Breaking: Senate rejects habeas legislation.
In a 56-43 vote, the majority of the Senate today voted for legislation that would have restored habeas corpus rights to military detainees and given them “the right to protest their detention in federal court.” But the roll call fell four votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate.
UPDATE: Full roll call vote HERE.
UPDATE II: Leahy has put out a statement reacting to the vote:
It is difficult to defend the higher ground by taking the lower road. The world knows what our enemies stand for. The world also knows what this country has tried to stand for and live up to — in the best of times, and the worst of times. … We will not give up on this important effort.
UPDATE III: Beachmom at DailyKos has more details.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
130 Responses to “Breaking: Senate rejects habeas legislation.”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Run the same bill by right after the ‘08 elections. It will pass with flying colors.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:30 amBoy! GOOPers sure love our Constitutional rights!
Oops… my bad. It’s just a “god-damned piece of paper”.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:30 amSo who were the unamericans that opposed this?
September 19th, 2007 at 11:31 amOfftopic: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress on Wednesday that the federal government will hit the current debt ceiling on Oct. 1 The current debt limit is $8.965 trillion. Unless Congress votes to raise that ceiling, the country would be unable to borrow more money to keep the government operating and to pay debt obligations coming due.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ ap/ 070919/ debt_limit.html?.v=3
http://brillig.com/debt_clock/
September 19th, 2007 at 11:32 amNotice how the article doesn’t even include the word “filibuster”.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:32 amDon’t you realize?
We need to preserve our freedoms by giving them away! It makes perfect sense!!
September 19th, 2007 at 11:34 amIndeed! We must destroy the village to save it!
September 19th, 2007 at 11:35 amLet them filibuster! Can’t anybody allow the process to work? If Republicans want to deney habeus corpus let them stand up and talk about it.Let them have to put their faces and words behind this move.
But no… for the 1,000th time the Democrats let the Republicans overrule with no consequences for their actions. They give up without an fight, without the spotlight being put upon those who want habius corpus denied. ughh!
September 19th, 2007 at 11:37 amYet Mark Foley didn’t even get a fine.
.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:37 amI cant believe this. MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER YOU CLODS! MAKE THEM STAND UP AND DENY THIS FREEDOM TO AMERICANS> For gods sake what does it take.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:41 amAgain, without habeas corpus the rest of the Constitution….the rest of all the laws in this country, mean NOTHING.
I wonder if we’ll ever awaken from this nightmare, or if we’ll just smother in our sleep.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:41 amWhy does this fact so often go unreported?
September 19th, 2007 at 11:42 ami tried to get the roll page for votes, to see who voted NO…
(yesterday it was baucus, on the CD bill)… still too early…
but i noticed this:
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Specter Amdt. No. 2022; To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States.
even named for a repug, the traitors voted it down…
September 19th, 2007 at 11:42 am…
56 votes is not a “narrow rejection†of any legislation — thank God at least 56 Senators realize we are fighting a war here.
Add Karma Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by Jake D. — September 19, 2007 @ 11:40 am
jake is retarded
thats 56 FOR the legislation to return t\rights to our people idiot!
September 19th, 2007 at 11:42 amand you r a lawyer JAKE? no way! your a class act idiot.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:43 amI for one welcome the day when Habeas Corpus is removed from the general population; perhaps then there will be an appopriate amount of outrage.
Of course, by then, it will be too late to protest.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:45 amHabeas corpus, requiescat in pace.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:45 amthat would be DC bill… on which, baucus was the
September 19th, 2007 at 11:45 amlone dem voting NO…
Uh, jake d; I think you’re a bit confused. 44 g.o.p. senators felt habeus corpus should be boot-jacked into oblivion; not 56, who wanted an up or down vote (geeze, where did I hear that before? Could it have come from the party of hypocrisy?)
44 republics, who value fear over human rights.
What do you value?
September 19th, 2007 at 11:45 amWas this another obstruction, or actual vote on the bill?
September 19th, 2007 at 11:45 amJake was right once, but he changed his mind.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:46 amthe dems that voted against do so so they can bring the bill back up without prejudicial action by repugs jake, do you think they dont KNOW which way the vote will go?
September 19th, 2007 at 11:47 amo/t.
AOL dumped my registration confirmation straight into the spam folder ( I knew enough to look there immediately). Now “unspammed”. Maybe it doesn’t like Wordpress?
Anywhoo, I for one welcome our new commentrobot overlord. I can’t blame people for getting mad at the trolls. Now things should be calmer.
(sorry, I just blew the “staying on topic” advantage!)
September 19th, 2007 at 11:48 amdo you think they dont KNOW which way the vote will go?
