Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

How was the debate?

By

By the way, here’s the backup supplied by the campaign for the most incendiary part of the ad (the bit about the rape victims):

Scott Brown Denies That He Would Deny Rape Victims Emergency Contraception

Brown Wanted to Provide Religious Exemption to Bill Allowing Doctors to Distribute Emergency Contraceptives to Rape Victims. During debate on a 2005 bill to allow doctors to dispense emergency contraceptives to rape victims, Brown sponsored an amendment to the bill allowing hospital personnel to be exempted on religious grounds from a requirement to inform victims of the availability of the morning-after pill, and dispense it to those who request it. Brown’s amendment was rejected and he voted in favor of the bill to require emergency rooms provide emergency contraceptives to rape victims.  [Senate, No. 2073, 6/16/05; Telegram & Gazette, 6/17/05]

  • Brown’s Own Party Called It A “Poison Pill Amendment.” On June 16, 2005, Brown offered what his own party leadership dubbed a “poison pill amendment” to an emergency contraception bill. Brown sought to allow hospital staff to excuse themselves from its requirements “to the extent that contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief,” creating what some supporters of the underlying measure called a crippling loophole. Minority Leader Brian Lees denounced Brown’s effort and a second related amendment on the floor, saying: “I can’t believe what we’re doing to this bill. Talk about a poison pill amendment, no pun intended. This is unbelievable. We are saying to women who have been through a traumatic experience, ‘by the way there may be some folks in hospitals that don’t want to help you so you might have to go somewhere else.'” Brown’s amendment and a related perfecting amendment both failed on voice votes. [State House News Service coverage, 6/16/05; Worcester Telegram & Gazette, 6/17/05]

Brown Recently Reiterated His Belief That Hospitals Have The Right To Refuse Emergency Contraception To Rape Victims Based On Hospital Personnel’s Religious Beliefs.  During the WTKK debate Margery Eagan pressed Brown on his sponsorship of an amendment to an emergency contraception bill that would allow emergency room personnel to turn away rape victims based on their religious beliefs.  Eagan asked, “Should if a woman come to the hospital in that situation should she get the emergency contraceptive or if there are people that for religious reasons oppose, she should have to go, and get back in her car and go to another hospital?”  Brown replied, “That’s really up to the hospitals.” [WTKK Debate 1/5/09]

Exact language from the Senate Journal:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/jour…

The Senate Bill providing timely access to emergency contraception (Senate, No. 2073) (its title having been changed by the committee on Bills in the Third Reading),- was read a third time.

Pending the question on passing the bill to be engrossed, Mr. Brown moved that the bill be amended, in section 4, by adding the following paragraph:-

Nothing in this section shall impose any requirements upon any employee, physician or nurse of any facility to the extent that administering the contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. In determining whether an employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious belief administering the contraception, the conflict shall be known and disclosed to said facility and on record at said facility.

If it is deemed that said employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious conflict administering the contraception, then said treating facility shall have in place a validated referral procedure policy for referring patients for administration of the emergency contraception that will administer the emergency contraception, which may include a contract with another facility. The referrals shall be made at no additional cost to the patient.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • From today’s Boston Globe:

      “Instead of discussing issues like health care and jobs, Martha Coakley decided the best way to stop me is to tear me down,” [Scott Brown] said. “But the old way of doing things won’t work anymore. Her attack ads are wrong and go too far. Massachusetts voters are paying attention to this election and they deserve better than tired, old gutter politics.”

  3. health care
    climate change
    financial reform

    <

    p>we can’t afford to lose this election.

    <

    p>please, help GOTV for Martha.

    <

    p>53 phone banks.

    <

    p>8 days.

    <

    p>let’s make history.

    <

    p>www.martha.com/events

  4. Gergen was one of the more aggressive moderators I’ve seen.  

    <

    p>Brown was dumb and condescending, but scored some points by twisting things around. He fired up his base more, but likely did not win many independents, especially not many women.  

    <

    p>Coakley was fine, but missed a few clear opportunities to bury Brown.  

