NEWS: Republicans Complete The Douchebag Trifecta

POLITICS: Republicans Complete The Douchebag Trifecta

Yesterday was a great day for horrible people. Congratulations to the Republicans in Congress for stopping three major bills with filibusters. The bills would have helped soldiers, restored habeas corpus and given Washington DC representation. How terrible would that have been?

Lets start with how the Republicans just shoved their fists up our soldier’s anuses. Senator Jim Webb sponsored legislation that would have given our troops a break from the grueling tours that are taking a heavy toll.

Currently, soldiers are spending 15 months in combat with 12 months home. Wouldn’t want to ruin that fun for them. The Republicans are foolishly doing the bidding of the White House and rejecting sanity and reason. Quite simply, they are George’s bitches.

Stay loyal boys, it worked so well in the last election for you. At least Republicans can take solace in the fact that when our soldiers come home we will deny them their mental health benefits.

Next up on the Republican hate train, the filibuster of a bill to restore habeas corpus for "enemy combatants."

Can’t see how anything could go wrong with that system. Our president has shown himself to be an honorable man who would never cause anyone harm based on his own distorted beliefs. Currently, he only has to designate someone as an “enemy combatant” and then toss him in prison. Game over. It’s kind of like a medieval dungeon. I say that because habeas corpus was born in 1215. It only took 800 years for a president to come along and tell us that we’ve been wrong that whole time.

There used to be a worldwide belief that America was a nation of laws and people could not be “disappeared” by the government. People never imagined that America was a place where someone could be locked up without trial indefinitely. Those days are over. Nice to see Republicans have taken a page from Saddam Hussein and that they aren’t backing down. Yay!

And in their final stroke of being complete and utter douchebags, Republicans filibustered a bill that would have allowed a city of mostly black people, called Washington DC, to have a vote vote in Congress. So they get to enjoy taxation without representation! How fucking great is that? Did I mention the population is mostly black people?

Republicans actually claimed the bill was unconstitutional.

Yes! Apparently Republicans did not realize that stance made them astounding hypocritical douchebags, because they had just taken a steaming dump on the Constitution when they filibustered the habeas corpus bill. Oh, and the DC unconstitutional question was taken into account when the bill was written.

Woudn't want the experts in the Supreme Court to make that ruling.

But it’s not about the Constitution or the rule of law is it? It’s about the party and making sure their team wins. Whether that means they’re fucking over our soldiers or fucking over black people, it’s Republican first, American second. Right now the GOP cunts are on pace to triple the previous record of using the filibuster in the modern era. Meanwhile, they squeal about “nothing getting done.”

I don’t know what else to say, except “Suck it, you fucking demons.”

I guess old Abe Lincoln took a "steaming dump on the Constitution" when he suspended the writ of habeus corpus, too? Like it or not, even free societies have routinely come to the conclusion that certain rules can be modified in times of war. If you disagree, hey, that's your right, but there's basically no basis for the idea that this puts us on par with a dictatorship.

It has historical precedent, and hell, it just makes sense. We're fighting an enemy which knows our rules and exploits the living daylights out of them on a regular basis. To suggest that we must uphold them all without even temporary exceptions to protect some of the very people undermining them is to show a profound lack of understanding of the situation, in my opinion.

But, if you get some sort of pathological satisfaction out of (literally) demonizing people who feel differently from you, then rant on.

Read your Constitution. Read it carefully.

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

While it does state "invasion of the public safety," that statement is much more broad and contestable than the explicit reference to "rebellion." Which is what the Civil War was. It seems to be referring in its sort of runaround fashion to the actual physical invasion of the country. Because, quite frankly, everything is an invasion of the public safety. Are we going to suspend habeus corpus for electricians who wire houses wrong? No.

Damn, I knew I should have put it all on a trifecta.

I mean, who really thinks that after spending 15 months away from their families, in grueling conditions, people deserve to be home at least as long as they were away?

I have to take away your rights in order for you to keep them?

All I can think of is 'he punishes me because he loves me'

Lincoln's decision was, first, temporary, not open-ended; second, it was undertaken during an open rebellion actually fought upon American soil - and there's a huge fucking difference between the Civil War and a handful of god-crazy yahoos dressed in dirty bedsheets on the far side of the world. Thirdly, it was struck down by his Supreme Court.

Finally, this is not a "time of war" by any reasonable measure. The existence of the United States is not in any way threatened by these bozos - even the most "dangerous" of them. It disgusts me that so many Americans panic over the word "terrorism" without any comprehension of the extent of the actual material threat it poses to our way of life.

Here's a hint. It's none.

Overrreactions like this, which destroy our freedoms to no legitimate purpose, and lead us into unwinnable wars in other hemispheres - these are the only serious threats that "terrorism" poses.

All that habeas corpus allows is a judicial review of cases. If there's a legitimate reason to expect wrongdoing, they go back into prison. If there isn't, then why the fuck are we holding them? It makes no sense whatsoever unless you trust in the absolute infallibility of the executive branch and perversely believe that the judicial branch is incapable of making a correct decision about anything. Neither of these propositions can be held seriously by anyone sane, mature, and in regular contact with the outside world.

