# Letter to the Senatorial Steaming POS's from NJ **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 1, 2006, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843 "2006-10-01T16:36:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2006, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/1 "2006-10-01T16:36:08Z")
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.](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Caridwen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@Caridwen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caridwen)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2006, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/2 "2006-10-01T16:45:22Z")
I’m with you on this one. I sent letters to Menendez & Lautenberg. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/3 "2006-10-02T12:54:51Z")
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. Jim ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/4 "2006-10-02T13:15:19Z")
Not a summary, but I did find this: [Detainee Bill Shifts Power to President - The New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us/30detain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) I think a login is required. It is free. [QUOTE=NYT] Taken as a whole, the law will give the president more power over terrorism suspects than he had before the Supreme Court decision this summer in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that undercut more than four years of White House policy. It does, however, grant detainees brought before military commissions limited protections initially opposed by the White House. The bill, which cleared a final procedural hurdle in the House on Friday and is likely to be signed into law next week by Mr. Bush, does not just allow the president to determine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions; it also strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation. [/QUOTE] From McCain’s Website: [MCCAIN COMMENTS ON MILITARY COMMISSION ACT OF 2006](http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=2284) [QUOTE=Press Release, I believe I can quote in 100%] U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today released the following statement after the President’s press conference on the Military Commission Act of 2006: “I respect very much the President’s unwavering determination to protect America from terrorist attack. Our government has no more important obligation than to ensure the security of its people. The President has diligently discharged this solemn responsibility. And that is why we have in place the array of activities aimed not merely at weakening, but at vanquishing international terrorism. In this intelligence-intensive war on terror, we must be able to acquire actionable intelligence quickly from those committed to our destruction. “Our intelligence personnel must have the ability to interrogate captured terrorists, and to do this they need clarity as to what is legal and what is not. The Senate Armed Services Committee legislation, for the first time, spells out nine activities that would constitute criminal conduct by the CIA in the War on Terror. It also protects CIA personnel and their families from being sued for performing their duties, and states that only American law – not foreign law – will be used to create civil or criminal liability. “But the protection our personnel require is not limited to freedom from lawsuits and unjust criminal prosecutions. They also need – and deserve – the undiluted protections offered since 1949 by the Geneva Conventions. For this reason, I oppose unilaterally reinterpreting in law Geneva Common Article 3. Weakening the Geneva protections is not only unnecessary, but would set an example to other countries, with less respect for basic human rights, that they could issue their own legislative “reinterpretations.” This puts our military personnel and others directly at risk in this and future wars. “Our CIA interrogators are on the front lines of this conflict, and I respect their service. There is nothing in our bill that would require the closure of the CIA’s detainee program. Our legislation protects them from unfair exposure to criminal and civil liability. And it maintains intact international obligations that protect their rights. To do any less risks our reputation, our moral standing and the lives of those Americans who risk everything to defend our country.” [/QUOTE] 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. From the far left, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: [USA: Congress rubber stamps torture and other abuses](http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGAMR511572006) > [@](#): > > By passing the Military Commissions Act, the United States Congress has, in effect, given its stamp of approval to human rights violations committed by the USA in the “war on terror”. This legislation leaves the USA squarely on the wrong side of international law, and has turned bad executive policy into bad domestic law. Amnesty International will campaign for repeal of this act and fully expects the constitutionality of this legislation to be challenged in the courts. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Blucher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Count\_Blucher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_Blucher)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/5 "2006-10-10T16:55:34Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Caridwen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@Caridwen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caridwen)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/6 "2006-10-10T17:25:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Blucher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Count\_Blucher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_Blucher)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/7 "2006-10-10T17:31:51Z")
btw, there’s [Tom Kean](http://www.paulohenrike.pop.com.br/Lex%20Luthor%20wallapaper.JPG) and here’s [Lex Luthor.](http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/memberphotos/keantom.jpg)😃 ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/8 "2006-10-10T17:59:30Z")
[QUOTE=Count Blucher] btw, there’s [Tom Kean](http://www.paulohenrike.pop.com.br/Lex%20Luthor%20wallapaper.JPG) and here’s [Lex Luthor.](http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/memberphotos/keantom.jpg)😃 [/QUOTE] Wrooong! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/9 "2006-10-10T18:17:20Z")
Hey, I like Lautenberg. He sponsored one of the most intelligent pieces of gun control legislation I’ve come across: the [Lautenberg Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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? ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/10 "2006-10-10T18:56:26Z")
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. 1. 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. 2. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/11 "2006-10-10T19:25:27Z")
[QUOTE=dalej42] 1. 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. [/QUOTE] Under what theory or reasoning should it be overturned? ---
**Author:** ![Caridwen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@Caridwen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caridwen)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/12 "2006-10-10T19:33:01Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Under what theory or reasoning should it be overturned? [/QUOTE] Are you asking why people have a problem with the DOMA or a legal question? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/13 "2006-10-10T19:49:48Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/14 "2006-10-10T19:50:35Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Under what theory or reasoning should it be overturned? [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/15 "2006-10-10T20:13:31Z")
[QUOTE=pantom] 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. . [/QUOTE] Why is it the “pro-torture bill”? 😕 In fact, it bans torture [http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc\_name=lb-109-2-145](http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=lb-109-2-145) "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. " How is the bill “pro-torture”? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/16 "2006-10-10T20:18:08Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] 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. [/QUOTE] 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/17 "2006-10-10T20:23:37Z")
[QUOTE=Caridwen] Are you asking why people have a problem with the DOMA or a legal question? [/QUOTE] A legal question, mostly, although wanting the courts to do the job of the legislature isn’t exactly a legal question. [QUOTE=dalej42] 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. [/QUOTE] 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? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/18 "2006-10-10T20:25:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/19 "2006-10-10T20:26:10Z")
Ooops. Previous to **IW**. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843/20 "2006-10-10T20:35:42Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] Hey, I like Lautenberg. He sponsored one of the most intelligent pieces of gun control legislation I’ve come across: the [Lautenberg Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautenberg_Amendment). [/QUOTE] 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-the-senatorial-steaming-poss-from-nj/374843.md?page=2)