    <

    p>Kennedy was actually pretty good, even though he barely talked.  He is a broken record on the usual libertarian spending line, but he had a few good points on other issues.  He’s one of the few people I’ve seen publicly discuss the real reasons why al qaeda hates us.  

    • I missed it. What did Kennedy say was wthe reason they hate us? And who else has addressed that?

      • He talked about us occupying land in their holy land and generally killing muslims.  Lots of people have addressed it, just not many mainstream politicians (he’s obviously not mainstream, but he is in a mainstream forum at the moment).  Apparently it’s only ok to call al qaeda and other terrorists completely irrational and talk about them hating our freedom, or other such nonsense.  

        <

        p>This is a good piece on the topic:

        <

        p>http://www.salon.com/news/opin…

        <

        p>

        Whatever else is true, having discussions about how our policies motivate and fuel Terrorism is crucial to having any sort of minimally rational public debate about what we should be doing.  But as long as the patronizing, propaganda cartoons that we heard from John Brennan prevail, it’s simply impossible for any of these considerations to be examined.

        • Yes, Isreal is the stated reason Bin Laden started al qaeda, but that’s supported by a long existing disagreement with infidel values that would have to be opposed even if we weren’t occupying anything but Hollywood or Cambridge.  So I think he’s shirking some responsibility for being libertarian.

          • Acting on that hate is something else entirely.  I don’t think that the violence toward Western people and property would be nearly as frequent* were we not “occupying land in their holy land and generally killing muslims”.

            <

            p>Israel is, of course, a special case.  But if their only day-to-day beef was that the USA supports Israel I don’t think we’d have nearly as much violence toward Westerners.  They might hate us in their homeland, but hatred doesn’t necessarily beget violence.

            <

            p>

            <

            p> * Terrorist attacks aren’t currently frequent; less frequent is certainly better.

            • Yes, the occupations probably provoke people into action.  But 9/11 was before the new occupations, wasn’t it?  I still think we need to change our globalist, feminist, consumerist ways if we want to stop anti-US violence.  We need to do that anyway, so it’s galling to me that we would refuse to change and choose to overpower people instead so we can continue such unsustainable bad lifestyles.

              • Terrorist violence is the feminists’ fault?  Are you channeling Jerry Falwell or something?  That’s crazy talk, my friend.

              • How many troops did we have on July 2001 in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc etc?  How many patrolling the Red Sea?  The Persian Gulf?  I don’t know the answer, but it’s certainly more than zero, and given that many think America over-militarizes around the globe, probably more than many Americans think was appropriate — certainly more than “terrorists” of that variety think was appropriate.

                <

                p>P.S. Which of the three don’t belong: globalist, feminist, consumerist?  Really — the idea that women are as equally human as men needs to be stopped?  Really?

                • Agreed that Bin Laden’s stated reasons for 9/11 was US occupations in Palestine and other Muslim holy lands, he didn’t mention our values or feminism.  But our presence in all those places is to impose our values, to bring them “freedom” which means to bring them into the global marketplace and our libertarian, feminist, consumerist values.

                  <

                  p>That’s not the working definition of feminism, or it’s not what I was referring to, anyway.  I’m referring to the idea that we need to convert Muslim countries to feminist views on gender roles.  Here’s an example by Brown: “They are basically living in the fifteenth century–not allowing women go to school if you went outside you’d be punished sometimes severely.”   I classify that as a feminist attack on their way of life.  If he is saying that the war is about slowly changing their values so that women work, everyone minds their own business and lets people do what they want with no religious authority, people can be gay, girls can go wild, etc, then I don’t think it will work, I think the feminist rejection of gender roles is unsustainable and it’s us who should change, rather than forcing them to.

          • I think not.

            <

            p>Brown’s repeated calls for torture and sending alleged terrorists to kangaroo courts are anathema to all genuinely patriotic Americans (who cherish freedom and democracy).

            <

            p>His contempt for our values makes me sick.

            <

            p>I am old enough to remember people praising Joe McCarthy.  Brown is yet another such demagogue.