If if wasn't for the fact the Bush gets his direction from the giant man who lives in the clouds, I would totally agree with your skepticism.

Oh, right. I forgot about Giant Cloud Man. But - doesn't OBL get his directions from the same source?

This is so confusing.

Not "invasion of the public safety." I wouldn't ordinarily correct you, but it makes a difference. The Constitution very clearly refers to rebellion or invasion as the only legitimate reasons for the writ's suspension.

Now, this law might do an end-run around that, because it could be argued that foreigners aren't protected by our laws even in custody, and American "enemy combatants" are obviously in rebellion, so it's all peachy.

It's bullshit reasoning, of course, but after nearly seven years of these fuckwits in power, you should be used to it. I know I am.

Alright, I'm not going to argue every point made by half a dozen people, but I will respond to a few things:

Right. It's a matter of degree, then. Which means people are free to disagree, but they can't go around waving their hands in the air as if they have some sort of definitive proof that the Constitution is being shredded. It's not; the President just disagrees with you as to the threat level.

No, you have to suspend certain laws temporarily when under attack. There's historical precedence for this. Also, the phrase "your rights" is misleading; it lumps all "rights" together, as if they were of equal importance, and as if they were all subject to suspension. That's not the case.

Well, then clearly all conservatives abuse their wives.

...which he then completely ignored. I can't even imagine the kind of rage people would fly into if Dubya did something comparable. Also, I don't believe anything in the written suspension specified any kind of set timeframe.

It's disturbing when people panic for no reason, but it's just a disturbing when people go to the opposite extreme, and deny the existence of a demonstrable threat, just to avoid being labeled among the hysterics.

This is a time of war. To claim otherwise is to use a wildly outdated definition of the word. That's why there are so many legal arguments: because war itself is mutating. Its customs are being eroded and deformalized as time goes on. To insist that we hold to a rigid definition of war in the face of such fundamental change is equivalent to insisting that we start taking turns shooting at each other, like some sort of turn-based strategy game.

No, it also makes sense if you recognize that strict burdens of proof and due process are an incredible bitch when you're fighting a war; especially one against an army that doesn't wear uniforms and readily hides among civilians. In that sense, there's actual a great similarity between Lincoln's action and this one, as he specifically mentioned the citizenry aiding the rebellion as one of the reasons for the suspension.

Mentally, I threw in that "of" because 1781 punctuation is so awful.

Also, it should be noted that the initial blog entry here fails to mention the Republican rationale for blocking the bill; namely, that it's actually a "backdoor" for removing troops, and stops replacements from rotating into Iraq, even if the generals on the ground determine they are necessary.

It's upsetting to see on either side of the aisle, but it's an inevitable political reality that both parties will sometimes vote down certain measures simply because they know them to be an attempt to push further measures.

You know what sickens me?

When people try to draw favorable comparisons and/or associations between this current crop of hamfisted meatbeasts and Abraham Fucking Lincoln.

How is it bullshit reasoning? The question of whether or not the law should protect people actively and violently seeking to destroy the system which protects them is a huge legal question. If you think you've got that moral quagmire figured out, then you're a better man than I, but I think anyone who pretends to have the answer to it is bullshitting themselves.

Yeah, I've seen that line of rationale before. It is like Godwin's Law, just more full of failure.

and Wookie2, the 'he punishes me because he loves me' wasn't meant to say that conservatives beat their wives. It makes me sad that I actually had to explain that to you.

A) As opposed to the "backdoor" draft that keeps them in after their tours are over? Which is worse?

B) Funny you should mention the "generals on the ground." Of course they'll determine the troops are necessary, because they're simply amplifiers for Bush. Think of Petraeus's surge report - written by the White House. Think of all the retired generals that supported the war while they were "on the ground" but immediately went before congress to testify against it when they resigned. The "generals on the ground" are opinionless fucks whose main job it has become to maintain the war for Bush's sake instead of doing what they feel is right.

No, there was no set timeframe, but limits were clearly set by the war itself, which would eventually be either won or lost.

The "War on Terror" will never have a decisive victory or defeat. Because it's not a real war.

And I should cretainly hope that people would fly into a rage if Dubya pulled that shit. They flew into a rage when Lincoln did, and Lincoln was actually a competent president who was trying to accomplish some legitimate purposes.

Exactly what "demonstrable threat" is there to the existence of the United States? Seriously, I want to know.

I agree that the face of war is changing. War in the traditional sense no longer exists, and hasn't for awhile.

And, excepting the quagmires which your president's fear, greed, and incompetence have led us into, we are not at war. There is certainly no compelling reason to dignify al-Qaeda's actions with such a term.

Again, what threat is there to the existence of the United States?

That's what happens in a war - your country's existence is threatened. That's certainly what happens in case of "rebellion or invasion."