Comment by bob h — September 19, 2007 @ 11:47 am
A troll has NO interest in the truth about these thigns, only the self-serving sound bite.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:48 amWe have fought wars before, without losing our identity as a nation. I think Colin Powell said it best in a recent GQ interview
â€What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?â€
Colin Powell, 2007
September 19th, 2007 at 11:49 amRRrrrr, tis a sad day for habeas corpus. Me thinks soon it will have both feet in Davey Jones locker, tied to 10 pound shot, to keep it down.
The wind be taken out of the D’s sails on this one
September 19th, 2007 at 11:49 amThank God that 43 Republicans (and Independent-Democrat Lieberman?) then realize we are at war here.
Comment by Jake D. — September 19, 2007 @ 11:48 am
So sad that 43 GOOPers hate their own Constitution so much. The Republican Party - one “NO” vote closer to self-imposed extinction!
September 19th, 2007 at 11:50 amI cant believe this. MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER YOU CLODS! MAKE THEM STAND UP AND DENY THIS FREEDOM TO AMERICANS> For gods sake what does it take.
Comment by bob h — September 19, 2007 @ 11:41 am
Agreed. I’d like to see the Republicans stage an all-nighter denying Constitutional freedoms to American citizens.
And another one for the Webb amendment. I’m sure the troops in Iraq would love to see their Senator reading phonebooks to cut their R&R time.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:50 amWhy no up or down vote, jaked?
September 19th, 2007 at 11:50 amThat was the battle cry of the party of hypocrisy when they ran all three branches of government.
Why isn’t the majority pulling the nuclear option? I think the public would welcome it at this point. We are tired of the tyranny of the minority over the overwhelming majority of the country! Come on, Reid!
September 19th, 2007 at 11:50 amDamn….I have to leave polatic’s for awhile today….All the enabeling polatician’s are makeing me ill…Great handle Bush is a four letter word……Blessings
September 19th, 2007 at 11:50 amThe solution to the Republicans’ abuse of the filibuster to stop every single bill with which they disagree is very simple. It is the way these things worked all through U.S. history. A “yes” vote on cloture is a vote to cut off debate on a bill and allow a vote on it. A “no” vote is a vote to continue debating. Historically, when cloture vote fails to receive the necessary super-majority (currently 60 votes) this means precisely what it says it means. Debate continues on the bill in question until cloture is called again.
If Republicans want to use the filibuster for every single bill they are welcome to try. But it is political suicide for Democrats to accede to it by simply saying “OK, you win, we don’t have the 60 votes, we’ll be nice and move on to the next bill.” They don’t have to move on to the next bill and they must not move on to the next bill.
The filibuster is an important tool for minority parties to act in extraordinary situations to protect their values on matters of the utmost importance to them. But in the entire history of the United States no minority party has ever attempted to use it on everything as Republicans are currently doing.
Amazingly, the mainstream media and even Senate Democratic leaders have played right along with them, referring to the “60 votes necessary” to pass a bill. This is outrageous and it has to stop. This is literally unprecedented in the history of this country.
Senate Democrats need to move immediately to change the rules of engagement with the Republicans. They have this morning blocked votes on two tremendously important bills — the restoration of habeas corpus and Jim Webb’s bill to ensure that troops returning from Iraq have a reasonable period of rest before they are redeployed. Both of these bills have clear majority support in the Senate.
Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats need to take the results of the cloture votes right to the Republicans at face value — continue the debate on these bills for as long as it takes. Don’t allow anything else — including War funding, the Attorney General confirmation, and whatever else is up — to come up for a vote until they allow a vote on these bills.
Enough is enough!
September 19th, 2007 at 11:51 amColin Powell, 2007
Comment by Krazny — September 19, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Where the **Bleep** was he in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006?
September 19th, 2007 at 11:51 amMost Americans don’t pay attention to this because they think it only affects terrorists. They don’t consider that they could someday be the ones being held unjustly. They have to know that these rights are to protect them and restoring them isn’t just a give-away to some other people that they don’t know or care about.
None of us is safe until all of us are safe.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:51 amNone of us is safe until all of us are safe.
Comment by headybrew.net — September 19, 2007 @ 11:51 am
It does tend to work that way, doesn’t it?
September 19th, 2007 at 11:52 amColin Powell, 2007
Comment by Krazny — September 19, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Where the **Bleep** was he in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006?
Add Karma Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — September 19, 2007 @ 11:51 am
in the woodshed taking one for his chosen team…..now he knows better i hope.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:53 amAnyone else NOT on the “Ignore List�
Add Karma Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by Jake D. — September 19, 2007 @ 11:51 am
REALITY is on your ignore list.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:53 amHey, whats recommend do? I just clicked on one to see what happens. And it appears to be nothing
September 19th, 2007 at 11:54 amHere’s a list of all the traitors:
September 19th, 2007 at 11:56 amheadybrew:
It does only affect terrorists — if Hillary Clinton uses it against non-terrorists, then we’ll have a problem.