            • Both Brown and Coakley offer different compelling reasons for muslims to hate America.  Coakley gives them feminism and abortion and gay marriage, Brown gives them military arrogance and occupation.  Kennedy gives them the same things Coakley does, as well as more market arrogance and globalism.

  5. Just as the word “lockstep” is spoken, at about six seconds in. Anybody else see it like that? If that was intentional, it’s pretty no-holds-barred stuff.
    Interesting ad- I love the contemptuous, foreboding way the movie-voice says “Republican”.

  6. So, the battle is finally joined.

    <

    p>I just hope Coakley’s campaign is prepared to ride this thing to the finish.

  7. why Martha Coakley can’t talk about our most recent, two-term president, whose policies are still impacting the globe, but Scott Brown can mislead voters by comparing himself to someone who hasn’t been president for half a century.

    <

    p>Brown definitely had some “good” moments tonight and Martha missed a few chances to stick him where we know she can, especially with some of the Constitution and HCR talk.

    <

    p>All-in-all:
    Brown was MEH!
    Coakley was meh
    and
    Massachusetts voters were watching something else

  8. If that’s what it takes, then that’s what it takes.  Glad to see the Dems taking control of the situation.  They were talking about this on MSNBC today, specifically about the PPP poll numbers.  My cries for coverage of Brown’s episode of public nudity were ignored.

    <

    p>However, when Hillary Clinton happened to reveal a small amount of cleavage, it was national news for days.

    <

    p>

    <

    p>

    <

    p>On MSNBC, Wash. Post’s Argetsinger claimed Clinton cleavage article “was actually very complimentary”

    <

    p>Why is Scott Brown being protected by the media, when Hillary was so readily covered for a far less revealing
    moment?  I suppose you could say that it’s a Massachusetts race, not a national one. But, he will be a U.S. Senator, so I think his episode of public nudity should be discussed on national television. If Hillary’s cleavage was of such interest, it just makes you wonder why Scott Brown’s almost full frontal nudity shot is being ignored.

  9. half way through the debate my sister felt compelled to call to tell me that she thought Scott Brown as an a**hole.  She didn’t know much about him and wanted to tune in.  She’s not politically active and I was surprised she even watched the debate.

    <

    p>He was all frothed up but couldn’t muster enough of a debate when one was open to him.  He gave his lines but there was no depth, to ofter replied with the same lines while at the same time talking over answers.  It was pretty sad.

    <

    p>My personal favorite was when Brown tried to hard to say a rehearsed line, Coakley had explained to Brown that the financial situation didn’t happen over night and he was repeating some of the policies of Bush/Cheney.  Here was an opportunity for him to differentiate himself, but he came back with: “I’m not George Bush, I’m Scott Brown, I drive a truck ….” there was more but I was laughing so hard that I didn’t catch the rest.  It was truly a Palinesque performance.

    • or maybe Barbie’s brunette friend . . . Was she Steffie or Francie?

      <

      p>Coakley did miss a lot of chances – but seemed very competent, informed and congenial.  Kennedy had to point out that, for all Brown’s talk about cutting taxes, he had voted against cutting them in the legislature.  

      <

      p>Whenever I see Coakley’s ads where she talks directly to the camera, I wonder why she moves her mouth so tightly.  Did she have some kind of jaw surgery or is that how she normally speaks?  It didn’t seem as noticeable in the debate.

      <

      p>Maybe I didn’t watch the debate without bias, but it was an easy decision for me: Coakley may not have won on points but she is clearly the one person up there tonight who was ready to be a Senator.  

  10. A little more follow-up from the Coakley campaign:

    <

    p>

    While a State Representative, Brown voted for a 2004 budget that contained hundreds of millions of dollars in fee hikes. On May 8, 2003, Brown voted for passage of the FY 2004 state budget. Media estimates placed the total number of fee hikes placed on Massachusetts families and businesses that were contained in that budget ranging from $390 million to $700 million a year. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation linked the fees to tax increases at the time, saying “It’s been disingenuous to say there’s no new taxes, in the sense that there’s very little connection to the fee increases and the cost of services that the fees are supposed to represent.”

