If he isn't incapacitated, (and our beloved former mayor is not incapacitated or there would be a never-ending parade of bubble-headed newscasters feigning concern and consternation all over the dial) I want his ass.

Al will be here shortly to let you know that Dems are phoneys and cowards and only Flight Suit George gets him and Mr. Binkey through the night.

"You MUST resist the impulse!"

I'll still vote for the Democrats in November. But I quit the party.

We're livid. We will not work, support or even vote for either Brown or Strickland. Judging from the reaction of many fellow Democrats, we're not alone.

Very noble. Many who voted for Ralph Nader felt the same way in 2000. The Democrats aren't perfect - I'm voting Green. That's worked out well, hasn't it?

Okay, according to his office - I have it on speed dial - he was at a funeral, but would have voted "Nay." I forgive him this time.

Jeez. Can't these guys see the freakin' fnords??

Well, I sent letters to the Colorado Congress critters scolding them for their spinelessness. Including the Republicans.

I don't know. I feel despondent. Maybe I will finally leave this country.

ExBrit: "vote for the lesser of two evils" is a good strategy most of the time. But in some case it isn't; if the lesser of two evils supports something which you not only disagree with, but which you think violates the fundamental rules of the governmental contract, voting for them is no option at all.

The Congress passed a bill which denies any court review whatsoever to any non-citizen declared by the administration to be any enemy combatant. That violates a core principle of our polity. Anyone voting for it is not worthy of my vote.

This isn't a minor issue. It's not even a major issue. It's a fundamental; i'd no more vote for Sherrod Brown, after this, than i'd vote for someone who supported abolishing the first amendment and argued that, well, at least he's better than the other guy who wants to abolish the entire bill of rights.

Democrats have been voting for stuff I dislike for as long as I've been voting for Democrats, but I have to say that their poll-tested cowardice on the detainee bill over the past couple of weeks has been about as bad as anything I can remember. And what makes it worse is that not only is it craven, it's probably politically stupid as well.

Judging the well-deserved disgust the Senate Democrats' cowardice has instilled in the Democratic partisans here -- not to mention the fact that the Republicans will paint them as spineless appeasers anyway, and the Senate Dems only gave them free ammunition -- I'd say you could strike the "probably".

The leadership of the Republican Party decided after 9/11 to govern the country by trying to keep it in a state of permanent panic and tarring anyone who opposed their calculated panic as a weak-kneed appeaser. The way to fight this is not to give in to Karl Rove's political machinations, it's to fight them.

Word.

It worked for Thomas Jefferson, after all, and Democrats consider him the founder of their party.

And, I might add, more recently it worked for Bill Clinton. Of course the dishonest Right will paint dissentors as "unhinged" or victims of their mythical "Bush Derangement Syndrome" -- not quite mythical, actually, except that only those who still approve of him are deranged -- but again, they will anyway.

Clinton strongly rebutted the charges, and in the process put discussion of Bush's own incompetence ("You've covered your ass, now") back on the agenda, despite the GOP's desperate efforts to sweep his fecklessness under the rug.

You know there is an old saying: "If you don't stand for something, you will stand for anything."

I seriously have to ask if the elected Democrats stand for the Constitution.

Actually, that old saying is You have to stand for something, or you will fall for anything.

> Take down the names of those who are
> facilitating the Republicans in shredding
> the Constitution, and work like hell to
> defeat them in the 2008 primary.

Except that was done with Lieberman, all according to the rules, and when Lieberman turned around and stabbed the Democratic Party in the back a goodly percentage of the movers and shakers either explicitly lined up behind him or just gave their silence = assent. So primaries don't seem to be the answer; the Kool Kidz just ignore them.

Cranky

Someday, a Democrat should run for high office using Henry Hyde's advice to Republicans in 1993: Choose the issue on which you are willing to lose -- that is, to have an open, honest disagreement with the voters who are your employers, and just walk away.

That's how they got the majority, after all.

I like my version better. :)

You telling us that good old Mayor Cleaver didn't vote on the issue?

How did Ike Skelton vote?

Looks like to me those DC Ohio phones lines should have been ringing off the hook telling those guys NO Torture! cleve

Ike voted Nay - as he is a man of honor and a decent human being.

According to his office in DC, Hizzonor the Mayor (congress is only national) was attending a funeral.

I posted this to Greg at the Talent Show who has a similar "screw the Dems if they won't fight attitude":

"Nowadays it's easy to vote with your $$ as well as your vote. Through ActBlue-type pages you can support those candidates financially who do seem to get it, and are not slick, triangulating wussy insiders, and you can still hold your nose and pull a lever in your home district for the lesser of two evils.

IMHO this is exactly the structure Kos and others have helped build, which I optimistically beleive will eventually weed out the sheep-like Democrats who rightly piss you and me off for rolling over whenever Rove says "boo!"

Go donate now, and stop all this lame "not gonna play" stuff. If not us, who?"

I quit the Democratic Party in 2002 because they rolled over to allow Bush to invade Iraq.

I am sorry I quit 4 years ago because now I can't quit in disgust today.

Why would anyone think that if the Democrats take over the House or Senate that they would suddenly develop a backbone?

ExBrit et al--

at some point you have to say 'no more,' and not vote at all, or vote Libertarian. If the Dems have no fear of stabbing their base in the back, they will continue to do so, in (elusive) hope of picking up a few independent votes.

Whether this is that point is a matter of personal conscience.

is it really a good idea to spread the "Democrats are cowards" meme six weeks before an election that might restore the system of checks and balances?

