I can't see how anyone can support stripping of habeas by the same government that runs the DMV; we do not trust them not to fuck it up in small matters, so I'm sure they'll be just fine when it comes to big matters.
I'm planning to call at lunch time. But (as I asked at Katherine/Hilzoy's post), will a request to support the amendment be treated as a retraction of my previous request to filibuster the bill as a whole?
Thanks. Everyone says these calls are effective, and over at ObWi people who sound knowledgeable (CharleyCarp, particularly) are sauing that this one is close -- we really aren't just shouting down a well.
Consider: the bill is bad but the habeas portion is extremely bad. But if we get them to amend the habeas portion, we still have a very bad bill but we've made everyone happy with a small political victory, and we're still stomping all over detainees.
4: I don't think so -- the habeas portion really is more important. If people can get into court to make their case, it's going to be very hard for the Administration to argue with a straight face that "No, chaining this man to the floor for a day in a 'stress position' until he shat himself and started pulling his hair out in hunks" didn't violate the law as written.
If this bill passes in any form with dem support, the dems can no longer call the republicans the party of torture. The dems will, themselves, have supported a torture bill.
maybe that's worth it if it's a choice between saving habeas or saving nothing, but it's something to be considered.
The habeas amendment works like a poison pill but vice versa. A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down? No thanks. The Republicans want to sink the Republic—they should not, in the end, do so with the aid of the Democratic Party, whose support the Republicans hope to tease by adjoining Constitution-negating riders to abjectly awful legislation.
text, I bet that people don't pay enough attention to legislation procedure for "voted for before voting against" to stick against any individual congressman in the mid-terms, if that's what you're asking.
I called Senator KBHutchison's office and was told that the staffer had not yet received the public statement about the habeas bill, so. Having neither day job nor my own congressional representation, I'm happy to call anybody's congressman and pretend to be a concerned state citizen, provided that I have a few pertinent facts about the state so that I'm not outed as an imposter over the phone.
That seems to be the only morally defensible position: insist that your senator vote for the amendment and, regardless of whether the amendment is successful or not, attempt to fillibuster the bill.
So: Menendez is not saying what his position is until he sees the final language; but his phone-answerer will pass along that I want to see the amendment win and the full bill lose. Lautenberg's phone-answerer is very confusing to talk to but I think the senator is opposed to the bill and won't say anything about the amendment.
(After I spoke to Lautenberg's office I was ordering lunch from the cart at 41st and Madison, and I looked down at the sidewalk under the cart, where I saw inscribed the fifth stanza of this poem.)
There's plenty not to like about the bill other than the habeas provisions, but the worst abuses of prisoners become less problematic if there is a habeas remedy available. They can't torture my guys, for instance, because they know I'll see them in six weeks, and I'll hear all about it.
I don't know whether there are enough votes for a filibuster. I think that's a longer shot than Specter-Levin.
Frankly, I think it is crystal clear that there won't be a filibuster. When the Democrats won't even make statements in opposition--you do the math.
Anyway, there is no contradiction whatsoever between voting for the amendment and against the bill.
"Joe Lieberman's game"--honestly. I'd be pretty surprised if Lieberman even voted for this amendment. What it is, is Carl Levin's game: Mr. Damage Control. He did it on the Schiavo case; he did it on the original Graham amendment; in neither case was a I crazy about the approach--but when it went to court, it had the desired effect. Twice.
He's not a firebrand, and I wish we had some firebrands in the Senate on this, but he's committed and effective, and nothing like Lieberman.
I really wish we could channel some of the emotion I see about this issue on weblogs into something other than distraught blog comments when it's too late to do any good. For all the talk about the doom of the Republic--how many more calls were placed to the networks about Path to 9/11 than to Congress about this bill?
11: Smasher, if you call other Senators, make sure that you have a zip code to give them. The Maine Senators will ask for your address. Also, be sure to use those keys (I can't remember which ones they are) to block the office from using your caller ID.
I just called. Senator Kennedy's office was, as always, way more responsive than Kerry's office. The staffer at Kennedy's office actually listened, and Kennedy bothers to check if you're a constituent.
I can't see how anyone can support stripping of habeas by the same government that runs the DMV; we do not trust them not to fuck it up in small matters, so I'm sure they'll be just fine when it comes to big matters.
Will call Senators of Calastate soon.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 8:22 AM
I'm planning to call at lunch time. But (as I asked at Katherine/Hilzoy's post), will a request to support the amendment be treated as a retraction of my previous request to filibuster the bill as a whole?
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 8:24 AM
Thanks. Everyone says these calls are effective, and over at ObWi people who sound knowledgeable (CharleyCarp, particularly) are sauing that this one is close -- we really aren't just shouting down a well.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 8:24 AM
But one more question: is this an obvious scam?
