Dammit, people, are we going to stand by and let the Dems in Congress

[Skidmore]

support "compromises" for legislation that would allow for human rights violations and the use of torture? Are we willing to let our Congress/Senate representatives participate in this travesty that is developing?

We need to be hitting the phones and cranking out the letters. Democrats do not stand for this. Period.

[dkofos]

1. I say let them vote on it. Preferably before Nov. 7.

Then we will know who to kick out of office.

[Robbien]

8. Oh sure, let the Dems vote FOR torture. Your party then approves torture.

Your country (both parties) would now officially have told the Geneva Convention to kiss off because we all like hearing the screams of the tortured.

[dkofos]

12. If they vote for torture (either party) vote them out

I don't care if it is Kenedy or Mcain.

If you vote for torture you don't belong in the peoples Govt.

[Robbien]

24. You are willing to sit on your hands & act only after the damage is done?

Once the vote happens, it is official. The world is told that all Americans are in favor of torture because both parties supported it and the voters signified their approval by doing nothing to stop the vote.

[dkofos]

30. What part of voting OUT, anyone who supports torture are you

not getting.

Once voted out, we can change it back and say "NEVER MIND"

I think it is a good way to weed out pseudo-Patriots.

[Robbien]

31. The part I don't get is this thread says act and you say wait, act later

I would rather my country not be officially on the list of countries who endorse torture. I agree with the thread originator and the time to act is now before the damage is done.

Sitting on ones hands while our government votes for torture and then later entering a vote on a Diebold machine for either a Democrat who endorses torture or a GOPer who endorses torture seems to me to be a silly plan.

[Exiled in America]

32. What do you suggest be done?

[Robbien]

37. Call your representatives. Now.

Number one, call/fax Evan Bayh who is the Dem in charge of the vote FOR torture and tell him very politely how much you disagree with that view and that you stand with the Geneva Convention as it currently exists. No new bill is needed. Tell him all Dems should speak in one voice against torture. Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Then you call and write both your Senators and your Representative (no matter what party they belong to) and tell them you are against any bills changing the Geneva Convention rules of torture. (I like to use Sourcewatch to get the numbers for my congresscritters)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Members_of_U.S._Senate

[Skidmore]

33. That's really taking the moral high ground, now isn't it?

We voted for it before we voted against it comes to mined. I condemn that type of thinking. It is exactly this mindset that has allowed Dems to get by with endorsing and voting for some pretty egregious legislation and policies that are starkly in contrast with what the party's constituency has set the platform. Either we believe in human and civil rights or we don't. There is no middle road on this, as far as I'm concerned.

[spanone]

2. Kick & Recommended.

This has largely been an inter-party fight for the Republicans, but Democrats need to weigh in on this torture shit. Speaking in ONE VOICE.

[rodeodance]

5. I agree. I called my congresscritters last week ALL of them

[flyarm]

3. there are how many dems at DU??? if we all call the dems on monday

do we not realize our power base??

so who is willing to call their dem reps on Monday and raise hell..holy hell??

or do we just sit here and bitch about our dems selling out this nation??

get on the phone..forget emails..make them talk to you and go at them directly...

get in their face with your phone...

fly

[Skidmore]

4. I'm there on the phone the minute the business day begins.

Evan Bayh really pissed me off. If he is an example of the conversation going on inside the Beltway, we are screwed six ways till Sunday. This type of thinking combined with that abomination of a Patriots Act would be just a stunning death blow to democracy of any sort.

Evan Bayh is the last Dem I would support for the office of the presidency.

[joemurphy]

7. If we start calling Bayh, he'll change. He's a leaf in the wind.

Totally worthless IMHO. I know him like a book. He's one of my Senators.

BTW, I'll be VERY disappointed if Lugar goes along with Bush on this.

[flyarm]

23. Bayh can kiss my sweet ass!!!!!!!!!! and i am calling first thing in

the morning and saying so...he can just go fuck himself..he does not represent my democratic values..and he can really go fuck himself..

Sean Penn said it best..any dem who does not call for getting out of Iraq should not get our votes..but i will go further..we need to do a campaign of CALLING THESE FUCKERS ON THE CARPET AND PRONTO!

ENOUGH! I HAVE HAD ENOUGH..if they want to go to the middle let them do it at their own demise..but we should call them out and loudly and in massive numbers!

tell Evan Bayh to kiss our asses..because that is what fuckers like he are doing..they are kissing our asses as Americans right down the tubes!

AND I FOR ONE AM NOT GOING DOWN WITHOUT A FIGHT..I WILL TELL THAT mtf EXACTLY HOW I FEEL...FUCK HIM!

FLY

[Jeanette in FL]

35. When you call also demand a response in writing

And if they start giving you the BS that the Senator is looking into the matter, tell them what's to look at. The Geneva Conventions have been in existance for over 50 years and not one other President needed to have clarifications on Article 3. No other government needed to have clarifications.

