Bush Wins Backing for Terror Tribunals - Senate approves with a 64-35 vote - ( Dems for coddling )

Las Vegas Sun ^ | September 29, 2006 at 6:15:50 PDT | ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY ASSOCIATED PRESS

[AdvisorB]

No, I haven't ordered any because the smallest they had were 6 by 40 inches. You could tape them in the window, or put them on and when you take them off use Goo-Gone and that will get it all off.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

6 x 40 that is almost Bill Board size.....Kool!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The Washington Post is .....&%$$$#@@#@@@#$#:

Many U.S. legal rights absent in detainee bill(Dept of the Obvious)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See link above...

[TNCMAXQ]

Some strange bedfellows here, as they say. LOUSE-enberg is not running but he voted the right way, as did Menendez. LOUSE-enberg usually is soft on the bad guys.

Carper is running again but he is thought to be safe. Pryor won in '02 so he is not up this year. I guess Landrieu is already worried about '08 too.

[Scotsman will be Free]

Good! Give 'em all a fair trial then hang 'em.

[Scotsman will be Free]

I sure hope so. Can't stand that stupid, simpering, fool of a "mom in tennis shoes" either.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the Article linked at post #23.....

***********************AN EXCERPT *******************************

‘This beat-up-Chevy version’
In contrast, Douglas W. Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, said that Congress "did reasonably well in terms of fashioning a fair" set of procedures. But Kmiec and many others say they cannot predict how the Supreme Court will respond to the provision barring habeas corpus rights, which he said will leave "a large body of detainees with no conceivable basis to challenge their detentions."

There are other likely flashpoints. In the Supreme Court's June decision overturning previous administration policies, four members of the court who joined the majority opinion said that conspiracy is not a war crime. The new bill says that it is.

Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal said the bill's creation of two systems of justice -- military commissions for foreign nationals and regular criminal trials for U.S. citizens -- may violate the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which requires equal protection of the laws to anyone under U.S. jurisdiction.

"If you're an American citizen, you get the Cadillac system of justice. If you're a foreigner or a green-card holder, you get this beat-up-Chevy version," he said.

[Panzerlied]

"I missed Stabenow (D-MI) who is running."

Interesting. If "dangerously incompetent" Debbie voted for it she must be running more scared than I thought.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

And the 14th Amendment :

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights

****************************

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

*******************************************

The Lawyers are parsing this to expand it's meaning......

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

FRom post #28:

*******************************

Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal said the bill's creation of two systems of justice -- military commissions for foreign nationals and regular criminal trials for U.S. citizens -- may violate the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which requires equal protection of the laws to anyone under U.S. jurisdiction.

*************************

*****************************

may violate the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which requires equal protection of the laws to anyone under U.S. jurisdiction

I don't see that AT ALL in the 14th amendment.....

See post #30.....

[Hoodlum91]

I've posted this before: the Dems continue to treat terrorism as a criminal act, not an act of war. That was Clinton's approach too. Worked pretty well, didn't it?

Rather than pointing out that the Dems are enabling and protecting the enemy, we should bne pointing out that they want to return to the policy that brought us 9/11. That would strike a chord w/voters.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See #6.

Also hat tip to Michelle Malkin for Link to this:

World to end shortly: Senate vote on detainee bill forthcoming; Update: Bill passes

**************************************************************

posted at 4:38 pm on September 28, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

I got caught behind the curve on this story, for which I truly and sincerely apologize. It’s obviously a big one, and the nutroots has gone berserk over it even by normal berserker nutroots standards. Blazing blue WaPo columnist Dan Froomkin calls it “a defining moment for this nation.” The even bluer Dahlia Lithwick at Slate says it’s a “watershed”:

Now we are affirmatively asking to be left in the dark. Instead of torture we were unaware of, we are sanctioning torture we’ll never hear about. Instead of detainees we didn’t care about, we are authorizing detentions we’ll never know about. Instead of being misled by the president, we will be blind and powerless by our own choice. And that is a shame on us all.

