MSNBC Breaking News: U.S. Senate passes detainee prosecution bill

[MasterJedi]

Democrats voting in favor:

Carper (DE)
Johnson (SD)
Landrieu (LA)
Lautenberg (NJ)
Lieberman (CT) - yes he's still a Democrat in this Senate
Menendez (NJ)
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)
Rockefeller (WV)
Salazar (CO)
Stabenow (MI)

One Republican, Chafee of RI voted Nay and Snowe of ME didn't vote

Dave

Well there are some good Dems (at least on this vote ). It's a damn shame that Republicans have to support Chafee to keep a Republican in.

Jfraud is turning into Nomo in this thread.

[MODU]

This bill allows our government to grab just about anybody, stick a rodent up their ass, and then use the words spoken by the person witht the rodent up their ass - at the time the rodent was up their ass against them. That sounds like the right direction to you?

 

More blind faith in government, MODU? You are often the champion of that.

What ever happened to trust but verify, what ever happened to "this is a nation of laws"?

Nice smiley face response - this bill is filled with so many holes it looks like a f**king sponge.

I'm just waiting for you to tell everyone that they'll wake up with a severed horse head in their bed as a result of this.

[nlm]

This bill allows our government to grab just about anybody, stick a rodent up their ass, and then use the words spoken by the person witht the rodent up their ass - at the time the rodent was up their ass against them. That sounds like the right direction to you?

 

More blind faith in government, MODU? You are often the champion of that.

What ever happened to trust but verify, what ever happened to "this is a nation of laws"?

Nice smiley face response - this bill is filled with so many holes it looks like a f**king sponge.

I'm just waiting for you to tell everyone that they'll wake up with a severed horse head in their bed as a result of this.

You've missed the point. The point isn't what could happen (and what could happen is very disturbing) it is that we are being asked to put our faith in men as opposed to laws.

[MasterJedi]

This bill allows our government to grab just about anybody, stick a rodent up their ass, and then use the words spoken by the person witht the rodent up their ass - at the time the rodent was up their ass against them. That sounds like the right direction to you?

 

More blind faith in government, MODU? You are often the champion of that.

What ever happened to trust but verify, what ever happened to "this is a nation of laws"?

Nice smiley face response - this bill is filled with so many holes it looks like a f**king sponge.

I'm just waiting for you to tell everyone that they'll wake up with a severed horse head in their bed as a result of this.

You've missed the point. The point isn't what could happen (and what could happen is very disturbing) it is that we are being asked to put our faith in men as opposed to laws.

You're always putting your faith in men because they enforce the laws.

[MODU]

You've missed the point. The point isn't what could happen (and what could happen is very disturbing) it is that we are being asked to put our faith in men as opposed to laws.

Right, which is why a law was passed detailing what can/cannot be done.  Oh wait . . .

You're always putting your faith in men because they enforce the laws.

^^^^^

[nlm]

You've missed the point. The point isn't what could happen (and what could happen is very disturbing) it is that we are being asked to put our faith in men as opposed to laws.

Right, which is why a law was passed detailing what can/cannot be done.  Oh wait . . .

The Sedition Act was a law as well. One that undermined our system of laws - just as this one does. In your zeal to be a smarty pants, you continue to miss the point.

You're always putting your faith in men because they enforce the laws.

It's a question of degree MJ. This bill undermines checks and balances, it undermines transparency, and undermines accountability. Certainly we rely on men to enforce the laws, but we also rely on layers of men checking and balancing one another to enforce a sequence of laws - i.e. watchmen watching the watchmen. A bill like this takes a portion of that away. It makes us rely just on one set of men and asks us to trust them blindly. Proper checks and balances is what has allowed us to be a nation of laws - take them away and we are but a nation of men. This bill is another step away from us being a nation of laws.

As MODU has noted tangentially - we can choose to pass laws that make us a nation of men. That's part of democracy and part of the reason why the cost of freedom is enternal vigilance against such things. I'm just saying it's a very bad idea for us to choose to be a nation of men.