Add Karma Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by Jake D. — September 19, 2007 @ 11:54 am
and with your king now able to say ANYONE is a terrorist, it AFFECTS ALL OF US dummy.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:59 amHabeas Corpus is universal.
∞Ω
September 19th, 2007 at 12:01 pmI don’t know where Powell was in the years running up to the Iraq war. I am happy to see him get off the Kool aid though. I still think the quote stands.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:03 pmMAKE THEM FILIBUSTER!
~Sean
September 19th, 2007 at 12:04 pmSquegeeboo,
When you click on “recommend” it gives that post a point. Therefore, you can then go to Sort Comments By: Top Rated, and instead of listing the comments chronologically, they’ll be listed on how many times they’ve been recommended.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:05 pmWe are the laughingstock - the hypocrites of the world.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:11 pmWe claim to be fighting for freedom for the peoples of the world, and we deny freedom in our own country.
From students to detainees — deny their freedom of speech, deny their freedom granted in the constitution; the writ of habeas corpus. The repugnicants, scum that they are, have found a restoration of power from the weakened dems and the blustering monkey in the white house and the lies of Petraeus and others who have put lipstick on the Bush pig.
It does only affect terrorists — if Hillary Clinton uses it against non-terrorists, then we’ll have a problem.
Comment by Jake D. — September 19, 2007 @ 11:54 am
How convenient that the President can designate whomever he dislikes as a terrorist.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:15 pmHowever, squeegeeboo, I’m doubting you will be able to recommend yourself all the way to the top of the list….. :)
September 19th, 2007 at 12:17 pmSo the bill actually passed but the obstructionist Republicans wouldn’t let the Senate end the debate? Why do Republicans hate the American people?
Well, what goes around comes around so when these Republicans get caught with their pants down and the next president, a Democrat, claims that they are enemies of our nation, then the government can lock them up and throw away the key.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:19 pmOfftopic: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress on Wednesday that the federal government will hit the current debt ceiling on Oct. 1 The current debt limit is $8.965 trillion. Unless Congress votes to raise that ceiling, the country would be unable to borrow more money to keep the government operating and to pay debt obligations coming due.
Hummm…. and if we bomb Iran, will the Chinese be willing to pick up more of our debt?
September 19th, 2007 at 12:21 pmBARTLEBEE sez:
The bill needed 60 votes for cloture. It got only 56.
The fact that the Dems “control Congress” is meaningless when 41 or more neocon apologists can be counted upon to vote in lockstep with Chimpy.
Maybe this is why Congress currently enjoys a dismal 11% approval rating…
September 19th, 2007 at 12:21 pmJake: “thank God at least 56 Senators realize we are fighting a war here.”
As usual, Jake gets it all wrong. Whatever, Jake. Drink your warm milk and go back to bed.
Not one Democrat voted against the re-institution of Habeas Corpus, a legal standard which has been the rule of law for over 800 years. The only politicians who vote to deny us this basic constitutional right are republicans. Let’s keep that in mind in 2008.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:21 pmWho needs a right that was created with the Magna Carta. The troglodytes on the reichwing never liked freedom anyway and they are taking this country down with their phony party. What a bunch of hypocritical losers. Failures at everything but destruction, death, and pedophilia.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:22 pmAgain, every Democrat voted to reinstate Habeas Corpus.
Bart’s reaction: “This of course goes back to the spineless democrats.”
September 19th, 2007 at 12:27 pmNot one Democrat voted against the re-institution of Habeas Corpus, a legal standard which has been the rule of law for over 800 years. The only politicians who vote to deny us this basic constitutional right are republicans. Let’s keep that in mind in 2008.
The beauty of this is that at least 20 Republican Senators (it may be 22, not sure of exact number) are up for re-election in 2008. They will be easy targets for any Democrat running against them in their State.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pmWe are “at war” in much the same way that O.J. is “innocent”.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pmBart: “I can’t believe they let a filibuster beat them. There are WAYS to beat filibusters.”
So, you seem to be hating on the Dems for their respect of process and precedent. Just because the Dems were not willing to completely trash the existing rules of the Senate for short-term political gain doesn’t make them “spineless.” It means they respect the constitutional system enough to not jump at any chance to drastically alter it.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:29 pmBARTLEBEE
However, squeegeeboo, I’m doubting you will be able to recommend yourself all the way to the top of the list….. :)
Curses, you are on to me.
Amanda
September 19th, 2007 at 12:31 pmThanks for the info
Brown shirts for Christofascism - what year is it again? What country is this? I thought it was 2007 and the USA, I have no idea how I stepped into this time vortex and arrived in Germany in 1940…wow, I have to start paying attention.