Tell them that you want their response in writing and on the record. Period.

The toll-free number is 1-888-355-3588, just ask to be transferred to your Senators and/or House member.

This is so important.

[mmonk]

44. We need it in writing. If they are going to be a part of international

crimes against humanity, it needs to be recorded. The US is a rogue nation headed by international criminals. We know the score.

[Amonester]

6. It's Time To Act Again And Again For What Is Right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=358

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=358

[slipslidingaway]

9. Good article with some appropriate comments

snip>>> this is from the bottom of page 2 but the whole article is worth reading.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276_2.html


"But Corn, the Army's former legal expert, said that Common Article 3 was, according to its written history, "left deliberately vague because efforts to define it would invariably lead to wrongdoers identifying 'exceptions,' and because the meaning was plain -- treat people like humans and not animals or objects." Eugene R. Fidell, president of the nonprofit National Institute of Military Justice, said that laws governing military conduct are filled with broadly described prohibitions that are nonetheless enforceable, including "dereliction of duty," "maltreatment" and "conduct unbecoming an officer."

Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is "don't trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short, clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions."

[slipslidingaway]

10. "I suspect that the Bush administration doesn't seek to clarify...

the definition of torture so much as to confound it. The whole objective of defining, refining, and then redefining the rules has become an end in itself. It keeps our attention trained where the president wants it: on the assertion that old bans on torture don't work and that this conflict is unlike any conflict contemplated under existing international law. All this murk and confusion has begun to be the object of the game and not a casualty of it."

from this article

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/getting-with-program-clarity-through.html

[Nikki Stone 1]

11. There are a lot of us who are so angry that it's hard to write

to our Congresspersons and Senators. Is there some way to put together a letter that we could all send, with some modifications, that hits all the right points without getting infuriated? I keep trying to write a letter opposing torture to my Senators and I just keep dissolving into rage.

[gully]

15. EEK, "skidmore" not skinner.

; )

[Nikki Stone 1]

21. Oops! My bad. I'll change it.

See how mad I get! :)

[flyarm]

25. no we have to all call!! how many petitions have been done and totally

ignored...

i have a dear friend who is in congress and he says ..each call they see equivalent to 10 letters...

email they laugh at!

get on the phone and call!!

fly

[Nikki Stone 1]

51. No kidding. I'll have to call

But I'm liable to get really angry. :(

[Raksha]

38. I know how you feel! It's the idea that we'd even HAVE to write letters

like this to our Democratic senators that is so infuriating. Some things should just go without saying, and for a long time--THEY DID! What on earth have we come to that we should have to explain and defend the obvious?

[Nikki Stone 1]

52. I know. It's like they're all living in this parallel universe and trying

to convince us that nothing has changed.

[gully]

13. Which Democrats in congress are about to support legalized torture?

Do you have a list, because I'm not personally aware?

[Skidmore]

17. Well, start with Bayh who went on record this morning as willing to

compromise. Anyone who is willing to COMPROMISE on this deserves censure. I don't want any Democratic representative or Senator even entertaining compromise on this issue. They've compromised too much. They need to take a stand on this very basic issue of human rights.

[gully]

19. Then lets end with Bayh until we know others who feel the same.

Though, I agree that we should support Democrats who refuse to compromise and urge them not to.

[Skidmore]

22. That's the idea.

[flyarm]

26. absolutely!!!!!!!!!! lets take them on and big time! get on your phone!

the brits think it important enough to send people here to say its illegal to change geneva conventions..do we not have it in us to call our own on the carpet?? and give them the strongest warning you can make..
do not under any circumstances compromise on Geneva conventions..or we will take you down ourselves..and we mean business!


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1874555,00.html

Britain warns US on terror

The Attorney-General says treatment of al-Qaeda suspects must not breach the Geneva Convention

Mark Townsend and Jamie Doward
Sunday September 17, 2006
The Observer


Britain's alliance with the US in the so-called war on terror was under strain last night after the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, warned the Bush administration that it risked international condemnation if its detention of al-Qaeda suspects was in breach of the Geneva Convention.
Last Friday, the US President signalled his intention to effectively redefine the convention by urging Congress to back his proposals to allow harsher treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

In a hard-hitting speech last night, its impact rendered all the more powerful by the fact the government's most senior lawyer has made it on American soil, Goldsmith suggested such a move would be seen as unacceptable in the eyes of the international community. In a speech to American lawyers in Chicago, he suggested conditions in Guantanamo risked breaching fundamental human rights laws.

A copy of his speech, seen by The Observer, states: 'Given the political discussions about this issue at the moment, I must be careful what I say. I will say only this today: that this is an international standard of very considerable importance and its content must be the same for all nations... These are standards which must apply to all those detained in what has been termed the "war on terror".'