[MODU]

You've missed the point. The point isn't what could happen (and what could happen is very disturbing) it is that we are being asked to put our faith in men as opposed to laws.

Right, which is why a law was passed detailing what can/cannot be done.  Oh wait . . .

The Sedition Act was a law as well. One the undermined our system of laws - just as this one does. In your zeal to be a smarty pants, you continue to miss the point.

Nope, I didn't miss it at all.  I just compartmentalized it since we have a system of laws that goes through and double-checks all other laws.  All of this is handled by men whom we put our trust in to ensure everything works properly.  The Supreme Court said Congress needed to draft legislation on how to handle terrorists since our civil laws had no allocation for it (which is why they referred to military law).  Congress, doing their part, drafted a bill which was initially rejected, so a revised law was drafted that passed both houses.  In all likelihood, this law will be tested before the Supreme Court for Constitutionality (and from my readings on it so far, it would pass muster).  So no, I'm not missing your point . . . I'm just not giving into it prematurely.

[nlm]

You've missed the point. The point isn't what could happen (and what could happen is very disturbing) it is that we are being asked to put our faith in men as opposed to laws.

Right, which is why a law was passed detailing what can/cannot be done.  Oh wait . . .

The Sedition Act was a law as well. One the undermined our system of laws - just as this one does. In your zeal to be a smarty pants, you continue to miss the point.

Nope, I didn't miss it at all.  I just compartmentalized it since we have a system of laws that goes through and double-checks all other laws.  All of this is handled by men whom we put our trust in to ensure everything works properly.  The Supreme Court said Congress needed to draft legislation on how to handle terrorists since our civil laws had no allocation for it (which is why they referred to military law).  Congress, doing their part, drafted a bill which was initially rejected, so a revised law was drafted that passed both houses.  In all likelihood, this law will be tested before the Supreme Court for Constitutionality (and from my readings on it so far, it would pass muster).  So no, I'm not missing your point . . . I'm just not giving into it prematurely.

You know MODU - it is entirely possible for us to make ourselves a nation of men within the framework of the constitution. And if the SCOTUS does allow this through (and yes - it will be challenged at some point, and certainly I hope the bill fails there) many doors to accountability will be closed and many checks and balances will be lost.

Eternal Vigilance - not blind faith - is the price that is demanded of us. We the people are the final watchmen in our system of checks and balances, not the SCOTUS - and we are doing a poor job.

[MODU]

The Constitution has no allocations for the handling of terrorists.

[nlm]

The Constitution has no allocations for the handling of terrorists.

True - which is why we must be exceptionally vigilant about how we allow our government to allocate the handling of terrorist, how we allow our government to define terrorist, how we allow our government to alter the standing of other protections as they allocate the handling of terrorists.

I'm not arguing that the government shouldn't allocate for the handling of terrorist (I hope that isn't where you are trying to take this) - I'm arguing that the bill they have passed to do that is 1st order crap that is filled with the potential for abuse and undermines yet another portion of the checks and balances that are so precious to our republic.

[MODU]

The Constitution has no allocations for the handling of terrorists.

True - which is why we must be exceptionally vigilant about how we allow our government to allocate the handling of terrorist, how we allow our government to define terrorist, how we allow our government to alter the standing of other protections as they allocate the handling of terrorists.

I'm not arguing that the government shouldn't allocate for the handling of terrorist (I hope that isn't where you are trying to take this) - I'm arguing that the bill they have passed to do that is 1st order crap that is filled with the potential for abuse and undermines yet another portion of the checks and balances that are so precious to our republic.

Maybe, but you don't know until you try.  I doubt you've read the whole bill yet, and I know I haven't finished reading it yet, but so far I have not seen much room for abuse of the law.  So, like with many laws we've passed over the two centuries which tackle issues not outlined in the Constitution, we have to do our best to address the need for authority and go with it, making changes down the road as needed.  And with that, there is no need to get bent out of shape over this legislation.  If something is spotted which needs to be addressed down the road, it will be done so either by Congress's own initiative or after a Supreme Court ruling.

