Trapping Themselves

Democrats walked into the trap that President Bush set for them yesterday by obstructing legislation that would create military tribunals and clarify interrogation techniques on the world's worst terrorists. Here's what Charles Hurt is reporting:

Senate Democrats are blocking Republicans from passing several of their top legislative priorities this week, including new border fencing, two of the Bush administration's key counterterrorism programs and a drastic reduction in the estate tax. "The legislative corner they've painted themselves in is very difficult," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, (D-NV), told reporters yesterday.

Let's hope that Mr. Reid's quote is his attempt to spin the subject rather than his belief. I'd hate to think that a US Senator would be stupid enough to think that border enforcement is a losing proposition. I refuse to believe that Reid believes that voters would view establishing military tribunals and codifying what is and isn't torture as a negative.

Democrats, while accusing Republicans of presiding over a "do-nothing" Congress, are slow-walking legislation but appear unlikely to kill outright any of the security measures as elections approach. Asked yesterday whether Democrats will take advantage of Senate rules that allow lawmakers to demand 30 hours of debate on each bill, Mr. Reid replied: "Well, unless there's some agreement, we're going to go ahead and do the 30 hours."

Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss the point. When they return home to their districts and their states, more people will ask them where they stand on the most important issues of the day than will cheer them for bemoaning a "do nothing congress." I'd suspect that voters are far more concerned with knowing if a legislator would give the Commander-in-Chief everything he needs to prevent future terrorist attacks than anything else. I'd also bet a tidy sum of cash that more people would view a border fence as a positive than who view it as negative.

It must be nice for President Bush and Mr. Rove to be able to know that Democrats will say and do some really stupid things. Here's Ms. Pelosi's official 'contribution' to the national security debate:

"It's been five years since 9/11, yet not one person who has been directly responsible for 9/11 has been prosecuted and punished. There's something wrong with this picture. And this bill today, because it does violence to the Constitution of the United States, also could produce convictions that may well be overturned because the bill does not heed the instructions from the Supreme Court, a Supreme Court friendly to this Administration, which has directed it to go back to the drawing board."

Ms. Pelosi's omitting the most important details from the Supreme Court ruling, that the President couldn't establish military tribunals without legislation. It didn't mandate trials for terrorists.

UPDATE: The House just passed the Military Commissions Act.

The House approved an administration-backed system of questioning and prosecuting terrorism suspects yesterday, setting clearer limits on CIA interrogation techniques but denying access to courts for detainees seeking to challenge their imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere. The 253 to 168 vote was a victory for President Bush and fellow Republicans. Bush had yielded some ground during weeks of negotiations, but he fully embraced the language that the House approved with support from 34 Democrats and all but seven Republicans.

This is a stinging defeat for Democrats, who continue to whine about the legislation's provisions:

The bill "is really more about who we are as a people than it is about those who seek to harm us," said House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD). "Defending America requires us to marshal the full range of our power: diplomatic and military, economic and moral. And when our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well."

This isn't the first time Democrats have complained about how our fighting the GWOT with everything that's available is ruining "our international credibility." If our choice is acceptance in the 'world community' or using techniques that the timid UN finds objectional, then I'm all for letting the world whine. Protecting America is our first priority.

The right way of defeating the enemy is to be more ruthless and barbaric than the enemy. We should resolve that our least important consideration in wartime is what our warrior ways "say about us as a people."

Frankly, it really bothers me that Democratic politicians put a higher priority on getting along with the world community than they put on protecting the US. When did they take an oath to agree with the world community? Have they forgotten that they swore to protect and defend the US? This isn't difficult stuff; it's pretty straightforward.

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said: "This is how a nation loses its moral compass, its identity, its values and, eventually, its freedom...We rebelled against King George III for less restrictions on liberty than this."

