The link I added yesterday to the top discusses how we should be concerned with the treatment of those detained, especially in the much more black box situation of Afghanistan, than simply to push for the closing of Gitmo:
In contrast, some 500 detainees held by the United States at the Bagram prison in Afghanistan live in far harsher conditions and have fewer rights. They do not have their own advocates, and none has been able to appeal to U.S. courts. No American lawyers are available to broadcast any complaints they have about poor treatment; in fact, alarmingly little is known about what goes on inside the prison's walls. And Bagram's inmates are better off than the prisoners -- believed to number in the dozens -- held in secret CIA facilities. They have effectively disappeared, like the victims of a Third World dictatorship; they have never been registered with the International Red Cross, provided with a legal review of their cases or allowed to communicate with the outside world. From leaks to the media, we know that some have been tortured with techniques such as "waterboarding," or simulated drowning.
A telling comment ... the habeas stripping bill currently in front of the Supreme Court especially focused on Gitmo, ignoring (ironically perhaps to their benefit) the hundreds held under U.S. authority elsewhere. [Justice Kennedy's concurrence to the Rasul case does note the base in Cuba is of special note, given its long term control by our country.] And, with all the focus on the occupation of Iraq, sadly the bad situation in Afghanistan is much less reported. This is partly since we have much less troops there, but it is a road to ruin all the same.
Using a meme that is unfortunately not just applied there, the NY Daily News has an article today on "Divided Dems go down swinging on Iraq pullout vote." The "swinging" part is good -- it suggests an active role that partly concerns the why are they "staying the course" (since it is so grand?) attack theme that seems promising. Generally speaking, the Democrats can not run away from this issue as they did in the disastrous election of 2002.
Likewise, they cannot simply say that "darn Bush f-ed things up a lot, didn't he?" People want some idea of what they would do different. In fact, a few are on record saying that all Democrats who do not adequately oppose the invasion/occupation of Iraq should go. Do not worry -- it is totally appropriate to underline the disgusting sneers of those who speak about "cut and run" Democrats ... no, we should continue to maim and get maimed.*
[After writing this, I caught the NYT article on the issue, and it basically underlines my point. This time it was noted that the "Senate" "rejects" (headline) roundly" (article text) defeated both measures, a sort of "missing an/the important point" sort of thing that does not just drive me up the wall. A 60/40 split perhaps rightly can be so described, but really it was the Senate Republicans who defeated the measures "roundly." 85% of the Democrats supported the second one. Context ... framing ... yet again. In fact, the Daily News article is better on this front: the first sentence of the piece starts off with "The GOP-controlled Senate easily beat back ..." This is more accurate than the lede of the NYT: "The Senate on Thursday roundly rejected ..."
Of course, party loyalty is not just shown on this issue, but especially given the tendency of Democrats to be less united overall on the issues, such unity is telling. For instance, sadly, a recent attempt to protect "net neutrality" in the House failed with many Democrats voting against. Likewise, CJ Roberts received votes from about half of the Democratic caucus. It is notable when the Democrats vote so "roundly" together on such an important issue ... as with the defeat of "reform" of Social Security, there are certain places where they do draw a line in the sand.]
Still, the "divided" part (as compared to the Republicans, who generally vote in lockstep) is problematic. There were two Senate proposals raised ... the very fact they received serious consideration suggests the difference between the House and Senate. One by Kerry/Feingold somewhat ill-advisedly set a set date (7/07) for complete withdrawal. Only thirteen senators voted for that. OTOH, 60-39 voted against a Murthaesqe open-ended "phased redeployment," including one Republican (Sen. Chafee). Thus, the Dems were not really too "divided" since only a handful of the usual suspects voted against the measure. Sen. McConnell noted it was "interesting" to see the Democrats "debate among themselves."