Goldsmith told his audience that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention 'sets standards for the treatment of people such as those detained in combat and prohibits among other things outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.'



fly

[Wiley50]

14. Really, I see a party line vote in both houses

But we may attract enough Reptillian crossover
in the senate to stop this thing.
I don't think many, if any Dems are
gonna put their name on this thing
so close to an election

Though I could be wrong

I forgot about Lieberman

[Skidmore]

16. I hope you are right about that. But after listening to Bayh this

morning, I'm not so sure that some will not look for an easy out by bartering with the Devil. What he was proposing was just as evil. Dammit, I'm still fuming.

[gully]

20. I do to. Especially since a few republicans have already come to

the light on this.

[flyarm]

29. i guess you missed the articles today about a compromise

with those rethugs?????????

go look there are several stories today about the rethugs compromising with little lord pissy pants!

do not count on the rethugs staying out against pissy pants...

we have to hold our own accountable now!

fly

[gully]

36. I expect most repugs will compromise.

But a few noted r's are against any thing of the sort.

Believe me, I don't put my faith in republicans, but with Bush's poll numbers a few may save themselves and USE this
as a means to distance?

[flyarm]

27. couldn't tell that by Evan this morning..what an asswipe!...HE WAS

ALL ABOUT COMPROMISE THIS MORNING.. fuck him!

these are human rights we are talking about..there is no such compromise..none!

fly

[me b zola]

34. Lieberman will vote with his party.....rethuglican. n/t

[Tigermoose]

58. Yea. Right. They voted for the Iraqi invasion...

even though it was obvious to even us here that there was no WMD and no link to Al Quaeda. Even though it was obvious Iraq would be a quagmire. But they bent to political pressure, just like enough of them will do this time to pass this bill.

They don't serve us. They serve the corporations.

[bbgrunt]

18. Well, it is about time for a fillibuster. But with this group

of half-hearted dems, I don't see any hope of curing their cowardice. All except Feingold, of course. I am beyond disgusted.

[flyarm]

28. well call and tell them how disgusted you are..go at them directly..

no better time than an election cycle..tell them you will not vote if they compromise!

you will stay home..if they compromise..that is their greatest fear!

use their fear against their bullshit cowardice!

fly

[bbgrunt]

41. you're right fly. I am still in there, but

I can't imagine that our leaders need more encouragement to stand against torture. I would have thought that a few of them had basic principles intact and had lines beyond which they would not go--with or without a groundswell of support.

[flyarm]

45. well i thought i was going to puke this morning listening to Evan Bayh

i really wanted to gangster slap him everytime he said compromise..and little lord pissy pants was right on needing changes to the geneva conventions..that fucking clarity bullshit!

no Evan we want no compromise..none..

i really wanted to grab his chin like i did to my son when he was little guy and naughty..and say..looky here buster..

no torture..end of story..

wtf is wrong with some of these dems??

well, i think we need to give them a warning..we will not tolerate them voting for any compromise..none..zero zip!!

and we need to be very agressive in getting this point to them!

just my 2 cents...fly

[Joanne98]

39. Since when do they listen to us. I said at the beginning of this it was

A POLICE STATE CONTEST!

[MindPilot]

40. Waste of time: They don't listen to us--we are not the moneyed elite.

I've been calling, writing, and faxing since my democratic "representatives" allowed the BFEE to steal the people's house in 2000.

All it does is renew my license to say "I told you so".

[Robbien]

42. But if no one called or wrote them

then they have the license to say "I can sell my vote to the highest bidder" cause no one gives a damn.

Sometimes our calls and letters do work, but not calling or writing has no chance of working.

[shadowknows69]

43. I call Hilary

I voted for Tasini. I'm at a loss now. Anything else gets me thrown in Gitmo.

[Skidmore]

46. "Both sides are confident they can reach a compromise...."

Hubby listening to news on ABC--sorry but he won't give up the Sunday news on ABC and this is what they are reporting regarding this torture issue.

Hit 'em hard...Rs & Ds both. Too important to ignore.

[AntiFascist]

47. This bears repeating: it should NOT be a partisan issue!

Anyone who supports the US' "right" to torture is undermining the very principles which we stand for, and is setting us up to LOSE the moral high ground, and ultimately to LOSE the war. Even if this means that we lose some democrats who happen to support the president on this issue, we would at least be losing the right people, and will ultimately WIN back some of our good will.

The only thing helping the president right now is the lowering price of gas and the positive effect this may have on the economy. Is that all we stand for, low gas prices and a positive economy as the result? If so, then I'm afraid the rest of the world has the right to decide our fate.

[Skidmore]

49. I agree. But I am especially angry with Dem

legislators who would even consider compromising on this.

[Golden Raisin]

48. They ALL voted for the "patriot" act

the first time (2001) except for Feingold. Second time around (2006) the stench of fascism emanating from the Oval Office made a few of them reconsider and vote against it. They should be voted out for even considering discussing the use of torture.

