No Boudt Adout It !!

Tough To Spin Detainee 'No' Vote


Ibd Thu Sep 28, 7:00 PM ET

Detainee Rights: When the president asked the House to give him and our armed forces the tools to fight the war on terror, it should have been a slam-dunk. But 168 lawmakers said "no" -- nearly all of them Democrats.

It's hard to know what moral calculus the average congressman uses these days. Safe to say, however, that with President Bush's approval ratings still in the low 40s, and with polls showing tight races even for many GOP incumbents, Democrats are feeling pretty good about their chances in the midterm elections.

That's the only possible explanation for why 160 of them -- along with seven Republicans and one Independent -- voted "no" on the detainee bill, which thankfully passed with 253 votes (including, by the way, 34 Democrats).

Obviously, the Democrats think they're playing to their base -- the Moveon.org and Netroots hard left that opposes America defending itself against terrorist predators.

But beyond that, what could they be thinking?

Given that the Supreme Court struck down the military tribunals Bush had set up to try al-Qaida terrorist suspects, this bill was badly needed. The president and his House backers worked hard to cut a deal that would ensure terrorists get a fair legal hearing and set clear limits for what the CIA can do during interrogations.

But that, apparently, wasn't good enough for the Democrats.

We wonder -- what would they do? Hand out tickets to terrorists? Hold civilian trials, in which terrorists guilty of mass murder might go free on technicalities?

As they hit the campaign trail, the 168 might be able to spin some pretty good reasons for their "no" votes. But we know this: Had they prevailed, America would be a lot less safe.

Democrats don't see it that way. Ex-President Jimmy Carter, the worst commander in chief in over a century and the man arguably most to blame for today's terrorist mess, said "we're in much more danger now" from terrorism than if we hadn't gone into Iraq.

Which is nonsense, if you think about it. There have been many major terrorist attacks since 9/11 and the Iraq War, but none in the U.S. Then again, who needs logic and facts when you can, like Carter, make sweepingly false assertions that will be gobbled up and regurgitated whole by the supposedly unbiased major media?

Democrats, insofar as they believe in a war on terrorism at all, see it as a compartmentalized conflict restricted mostly to Afghanistan. The rest of it, they think, is a matter for the criminal court system.

That was reflected in comments by House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland. The detainee bill, he said, "is really more about who we are as a people than it is about those who seek to harm us."

No, this bill was all about "those who seek to harm us" -- the terrorists who follow none of the rules set by the Geneva Accords and who commit the most horrific of atrocities -- and who then expect while incarcerated to be given prayer mats, Halal meals, copies of the Quran and access to free lawyers.

Remember, this bill is a compromise. For Democrats, it keeps military commissions from using testimony coerced by "cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment or punishment." For Republicans, it restricts habeas corpus rights for terrorists, which, if granted, would set terror suspects loose in our civilian courts, creating legal chaos and endangering our security.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., called the habeas corpus provision "un-American." Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said, "This is how a nation loses its moral compass, its identity, its values and eventually its freedom."

Sorry, but a surer way is to lose a war to terrorists bent on destroying your way of life, who would deny your freedoms to speak and worship, and who find your very existence an affront to their fundamentalist beliefs. If we can't be aggressive in extracting information from such enemies, we might as well quit the war on terror.

The New York Times on Thursday observed that Democrats have "unexpected opportunities" in this year's elections. Maybe so. But Americans will soon start to look at the two parties' stances on national security and ask, "Which one will better protect me, my family and my property?" And when the answer comes back, things could get really interesting.

comment:

I thank that the "NO" voters on this bill had the idea that as long as the bill PASSED, they would be safe, and I'm sure they did their own little poll to ensure that it was.. But to still vote against the safety and security of our Country is a disgrace !!

Just in case ya'll aint noticed, that WHOLE BUNCH up in D.C. aint been the best of protectors lately.. OF ANYBODY, but themselves.. But it still beats bendin over and stickin my ass up in the air and makin sure my head is pointed toward Mecca, FIVE TIMES A DAY !!