Yes, it must seem strange to actually discuss major problems with no easy solution. In fact, Lieberman aside, some of us even think this is a good thing during primary campaigns. For instance, Jonathan Tasini (lead plaintiff in a lesser known First Amendment case involving the media archiving articles without permission of the authors) is trying to get enough signatures to be on the ballot for the September primary against Sen. Clinton. I caught him on a talk show, and he is no Ned Lamont -- basically is a protest vote on her "centrist" (far right ----> center/left) war stance. Still, more power to him. And, there really needs to be some serious debate on what to do next -- I surely do not have any easy answers.
I do know that -- the horror raised even by the likes of Sen. McCain at such proposals notwithstanding -- that "staying the course" is not the way to go. It surely is not what the American Public (as if they count) wants. Overall, the second proposal seems the best way to go. The fact that Kerry proposed the first measure somewhat tainted it since he is so open to sneers, in part given his history of symbolic (pointless?) gestures, such as his last minute filibuster attempt against Alito. Sen. Feingold co-sponsored it (what's the status of that censure measure?) which sort of gives a more idealistic windmill jousting nature to the whole thing. Seriously, the "we need to start now and be serious" nature of the measure is on the money, though even I think next July for a total withdrawal is questionable.
But, the exact contours of a symbolic dissenting vote really is not quite the point. So, I do not really blame most Democrats for voting against the first measure and might have voted for both myself, but do find the six or so that voted against both distasteful. In reference to the book I just read on the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Martin Luther King Jr. noted that Western philosophy promotes the idea that violence is necessary ... he was for a different path that seemed to him to be more loyal to his religious upbringing, one that colored Christianity with the nonviolent paths of others, including Gandhi. I'm enough of a pacifist to think war and killing should only be done as a last resort, and even there if we cannot do it reasonably properly, it probably is a really bad idea. [Consider the death penalty.]
This led me, especially given who was in power, a bad feeling (hey, I will admit it) even respecting Afghanistan. I think one had every right to be wary -- this gung ho "hey, I was so totally for invasion" talk to balance opposition in Iraq leaves something of a bad taste. (Not always, but I do see the sentiment now and again.) But, I surely did not see a compelling need -- my test -- for Iraq. We went there anyway under fraudalent circumstances. The result is not surprisingly a mess (some former supporters are so surprised at the results ... why? again, I find that a bit disingenuous), but now some people say we need to stick around to clean it up. It is our sad responsibility, etc. But, by doing so (again, not very well in various respects), we are causing more problems. And, overall, in no way are we there with totally clean hands anyway. I just checked out the Bush Agenda, just one book discussing why.
So, it's time to end the occupation, or at least -- in the words of a co-sponsor of the second resolution, Sen. Levin, someone even the other side deigns to admit is quite respectable, underline that all Republican senators but one (in a tough race in an anti-war state) are in record in saying "yes, presidente! whatever you decide!" Saying how important it is to support their President, sadly "ours" too, even though there is no reason for reasonable people to actually support him any more without a ton of salt mixed in. This is the baseline, and thus the resolutions actually suggests some sign of life for those who actually want their government to be serious in these troubling times.
Don't call me Shirley, but surely I agree with that.
---
* Juan Gonzalez has a very good column today on the tragic shooting of a car occupied not just by an Italian journalist (who cares about them, right?) but also Italy's former second-ranking intel officer. "Former" because the friendly fire by our troops led to his death, while the reporter was injured. The officer had just helped the reporter be released from Iraq guerillas. [The column has a picture of the three main people involved.]
Guiliana Sgrena, the journalist, does not blame the troops ("few bad apples") ... unlike the Bush Administration, she targets the overall policy and war itself. Italy, however, has determined the Pentagon report clearing the soldiers was a whitewash with certain details not matching the evidence. And, Sgrena ... who of course wrote a book (everyone is doing it these days ... some with editors) ... notes the full story is still not generally known. It should generally be known it is basically a hellish situation, but hey, no reason to change. That would be akin to treason!