The US adopts the Lex Gabinia

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

-- George Santayana

British writer Robert Harris wrote a fascinating op-ed piece that appears in today's New York Times.

It seems that in 68 BC a terrorist group -- they called them pirates back then -- attacked the Roman port of Ostia. (Remember that Rome was the superpower in those days.) They set it on fire, destroyed the fleet, and kidnapped two Roman senators.

Panic ensued, not unlike on September 11, except that the Romans didn't get to watch it on television. And in that panic, Harris writes:

[T]he Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty.

They adopted what came to be known as the Lex Gabinia, under which, according to Plutarch, "Pompey was to be given not only the supreme naval command but what amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone."

Harris goes on to observe:

Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of 9/11.

I've just hit the high points here. Go read the article. It's worth the hassle of free registration on The Times site.

Saturday - The Kansas Edition: Phill Kline, Kathleen Sebelius & the continuing saga

By Diane Silver

Former Kansas Attorney General Bob Stephan walks away from current AG Phill Kline just as Kline is battling for his political life. Ole' Bob, once popular in Kansas, refuses to say whether he endorses Kline. See the Lawrence Journal-World report.

Another update on Kline's claim that he used medical records to investigate a rape case: Kline says he did one thing & the folks he supposedly did it with say that's impossible.

Some folks are furious at Kline for comparing a top staffer's anti-abortion protests to the efforts of civil rights pioneers Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Kline's comment has been called "offensive and disrespectful" by African American lawmakers.

Meanwhile, Kline's campaign posted a web site slamming his opponent, Paul Morrison, for being part of a commission that created a bill that the Republican Legislature passed with the help of yes votes from the current GOP candidate for governor and lieutenant governor. Got that?

I once had the link, but can't seem to find it now. Has the site disappeared, or am I just missing it? Does anyone have the link?

What seems new about this is how the Kline campaign is using the web for negative campaigning. No word, yet, on if this has hurt Morrison, who now has his TV commercials on the air.

In the race between Gov. Kathleen Sebelius & Republican state Sen. Jim Barnett, a new Rasmussen poll shows the campaign tightening, just barely. See The Wichita Eagle story with analysis by political scientists, who still say it doesn't look good for Barnett.

Saturday Moments: From torture & Republican sex scandals to zombies

By Diane Silver

Let America Abolish Torture Now -- without exceptions
National Religious Campaign Against Torture

From The Washington Post:
Republican Congressman quits in Page Scandal

Meanwhile, AMERICAblog and Talking Points Memo say there is evidence that the GOP leadership covered up, or at least, ignored the Florida Republican's sexual interest in pages.

The "Value Voters" met in Washington, D.C., and claim that I'm (as a lesbian) from the "pit of hell" and, apparently, the source of all evil. Talk To Action has a good roundup of all the coverage of the conference.

On a more personal note: I've always thought that since I'm so powerful I'm considered the "most important issue we face today" (as the so-called values voters claim) that I should have some real control. Why can't I control the weather, for example, or something else equally vital? You'd think there'd be some perks coming from being lesbian or gay and personally undermining civilization. How about a break on my taxes?

OK, this is a couple of days old, but it gave me such a chuckle that I thought I'd pass it on because this is mostly certainly a time when we need a few laughs. Fom Boing Boing:

Zombie Rights March Protested by Pirates

Torture, Habeas Corpus & Detainees: The facts of the Military Commissions Act

By Diane Silver

You would think that Blogger worked for the Bush Administration. It is fighting me on updating my post on the details of the Military Commissions Act. Thus, I'm going to have to make short posts and collect the links in one place.

This post will serve as a collecting point, at least until Blogger fights with me again.

Meanwhile, the latest is:

The text of the bill as passed by both houses of Congress is now available in pdf, printable format.

The facts of the Military Commissions Act

By Diane Silver

[updated 9/30 12:30 p.m. CST with pdf text of the act]

It's time to move beyond emotion and to figure out exactly what Congress and President Bush have just done to us.

My goal with this post, which I intend to keep updating, is to collect in one place as many credible sources on this new law as possible. I want to really understand this thing and, thus, intend to collect not just those who critique the act, but also those who support it.

You all know how I feel, so obviously, I'm going to start with a majority of links from those opposed. This is for no other reason than the fact that so far, all I've read are opponents. However, I do intend to post links to supporters.

I'm looking for the commentary and reporting of people with some expertise in this area. Bush, Cheney and all the other politicians don't quality unless they are administration officials stating specifically how they intend to enforce this law. I'm starting with a smattering of links and intend to add others as I find them.

By the way, I do think morality is an important part of this debate, so I will include links to comments from religious and spiritual leaders when and if I find them.

Some of these categories will be blank to start, but send me links as you find them. New links will be added as I get them. Corrections will be made as I'm aware of errors.

Please post links in the comments section or send them to hopeandpolitics@yahoo.com

TEXT OF THE ACT

The text of the bill as passed by both houses of Congress is now available in pdf, printable format.


WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

The Ball is Now in the Supremes' Court
Andrew Cohn - Washington Post

With the passage of this terrible law, the "other" two branches of government have combined to try to ace the judiciary out of the detainee business.