Slate’s actually put together a clickable “taxonomy of torture” that graphically illustrates all the things the CIA will be able to do to Ayman al-Zawahiri once they have him in custody.

Meanwhile, Greg Tinti’s got video of Pat Leahy on the Senate floor comparing the bill to practices used by the Taliban, Saddam, or characters “in the fiction of Kafka.”

For sheer shrillness, though, one newspaper tops them all. Guess:

We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Strong words. Weighing it all in the balance and discounting for the usual Bush = Hitler paranoia, I’m forced to conclude that the bill is, in fact, probably very mildly bad.

But see, even when I’m inclined to believe them and take their side, I really can’t because I catch them either exaggerating or outright lying. For example, the Times describes one of the flaws in the bill this way:

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Well, no. Those two aren’t always contradictory, no matter how much Pope Andrew I wishes they were. Watch the Brian Ross video and listen to him patiently explain how information coerced from Khaled Sheikh Mohammed proved to be quite reliable indeed. And ended up saving god knows how many Californians’ (blue state!) lives.

They want us to debate honestly on this. Fine. I’m willing to, if it’s a genuinely honest debate. The first step of which is for us to concede we don’t want innocent people or even not-so-innocent people who are guilty of ordinary crimes to be mistreated, and for them to concede that in some instances these tactics are important and effective. If we start from the position that no one should be tortured even if we credibly believe it will prevent airplanes from being flown into skyscrapers, then we are at what is known as an unbridgeable impasse.

Vote’s upcoming. I’ll update with the roll when it’s done. In the meantime, our eternal allies are pursuing security Saudi-style.

Update: Jonah’s in the same spot I’m in.

I’ve now heard two very different versions of the detainee bill compromise. One version, a la, Bruce Ackerman in the LA Times, says that Americans can be unilaterally declared enemy combatants and deprived of habeus [sic] corpus (this also seems to be Specter’s version). The other version says this isn’t true because the Hamdi decision and other safeguards don’t allow it and even detained enemy combatants can challenge the enemy combatant designation. I have not had a chance to study any of the fine print. Anyone know of an honest broker who has sorted through all of this in a clear-headed and non-partisan manner?

Ditto. Anyone?

Update: According to DU, Reid doesn’t have the 40 votes needed for a filibuster.

Update: It’s 5:08. Fox says the vote is imminent.

Update: A Freudian slip germane to this post by the headline writer at CNN’s Political Ticker:

Update: Who said it? “I think that I’ve become — I hope — a credible spokesman for a muscular view of anti-terrorist activity by the Democrats as well as the country. The fact is, I’ve never been just an anti-war guy.”

Bush is taking off the gloves:

“Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstructionism and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR (Franklin D. Roosevelt), the party of Harry Truman, has become the party of cut and run,” Bush told more than 2,000 cheering loyalists in a Republican fund-raising speech.

Update: 65-34, it passes. Waiting for the roll.

Update: Here’s the roll. Joementum must be feeling pretty confident to vote with the GOP on this. Sharpen that blade, Liebs.

Update: This is unfortunate:

By mostly party-line votes, the Senate rejected Democratic efforts to limit the bill to five years, to require frequent reports from the administration on the CIA’s interrogations and to add a list of forbidden interrogation techniques.

[SunkenCiv]

Gosh, I wonder how Joe Lieberman voted. And for that matter, who crossed party lines on both sides.

[Marine_Uncle]

"The Washington Post is .....&%$$$#@@#@@@#$#:"
And they are lower then whale poop.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Hey,...you are up late....thinking about sack time....went out and had some BBQ Riblets...got a happy tummy....salads were getting old...

[Marine_Uncle]

Yea. I had to close the Home Depot tonight (11PM.). Got home fired up the computer then had some snacks, and a Coors Extra Gold Lager. Great way to spend one's sixtieth birthday, lugging heavy boxes around, getting saddled by tons of customers that all want service at the same time while one is the only associate in the electrical department.
But the good Lord provided the job, and I actually get paid.
BBQ Riblets....must be nice. Heh heh. Watch that high blood pressure partner.