Okay, here's what I'd suggest Congress Democrats do on the torture bill

[Armstead]

Rather than just bitchin' about this, here's an effort to offer a constructive suggestion.

IMO Congressional democrats should together and form a UNITED FRONT to use some parliamentary procedure to put the Torture and Eavesdropping legislation on hold until the next session next year.

Propose some short-term extension of a couple of months to allow the intelligence and military to do their jobs in the interim. Agree to negotiate with Bush and the GOP Congress in the meantime, and come up with alternatives that give them the "tools" to do the job of protecting Americans without taking away civil liberties and condoning torture.

Most important, stand up as a unified group and state WHY they are putting it on hold. Because it's too damn important to rush into, because it has potential dangers to Constitutional protections OF AVERAGE CITIZENS, The Constitutional Balance of Power and BASIC AMERICAN VALUES. This is a "lame duck" Congress, and this is not something they should rush into in the final weeks of a session before a major election.

Then if Democrats win in November, they'll have more power to craft something that is more reasonable. If they don't win, at least the Democrats put up a fight to PROTECT AVERAGE AMERICANS AND THE CONSTITUTION.

[kentuck]

1. Sounds reasonable Armstead...

And if the Repubs refuse to "compromise" with the Democrats, filibuster the SOB's ...

[Armstead]

2. Whatever it takes....

Message: We will fight to protect YOUR rights while protecting national security.

[BeFree]

3. That's a sellout scenario

For years now we've known that torture by bush has been occuring.

Now that everyone knows its been happening all these years it is time to end it once and for all, not play footsies with the torturers.

All men are created equal, right?

[Armstead]

5. Deal with that in January

At the moment the more horrific aspects of this are going under the radar.

A complete rejection of it will open the Dems up to Rovian attacks about soft on terror, etc.

But if they appear to agree with Bush's goal of "clarifying" the limits and protections, then they can call the bluff of the GOP.

[BeFree]

10. So

Allow the torturers some more room? At least 'til January?

No thanks. Now is the time to put an end to it. And if we fail, and America wants to condone torture, then that's that, eh?

All men are created equal. That means all men can either be tortured, or they can't. I choose can't.

[Armstead]

14. I'd prefer actually stopping it than just being symbolic

Right now we have to be in a defensive position. But this is a way to go on offense that might actually make a difference.

I'm just as frustrated and impatient as you are about it. That's why I suggest a strong united push by legislative Democrats. The first step is letting America know the real implicati0ons of this, and then gaining enough clout to actually stop it.

[BootinUp]

24. The CIA shut the program down. n/t

[BeFree]

29. Yeah, right

So all the torture has ended?

To be fair, it has been said that the CIA shut down the program.... but consider this: if bush wanted it to continue it would - and has. Its just gone back to being a secret.

It was the supreme court that made bsuh think twice, especially after the secret cia torture was exposed.

[BootinUp]

32. Its hard to tell fact from fiction

but in this case my nose says that officers in the CIA are afraid of possible investigations in the likely event the Democrats take the House. Yes the Supreme Court decision was key, but it was the CIA that said thats as far as we go.

I understand what you are saying about other secret programs. Sure its possible, but without a new law protecting them, participating in torture is subject to severe penalties. As long as the Dems can hold this off till after we have more votes in the Senate, then there is no safe out for Bush.

[BeFree]

34. Participating in torture....

...is subject to severe penalties.

Yes, it is. So, lets get severe and penalize them. They admitted to doing so, they admitted to breaking the law, what else do you need?

[BootinUp]

36. A hearing in democratic controlled congress.

So don't forget to vote on Nov 7.

[BeFree]

38. I will vote

So you are in favor of not standing up now? And fighting for what is right? You want to wait?

[BootinUp]

39. We need to stop the legislation, absolutely.

Filibuster if necessary.

[BeFree]

40. Whatever it takes....Thanks, Jim

[pat_k]

13. FAR bigger risk to be hypocritical wimps. That risk is a given.

Standing on principle only when it is "safe" is hypocritical cowardice. And the American people, right and left, know it.

The choice is inescapable: Duty or Compliciy

Their is NO evidence that, if they stand up, propanda from the right can hurt them. We do know the "backlash" beast rears it's head when they take half-measures, and wallow in complaint and impotence.