Then don't farking spread that meme! Get up and fight the bastards and explain why signing the bill is an act of cowardice, because it is on several different levels.

It's not like the rhetoric is difficult, even:
* Torture does not generate useful intelligence, and one who is willing to violate international law and human dignity out of fear is a COWARD.

* The USA is the most powerful nation on the planet, if we use the techniques of petty dictators it is only because of COWARDICE.

* Democrats who vote against their beliefs because the GOOpers make them afraid of looking like appeasers are COWARDS.

I am so sick of democrats trying and failing to playing the game by GOP/Karl Rove's rules that I am about ready to puke. I've watched it for most of a decade and I'm really starting to despair. This election should be ours on a silver platter, but yet again we don't see most democrats rising up and taking an actual stand on anything ... again they're all waffling trying to offend the smallest number - a strategy that's essentially never worked in history.

Fight them how? By standing against what will inevitably happen anyway? By raising a fist in anger at the bomb that is about to strike?

Yes, it all stinks. And it would be great if Democratic politicians could serve both causes: taking back Congress and morality. But they can't, and you know they can't.

Still, let's all hate them. Hate them for the districts they're from. Hate them for the politics of the day. Hate them for not gladly going down for the progressive causes of self-righteousness and antipathy to national security.

Hate them. And in doing so, help them lose.

I am dumbfounded.

It's hard to see any silver lining in this one!

How can we call this a republic anymore?

The mistake we all keeping making is telling the Democrats what they need to do to win the election: stand up to the Usurper, oppose the war, fight against torture, grow some balls, etc., etc. Obviously, the dems have backward disease - they do exactly the oppposite of what they're supposed to do.

Quick, everybody! Write your dem candidates and demand that they praise bush, support the war, sing the praises of torture, bend over and grab their ankles and .... you get the idea.

If 40 Dems in the Senate had been willing to filibuster this they would have won. "Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards." George S. Patton June 5, 1944.

Cranky:

"Except that was done with Lieberman, all according to the rules, and when Lieberman turned around and stabbed the Democratic Party in the back a goodly percentage of the movers and shakers either explicitly lined up behind him or just gave their silence = assent."

Agreed, and nobody's more guilty of that than Bill Clinton:

"If you were Ned Lamont, how would you feel about what Bill Clinton said to Larry King? Because what Bill Clinton said is that it’s okay with him if Joe Lieberman wins. And that means Joe Lieberman can go out on the campaign trail and tell voters that Bill Clinton, a two-term Democratic President, thinks Joe Lieberman is the right man for the job. It also means the Clinton Mafia has been given the green light and will act accordingly:

"'Fifty former Senators, Congressmen and Clinton Administration veterans have launched “Dems for Joe” to support Senator Lieberman’s campaign to be reelected as an Independent after losing Connecticut’s Democratic primary in August, according to Roll Call.'

"Who are these Lieberman supporters?

"'Other founding members include former Sens. David Boren (Okla.), Bob Kerrey (Neb.), John Breaux (La.) and Dennis DeConcini (Ariz.); former Reps. Mel Levine (Calif.) and Leon Panetta (Calif.), who served as chief of staff to President Bill Clinton; former Clinton Agriculture Secretary and former Rep. Mike Espy (Miss.); and former Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey.'

"Yes, that’s Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff. And yes, that’s the same James Woolsey who has been an unapologetic supporter not just of the invasion of Iraq, but of the neoconservative agenda:

"'[Woolsey] is also a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and was one of the signatories to the January 26, 1998, PNAC letter sent to President Clinton that called for the removal of Saddam Hussein.'"

More here:

http://thepremise.com/archives/09/28/2006/196

I'm truly stunned this torture bill has been rushed thru with virtually no opposition by the Dems. They had the Repubs right in the cross hairs, a chance to stand on principle with the majority, albeit a slim majority, of Americans, and against the corrupt, immoral Republican congress. Just when I thought the Dems were finally growing back their pair. How did they let themselves by castrated by these butchers yet again??

And how has this bill received a relative pass in the media, when, for god's sake, the military and CIA are strongly against these dark, demented practices?

What the hell is going on here?!?

rk: That was a different America, unfortunately. Now the sheeple are content to graze the dial and stuff their faces with hot-pockets. It disgusts me how far we have fallen from grace.

"You are reacting EXACTLY the way Rove and Cheney and the other evil men of the Republican party want you to."

Good god, you can't pin everything on Rove. The Democrats should have fought with all their might, and it probably wouldn't even have cost them politically. They'll be called terrorist-lovers no matter what they do.

I'm still hoping for a filibuster, agreement or no. Sen. Reid's office was ambiguous on that score, to say the least.

I am really sick of being told not to stand up for what's right because my behavior could possibly maybe perhaps prevent a Democrat from being elected.

Democrats can't win. That's because of media ownership and electronic voting machines and churches and the ineptitude of the Democratic Party. Not because I hold my elected lawmakers responsible for supporting really bad legislation.

I have to say that their poll-tested cowardice on the detainee bill over the past couple of weeks has been about as bad as anything I can remember.

I'd have to say the Dems' vote to effectively support Bush's imminent war in Iraq was MUCH, MUCH worse. But back then, Mr. Drum was a war supporter along with all the Dems, all the media, and almost all of the "liberal" blogs, so I can see why he'd think the torture bill was worse.

