MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Wednesday, October 1, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 61.0° F  Partly Cloudy
Collapse Photo Bar

Call Feingold TODAY to filibuster torture bill

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Did you call?

Yes!
2
100%
I sent an email
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 2

Call Feingold TODAY to filibuster torture bill

Postby Andy Olsen » Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:09 pm

People:

Bush is pushing through a new law that would allow the President to define and authorize torture. This is a national disgrace and we need the conscience of the Senate, Russ Feingold, to filibuster this bill.

Please contact his office NOW and urge Senator Feingold to filibuster the torture bill.

Here are some links for background:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006 ... 24274.html

And Senator Feingold's statement:
Mr. President, I oppose the Military Commissions Act.

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

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

Finally, only because he was essentially ordered to do so by the Supreme Court, the President has agreed to consult with Congress. I would have hoped that we would take this opportunity to pass legislation that allows us to proceed in accordance with our laws and our values. That is what separates America from our enemies. These trials, conducted appropriately, have the potential to demonstrate to the world that our democratic, constitutional system of government is our greatest strength in fighting those who attacked us.

And that is why I am saddened that I must oppose this legislation. Because, Mr. President, the trials conducted under this legislation will send a very different signal to the world, one that I fear will put our own troops and personnel in jeopardy both now and in future conflicts. To take just a few examples, this legislation would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and hearsay, would not allow full judicial review of the conviction, and yet would allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death. That is simply unacceptable. We would not stand for another country to try our citizens under those rules, and we should not stand for our own government to do so, either.


Contact information:
Feingold, Russell D.- (D - WI)
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5323
E-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov

Middleton
1600 Aspen Commons
Middleton, WI 53562-4716
(608) 828-1200
TDD (608) 828-1215
Fax (608) 828-1203
Andy Olsen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:28 pm
Location: East side Madison

Postby Galoot » Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:30 pm

Thanks for the reminder. I called this evening and left a message on the Washington office voicemail.

This is exactly what Feingold needs to do--take the principled stance, as he has done so often in the past.
Galoot
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 1:10 pm

Postby white_rabbit » Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:45 pm

It passed. I'll have to read more about the bill, but from what I've been hearing and reading so far in the news is that habeas corpus can be suspended if you're determined to be actively or materially supporting terrorism, as determined by a tribunal. So in other words, if you get busted for buying a bag of pot from a dealer who happens to buy his stash from a contact who is supplied by donkey who originally transported the goods from an individual who made a purchase from a dude who happened to be selling some weed to funnel money into a jihadish Islam group, you are materially supporting terrorism and could disappear forever into one of the little detention centers that are currently being built by Haliburton.
white_rabbit
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7487
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:44 pm

Postby Smartypants » Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:05 pm

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) voted for the bill after telling reporters earlier that he would oppose it because it is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He particularly cited its denial of the habeas corpus right to military detainees. In an interview last night, Specter said he decided to back the bill because it has several good items, "and the court will clean it up" by striking the habeas corpus provisions.


Done, and done.

Seriously, is this really standing up for your convictions? Wow. It's a sad day for the US and it'll be even sadder as Bush signs this into law.

Is there any more basic human right than the right to justice if we really want to have a moral society? I honestly never thought I'd see the day when my country would purposefully degrade and erode the Geneva Conventions.

..and even sadder is the fact that most Americans don't even know what's going on..

I wrote to Senator Feingold. Sad day indeed.
Smartypants
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 9:45 am
Location: In an office somewhere....

Postby Chuck_Schick » Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:17 am

Galoot wrote:This is exactly what Feingold needs to do--take the principled stance, as he has done so often in the past.

Um ... if you heard him speak on this, you know that he has taken a principled stand.

It's all well and good to contact your senator to register you disgust with this bullshit, but let's not put Feingold under the heat lamp for not waging a filibuster when he didn't have the numbers on his side to do so.

Look at the margin on this vote. Filibuster wasn't an option. If it had been, I'm confident our boy would have been all over it.

The people who need the bitch-slapping are the cowardly Democrats who voted with the majority on this horseshit bill. You can find them here.
Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Postby Jay Allen » Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:29 am

Chuck_Schick wrote:The people who need the bitch-slapping are the cowardly Democrats who voted with the majority on this horseshit bill. You can find them here.
I continue to be amazed that anyone voted for this bill. I wonder how much time we have before the next civil war...
Jay Allen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: Fitchburg, WI

Postby Mike S. » Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:18 am

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) voted for the bill after telling reporters earlier that he would oppose it because it is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He particularly cited its denial of the habeas corpus right to military detainees. In an interview last night, Specter said he decided to back the bill because it has several good items, "and the court will clean it up" by striking the habeas corpus provisions.


It doesn't matter what a Republican believes, only what he's told to do. Whether it's this, or handing away U.S. sovereignty on the "cybercrime bill", or McCain's pretended opposition to torture - it doesn't matter! Next time a Democrat debates a Republican I don't want to see him waste one moment talking about what the other guy believes - I just want him to say "It doesn't matter what you believe, only what you're told to do - that's what it means to be a Republican!"
Mike S.
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:34 pm

Postby doddles » Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:54 am

Mike S. wrote:It doesn't matter what a Republican believes, only what he's told to do.

Now I understand why Lieberman voted for it. What a prick.
doddles
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:14 pm
Location: Reading, UK

Postby Andy Olsen » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:03 pm

Well, it passed. This was a combination of legislative electioneering and the Bush-Cheney powerlust. My take is that Dem leadership didn't want this turned into a Homeland Security vote and considered it patently unconstitutional. It should be challenged in courts any day now.

And, you know, it's okay to duck a fight that might burn you IF you show some fight when it counts. And the Dems have that first part down solid, but they still need work on the second part.

Once again, Ben Nelson of Nebraska votes with the Repubs. He's the heir to Lieberman.

This is terrible, worrying stuff. If this becomes the law of the land, we're no longer the country of Washington. Just another authoritarian regime, among many.
Andy Olsen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:28 pm
Location: East side Madison


Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DCB and 4 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar