Actually doing something REAL against Bush's War is deemed "sending the wrong message," even among many Democrats. Thus, many "serious sorts" (including Sen. Levin, who deserves some respect, respect the term doesn't really usually offer) oppose cutting funding of "the surge" in lieu of some nonbinding resolution. Though even this is deemed almost akin to parliamentary governance to some morons* that apparently do not quite understand what the term means, what exactly is this supposed to prove? Oooh, how scary! Not going to listen to the Baker Report or top generals, but a resolution is going to mean something? Treaties apparently don't mean too much to these people, especially if there isn't some clear statutory teeth to them. So called "law of the land." The ultimate evidence something is seriously wrong -- the Colbert Report supported it is a biting "the word" ("symbolic") segment.
[Jon Stewart had a good bit last night as well on the opposition by Bushies of suggestions that we need a back-up "plan." Likewise, in face of various taunts of "well, do you have something better," it was noted (in that amusing "uh ..." JS voice) ... well, yes, we do. The Baker Report and the Levin-Reid alternative was given as two suggestions. Apparently, they don't count, or something. Of course, these sorts want us to trust the executive with war related matters, so why should we need to help them supply credible solutions? Like they don't want help, do they? Of course not ... it's just b.s. ... but sometimes it is just so much more patently obvious b.s.]
What do the actual soldiers think? Well, some are submitting an "appeal for redress" that states that the President and Congress are the ones "sending the wrong message" by continuing the current policy. As noted, top generals think so too, they think we are f-ing things up. Some from the beginning thought that. It might, therefore, be deemed not somehow akin to treason (following voting laws that might infringe on counting some late or mishandled military ballots was treated as treason by some sorts in 2000, except when it helped Republicans) to not authorize or fund the bloody thing, right? Likewise, though it is hard to judge such things, this disagreement (especially respecting "the surge") has widespread presence in the military at large. So, don't use soldiers to cover your asses.
This whole thing underlines that without actually doing anything concrete, not just talking and "concern," resolutions or similar verbiage that can be spun various ways (think of it as the "Kerry policy"), Congress is not doing its job. Congress is the institution that is supposed to represent the people at large (in states and individually) with an importance that is underlined by its placement first in the Constitution, given a list of powers (and various implied ones) to carry out said role. In my last "and also," I cited a thread in which the ability to control the imperial executive was discussed. As noted, oversight and hortatory remarks are not enough. Surely, such things are something, and have some role, especially (real) oversight. Edwards might be safely in the private sector, but he is right. The buck stops with you.
Meanwhile, a top executive official in charge of detainee affairs apparently thinks it is a good idea to put economic pressure on law firms that defend detainees. This sort of thing was so egregious that both liberal and conservative blogs voiced concern as did a solicitor general from the Reagan Administration. One legal sort that is troubled with the current situation didn't take it too serious in a practical sense, as a real economic threat, though at least one person involved seems to be worried. The best way to look at it is as both part of a broader threat to advocacy that is deemed scary to conservatives as well as sending a horrible message to the country as large. The executive is partially a bully pulpit -- it stands for something. One hopes something that we would not be embarrassed about on a continuous basis.
Oh well. BTW, Stimson apologized under the pressure from various sides, after the Torture Czar/Bush's personal lawyer et. al. refused to admitted his remarks were shared by other members of the administration. Likewise, his original remarks basically assumed guilt, the detainees being defended obviously part of the movement that caused the 2001 attacks and so forth.
---
* Yeah, I know, this sounds snarky, which means I'm just talking to the choir. But as I note here, how exactly are we supposed to take obviously wrong arguments seriously? There is some room for disagreement, but sometimes it is simply patently wrong to say something. Both aspects are shown here, including the idea that we should give dubious and clearly dangerous executive power claims a large benefit of the doubt. Horribly wrong but perhaps arguable; defending some claims as credible, not to be taken seriously.
In a related vein, can we try not to give the other side an easy target? Dahlia Lithwick makes out like obviously Padilla is just unlucky, thus turning off people who very well might be concerned with what is going on but hate over the top rhetoric, allowing various sorts to ignore the meat of her points.
The problem here is that Padilla is being treated as a nonperson without rights, surely not the rights of a citizen innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Honestly, I think he did something, but that is not the bloody point. It surely is not patently obvious that he is just some poor schlub. I know by now that how you say something matters, even if you are on the side of the angels. This is life.