    That same 2004 budget that Brown voted for included what the Citizens For Limited Taxation Condemned As “2.5 Cent Per Gallon Gas Tax Increase.” The House budget eliminated a special fund once reserved for combating the environmental threat of leaking underground fuel storage tanks while retaining the 2.5 cent a gallon levy on fuel sales that had once been earmarked solely to fund it. The effect, anti-tax activists said, was to transform a user fee into a tax. Citizens for Limited Taxation condemned it as a “2.5 cent per gallon gas tax increase disguised as an environmental ‘assessment'” and the American Automobile Association labeled it a “backdoor tax.

    In addition, Scott Brown Has Voted For $237.6 Billion in Spending on Beacon Hill. Since joining the Massachusetts Legislature a decade ago, Scott Brown has voted in favor of state budgets that provided for $237,600,000,000 in state spending, that’s nearly a quarter trillion taxpayer dollars.

    <

    p>So much for the man’s honor. He uses his uniform to try to score cheap political points and can’t even be bothered to follow DoD rules against mixing politics with military service, so I guess one wouldn’t expect much honesty about his tax stands either. Pitiful.

    • Per usual, we Dems have got the facts on our side. BTW, here’s the RSS feed for the campaign’s press releases: http://marthacoakley.com/news/…

      <

      p>See something you like? Tweet it around, Facebook it. The campaign’s doing it, but an extra push never hurts.

  11. so I’m biased, as you all know.  But I think that ad sucks.  It smacks of desperation.

    <

    p>Which, I guess, is where you are right now.

    <

    p>Look around, what are people so up in arms about?  Lack of a healthcare bill?  Lack of representation for terrorists?  Inadequate amounts of spending?  Lack of progressive action?

    <

    p>Yea I don’t think so.

  12. Someone should ask Scott The Clown Brown if he supports a legal “religious” exemption from life-saving medical care and surgery, too. You know –for when one of those fundamentalist or ultra-conservative Christian Science parents wants to deny their children medical care in favor of prayer.

    <

    p>Or maybe Brown should answer why conservative Muslims aren’t entitled to a “religious” exemption so they can legally perform genital mutilation on their daughters. Or a “religious” exemption for adults to marry children younger than the legal age of consent.

    <

    p>Hello? Scott???

    • Uh, Joe, are unable to discern the difference between truth and lies?

      <

      p>Please tell me what in this ad is untrue.

      <

      p>Please identify anything in this ad that compares to the swiftboat lies. What context has Martha Coakley distorted that compares to the Willie Horton distortions?

      <

      p>I find it hilarious that Republicans are so quick to talk about “accountability” and “self-responsibility” when the target somebody else, and so shrilly hurt when the consequences of their own governance are put in the spotlight.

      <

      p>It’s even more hilarious that a forthright identification of Scott Brown as a Republican is characterized as a “smear”.

  14. Have you seen the Brown ad running 24/7 by the Iowa swift boat group?  Coakley had no choice but to go on the attack–and is it an attack or negative ad to tell the truth about your opponent?  Is it an attack or negative ad to say that a republican is a republican, when he has done everything possible to hide that fact?  By the way, in case anyone things that Scott Brown is a decent guy or even a grown-up, check this out: http://www.thesunchronicle.com…

    • it’s definitely a negative ad, and I think it’s fair to call it an attack ad.  I’m not saying it’s inaccurate.  But to characterize it as a negative attack ad seems accurate to me.

    • It’s highlighting the other candidate’s campaign plank which you think stinks.  What’s the beef.

      <

      p>On another matter, I was castigated for voting a “zero” on some comments not realizing a zero was reserved for radically indecent remarks.  How is it that billxi gets a whole bunch of zeros for this post?  David?  Charlie?