What's more, this opinion fits the accepted Dem narrative, like "we were lied to", or "gee, how did the Intelligence agencies get it so wrong?" or, "it's the war's prosecution that was flawed, not it's aims".

time to vote Green

This is the thing that amazes me. Its an off year election. Who votes in off year elections? Your base. So what do the democrats do - they do something to surely piss off their base. Its like the geniuses Democrats in Washington don't want to win. Damned they're stupid.

I quit the Democratic Party in 2002 because they rolled over to allow Bush to invade Iraq.

As did I, and I'm not gonna let those motherfuckers forget it. At least until the grass grows over a hundred thousand Iraqi graves.

Kevin, I think you're missing the point of that quote.

Read it again. Mark isn't criticizing the Democratic senators for running away from the fight. He's criticizing the bloggers for criticizing the Democratic senators for running away from the fight.

Apparently, in Mark's world everything will be hunky-dory and the voters won't see the cowardice of our senators as long as we stay vewwy, vewwy quiet and don't point it out.

Reality-based, my ass.

Global Citizen

I have known Ike since before he was my congressman. He was a man of honor when I met him. He still is. He still has my vote.

The problem with the Dems is that they can't figure out a way of this dilemma:

The reason their position on national security is unpopular with the voters (as their polls tell them) is because they haven't advocated it; HOWEVER, they are scared to advocate it because it is unpopular with the voters.

He literally cried on my shoulder when Susie died. I have never felt so helpless as I did when we could not save her.

What a mixed opportunity.

Even from the pragmatic point of view, it was a great time to paint Republicans as pro-torture and anti-constitutional rights, and rightly so.

They missed the ball on this one.

Dems leaders make it very hard not to be a Naderite and wish for pox on both the houses.

sorry. 'missed' opportunity.

I'm with Kevin on this one. Look I'm not so naive as to not understand that some (many?) dems are vulnerable in GOP-leaning districts or states. However, there are some things that you just cannot capitulate on, and weakening the Constitution is certainly one of them.

Voters will never respect a party that refuses to stand up for what it believes in.

Guys, this is why they call it a "wedge" issue -- to force a vote in which Democrats, no matter which way they vote, look bad to some portion of the available electorate (i.e., lefties and moderates). The Republicans are counting on your negative reaction to the Democratic votes -- that's the whole point of the exercise.

So why give it to them?

No one - and I mean NO ONE - should be elected who supports the torture bill. My God, what have we become ...

FDR said it best: "All we have to fear is fear itself." Fear got the bubble based Democrats today. I wouldn't be surprised if we lose the election. I sure won't hide behind Diabold if we do. After this profile in cowardice we don't deserve to win.

Yes, it's a wedge. This wedge was to divide those who would protect the fundamental rights of this country from those who would not.

And the Democratic Party, once again, failed.

We've lost. The bill of rights is meaningless when a King can declare you no longer subject to the provisions of the bill of rights.

As of today, I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils. Unless and until a real opposition party forms, I'm not voting for them. I'm not voting for evil, and I'm not voting for those who enable evil.

No more. To hell with them, and quite frankly, to hell with America. America deserves exactly what they voted for.

Ron - lets update that FDR-ism..."all we have to fear are fearmongers themselves"

Guys, this is why they call it a "wedge" issue -- to force a vote in which Democrats, no matter which way they vote, look bad to some portion of the available electorate (i.e., lefties and moderates).

If you are going to look bad either way, then there is no excuse not to do the right thing.

The Republicans are counting on your negative reaction to the Democratic votes -- that's the whole point of the exercise.

No, the Republicans are counting on the Democrats in office to continue seeing surrender to authoritarianism as the safer political course when compared to actually standing up for freedom, democracy, limited government, and due process. That's the point of the exercise.

It is essential, therefore, that the craven "leaders" that are more concerned about their own political ambitions than about preserving the freedom pay a political price that demonstrates that surrender is misguided.

One of the poll-tested Democratic sellouts is running for Senator Frist's seat.

First defeat the Republicans, then reform the Democratic Party.

The country cannot wait for the Democrats to be "pure' or "principled" There are only two parties. Sitting on the sidelines during these elections is no more principled that Democrats refusing to fight the Torture & Evesdrop Omnibus Bill.

> The Republicans are counting on your
> negative reaction to the Democratic
> votes -- that's the whole point of
> the exercise.

No, the Republicans were counting on the Democrats acting like wimps and not taking a strong stand against a President with a 36% approval rating. Which turned out to be a good calculation. Why did the Dems - in particular the leadership and the "faith faction" - have to fulfill the Radicals' expectation?

Cranky

Sent to my Senators (Feinstein and Boxer) today:

IT WAS AN INTERESTING EXPERIMENT, AMERICA...

Comrade Senator:

America was an interesting experiment. But it came to an end today, thanks in part to your failing to defend it by filibustering the detainee legislation. To quote Mr Froomkin:

"The legislation before the Senate today would ban torture, but let Bush define it; would allow the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant; would suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus; would immunize retroactively those who may have engaged in torture. And that's just for starters...

the Republicans who control Congress are in lock step behind the president, and the Democrats -- who could block him, if they chose to do so -- are too afraid to put up a real fight."

Hey, that's YOU!

So let me be among the first to welcome you to the fascist state you have enabled. History will record that it happened ON YOUR WATCH.

And please, please do not ever expect me to vote for you again-- ever. Not that it matters-- once fascists get the machinery set up they don't NEED votes, do they?

