FYI- My conversation with a Moore Aide Thursday.

[Fovea]

The thing I heard repeatedly was that without this we would have to let the Gitmo prisoners go. Also, that this would somehow restrict the scope of Dubya's actions, both of which I try to address below---


As per our conversation in Rep. Moore's KCKS office on Thursday morning regarding your desire to hear further detailed objections to H.R. 6166, here is one detailed argument as to why hr 6166 is neither constitutional, nor anything an American could vote for.


First, let us examine a portion of the bill's text.

We start with Section 6. a. (2) --

(2) PROHIBITION ON GRAVE BREACHES- The provisions of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this section, fully satisfy the obligation under Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention for the United States to provide effective penal sanctions for grave breaches which are encompassed in common Article 3 in the context of an armed conflict not of an international character. No foreign or international source of law shall supply a basis for a rule of decision in the courts of the United States in interpreting the prohibitions enumerated in subsection (d) of such section 2441.

This means, as my best lights and academic knowledge inform me, that the Geneva convention (as an international source of law-- being a ratified international treaty to which we are a signatory) shall not supply a basis for a decision of a federal court. While it seems to restrict this to conflicts "not of an international character" the nature of the soi disant war on terror, is not international, because all member combatants are not engendering conflict between two nations, but between a nation and various ad hoc non-state groups such as hezbullah and al qaeda.

This undercuts the functional basis for any decision that might appeal to any section of the 1949 treaty. Or, said even more simply, it is a denouncement of a treaty to which we are a signatory. Of course, that also means anyone acting in furtherance of this section is an international criminal as the Geneva convention does not allow a la carte interpretation of its articles.

Moving right along to the next section 6 a. (3)--

(A) As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

My understanding of the Constitution is not consistent with this statement. The SCOTUS interprets laws and treaties.

Further discussion can (and should) be read here--
http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1157605434.shtml

This single sentence highlighted above constitutes radical new law, not consistent with the traditional balance of powers, and negates, as best as I can tell, Madison v. Marbury.

Moving On to paragraphs B and C

(B) The President shall issue interpretations described by subparagraph (A) by Executive Order published in the Federal Register.

(C) Any Executive Order published under this paragraph shall be authoritative (except as to grave breaches of common Article 3) as a matter of United States law, in the same manner as other administrative regulations.

Going back for a moment to 6-a.(2) wherein the Geneva convention is repudiated, and 6-a.-3-(A) where the president is made into SCOTUS, we get the easy dodge that since the courts cannot decide using GGC3(1949), and the president is given the right to be 'the decider', a grave breach of the convention is what he says it is, no more, no less. Under our current decider, there will be no breaches, grave or otherwise of the treaty THAT HE WILL PERCEIVE. Congress has handed GWB carte blanche to torture, and in the same act declared SCOTUS no longer germane to the interpretation of treaties.

Now do you see the gravity of HR 6166?

Anyone acting in furtherance of this law is an international war criminal by default.
I know this is abstruse, but I see no flaw in my reasoning. Perhaps you know more sagacious constitutional scholars than I do. If so, please have them respond with a specific rebuttal of my points.

Also, after the Hamdan decision, further denial of Habeus Corpus places anything extracted either by torture, or seized documents or effects into the catagory of the fruits of a poisoned tree. Therefore, while it is objectionable to contemplate releasing all Detainees within the jurisdiction of the United States, it is the inevitable outcome of the already committed grave breaches of Geneva section 3. This is the fault of Ashcroft and Gonzales, and must be hung around their necks, IMO.

As to the fate of those subjects of extrordinary rendition, that must be seen as a seperate issue, one whose jurisdiction falls squarely in the hands of the world court. Any guesses how they will find?

If you need an expansion of my previous comments on the lack of wisdom regarding to this bill's battlefield effects on the safety of captured US troops, please let me know.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Good for you!!

I called too. I am so positively disgusted with this man I could just puke.

I had already told his office (and him in person) a few months ago that I did not want his sign in my yard and I was not planning on giving him any money but I would vote for him, as I saw the big picture and I felt the need to keep all the Dem seats we have in Congress is more important than my disagreement with Moore over a few votes (namely the war and the Sensenbrenner bill).

But goddamnit, I cannot vote for anyone who thinks it is okay to torture ANYONE. I wouldn't even advocate torturing Osama Bin Laden. So Moore lost my vote on this legislation alone.

What difference does it make for Moore to call himself a Democrat when he votes like a neocon? I asked his staff to explain to me what legislation he has voted for that separates him from the bush administration. What legislation does he support that would make his position DIFFERENT from that taken by his opponent, who is obviously a RW freak?

The answer I got - No Child Left Behind.

ha! It is STILL there though, isn't it? When was the last time you can remember anyone even bringing up this insane education law in Congress? Do you remember anyone in Congress actually trying to reform this bill?? But just because Moore opposed it I am supposed to support him? For his vote on the losing side of the worst piece of education legislation EVER?

So talk me out of voting for Ahner. I can't see how he would be any worse than Moore.

[Fovea]

2. He started pissing in my post toasties regarding CAFTA.

And seems to regularly NOT GET IT.
I think maybe I will start trying to find a progressive who wants to run for Congress next time.

I think he needs to comtemplate a Ned Lamont style challenge next term.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. I am with you

He needs to go.

[Fovea]

6. I think the district is a lot more progressive than

his voting record. I can't imagine a lot of Wyco gets enthused about more of the NAFTA effect
on Kansas Industry.

