Senate Democrats Speak Out

Ask and ye shall receive... the Democrats have been awakened.

Today, as the President's torture bill nears passage in the Senate, the Democrats there are attempting to stop this from happening. Do they have enough votes (or barring that, a filibuster) to accomplish that? That remains to be seen, but at least we can now say that it won't be from lack of trying.

If this passes, we can still hope the Supreme Court will dispose of it.

I want to note this: the three 'maverick' Republicans who the media still pretends got the White House to 'compromise' in some way all today voted against preserving habeus corpus as part of an amendment to this legislation. This speaks volumes about their true character.

(UPDATE: The Democrats waived the right to a filibuster. WTF!??)

Anyway, here's a sampling of what some Democrats are saying...

Sen. Feingold of Wisconsin-

"I welcome efforts to bring terrorists to justice. It is about time. This Administration has too long been distracted by the war in Iraq from the fight against al Qaeda. We need a renewed focus on the terrorist networks that present the greatest threat to this country.

But Mr. President, we wouldn’t be where we are today, five years after September 11 with not a single Guantanamo Bay detainee having been brought to trial, if the President had come to Congress in the first place, rather than unilaterally creating military commissions that didn’t comply with the law. The President wanted to act on his own, and he dared the Supreme Court to stop him. And he lost. The Hamdan decision was an historic rebuke to an Administration that has acted for years as if it were above the law...

...Habeas corpus is a longstanding vital part of our American tradition, and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution...

...Some have suggested that terrorists who take up arms against this country should not be allowed to challenge their detention in court. But that argument is circular – the writ of habeas allows those who might be mistakenly detained to challenge their detention in court, before a neutral decision-maker. The alternative is to allow people to be detained indefinitely with no ability to argue that they are not, in fact, enemy combatants. Unless any of my colleagues can say with absolute certainty that everyone detained as an enemy combatant was correctly detained – and there is ample evidence to suggest that is not the case – then we should make sure that people can’t simply be locked up forever, without court review, based on someone slapping a “terrorist” label on them...

...Either we are a nation that stands against this type of cruelty and for the rule of law, or we are not. We can’t have it both ways..."

Sen. Dodd of Connecticut-

"Mr. President, the Administration and Republican leadership would have the American people believe that the War on Terror requires a choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the basic tenets upon which our country was founded -- but not both. This canard has been showcased in every recent election cycle.
I fully reject that reasoning. We can, and we must, balance our responsibilities to bring terrorists to justice, while at the same time protecting what it means to be America. To choose the rule of law over the passion of the moment takes courage. But it is the right thing to do if we are to uphold the values of equal justice and due process that are codified in our Constitution...

...As Justice Jackson said at Nuremberg, “we must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our lips as well.” Mr. President, to rubber-stamp the Administration’s bill would poison one of the most fundamental principles of American democracy. I urge my colleagues not to allow that to happen."

Sen. Kerry of Massachusetts-

"We’ve got to tell the truth about what’s happening right now – right now – in our country. We must start treating our moral authority as a national treasure that doesn’t limit our power but magnifies our influence...

...The only guarantee we have that these provisions really will prohibit torture is the word of the President. But we have seen in Iraq the consequences of simply accepting the word of this Administration. No, we cannot just accept the word of this Administration that they will not engage in torture given that everything they’ve already done and said on this most basic question has already put our troops at greater risk and undermined the very moral authority needed to win the war on terror."

Sen. Leahy of Vermont

"We can export freedom across the globe, but at the same time we are cutting it out in our own country. What hypocrisy!"

Sen. Clinton of New York-

"The light of our ideals shone dimly in those early dark days [of the Revolutionary War], years from an end to the conflict, years before our improbable triumph and the birth of our democracy. General Washington wasn't that far from where the Continental Congress had met and signed the Declaration of Independence. But it's easy to imagine how far that must have seemed. General Washington announced a decision unique in human history, sending the following order for handling prisoners:

"Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their Treatment of our unfortunate brethren."

Now these values – George Washington’s values, the values of our founding – are at stake. We are debating far-reaching legislation that would fundamentally alter our nation's conduct in the world and the rights of Americans here at home. And we are debating it too hastily in a debate too steeped in electoral politics..."

More coverage on C-SPAN- here

In the afterword section of his book "The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit Of It Enemies Since 9/11" (the definite book on the war on terror- successes, failures, and everything in between), Ron Suskind says the following:

The torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay; the construction of the great terrorist-finding machine, with its communications head and financialo body; the self-interested use of classified materials to carry forward political ends; the very concealment of the true nature of what's been happening since 9/11 in favor or a sanitized, "need to know" version-- are all means that, whatever their advertised value, strike at the nation's character.

And sadly, give true comfort to our enemies, graced with more recruitment tools than they could have hoped for.

The sensation of newness about 9/11, and our response, meant- to be fair- that early on, we stumbled across this yin/yang of ends and means as though we'd never been introduced.

That period, fortunately, is now ending.

Let us hope that his words don't prove naive.

[Finally, a sampling of good takes on this issue:
-Salon.com: Tortured justice:
As Democrats scramble to protect detainee rights and their own congressional futures, President Bush is angling for a star-spangled signing ceremony just before the midterm elections. The rush is "very political," says Sen. Dianne Feinstein -- and will likely succeed
-NY Times editorial: Rushing Off a Cliff
-Andrew Sullivan: Legalizing Tyranny
-The Colbert Report (via YouTube): The Torture "Compromise"
-Glenn Greenwald: The legalization of torture and permanent detention ]