Blogometer Extra

TERROR POLITICS: Habeas Or Hey, BS!

  It all started out innocently enough last week with the seemingly reconciled Senate GOP crowing about how they'd come together for Bush's sake on his detainee bill.

  Some righty bloggers like Ankle Biting Pundits were wondering just what the heck the fuss was all about.  Patrick Hynes at ABP had this to say:

"To read the likes of Andrew McCarthy, Joe McQuaid and, sadly, our own BDP was to wander through a bizarro-Kosland where every conservative speaks about every move a single guy makes as if it will end the world as we know it. ... [O]ur own, beloved BDP has, unfortunately, been relentless while spewing vitriol in Sen. McCain's direction, not unlike an irate alpaca.  Over what, exactly?  Well, if Byron York is to be believed, and I tend to trust York’s reporting, the answer is: Not much, really."

  He quotes Byron York: "The Republican 'dissenters' never wanted to cripple the CIA’s interrogation program... Rather, they wanted to work out a way to make most of the program legal using existing American law, not the Geneva Convention."  Hynes sums up, "[S]o John McCain never wanted to weaken our war effort so badly that we'll all be forced to pray five times daily facing East?  Oh."

  Things might have inevitably faded away had it not been for the, as the New York Times described it, "unusual" Monday hearing in which a handful of US senators aired out some serious concernts they have about the bill.  The Times reported:

Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee sought to slow down the effort by President Bush and Congressional leaders to speed the passage of legislation on the treatment of terror suspects. ... Senator Arlen Specter ... described as "inexplicable" a provision in the bill that would strip federal court of jurisdiction over detainees not formally charged with war crimes. ... Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont ... criticized the rush to pass the legislation, saying its restriction of court access would perpetuate "the indefinite detentions of hundreds of individuals against whom the government has brought no charges and presented no evidence, and without any recourse to justice whatsoever." ... Senator John Cornyn ... who was the only other member of the committee present for the unusual Monday morning hearing, defended the bill ... "It is important to remember — and sometimes I think some forget — these are enemies of the United States captured on the battlefield."

  Monday's hearing re-ignited a blog bonfire whose embers had just begun to cool over the weekend.

  Christy Harding Smith at Firedoglake was riled: "We are better than this as Americans.  The rule of law is more important than covering George Bush’s butt in the short term.  And I will be damned if I am just going to roll over.  There will be accountability for this mess — and it starts with the election in November.

  Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly tempers his disgust with ennui.  Re: Specter's "crypto-moderation," he says, "Why would a senior committee chairman actually do something substantive to back up a belief that pending legislation is an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus?  That's hardly worth fighting over, is it? ... And how about the Democrats?  Will they fight this?  We'll have to wait and see, but their performance has been pretty uninspiring so far."

  Justin Rood over at TPMmuckracker was inspired by a lawyer named Tom Sullivan, who appeared before the hearing and "sharply question" Sen. Cornyn, a supporter of stripping habeas corpus rights from the detainees.  Rood:

A partner in the white-shoe law firm of Jenner & Block, Sullivan has helped represent 10 Saudis held at Guantanamo Bay.  Three have been released; seven are still confined to the military prison.  He aimed his opening remarks squarely at Cornyn -- rarely does one see testimony so directly confront a lawmaker: "I've read the classified evidence.  I'm not free to disclose it, but I can tell you it's a sham.  There was no lawyer given to the defendants.  They didn't speak English, most of them. ... No cross-examination was allowed. ... Now, you call that due process, Your Honor?"

  Daily Kos's mcjoan even found among non-supporters of the habeas icing a curious figure: Kenneth W. Starr, he of the bazillion dollar Bill Clinton microinvestigation.  "'Kenneth W. Starr, a solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush, said in a letter to Specter that he [is] concerned the legislation "may go too far in limiting habeas corpus relief."'  It's even too much for Kenneth Starr, of all people."

  Finally, Orcinus pens a substantive piece intended overtly for the "values voter" mindset.  An excerpt from this must-read:

I've been hearing a lot of talk that the recent capitulation on American torture policy has demoralized many in the Democratic rank and file.  And understandably so; the Bush administration is plunging the nation into the moral abyss, and it seems that not only is there nothing we can do to stop them, but the people who are supposed to be fighting for us are self-evidently incompetent. ... I think they're mistaken. Republicans, in their hubris, have just handed progressives a valuable gift, an opportunity to win hearts and minds beyond anything they've done in the past decade.  Progressives just need to be smart enough to grab it. ... The baseline problem with torture, after all, is that it is prima facie immoral, a violation not just of the Golden Rule and basic Christian precepts, but of nearly any system of ethics.

  But it's hard not to feel the heat coming off Harding Smith's fiery call to action at the lake, as referenced earlier.  She declares, "From this day forward, getting out the Democratic vote is the single most important thing on my agenda between now and November — but I’m going to need everyone’s help.  I have damn well had enough."