Court Challenge to New Detainee Law to Come in Days
TPM Muckraker reporting on Congressional Quarterly story


LEGAL EXPERTS OPPOSING THE ACT

The White House Warden
Yale Law & Political Science Professor Bruce Ackerman

The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

(Yale Law Professor) Jack Balkin on Laws Without Judicial Recourse
ACS Blog

The MCA continues to recognize that certain conduct is illegal, but attempts to eliminate all judicial remedies for such violations.

Does the Military Commissions Act apply to (U.S.) citizens?
Yale Professor Balkin at his own blog, Balkinization

(1) Yes, a few parts of the MCA do apply to citizens; and (2) the MCA is probably unconstitutional in many of its applications to citizens; and (3) some constitutional applications of the MCA to citizens are deeply troubling.

What Hamden Hath Wrought
Balkinization

ACLU Analysis of the Senate Bill
This analysis -- in the form of a letter to senators -- was written before the bill was passed, but since the bill was not amended, the criticisms still stand.

S. 3930 not only lacks any explicit prohibition against the horrific abuse inflicted on persons by the federal government during the past four and one-half years, but it provides the President with explicit authority to define Common Article 3 violations and revamps the War Crimes Act without providing any specific guidelines. As a result, there is no clear bar to the Bush Administration once again authorizing the federal government to engage in illegal acts such as waterboarding, death threats, induced hypothermia, use of dogs, and stress positions.

NEWS MEDIA ANALYSIS

Detainee Bill Shifts Power to the President
New York Times (registration required) Analysis includes criticism & support & theorizes that the legislation may lead the Supreme Court to decide that it does not have the power to hear challenges to military commissions.

In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them -- albeit with a ban on the harshest treatment -- beyond the reach of the full court reviews traditionally afforded criminal defendants and ordinary prisoners...Over all, the legislation reallocates power among the three branches of government, taking authority away from the judiciary and handing it to the president.

Still looking for detailed information & links on:
LEGAL EXPERTS SUPPORTING THE ACT
MILITARY & TERRORISM EXPERTS OPPOSED
MILITARY & TERRORISM EXPERTS SUPPORTING
RELIGIOUS & SPIRITUAL LEADERS SPEAK OUT

Remember, folks, this is a work in progress. I need your help to finish it.

Am I alone in this? Today I feel like I am a woman without a country

By Diane Silver

These are my thoughts from Kansas on a gray morning. I woke up today, and the first thing I thought was: I am a woman without a country.

In the aftermath of yesterday's Senate passage of the torture-enabling and Constitution-trashing Military Commissions Act, it feels like my country has ceased to exist. I haven't moved away from my commitment to citizenship and the ideals of the United States, but my country has.

I am in mourning.

The second thing I thought was: I need to post about this.

The third thing I thought was: Is it safe? If I speak so openly about my fury and my disagreement with this president will I someday be said to be aiding terrorists? Will my sentiments be the trigger for an arrest. Is that already possible?

(On second thought: Aren't I being foolish! America will never do that, but look at the letter of this law. Doesn't it give the president the right to define who will be imprisoned? The way this is written, no one need or possibly can look over George W. Bush's shoulder, or am I wrong? I pray I'm wrong, and not just for me, but for thousands of other people and for the soul of my country.)

And then I thought: Should I leave? Is it time to pack up and go to Canada? My brother lives not far from there. Is it time to move near him so we could dash across the border quickly if necessary?

And then I thought: I will be damned if I let George Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Joe Lieberman and all the rest steal MY country.

And then I went over to visit Blue Girl, Red State who lives in Missouri not far from me and found her wonderful post "Rest in Peace America." Read all of it, but this is just a tiny snippet.

Sleep eludes me tonight, but it is understandable. I lost my country yesterday. It was not a sudden death - we knew it was coming. But that does not assuage the inevitable grief.

She talks about her anger and her promise to work for change. (And yes, oh great inquisitors, we are talking about political change, not violent change.)

It's time.

Enough is enough.

America is better than this.

The Times finds positives in the Democrats' actions on the torture bill. I wish I did

By Nancy Jane Moore
The New York Times says the Democrats' actions on the detainee torture bill show that they think Bush is weak:

The Democratic vote in the Senate on Thursday against legislation governing the treatment of terrorism suspects showed that party leaders believe that President Bush's power to wield national security as a political issue is seriously diminished.

They cite the fact that Democratic presidential hopefuls voted against the bill. Yeah, that's true, but I can't get past the fact that the Democratic leadership couldn't even muster a filibuster. And not all the Democrats who voted for the bill are up for reelection.

The Republicans, meanwhile, stayed in perfect lockstep, except for Lincoln Chafee, who's got special dispensation so that they can keep their majority.

I don't think the Republicans won anything politically. Yes, Bush got the bill he wanted, but the country isn't with him on this one. This bill, coupled with the disaster in Iraq and an economy that is only booming for the wealthy and upper middle class, could very much backfire on the Republicans in November.

But that's politically. The law is going to be on the books, and it's hard to get rid of something like that once it's there.

And the Democrats didn't win anything either. They look weak when they don't fight a president who's on the ropes. They look even weaker when they don't take principled stands. I understand why they don't have a plan for Iraq -- Bush and his posse have made such a mess there that it's virtually impossible to come up with a plan, much less a plan that can be explained in a sound bite -- but they've got to make a better effort to come up with one.