Being an accomplice to crime is NEVER good politics.

Our leaders just need to look at their failure to take a stand against the Iraq war for proof. The public believes that most of them voted for the war because they feared they would be called names ("unpatriotic" or whatever). They are now paying a serious price for giving in to threats of "backlash" then.

There is EVERY reason to believe that standing up is not just the RIGHT thing to do, it is the WINNING thing to do.

The most serious problem members of the Democratic Party face is the perception that they are weak.

Contrary to what many Democratic strategists believe, the perception of weakness has NOTHING to do with stance on national security. It is rooted in their tendency to refrain from fighting the good fights for "practical" or "strategic" reasons. Members of the Democratic Party may believe they are "picking fights wisely," but to observers, it appears they spend all their time predicting defeat and "saving their energy" for fights they can win. Outsiders looking in do not see "wise selection," they see cowardice. When the rare "winnable fight" does materialize, it is often for some incremental step or practical end that inspires no one.

Bottom line: You can't fight terrorism if you can't fight Bush. How can members of the Democratic Party expect Americans to believe they can stand up to terrorists, if they can't stand up to the man who terrorized Americans into war with threats of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes"?

[Armstead]

19. Please re-read my original post

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I'm simply trying to float an idea for how Democrats of many stripes can actually work together to successfully block something and raise an important buried issue for a change.

A united and symbolic stand on principle that has the potential to actually succeed in the longer term seems to me to be preferable to a symbolic stand from one faction that is doomed to failure.

[pat_k]

22. Your proposal to "extend" and deal with when they safely have

. . .more power does nothing but expose them as hypocritical cowards.

I do not mean to single you out, but I am so adamant on the subject because the assumptions that underlie the approach you suggest are so widespread, and mistaken. Those assumptions are behind many, many, of their destructive failures to stand on principle.

When principle demands the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, half measures can actually do more damage than good. You dig yourself into holes (like the hole they dug for themselves by their impotent and half-way opposition to the Authorization to Use Force. Like their insane stance on Alito -- to pave the way for him by voting for cloture, then make a show of empty opposition by voting against his nomination.)

To "put on hold" is a concession -- a pretense that there is some reason to do anything on this front. It supports the fascist fantasy that we need to "help Bush prosecute the war on terror." It supports the proposition that the Constitutional tools already available are not sufficient.

[Armstead]

25. Um, did I say deny the truth?

The truth is that Bush is trying to push through legislation that has really bad implications. That needs to be brought out into the open. We need to get all Democrats on board to do that, including those who may be more "moderate" on the issue than you.

The truth is also that there are possible benefits to "defining" what can and can't be done. That could be used to limit abuses instead of allowing them.

How far to go beyond that can be haggled over if the Democrats can actually win and be in a position to do something about it.

Step-by-step.

[pat_k]

28. Seeking to kill it all together is the only way to "deal with it head on".

. . .anything less -- putting it on hold or whatever -- supports the WH propaganda that "something" must be done to make it possible to prosecute terrorists.

The bill does the opposite.

Seeking to kill it is the only fight that makes that clear.

In their effort to kill it, they must seek to expose the REAL purpose of the bill: To protect the war criminals in the WH from prosecution.

As I have said in so many other posts, it all comes back to the moral imperative to demand Impeachment NOW.

Seeking to kill this bill, and expose their contemptable goal, is just part of the overall Impeachment effort (and it is the assumptions and rationalizations that are behind their unwillingness to undertake the fight to Impeach Bush and Cheney that are so horribly and destructively wrong-headed.)

[pat_k]

4. No extentions; No holds. JUST SAY NO to the War Criminals Protections Act

Their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution demans that they oppose this bill with everything they've got.

No alternatives.

No "putting on hold."

The ONLY purpose of Bush's War Criminals Protection Act is to protect the War Criminals in the Executive Branch from the punishment that their actions demand in any civilized society.

Any claim to any other purpose doesn't pass the smell test.

Every provision mades sense when viewed through the lens of their contemptable goal.

It is that contemptable goal they must foxus on and hammer home.

