Interesting site on a variety of topics...

[slipslidingaway]

http://liberatedtext.org/

"...The site's initial concept was an intention to mark-up selected Congressional Daily Records that fit within a defined category or topic. The reason for this is because the available methods for accessing Congressional Proceedings transcripts is difficult for most internet users. A free society is well-served if its citizens possess methods to transparently view the production of their elected politicians.

This information need be available, not just so the politicians and other agents of the state can be closely scrutinised. Often, others will deceptively portray what has transpired and what was said in congress for partisan political purposes. This is a successful ploy, largely because these records are not easily accessible by the people.

This was the impetus behind LiberatedText's first Congressional Records Mark-up Project: The Authorization of Force, in which many of the statements made by House Members and Senators regarding the Authorization Of The use Of United States Military Force In Iraq in 2002 was published..."


http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/

"Currently, transcripts from October 8, 9 and 10 have been marked-up. The pages have been heavily inner-linked to enable URIs pointing to legislators' words. We welcome any and all links to any content in this project. A detailed Table of Contents is available...

Currently, the site begins with the Congressional Record of October 8, 2002...

Much has been claimed about individual legislators' remarks. Often, their words have been taken out of context. No commentary has been added to the transcripts, and the reader must make their own analysis..."


Detailed Table of Contents
http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/toc.html



One example is the Byrd/Sarbanes discussion on 10/10/2002

http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-70_01.html


"Mr. Byrd: I do, I do. And I say further to my dear friend that as soon as this resolution is adopted and signed by the President of the United States, Congress is out of it. It is on the sidelines. We may wish we could say something. We may wish we could do something. But as far as the human eye can see, we are out of it until such time as Congress asks to repeal this legislation or to put a limit on it internally.

Mr. Sarbanes: Let me ask my colleague this question: Suppose some unforeseen, extraordinary development should take place after this resolution is passed and sent down and signed by the President which transforms perhaps the weapons of mass destruction situation. The President, though, could still move ahead and go to war, could he not?

Mr. Byrd: Yes.

Mr. Sarbanes: They would have been given the authority to do that; would that be correct?

Mr. Byrd: Absolutely. We would have handed this over to the President--lock, stock, and barrel. Here it is.

...

Mr. Sarbanes: That underscores what the distinguished Senator says in this op-ed piece that appeared in this morning's New York Times. I quote:

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time. Yet that is what we are being asked to do .

Mr. Byrd: Yes.

Mr. Sarbanes: This, of course, is a decision with far-sweeping consequences, certainly as it deals with Iraq and all of its implication. But the precedent is being established in terms of the future, it seems to me, and that constitutes a major erosion of the role of the Congress with respect to the Nation going to war.

Mr. Byrd: It does. And it is easy enough, I suppose, to pass this resolution. But should we try to negate it, should we try to repeal it, should we try to change the law, a President can veto any change that Congress might bring along later, any change it might enact, in order to overturn this law it is now about to adopt.

Mr. Sarbanes: I am glad the distinguished Senator made that point because that is the next item I wanted to go to. People could say: If the circumstances changed and the Congress wants to pull it back, why not come in, pass a law, and pull it back? But the fact is that a President who wanted to keep that authority and may well want to use it, as long as he could keep the support of one-third--not of each House of the Congress but only one-third of one House, either a third of the Senators, plus one, or a third of the Members of the House of Representatives--he could negate congressional action that tried to pull back this war-making authority, could he not?

Mr. Byrd: The distinguished Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. It only takes a majority of both Houses to pass this resolution, but it would take two-thirds in the future if the President should attempt to veto a substitute piece of legislation by this Congress to abort what we are doing here today, to appeal it, to amend it. One-third plus one in either body could uphold the President's veto, and that legislation would not become law..."

[mike_c]

1. that's an amazingly prescient exchange between Byrd and Sarbanes....

Pretty much spot on identifies the dilemma congress finds itself in today.

[slipslidingaway]

2. Yes...who could have known that we might find ourselves in this

predicament :(


This site makes it easier to look at the actual comments on a variety of issues.

Thanks :)


It's the economy ... 10/10/2002

"Mr. Kucinich:

...We are at a dangerous moment in human history when 20 centuries of moral teachings are about to be turned upside down. Instead of adherence to the Golden Rule, we are being moved toward the rule of liquid gold: do unto others before they do unto you.

No longer are we justified by our faith; we are now justified by our fear. Iraq was not responsible for 9-11, but some fear it was. There is no proof Iraq worked with al Qaeda to cause 9-11, but some fear it did.

It is fear which leads us to war. It is fear which leads us to believe that we must kill or be killed, fear which leads us to attack those who have not attacked us, fear which leads us to ring our Nation and the very heavens with weapons of mass destruction.

