![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Abstention
Sep. 28th, 2006 10:07 pmVia this page, I see that the representative in my newly adopted district, Marty Meehan, did not vote on the abominable pro-torture/pro-general-tyranny law just passed by Congress. I may have to start bothering him to a degree that was unnecessary in the old place. Or hoping for a viable primary challenge.
My Senators were reliably against, but there was no attempt to filibuster. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether the Senate deal cut to allow debate on the Specter amendment (which would have restored habeas corpus protections, and failed by two votes) really forbade filibustering, but it appears that they just barely failed to have enough votes to sustain one anyway. It's shameful either way, and the deal was a bad idea.
Much attention has been paid to the revocation of habeas corpus for aliens detained under the law. There are many other terrible things about it, but the worst thing about it may be that it gives Congressional approval to the administration's category of "unlawful enemy combatants," whom the executive branch is allowed to detain as it sees fit, and who are designated on the executive branch's say-so with no judicial oversight whatsoever.
Under this law, if, say, they're sufficiently pissed off by this LiveJournal post, the DoD could declare me an unlawful enemy combatant tomorrow, hold me without charges and I would have no legal recourse whatsoever. Since I'm a citizen, I'd still have habeas, but it wouldn't do any good since the response to any habeas challenge would just be "we say you're an unlawful enemy combatant". The stated intention of the law is to use it on dangerous terrorist suspects, but stated intentions count for nothing; the executive practice it's legitimizing has not turned out that way very reliably, and the way the system is supposed to work, you're not supposed to have to take this on trust. This or some future administration could use it to support a completely arbitrary reign of terror.
I am still just idealistic enough to believe that, in general, Democrats (and Republicans) who stand up against this sort of ratification of executive thuggery will ultimately look stronger rather than weaker. After all, as Jack Balkin says, Democrats got nothing for caving; Bush and the Republicans are going to paint them as terrorist-coddlers anyway.
Even if opposing torture and arbitrary detention is a career-ender, screw it, this isn't the sort of thing you play stupid campaign games with.
My Senators were reliably against, but there was no attempt to filibuster. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether the Senate deal cut to allow debate on the Specter amendment (which would have restored habeas corpus protections, and failed by two votes) really forbade filibustering, but it appears that they just barely failed to have enough votes to sustain one anyway. It's shameful either way, and the deal was a bad idea.
Much attention has been paid to the revocation of habeas corpus for aliens detained under the law. There are many other terrible things about it, but the worst thing about it may be that it gives Congressional approval to the administration's category of "unlawful enemy combatants," whom the executive branch is allowed to detain as it sees fit, and who are designated on the executive branch's say-so with no judicial oversight whatsoever.
Under this law, if, say, they're sufficiently pissed off by this LiveJournal post, the DoD could declare me an unlawful enemy combatant tomorrow, hold me without charges and I would have no legal recourse whatsoever. Since I'm a citizen, I'd still have habeas, but it wouldn't do any good since the response to any habeas challenge would just be "we say you're an unlawful enemy combatant". The stated intention of the law is to use it on dangerous terrorist suspects, but stated intentions count for nothing; the executive practice it's legitimizing has not turned out that way very reliably, and the way the system is supposed to work, you're not supposed to have to take this on trust. This or some future administration could use it to support a completely arbitrary reign of terror.
I am still just idealistic enough to believe that, in general, Democrats (and Republicans) who stand up against this sort of ratification of executive thuggery will ultimately look stronger rather than weaker. After all, as Jack Balkin says, Democrats got nothing for caving; Bush and the Republicans are going to paint them as terrorist-coddlers anyway.
Even if opposing torture and arbitrary detention is a career-ender, screw it, this isn't the sort of thing you play stupid campaign games with.