The majority of the country has given up on Bush. The Democrats should be running with that. Instead, they're running scared.

I still hope the Democrats take back both houses of Congress in November. I really hope they come up with a decent, viable presidential candidate for 2008. But I hope for these things because I have nowhere else to go, not because I believe in the Democratic Party.

There's no point in dealing with the Republicans -- they are continuing their goose-step to the right. Third party efforts in this country are usually an ego trip by one person and are only good as spoilers, sometimes disastrously so. (Yes, Ralph Nader, I'm talking to you. If Al Gore were president right now this country would be in significantly better shape.)

So I'm stuck with the Democrats. I guess they're counting on that. And I'm used to supporting the lesser of two evils. But it sure isn't the kind of inspiration that makes me want to write checks or knock on doors. My support will come through Move On. They know how to take a principled stand.

Kansas anti-gay crusaders Terry Fox & Joe Wright pull the plug on radio show

Less than two months after anti-gay minister Terry Fox abruptly walked away from his church, Fox and the Rev. Joe Wright have pulled the plug on their radio show.

The show and the church money Fox used to prop it up were allegedly one of the reasons leaders at Fox' old ministry, Immanuel Baptist Church of Wichita, were unhappy. Recently church leaders issued a statement saying that Fox misused the funds. Fox says he used the funds for the show, but that he had the power to do so.

Costing about $10,000 a month to broadcast, "Answering the Call" was reportedly number one in its timeslot on KNSS 1330-AM. The show was also broadcast nationally on Sirius satellite radio.

The Wichita Eagle reports that the two men say Fox' recent and sudden departure from Immanuel had nothing to do with their decision to end the program.

The Eagle reports:

Wright said they recently announced on the air that they needed financial support from listeners to keep the program going. But donations didn't come in to cover the costs.

"People seem to enjoy" the show, he said, "but for some reason, they don't want to pay."

The two men owe money for the show, but intend to pay it, Fox told The Eagle.

Fox and Wright are most well known for leading the campaign that successfully amended the Kansas Constitution in 2005 to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and any other legal rights for gay couples.

Since leaving his old church, Fox has started a new church in a wild west theme park.

The Eagle's blog also notes the story and includes the usual interesting bunch of comments.

In This Moment's commentary & coverage includes:

Yee Haw Religion!Fox opens new church in theme park

Integrity failures & arrogance may have led to Fox' departure

Anti-gay pastor Terry Fox abruptly leaves church

If I wasn't so punchy tired tonight, I'd have more to say on this. It will be interesting to see what happens to Fox next.

Molly Ivins: Don't be shocked when the world starts comparing us to Nazis

Leave it to Molly Ivins to put her finger on the truth. She writes about the torture/detainee bill passed by the House and Senate:

This bill is not a national security issue -- this is about torturing helpless human beings without any proof they are our enemies.
...
Fellow citizens, this bill throws out legal and moral restraints as the president deems it necessary -- these are fundamental principles of basic decency, as well as law.

I'd like those supporting this evil bill to spare me one affliction: Do not, please, pretend to be shocked by the consequences of this legislation. And do not pretend to be shocked when the world begins comparing us to the Nazis.

Read more at Alternet.

34 Votes

By Nancy Jane Moore

Now I know why the Democrats said they'd forego filibuster if they got a vote on amendments. They didn't have the votes.

Only 34 senators voted against the shameful, immoral detainee bill, according to The Washington Post.

I guess I'm still too idealistic -- I really thought this bill had enough opponents to support a filibuster and that the Democratic leadership was just doing what it usually does best: going along.

But only 34 out of 100 senators -- a third of the Senate -- voted to save the soul of the country.

As Senator Patrick Leahy -- one of the 34 -- put it:

We are about to put the darkest blot possible on the nation's conscience. ... This is so wrong. .... It is unconstitutional. It is un-American.

What I don't get is why more senators didn't understand that by voting against this bill they had the opportunity to take a moral stand in favor of American values and improve their chances at the polls at the same time. Public sentiment has turned against Bush and his posse, and a vote against Bush in this situation ought to be a plus for most Democrats.

Apparently the senators who supported this bill are so afraid of Karl Rove that they assumed he would find a way to use a "no" vote against them even if a majority of Americans think this is bad policy. I don't for a minute believe that they actually think this nonsense will make us safer.

And Karl Rove's going to do his best to beat them anyway.

I'm sure the Democrats who supported this bill will tell you that they did it so that we'd elect a Democratic Congress in November. But what's the point of electing Democrats if they're going to do the same thing as Republicans?

Here are the 34 Senators who voted against the bill -- the ones who retain some belief in our fundamental principles. Note that they are all Democrats except for Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island (who is a moderate Republican in a heavily Democratic state) and Jim Jeffords of Vermont (who left the Republicans to become an independent):

Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Chafee (R-RI), Clinton (D-NY), Conrad (D-ND), Dayton (D-MN), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Lincoln (D-AR), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Obama (D-IL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Sarbanes (D-MD), Schumer (D-NY), Wyden (D-OR).

I notice that potential presidential candidates opposed it: Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Barack Obama.

Here are the 12 spineless Democrats who supported throwing the Constitution out the window:

Carper (D-DE), Johnson (D-SD), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Lieberman (D-CT), Menendez (D-NJ), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Stabenow (D-MI).

Of course, Joe Lieberman voted for it. I sure hope that gives Ned Lamont a shot in the polls.

Olympia Snowe of Maine was the wimpiest of all -- she declined to vote.

The only Republican supporter I'll bother to chastise is Arlen Specter, who fought the habeas corpus provisions but then went along with his party. Pretty obvious that so-called moderate Republicans lack spines, too.

The only solace I have is that history is not going to be kind to these people. Unfortunately, there may not be much left of the United States of America by the time history gets around to pronouncing judgment.

Shameful Day: Senate passes immoral bill on torture & detainees

By Diane Silver

I'll let other people make the arguments about how the bill the Senate just passed endangers our military and all Americans.

I'll let others discuss the obscene politics of this vote, and the spineless capitulation of some Democrats.

Writing from the Heartland of Kansas, I want to talk about the heart of the matter: Morality.

Senate approval sends this horrifying bill back to the House, which has already passed its own version. The House is expected to rubber stamp the Senate version and send it to President George W. Bush, possibily as soon as tomorrow. Bush, of course, will be thrilled to sign it.

To paraphrase Dan Froomkin's marvelous column in The Washington Post: How far are we willing to stray, not only from our historic and Constitutional values, but from our religious and moral values as well?

As Froomkin so clearly puts it, this legislation:

...would ban torture, but let Bush define it; would allow the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant; would suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus; would immunize retroactively those who may have engaged in torture. And that's just for starters.

Oh yes, survival is important. No, I do not believe that the Constitution nor any religious text is a suicide pact as some conservative commentators have claimed someone like me would argue. We have to do everything we can to defend ourselves. We have to battle terrorists with bullets and bombs and ideas.

But what are we doing to our souls?

Is there not a limit to our fear?

What does our country stand for now?

How do you turn the Golden Rule into a get-out-of-jail-free pass for our nation to wink and nod and look the other way as Bush defines interrogation as torture and ignores habeas corpus?

Do you all know what habeas corpus means? The good volunteers of Wikipedia write:

A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody.

In other words, without habeas corpus -- which dies for anyone Bush says is a terrorist -- the United States can toss you (and it could be you) into the deepest, darkest, most secret prison and throw away the key. I heard a sound clip on the news today where a Republican Congressman was going on about how this bill gives detainees tons and tons of legal rights.

That is utter and complete garbage.

Bush's people don't have to tell the world they've got you. How do you get any legal rights if no one knows you're imprisoned? And oh yes, don't tell me this won't happen. We already did it at Guantanamo Bay.

Shame, shame on Congress. Shame, shame on the news media for doing such a lousy job of covering this (see Froomkin again) that few people understand the stakes. AND SHAME SHAME on those people who do understand, but have done nothing.

Apologies to Austin Cline for borrowing his incredible poster. I'm a tad more spiritual and religious than he is, but his posters are amazing. The text says:

It's not brutality when Bush does it. America is a Christian Nation. America does not "torture," but Bush doesn't want his methods scrutinized by others. Bush sends people to secret prisons for "alternative" interrogation. Bush wants to change the law to protect his people from war crime trials. There are no war crimes being committed in our name. Nothing to see here. TRUST US.

This is what a Constitutional crisis looks like

By Nancy Jane Moore

I was going to post a rant telling Democratic Senators to locate their spines and block the detainee bill passed by the House, but fortunately The New York Times did it for me:

The Bush administration uses Republicans' fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws -- while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.

I didn't expect any better from the right-wing Republican-dominated House. I knew they would pass this dreadful bill. Our only hope is that Senate Democrats will filibuster it. Come on folks -- there's more at stake here than your re-election. If you cede all power to the White House, it won't matter a damn who's in the Senate.

Here are some other posts you might want to read.

Marty Lederman on Balkinization sums it up well as usual:

In other words, the principal theme and effect of this legislation is to systematically abdicate and destroy existing legislative and judicial checks and balances.

He also points us to this wonderful comment from Katherine on Obsidian Wings:

No, no, no. The headline, "Rushing off a cliff," is completely unfair. Congress isn't driving the bus over a cliff--that's what the administration asked for, but thanks to the bold rebellion of Senators McCain, Warner and Graham, they refused.

Instead they simply removed the guard rail, fired the traffic cops, gave the keys to a drunk driver, and closed their eyes.

Andrew Sullivan thinks we're legalizing tyranny. And he still thinks so after pondering a bit on the subject. He also reminds us of my favorite quote from Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy:

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

(It's better on Sullivan's site, because he has a picture.)

The Washington Post yesterday told Congress to slow down, that there was no need to rush this legislation. I'm glad they oppose the bill, but I wish their editorial board would look for its spine, too. They seem to hedge everything they say.

Those of you who have senators: Contact them now.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright tells Kansas that Iraq War is "the greatest disaster"

Speaking at the University of Kansas, Madeleine Albright delivered a scathing critique of President George W. Bush's foreign policy.

Albright served as secretary of state for President Bill Clinton

The Kansas City Star reports:

Want an unflinching opinion of the Iraq war?

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright delivered one Wednesday night, calling it "the greatest disaster in American foreign policy."
...
In a scorching presentation, Albright endorsed a central finding of a just-declassified intelligence report that concluded that the U.S. presence in Iraq was fueling global terrorism.