I can't believe that Jerry Nadler said something this stupid. He's saying that our not granting terrorists the same rights that we give criminals is as heinous as King George's oppression of free people? This is what passes for thinking on the Democratic side of the aisle? Figuring out the thought process of a liberal is downright torturous. He's essentially saying that passing this legislation puts us on a slippery slope to anarchy. To say that the Democrats' thinking on this is breathtakingly alarming isn't hyperbole.

Follow this link to read the Roll Call vote.

---

Posted Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:28 AM

August 2006 Posts

Comment 1 by spike at 28-Sep-06 09:17 AM

No, he's saying that this legislation puts on the slippery slope to dictatorship, not anarchy. Which is true. With this bill, President Bush can detain people forever without charging them and he can authorize torture (you say we should clarify what is and isn't torture, the problem isn't the process, it's what Republicans are saying isn't torture). Those two abominations are exactly the kinds of things Thomas Jefferson was talking about in the Declaration of Independence.

Your blog is called "Let Freedom Ring", but your comments leave no doubt that you've forgotten the subtance of the very document upon which our nation was founded.

-----------------------------------

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN (not just citizens of the U.S.) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The history of the present King (George) of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

-----------------------------------

Granted the things Bush wants to do are not to U.S. citizens, but the treatment he is subjecting PRESUMED enemy combatants to is exactly the treatment we were rebelling against. Why should we subject others to treatment bad enough to cause us to revolt? It's not about our standing in the world. It's about our standing with ourselves and with our founding fathers. What would they think of us? They'd think we'd become the exact tyrannists and despots they hoped would vanish from the earth.

Comment 2 by Cian at 28-Sep-06 09:24 AM

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't reason number 359 for invading Iraq to establish democracy in the middle east? How does abandoning Habeas Corpus and judicial review help in this endeavour ? I must have been dozing during civics class when the lecturer mentioned that allowing coerced and secret evidence to be used against an accused is a central tenet of a modern democracy. And anyway, haven't Syria and Iran got all this stuff already?

Comment 3 by jan van flac at 28-Sep-06 09:30 AM

"the trap that President Bush set for them"

There...you just admitted the whole thing is just a cynical political ploy.

Let's get over the fiction once and for all that this administration cares about protecting americans.

Comment 4 by drlloyd at 28-Sep-06 09:30 AM

I'm unclear..define "freedom" for me..

Comment 5 by ME at 28-Sep-06 09:36 AM

Yes, it doesn't matter if the rest of the world thinks we're the bad guys.

Silly democrats and their enlightened principles. They think that peoples' opinions of us actually matter in a world full of democracies and balance-of-power international relations. It's not like they'll vote in leaders who will be less US friendly harming our interests for decades. It's not like other countries will join together against us because of how they percieve our values and motives.

Oh, wait. YES IT IS.

Funny how we used to be proud to be the "good guys", and that conservatives have used the idea that we are really the "good guys" to justify all kinds of foreign involvements. But as soon at they get scared 'bout 'terrists they give that all up to feal a little safer.

Pathetic. Cowardly. Unprincipled.

Your Republican party.

Comment 6 by Bill Biddle at 28-Sep-06 09:45 AM

News next week: President Bush suspends the Constitution because it's "too vague" and "needs clarifying".

Comment 7 by MattM at 28-Sep-06 10:04 AM

Wow...I'm getting dizzy from all the Republican spin in this column...

Can someone please explain to me how the provisions in this bill support the Constutition - because that's what the President, under oath, pledged to support.

And if you can't explain how torture, the lack of any charges or a trial, the elimination of Habeus Corpus, etc. support the Constitution, then Bush is breaking his oath.

And we all know what you do to a president who breaks his oath: Impeachment.

Comment 8 by Dave I. at 28-Sep-06 10:23 AM

"The right way of defeating the enemy is to be more ruthless and barbaric than the enemy."

Boy, you sure said a mouthful there. If in this case "right" means "right wing," indeed you are correct.

As for me, I'd rather be "right" in the literal sense of the word, and leave the "barbaric" actions to those you so rightly label "evil." If that means you, well, what can I say?