Buck Fush (name filter wouldn’t let use it)
September 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pmIt’s very simple, really. If you want Habeas Corpus reinstated as part of our system of constitutional law, you need to give Democrats a supermajority in the Senate next year. Period. There is no other way to get Habeas Corpus back right now. Third party people: if you think there is another VIABLE way, let’s hear it.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pm“The roll call fell four votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate.”
should be
“The roll call fell four votes short of the 60 needed to stop a Republican filibuster.”
September 19th, 2007 at 12:39 pmThird party people: if you think there is another VIABLE way, let’s hear it.
Force the Republicans to filibuster.
~Sean
September 19th, 2007 at 12:41 pmColeman (R-MN) - NAY…
go get ‘im, al…
September 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pmheadybrew:
It does only affect terrorists — if Hillary Clinton uses it against non-terrorists, then we’ll have a problem.
Comment by Jake D. — September 19, 2007 @ 11:54 am
Stanford-law graduate, Joke, has missed the point of ‘habeas corpus’ I guess that diploma he bought online didn’t include that in the ‘errata’.
And the point is this: How do you know that Chimpy is only using it on terrorists?
The answer: habeas corpus…..
Over to you Winston Churchill:
“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers—is, in the highest degree, odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian governments . . . “
September 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pmBARTLEBEE
Ok. I didn’t say the above comment, and why you are attributing it to me I do not know.
RRrrr, that would be because the scurvy and grog has rotted me brains. It appears Nevar made the original remark.
Man, you weren’t even one above or under the comment. I really have no excuse for that one.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:43 pmComment by Squegeeboo — September 19, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
You can of course abuse yourself, if you think that will help….
September 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pmThese Republics are simply deluding themselves. Bush is at 29% and 70% of the people in this country want to bring our troops home. They also support Webb’s bill by a large majority. If the Republics think that their saying “we support the troops” without actually doing anything to support the troops, they are underestimating the public. The public didn’t buy Bush/Betrayus propaganda and they are not going to buy another propaganda campaign, which is all their “Sense of the Senate” bill is. Oh well, they will be paid back in the November elections.
Finally the people in this country are getting mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it any more.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pmcan anyone, preferably of that ilk, explain why
September 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pmthe repugs ALL (thank you specter) voted to reject
this most sacred of democratic principles?
?
wow - another proud moment for the party of perverts.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:48 pmBartlebee, I can see why many people are frustrated with the sometimes cautious approach of Democrats, but again, can you think of ANY possible way to reinstate Habeas Corpus OTHER than voting for Democrats and giving them a supermajority in both houses? I’m just saying that today, Democrats are our best chance for reversing the damage done by this administration in the shortest amount of time.
Bashing them on Habeas Corpus after every single one of them voted to reinstate it seems counter-productive to me.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:51 pmTP now agrees after much badgering and boycotting by posters last year that habeas corpus is fundamentally important.
I ‘think’ that’s ‘progress’…
September 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pmBartlebee, the “nuclear option” would ruin one of the traditional roles of the Senate in the minds of our Founders. Repubs, who have no respect for our constitutional process, were ready to jetison it for short-term political gain. Dems respect our constitutional process - don’t bash Dems for wanting to preserve our system in the way the Framers envisioned it.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:53 pmcan anyone, preferably of that ilk, explain why
the repugs ALL (thank you specter) voted to reject
this most sacred of democratic principles?
?
I called Isakson (R-GA) to rant, because I’m from GA - and he had a statement saying that the “terrorists” are given such great treatment at Gitmo, and the basic argument was: “They are terrorists, they get what they deserve”… upon which I responded to the receptionist - “They aren’t terrorists until they are proven guilty… you are acting as the judge and jury. I’m not saying let them go - I’m just saying give them a fair trial, and let our legal system determine whether or not they’re terrorists.”
Her response: “Thank you I will pass that along to the Senator.”
*shrugs*
Ridiculous.
~Sean
September 19th, 2007 at 12:54 pmThe worst thing is: They can’t contest their confinement without a trial, not because of “National Secrets” but rather because there likely isn;t a legal case to stand on.
Not surprised in the slightest how Sen. Lieberman voted.
Jake D, Could at the risk of being put on your “Ignore List” What has being in a “War” got to do with allowing prisoners to the right to contest their imprisonment?
What are you afraid would happen?
September 19th, 2007 at 12:58 pmBartlebee: “Really?
THIS is what the framers “envisionedâ€?”
Yes. The Senate was supposed to be somewhat removed from whatever the political climate would be at the time. With 6 year terms, they were supposed to be the “cautious” body which would have rules designed to counter the will of the majority which some Founders at times referred to as the “tyranny of the majority.” The House, with its 2-year terms was supposed to be the more current political chamber with representatives knowing that every two years they would have to answer for their votes.
