51

That's the number of the beasts.

The number of those senators who voted to repeal habeas corpus, to make the president (and the president alone; though he can delegate it) capable of deep-sixing anyone in the United States, or abroad, for as long as he likes.

Those are the number who recreated the Star Chamber, only this time it's allowed to kill it's victims, not merely break them.

Those are the lawmakers who think torture is an acceptable means of treating the accused, and the merely imprisioned.

Those are the legislators who think more power to the executive is, if not a good idea, an acceptable one.

Here are the names.

Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID)

DeMint (R-SC) DeWine (R-OH) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS)

Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Roberts (R-KS) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Stevens (R-AK) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

Ben Nelson was kind enough to make it possible to avoid having the Vice President break the tie.

The other 49, who voted against it, are no better. A filibuster ought to have been possible. the could have said this was a principle on which they were willing to stand, or fall. They could (rightly) cavil, saying, this was too important to be rushed in the last minutes of the legislative posturing which is an election year.

But they didn't.

So they deserve plaudits and brickbats.

The others, they deserve more, but they need to be turned out of office, and not elected to anything, ever again, not so muh as crossing guard.

I was wrong

It seems the early returns I saw were on a different bit of the fight over this.

The real numbers are worse.

65-34.

Only one republican voted against it (Chafee) and 12 dems voted for it.

Word on the street is that people are afraid that filibustering it will hurt them, given what happened last time around (with "principle votes" wherein the elected official votes the way he thinks will make him look good, because the margin is so lop-sided [like say an bill to make teaching physics to anyone who wasn't 18] that voting against the way the bill comes out is just a parlor trick, a bit of theater to make it look as if one has priciples) there doesn't seem to be any reason to not filibuster. To not actually show some principles.

So, the offending Democrats are :Carper (Del.), Johnson (S.D.), Landrieu (La.), Lautenberg (N.J.), Lieberman (Conn.), Menendez (N.J), Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.), Pryor (Ark.), Rockefeller (W. Va.), Salazar (Co.), Stabenow (Mich.).

Jeffords voted against it.

This is going to be a nasty can of worms to try and fix.

Reaction

Ok, so the "lock 'em up and pound 'em 'til they talk" bill is pretty much a done deal.

What can we do about it?

They didn't allow time for real review and debate. Let's try to take it to them.

Write letters, call the radio shows. Phone your representatives, send e-mails to the television news.

What, you ask, shall I say in these communications? You ask a question. It might help to have the text of the law handy. The best I have is this pdf so it will have to do.

Ask them what defense an american citizen has against being declared an enemy combatant, and further, what one should do if one is so accused.

Be polite, but be firm. Don't let them bamboozle with what the bill is supposed to do (i.e. "provide legal means to interrogate 'terrorist'") but insist on an answer to the actual question.

If this can be pushed out there, if the Republicans can be shown to be behind this kind of blatant power grab (yes, there were feckless dems who supported it, but apart from Lieberman the only choices are worse, so hold your nose this cycle, and look to findig more Lamonts for the next one. Wars are rarely won in battles, but only after campaigns) they can be put back on their heels.

So long as all three branches of gov't are owned, root, rot, and branch, by the same party (and this incarnation of that party) there is no way to roll back the damages to civil liberties.

We can do other things. We can use good rhetoric. We can ask when we becamae a nation of cowards, willing to sacrifice essential liberties for small (and fleeting) security.

We can proclaim the moral high-ground. We can say that, even if this makes a repeat of That Tuesday more likely, we would rather face that death, than this moral decay. We can say, as the Right is fond of saying, some things are so wrong they can never be countenanced.

I, for one, am willing to risk the minor chance at death (6/1,000, over five years, based on the last successful attack by the "jihadists" this is supposed to be saving me from) to be free.

Patrick Henry said it, and I agree with it, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Shall we sacrifice our honor, our morality; as well as our rights and freedoms, in the vain hope that promises of mere safety are fair value for them?

I fear death less than I am willing to sacrifice human decency, I have more scruples than that.