2007/03/08

Now That's More Like It - Habeas Corpus Restoration

I am usually loathe to simply parrot the news, but this has me grinning from ear to ear. From Raw Story:
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), who chairs the Homeland Security Subcommitee on Intelligence, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, announced today the presentation of bills that would reverse "problematic parts of the Military Commissions Act," according to a statement released by Harman's office.
Now let's be realistic here. We know if these bills make it through the conference committees, out of Congress, and to the President's desk, Bush will either veto them or will attach a signing statement that says essentially: "As the Commander in Chief, I am not required to implement any legislation that impinges on conducting the military affairs of the United States...oh and by the way, these are bad guys who have no rights and we don't torture them." But the damage to Bu$hCo and the GOP will be enormous. Democrats will harp on how a Republican president demonstrated his disdain for the Constitution--how he ignored the will of the people. The complex constitutional question of Presidential authority vs. constitutional imperatives will be lost in the noise, and each Republican presidential candidate will get tagged with the "just another damn Constitution busting Republican," label.

In other words...this could be really interesting.

14 Comments:

Great strategy ... if the Dem's can implement it. My biggest struggle with the Democratic party is the fact that they STILL cannot control the framing of an argument.
Thanks for posting that. I watch a lot of news, but that story must have slipped through the cracks.

Yes, this will be interesting.
Citizenboo... No truer words. The Democrats still seem to wuss out when the 'Thuglicans take the initiative on framing the debate. The need to show some spine.

Lizzy...my pleasure. Though, I'm having a hard time finding supporting references. So far the MSM seems to be ignoring this--and it's so damn important. What gives?
They should make a bill that the president can only attach a signing statement if he also attaches an essay as to why it is necessary to go around the people who are supposed to be the voice of the people and what reasoning there is for him to be circumventing the Constitution. It must be written by the president and have footnotes and source lists. I assume that President Bush would do his essays in crayon or Elmer's glue and glitter
Harman & Nadler, along with the rest of the Out of Iraq caucus seem to be the only ones in the Party willing to do what they were sent there to do. I wrote my "Blue Dog" democratic representative a letter and told him he better get on board.
I wish they could get a "No signing statement" stamp to plunk on every bill going forward. So he either has to sign up for it or veto.
Scott, Peacechick... The whole signing statement thing has no legal foundation to begin with. The veto is the only power the President has. Interpretation of the law is not a power of the Executive. Damn things should be done away with wholesale.

Fred... I'm with you. I wish Pelosi would show some spine and fully support this initiative. Though I doubt Harman could push this too hard if Pelosi wasn't at least quietly in favor of it.
The hearing they've scheduled for 3-15 should be an interesting start to things. Sworn testimony from Valerie Plame as well as Fitzgerald. . .and who knows "who else" may get dragged into it. . .
Oh, please, oh please, oh please, let Turd Blossom be forced to testify. Oh please.
OK...now I'm really confused John. What do Plame and Fitzgerald have to do with revoking portions of the Military Commissions Act?

Hill...in my dreams as well, but again not about military commissions.
Democrats will harp on how a Republican president demonstrated his disdain for the Constitution.

Talking points for days. I love it.
I am not sure if you, the Americans, "invented" the concept of the collateral damage or not? Nevertheless, in my mind, this Democratic strategy of instead hurting the enemy, Bush, and to consentrate intentionally creating collateral damage among the bystanders, Republican presidential candidates, is not just or fair.

This sounds to me pretty close being something like punishing children for the sins of their parents. Those of who commit the crime, should do the time. That it can't be done has to tell to a reasonable person that there are some unreasonable and built in protections that should be done away. Getting even no matter how, hardly is conducive policy for the Democrats. What goes around, comes around and that has no happy or any other kind of ending.
Praguetwin... We'll see where this goes. The Democratic leadership needs to throw their support behind this or it will go no where.

Pekka... The cynicism on both sides of the American political spectrum is deep and profound. Nobody on the left is going to call the Democrats on tarring the Republican field. And on the right? Given a similar opportunity, they'd do it in a heartbeat. In fact, they have been...continuously...for 5 years with their continual allusions to Dems lack of patriotism.
w00t and RAmen!

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link