The filibuster is simply a symbol of the Senates inherent cautious body. The way to overcome it is a supermajority, not changing the rules. If you want Dems to be able to override a filibuster or a veto, vote for more Dems.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:00 pm#95 - Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
Yep. Right now it sucks from this perspective, but that is completely true.
However, Dems still have the option to allow the filibuster.
~Sean
September 19th, 2007 at 1:01 pmBart: “A “token†vote made knowing that it would fail, just to save face, seems kinda counter-productive to me.”
No, it means something. It establishes that there are currently only a few Repubs who would honor this constitutional right and that every single Dem honors this constitutional right.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pmSean, I completely agree that Dems should let the filibuster proceed. I just don’t agree with this “nuclear option” thing.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pm#99 - Agreed.
~Sean
September 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pmBart, I’m saying just vote the bastards out. Most of them don’t have to go to jail, just home and out of our hair. Now, the administration’s a different deal. Most of them DO belong in jail.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:05 pmPlease, TP, when reporting these kinds of developments, make it very clear that there was a filibuster at work and who led it. Saying the “Senate Reject[ed] Habeas Legislation” by a vote of 56-43 is totally misleading. The 56-43 vote was to end cloture, which requires 60 votes. The Senate did not vote on the proffered legislation, that was the aim of the filibuster, to prevent a vote.
I have learned to expect this from the corporate news outlets, but that’s why I don’t go to them much and why I come here. It is no wonder that the public is confused about the process.
And by the way, whatever happened to “the nuclear option.” In this Congress, the Republican have filibustered most every bill introduced. I seem to recall that the Democrats did not do the same under a stupid agreement among some Senators and under the threat of the “nuclear option” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option.
Why is there no talk of this tactic by the Democratic congresspeople and, since they do nothing without pressure, why isn’t the progressive public (with TP leading the effort) pressuring the Democratic leaders to pursue this strategy?
September 19th, 2007 at 1:07 pmGreat points Eskwaya
September 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pmI find it extremely outrageous that the traitorous Lieberman voted against this — as a Jew whose people have been persecuted and denied rights, he voted against legal rights included in habeas corpus.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pmMuch as the repugnicants are scum for their votes on this today, he is among the worst of them — he abandoned the constituency that put him in office, and all because he is a weasel of a man who is interested only in himself and his political agenda, the Constitution be damned.
can anyone, preferably of that ilk, explain why
the repugs ALL (thank you specter) voted to reject
this most sacred of democratic principles?
?
Comment by katy — September 19, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
As I understand it, the Military Tribunals are intended for non-citizens captured on foreign battlefields? Is this correct?
September 19th, 2007 at 1:10 pmBart: “So no, I doubt the framers ever envisioned the Congress of the United States removing Habeas Corpus. They may have “predicted itâ€, but they wrote an iron clad order in the Constitution that it can never be removed.”
Bart, this is all somewhat of a moot point because the federal courts would eventually strike down the law as unconstitutional if they ever got a test case with which to act. That’s what the Founders envisioned: if congress does pass a law which is unconstitutional, the judicial system reviews it and turns it over.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:13 pmThe Republican Party obstructs yet another effort to save the Constitution. The Democratic Party in the Senate has chosen not to either demand a real filibuster or threaten the “nuclear option†to defeat the filibuster exhibiting a lack of backbone.
But, it’s not about the Constitution or the continuation of debate, but it’s about a failing free-market revolution that was promised by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove. They promised that Republicans would stay in power forever hence bring about corporate dominance. The radical right-wing are desparately trying to hang on to that.
Iraq was part of that plan; it was an experiment with a free-market economy that the CPA initiated within days of the American take-over. This is why they want an endless occupation. Product Sharing Agreements, or similar deals for Iraqi oil, was a big part of this plan. NAFTA was a huge step toward a free-market economy.
It has all failed miserably and they won’t admit it.
Republican Congress members are holding on to that promise and will unite to use all their influence to defeat legislation that gives rights back to the people. They believe that the power of the people over the corporate state has to be squelched. It is my opinion that free market economies are dependent on strong governmental control over the people. Free market economies cannot succeed unless the central government places controls on the people’s ability to do things to protect themselves such as filing suite in court over corporate greed.
The citizens cannot protect themselves against the things that prop up corporate profit without the court/governmet’s protection. The things that make it easy for corporate profit include, but are not limited to shoddy products, the absence of building codes, and the lack of wage guarantees.
If the government starts protecting the people then it is no longer a free market. That’s the rub. The Republicans seem to believe that Democracy is in the way because the people have too much power.
Republicans can’t see that the radical dream of laissez-faire can never work in an educated society. The people will rise up against it (once they’ve had enough).