As they try to make it impossible to bring the WH terrorists to justice, they are also making it nearly impossible to bring others who who commit acts of terror to justice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2190505">War Crimes Protection Act -- "opposition" IGNORES most destructive part

The bill itself is evidence of consciousness of guilt and malice aforethought. As they look for cover in their fascist fantasies, their words and actions make it crystal clear that they do not expect those fantasies to hold. In his memo, Alberto Mora (outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy) provides an excellent factual summary of the timeline and players in the Bush regime's War Crimes. Over and over their actions demonstrate a conspiracy to knowingly commit, and escape consequences of, their crimes. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=503566&mesg_id=503566">summary of memo).

[Armstead]

6. Yes, but this isn't the time to give Rove ammo

It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. This, IMO, would be a strategically wise countermove.

The Democrats can be tough against the excesses Bush wants, without appearing to be soft on terror.

[pat_k]

9. Silence for fear of what "they" might do is appeasement, pure and simple.

You cannot enable and give cover to war criminals and fascists and fight them at the same time.

Dems must to stop worrying about what THEY may do and just friggin' stand up and do their sworn duty.

There is NO downside.

What are they afraid of? That the right will get riled because the Dems will impeach?

The right already IS riled because they believe the Dems will impeach -- they just think Dems are too weak and hypocritical to admit it (and they are essentially right, except that unless we push "our leaders", most of them will still be too wimpy to impeach even if they win). If Dems stood up and demanded impeachment right now, they would probably get some of those folks on the right just for showing they have the spine to stand on principle!

Nancy Pelosi sounded like a crazy person last night on the Newshour -- blathering on about "bi-partisan" bullshit, civility. . . could she really have NO concept of the reality they face? It is physically painful to watch them shooting themselves in the head with their lunatic "strategery."

It all goes back to their insane silence on Impeachment. . .

The ONLY way to fight war criminals is to tell the truth about them.

If the Dems tell the truth, they must Impeach.

They are silenced and trapped in denial and delusion, holding on to the screwed up belief that they have to deny any intention to Impeach. ("We need to focus on a positive agenda")

As long as they continue to say "Don't worry, we have no intention of Impeaching the man," they are silenced on ALL the crimes being committed by the Bush syndicate.

We MUST challenge them! Shame them. They sound like morally confused mealy-mounthed morons when they deny and tip toe around impeachment.

It is UTTERLY Mystifying. More of us need to have conversations with these people, or with members of their staffs, to find out what in heavens name they could be thinking.

What "positive agenda" do they think they can accomplish when the White House is occupied by a man that rules by signing statement? Winning the House or Senate is meaningless when the laws passed aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda -- it is the only way we can redemm our national soul.

We can break through their rationalizations -- but the walls are thick. Demanding action is critical, but as long as they are allowed to hang onto their baseless rationalizations, our demands will roll off like water off a duck's back.

Face-to-face, back and forth dialog with staffers and members of Congress is absolutely essential if we are to elicit and challenge their screwed up beliefs.

We can, and must, kick some Democratic ass and keep chipping away at the wall of rationalization that is silencing them.

[Armstead]

11. I don';t disagree with you in principle

But timing is important too.

I am not suggesting they surrender on this issue. Rather, I'm suggesting how to effectively deal with it head on, in a way that can also have political benefits.

If it works, and Democrats take over all or half of Congress, they'll be in a much better position to actually do something about it.

[pat_k]

26. But your suggested approach does not deal with it "head on". . .

. . .as I noted above, it supports their fascist fantasies by accepting the key points of their propaganda.

[Armstead]

27. No it counteracts that propaganda

Bush says: People are complaining so we need to protect our forces in the field and make it clear what they can and can't do legally.

Even though that's not really the purpose, it's a typical case of the GOP using a reasonable proposition to advance unreasonable things.

Democrats can say: We agree that we need to clarify the guidelines. But we refuse to use that as an excuse to allow torture and take away the Constitutional protections of Americans.

That seems to be a very clear way to take them on directly and clearly, and use their own talking points against them.

Once again, I repeat, people can haggle about war crimes etc. when and if the democrats are actually in a position to do something about it.

