After We Win In November...

[MrCoffee]

I've read quite a few posts tonight that seem to be justifying the Senate's passage of the Detainee Treatment Act with the following arguments:

"They're the minority, what could they do?"
"When we win in November, we can clean house!"
"They're keeping their powder dry."
"It's an election year stunt by the RNC/Rove."

I've read nothing that has demonstrated in any way, shape, or form that today's vote was anything less than an utter abrogation of principle, an abandonment of the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and Senate Democrats kow-towing (again) to the Bush Administration and its lackeys.

By agreeing by unanimous consent that there would be no cloture vote, the Dems TOLD the Republicans that they would not attempt to filibuster. The votes to prevent cloture were there, but they were released so that Senators up for reelection this term could run as "security Dems". That, to put it bluntly, is the basest excuse imaginable. To surrender a Constitutional protection that was so basic, so fundamental, so common-sense right that the Founders didn't even debate putting it in the Constitution at the Convention -- because it makes a nice campaign ad? To not even fight it? To roll over and beg for some crumbs from the table?

And what did we get in exchange for our unanimous consent to eviscerate the Constitution? We got the privilege, the right, the gracious consent of Senate Republicans to submit 4 amendments (I'm not counting Specter's as one of ours) that were doomed to stillbirth from the start.

30 pieces of silver can buy an awful lot in Washington, these days.

[JeffR]

1. Snap!

Just snap.

K & R!

[Erika]

2. Yes, there were lots of silver pieces in the vote

But the GOP led the "crusade" for torture.

Yes. It hurts and makes me deepy ashamed of our once proud country. We gave away all moral authority today.

I could cry.

[MrCoffee]

3. Senate Dems can no longer lay any claim to the "moral high ground"

There are 100 pairs of blood-stained hands.

[sandnsea]

4. Votes to prevent cloture were there?

How do you figure?

[MrCoffee]

6. By my (VERY) unofficial tally...

there are 44 democratic senators and 1 independent (Jeffords)...am i forgetting someone? Anyway, that's 45 votes. It takes 60 votes to sustain a cloture motion. Without 60 votes, you can't end a filibuster. 100 Senators minus 45 equals 55 votes for cloture.

Reid had the votes. He had them. But the Dems chose not to filibuster. We most certainly had the votes.

If you can tell me why they didn't filibuster, I'll freely admit I was wrong. But, you can't claim politics. There's no defensible argument to be made that they are running on the back of a bill that guts the Constitution.

[sandnsea]

12. Oh, okay

Why did they not filibuster? Maybe they don't believe in filibustering on principle.

Or maybe they believe the Supreme Court directed Congress to write this legislation and that this is the best we could get.

Maybe they believed enemy combatants are not official militaries and really don't fall under the protection of the Geneva Conventions. Maybe they think military tribunals are the appropriate place to try terrorists. Maybe they don't think stress positions and temperature changes are torture. Lots of reasons a handful of Dems might not have voted to filibuster besides pure politics.

I know it's hard for some people here to wrap their heads around, but it is possible the Nelsons, Lieberman, Landrieu, Pryor, Salazar - just have a different point of view.

And there's your six votes that would have prevented a filibuster. If you're Reid and you know you aren't going to move these people, what do you do? He got Republicans to vote against 4 amendments that would have restored habeas, set a 5 year limit, and proved they'll rubber stamp anything Bush wants. If we use it correctly, it could at least be a little grain of good out of this pile of shit.

[MrCoffee]

14. If any of those are true, Harry Reid is incompetent and should be fired.

If the Senate Minority Leader cannot marshall the Senate Dems to stick with the party and filibuster a bill of this magnitude, he cannot do the job.

I think he simply let them go because there are some tight races out there and heaven forbid Democrats actually have to go dirty in an election.

I call it cowardice.

[sandnsea]

18. Well.. swoosh

Either my post just flew over your head or you've got no ability to consider others can have opposing views - even views that are extraordinarily wrong.

Would you sincerely tell someone to vote against their conscience if they thought they were protecting their fellow citizens??

[MrCoffee]

19. I would tell them that in a heartbeat if protecting citizens meant

scrapping the Constitution. I wouldn't even bat an eye.

There are some ideas that are more important than others. The fundamental and basic right of habeas superceeds ANY CONCEIVABLE wartime scenario. If there is no recourse to challenge Executive power, there is no democracy worth protecting.

I can consider opposing views. I cannot condone the Senate's actions today.

Thank you for sticking with this thread, btw. It's cathartic for me to get this out. I really do appreciate you for it.

[sandnsea]

20. In any event

Your original premise was that the cloture votes were there. I hope you can at least see why it might not be so easy to line people up, if they sincerely believe it's their patriotic duty and the people that vote for them think so too. As many Senators have repeatedly said, in matters of war and national security, votes have traditionally been votes of conscience and are not whipped. Obviously that's changed for Republicans. I don't know that we truly want it to change for Democrats. What if Hillary had whipped the IWR vote??

