How to Expose Politicians or I Know What You Did Last Summer

Great Debates
1

What is the best way to expose a Policitian, or Congress’s, actions that you think are highly inappropriate, but perfectly legal? Is voting enough? Newspapers? What can I do personally?

Case in point. The Detainee Treatment Act. You remember that one right, John McCain, enemy combatant rights, The US does not Torture!, handshakes and smiling all around, pictures while signing, press and television interviews.

None of that matters. Here is what you have to look for when it comes to a politician. What did they say under oath, what exactly does the statute they are enacting say and who voted for it/against it. Those are the only three things you should ever pay attention too. Not what is the title of the Act. Not when a politician later says, “oh, I didn’t realize that’s what that meant”, Not here’s some language from it (but is just superfluous), but what does the last part that I don’t quite understand mean (that part is really important, like a credit card application).

So the DTA. Enacted on Dec. 31, 2005.

Sec 1002. This limits interrogations to what is in the army field manual. This is a good thing. The US military is a first class organization. Question: So the CIA can’t waterboard anymore because it’s not in the army field manual right? It’s not in the field manual, but No. Sec. 1002 is limited to the Dept. of Defense. The CIA is not apart of the DoD. Damn.

Sec. 1002. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

That’s an awesome title! That has to mean America doesn’t torture. Keep reading. (d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined- In this section, the term ‘cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment’ means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

haha, whoa, so this only actually “confirms” what was already in the CAT? and the understandings are not even defined here! Wonder why. Because that’s the actual part that’s binding law and that language reads like a horror film.

So why the hell was this Act even passed? Is it that part at the end I don’t really understand and no one ever talked about on TV or in the papers? Yes.

First, a lil history. Bush had signed an executive order denying the writ of habeas corpus to detainees in Guantanamo. On June 29, 2004 in Rasul v. Bush, the US Supreme Court said there was a statute on the books, 2241, that gave them a statutory right to habeas and this trumps an executive order. This brings us to the DTA (enacted on Dec. 31, 2005, hmmm, that’s pretty quickly after Rasul).

SEC. 1005. PROCEDURES FOR STATUS REVIEW OF DETAINEES OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;

What does that mean? It means Congress didn’t like the decision in Rasul so they enacted a law that said detainees did not have access to the writ. Wow.

Here’s the DTA

Here’s a NY times article "House Backs McCain on Detainees, Defying Bush" after it passed through the house.

Please feel free to shred anything you do not agree with above.

End of case in point. This is a not Republican or Democrat thing so any indication of that is purely coincidence and not intended. This is just something I’m familar with. Both sides are politicians, there are a couple on each side that actually vote how they talk.

The point is, what can I do? Write them all a letter saying I know what you did? Report it to the NY times? Take the extraneous time and effort to find the few politicians who say and act how they vote and overlook the issues we disagree about?

2

Uhm, I’m not sure what you mean by “expose.” This stuff was all in the news when the law was passed, and there were a significant number of votes against the bill, mostly Democrats who thought the bill didn’t go far enough for pretty much the reasons you describe.

So, sure, write your congressmen, write your local paper, go join protests, and vote for better candidates, but don’t expect that you know something that is a surprise to people who have followed the issue. All this stuff has been out there for what, three years or so.

3

I didn’t mean to come off like that. It’s just an example I knew something about. It can apply to any proposed bill.

How do you “expose” it before it’s actually passed, when it’s so misreported when it’s being signed. How do you get past the camera’s and “flash” of something to actually understand it. If you’re actually able to do that, how can you influence the vote?

On October 5, 2005, the United States Senate voted 90-9 to support the amendment.

“The Senators who voted against the amendment were Wayne Allard (R-CO), Christopher Bond (R-MO), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), John Cornyn (R-TX), James Inhofe (R-OK), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and Ted Stevens (R-AK).”

I was fooled. Alas, I think the only way you can understand a statute when only a few voted against (or say they will), and it seems like such a “good” Act, is to figure out why someone would vote against something that is “good.” If you can understand why they would, whether you agree or not, then you will understand the Bill/Statute.

Here’s where to see who voted for what and when GOV

4

You can write to your congressman, write your local paper, join protests, and vote for better candidates. And pretty much all bills voted on by congress are posted on the internet.

There were 170 votes in the House and 34 votes in the Senate against the overall bill.

5

I don’t doubt you, but I guess I’m confused; I’m talking about the 2005 Act, not subsequent amendments.

Can you provide a link? I need to reconcile my confusion.

From the NY times article I linked to in the original post…“The Senate approved the measure in October, 90 to 9,…The House vote was 308 to 122, with 107 Republicans lining up along with almost every Democrat behind Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who sponsored Mr. McCain’s language”

6

I think I got it. Graham-Levin Amendment on Habeas Corpus.

So there was a McCain part & Graham-Levin part and combined they reflect your vote total? Is that correct?

This has nothing to do with my overall point, which you answered, but this just makes it even more confusing to understand. Better hit the books some more.

ps. Just watched Pelosi. Say it under oath woman. Cheney, you too.

7

Sorry, the vote I was referring to was on the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I apologize for the confusion.

8

I don’t think you do. Congress constantly passes new laws that do nothing, or do something other than what the title says, or does so little that it may as well not be passed. Most of these laws are little more than photo ops.

So you’re not exactly being a whistleblower here. IMO, the best you can do is try to hold your own senators and representatives’ feet to the fire.

9

I think that’s the best advice. It might not affect the bill you’re holding them too, but your actions can influence how they vote in the future.

I think this is far more reaching than it seems, too. There’s a difference between general public outrage in national newspapers vs. personal public outrage inside the Congressman’s very district that he’s personally being informed of.

10

Let Nancy Pelosi deal with it.