September 19th, 2007 at 1:15 pmJake: “Another 9/11, or worse, S.D. is the risk.”
Holding people without charging them with a crime does nothing to prevent another terrorist attack. If we’ve arrested someone, they should be charged with a crime - conspiracy to commit terrorist acts comes to mind.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:20 pmA sorry day for all concerned .I’m speachless .
September 19th, 2007 at 1:32 pmAnd another thing … (gosh this feels good)
Why are we even voting to restore Habeas Corpus (setting aside for a minute the fact that legislation purports to suspend it)? The constitution is clear that Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion. So the legislation is invalid and void ab initio. A court should rule it so.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:32 pmJake: “For the record, if Mohammed Atta had been held before 9/11 without charging him with any crime, that certainly could have prevented at least ONE terrorist attack . . ”
Atta, could have been charged with a crime. Holding him without charging him is a violation of constitutional rights. Cowards who live in fear might choose to jettison our constitutional rights out of fear, but Americans with the courage to live in a free society know that our rights are part of what defines us.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:39 pmThank God that 43 Republicans (and Independent-Democrat Lieberman?) then realize we are at war here.
Comment by Jake D. — September 19, 2007 @ 11:48 am
I look forward fervently to the day that these 43 Republicans and Lieberman are tried and punished as the traitors they are in colluding in and assisting with, the destruction of the U.S. Constitution.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:40 pmI am absolutely aghast. Furthermore, I am totally ashamed of the two Senators from Arizona. What rights and whose shall be thrown under the bus next????????????
September 19th, 2007 at 1:41 pmBart: “And when is the judicary going to get around to doing that?”
The process of judicial review takes time. It can be extremely frustrating. And, sometimes it works the other way. There was a popular movement in the thirties to impeach the entire Supreme Court for obstructing New Deal policies. People referred to them as the “Nine old men.”
September 19th, 2007 at 1:41 pmKeith: “Furthermore, I am totally ashamed of the two Senators from Arizona.”
Yes, the people of Arizona should vote their asses OUT!
September 19th, 2007 at 1:43 pmCol. Jack - I did my part last two election cycles. I believe we made some headway last time. Kyle didn’t win by much.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:46 pmBart: “By the time they get around to it there won’t be a judicary. Just an Oberfuhrer and an Unterfuhrer.”
I guess I’m just a ridiculous “true believer,” but I don’t see that happening. I see Dems gaining supermajorities in both houses and a Dem president. I see the destruction Repubs have done to our system being overturned and fixed within 2 years of the 2008 election. In fact, I see another one of those extended periods of progressive policies and legislation which will last another generation.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:47 pmDidn’t get the poster’s name but he wrote: No President in the history of the USA during a time a war has allowed any POW, much less an enemy combatant to have his/her trial during a time of war.
Where is the declaration of war? Also, there are no POW’s now. They are called enemy combatants which Bush believes don’t have any rights.
We are a nation of laws and are strongest when we uphold them. Your diatribe against “liberals” are strawmen. You can’t face the terrible truths this administration has push down our throats.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pm@ Ret. Col. Jack Ripper #110 :
So let me get this right, the Military Commissions Act establishes an extralegal process via which non-citizens, and anyone GWB, et. al. decides to declare an Enemy Combatant, can be tried without the ability to challenge the charges against them. Oh and though a citizen can be declared an Enemy Combatant said citizen cannot challenge that declaration either(see Jose Padilla).
If anyone the government decides to pluck out of the citizenry and declare an EC no longer can challenge the validity of their incarceration using Habeas Corpus, then how can the right of Habeas Corpus NOT be said to have been removed from the Constitution?
Isn’t the MCA itself prima facie unconstitutional just because of this?
I mean, it seems like a shell game.
How do we get a test case to invalidate the MCA when the they’ve created the MCA to be outside our legal system?
(and I am really asking, not just pointing out the Catch 22)
September 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pmHellinabucket: Exactly! No war has been declared. The rules of war with respect to the constitution shouldn’t even be an issue. If you want to mess with constitutional rights because we’re at war, you’ve got to declare war. Voting for a resolution which authorizes possible military force as a last resort and under a very strict set of restrictions is not a declaration of war.
Nobody in congress “voted for the war.”
September 19th, 2007 at 1:57 pm#108, Jake D. “Another 9/11, or worse, S.D. is the risk.”?
By allowing people in jail to merely address their imprisonment we risk Another 9/11?
In all due respect, I’m not buying it. Restoring habeas corpus rights isn’t going to automatically freeing anyone.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:57 pmbinx, I agree that the MCA is unconstitutional. Without action by congress (which will happen in 2009 if Dems have a supermajority), someone would have to have “standing” to bring the law to court. That someone would be a U.S. citizen arrested without cause and with no charge.
