Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Friday, September 29, 2006


Lamont on Detainee Bill

From an official statement:

I believe the President should have all tools necessary to fight terrorism, but the tools must be workable and able to get the job done. I would have opposed the detainee bill passed by the Senate yesterday. We've already wasted five years and not prosecuted one terrorist because President Bush abused power and put an unconstitutional system in place. The bill that passed the senate makes those same mistakes and does not make America safer. I believe it violates the constitution, is at odds with our values, puts our troops in jeopardy, and will lead to further delays in bringing terrorists to justice. It is time for Washington to start learning from the very grave mistakes of the last five years, instead of repeating them. I agree with Secretary Colin Powell who recently said "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk." It's time for us to get this right. Our national security depends on it.

Don Michak in the Journal-Inquirer:

Ned Lamont, the Greenwich Democrat who defeated Lieberman in his party's primary last month, today blasted Lieberman for what he described as succumbing to a political game orchestrated by Bush and the Republicans who control Congress.

"This is all politics, it has nothing to do with fighting a real war on terrorism," Lamont said. "This is the flag-burning amendment of national security. It's just an irrelevant game of politics."

"If I was Bush I would push this, especially with his own National Intelligence Estimate saying that the war in Iraq had made America less secure and with the war inflaming tempers around the world," he added. "With his own intelligence agencies contradicting everything that Bush and Lieberman have said, they have to shore up their defense, so they come up with this."

Lamont also said he would have opposed the bill backed by Lieberman, "because it won't withstand legal scrutiny."

"We haven't brought any of these terrorists to justice in the last three years because it was struck down by the Supreme Court and we're setting ourselves up to make the same mistake again," he said. "The idea that we can detain people who are in this country absolutely legally without rights, it's not American."

Sen. Lieberman all but admitted he was playing a "political game" when he looked around to see how every other senator voted before deciding how to cast his vote.

Update: Sen. Dodd, quoted in the Times today:

“The only reason to worry about the politics of it is if you don’t understand it and don’t have the guts to stand up and defend your vote,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, who is considering a presidential race.

If nothing else, it's obvious Sen. Lieberman was worried about the politics of it. He wouldn't have waited around to be the 99th - and last - senator to vote on the bill if he hadn't been.
Thank you for posting Ned's position, at last. There are so many issues for the debate, I will be interested in seeing how Lieberman defends his vote.

I couldn't believe the 2:00 p.m. post at noshowjoe2006.com -- the poll results instead of explaining a yea vote on one of the most destructive and scrutinized pieces of legislation in years.
I don't want to be a pain, but please post this update on Ned's official site -- that is the one many people go to first and, while I am ecstatic about the contribution goal being well surpassed, I think it would look better to have an issue of national importance at the top. And I want Ned to ask Joe why he voted with the Republicans for this clearly unconstitutional and dispicable bill. Thanks.
This piece of aWol legislation that Lieberman voted for makes America safer?

Don't buy the lie.
you're all right. This piece of legislation is ridiculous. There is no way that on constitutional protections should be afforded to enemy combatants. They are not criminal in the common sense they are criminals of war. None have been brought to justice because they are to be tried when the conflict is over. This bill does not RE define common article 3, it DEFINES it because it was left intentionally vague.
Stay the Curse.
how exactly would ned craft the needed piece of legislation. He seems to know what it shouldnt be, but does he know what it should be. Again, what does he stand for, we all know what he is against.
Never before have I been as ashamed and disgusted to be an American as I am today. As we struggle to supposedly spread the ideals of freedom and democracy around the globe it is ironic and frightening that the US administration and the Congress, apparently with the support and blessings of many many Americans, are vigorously curtailing those ideals at home.

As a US citizen living abroad, travelling frequently to SE Asian Muslim countries because I am married to a SE Asian Muslim, I am now fearful of travelling back to the States. Suppose I have given money to a charity there where someone on the board has a name similar to someone on a terrorist watchlist, or is a relative of a supsected terrorist. I could actually then be defined as an unlawful enemy combatant and held indefinetly.

Thank god I have dual nationality and can for the time being live elsewhere. In the meanwhile I will put my absentee vote to good use.
only if you were handing out $100 bills in the middle of a battle field. Get a life Lenny--the limits on freedoms imposed on Americans because of this war are nothing compare to what most Europeans live with on a daily basis. Wanna bug my phone? Go for it, but be sure to bring your pillow.
Post a Comment

<< Home