Friday, September 29, 2006

torture bill breakdown

NY Times editorializes against the torture bill. This is a good explanation of the likely consequences of the bill.

Andrew Sullivan, former Republican voter, summarizes:

The only response is for the public to send a message this fall. In congressional races, your decision should always take into account the quality of the individual candidates. But this November, the stakes are higher. If this Republican party maintains control of all branches of government, the danger to individual liberty is extremely grave. Put aside all your concerns about the Democratic leadership. What matters now is that this juggernaut against individual liberty and constitutional rights be stopped. The court has failed to stop it; the legislature has failed to stop it; only the voters can stop it now. If they don't, they will at least have been warned.

3 comments:

Karla said...

I am having overload on this issue. I find myself just not wanting to think about it anymore, and maybe go away and live in a cave. Do you think the courts will take it down? Is the judicial system up to checking the prez and this awful congress? Or should I just move to Canada? I don't want to move to Canada, I just planted bulbs in the garden...

Rob said...

Move to Japan. I was watching TV here and there was another film about the 2 bombs dropped "to end the war". It's something Americans forget ever happened, but so many people were instantly killed.
It was quite nice when we had to go to the emergency room after hospital closing time, in an ambulance, with insurance which costas about $80 a month, and the bill was about $20. I had thought it was $50 but actually they have everyone pay $50 when you go, then you are supposed to take your receipt back after a few days to adjust the value, paying what you still owe or getting back what you overpaid. We went back and they gave me $30 back of the 50 we'd given.

Yave said...

My understanding is that the courts will not look kindly on the removal of habeas corpus, but that the Supreme Court will be reluctant to overturn something that both the executive and legislative branches have signed on to. Not being an expert, I think it comes down to who is on the Court when this comes before it--if Stevens has been replaced by an Alito/Roberts/Scalia/Thomas,
then they will not overturn it.