  16. I think the usually astute BMG and it’s faithful moonbat following is not seeing the forest for the trees.  Here are the trees:

    <

    p>

  17. arguing the minutia of Brown’s legislative history on Beacon Hill.  It’s too much detail.  No one’s listening.
  18. parsing words in campaigns ads, like “lockstep.”  Perhaps this has meaning for progressives, but the general public doesn’t care or even get it.
  19. analyzing the root causes of terrorism.  Huh?  This has zero traction in an election.
  20. posting photos of Dick Cheney.  This now resonates only with liberal progressives.  I suspect all others are beginning to see it as a Democratic “my dog ate it” excuse for … everything.

    21. <

    p>Here is the forest:

    <

    p>Between 9 PM and 12 AM last night, while Brown made an appearance on Greta Van Susteren, he raised $300,000.  His total yesterday was over $1,300,000.

    <

    p>For a moderate Republican to be neck-and-neck with the presumptive Democratic to be anointed to “Ted Kennedy’s seat” (if I hear that one more time, I’ll puke) in a state which went for Obama by 26 points is itself earthshaking.

    <

    p>Earthshaking.

    • Lowering expectations already, I see.  Doing well in a couple polls is earthshaking enough.

      <

      p>If I had a national cable “news” network backing me to the hilt, I’d probably do well in the polls, too.

    • I think Scott Brown will have the same thing swirling in his mind next week when he’s back doing Honey Dew Donuts ribbon cutting ceremonies.

    • In case you didn’t realize, the only reason why Brown is close in the polls is because the Democratic base is tuning out.  Martha’s ads are designed to get the base riled up, so they come out and vote.  They aren’t designed to appeal to Republicans who won’t vote for her anyway.

      • because it reminds Independents of who Scott Brown really is.  The tax issue is a big one and it seems he is carrying the lower taxes message (unfortunately).  It all sound good until you remind people that that was Bush’s policy too, except what he really meant was lower taxes for the wealthy, while cutting funds to states, which then had to raised taxes and fees on the middle class.  I’m glad to see she specified the “tax breaks to the wealthy” policy. It would be nice if she brought it up debates too.  In the circles I travel in, those “tax breaks for the wealthy” are a huge issue, especially since the middle class continues to pay for it.

        • LiveandLetlive, you may be right on the fine points but your argument has way too many dots to connect for the average voter.

          <

          p>In this special short election, everything must be painted in a broad brush because there is not enough time and bandwidth to argue “Bush Cheney” or reduced federal transfer payments to the state cogently to likely voters.

          <

          p>Dems will vote for Coakley, and Repubs will vote for Brown, and it’s likely the R’s are much more motivated this cycle so the 3-1 Dem advantage is probably diminished somewhat.

          <

          p>So I’d say it’s a battle for the independents, and if independents are worried about taxes, and Obamacare’s impact on taxes, then there’s your broad brush message.

          <

          p>I see Brown having that broad brush, Coakley, hardly.  Instead Martha’s depending on “Bush Cheney” and on being the 60th vote for what may be perceived, even in MA, as a MASSIVE tax increase on middle-income America. Is that a platform I’d feel confident running on?  Maybe not.  Not this month.

          <

          p>Hey, it’s a special election.  If turnout is 14%, then who knows?

      • Did you mean to say that Brown is close because of the Dem bas NOT turning out?  I’d agree with you if that’s what you meant.

        <

        p>But what about the middle 50% of registered independents?  Might this ad fizzle for them?  If Brown is successful getting even a small percentage of those like voters to turn out, might not that be more impactful?

        <

        p>I wonder how high or low this special election turnout will be.

        • It’s a pervasive myth that there’s a huge body of Centrist Independent voters that will regularly split their ballots.  Most indies, especially in state like Massachusetts with semi-open primaries, vote party-line Dem or party-line Gop most of the time.  That being said, there still are some voters who a Centrist campaign can appeal to, just far fewer than the number of unenrolled voters would indicate.

          <

          p>I didn’t make a typo, by the way.  I said “tuning out” not “turning out”.

    • Scott Brown does not represent the majority of Massachusetts voters. He is anti-choice, against the rule of law, in favor of the Bush administration’s economic policies that almost destroyed our entire economy, pro-torture, and uses his military uniform to for political purposes in violation of DoD regulations.

      <

      p>His pretty boy exterior masks his internal Bush-Cheney.