And I know how healthcare is running as an issue around here.
Enough families have kids of draftable age to be experiencing
some serious concern. Enough of the district is worried about
what sanctioned torture might mean to those kids.

I think his mind, like some other Wyco politicians, is fixated out in NIMBYLAND,
It seems like many local pols walk through Cabela's to figure out what the whole district is about.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Yes he seems more concerned about the voters in La La Land

(That's what I call Blue Valley) than the rest of us who don't live in McMansions.

His big mistake is that the little people like you and me who are more likely to vote for him and work on his campaign are repulsed by his voting record. I have met some of his campaign workers and a few of his staff members and I can't imagine any of them who would support torture.

I told him in July that I would not put his sign in my yard. He seemed genuinely concerned. Too bad he didn't realize then what his voting record was doing to the Dems in his district who have always supported him. We may not have big bucks to donate to his campaign but we each have a vote, a vote that has always been for him. And I would imagine he has now lost many of us, his core supporters.

I had a conversation with a social worker last night who reminded me that Dennis has always voted the correct way on social issues. A Dem party worker reminded me that he opposed No Child Left Behind and reformed special ed regulations. My response - how many social and education issues has this Congress considered in the past two years? He got my vote in 2004 for his work against NCLB. But since then, I have not agreed with any of his votes. So why should I vote for him in 2006?

Talk me out of voting for Ahner. Tell me how his votes in Congress will be any different from Dennis Moore's. Point to one bill in the past two years where Ahner would have voted differently from Moore.

I have heard Moore's wife is a strong liberal. Let's hope she has given him a piece of her mind in the last day or so. He certainly isn't listening to us.

[Fovea]

10. Moore's dad died this week.

I am going to go back and speak with his community liason guy this week. I will let you know how that goes.

I think that in the best scenario, we leverage his experience and get more committment to the process of holding the decider and his thugs responsible for the right wing cleptocrasy/torture state, and to pushing for an America that does not throw its working class and middle class to the wolves.

Things like dentention and torture should not even be an item of discussion. The fact that it is really frosts my shorts.

[ComerPerro]

11. Great line, and I think its very true

[Mabus]

4. Way to go

He and his staffs (both the congressional one and the campaign one) need to hear from as many of us as possible. It is disheartening that he would vote for this but, sadly, it isn't surprising.

[atommom]

5. Good job. I've already told him not to expect any more financial

support (not that I ever gave him that much), nor my vote, and explained my theory that a Dem majority in Congress would not be likely to solve any of our problems as long as reps like himself keep voting like neocons. I also explained my theory that he was, in fact, a stealth Republican. He has crossed the line many times, but this is just unforgivable. How much worse could an actual Republican be? :banghead:

[Fovea]

7. Hell I don't care who the progressive from our district is

I think that Wyco will be the first group to be crushed by the housing bubble.
I think that 07 gas prices are going to roll the west end flat as the very
suv and duallie drivers they are marketing to simply cannot afford to drive there AND
get a nascar ticket.

This economy is poised to dive like a swan into a pool full of razor blades.
If they do invade Iran, we will have an economy only Bismark could love.
We need to start rebuilding both the middle and working class. We really need
efficient mass transit, we need universal healthcare, we need 16 full grades of public eduation.
We need to beat the muktuk out of the PhilKlein party.

If Moore wanted to be that progressive, I;d vote for him. Lawrence and KCKS out weigh Olathe, where he as a Dem of any stripe
is running against the Kline droogs.
Practically, we are a lot farther to the left than some think.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. My letter to Moore

I am incensed over your vote on the torture bill. I am a lifelong Democrat and I have always voted for you. I told you in July that I would not put your sign in my yard or give you any money because of your support for the illegal invasion of Iraq, but I would vote for you. But I cannot support a congressman who votes for torture.

Please tell me ONE issue that Congress has considered in the past 2 years where your vote was different from how your opponent would have voted. I have been reminded that your votes on social and education issues are supportive of my progressive positions, but what social and education laws has Congress considered in the past two years?

You could have proposed or worked on legislation reforming and/or funding NCLB. But you did not; you voted for torture. You could have proposed or worked on legislation addressing the health care crisis in this country. But you did not; you voted for the Sensenbrenner anti-immigration bill. (Do you realize that bill, if passed, would have made me a criminal, since I work with the children of undocumented immigrants?)

I understand the importance of maintaining the Democratic representation we have in Congress. That was why I was planning on voting for you. But you don’t vote like a Democrat; you vote like a neo-con Republican. So what good is a Democrat who doesn’t act like a Democrat? What good is a Democrat who doesn’t speak up and work to combat the damage being done by the worst president ever? I know you disapprove of this administration. I wish you had the courage to speak out against Bush and his war-mongering, rights-depriving administration.

Please remember that you also represent Wyandotte County and parts of Lawrence and northeast Johnson County, where I live. Please remember your campaigns over the years. How many Republicans in Blue Valley and Olathe have knocked on doors and made phone calls for you? I have been working with the Democratic party here in Northeast Johnson County by canvassing in my neighborhood and I am amazed by the number of voters here who are repulsed by the Republicans in DC. It’s a great time to be a Democrat in Johnson County.

Please stand up and be a Democrat. We don’t believe in torture. We don't believe in throwing out civil rights in place since the Magna Carta. I know you will win your election so my vote won't make that much difference. Please be a Democrat in your next term. We need you now more than ever.