For once I am glad to be old (65). I advise younger people --especially those with children-- to seriously think about seeking their futures elsewhere, in a free country.

Who would have thought that the Worst. President. Ever. could have turned the US into the kind of country that we fought WWII and a Cold War over? Well, he couldn't have done it without your help.

Goodbye.

In his address to the joint session of Congress in September 2001 Bush said that the reason the Terrorists were waging war on the US was because "They hate our freedoms." With the impending passage of the legislation today that will remove or limit many of those freedoms, there will be less reason for the terrorists to hate the US. No freedoms- no reason for the terrorists to hate the US. Voila- victory in the War on Terror. It is a stroke of genius, and should be recognized as such.

So, in your mind, there's no possibly that they simply agreed with the bill?

Your vote is your vote, people, and your party registration is also your vote.

All who are Democrats, and continue to be so after this day, are declaring to all concerned that the Democratic Party stands for what they stand for.

If the legalization of torture and the death of 800 year old habeas corpus rights with nary a fight from the Democratic Party is not enough to make you declare that that party no longer stands for what you stand for, then what in the hell would?

I urge all conscientious progressives to join me in the Green Party.

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

"I urge all conscientious progressives to join me in the Green Party."

So, right: because I disagree with the Democratic party on some issues, I should join a fruitcake party that I disagree with on nearly everything and which has DIRECTLY ACTED to benefit Republican's electoral hopes time after time, including taking lots and lots of money from them.

No thanks.

Quick everyone, the sky is falling.

1. This bill does nothing to change the facts on the ground. Prisoners were being held and tortured well before the bill. This is just a legal fig leaf that Bush didn't even think he needed until fairly recently. Anyone here think Bush would STOP his policies if Congress banned them? Why would he? He doesn't obey any other laws they pass, quite deliberately.

2. Can this bill survive the Supreme Court? Dunno, but I bet we will find out soon.

3. Unintended consequences. When U.S. soldiers in Iraq begin to be tortured on camera, alongside narration that "we are just doing to you what you are so proud of doing to us", this is going to be a P.R. disaster for Republicans. Abu Graib was not a net plus for war supporters. We don't know yet what horrible results will come of this, but there certainly will be some.

4. The Armed Forces have deep, serious misgivings about this bill, largely because of reason # 3 above. The CIA is not happy either, because now they don't have the fig leaf of "this is not official U.S. policy". Drip, drip, here come the leaks from the unhappy people.

5. Anyone quitting the Dems- later, asshole. Thanks for quitting. Remember all the times Paul Wellstone quite because he lost a big fight? Me neither. The story is not over yet. The Christian Coalition never, ever quits the GOP. They get their boys elected and then they are in the position to make demands. You morons want to NOT help people get elected and then make demands. Let me know how that works out.

6. Nothing lasts forever. Remain calm. Think. Work hard.

Why would I consider the torture bill any differently than the AUMF in 2002? Had my Congressman voted for that I would have volunteered my time and money to work against him.That's all I can do to defeat my state's Senator who did vote for the AUMF as well as this "Bill".
Come to think of it,I was going to spend time and money to help to defeat Rick "the Devil Incarnate" Santorum.This is just another log on the (bon)fire.

I certainly respect the impulse (because I am deeply depressed by this bill), but dammit I think this is precisely the wrong way to view the situation. For example, Reid is conservative but if he were the Senate leader more progressive positions would be achieved because he will be taking the democratic line. DON'T GIVE ROVE AN EVEN BIGGER VICTORY.

Martin: point #5 really isn't responsive to what the people quitting are saying. They're walking away from the Democratic party because they beleive the Democratic party isn't willing to fight.

What good does it to do stay a Democrat when the Democrats don't believe in fighting for what they say they believe in? How does not walking away help win the fight, when the people you'd be walking away from aren't fighting in the first place?

Of course it's possible that the Democrats who voted for the bill "simply agreed with the bill", although that's hardly reassuring.

Is it better to bid farewell to habeas because you don't believe in it than it is to bid farewell to haveas because you don't have the courage to protect it? I'm not sure.

"The country cannot wait for the Democrats to be "pure' or "principled""

Strawman. A bad one.

No one asks the Democrats to be "pure" or even "principled." All anyone today is asking is for the Democrats to not be complicit in the destruction of our most basic American right: the right to live free of imprisonment except by a trial by jury. Asking for that is a far sight from asking for purity or principle, but the Democratic Party couldn't handle even that much. Tell me again why it deserves my vote?

"There are only two parties."

There are, in fact, other political parties that did not, today, participate in the dismantling of our republic.

I suggest the Green Party.

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

VOTING FOR TORTURE

Could somebody quote the section of the bill that condones torture? I have not found it.

The people who forced this vote are the people who took the administration to court and who got the Supreme Court to rule that the Congress has to pass legislation. that's a nice irony, since the vote will come right before the election, and will likely support the administration (Senate hasn't voted yet, has it?)

Are you sure that some of the Democrats voting forthe bill are not voting their consciences?

Patrick: or the Libertarian party. If Feinstein votes for this travesty i'll be voting for the Libertarian running against her.

First defeat the Republicans, then reform the Democratic Party.

Well, that might be a good idea if the reason we keep failing to defeat the Republicans wasn't that the Democratic Party is broken.

I'm not quitting, but I'm also not going to be doing my usual volunteering here in Ohio for Strickland and Brown. I just got my evenings back this fall. I'm incredibly disappointed by the cowardice of the national party on this issue. I have more sympathy for representatives in the House, where their votes really didn't matter, than I have for Senators. The Senate could have stopped this and they chose not to. This is a moral blot on the nation.