      <

      p>What he does represent is the teabagger movement. That is why Fox “News” backs him and that is where his support is coming from. A teabagger army from out of state, combined with a minority of frustrated extremists inside the state, coming to eat your brains.

      <

      p>Massachusetts residents need to rally, which is what they are doing. I know it is tough to see.

      • You’ve got all the moonbat talking points, but I think the battle between Brown and Coakley is with motivated, likely-voter independents, no?  On that field, I think the whole Bush-Cheney mem fizzles. That includes use of the words “Fox News” and “teabaggers”, to independents at least.

        <

        p>To motivate progressives maybe it’s effective.

  21. This is the best Democratic ad I’ve seen in years.

    <

    p>Yes, it is negative. It ought to be. The truth about the Republican party is negative. Scott Brown advocates TORTURE!

    <

    p>Yes, it is an attack ad. It is long past time that civilized people attack the lies and cruel truths of the Republican party and all it currently stands for.

  22. Brown’s repeated use of the words “lawyered up” was intended to sting at many levels.
    1)Coakley is AG
    2)The meme that Dems are in the pocket of trial lawyers.
    3)Tea Party delusions about our Constitution
    & finally
    4)The cost

    <

    p>Scott’s point, as I interpeted it, was that we are wasting taxpayers money by providing civilian proceedings to “enemy combatants.”

    <

    p>Let’s examine a few flaws in this logic.
    1)We pay for the military tribunals
    2)Civilian lawyers are employed by defendants

    <

    p>But here is the big one.

    <

    p>Remember when Brown pushed Coakley on whether she would support the death penalty being applied to convicted terrorists? Coakley said ‘Yes. Because it currently is the law of the land.’ What stood out to me is that most of the opposition I see to the DP, though I haven’t heard Coakley state her exact reason, is based on prudent fiscal concerns. DP cases cost a lot more money to prosecute than non-DP cases. That, and all the subsequent appeals.

    <

    p>So here we find Brown, flexing his ‘safety & security street cred’ talking down civilian prosecutions while pumping the Biblical addage, “An eye for an eye.” If Brown is truly concerned about the costs of our court system, he needs to drop the pose, and start seriously examining how much things cost, especially if it involves putting down another human.

  23. My seven year old may be contributing money to Brown today. The base is fired up and Brown supporters will be voting for sure. Many Dems I talk to don’t exude much energy. I’m betting many won’t vote.

    • when Brown said I drive a truck to respond to a question.  I think he started laughing first.  I was sitting on the floor helping him put together this damn lego star wars 100,000 piece set or something and had the debate on since that was the deal we had.  I get to watch my show, he get help with his lego set.  

      <

      p>The stupidity of Brown’s statement was not lost on an 8 year old.  He came across like a buffoon in the debate I think we all know and understand that, it all about the spin afterward since that is what people read.  But other than the rehearsed responses there was no depth, no further debate, not detail in anything that Brown said.  

      • My 17 year old told me this morning, that her English teacher scoffed Brown’s ad for it’s logic.

        <

        p>I like truck.
        You like truck.

        <

        p>You like me.

        <

        p>No wonder GOPers hate teachers.

        • they were talking about the fixing the economy and their positions.  He could have just as easily responded “I play with blocks”.

  24. Brown harped on granting constitutional rights to terror suspects and Coakley only pointed out that doing things that way has been successful.  Great, but I would rather have seen a more forceful response such as:

    <

    p>”THE CONSTITUTION IS FOR EVERYONE, REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP STATUS, NATION OR ORIGIN, OR ALLEGED CRIME.  ANYBODY ARRESTED HERE GETS THOSE PROTECTIONS – PERIOD!”

      • …and as such the Geneva Conventions should apply.  However, the last time there was a real battlefield on domestic soil was during the Civil War.

        • The battlefield is where the battle is and does not “have” to be on US soil… but it can.