[MrCoffee]

21. If she had, more power to her. My hunch is that Reid didn't even try.

And this bill had less to do with war and national security than it did with separation of powers and the 109th Congress utterly and completely violating its Constitutional duty.

[sandnsea]

24. Back to different points of view

The other detainee bill that was passed gave habeas rights to anybody on trial for murder or with a sentence of over ten years. So maybe putting the two of them together gave these Democrats enough comfort in protecting non-citizen rights. Remember, in some of these states, they're still locking people up for not being able to pay $100 fines. If we went back to "states rights", the way even some DUers support, we'd have citizens without rights to a lawyer or miranda or anything. There are people in this country who really don't believe in the Bill of Rights much, except the right to have a gun to shoot a bad guy. Or the right to lock up a bad guy and keep him there if he's waging war on your country. To these people, that's all this vote was about. And while we hope our Senators are smarter than that, I'm not so sure that they are. And the House?? Just yikes.

We aren't going to change this country in Washington. It has to be changed in every town we live in. We aren't doing that yet. Ranting against Democrats isn't going to do any good.

[MrCoffee]

25. You're referring to the House bill? If anything less than the full Senate

version comes out of committee, i'll eat my hat. and send you a copy of the videotape of me eating my hat.

[sandnsea]

27. No the McCain Amendment

from last year. It has the habeas rules regarding detainees. Mind you, I understand about the signing statements and don't believe a word Bush says. But quite seriously, what do we do about the people who still believe Bush. Do you think Lieberman, Ben Nelson, David Pryor, etc., still trust Bush?? (I do) If not, what motivates them? If they do trust Bush, how do we change their minds?

[mhatrw]

5. Et tu, Sherrod? n/t

[MrCoffee]

7. Care to explain your comment?

[mhatrw]

10. Certainly

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_frank_j__060928_sherrod_brown_of_ohi.htm

[MrCoffee]

11. Beg pardon, but I would disagree with you...

There's no mechanism in the House for filibuster. They truly were helpless. It's abhorrent that House Dems would vote for the bill, but, in their case, their hands truly were tied.

Not so the Senate Dems.

[mhatrw]

13. And?

Sorry, but I had some misplaced faith in the man. I realize that his opposition to this bill would have been solely symbolic -- you know, like stopping somebody from burning an American flag or a cross in your front yard.

And since he is running for Senator ...

[MrCoffee]

15. Senator of Ohio...a deeply divided state

I'm willing to make some concession, but don't push me too far. ;-)

[mhatrw]

16. I don't care.

Seriously. What good is a Democratic legislator who would vote to suspend the right to habeas corpus at the whim of the worst Republican executive in United States' history?

Did they think we wouldn't notice that they voted to dismantle the Bill of Rights, turn the USA into a rogue nation and suspend the 800-year-old cornerstore of the Western judicial system?

[MrCoffee]

17. That is a great question. One we should be shouting from the rooftops,

but we won't. We'll call them Democrats and welcome them back and say "you tried your best. at least you voted no."

As though that were somehow good enough.

[mhatrw]

29. The ones who voted no have my gratitude.

The ones who voted yes have my everlasting scorn.

[saracat]

8. Principle sminciple. This is politics.And nothing the Dems

could have done would have prevented it. We didn't have the VOTES.Period End of story.Better a few Dems look tough on terror than they all go down in flames.No dems support torture.I guess some would rather principle over WINNING.And I can undesrstand that but I do believe winning is better.If we get the majority, we can overturn this.But if we get the majority and we don't, THEN I will protest and scream.

[MrCoffee]

9. please see my earlier post (*6) re: votes for cloture

Reid had the votes. He let them go so that they could play politics on the corpse of the Republic.

[longship]

22. Please read my post about this.

Thanks.

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2253691&mesg_id=2253691

[MrCoffee]

23. Thank you for sharing. I respectfully dissent.

I read your post in a different thread. I respect your views and thank you for them, but I cannot pat the Senate Dems on the back and say "well you tried your best. there was nothing you could do." because that would be a lie.

[longship]

26. If you think I am happy about this, you are wrong.

Obviously you entirely missed the focus of my post. If you think I am in any way condoning the Senate Democrat's actions today, you are sadly wrong. I fully intend to follow up on my over fifty phone calls to Senators tomorrow. I am not willing to let this pass without some action on my part.

My question to you is, what do you intend to do?

[cali]

28. You state that the voted

to filibuster were there. On what do you base this statement. I really, really wanted a filibuster, but when I saw the final vote, it was clear to me that the votes weren't there. Menendez, Lautenberg, both Nelsons, Landrieu. Nope, that doesn't add up to 41 dem votes for filibuster.