Yea, they voted against it. But unlike the Reps, they had the actual power to do something in the face of evil. They did nothing.

There are, in fact, other political parties that did not, today, participate in the dismantling of our republic.

Because they don't participate in national government at all. That's not a real reason to think they would have acted any differently were they in power.

So, in your mind, there's no possibly that they simply agreed with the bill?

Sure, they could be actual enemies of freedom, limited government, and due process rather than craven surrendrists.

I'm not sure that counts as a good thing, though.

Wow. Great minds and all that Larry Miller. Here is the text of the email I sent both of my Senators today:

It was an intersting experiment, America was. But it was sold out for thirty pieces of silver by a craven congress and a feckless president. You have blood on your hands for backing George Bush as he abrogated civil liberties and undermined Geneva, so just wash them and seal your fate.

George Bush has faced his last election. You have not.

I am appalled at the Democrats and Republicans who voted for this Owellian bill that on its face bans torture but in actuality permits Bush to indefinitely detain people with no charges and to continue torturing them.

To the Democrats who voted for this bill, do you realize that by not uniting with other Democrats against this bill that you have played right into Rove's hands. He wants you to continue to cower and fear and not stand-up for what is right.

To the Republicans who voted for this bill, why have you abandoned your conservatives values? Traditional conservatives have always distrusted bug government and giving more unchecked power to the executive branch.

This is beginning of the end. Just as Athens and Rome abandoned democracy so to has America. The slide to tyranny and dictatorship is at hand.

I have frequent debates with one of my conservative friends over which party is a greater threat to the limited freedoms we still enjoy as Americans. He argues that democrats are the bigger threat for their political correctness, regulatory schemes, and general desire to have the government solve problems which means taxing him to pay for it. I always argue that the Republicans are the bigger threat with their emphasis on conformity, intolerance and general support of police state tactics. The fact is that all politicians are a huge threat to our liberties and what really makes the whole torture, denial of due process legislation , so sad is that it actually puts Americans more at risk of terrorism. I appreciate that this entire nightmare was precipitated by Nader, but I refuse to vote for or provide funds to, any politician who votes for such legislation.

There are some really terrific people in the House, but the Senate Democrats are, with a few exceptions, a waste of skin.

I think we should concentrate on winning the House, and in the Senate, focus more on getting a group of Democrats who will actually fight. Push hard for Lamont; Brown can lose as far as I'm concerned. We need 40 men and women with the guts to say no to everything George Bush tries, until he does the right thing.

F... the Democrats.

Look, recent cencus estimates puts the total number of Americans at around three hundred million.

But, and this is very important, there are only 435 men and women in the United States Senate and less than half of them are Democrats.

Think of what a tiny fraction that is of the entire American population for a moment.

That this tiny handful of people who have been given such enourmous power are too cowardly to use that power and stand up for the rest of us in defense of America is beyond shameless. It is total capitulation and cowardice.

I also would never vote for a Democrat who voted for torture.

This is not about values or freedom or the Constitution, as much as it may seem so. It is about pushing your buttons.

Any bill presented six weeks before an election is a bill intended to set the stage for that election. As far as I can see, it is working brilliantly. It is intended to spread the “Dems are weak” meme, and spread defeatism and dissent in the Democratic coalition. It will be used as a cudgel to beat Democrats from the right and the left. And it is only the beginning.

Hopefully there will be low voter turn out and disillusionment on the left and none of that mobilization we saw last time. The subject will not be Iraq or Katrina or wage stagnation in America or the deficit. It will be about Protecting America and, for liberals, how the Dems failed them.

Of course the way to change a political party is not to run out the door just before a major election but by showing up at primaries and getting in the candidate you like. But never mind, this is all emotionalism and standing on one’s values against your own allies while the enemy advances.

Be sure that Mr Rove has thought this through. From his perspective habeas, the Constitution, and George Washington’s false teeth are fair game if it wins elections. Also be sure that his minions are running around the blogs posing as angry Dems and spreading disillusionment, revolt, and defeat.

Do not be deceived by the enemy’s stratagems.

This is all the more reason to vote the Republicans out of office. Democrats would never have allowed a bill this bad to come to a vote. This is the problem with NOT being in control. Put the Dems in control and most of the non-sense will never make it to the floor for a vote.

***One potentially important note for Ohioans:

Strickland didn't vote for torture - he didn't vote at all. I'll be putting a call in to find out where he stands.

To the Republicans who voted for this bill, why have you abandoned your conservatives values? Traditional conservatives have always distrusted bug government and giving more unchecked power to the executive branch.

No, traditional conservatives have always backed authoritarian elite governments, expansive and arbitrary police powers, limitations on participation, and government based on religious authority and enforcing narrow religious rules.

In order to win the vote of that branch of classical liberals known sometimes as "libertarians", they have in the last few decades made a show of being anti-big-government, but typically only implemented that in the area of reducing economic regulation that restricted the power wealthy holders of capital exercised over everyone else; in other areas even while mouthing small government platitudes conservatives have supported rapidly expanding government and expanding executive power, particularly where it comes to eroding privacy and due process protections.

Good post, Martin van Buren. Makes me feel a little better on this hideous day.

Of course the way to change a political party

I'm not interested in changing a political party, I'm interested in changing a nation that has gone off course. If a political party wants my active support, it will show that it is interested in that goal as well.