"I don't think creating more terrorists is going to make us safer," she told a crowd at the Lied Center on the University of Kansas campus. The event was sponsored by the Dole Institute of Politics.
...
On another topic, Albright said the U.S. military was so desperately short of soldiers that America's ability to respond to a sudden new crisis was seriously compromised.

She urged the administration to talk more to the North Koreans, saying the lack of communication invites problems.

The Lawrence Journal-World also covered Albright's speech and has audio of it. Scroll down their page to find the audio feed.

Shame on Congress: House passes torture & detention bill

They did it.

Next up tomorrow, the Senate vote. How appalling.

From The New York Times:

"When our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the second - ranking Democrat in the House.

All of which doesn't even touch on the real truth. This is absolutely and completely morally wrong. Where is the powerfuly Religious Right now? Where are these so-called Christians now? Why aren't they screaming about this?

I am ashamed of my country .

Carnival of the Liberals

In This Moment came in for a nice mention on the latest Carnival of the Liberals, which was hosted by an Australian blog, Writings on the Wall. We thank them kindly for selecting this post and suggest that you surf over to their site and see the other stories they recommended and the interesting articles and posts on their site.

The End of America: Congress ready to pass bill green-lighting torture & denying basic rights

By Diane Silver

This is my view from the Heatland of the United States, from Kansas: This is the way the great American Dream dies. Out of fear and a desperate Republican need to win the mid-term election, we turn our backs on basic decency; we sell our souls.

AP is reporting that Republican leaders have cleared the way for the detainee bill -- the infamous let's - torture - it - out - of - them bill -- to pass Congress. AP says:

Debate on the bill began almost simultaneously (Wednesday) on both sides of the Capitol after hours of behind-closed-doors negotiations. The House was expected to pass it by late afternoon and the Senate could complete late Wednesday night or Thursday.

Although the version of the bill that is likely to pass isn't as bad as that originally proposed, this is still a horrible bill as Nancy Jane Moore noted in her post "The Bill Legalizing Torture Just Got Worse:

"Did you get that? They aren't just attacking foreigners -- they want to apply these rules, which clearly violate due process and other right guaranteed under the Constitution, to US citizens. And they don't just plan to detain those who have "engaged in hostilities;" they also want anyone who has "purposefully and materially supported" hostilities. How long do you think it will take before they definite "purposefully and materially" as "spoken out in support of opponents of the US?"

AP reports that House Republicans blocked any Democratic amendments, and GOP Senate leaders have "graciously" allowed Republican Sen. Arlen Specter and four Democrats to offer amendments that are expected to fail. Ap says Specter's amendment would strike a provision in the bill that denies terrorism suspects the right to appeal their detention in court.

This version of the bill also includes language that says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of the Geneva Conventions. AP reports:

While he would not be allowed to authorize interrogation techniques that would violate prohibited war crimes, he would be allowed to decide whether interrogation techniques are within bounds.

Let me ask you. If George W. Bush has the power to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and is allowed to decide whether torture -- sorry, I mean "techniques" -- are "within bounds," what do you think he will do? Shouldn't we judge him on his past actions?

It seems impossible to hope we can stop this, but still, call your senator our House member now.

Where is Congress?

By Nancy Jane Moore

Buried in the middle of today's Washington Post analysis piece on the National Intelligence Estimate is a bit of information that should make everyone in the US stand up and take notice:

This report was made available to Congress on April 26. April 26.

Today is September 27. Where has Congress been for the past five months?

The Post says:

Copies of the NIE were sent to the House and Senate intelligence, armed services and foreign affairs committees at the time, through normal electronic information channels available to all members, intelligence and congressional sources said. It arrived at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on April 26.

The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said the dog ate the report. That is, he blamed it on a massive computer failure that affected the classified stuff. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) told The Post: "The first that the committee knew of its existence was late last week, when 'it was requested specifically by a member. That was when it was found and scanned into our system.'" The Post went on to observe:

Whether the document was ignored or disappeared into cyberspace, however, it seemed to have made little impact on Capitol Hill at the time. No one in either chamber, on either side of the aisle, requested a briefing or any further information on its conclusions until now, the sources said.

"No one in either chamber, on either side of the aisle, requested a briefing or any further information on its conclusions until now."

What the hell are members of Congress doing? Are they so busy running for reelection that they don't have any time at all to spend on their jobs? Yes, Democrats, I'm talking to you! The Republicans have proved that they plan to follow Bush down the road to ruin, but why in the world haven't the Democrats made a stink?

I realize that the intelligence estimate -- or what we've seen of it -- just confirms what experts worldwide have said for a couple of years: The unnecessary war in Iraq inflamed Muslims everywhere. But even politicians more interested in keeping their jobs than doing them ought to be able to realize that the fact that US intelligence experts are saying the same thing means that it's time to take action.

No wonder the people in this country have so little respect for Congress. If it wasn't for the fact that our only hope of reining in Bush and his posse rests with Congress, I'd give up on the institution, too.

Yo, Democrats: Stop being the "loyal opposition." Read the report. Filibuster the detainee and wiretapping bills. Start working on a real plan that not only gets us out of Iraq, but lays the groundwork for rebuilding our shattered relationship with the rest of the world -- particularly Muslims.