I don't hate America. I MISS America. And I want it back.

Comment 9 by Lindata at 28-Sep-06 10:24 AM

The trick is that you need some sort of actual due process to determine that someone is actually a terrorist. It can't be just that George W., some other Tom- Dick-or-Harry in the execuive branch, or a nameless Afgani war-lord, say so.

That way lies tyranny.

Comment 10 by The Raven at 28-Sep-06 10:24 AM

This blog entry is one of saddest things I've ever read. An American citizen cheers on the establishment of secret prisons, torture, the suspension of habeas corpus, and the imposition of dictatorial rule.

I don't use the term "dictator" lightly. But that's what Bush becomes under this bill, since he gets to name anyone - at will - an "enemy combatant." Once Bush (or any member of the Federal government he designates as having such naming authority) labels an individual with that status, that person is stripped of their rights as fast as they'll be subsequently stripped of their clothing. Then the real fun 'n' games start.

The KBG used to operate this way. Why Bush wants to do it is open for discussion. But any citizen who cheers this kind of abasement of our Constitution onward is a traitor to the principles of this nation.

Comment 11 by Jack at 28-Sep-06 10:26 AM

All of the Republican arguments are based on the assumption that the only people we have locked up in these prisons are in fact terrorists. How do we know that? Most of them were give to us through unreliable tip offs and Pakistani bounty hunters. A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE ARE IN FACT NOT TERRORISTS!!!

I'm sure that if the writer of this column were locked up indefinitely without being given an opportunity to appeal or even the right to know why he was locked up in the first place then his opinion would change.

The Republicans also keep complaining that their opponents whine to much about 'morals' and 'doing the right thing' in a time of war. Aren't the Republican's the self proclaimed moralists and Christian right!!! Start acting like it!!!

Lets lock up the writer of this column indefinitely and then see how he likes these laws

Comment 12 by John Dillinger at 28-Sep-06 10:28 AM

Too bad Bush is not as good as laying traps for Osama or the insurgents in Iraq. Do you guys ever tire of promoting politics over substance, competence, and governance?

Comment 13 by tommo at 28-Sep-06 10:37 AM

Why do you hate our nation so much? Why are you so willing to let that little piece of filth currntly occupying the White House shred our beloved Constitution?

Because you are a coward. A small animal torturing, bed-wetting coward.

And the real punch-line (no pun) is that I'll wager you call yourself a Christian, am I right?

I think you and The Current Occupant should be held incommunicado and waterboarded for five years without charges or counsel. That would be justice for all the damage you collectively have done to our country.

Comment 14 by liberalpercy at 28-Sep-06 11:14 AM

I weep for the America I knew and loved. Bush has destroyed it.

One very simple question for everyone cheering on Bush's power grab:

1) Would you feel comfortable under a radical left-wing President having this power?

Comment 15 by Tom at 28-Sep-06 11:31 AM

Well, I read the comments and (thankfully) most of them think this country is being torn apart one day at a time. Bu$hco is a criminal enterprise and they will have to pay for their misdeeds. That is a fact. What truly surprises me are the few persons who wrap their patriotism around an individual (Bush), rather than the country & the constitution. Why oh why would you few folks so blindly follow "dear leader"? He is doing a hit job on YOUR freedoms and YOUR CHILDRENS freedoms. Why would you want that? What has Bu$hco done for you? And I mean it: What have they done for YOU. What have they done for you which would make it ok to completely ruin our treasury, world reputation, safety, constitution, freedoms, hope for the future, etc...I simply cannot believe that you few supporters of Bush can be so blind to the reality of what is happening. Your blog title is Let Freedom Ring; I'm sorry, but that irony almost makes me cry out loud. Sir, freedom is NOT ringing in america now. The ringing you hear is your brain and conscience finally waking up to the truth.

Comment 16 by gil at 28-Sep-06 12:49 PM

Dear "Let Freedom Ring"

Just to remaind you that YOUR Commander in Chief that now needs to use torture to protect us, STARTED the war that is creating most of the terrorists in the first place... That would be Iraq for people affected with Amnesia such as you.