Otherwise, it may get a vote as the best tactical choice among the alternatives on election day, but its not getting my time, money, or advocacy on behalf of the party.

Kevin wrote: The leadership of the Republican Party decided after 9/11 to govern the country by trying to keep it in a state of permanent panic and tarring anyone who opposed their calculated panic as a weak-kneed appeaser.

There are 3 possible POVs:

Bush's first priority is to prevent terrorist attacks and win the GWOT. Preserving civil liberties is secondary.

The ACLU and other civil liberties groups have civil liberties as their first priority, even at the cost of further terrorist attacks or even losing the GWOT.

The Dems don't care what we do, as long as they get elected.

> It is intended to spread the
> “Dems are weak” meme,

So again, why did the Dem leadership play right into the Radicals' strategy? Digby predicted from the beginning exactly what was going to happen, including the Kabuki theatre with McCain, the dramatic floor vote, and the lack of Dem votes to fillibuster. Exactly to the day. Not a single person on Reid's staff reads Digby? Why not? She has been right about every Radical backstab since 2003 - why not listen to her rather than the DC insiders?

Cranky

Be sure that Mr Rove has thought this through. From his perspective habeas, the Constitution, and George Washington’s false teeth are fair game if it wins elections. Also be sure that his minions are running around the blogs posing as angry Dems and spreading disillusionment, revolt, and defeat.

Do not be deceived by the enemy’s stratagems.

So, what, you recommend that we wholeheartedly support Democratic politicians no matter how they act or vote, because to defect for any reason would somehow serve Rove? I say, if a politician wants my vote, and even more my active support, over an alternative, they better show me why they are worth supporting.

If the other side puts up something bad, I want a party that will not be afraid to call it bad, and vote against it.

Yes, thanks Martin van Buren.

An inspiration. Please repeat every day until the election.

There are 3 possible POVs:

Bush's first priority is to prevent terrorist attacks and win the GWOT. Preserving civil liberties is secondary.

The ACLU and other civil liberties groups have civil liberties as their first priority, even at the cost of further terrorist attacks or even losing the GWOT.

The Dems don't care what we do, as long as they get elected.

All that together is one POV, not three.

Another POV is:

The Bush Administration is interested in expanding executive power, and is using past terrorism and the specter of terrorism as a pretext for that, as Dick Cheney hinted in reference to FISA and the War Powers Act.

The ACLU and other civil liberties groups are interested in the preservation of liberty, seeing anything else as defeat in the war on terror: the only way America actually loses.

Many elected Democrats believe that their substantive actions don't matter as long as they are in the minority, and believe they need to vote along with the Republicans until they can take control of Congress and switch directions.

There are, of course, many other possible perspectives on the situation.

"It worked for Thomas Jefferson, after all, and Democrats consider him the founder of their party. They should take a lesson from him." - Kevin

The Democrats should take a lesson from FDR and JFK. The party has veered so far left the last couple of years, we can barely see you anymore.

So, I checked Malkin, Instapundit, and LGF. Only LGF had a post on this bill passing the house.

I expected glee, fireworks, something. Did the House just mangle the bill for zero gain from their base, or did I just miss the celebration? Color me confused.

The party has veered so far left the last couple of years, we can barely see you anymore.

No Jay, I think your perspective is off. *Hint* notice that you're now standing over there next to Mussolini and Hitler. We Democrats haven't veered anywhere.

Amen and hooray for Kevin! This is exactly the kind of straightforward, call-it-like it is, practical and constructive criticism the Democratic leadership needs to be hearing day in, day out.

We don't need apologists for the appaling cowardice and inaction we've been seeing from the Democrats anymore than we need apologists for the horrible abuses the Republicans have been committing while in power.

Inaction by the Democrats (even if it is a poll-tested calculation to win votes) is a huge part of the problem; if you don't have the backbone to stand up and be counted as being opposed to the destruction of our constitution, you're of exactly zero worth to anyone, yet alone your country, your constitution, and our nation's posterity.

Thank you again Kevin. This may not be a dramatic change in your tone, and I know you duplicate it from time to time, but in my humble opinion we could use even more of it!

oh, cmdicely don’t be silly.

Do you think that I would make an argument for orthodoxy or blind faith? As we all know these are not normal times. The Republicans are radicals and they need to be defeated with any alliance that will slow them down and get them out of power. I recommend solidarity with all enemies of Republicans. I have heard Noam Chomsky himself say the same thing. Not that it matters, but it does illustrate the gravity of the situation; it even transcends his ideals.

You know what? I refuse to vote for a political party without a spine. If they go along to get along as the opposition party, what will they do when they're in the majority?
Lots of luck in November, Dems. You lost me.

This bill does nothing to change the facts on the ground.

False. Before, people who would reveal wrongdoing would be whistleblowers, and it was expressly illegal for the information of the wrongdoing to be classified to conceal the wrongdoing. Now that its is no longer, legally, wrongdoing, any who would reveal it are just criminals leaking perfectly legally classified information.

Prisoners were being held and tortured well before the bill. This is just a legal fig leaf that Bush didn't even think he needed until fairly recently.

Yeah, and now that Bush felt fear that his administration might be held accountable, the threat is taken away, and wrongdoing protected and rewarded. How can you say this is no change?

Anyone here think Bush would STOP his policies if Congress banned them?