It's a really good time to pick a fight.

National Intelligence Estimate fallout: Now what do we do about Iraq?

By Diane Silver

As Oliver Hardy used to say to Stan Laurel: Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into. The sad thing is that both the United States and the world would be incredibly lucky if the situation in Iraq were just a millionth as light hearted as one of Laurel and Hardy's old movies.

Unfortunately, the war the Bush Administration drove us into is not only killing the brave soldiers we sent to Iraq and killing Iraqis, but it's doing the opposite of what it was supposed to do: Stop terrorism.

Looking at the National Intelligence Estimate released late yesterday by the White House, it's obvious there isn't much to laugh about. Looking at the coverage and comment on the report, though, there is one bit of hope: It's obvious that finally, FINALLY people are understanding the horrible truth.

Here's a smattering of views and coverage of the report.

Juan Cole: "Bush should be ashamed."

The Washington Post: "The overall estimate is bleak, with minor notes of optimism."

Several active and retired intelligence officials stressed that the judgments were nothing new and followed a series of similar assessments made since early 2003 about the impact of the Iraq war on global terrorism.

The New York Times news story: "The harder we work, the behinder we get"

The New York Times editorial: "Maddening circular logic that passes for White House rationale"

AMERICAblog also has a good roundup of links on the report.

The intelligence estimate has led to much talk, but the question now that has to be asked and finally answered is: What do we do? How do we truly stop terrorism? Do we really think we can just kill all the terrorists and not create new terrorists? What do we do about their surviving family, friends and neighbors? How do we defend ourselves, and yet, not make the situation worse?

I'm with the Wichita Eagle on this one: It's time to have a REAL debate about the war on terror. Let's talk about the nuances of it. Let's search for REAL answers and let's enter the world of the reality-based community. Neither the United States nor the rest of the world can afford anymore fantasy-based military adventures.

Kansas newspaper calls Iraq War "disastrous" & pleads for serious debate

By Diane Silver

Wichita, Kan., has got to be one of the most conservative places in the country. Surrounded by ranches and farms and next door to McConnell Air Force Base, Wichita is rock-solid Republican. Its political and social life is dominated by the ultra-conservative churches of the Religious Right.

All of this means that George W. Bush, the Republican Party and, yes even Democrats, might want to pay close attention to today's editorial in The Wichita Eagle. The newspaper calls the conclusions of the newly disclosed National Intelligence Estimate a "bombshell" that can't be "ignored or easily dismissed." The Eagle writes:

To some extent, it's obvious. By declaring Iraq the "central front" in the war on terror, President Bush has found a convenient way to retroactively justify this disastrous conflict to Americans.

But clearly, as the report argues, the war has also provided a training ground for terrorists and a ready-made recruitment poster for jihadists around the globe, who point to U.S. occupation as proof that Western "crusaders" are intent on conquering the Middle East for their own ends.

The war is not just attracting bad guys -- it is creating them, possibly faster than we can rally resources to oppose them....

In light of this report, Americans must demand of the leaders of both parties a more specific, nuanced and honest debate about Islamic terrorism and how best to fight it.

Oh yes.

Meanwhile, Bush just announced that he is releasing part of the Intelligence Estimate.

The bill legalizing torture just got worse

By Nancy Jane Moore

The Senate bill on how the US will handle foreign detainees -- the supposed "compromise" legislation that legalizes treatment forbidden under the Geneva Conventions -- has been expanded to define as an unlawful combatant anyone who "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."

According to The Washington Post:

The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant.

Did you get that? They aren't just attacking foreigners -- they want to apply these rules, which clearly violate due process and other right guaranteed under the Constitution, to US citizens. And they don't just plan to detain those who have "engaged in hostilities;" they also want anyone who has "purposefully and materially supported" hostilities. How long do you think it will take before they definite "purposefully and materially" as "spoken out in support of opponents of the US?"

The bill also suspends the right of habeas corpus -- the right to bring an action challenging the legality of one's detention. According to The Post, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.):

assailed the provision as an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus, which he said was allowable only "in time of rebellion or in time of invasion. And neither is present here."

However, the Republicans who initially fought the bill appear to be going along with it, The Post says. So much for the much-vaunted integrity of John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Law Professor Marty Lederman explains the effect of the habeas issue in a post on Balkinization:

It is worth noting one thing about the breadth of the habeas-stripping provision, both in the new draft and in last week's version, that has thus far received inadequate attention in the public debate. That provision would eliminate the right to petition for habeas for all alleged alien enemy combatants, whether or not the detainee has been determined to be an "unlawful" combatant -- indeed, even if the detainee is deemed a lawful combatant (e.g., a POW) -- and no matter where they are detained, including in the United States.

Lederman also provides a PDF link to the legislation. Read it for yourself, if you can stomach it.

The US lags behind on gay immigration rights

Nineteen countries allow gays and lesbians who are citizens to sponsor their non-citizen partners for legal residency. The US isn't one of them.

Some of these countries -- such as Belgium -- also recognize gay marriage; others, like Brazil, have not changed other laws but still allow gays to sponsor their partners for immigration purposes.

The US is currently looking to overhaul its immigration laws, but granting immigration rights to gay and lesbian couples isn't even on the agenda -- not a huge surprise in a country obsessed with "defense of marriage" laws, but depressing nonetheless.