Since that process would take years, the best action for Americans, again, is to give Dems supermajorities in both houses and a Dem pres who won’t veto the bill.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:01 pmAttach as an amendment to every piece of legislation that the Repugnants want. Pretend it’s an earmark by an Alaskan!
September 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pm#117 pointed out:
And There it is. I’m told by Lawyers that the the Law is written in such a way that this could happen (assuming it hasn’t already!).
Wait. It did Happen! Boys and Girls: Can we say “Jose Padilla”?
He may be guilty as sin, but he is an American Citizen Locked up and denied of any rights simply because the President said so.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pmI would greatly appreciate if all such future headlines read, “REPUBLICANS REJECT HABEAS CORPUS.” Congress did not reject anything, nor did the Dems fail. Republicans are obstructing bills that have majority support.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pmFor the record, if Mohammed Atta had been held before 9/11 without charging him with any crime, that certainly could have prevented at least ONE terrorist attack . . .
Comment by Jake D.Senseless — September 19, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
What a pathetic little man you truly are!
By your logic, if Ted Bundy had been held before murdering numerous co-eds, without charging him with any crime, that certainly could have prevented at least one death.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:10 pmIf Jeffrey Dahmer had been held before butchering and eating numerous males, without charging him with any crime, that certainly could have prevented at least one cannibalistic act.
If TP hadn’t required registration, I would have been stalking your a$$ using different posting names pretending to agree with you, all the while “depantsing” you for the fraud you are!
Anyone not on my Snore List wish to discuss, I’d be happy to oblige.
Hey people, let’s not forget this bill passed on Sept. 28, 2006. Granted, Dems didn’t have a majority in either the Senate or House yet…but would it have mattered? In the Senate, eleven (11) Dems voted in favor, 1 independent (Old Joe) and there was ONE Republican who voted against it…Lincoln Chaffee. THirty-three (33) Dems voted Aye in the House. Both votes passed on a simple majority vote…no cloture vote.
http://www.govtrack.us/ congress/ vote.xpd?vote=s2006-259&sort=party
http://www.govtrack.us/ congress/ vote.xpd?vote=h2006-508&sort=party
September 19th, 2007 at 2:14 pmWe should never make fun of the Chinese again.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:25 pmWe are acting and supporting those that used to be called “unamerican”.
It’s scary to think that we may have become one of “them”.
I’m in the same boat BARTLEBEE.
I fear that if the current public apathy stays the way it is we won’t have a democratic majority in the next elections. We have become complacent and have chronicle short term memory loss.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:29 pmI wonder if our children and grandchildren will someday see stories like this about OUR camps. FYI - Jews were declared terrorists and a danger to the German “fatherland.” Don’t think for a second that this abhorrent piece of legislation can’t be used against American citizens. It can (and has been) and I fear, will do so in large numbers in the future. And BARTLEBEE, I share your concern about this administration not relinquishing control at the end of their term. I would estimate that there is about a 70% chance of that occurring.
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2007/ 09/ 19/ arts/ design/ 19photo.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin
September 19th, 2007 at 2:39 pmtest
September 19th, 2007 at 2:52 pm“Most Americans don’t pay attention to this because they think it only affects terrorists. “
They will give you the old “I have nothing to hide, I have done nothing wrong, so I don’t have to worry about it”. They don’t realize what a slippery slope we are on.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:52 pmBart: “If Bush starts a war with Iran, and declares martial law, he could suspend the electoral process and wield power into the next decade. I worry that Bush will not go queitly into the dark night, and will choose to take us with him.”
I’m definitely NOT going to say that can’t happen, but I don’t think it will happen, if only because a significant percentage of the military would refuse to cooperate with that.
I know politically conservative West Point graduates who say they would never follow an order to turn military weapons on American citizens, period. Let’s keep in mind that the military take an oath to protect the constitution, not protect the leader.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pmTP:
At the top of the page now, I see “165 comments”. No matter what I do to refresh, there are only 156 comments.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:15 pmAnd now it says 166 comments and there are 157. It’s possible that the counter is including comments that have been deleted; I have no way of knowing that number.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:16 pmComment by yourfreedomofspeechendswheremyrightsbegin — September 19, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Do you believe Bush would initiate armed conflict with Iran? Do you believe there is a Clear and Present danger from Iran?
You stated earlier that Iran is attacking us in Iraq. Could you provide proof that the govt. of Iran is attacking us?
I don’t speak for all here and don’t support all thoughts that enter but I do know that you lump all against your thought process as the bad guy. It waters down any real argument you may have.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:21 pmHey just another beautiful day in the weimar republic .
