[The footnote is basically a long aside on a different topic.]
"I can't make it any more clear," Reid said. "We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States."
The Obama administration has been weighing a plan to free in Virginia a half-dozen ethnic Turk Muslims from China called Uyghurs, who have been cleared of being a threat.
Reid also suggested hard-core terrorists shouldn't be locked up here, either.
The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Richard Durbin of Illinois, said Congress will provide funding after Obama announces his plans for closing the prison, which is expected tomorrow. [plus a chance of snow, perhaps? - ed]
-- NY Daily News
Rachel Maddow discussed Sen. Reid's remarks about not "releasing" Gitmo prisoners [sorry, "terrorists," a glorified bill of attainder that assumes guilt] into prisoners on U.S. joil, which is unsurprising since (IIRC) some Air America host (I'm thinking Franken) once noted the number of convicted terrorists we already have in our prisons. She from time to time notes how Obama is continuing Bush policies and rhetoric. RM has already noted that we already have terrorists in our prisons, including in a past show showing Hilzoy's* spoof of a Republican scare video. Glenn Greenwald today covers this issue, posting another spoof calling for us to "protect our prisons," the likes of Charlie Manson clearly no match to some alleged terrorist.
A past guest was brought on to discuss the matter, a Democratic congressman with a name matching that of the old DA on Law & Order. He suggested what the Senate Dems are trying to do here. As Sen. Durbin noted as well, the idea is that the Democrats want a clear plan plus true involvement of Congress. Now, such "involvement" should include Congress actually setting forth some legislation -- via its expressed powers over captures and federal prosecutions etc. -- but Senate Dems probably would be satisfied with something less complicated for them personally. Power over funds provide a stick [a "blunt" one] -- apparently meaning something now that Obama is in power. Before, such refusal to provide funds was apparently no match to minority filibusters. Whatever.
The lower expectations is suggested by the guy appearing to be partially satisfied with Obama coming out with military commissions that did not seem to match what the congressman's own plan suggests is ideal. Hey, it's something, so great! All the same, the desire for a real plan etc. does not require Reid's stupidity, and the guy would have been more respected by me (Reid is not after all his leader ... Pelosi is), if he showed some ability to chew gum and walk at the same time. Rachel only partially called him on it, suggesting Reid was feeding Republican scare tactics, not reminding him that we have convicted terrorists and other scary guys in our prisons already. Including a sniper who acted in nearby Virginia.
No wonder any support for civil liberties and so forth is said to come from "the left." Is nuance and intelligence also so limited?
And now: I wrote a draft of this before seeing the news cited by the link in the opening quote. Meanwhile, Durbin and Feinstein (raising concern for lack of a plan) speak some sense here.
At the end of the day, the six senators who voted "nay" turn out to be among the most respected in the chamber: Durbin (D-IL), Harkin (D-IA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Reed (D-RI) and Whitehouse (D-RI). The amendment at issue was added: "To prohibit funding to transfer, release, or incarcerate detainees detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States." There was no immediate chance of that happening and the framing clearly benefits Republican scare tactics, even if nudging the Obama Administration was defensible.
Update: Durbin's statement quoted at the start is curious given the final result. Digby and others suggest this amendment is really a CYA move for Obama, even though it is uh technically supposed to be a criticism of the guy. How sneaky. I don't know ... either way, it's stupid.
---
* Hilzoy is a professor of philosophy off her blog, but often discusses legal related issues, at times putting in a proviso that she is a legal novice here. Her analysis all the same tends to be spot on and those with more legal training who comment on Obsidian Wings tend to reassure her that the commentary is on the money. The basics are just not that complicated, though the nuances require some study of the issues, though (as many law blogs show) many lawyers who claim special knowledge are off base a lot too. See also various opinions on the Supreme Court.
This helps me some since I write about legal topics though the proviso on my profile underlines I do not claim special expertise. I have studied and kept abreast of various legal issues for quite some time now, so do think I have some more knowledge than some people. But, given the broad terms of some of these legal debates, you can provide much to the table with much less reading than I have. This is particularly so since the law involves so many areas, let's say in the area of negligence, where a non-legal level of expertise can be helpful.
The value of a "popular constitutionalism" also pops up here, apropos of a collection of Supreme Court dissents edited by Mark Tushnet (I Dissent). Tushnet supports a strong role for the people themselves in carrying out the Constitution in practice, suggesting the limits of constitutional review by the courts. Others note that the courts often follow the popular will in many ways at any rate, while law professors like Jack Balkin suggest the confirmation process influences this as well, judges products of a sort of continuing constitutional convention, necessarily influenced by the norms and understandings of the day.
This sort of thing makes appeals to originalism as a power restraint and attempts to reject empathy in judging (even limiting that rejection to "litigation") appear to be even more myth making than fact than common sense itself does. The links point to debates I had on the issue.