This analysis is part of a longer report from Human Rights Watch called Family, Unvalued Discrimination, Denial, and the Fate of Binational Same-Sex Couples under U.S. Law, which can be read on the Web or ordered in book form.

Women's eNews has a report on how this issue particularly effects lesbian couples in today's issue. The Love Exiles Foundation provides general resources on the subject.

The nineteen countries that allow gays to sponsor their partners for immigration are: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Details of what each country allows are available here.

As laughter builds over Kansas Sen. Kay O'Connor's retirement, the joke's on us

By Diane Silver

Newspaper columnists are having a wonderful time chuckling over the impending retirement of state Sen. Kay O'Connor, R-Olathe, but in the long run I wonder if the joke will be on us.

By "us," I mean the smart-aleck progressives and moderates who are so happy to see O'Connor go.

O'Connor announced last week that she would leave the Kansas Senate before the January start of the next session.

An ultra-conservative, O'Connor is most well known for saying that women shouldn't have the vote, or at least, for claiming women wouldn't need the vote if their men took proper care of them. (It was sometimes difficult to pin O'Connor down on exactly what she said. She often claimed she meant something else than she said and then turned around and said the same thing again, but I digress)

First elected to the Kansas House in 1992 from her suburban Kansas City district, O'Connor was elected to the state Senate in 2000 and re-elected in 2004. Last month she was defeated 73 percent to 27 percent in the Republican primary when she ran against incumbent Ron Thornburgh for secretary of state. It didn't help that she was running for the job of Kansas' top election official and had just been fined for breaking election laws twice.

Here's how the newspaper pundits are viewing her retirement.

Mike Hendricks from the Kansas City Star laments:

Kay O'Connor quitting politics!?! Great, now what do I write about?
...
You want irony? O'Connor served it up like spaghetti and meatballs at the K of C Hall on all-you-can-eat pasta night.

Sometimes I had to fight off the temptation to write about her.

Naturally, the news story of her retirement hit on the more 'colorful' aspects of her 14-year career in the Kansas Legislature.

Most notably the reason why Jay Leno once joked that the Taliban named her "woman of the year."

Ric Anderson of the Topeka Capital-Journal notes:

When O'Connor announced recently that she was leaving the Kansas Senate, the Statehouse lost one of its most colorful characters. Or, depending on whom you asked, one of its most loony.
...
For my money, though, O'Connor's masterpiece came last May when she voted against a bill aimed at prohibiting 14-year-olds from marrying. O'Connor fought the bill on two fronts, saying it would pressure pregnant teenagers to get abortions and that it wasn't needed because history was chock full of successful women who married young, including -- that's right -- the Virgin Mary and Loretta Lynn

I never met O'Connor, but I did testify against the ban on same-sex marriage in front of her and other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Much to my surprise, she didn't say a word or utter a question during my testimony or that of other opponents of the ban.

O'Connor just sat there glaring at us like a malevolent grandmother. I had the uneasy feeling that if she'd had her way, we would have all been marched out behind the woodshed for a good spanking -- at the very least.

However, I don't think we should be laughing right now.

Don't get me wrong. I am elated that O'Connor is leaving the Statehouse. She has done more harm than most people can imagine.

The real issue, though, isn't that this malicious character is finally leaving the Kansas Legislature. The real issue is how could someone as, well, "off" as O'Connor could ever be elected. How did she keep getting re-elected?

O'Connor wasn't a charismatic speaker or a personal charmer. She didn't even come close to representing many of the people of her Johnson County district. However, she won her district over and over again because she had the well-oiled political machine of the radical right-wing churches behind her. O'Connor couldn't pull in the support for a statewide office like secretary of state, but she could win her Senate district with the help of the churches.

My message to all you who are chuckling is to enjoy the moment. Get it out of your system. O'Connor's gone, but the real question is: How do we keep from getting someone just as bad or worse?

Call Congress Now: Force the White House to tell the truth about Iraq

By Diane Silver

I agree with Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo. It's time for us all to call our senators and representatives in Washington, D.C. and tell them to pressure the White House to release the April National Intelligence Estimate.

Five months after it was written, word of the estimate finally reached the public through weekend news reports. The intelligence estimate represents a consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and declares that the War in Iraq has put us all in danger.

The New York Times broke the story and wrote about the report:

(I)t asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

The White House responded to the news reports by claiming that all of the information from the intelligence estimate had not yet been made public. If that's so, then it's time for George W. Bush to come clean and release the report.

In This Moment's coverage of the report includes:

Are We Feeling Safe Yet?

U.S. Intelligence experts: Iraq War has put us all in danger

Bush's gains in the polls are an illusion

By Diane Silver

As some (many?) in the mainstream media argue that George W. Bush has gotten a post 9/11 anniversary bounce, the respected Pew Research Center reports that the so-called "bounce" is more like the dull thud of a drenched tennis ball landing on cement than an actual up-turn in opinion.

The Pew Center reports:

The pattern in these polling results, or the lack of one, suggests there was not a major change in opinions of the president during a period when the public's focus on terrorism increased markedly.