[nlm]

The Constitution has no allocations for the handling of terrorists.

True - which is why we must be exceptionally vigilant about how we allow our government to allocate the handling of terrorist, how we allow our government to define terrorist, how we allow our government to alter the standing of other protections as they allocate the handling of terrorists.

I'm not arguing that the government shouldn't allocate for the handling of terrorist (I hope that isn't where you are trying to take this) - I'm arguing that the bill they have passed to do that is 1st order crap that is filled with the potential for abuse and undermines yet another portion of the checks and balances that are so precious to our republic.

Maybe, but you don't know until you try.  I doubt you've read the whole bill yet, and I know I haven't finished reading it yet, but so far I have not seen much room for abuse of the law.  So, like with many laws we've passed over the two centuries which tackle issues not outlined in the Constitution, we have to do our best to address the need for authority and go with it, making changes down the road as needed.  And with that, there is no need to get bent out of shape over this legislation.  If something is spotted which needs to be addressed down the road, it will be done so either by Congress's own initiative or after a Supreme Court ruling.

The problem with a bill that allows what this bill allows is that it prevents future abuses from being spotted - so how does Congress go about addressing those abuses if they have no knowledge of them.

Under most circumstances I would agree with the premiss of your arguement - but it falls down in this case because the checks and balances that should lead to Congress fixing problems with the bill have been removed.

[Inmate Trump]

If we stoop so low as to torture our prisoners, then we can no longer complain when our enemies torture their prisoners, especially those who are U.S. citizens.  We can no longer get angry when our enemies kidnap our citizens, when they rape, behead, or cause any harm to any of our citizens.  It's incredible that people can actually support something so barbaric in nature and think that it's "okay."  We are now one step closer to being as evil as the terrorists we're fighting against.

Any support I had left for Bush died with the passing of this bill.  This also puts away any consideration I might have had for McCain for president.  And Lieberman now deserves to lose; I hope Lamont wins.

[nlm]

I fear that real "conservativism" died when people started being scared as hell. 

I don't know that it died. It just became a much smaller group when so many of the folks that claimed to be a part of it put their tails between their legs and decided to follow the government where ever it wanted to go, like good little puppies.

[Ebowed]

At the end of the day, there is a fine line between civil liberties, which we seek to protect in that we value them, and taking liberties, which is what Islamic, or suspected Islamic, terrorists, our enemies, seek to deny in that they have nothing but contempt for them

This is such a ridiculous debate.  The fact that we live in a "post 9/11 climate" means that we are discussing the merits of torture?  Honestly, folks, it's almost surreal.

Unlike some people, I don't think we ought to remove checks and balances from our government and basically allow the executive branch to do whatever it wants simply because they have successfully been able to scare us shitless that the terrorists are practically hiding in our basements, wanting to kill each of us personally.  Yes, the terrorists have contempt for our civil liberties, but how does the executive branch feel about them?  I get the impression -- tell me if you don't -- that the George W. Bush administration seems to find all of these old laws and civil rights protections and all of that to be a minor nuisance.  And I think it's reasonable to say that the news media has only scratched the surface.  Who knows what sort of "steps" the administration has taken to "protect" us that we don't even know about?

Tough, but ideally temporary, security measures are essential in today's geopolitical climate

Do you really think if the War on Terror were to end tomorrow, the Bush administration would say it no longer wants to continue its warrantless surveillance program?  Calling these measures "temporary" is putting quite a lot of faith in the government.  And I'll ask you the same question I've asked StatesRights, which he was unable to answer.  How does sodomizing a prisoner with a banana help us win the War on Terror?

[tulip]

Here is the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN3930:

Here is how they voted on the Levin amendmendment. Which would have pulled the reins in a bit on Bush.

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00254

Here is the short summary: http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=lb-109-2-145
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-printable.cfm?doc_name=lb-109-2-145

VOTE RESULTS for S. 3930
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259

[nlm]

How does sodomizing a prisoner with a banana help us win the War on Terror?