[pat_k]

30. To "agree that we need to clarify the guidelines" buys right into . . .

. . .the WH fascist propaganda.

That concession is the foundation of their effort to nullify our prohibitions against horrors and inhuman treatment that have been abhored by civilized society for countless years.

[Armstead]

33. How is saying "It is illegal to use waterboarding, etc...." allows it?

I am suggesting we use the propaganda in a way that would have the opposite effect than what the GOP is trying to sneak through.

Personally, given current conditions, I'd rather see existing law EXPANDED to clarify what CANNOT BE DONE regarding torture and other aspects of this rather than being vague and ambiguous. That can also be done in a way that keeps the existing limitations under law and the Constitution. It also removes the "wiggle room" that exists without clarification.

For example, it is like the difference between a posted speed limit of 30 mph and a sign that simply says "Don't drive too fast."

[pat_k]

35. The tunnel vision focus on definition also buys into their propaganda. . .

. . .There is NO need to attempt to expand or "clarify" the prohibitions against "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment."

Any attempt to "clarify" with specific examples necessarily excludes other specific actions.

And, it is our collective standards, as applied in judging specific action in court that must define "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment."

In their obsessive focus on definition they are missing the other horrors that have been stuck in Bush's War Criminals Protection Act of 20006. (And these other horrors are the reasons this bill must be UNEQUIVICALLY opposed.)

For example, perhaps the most destructive part is found on page 79 of Bush's version:

(b) RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—No person in any habeas action or any other action may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose in any court of the United or its States or territories.

This abominable provision strips any person, American or Foreign National, of the ability to seek to protect fundamental human rights in ANY court in the United States (or to seek redress for violation of those rights). In other words, if it had been in effect prior to July, SCOTUS would have been barred from reviewing Hamdam.

Our collective standards for civilized conduct (and therefore our collective will) are meaningless if our judges and our peers on juries are barred from determining whether or not specific acts constitute torture.

Like all fascist efforts to hide their motives in legal technicality and "complexity," this effort, at it's most basic, is an attempt to usurp our collective sovereignty.

[Armstead]

41. That's an easy one...

List specific prohibitions and leave in "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment."

Seems to me like that'd be taking away loopholes instead of adding them.

As for the other, that should be fought. But the fight against that and the approach I suggest are not mutually exclusive.

Step one in all of this is bringing the crap to light. To do that, Democrats have to have a large role in shedding that light. To convince enough of them to do that, they have to have wiggle room.

Anyone else can certainly pursue the strong no-compromise advocacy you are in favor of. But again that is not mutually exclusive from Democrats doing something that leads in that direction.

This is not either/or.

[pat_k]

42. What part of your list . . .

. . .is not included in the original language?

[Armstead]

43. There are, unfortunately, grey areas in all of this

Where does one draw the line between tough questioning that breaks down a suspect's defenses and what could be defined as torture?

I have a line in my own head about that. You have your own line. A third person is going to have yet another one.

This is kind of a silly argument, because, at base, I don;t disagree with what you're saying. I believe it's shameful that America has fallen so low that there is a debate about whether or not torture is acceptable. I also believe the Democrats -- and all Republicans who have an ounce of decency -- should have put their collective feet down back when talk of torture was first coming out.

But we are where we are, and I am simply suggesting what I believe would be one way to at least get the Democratic Party to do something about this, and turn Bush's attempt to flummox Congress back against him.

[Nite Owl]

7. Maybe they should move away

from calling it anything connected with 'terror' and relabel it a Constitutional Crisis. Keep saying that phrase. If it has anything to to with the 'war on terror' it's what the GOP wants, it keeps them in control of the conversation.

[Armstead]

8. Good idea

The GOP assault on Civil Liberties and American Values.

[Nite Owl]

12. American Values

is good. Civil Liberties the sheeple wouldn't buy. They seem to not connect their losing rights with getting those 'terrorists', they are willing it seems to give that up a little, they don't think it means them just the other guys. The Constitution is our basis as a people, it is the document on which we base our American Values. The dems have to learn to speak right, to get the key words in the lexicon, to control the debate. They have to go on the offensive so they aren't defending themselves from accusations from the right like they are 'weak on terra'. Maybe we should have a letter writing campaign to try and get this out there, to editors, congress etc. Make them use the right words.