Bush's numbers ARE looking better than they were in Spring, but then that's not hard when his approval rating has flatlined at 33 percent as it was in March. (Note that an approval rating of 33 percent is getting down into Richard Nixon's gonna-have-to-resign-soon territory.)

What will really happen when voters go to the only poll that actually counts -- the voting booth on Nov. 7? Only time will tell, but don't let anyone convince you that the people of this nation are happy about the way things are going.

More importantly for progressives and moderates: Don't let yourself be sold the line that it's impossible for us to win.

Republican's chance of becoming governor of red-state Kansas rated at near zero

By Diane Silver

Political reporter Steve Kraske headlines The Kanasas City Star today with an interesting look at the race for Kansas governor -- or should I say the non-race.

Kraske's portrait of the campaign is one of unrelieved doom and gloom for Republican state Sen. Jim Barnett, who is challenging incumbent Democrat Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Kraske writes:

Outside the Barnett camp, hardly anyone is giving him much of a shot. Asked about Barnett's chances, Kansas State University political scientist Joe Aistrup said: "You hate to say zero. That's the reason you have elections. But right now his chances are not good."

Kraske reports that not even the Republicans think Barnett has a chance.

"I'd say right now there's one statewide race, which is the attorney general's race," said state Sen. David Wysong, a Mission Hills Republican.

What's making the climb so steep for Barnett? The "ongoing tranquillity of the race," Aistrup told Kraske.

Challengers have a hard time knocking off incumbents when no one is paying attention.

The split within the Kansas Republican Party between conservatives and moderates also lead to a seven-candidate GOP primary. That left Barnett's campaign war chest drained. Sebelius did not face a Democratic challenger.

I knew Kraske when I covered the Statehouse for The Wichita Eagle and always found him to be a careful and fair reporter. I'd pay attention to what he says.

Barnett just got his first ads on the air. I haven't seen them yet, but a friend who heard the radio ad describes a fairly nasty negative commercial. Meanwhile, Sebelius' TV commercials -- at least four different ones -- have been on the air for months.

Barnett's web site looks darn near abandoned. The latest news release posted is dated June 26, 2006. Sebelius' web site home page pop's up with her latest commercial, although the most recent news release posted is dated Aug. 11, 2006.

As a public service, I'm posting a photo of Barnett so folks in Kansas will, at least, know what the GOP candidate looks like.

Sunday Review: Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius says stop using religion to "intimidate and divide"

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius told a statewide organization Saturday that it's time to take a new view of religion and politics.

Speaking to Kansans for Faithful Citizenship, a statewide nondenominational group that's just a year old, Sebelius said it's a mistake to make personal faith a political litmus test.

The Topeka Capital-Journal quoted Sebelius:

"Far too often religion is used as a way to intimidate and divide us in that if you don't believe in a certain set of credos, then somehow you are not religious," she said.

Speaking at a Johnson County hotel, Sebelius talked about her personal faith and said her work as governor is guided by a chapter of Matthew that speaks to preparing the soul for judgment. The Capital-Journal reported:

"Did we feed the hungry?" she said. "Did we clothe the naked? Did we care for the sick? Did we act out of selfishness or selflessness? Do we truly love our neighbors as people of every faith are called on to do? If not, you're not going to be very welcome in the kingdom of heaven."

Personally speaking, my only comment is amen to that.

All of her comments are well worth reading.

Sunday Review: 65 American women have died in Iraq & Afghanistan -- most in combat

The New York Times reports today on the 65 women who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan and what their deaths mean to the long-standing debate about women in the military.

In short, the article notes that women are in danger in these wars because (a) there are few safe places in country and (b) the military is stretching the rules to allow them to serve in combat areas. The Times reports that women perform well and their service is desperately needed by a stretched - to - the - breaking - point U.S. military.

Let us not dishonor the memory of these brave women by continuing the absurd debate about women's right to serve in every job in the military. They're already in harms way. They're already doing what needs to be done. Let us not ignore them, nor turn our backs on them.

Nearly 2,900 American men have died in Iraq. This photo is of a memorial to the Iraq dead on a beach in Santa Barbara, CA.

Are we feeling safe yet?

By Nancy Jane Moore

Let's see now. We invaded Iraq because they had something to do with September 11. Only they didn't have anything to do with September 11 and the Bush administration knew it.

Okay, so we invaded Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction. Only they didn't have weapons of mass destruction and any "evidence" that they maybe, possibly had them was cooked by the administration.

Then we invaded Iraq to bring them democracy, only instead we gave them a civil war.

So finally we invaded Iraq because we had to stop the terrorists there (even though they had nothing to do with any terrorist attacks on us) so we wouldn't have to fight them here at home.

Only now we know that instead of stopping the terrorists in Iraq, we created bunches of new terrorists. And that's not the point of view of a bunch of disgruntled liberals -- that's the conclusion of a National Intelligence Estimate produced in April by US intelligence agencies.

The New York Times broke this story and Diane reported on it yesterday.

Today's catch-up story in The Washington Post tells us that:

Both Bush and bin Laden now consistently describe the Iraq war as the "central front" of the global war, and both are depending on victory there to set the direction of future struggles far afield.

In other words Bush, who was more interested in invading Iraq than in catching bin Laden, played right into the man's hands.

I've only got one question: At this point, how can anyone see Bush and his bozos as the people who will do the best job of keeping us safe?