Ha, obviously it doesn't - it only helps us lose a war of ideas. Which our current leadership seems to be dead set upon doing. Seroiusly - we are actually having a national debate that is being heard worldwide about who we should treat humanly while we are engeged in a very important war of ideas. Surreal. We are trying to hold up democracy as a beacon for the world to be drawn to at the same time we undermine the checks and balances that allow our own democracy to function. Surreal.

Good post Ebowed.

[NewFederalist]

How does sodomizing a prisoner with a banana help us win the War on Terror?

I don't know, how? It sure doesn't do much for the banana!

[tulip]

Nothing personal but Sodomy is not allowed under S.3930. Sorry for the long post but the link is temporary.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3930:

If the link doesn't work. Copy and paste it in the url box.......include the :

Under torture it states: `Sec. 950rr. Torture

      `(a) Offense- Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

      `(b) Severe Mental Pain or Suffering Defined- In this section, the term `severe mental pain or suffering' has the meaning given that term in section 2340(2) of title 18.

Under rape it states: `Sec. 950bbb. Rape

      `Any person subject to this chapter who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

[Democratic Hawk]

Do you really think if the War on Terror were to end tomorrow, the Bush administration would say it no longer wants to continue its warrantless surveillance program? 

I would certainly hope such measures are temporary

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do have faith in government on such matters as security

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, since it's not permitted under S.3930 - and rightfully so, were that to happen, I trust the perpetrators would be punished

Dave

[dazzleman]

If we stoop so low as to torture our prisoners, then we can no longer complain when our enemies torture their prisoners, especially those who are U.S. citizens.  We can no longer get angry when our enemies kidnap our citizens, when they rape, behead, or cause any harm to any of our citizens.  It's incredible that people can actually support something so barbaric in nature and think that it's "okay."  We are now one step closer to being as evil as the terrorists we're fighting against.

Any support I had left for Bush died with the passing of this bill.  This also puts away any consideration I might have had for McCain for president.  And Lieberman now deserves to lose; I hope Lamont wins.

Clay, your mistake is that you're comparing this bill to the perfect situation, rather than the available alternatives.

Sometimes, in fact in many cases, one has to choose the lesser of two evils.  If torturing of terrorists gets them to reveal valuable intelligence that can be used to save American lives, and kill other terrorists, then I am for it.  I'd rather do that than see Manhattan go up in a mushroom cloud.

And in case you didn't notice, terrorists were doing all the terrible things you talk about long before we started to fight back against them.  I think you make a mistake in thinking that we will wait for some type of provovation from us before inflicting unspeakable cruelty on innocent people.  They will do that anyway, and we should use any means at our disposal to put them out of business.

[angus]

Nothing personal but Sodomy is not allowed under S.3930.

yay.  now I feel so much better, because I know that when the arabic translations of the bill meant for mass consumption and recruitment appear, this prohibition will be emphasized.  "all your soldier are belong to us.  but we will not be sodomize them, because we are understand that thees will not allowed.  we are especially remember thees part:  other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions.  O-kay.  Obviously, our interrogator are also not to inflict pain, other than pain or suffering incedental to lawful sanction.  Allah Akbar.  Ma'a salaam." 

May the piss be upon you, my freeend.

[dazzleman]

Jfern has shown why I too am an independant.  I almost always vote Democrat, but when my Senator, Stabenow votes for this bill, I get disheartened.  I will still vote for her because there is more than one issue out there.  However, being able to pick up anybody, at anytime, hold them for as long as you want and do things to them that we probably don't want to hear about is the type of thing our founders came to this country to get away from.  The fact that they are potential terrorists in not relevant.  This is America, we are suppose to be better than the terrorists.  I am sad to say that, after the passage of this bill, I am starting to wonder, and I hate the fact that I have such a thought.

Today, potential terrorists, 100 years from now...............?