I think he would stop his policies if accelerating leaks, fueled by the ineffectiveness of torture, by the legal ban on using classification to cover criminality that no longer will, with this bill, provide any protection since the criminality has been effectively stripped, and by the perception that Congress and the American people actually care about torture, also undermined by this bill, revealed the nature and extend of torture while it was criminal, spawned pressure for criminal investigation, and perhaps, as the investigations grew, more serious consequences including impeachment.

OTOH, now? Far less likely.

Why would he? He doesn't obey any other laws they pass, quite deliberately.

He would, if there were perceived consequences. From the surrender on this bill to Nancy Pelosi's prejudgment against accountability, Democrats have been too eager to assure him that will never happen.

Can this bill survive the Supreme Court? Dunno, but I bet we will find out soon.

It may not, but it may be very hard for someone with actual standing to get access to the courts in the first place, which makes it far less likely that we'll even see a case in the courts anytime soon. And if it does make it to the Supreme Court, that will likely take a year or more before it gets there, and some time after that for it to be resolved, and there are all kinds of reasons such a resolution may not be a definitive answer on the status of the law itself.

Unintended consequences. When U.S. soldiers in Iraq begin to be tortured on camera, alongside narration that "we are just doing to you what you are so proud of doing to us", this is going to be a P.R. disaster for Republicans.

No, it would be a PR disaster for Republicans if the policy were clearly and exclusively a Republican one. When the imprimatur of support is bipartisan, the chance of blowback for the Republicans is reduced.

We don't know yet what horrible results will come of this, but there certainly will be some.

Yeah. That's why we're upset at our leaders going along with it.

The Armed Forces have deep, serious misgivings about this bill, largely because of reason # 3 above. The CIA is not happy either, because now they don't have the fig leaf of "this is not official U.S. policy". Drip, drip, here come the leaks from the unhappy people.

Really? People are likely to leak if they think someone is going to do something with the information leaked. The Congress clearly isn't interested in doing that. There is now less, not more, incentive for those insiders uncomfortable with the policy to leak.

Anyone quitting the Dems- later, asshole. Thanks for quitting. Remember all the times Paul Wellstone quite because he lost a big fight? Me neither. The story is not over yet. The Christian Coalition never, ever quits the GOP. They get their boys elected and then they are in the position to make demands. You morons want to NOT help people get elected and then make demands.

The Christian Right in general is catered to because of the credible risk that it would withhold its support from candidates if not adequately pleased, which it has demonstrated time and again by doing just that, and even backing candidates running against Republicans.

Nothing lasts forever.

That's true. Even democracy dies.

5. Anyone quitting the Dems- later, asshole. Thanks for quitting. Remember all the times Paul Wellstone quite because he lost a big fight? Me neither. The story is not over yet. The Christian Coalition never, ever quits the GOP. They get their boys elected and then they are in the position to make demands. You morons want to NOT help people get elected and then make demands. Let me know how that works out.

6. Nothing lasts forever. Remain calm. Think. Work hard.

The Democrats should take a lesson from FDR and JFK.

Let's see, John F. Kennedy worked to end racial segregation and discrimination against blacks by conservatives, created programs that became the basis of welfare and drug assistance for seniors, and helped shape regulatory agencies.

FDR created the ultra-liberal New Deal with all its "big government" components that conservatives loathe: job programs, relief for farmers and unskilled laborers, the regulation of Wall Street, et al.

I'd say the party today is right on target, if a little off center to the right.

This is the thing that amazes me. Its an off year election. Who votes in off year elections? Your base. So what do the democrats do - they do something to surely piss off their base. Its like the geniuses Democrats in Washington don't want to win. Damned they're stupid.

Spot on. Exactly the same tactical genius that led so many of them to sign on for bankruptcy "reform", which would've passed without a single Dem vote. I'd really like to see some evidence, even a glimmer, that national Democrats can mimic sentient creatures, and learn from experience.

Such fine words over on Atrios's website but really words are merely theatrics. WE are not much different than Broder, since Broder clearly based everything on theatrics. ONLY IF such speeches turned into filibusters, only THEN would such flower speeches have any meaning or merit.

With all fine, fine words NONE of our Dem senators have the courage to do anything but practice theatrics with flowery speeches. Hillary, Obama, they simply do not practice what they preach.

Stange how Dems will run out to Pledge the Allegiance of Flag but can't see past Arlington cemetary and the sacrifices those men buried there made so that we could keep the freedoms that we have today?

I don’t want to vote for anybody on meaningless, theatrical, flower speeches.

Drum: I have to say that their poll-tested cowardice on the detainee bill over the past couple of weeks has been about as bad as anything I can remember.

Too little, too late, Kevin.

Do you think that I would make an argument for orthodoxy or blind faith?

I don't know what you "would" do in unspecified circumstances, but I think that's what you just did.

As we all know these are not normal times.

I'm tired of hearing that. Yes, the powerful are trying to entrench their power using fear, and bad people are trying to kill other people.

None of that is abnormal.

The Republicans are radicals and they need to be defeated with any alliance that will slow them down and get them out of power.

Sure, and if the Democrat in office ever begin acting like they want to slow them down and get them out of power, they'll have my enthusiastic support.

The strategy of continued surrender until a Democratic electoral majority magically material ex nihilo, however, is not showing me that the Democrats in office have the desire or capacity to do that.

I recommend solidarity with all enemies of Republicans.

I see no evidence that the Democrats in office acting as enablers of the Republicans destruction of our system of government are "enemies" of the Republicans in any meaningful sense.

I have heard Noam Chomsky himself say the same thing.