September 19th, 2007 at 3:49 pmWithout habeas corpus the protections offered by the US constitution are null and void for all practical purposes!The BASIC rights which generations of Americans have died to acquire and protect ,have been tossed aside by a margin of 6 votes from people who swore to protect these rights against all enemies ,foreign and domestic.
A government by of and for the corporations .The best money can buy !
Bart: “If Bush starts a war with Iran, and declares martial law, he could suspend the electoral process and wield power into the next decade. I worry that Bush will not go queitly into the dark night, and will choose to take us with him.â€
I’m definitely NOT going to say that can’t happen, but I don’t think it will happen, if only because a significant percentage of the military would refuse to cooperate with that.
I know politically conservative West Point graduates who say they would never follow an order to turn military weapons on American citizens, period. Let’s keep in mind that the military take an oath to protect the constitution, not protect the leader.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — September 19, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Colonel, I sincerely hope you are right. But I remember Kent State. And with the proliferation of private security services like Blackwater, this administration may not have to necessarily depend on the military to back them up.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:50 pmBlackwater just your friendly little mercenary army ,better paid and equipt than our own troops ,represented by the general counsel to the President and Kenneth Star , with a budget of billions located just out side Washington DC.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:56 pmMaybe the brown shirts and arm bands are optional ,but Holy Joe .
A sad day for Amerika .Provided to you by your elected representatives.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:58 pmSo if you meet a mercenary who was out of work after the fall of Pinochet’s Chile in your living room or New orleans , don’t forget to salute .
September 19th, 2007 at 4:02 pmThought the same thing freeman.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:19 pmBARTLEBEE, I have the same problem. I’ve been logging out to see updates and only logging in to comment. It has taken away the impulse postings. That has some pluses as well as minuses.
I’ll be posting less.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:46 pmCongress powers relating to the armed forces, from Article 1 of the Constitution:
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
***
So, it looks like the Republicans in the Senate could really use a civics course. I have to fault the Democrats, though, because apparently Congress doesn’t have to pass a law to regulate deployments; it’s part of the Constitution.
Interestingly, it seems as if the President does not have the power to call up the National Guard - that’s reserved to Congress. Also, it seems as if having the president declare people “enemy combatants” is extra-constitutional as well.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:48 pmThanks for the information null. I’ve always questioned the legality of Bush calling up the National Guard.
Where are the Democratic spines and where is the concern from the public?
September 19th, 2007 at 5:12 pmGreat strategy these Republicans have got going. Thwart the will of the majority of Americans by voting Bush before country. I wonder what scares them so much? The RNC threatening to release compromising photo’s if they don’t vote the Republican line? Whatever it is, they may frustrate our ability to get progressive legislation passed short-term, but they are proving to the American voter that they are consistently out-of-touch with the majority’s desire to get out of Iraq and start repairing the damage of 8 years of Republican mismanagement.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:51 pmposse comitas ,I believe ,no bill being offered to restore that ,just Nancy Pelosi saying no impeachment . Nancy ,wouldn’t it be a shame if as the first women speaker of the house and as a member of the majority party in both houses the American people percieved you as complicit in the assault against the constitution and the basic rights of all Americans ,because it’s shaping up that way .
September 19th, 2007 at 6:15 pmImpeachment isn’t an option ?
September 19th, 2007 at 6:21 pm“So who were the unamericans that opposed this?”
Lindsay Graham for one, Joe LIEberman for another. See above for the roll call vote link: http://www.senate.gov/ legislative/ LIS/ roll_call_lists/ roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00340
September 19th, 2007 at 10:19 pmRemember, they each swore an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. They have thieved it, trashed it, and are dancing on it even as our young give life and limb fighting for our right to keep it. Our troops run the risk of having no rights to come home to if you and I don’t act to keep our Constitution intact. What are you doing to support our troops? Have you even gone as far as replacing the worn magnetic “Support Our Troops” ribbon on your Escalade? How about a letter to your congressman letting him or her know what you think about losing your, and our troops’, right to Habeas Corpus. God Bless (and Wake) America!
September 20th, 2007 at 2:36 amBwahahaha??? What kind of pompous, arrogant, ignorant clown are you anyway? Who the heck brought up hugo freaking chavez? Who likes that guy? Look, if you don’t realize that without habeus corpus, the bill of rights is meaningless, then what hope is there for you? The authorities can just grab you, label you an enemy combatant, (yes, it has happened to us citizens) and then lock you up and torture you forever, and what the hell are you gonna do about it if you don’t even have the right to a trial??? By the way, blathering on about how everyone who is not a butt kissing, bowtie wearing, lock step republican is a “lefty loon”, real classy. No, actually, we’re people with brains and hearts — instead of trust funds.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:32 amI am glad to see that my senators from Michigan did their jobs… It is a shame the rest of them couldn’t come through. I guess the Constitution is just a piece of paper to the government these days.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pm