Were we no better than the Nazis because we firebombed civilians into oblivion by the hundreds of thousands?  The difference was, we did it only as necessary to defeat them, and then we established peace, whereas the Nazis would have kept doing stuff like that permanently if they hadn't been stopped.  The same situation exists with the islamic terrorists.  For us, these things are only a means to an end; for the terrorists, they are an end in itself.

[angus]

well, dazzleman, the firebombing of Dresden was a nasty thing to do.  just like general sherman having his men rape and pillage from every house on the road from Atlanta to the sea.  Just like Hiroshima.  yes these are effective tactics.  By these tactics our side won.  Victory at any cost.

I don't think anyone's arguing with you that victory at any cost is still victory.  But what have we lost?  At a minimum, our moral leverage.  The next time you hear the president talk about values, just remember what ours are.  Ours are apparently simple:  do whatever it takes to win.  We've known for a generation that this was our greatest value.  Most people can tell you who won the superbowl.  Most people can tell you who came in first in the Tour de France.  Steroids?  Well, that's just what it took to win.  Hey, the guy still won, didn't he?  We lost something this week, dazzleman.  You don't have to call it moral leverage if you don't like that phrase.  Are we winning the war on terror? 

Here's a hatchet.  It's the hatchet George Washington used to cut down his father's cherry tree.  It has been in my family for generations, and is a valua ble family heirloom.  Well, to be honest, the original handle was destroyed in a fire in the 1830s.  But that's okay, the handle was replaced.  But it's still Washington's hatchet.  And then later the nails holding the handle to the blade rusted away.  But it's okay because they were replaced.  It's still Washington's hatchet.  Oh, and at some point during the first world war, the blade was severly damaged, and that had to be replaced.  So the wood handle, the metal blade, and the nails attaching the handle to the blade were all replaced.  But it's still Washington's hatchet.  It occupies the same space, intrinsically, so it's still the same hatchet.

Is it the same hatchet, dazzleman?

[dazzleman]

well, dazzleman, the firebombing of Dresden was a nasty thing to do.  just like general sherman having his men rape and pillage from every house on the road from Atlanta to the sea.  Just like Hiroshima.  yes these are effective tactics.  By these tactics our side won.  Victory at any cost.

I don't think anyone's arguing with you that victory at any cost is still victory.  But what have we lost?  At a minimum, our moral leverage.  The next time you hear the president talk about values, just remember what ours are.  Ours are apparently simple:  do whatever it takes to win.  We've known for a generation that this was our greatest value.  Most people can tell you who won the superbowl.  Most people can tell you who came in first in the Tour de France.  Steroids?  Well, that's just what it took to win.  Hey, the guy still won, didn't he?  We lost something this week, dazzleman.  You don't have to call it moral leverage if you don't like that phrase.  Are we winning the war on terror? 

Here's a hatchet.  It's the hatchet George Washington used to cut down his father's cherry tree.  It has been in my family for generations, and is a valua ble family heirloom.  Well, to be honest, the original handle was destroyed in a fire in the 1830s.  But that's okay, the handle was replaced.  But it's still Washington's hatchet.  And then later the nails holding the handle to the blade rusted away.  But it's okay because they were replaced.  It's still Washington's hatchet.  Oh, and at some point during the first world war, the blade was severly damaged, and that had to be replaced.  So the wood handle, the metal blade, and the nails attaching the handle to the blade were all replaced.  But it's still Washington's hatchet.  It occupies the same space, intrinsically, so it's still the same hatchet.

Is it the same hatchet, dazzleman?

So you think it would have been better to allow the nazis, among the most evil people to ever populate the planet, to win control of most of the world, rather than resort to some ugly tactics to defeat them?

War is all about killing and torturing and inflicting pain on people.  That's the whole purpose of it.  That's why I hate war and want peace.  But these people will never give us peace no matter what we do, unless we inflict enough suffering on them to make the quit, just as we did with the nazis and Japanese.

Sorry, but if I have to choose between fighting clean and losing, or fighting dirty and winning, I'll pick the latter.  It's a lesser evil than allowing islamic terrorists to kill large numbers of us with impunity.