Consider: the bill is bad but the habeas portion is extremely bad. But if we get them to amend the habeas portion, we still have a very bad bill but we've made everyone happy with a small political victory, and we're still stomping all over detainees.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 8:26 AM
2: Do you really think your Senators are paying that close attention? Or, I don't see why that would be the case.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 8:28 AM
4: I don't think so -- the habeas portion really is more important. If people can get into court to make their case, it's going to be very hard for the Administration to argue with a straight face that "No, chaining this man to the floor for a day in a 'stress position' until he shat himself and started pulling his hair out in hunks" didn't violate the law as written.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 8:31 AM
it's going to be very hard for the Administration to argue with a straight face
They could argue this with a straight face while being tickled. But I hope many judges wouldn't accept that argument.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 8:41 AM
7 -- the image of Karl Rove being tickled is distasteful in the extreme.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 8:43 AM
If this bill passes in any form with dem support, the dems can no longer call the republicans the party of torture. The dems will, themselves, have supported a torture bill.
maybe that's worth it if it's a choice between saving habeas or saving nothing, but it's something to be considered.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 9:07 AM
They could vote for the amendment and against the bill.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 9:13 AM
The habeas amendment works like a poison pill but vice versa. A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down? No thanks. The Republicans want to sink the Republic—they should not, in the end, do so with the aid of the Democratic Party, whose support the Republicans hope to tease by adjoining Constitution-negating riders to abjectly awful legislation.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 9:17 AM
Is that likely? Is there anything in the bill worth saving? If what we're doing is just trying to make the least bad bill, I'm not sure that's smart.
I'd rather start referring to the bill as "the abomination" and pick through my library for good filibuster tomes. But then, I'm not a senator.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 9:19 AM
If the Dems have the votes on board for a filibuster, they should filibuster. Otherwise I'm thinking it will pass so they should make it least bad.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 9:22 AM
3: how could they be "this close"? "Well, maybe suspending habeas isn't a good idea, but I'm just not sure yet..."?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 9:23 AM
I'm with Smasher. This smells like a Joe Lieberman's game.*
*A Joe Lieberman's game: n. A mug's game.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 9:24 AM
10 is it. You vote for the amendment and against the bill.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 9:28 AM
out of my own personal vanity, I don't think I could support the least bad option here.
as a politician, it would appear to be a very bad move. but I'm not a politician.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 9:28 AM
will all the dems who vote for the amendment, even it's sponsors, also filibuster? will the amendment dissuade any of them from filibustering?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 9:30 AM
text, I bet that people don't pay enough attention to legislation procedure for "voted for before voting against" to stick against any individual congressman in the mid-terms, if that's what you're asking.
I called Senator KBHutchison's office and was told that the staffer had not yet received the public statement about the habeas bill, so. Having neither day job nor my own congressional representation, I'm happy to call anybody's congressman and pretend to be a concerned state citizen, provided that I have a few pertinent facts about the state so that I'm not outed as an imposter over the phone.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 9:36 AM
That seems to be the only morally defensible position: insist that your senator vote for the amendment and, regardless of whether the amendment is successful or not, attempt to fillibuster the bill.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 9:40 AM
So: Menendez is not saying what his position is until he sees the final language; but his phone-answerer will pass along that I want to see the amendment win and the full bill lose. Lautenberg's phone-answerer is very confusing to talk to but I think the senator is opposed to the bill and won't say anything about the amendment.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 10:10 AM
(After I spoke to Lautenberg's office I was ordering lunch from the cart at 41st and Madison, and I looked down at the sidewalk under the cart, where I saw inscribed the fifth stanza of this poem.)
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 10:12 AM
There's plenty not to like about the bill other than the habeas provisions, but the worst abuses of prisoners become less problematic if there is a habeas remedy available. They can't torture my guys, for instance, because they know I'll see them in six weeks, and I'll hear all about it.
I don't know whether there are enough votes for a filibuster. I think that's a longer shot than Specter-Levin.
Oops, gotta run. Opening statement by Leahy at the hearing today: http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092506.html
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 11:27 AM
I'm curious. Under what circumstances would you support... hey! hey! Let go of me! Aaargh...
Posted by neil | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 11:33 AM
I am in agreement with Charley.
Frankly, I think it is crystal clear that there won't be a filibuster. When the Democrats won't even make statements in opposition--you do the math.
Anyway, there is no contradiction whatsoever between voting for the amendment and against the bill.
"Joe Lieberman's game"--honestly. I'd be pretty surprised if Lieberman even voted for this amendment. What it is, is Carl Levin's game: Mr. Damage Control. He did it on the Schiavo case; he did it on the original Graham amendment; in neither case was a I crazy about the approach--but when it went to court, it had the desired effect. Twice.
He's not a firebrand, and I wish we had some firebrands in the Senate on this, but he's committed and effective, and nothing like Lieberman.
I really wish we could channel some of the emotion I see about this issue on weblogs into something other than distraught blog comments when it's too late to do any good. For all the talk about the doom of the Republic--how many more calls were placed to the networks about Path to 9/11 than to Congress about this bill?
Posted by Katherine | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 5:08 PM
Now I'm glad I called Specter.
Posted by Timothy Burke | Link to this comment | 09-25-06 5:58 PM
11: Smasher, if you call other Senators, make sure that you have a zip code to give them. The Maine Senators will ask for your address. Also, be sure to use those keys (I can't remember which ones they are) to block the office from using your caller ID.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 09-26-06 8:51 AM
I just called. Senator Kennedy's office was, as always, way more responsive than Kerry's office. The staffer at Kennedy's office actually listened, and Kennedy bothers to check if you're a constituent.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 09-26-06 8:58 AM