Have you seen the NIE report about Terrorism? Do you comprehend what it means? or are you stupid?

You and Bush are like the Pyromaniac Pshyco Firaman that starts a fire, runs to pull it out, can't, but never the less want to take credit for trying.

Pathetic people indeed, and in a bad need to see a mental therapist.

Comment 17 by Ed at 28-Sep-06 12:52 PM

Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)

Makes me proud to be a Republican.

Comment 18 by MattM at 28-Sep-06 02:04 PM

Unfortunately Ed, you make a terrible American.

Comment 19 by Will at 28-Sep-06 03:23 PM

I hope every legislator of whatever party that votes for this sinister detainee legislation is left overnight in zero degree temperature then awakened and waterboarded. Just see how fast their lame asses, and all who agree with them subjected to the same treatment, spurtt out worthless "intelligence". You so-called patriots are both dangeous and stupid beyond belief. America is in the process of breathing its last breath, pending this Senate vote. I'd give up all of my assets to see John Cornyn's pasty white redneck TX ass waterboarded.

Comment 20 by JR at 28-Sep-06 03:54 PM

The true purpose of this bill seems to be to protect the Bush Administration legally, which is odd, considering we've been informed time and again that everything Bush has done is already legal.

One has to wonder: when exactly will Bush have enough tools with which to fight the war on terror? It's quite possible that Bush already has the tools necessary to fight the war on terror; he's just not competent enough to use them.

And with this current legistlation, he'll never have to be held accountable for his actions. It's now official: The repubilcan-controlled congress and the Bush presidency are failures.

Comment 21 by Whoohoogirl at 28-Sep-06 04:05 PM

Why suspend the habeas corpus in insurrections and rebellions? The parties who may be arrested may be charged instantly with a well defined crime; of course, the judge will remand them. If the public safety requires that the government should have a man imprisoned on less probable testimony in those than in other emergencies, let him be taken and tried, retaken and retried, while the necessity continues, only giving him redress against the government for damages. Examine the history of England. See how few of the cases of the suspension of the habeas corpus law have been worthy of that suspension. They have been either real treasons, wherein the parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham plots, where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected. Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the habeas corpus has done real good, that operation is now become habitual and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under its constant suspension.

--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.

Comment 22 by Robert at 28-Sep-06 05:26 PM

These Dems are as stupid as those who put Saddam on trial.

Saddam tortures and kills terrorists (some who are even Iraqi citizens) and he gets put on trial?

Ridiculous.

This is the thanks he gets for not coddling the terrorists?

Free Saddam!!

Comment 23 by Robert at 28-Sep-06 05:28 PM

Brilliant plan by Bush.

Can't wait for the next Democratic President.

Sleep tight Mr. Rove.

Oh, what's that you say? You're not a terrorist? Is that what you are saying Karl?

Pshaw. I can't hear you. I can't hear terrorists.

Comment 24 by gil at 28-Sep-06 05:59 PM

Dear Right WIngers.

Is there any possible way that we normal people can make you see the error of your ways?

Let's see..... Bush starts a war in Iraq that he was warned by just about every one (including his own father's advisors)not to start, the most dire warnings come out to be exactly true and now he is convinced that by "staying the course" some how we will make things better?

Reality chack here people:

1) The latest reports by our own Pentagon is that attacks are now at HUNDREDS per day.

2) In everithing but name Iraq is now in a full- blown Civil War.

3) The Pentagon is using "Contractors" as substitutes for our troops for everithing from logistical support to "active operations". Why?, simply because we don't have enough troops on the grownd. The cost of this little PR trick? 10 times more than it would cost us taxpayers if we were decent enough (Here this Right Wingers?) to admit that we can't fight a prolonged war with a voluntary Army.