[Armstead]

16. Okay protecting Your Freedom

Use the same terminology the Bushies use. Amrericans seem to respond to "freedom." And that's really about what the issue is here. The Freedom of Americans.

[wiggs]

18. I second this good idea. nt

[Nite Owl]

23. A week or two ago

A DUer had a phrase, I don't remember who it was, but it sort of summed it up:

Liberals burn the flag, conservatives burn the Constitution.



One is a symbol the other is who we are. The cons are big on symbols but they shred the very document on which we were founded as a nation.

[Jacobin]

15. I, for one, welcome the codification of Torture by Congress

Now, there can be no doubt EXACTLY who and what this nation is. There can be no quibbling. There can be no debate. We can't temporize about it.

The democratic party will finally be seen for what it truly is: I ruse, smoke and mirrors to pretend that we have a two party government.

The world can openly condemn us and we will have absolutely no defense for it.

Let's just crank it up this one final notch and declare the United States formally dead. The stink from the gangrene from the rotting limbs was getting to be too much anyway. Just bury the motherfucker.

[BeFree]

17. Democrats have been accused of coddling the criminals

Now is the time to put that to rest.

Hell, even the supreme court is on our side.

A crime has been committed, lets lock 'em up.

[Armstead]

20. The GOP currently has the keys

The Democrats have to win back the keys before anything else.

[BeFree]

37. You really think

That all the republicans condone torture? That not more than a few would realize that coddling these criminals is in the best interest of America?

If that's so then we are screwed, but I don't believe it to be so. I think if we just lay the truth on the line the right thing will be done. By putting it off we just allow them to squirm away. By coddling the criminals we just look like fools. Hang 'em high. I say. It is the law.

[Armstead]

44. The truth has already been put out there

In fact, what most people imagine has been done in our name is probably worse than what actually has been done.

I wish I shared your faith that Republicans of goodwill would join with Democrats to say "No" to it. But there should have been a huge non-partisan outcry and collective national putting-our-foot-down about it long ago.

But so far, Republicans don't seem to be breaking ranks to condemn it. And many are defending it. And the Democrats have been AWOL on it. (Not all Democrats, but there have not been enough to create a critical mass.)

There were croccodile tears about Abu Garabe when photos came out. But that was quickly contained as merely being a few "bad apples."

[annabanana]

45. Every Republican in Congress is willing to "look away"

while torture is committed in our name. It is up to us to make sure that every single republican in America KNOWS this.

[MadHound]

21. There's only one real, moral alternative to this POS legislation

Oppose it! Flat out, dead set oppose this filth! There is no such thing as "kinder, gentler torture." There's not such thing as "alternative torture". The only two choices are to torture or not. The Democrats have already rolled over on issues of war, privacy, and our economic well being. If they want any hope of winning this fall, they had better not roll over on this one.

I'm certainly not expecting the Dems to ultimately win on this issue. However there are enough tactics out there that they can create a huge mess and even shut down the government. They also have access to the bully pulpit. If they frame the issue right, and hold together in the face of adversity, they will win on this. The majority of Americans find this practice abhorent, and realize what a danger this poses to our own soldiers and to our country as a whole. If the Dems lead the way, then the American people will rally behind them.

If the Dems cave, then all of us who are on the fence, who have become increasingly disgusted with how frequently the Dems roll over, will go elsewhere. For by aquiesing on this issue, the Dems will have lost their soul.

[pat_k]

31. Hear, Hear! "Fiat justitia, ruat coelum"

"Fiat justitia, ruat coelum"

"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall"

When principle demands action, outcome expectations, positive or negative, do not enter into the decision to act

[Armstead]

46. I'm not suggesting kinder gentler torture

I am suggesting exactly what you are saying. Oppose it, make a mess, shame the GOP.

But what I am saying is that that can be accomplished in more than a symbolic way, if the Democrats take the first steps now.

They can stand on principle with a vigorous fight to hold it off until next year. If the Democrats get smart and/or lucky, in January they may actually be in a position to either really kill it or at least redefine it so that it actually necomes a stronger tool AGAINST torture.