So? Noam Chomsky may get somethings right, but identifying and supporting effective agents of change certainly doesn't seem to be his strong suit.

I recommend solidarity with all enemies of Republicans

As Churchill put it:

"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

Says it all for me.

Unfortunately, Sherrod Brown learnt the wrong lessons, I'd say. Look at his bamboozling e-mail response to me:

Yesterday, Congressman Brown voted for a bill that creates a military tribunal to try those enemy combatants that have been held by the government since September 11, 2001.

This compromise is supported by Senator John McCain, a former POW who fought to ensure that this tribunal lives up to our national standards on human rights.

Unlike President Bush's plan, this compromise measure prohibits the degrading treatment of detainees and specifically lists the types of behaviors that are banned in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

The Washington Post wrote about the legislation, "The compromise legislation does not seek to narrow U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of prisoners, as Bush had hoped."

Those detained have been held for more than 5 years with no opportunity to prove their guilt or innocence.

It will provide that opportunity, so that those who are innocent can be set free and those who are guilty can be punished.

The bill prohibits the use of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees. Because that evidence is often unreliable, it will not admit evidence obtained through torture

Detainees will be entitled to Combatant Status Review, where they may challenge their detention within the confines of the military tribunal system.

And the bill will allow combatants to receive an edited version of classified evidence being used to convict them so that they can respond without putting our national security at risk.

Congressman Brown feels it has taken far too long for a legal framework to be developed – for the innocent who must be freed, the guilty that must be punished, and our homeland which must be secured.

Many elected Democrats believe that their substantive actions don't matter as long as they are in the minority, and believe they need to vote along with the Republicans until they can take control of Congress and switch directions.

You are quite right but at what point are they just republicans?

The obvious point is these legislators are doing what the people wants to order to get re-elected. Which means voting with the GOP. If that's where the people are doesn't your party then need to move right or learn to love being minority?

You are suggesting they act conservative while in office until/unless more peers can get elected and then act differently. But if voters elected you based on pervious performance and they you change aren't you playing with fire?

How can a national party 'pretend' to be one thing in order to get elected and then act as another thing in office seriously expect to remain in office?

I would submit as Exhibit A the 1st two years of the Clinton Presidency when after running as a 'New Democrat" he governed as a unabashed liberal and promply got his head handed to him in the worst election performance in 50 years.

Every politician has to learn not to get too far away from their constituancy to stay in office but when there are fundamental differences in positions a party cannot remain outside the mainstream for long. That why your party has nominated a dozen soldiers to run for office.

enozinho (wetorture.com): So, I checked Malkin, Instapundit, and LGF. Only LGF had a post on this bill passing the house.

I expected glee, fireworks, something. Did the House just mangle the bill for zero gain from their base, or did I just miss the celebration? Color me confused.

I can't speak for those bloggers, but I am a bit disappointed in the bill. The civil liberties of Americans and others around the world depends on defeating al Qaeda and other Islamo fascists as quickly and decisivly as possible. The more effective the questioning, the more civil liberties are preserved. The bill that passed was a compromise with Bush's former procedure. It weakens the civil liberties that were better protected by Bush's more effective questioning methods.

However, I am relieved that at least degree of effective questioning of terrorists remains. The Dems and a handful of idiotic Reps tried to make effective quetioning impossible. Fortunately, they didn't fully succeed.

I agree with bakho upthread. As cowardly as it seems to vote for this, the reality is that with a dem majority shit like this would never make it to the floor in the first place. So..by opposing those who voted for it, even though their vote made no difference in the outcome, only helps to continue with the repubs in charge and able to create these situations.

The Dem leadership is wimping out, claiming "we don't have enough votes to sustain a filibuster". Can anyone imagine an LBJ saying some wimpy crap like this? LBJ would have found those votes - whether it was through kicking ass with his big Texas boots or twisting a couple of arms. Wimps.

Bakho: the minority party in the Senate has the power to prevent a bill from coming to a vote.

The Democrats in the Senate did not choose to exercise that power.

Therefore "Democrats would never allowed a bill this bad to come to a vote" is simply false.

"Posted by: ex-liberal on September 28, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK"

The only good thing about this is that people like you can be "disappeared" the next time you insult a Dem. President.

Bellumregio: you may be right about the Republican electoral strategy at play here. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be pissed at Democrats for failing to prevent the Congress from suspending habeas corpus for aliens. The fact that the Republican playbook depended on the Democrats having no dedication to freedom doesn't mean it's OK for the Democrats to have no dedication to freedom.

In the senate true, but isn't most of the outrage here directed at Brown and other members of the house who voted for it, not only the senators who didn't filibuster?

Let's see, John F. Kennedy worked to end racial segregation and discrimination against blacks by conservatives, created programs that became the basis of welfare and drug assistance for seniors, and helped shape regulatory agencies.

JFK did almost none of this. Listen to Julian Bond describe JFKs efforts on segregion. They're a tad less than complimentary.

A bleak day where political expediency trumped even centuries old law and religious faith. There is now no depths too low for republicans to plumb. What happened to the party that was against intrusive, authoritarian government? That was a myth, apparently. I shall not forgive those who stood with the enemies of freedom--supporters of the dictatorship all. Graham especially was at his simpering, weasley worst today. I can't even stand to look at the man any longer--he sold his manhood cheap. This administration is now officially rogue.

The trolls here need to just STFU. They are next.
Americans are solidly against this sham. And the worm will turn. We won't forget.