The American people need the attention of their government today. People who have worked a lifetime are finding the American dream slipping away. People who have saved, who have invested wisely are suffering because of corruption on Wall Street, the failing economy, and the declining stock market.

People have lost their homes, they have lost their jobs, they have lost their chances for a good education for their children. The American dream is slipping away, and all the people hear from Washington, D.C., is war talk, so loud as to drown out the voices of the American people calling for help.

Seventy years ago, Franklin Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself," calling America to a domestic agenda, a New Deal for America. Faith in our country calls us to that again. Faith in our country calls us to work with the world community to create peace through inspection, not destruction. Faith in our country calls us to use our talents and abilities to address the urgent concerns of America today.

Let us not fear our ability to create a new, more peaceful world through the science of human relations. Faith, America; courage, America; peace, America."

[slipslidingaway]

3. k n/t

[w8liftinglady]

4. K&R-they put a lot of work into this

[slipslidingaway]

5. Yes they did, thanks for the K&R n/t

[LiberatedText]

6. it is i

This post showed up as a new referrer string in the logs, so I created a user here to say thanks for the compliment, and add a bit.

First, I don't have any plans of using this account much. I will not stand on a soapbox, but suffice it to say, I believe the the 2-party system is a restraint upon liberty. To vote for a lesser of evils is self-evidently a vote for evil, although the last 7 years has caused me to realise that the argument falls apart when there exists a lamer of evils in a two party system. (satire-ok?)

I wanted to explain in detail why the Congressional Records' pages on the site have been heavily inner linked, because hardly anyone seems to have been aware of the functionality it provides. It exposes an ability to directly link to very specific parts of the page text, which comes in handy, considering the length of some pages. All pages have a left-side navigation tool that will also show any inner page links, if there are any. If you click a desired link within the page, the browser address bar will show a URL that has the name of the file plus #{string}. If you use that address, you can hot link directly to that section posting it elsewhere. Hot-linking to anywhere within Liberatedtext.org's namespace is encouraged.

If anyone is interested, the current FISA debate in The Senate is being marked-up onto the site the day after they occur: S. 2248: The FISA Amendments Act - TOC

There is also a Light message board available for usage.

cheers.

[slipslidingaway]

7. You are welcome and thank you for all the work you have done

in gathering information on various topics. In the past I have looked back at the Congressional Record to find statements on important issues and found the process to be cumbersome.

I see now from your comments that it would have been easier to link from the navigation tool when I posted the Byrd/Sarbanes exchange as it comes closer to the exchange that I quoted in my original post.

http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-70_01.html#sarbanes01


Yes I did see the FISA page on your site, normally I would have linked the page below when copying a statement...

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=S775&position=all

Instead I'll check your site and use this link...

http://liberatedtext.org/congrecord/2008/fisa/cr07fe08-186_fisaact.html#feingolda3915


Thanks again for your work and for posting additional comments on DU. :)

:applause:

[LiberatedText]

8. There is also a cross reference to FISA available

I have a very strong affinity for natural human rights. There is no need to become entangled in metaphysical arguments to understand what I mean by this. Natural rights are a category of rights that cannot be controlled by the government in a free state. This still leaves a lot of gray area as to what exactly are Natural Rights, but it removes from the debate any conflicts having to do with differing viewpoints that humans are bound to have regarding what they believe to be the creative force. This to me is pure original intent (emphasis mine-attribution should be unnecessary):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

There is no doubt in my mind that habeas corpus is a natural human right, as is a right to trial by jury which makes a finding of guilt in a tribunal process that adheres to due process of law, before a state can legitimately strip any human of life, liberty, and/or property. Something else about Natural Human Rights that far too many in America have forgotten: they are universal, and not a right of citizenry. To believe that Natural rights are a gift of a magnanimous state to its people, and not rights possessed by ALL humans which are pre-eminent to the state, is to sell your birthright of liberty for a pot of beans. What a state has been empowered to give, it will someday take away.

For any who may wonder if I assert that this is true for anyone the government claims to be a terrorist, let me clear up any doubt; Damn Straight, that is exactly what it means. If the American people to do not once again restrain our ravening leviathan beast, it will someday turn and devour us all. Take the detainees into an open court, and secure convictions against them fair and square; then and only then, may the government hang em high. Anything less defames the Dreamtime America.

My pontificating being through now, I would direct your attention to other http://congrecord.liberatedtext.org/habcorp/1996/index.html">Congressional Records on the site from 1996, when terror prevention legislation was being hammered out in Congress. If you look around a bit, especially at what O. Hatch and other Republicans had to say about wiretaps, you will find repugnant moral relativism when compared to what they now say about FISA wiretaps. It you have a use for this, by all means use it; any equivocating enemy of the people's liberty is an enemy of mine.

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Thomas Paine, "Dissertations on First Principles of Government", 1795