Stop torturing yourself and others - please read this post

[chat_noir]

Calm the Fuck Down Already

by thereisnospoon

All this bill is, is an utterly MEANINGLESS piece of kabuki theater.

It serves only two purposes: a) a desperate attempt by Bush to try to legally cover his own ass; and b) a desperate attempt designed to distract from the unrelentingly horrible news on Iraq. On Afghanistan. On Pakistan. On healthcare. On the economy the rest of us live in.

And again, this bill doesn't accomplish SHIT. Let's look at a few points, one by one, shall we?

1) Congress has NO authority to decide if these things are legal or not. That's up to the COURTS to decide.

It's up to the COURTS to decide how the Geneva Conventions--which are American Law--are construed. It's up to the COURTS to decide whether habeas corpus does or does apply to all persons (as it so clearly states in the Constitution).

Every piece of this Unconstitutional bill is beyong the scope of the Congress to legislate. It's dead on the courthouse door--and doesn't change anything in the meantime.

Which brings me to point #2:


read the rest here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/28/193836/545?detail=f

[meganmonkey]

1. I hope that helps y'all sleep better tonight

But do you seriously think constitutionality will stop the executive branch from enforcing this bill in the broadest of ways? Seriously.

By the time it gets to - and through- the courts, how many innocent people will have been tortured? How many people - both foreign AND american will be locked up indefinitely with NO RIGHTS?

There is no point in deluding ourselves. It won't make it go away.

edit for spelling. I can't spell when I AM BLINDED WITH RAGE

[damntexdem]

18. I'm with you. Today, I am ashamed to be an American.

The damn Senate Democrats COULD HAVE filibustered but didn't. Now we hear that we shouldn't worry because the courts will make it all OK. Don't bother to do your jobs, politicians, because the judges will fix it. What a disgusting excuse!

[Generator]

2. Un problemo,senior

Sure the courts can CHOOSE someday to overturn it. Until then, let the waterboarding commence. How's noon on Friday? In straight talk someone is being tortured right now, and will be for however many YEARS it takes until if and when the courts save us from congress and this cretin called the president.

[Ameritopia]

3. You got that right

[derby378]

7. Water? Hell, next week, we're moving up to piss...

Bleed For Me by the Dead Kennedys sounds pretty damn good right now.

[chat_noir]

4. They're trying to divide us - post by Dallasdoc

Leftists have always been a notoriously argumentative bunch. It comes from being idealists, which we are, and thus being unable to countenance realities that don't conform to our ideals.

The Right has always been far more content to march in lockstep -- or goosestep -- so they have an innate tactical advantage in cohesiveness when it comes to these battles. Don't think Karl Rove doesn't know this.

I think he may be overplaying his hand here. He's trying to get through one more election without everything falling apart, but the more he plays the deeper the hole he digs. Bush and Rove are stalling for time, trying to run out the clock, gambling that they can ultimately scuttle off into well-remunerated retirement while a new gang of thugs fights the next battles a year or two hence.

The last thing we should be doing is stampeding off the cliff they're driving us toward.

[damntexdem]

19. It wasn't leftists who passed this bill.

It wasn't leftists who failed to filibuster it.

It was a bunch of scared politicians in the Democratic Party who couldn't come up with the nerve to DO THEIR JOB. I am disgusted with the entire thing, including the spineless bastards who didn't try to stop the fascist bastards.

We can try to elect a large Dem majority in November -- and it will have to be a large majority because of the traitorous DINOs in the Democratic ranks. But even if the Dems take both houses of Congress in November, they cannot successfully repeal this legislation over a Dubya veto. But the votes may not be fairly counted in sufficient places in November for the Dems to take either house, anyway.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Wrong on the GC there.

Treaties and federal laws are on the same plane: they are equal. A new law that supercedes a treaty does just that. There is no constitutional issue on that point. The suspension of Habeus Corpus might not get through the courts, but that is one slim hope to hang your hat on with this court.

The Habeus Corpus issue is the only part of the bill that has a chance of getting struck down.

[silverweb]

6. I hope he's right.

n/t

[Straight Shooter]

8. This bill accomplishes a lot more than just SHIT

It tells us, as Americans, that the Republicans think torture is a good thing.

It tells the world that America is lacking in moral values.

Kabuki theater or not, this bill is our face to the world now.