That is not what's happening here, by any conceivable stretch of terminology.

You didn't, actually; I apparently have to explain my sarcasm to you.

I honestly don't know. And since when does defending even one aspect of the administration's policies required me to defend all the others?

Wow. If that's what you think, then I'll have to politely decline discussing the matter with you. Suffice to say, I find it rather convenient to label anyone who disagrees a puppet.

That's the bullshit part. There's a presumption of innocence under our law. Until some legitimate authority has determined otherwise, you don't know that they're "actively and violently seeking to destroy the system which protects them." All you know about them is that they've been violently removed from their homes and incarcerated by heavily armed men who may or may not have done so with good reason.

Also, the Supreme Court has ruled before that non-citizens are entitled to the full protection of our laws when they run afoul of our legal system. That's another bullshit part.

It's no moral quagmire at all, not in this case. If it was a rising tide of violent fascism or bolshevism or something, that might be different. In this case, though, we're the ones going into their countries and wrecking them.

A) If we spent our time worrying about everyone who "actively and violently sought the destroy the system", we'd never leave the goddamn house. And you'll bring up 9/11, but the only reason 9/11 happened was because of the absolute incompetence of this administration. Not any other people. This administration. "Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside United States" for god's sake. And they ignored it. So now they're retroactively going after every tiny irrelevant threat to try to make up for their monumental failure - which, by the way, they never will, and along the way will successfully do nothing except impeach on the human rights of people everywhere. Including habeus corpus.

B) It's not the law's moral quandary, it's the terrorist's moral quandary. They're actively seeking to destroy the system that protects them...jesus christ that's fucking stupid. And it would never work. The best thing we can do is to show them that the system is not worth destroying by showing mercy with that very same system and those very same laws. Guilt is the most powerful motivator - just ask any Conservative Christian.

Besides, these "terrorists" or "enemy combatants" will never succeed at their goals. They'll only do minor damage which will create stronger barriers in the future. However, if we continue to erode United States Constitutional Law in response to this terrorist futility, we will have succeeded in causing more damage to our nation than some guy with a bomb in his water ever could.

Which doesn't even take into account the fact that we can't even put together cases against most of these people, and in the case of one of them, we've been ordered by the Court to either bring a case or release him. That seems to suggest that the vast majority of "enemy combatants" have done no wrong to begin with, which is a far bigger "moral quagmire" than anything else in this argument, and is something you have not even taken into consideration.

If you are actively involved in creation of policy, and you squash your own opinion to make room for your superior's, then yes, you are a puppet. Jesus christ. But the average Joe, to agree with you, is not. Unfortunately, I never said he was.

and they wonder why i glare at them and occasionally bark at them on the streets of dc ...........damn dirty republicans

It's not about "thinking differently" It's simply about right and wrong and what our country has alwasy stood for. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between a civil war and "terrorism"

This I actually agree with, somewhat. However, it's a complaint you'd best direct at reality. The fact that we face an ongoing, indefinite threat is upsetting, but I don't think it's something we can ignore. I don't think setting a date ends the conflict in any way; it just ends the measures being taken against it. Of course, this is predicated on the idea that you actually think there's some sort of threat. If you don't, well, duh, of course none of it will make sense to you.

This is exactly my point, though: even Lincoln, widely regarded as our greatest president, induced this kind of rage with his actions. He went much, much further than Dubya has, but you wouldn't know it from listening to some of the people here.

Basically, I'm trying to lend the discussion some historical perspective. People are screaming hysterically as if we're violating all precedent and turning into Soviet Russia, for crying out loud, when in reality our nation's most heralded leader went a great deal further down this particular path. Is Dubya right? I'm not sure. History will have to be the judge of it. My stance is that the people who think this is clear-cut are full of it.

"Existence" is your word. I don't see why the United States needs to face complete anihiliation before these sorts of legal actions are justified.

Thousands of our citizens have been killed, and they made a concentrated effort to meet us in Iraq. It's an untraditional war, to be sure, but it's certainly a war. I'm not really sure what they'd have to do to convince you of this.

War is not simply defined by whether or not your country's existence is threatened; it also applies when your citizenry is threatened. That's the whole "public safety" part, which is admittedly vague (though perhaps for good reason).

I got to paragraph three before the overwhelming urge to vomit and leave this country took over.

And bin Laden issued fatwa's with specific demands in 1998, which were ignored by the previous administration. It's an ongoing problem that spans multiple administrations, period. It is a failing of America, and no one President, Secretary, or Congressman.

Yes, it is stupid. But it happens. It's naive to think that giving them due process would end the conflict; it's about a lot more than that.

Yes, that's the definition of a puppet. Now, if you can produce any sort of evidence that the generals of Iraq fit this description, then your smear on their integrity will make sense.

Jesus Christ, are you naturally stupid, or are you actively exerting effort? It's been discussed. Lincoln's actions were protected by Constitutional Law. In no stretch of the imagination is Bush protected by said law. None. And that's what we're discussing - the legality of Bush's actions.