          • …then yes, the Bill of Rights gives no other option than civilian trial in NYC (ie the state and district…).  There is no specification of citizenship as it just says “the accused” and the military/wartime exception in the 5th amendment appears to apply to our soldiers, keeping in mind that the framers expected wars to be declared enterprises.  KSM’s nephew was responsible for the first attempt on the WTC in 1993 and he was successfully tried and convicted by civilian proceedings.

    • In WWII, German saboteurs were caught on US soil were tried as unlawful combatants, two of whom were US citizens.  After FDR’s secret military tribunal which found them guilty and sentenced them to death, 6, including one US citizen, were electrocuted 8 days after the Supreme Court of the US upheld their unlawful combatant status and the president’s authority to apply such status (see Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).)  

      <

      p>FDR commuted 2 of the death sentences to life.

      <

      p>The president has the authority to determine unlawful combatant status, even on US soil.  This is the whole basis of Bush “unlawful combatant” claim progressives hate.  

      <

      p>Bush could have applied such status on US citizens, on US soil.  So can Obama (and so he should have in Detroit.)

      <

      p>Wikipedia has a pretty good summary at “Ex parte Quirin”

      • …but I disagree on the merits.  The US citizens especially should have been tried in civilian court for treason (and lesser includeds since the burden for proving treason is so high) with all due process rights attached.  Of course, WWII also saw the internment of people just for being of Japanese ancestry, which the Supreme Court also upheld, so I’m not sure we want to us WWII as an excuse anyway.

        • I was only commenting on your all-caps statement which sounded like you felt it was unconstitutional to apply illegal combatant status to a terrorist on US soil, i.e., the Christmas Bomber.

          <

          p>Of course, I vehemently disagree with your policy choice.

          • …but part of the reason it is my policy choice is because I DO believe it is contrary to the Constitution and wish that the Court would see it that way as well.  The Bill of Rights does not provide for wartime exceptions and SCOTUS has certainly made bad decisions in the past (Dred Scott, Plessy, some would say Roe).  As a justice (I forget who) once pointed out, the Court is not literally infallible, but is treated as such because it is unappealable.  That’s a good thing since there has to be a final say somewhere.  However non-judicial decision makers also swore to uphold the Constitution, so they are certainly permitted to act more narrowly so long as they don’t act contrary to what the Court says is absolutely required or absolutely not allowed.

    • Obama himself said we are war with al quaeda.  The underpants bomber was an operative of their training.  Thus he is what we, by the calls of our own president, are at war with.

      <

      p>That would make him an enemy combatant.

    • Prior administrations very successfully tried and convicted terrorists, both foreign and domestic, in civilian courts prior to 9/11. These Bush-era embarrassments accomplished nothing, harmed virtually everyone, and advanced the stated goals and propaganda agenda of Osama Bin Laden and AQ. The Detroit perpetrator committed a long list crimes. Are you guys really claiming that he can’t be successfully tried in a civilian court? If that’s true, that problem is most surely not going to be solved by making it easier to lock him away and throw away the keys (Jose Padilla being a case in point).

      <

      p>In WWII, we were in a declared war with well-defined “enemy” — the nation of Germany (and Japan, Italy, and so on). That war had well-defined starting point, a well-defined ending point, and lasted just under four years.

      <

      p>This “war on terror” has no enemy, no ending point, and has no end in sight. You are, in effect, proposing to terminate the era when America was a nation of laws. I call that “defeat” and “surrender”. You would have future historians write that the American Republic ended on September 11, 2001.

      <

      p>The “logic” you express here enables the imprisonment and suspension of all due process for whole classes of “undesirables” —

      <

      p>

      • Drug users: We’ve had a “war on drugs” for decades. By your “logic”, every person suspected (not proven) of being involved with drugs can be disappeared as an “unlawful combatant.” Why, we could just declare whole urban neighborhoods as “battlefields” and kidnap everybody — that’s how a GREAT MANY people ended up in GITMO.
      • Poor people: We’ve had a “war on poverty” since LBJ. Let’s declare every slum and most of Appalachia as a “battlefield” in the “war on poverty” and disappear everybody we see who looks “poor”.

      <

      p>This argument is patent, self-serving, authoritarian nonsense that has no place in a nation built upon principles of human rights and due process.