[The Gunslinger]

12. It also tells us a number of Democrats are too.

[Straight Shooter]

15. True, that.

Dems with highly conservative constituents, apparently. It's a black day in America.

[The Gunslinger]

13. Dupe. sorry

[madmusic]

9. Agreed, but a healthy rage...

Is a good thing, and the louder the rage, the more the sheeple will understand. Sure, that debate needs to be more calm a rational, but that's for tomorrow.

[L0oniX]

10. I love it

K&R

[Nite Owl]

11. What courts?

We are one seat away from losing it all on the Supreme Court. One seat, one resignation or death and * gets his majority to do as he pleases. Remember the filibuster that wasn't on Alito? That wasn't stopped either so I'm not too optimistic about another one of his cronies not getting in.

[pooja]

14. I hate to bring in a sick-o factor, but they do have children in

captivity... they torture the children to try to make the adults to confess to who knows what? Enemy combatant comes in all forms and all ages.. just remember when they snatch your children out of your grips..

After bush is done, Hitler will look like a saint.

[Solly Mack]

16. That's not entirely correct...regarding the GC

Congress can say whether or not it's accepted based on our own Constitution. That's the option we always choose regarding treaties like the GC. And you don't have to believe me...research it yourself.

What this means is, Congress can "interpret" how such a treaty will apply to the US based on what our laws are...this is why the "compromise" rewrote the War Crime Act of 1996...it was their way of saying common article 3 applies this way to the US...based on our laws

Now, the court can declare it unconstitutional...but Congress can legislate how a treaty applies under our laws.

Again...don't have to believe me...research it.


http://experts.about.com/e/t/tr/Treaty.htm

"The United States takes a different view concerning the relationship between international and domestic law than many other nations, particularly in Europe. Unlike nations which view international agreements as always superseding national law, the American view is that international agreements become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law."


If you look at the reservations/declarations for adopting the Convention Against Torture, you'll notice the US is listed as having stated number 11 as condition of ratification...

http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/9.htm

"11. On 3 June 1994, the Secretary-General received a communication from the Government of the United States of America requesting, in compliance with a condition set forth by the Senate of the United States of America, in giving advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention, and in contemplation of the deposit of an instrument of ratification of the Convention by the Government of the United States of America, that a notification should be made to all present and prospective ratifying Parties to the Convention to the effect that:

""... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."

When they,McCain, Graham and Warner, decide to rewrite the War Crimes Act, they changed it by narrowing the definition of torture among other changes...and in the doing, by changing our federal law....they changed how treaties regarding human rights/torture/detainees apply under our law.

Again, the SCOTUS can rule it unConstitutional...but Congress can legislate how a treaty applies...they can't change the treaty without triggering a renegotiation between the signers...but they can change our own laws and in the doing, change how those treaties apply

Basically, McCain, Warner and Graham (and everyone that voted for the bill) have done away with years and years of commonly accepted law regarding human rights...along with centuries of commonly accepted law with habeas corpus.

[donco6]

25. dupe

sorry, wrong place

[Junkdrawer]

17. Remember how they kept quoting Jackson in the Youngstown case...

during all the recent SCOTUS confirmation hearings?

1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government as an undivided whole lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/youngstown.html

[OwnedByFerrets]

20. It is naive to think that this means nothing....

Scholars are already saying that this approval from congress makes it much easier for the SCOTUS to swallow. Its VERY possible that they give it a pass.

I've heard from several legal experts today and they are extremely worried.
We have already had an example of no habeas corpus on US soil (Jose Padilla) and now its legal.
If this law had been in effect in 1996, Richard Jewel would have been tortured as an enemy combatant.
No, my friends, this is NOT meaningless. Its one of the worst days in American history.

[slaveplanet]

26. I concur

and would just like to add...

This is the mother of all chilling effects.

America will never be the same. No matter how the SC eventually rules

[seabeyond]

21. i am so spending all my time saying repugs voted U.S. nation of torture

and going after every repug i know to feel shame....

[OwnedByFerrets]

22. I started early this morning doing this very thing........

and it will continue. I have had some repug friends before today, but today a line was drawn. If you support torture, you will be no friend of mine. PERIOD.

[seabeyond]

23. all i know are republicans, family and friends. wont go that far

by i am certainly on the higher road, morally and intellectually and emotionally. i will NOT stop either

[sendero]

24. Not only that..

.. but up to INTERNATIONAL courts to decide.