[tomreedtoon]

50. You selected your Democrat, fellow. Or...did you?

Did you let the primary elections go? Did you vote for a Democrat who had a spine? Or did you simply re-elect one of these Pink Tutu's because they were all over the news?


"Re-elect us and you re-elect Daddy Dubya!"

You Kerry supporters will be angry at his inclusion in the Dubya Dance Company, perhaps, but remember, he allowed Bush's re-election because he refused to fight Bush's election fraud...until recently, when it was two years too late. So yes, you brought him back for another dance tour.

And you won't get anywhere by phoning or writing them. You elected them, providing them your unqualified trust for a four or six year term. Lesson: next time find out what the candidate is REALLY saying, and see if there is someone running against them in the primaries who might really represent your interests.

[karynnj]

57. This is disgusting - why are you attacking people who don't deserve it.

Very few Democrats have spoken out on this - which doesn't mean they are for torture.

Kerry had NO basis per the top Democratic lawyers - even now there is NO iron clad case that the election results would have been different.

Kerry is nearly the only Democrat speaking on this - and his words are strong: On Hardball:

" KERRY: You‘re darn right. You‘re darn right. These people should have been brought to justice a long time ago. But what it also underscores is that the president had an illegal, unconstitutional structure for detaining people that he was destroying, in a sense, the reputation of our country and hurting the values of our country in other lands where we need people‘s support.

And, finally, he admits what all of us have known under the ground for a long time, that we have these secret prisons which the United States doesn‘t condone. So, finally, he is adopting a policy of common sense that is in keeping with our values and the Congress ought to move rapidly and we ought to do what is appropriate under appropriate standards.

KERRY: There is no appropriate torture, period.
KERRY: And we‘ve been arguing that for a long time. They have been arguing to be allowed to torture. This is the first administration in American history the vice president of the United States says we should be allowed to torture. They argued for torture, for a loophole that allowed them to do it. Now, the president stands up and says the United States doesn‘t torture.

Well, I think that they have ignored the fact that the Geneva Conventions were not in place because we are nice. They weren‘t put in place to be soft. They were put in place to support and defend the interests of our troops in the battlefield, so that if young Americans are captured, we know that we‘ve done the best to be able to have them treated properly. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733559/
(Matthews questions cut out to get down to 4 paragraphs)

From his Faneuil Hall speech, where he included restore US moral leadership as one of his 5 points, Kerry is pretty clear.

"Most important, we need to make America be America again. We must restore our moral authority and global leadership by deploying the full arsenal of our national power with smarter diplomacy, stronger alliances, more effective international institutions -- and fidelity to the values we have always stood for as a nation.

We must remember the great lesson of the Cold War when we led the world to confront a common threat. Genuine global leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries. Leading the world's most advanced democracies isn't mushy multilateralism -- it amplifies America's voice, it extends our reach. Working through global institutions doesn't tie our hands - it gives greater strength and legitimacy to our purposes and dampens the fear and resentment that our overwhelming power sometimes triggers in others.

Leadership means talking with countries who aren't our friends. It means engaging directly when our vital national security interests are at stake - even with countries that we strongly disagree with-because treating dialogue as a means rather than an end can help us achieve our goals. As John Kennedy once said, "we must never negotiate out of fear but we must never fear to negotiate." If Richard Nixon could send Henry Kissinger to China, surely George Bush can send a real negotiating team to North Korea. If Ronald Reagan could talk to the evil empire, surely we can talk with Iran or Syria.

We must start treating our moral authority as a precious national asset that does not limit our power but magnifies our influence. Only this week did the Administration finally recognize that the protections of the Geneva Convention had to be applied to prisoners in order to comply with the law, restore our moral authority, and best protect American troops. Let me say it plainly: No American president should be for torture before he's against it.


Kerry has defended the Geneva Convention since he was in his 20s. He risked even having a political career when he challanged Nixon on the US violating the Geneva Convention. He spoke against the same thing in the Senate when speaking of Central America. He called for Rumsfeld's resignation over Abu Ghraib.

[Skidmore]

53. Kicking to remind people to get on the phones today...

we have work to do.

[magellan]

54. Why in the world should I have to tell anyone what to do??

Any Dem who considers supporting compromise legislation on torture doesn't deserve to be in Congress!!

[Skidmore]

55. Well, tell them that.

There are enough of them up for re-election who should pay attention to that statement. If they aren't up for re-election this year they will be in a couple. Let them know you will remember this affront to humanity at the ballot box when their names do come up.

[mmonk]

56. Any compromise on this is unacceptable.

I will vote democratic in November for I have no choice but after that, I will just work and contribute to groups that seek to reinstate our constitution, constitutional checks and balances and promote going back into the world community.