4) The Army is at a braking point. Over-extended, Over-taxed, and unfairly paying the price of Lazy-Boy "Patriots" in the Right Wing whose only contribution to their patriotic talk is to fly a little flag outside their house.

Question Right Wingers: WHo do you think is going to be doing the fighting for you when the Army brakes down?

5) The latest polls in Iraq show that 62 % of Iraqis want us dead, not out, but stiff DEAD and 80% want us out. That means that some people like us dead AND out on a body bag. Does that not mak you feel all warm and fussy inside for their incredible "gratitude"? Say again Right Wingers... why are we there? To help this people? You have to be kidding!! or be the biggest fools that ever walked the earth.

6) The President of Iraq and the maniac President of Iran have made a pact of friendship right in front of our noses. That is one hell of a Democracy we are getting here Republicans... Keep it up!!

If we continue to let Bush run the war on terrorism there will not be enough torturers or jails to keep up with the Recruiter in Chief.....As the NIE report CLEARLY puts it..... The Jhiadis are making Iraq their Jhiad.... And we play into their hands.

Dear Right Wingers Jihadis WANT US TO STAY IN IRAQ. There they can kill us every day for about 10 cents per kill.

With our troops there Osama can sit back and relax while our economy absorb billions of dollars per month in losses, can see our Military unable to react to other more important crisis, while he use us for propaganda and recruitment.

Dear Right wingers you are a bunch of MORONS.... Osama is not your enemy he is your friend.

Comment 25 by Will at 28-Sep-06 06:07 PM

Any Democrat who just voted for that Detainee Treatment Act needs to be ousted. This is among the most shameful moments in American History. I am ashamed.

Comment 26 by Randy at 29-Sep-06 12:44 AM

"worlds worst terrorists?" What do you mean by that? The legislation gives no safeguards whatsoever that declared enemy combatants are guilty of anything. The exectutive can now legally declare anyone he sees fit an enemy combatant and send that person away forever without any legal redress. It's a blank check for dictatorial abuse. The framers of the constitution were very careful to prevent the rule of men over the law. They warned against the very thing that's happened today. Our system was so fragile, but it's gone now. Fearful and just plain evil people have swept it away with the stroke of a pen. I'm so ashamed of my country right now I can't even express it.

Comment 27 by Tom Ritchford at 29-Sep-06 07:22 AM

You think standing up against secret trials, secret prisons, torture, you think this is "falling into a trap"?

Why do you hate the Constitution so very much?

And how *dare* you call your blog "Let Freedom Ring", when you are so resolutely against freedom?

Comment 28 by Martha Hatfield at 29-Sep-06 08:10 AM

You refer to Bush's role as the Commander-in-Chief. He is the Commander of the US armed forces. The civilian population does not have a "Commander" and we would like to keep it that way.

Comment 29 by po at 29-Sep-06 08:12 AM

there will come a day, perhaps not too far in the future, when the 'tools' allegedly 'needed' to fight your GWOT will be used against some of those who believed most ardently that the law would somehow 'protect' them from the terrorist danger. Those who think that this is a good law fail to understand the great ideas and ideals that this country was founded upon or the threat posed by or what motivates extremists.

Wallow in it and explain to me, what would Jesus do? Perhaps there will be a trial lawyer not detained that can help you get out of the secret prison, oh, wait, you can't have that reviewed.

Sleep well, someone is watching you.

Comment 30 by Greg at 29-Sep-06 08:06 PM

So, if it doesn't scare you that President Hillary Clinton has total power to declare anyone an Enemy Combatant, throw them in a jail cell, torture them and have no independant review from an independant court as to the reasonableness of the torture, detention etc - if that doesn't scare you, then you're brain dead.

If it doesn't scare you that ANY president should have such unchecked powers - well Freedom and such views are pretty much in total opposition to each other.

The people of this country will one day regret allowing their representatives to vote in such horrifying legislation.

If the supreme court doesn't strike it, we will be required to suffer the consequences.

How sad. We've sold our birthright, our freedom for a bowl of pottage.