      • Ex parte Quirin IS the law.  The SCOTUS in 1942 made it the law, upholding the president’s power to apply illegal combatant status.

        <

        p>You are only stating a policy preference.  The application of illegal combatant status, and lengthy confinement or execution, is perfectly legal.  The 1942 SCOTUS said so, with some revisions recently made.

        <

        p>Contrary to your statement, Bush-era interrogations provided a treasure trove of intel, to name one source, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  Other terrorist attacks were averted.  Had we treated him as a civilian criminal we would have missed all of that information.

        <

        p>What is the downside of holding an illegal combatant, for example, the Christmas Bomber, as such?  Get whatever information you need from him, then he can be placed into the civilian judicial system later.

        <

        p>What is the downside of an immediate grant of civilian criminal protections?  A lot, as we shall see.  In the 36 hours before legal counsel was appointed, he apparently said others have been trained and are coming.  I would like to know where, how, who, what devices, from where.  That’s mostly lost as his appointed lawyer told him to shut up … and he’s now pleading innocent.  Well played.

        <

        p>If there’s a mid-flight explosion now because we missed the particulars the Christmas Bomber may have divulged, Obama is cooked.  His decision — and Holder’s — to grant civilian protections will be directly responsible for that loss of life.

        • …are successful interrogations and due process mutually exclusive?  Police departments and courts across the country do both all the time.  People who advocate as you do frankly betray a lack of faith in our system.  I say we are perfectly capable both of defending our way of life AND maintaining exactly what it is we are defending.

          • The Christmas Bomber has said he trained with others, and they are planning attacks.  

            <

            p>Because he is now being processed through our domestic judicial system, we will not discover who those other bombers are, where they trained, with whom, using what methods, etc.

            <

            p>He is willing to blow himself up.  Do you think a plea bargain to reduce a jail sentence will encourage cooperation?  He’s pleading innocent!

            <

            p>Do progressives intentionally want to see planes of US citizens blown up?   Or is it some subconscious psychosis of which you are unaware?  Is “liberalism” in DSM-IV yet?

            <

            p>We’re in a whole new era of non-state international Muslim jihadist terrorist war.  Yet progressives want to treat it like a guy holding up the corner liquor store.

            <

            p>Some accommodation needs to be made.  Laws need to be revised to give our intelligence and law enforcement agencies the ability to protect us and not just throw the book at someone after-the-fact.

            <

            p>We’ll see how KSM and the Christmas Bomber trials play out.  In the meantime, I hope the pending Easter Bomber fails, too.  

            • …nobody ever contemplated trying Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols other than by civilian procedures.  If I recall correctly the former got death (already executed) and the latter got life without parole.  We started hearing about the rightwing anti-government militia types they hung out and sympathized with.  They were just as likely to have information about other plots being laid by their ilk as the Christmas bomber is to have information on al-Qaeda.  Frankly, there seems to be an ugly strain of xenophobia showing through here.  You want to revise laws, fine, advocate amending the Constitution on the merits then.  I for one will oppose any move to deprive any person, no matter how evil or of what background, from getting his day in court.

        • Your attempt to apply Ex parte Quirin fails on two substantive grounds, as did the prior administrations similar attempt:

          <

          p>

          1. It is explicitly limited to times of war:

            [t]he spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property. [Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31.]

            The United States is not “at war” in any meaningful sense. There has been no declaration, there are no defined “belligerents”, and there is no criteria for defining its termination.

          2. Even Quirin does not give the government unrestrained carte blanche authority: Here’s the argument of the  American Bar Association:

            The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, “The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners for trial by Military Commission … is in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the United States.” [Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18]. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin, that right could hardly be denied to U. S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all.

            The “lengthy confinement or execution,” of anyone without charges, trial, or representation is not supported by Quirin. Your attempt to justify it is both mistaken and also, on the face of it, an example of how you seek to discard the rule of law.

          <

          p>The remainder of your comment is a rehash of tired fear-mongering that has already been thoroughly discredited and debunked elsewhere on the web and here.

Archives