Thing about this bill is, with every passing day the news gets worse, instead of better.
Not only did McCain, Warner, and Graham cave, so too did a bunch of Democrats. Conspicuous by their presence on this roll call are the two useless assholes who represent the Garden State, Democrats Lautenberg and Menendez.
Below, the letter I wrote which will point out to these two steaming POS’s that: a) It’ll be a cold day in Hell before I ever vote for either of them, and segundamente, that they will have single-handedly caused me to stop contributing to the DNC.
As far as I’m concerned, I am no longer a Democrat. What the hell is the use of an opposition party that doesn’t oppose anything? (I’m looking at you too, Hillary, although I see that in this case, at least, you managed a minimal sense of decency.)
Herewith, the letter:
I am a constituent of yours here in New Jersey. I have also been, up until now, a contributor to the DNC.
That will end as soon as I can make it end.
The reason is your support of the “bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes”, otherwise known as the pro-torture bill.
There is a line, you know. On this side, civilization, on that side, barbarism. You have voted for barbarism. For Menendez (he’s up in Nov): You won’t get my vote in November. I really don’t care if your Republican opponent is for or against this bill. I do care about having my representative stand up for civilization. For Lautenberg: If you choose to run again, you won’t get my vote.
Given that, as usual, the Democrats are unable to forge a united front against the President, even on as fundamental an issue of simple decency as this one, my contributions to the party will also be ending.
It will be because of you and your vote. I hope you’re proud.
The above has been sent via email to both Senators. I’ve contacted the DNC about ending my contributions.
Is there a fairly neutral summary of the bill? Maybe by CNN or the NY Times?
I am wondering if maybe the bill was toned down if McCain & the NJ Dems voted for it.
I will look for a link later, but if you would be kind enough to provide one, I would be appreciative.
So far, I am not sure this is the same Pro-Torture bill. This looks like a second compromise bill that protects the Geneva Convention from interpretation and specifically spells out torture is not allowed. Waterboarding was specifically mentioned. It is possible that you have erred in your condemnation.
All I know is that 2 more votes for Tom Keane “Lex Luthor” Jr isn’t going to help anybody concerned with stopping legislation like this. You may not like Menendez, but he’s at least professional & picks his battles. In the recent debate, as bad as it was, there was clearly only one candidate who was semi-persuasive in his arguments: Menendez.
Bottom line: do you want someone representing you in the Senate who can intelligently debate with the other Senators (ie- be taken seriously)?
Except in the case of a one party over-whelming majority, loud-mouthed thugs rarely persuade people to vote their way on bills.
I just want to be clear that while I don’t agree with Menendez or Lautenberg in their decision to back this bill this in no way would prevent me from voting for Menendez. I doubt if Lautenberg will run again, but I have nothing but respect for him and think he’s done a great job overall as a senator.
I’m not a one issue voter, but Menendez and Lautenberg both have strong voting records on something very important to me, the environment.
Like Pantom I am reconsidering my monthly donation to the DMC but not because of Menendez or Lautenberg. The idea that Lieberman received even a penny of my money makes me sick. In the future we’ll be donating to individual candidates.
Hey, I like Lautenberg. He sponsored one of the most intelligent pieces of gun control legislation I’ve come across: the Lautenberg Amendment.
As for the rest, well, the Congress is all about compromise. As usual, nobody got everything that they wanted, but they managed to curb some of the most egregious abuses (at least according to my reading of it). Now they can work to curb some more, and when the Democrats take over they can really put the President’s feet to the fire. 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing, you know what I mean?
Bill Clinton angered my a couple of times with some of his decisions. The don’t ask, don’t tell decision as well as the Defense of Marriage Act.
Still, I understood he got handed a shit sandwich in both cases.
He had to get gays in the military off the front page of the papers. His budget plan was stalled and he wasn’t getting the support in Congress (San Nunn). The Sunday talk shows featured nothing but debates on gays in the military. A fairly minor campagin promise was threatening to sabotage his entire domestic agenda. 50% was better than 100% in that case.
DOMA was a handy campagin trick by the Republicans. Clinton didn’t want “Bill Clinton supports gay marriage” to be used against him. Hopefully, it will make it to the Supreme Court to be overturned.
Shrug. OP, well, you’re stupid. If you want less of these sorts of bills, you vote for Democrats whether they are for or against a specific dumb bill. Otherwise, what you’re really saying is that you want to piss and moan, but don’t really care that much whether such bills get passed or not. In other words, the means matter to you so much that the ends mean nothing.
If I only voted for people that did only things I wanted government to do, I would never be able to vote. Frankly, I have to hold my nose far more than you do, on far more issues. So, frankly, I don’t see how I can have much symapthy for your plight.
I’m not a lawyer nor do I want to hijack the thread too much. From what I understand, it would have something to do with the full faith and credit clause.
A married same sex couple from Massachussetts not having the same rights as other married couples while **visiting ** New Hampshire for instance.
"S. 3930 would add subsection (d) to the War Crimes Offense to enumerate and further define conduct that would constitute a “grave breach” of common Article 3: torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, performing biological experiments, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and taking hostages (does not apply to wartime prisoner exchanges).
Cruel and inhuman treatment would include inflicting “serious physical pain or suffering,” which, for the purposes of subsection (d), means bodily injury that involves substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, a serious burn or disfigurement, or significant loss or functional impairment of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. "
So, instead of picking candidates who agree with you on important issues or demonstrate the ability to do things you agree with, you blindly check all of the names with (D) after them, whether they’re good candidates or not?
A legal question, mostly, although wanting the courts to do the job of the legislature isn’t exactly a legal question.
To avoid a hijack, then, I would heartily commend to your attention several threads we’ve had that discuss FFC with respect to this issue. There has long been a “public policy exception” that permits states to carve out exceptions similar to what DOMA authorizes.
Rather than wishing for the Supreme Court to step in, why not wish and work for electing state legislators that will enact same-sex marriage laws?
In this instance, yes. There are oft repulsive situations in politics, and this is one of them, time to fish or make sushi. We need a Dem majority in the House and Senate, desperately, and I do mean desperately! If I were (somehow) assured the “Fightin’ Joe” Lieberman will caucus with the Dems so that they can attain the majority status needed for committee assignments, leading to investigations with subpoena power, I would vote for him! And may Og have mercy on my soul.
Actually, that was one of the worst. Why? Becuase it included the word “misdemeanor”. As your own cite sez "The ban became increasingly controversial due to the fact that it bans a number of police and soldiers from firearm access in work related duties (in fact, a service member discharged from the military due to a domestic violence conviction is said to have been ‘Lautenberged’ .) " This happened to a friend of mine, a Sgt in a small SoCal PD. His wife accused him of “domestic abuse” after their divorce filing. Everyone agreed it was simply a divorce tactic. The DA, knowing it was a bad case, offered a reduction to a misdemeanor, with no jail time, & 40 hours of comm service. The Sgt’s Union lawyer said he should take it, as going to trial was a risk, as a conviction would mean he’d lose his job. Thus, even though the Sgt maintained his innocence, he “plead out” to save his carrerr. Then comes this asshole Lautenberg and his stupid PC bill- and my friend lost his job anyway. His Ex-wife even swore out a statement saying she was “distraught and made the complaint in error” but still, the conviction was a conviction and he lost his carreer. A good cop- which we need more of- lost his career over fucking Lautenberg .
The good news is that he was able to have his conviction expunged- which took $20,000 and five years. He was able to go back to police work- but he lost his rank and seniority.
Now, if the bill had been better written to either be a non-“ex post facto” bill, or just including felonies, then it would have been fine.
