BOTH of my NJ Senators supported torture? BOTH?!?!?

[vi5]

Lautenberg and Menendez have such great voting records and NJ is solidly blue. What the fuck were these two thinking?!?!?

I am so pissed right now. Please explain to me again why I need to vote for Menendez in November?!?!? Please show me some sign of proof that if Dems take the house and/or senat that they will reverse this?

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

1. Fear Not

The Dems are not going to win in November. I wouldn't advocate voting against a Democrat running, since we need all the help possible, even from the turncoats, but it's not going to matter anyways. They're not taking control of Shit. Mark my words.

[mcscajun]

2. The only reason to vote for Menendez at this point,

is to prevent Republican Thomas Kean, Jr., from becoming our Senator.

Today, it is hard to believe it COULD be worse, but it could.

[RestoreGore]

5. What's The Difference?

And I sadly mean that. What's the difference? What power does Congress really have anymore?

[mcscajun]

8. Two different questions.

It's inarguable that in the present circumstances, Congress (no matter WHO is in charge of it) has little power.

Yet, without some hope, we might as well just give up. I'm not ready to do that just yet. So, while there is ANY difference between a Republican and a Democrat, I will continue to vote for the Democrat.

[pnwmom]

13. The difference is that the detainee bill would never have made it out of

committee if the Dems had control of the House and Senate.

There would have been no vote if we had a majority. Does that sound like a difference to you?

[RestoreGore]

20. Well it isn't my fault we don't have that majority

I've been DOING MY DUTY all these years and for what? To see it all go down because of turncoats who constantly have to vote with the Fascist enablers? Perhaps if the Democratic strategy was to actually ACT LIKE DEMOCRATS instead of trying to win Republican votes by being LIKE REPUBLICANS we would have a majority, save DIEBOLD voting machines. And we did have a chance to stop many things, like Bush stealing the White House in 2000 in the first damn place... but did we? Did the Democrats stop Alito? No, many of them VOTED FOR HIM. Many of them voted for his bankruptcy bill, his "homeland ssecurity" bill, his illegal war, and every damn appointee he put up from Ashcroft to Chertoff! So don't pontificate to me that if we had a majority things would be different. I don't believe that anymore.

[RestoreGore]

3. I'm Sick-Is There a Link To The Vote?

They are mine as well and I am sitting here with my mouth opened. I know Menendez is having a close fight with Kean, but to SELL OUT OUR CONSTITUTION just to possibly gain a couple of points is BS. NO F*&*&^ PRINCIPLES. He just lost my vote.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. Judas A & Judas B

[emcguffie]

6. I called his office.

They said he was going to vote against it. But not in precisely those words. But I asked a direct question, since he said in indirectly: I asked, does that mean he will vote against the bill and for the amendment? Yes.

Is that impossible? To vote against a bill, yet vote for an amendment to it?

[annabanana]

7. I was shocked to see that...

Menendez is running ads about how he isn't in B*sh's lockstep.. Helluva time to trip up..

[MGD]

9. Vote Democrat or be arrested/tortured for aiding and abetting the enemy

with your "obstructionist cut and run" ideas.

[DemoTex]

10. IMHO: Serious back-room Rovian shit going on here.

Both my SC senators - YEA. Graham. DeMint. Slimy little men, those. Disingenuous Bu$h apologists. They will pay the piper .. some day. But we are truly fucked when the Democrats cave on an issue like this.

But I tell you from the bottom of my sick heart, the only way the bastards get votes like this on issues like this is because Karl Rove and his minions are blackmailing members of the U.S. Congress .. both sides of the aisle.


Check six. Now, more than ever.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Damn! this is like a repeat of the 2002 IWR vote......

however you need to vote for Menendez in November cause your life and ours depends on it!

[liberalpragmatist]

12. Menendez Gives His Reason Here - Still Doesn't Excuse It Much

He claims he knows this is a bad bill but basically that it's "better than nothing" (?)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15049251/

Asked what persuaded him to vote for the bill, Menendez said, "In view of the fact that the (Supreme) Court has ruled the existing process unconstitutional, it leaves us without anything. It seems to me while it is not the bill I wanted — as evidenced by the way I voted on the amendments — I think there has to be a process in place. I wouldn't want those who have committed acts of terrorism to ultimately find the ability to be free by virtue of a lack of a (tribunal) process."

It's better than knee-jerk support, but it still sucks. Um - why not follow the laws of the land as they CURRENTLY ARE APPLIED?

[Jersey Devil]

15. What Menendez said is correct

The Supreme Court ruled that there was no process in effect under the law to try the prisoners at Gitmo and instructed (more or less) the government to go back to congress to get authorization for military tribunals. So, if some type of law was not passed authorizing trials then eventually the prisoners would go back to court and wind up getting freed because there is no trial process in place. That part of the explanation makes good sense.

[rockymountaindem]

16. So by this argument

it would seem that the Supreme Court won't strike down this law, because it's basically the law they asked for. Correct?

[Jersey Devil]

18. Not at all

The court talked about how there was a need for congress to authorize trials and how prisoners, even enemy combatants, were entitled to at least some form of due process in a trial proceeding and that if it was to be a military tribunal as opposed to a civilian court then a law would have to be passed authorizing that. The court's ruling stressed that every one, even these prisoners, is entitled to justice. The whole point of the decision was to say that a law was needed to put these people on trial.

The law passed today suspends habeas corpus, which essentially means the prisoners cannot go to court to complain that they are not getting trials. This is the complete opposite of what the court intended, in my opinion. The court was trying to facilitate trials and this new law, while authorizing military tribunals if the government so desires, also says it can hold people forever without trial by suspending the right of habeas corpus. So the goverment can choose to put someone on trial or just to hold them without trial. I believe the suspension of habeas corpus will be found unconstitutional, especially after the court has just ruled that these people are entitled to trials.

[alfredo]

14. That makes them just as guilty as bush.

[ddeclue]

17. Same happened in Florida... go figure...

[New Earth]

19. i can't believe it either

i really can't. it doesn't make any sense :(

i'm especially disappointed in Lautenberg :cry: