Before you behead Menendez and other Dems up for election

[Jersey Devil]

who voted for the torture bill, do yourself a favor tomorrow morning.

On your way to work ask strangers what "habeas corpus" means. They won't know. If Menendez voted no Kean would say he's weak on terror and would let terrorists go free based on some 'legal technicality'. And it would work. Hell, a third of America still thinks Saddam Hussein destroyed the World Trade Center and you think they'd understand an argument about the importance of habeas corpus?

Yeah, sure, they (Menendez and other Dems who voted yes)are posturing and yeah, they did it because they were afraid to say what they really feel. It's all about compromising in order to fight another day. Sometimes you have to suck it up and do things you don't want to do in order to survive.

Don't agree? Then enjoy the new senator from New Jersey, Tom Kean.

[ccpup]

1. that's a very good point.

I don't like what they did, but, in the interest of being pragmatic and regaining control (and some semblance of normalcy again), I hear and understand what you're saying.

[Jersey Devil]

5. There are tons of strings here tonight vowing not to vote for Dems

who voted yes on this issue. I understand their concerns and think the torture bill is an abomination. I am pissed at both Lautenberg and Menendez, my senators, but I am not about to nuke them and wind up with a Republican as my Senator.

There are lots of things Dems can undo if they get control. But right now the Repubs have control, control all the debates, hearings (or, rather, non-hearings) and congressional agendas. But first we have to get control, damn it!

[derby378]

2. I don't want them beheaded - I want them HUMILIATED

Democrats all across America should shame pro-torture Dem candidates into recanting and apologizing. In public. If you have to harass them at every campaign stop and fundraiser, then that's what you might have to do. We cannot let pro-torture Dems turn the decision at the ballot box into "Tweedledee vs. Tweedledum" again.

[Jersey Devil]

6. You may as well send a contribution to the Republicans

because by doing that you will be electing Republicans. If you want to spend the rest of your life wailing about the fate of our country in the control of Republicans your plan is perfect.

[derby378]

9. You didn't read my post, then...

Read it again. I didn't say anything about choosing Republicans over Democrats. I did speak, however, about using "aggressive persuasion techniques" to bring pro-torture Democrats back into the fold and enforce values discipline within the ranks.

[ccpup]

95. No,

what you are, in effect, saying is to use "aggressive persuasion techniques" to publicly humiliate Democrats at campaign stops and, thereby, give their Republican opponents all the amunition they need to "win" in November. I understand your impatience and anger, but I also know we, as Democrats, need to regain control of either House or Senate (or both!) and THEN use your "aggressive persuasion techniques". Let's not make their Republican opponent's jobs any easier, okay?

[derby378]

97. I see where you're coming from...

It's rough, I gotta admit. I want a Democratic majority in the House and Senate more than ever. I just hope we can do it right the first time.

[ccpup]

98. We NEED a Democratic Majority

in the House and Senate or there's no telling what Little Hitler and his Merry Band of Half-witted Minions will eventually do.

[SharonRB]

3. Thank you for being a voice of reason.

I'm so sick of hearing people say they now refuse to vote for an otherwise good candidate because they voted yea on this awful bill. We need all the Dems we can get, even if people have to hold their noses when they vote.

[TheFarseer]

4. yep

a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. If Nelson for instance had voted against the bill, his poll numbers would flip from 20% up to 20% down overnight.

[Jersey Devil]

10. Why is it so hard for some to understand the NJ delegation vote?

Hell, 9/11 is still a very emotional issue for people from NJ. My wife saw the towers fall from her office on the Jersey City waterfront. A large percentage of those who died on 9/11 were from NJ. We know people who worked in the WTC and barely escaped with their lives. Being "soft on terror" in NJ is a political death warrant. Combine that with trying to explain a legal term like habeas corpus to people unfamiliar with it and you may as well be trying to explain nuclear fission.

[TheFarseer]

23. you're preachin' to the choir, man

half of the dumbasses out here think the SAC airforce base in Bellevue is the #3 target of the terrorists :crazy: They f*cking seriously believe that!!!!!! Over half believe dems care more about child molesters, terrorists and drug addicts than babies. It's an uphill battle to say the least, so there's not much margin for error and a huge need to compromise a few points so that we don't just elect wall-to-wall insanity.

[Ms. Toad]

65. Nope, it's the target for the Soviet's A-Bomb....

Oops, wrong decade...duck and cover!

(Childhood memories of living a hairs-breadth away from a SAC hit resurfacing...)

[Xipe Totec]

26. Those are pretty strong arguments

to vote Repug.

Given a choice between a real pug, and a pug wannabe, the sheeple will pick the real one.

If we want to change the direction this country is heading for, we need to offer real alternatives. Otherwise, what's the point?

We are supposed to be the loyal OPPOSITION, not pug 'lite'.

[Jersey Devil]

30. You have to consider people as a whole, not on one vote

Menendez voted "no" on the Iraq War Resolution and has voted with progressives on just about every issue that is important to progressives. Calling him "pug lite" due to this one vote is just ridiculous.

[Xipe Totec]

40. If he's not loyal to the party

And in this case he was NOT,

why should he expect loyalty in return?

And this is not just a progressive point, this is the constitution we're talking about.

This is as close to first principles as we get.

[ccpup]

96. "not loyal to the Party"

geez, that sounds like it came right out of a Communist-era Russian political spy film where a heavy set man with a monocle is quietly and with a sense of menace using his power and intimidation to bring a young, newbie into line with what "the Party" would want.

[Xipe Totec]

7. The ends justify the means?

Are we losing sight of what it means to be a Democrat?

What are we willing to sacrifice in order to 'WIN'?

And in doing so, what do we really 'WIN'?

Let's not lose focus on why we were attracted to the Democratic party in the first place.

And let's not give a free pass to future Liebermans, just because they wear the Democratic label.

[Jersey Devil]

12. Find me a Senator more progressive than Menendez or Lautenberg

that you would run in their place now that you are willing to throw both overboard for this one vote.

Lautenberg and Menendez "future Liebermans"? What a farcical statement.

[derby378]

15. We should not be expected to roll on our backs and pee on ourselves

Here it is, less than 50 days until the election, and pro-torture Democrats are compromising our ability to take back Congress.

Any Democrat who is pro-torture cannot be referred to as "progressive."

[Jersey Devil]

25. You know what? You won't win with only the progressive vote

NJ is a 'moderate' state in the true sense of the word. Independents outnumber both Republicans and Democrats. Those voters couldn't give a hoot about who can be considered 'progressive'. This isn't a primary.

[MrCoffee]

8. That is an irresponsible argument.

"Because the people don't understand what is going on" is EXACTLY the rationale of those who took us to war.

I respectfully dissent.

[Jersey Devil]

14. The war that Menendez voted against?

This whole torture bill had nothing to do with torture or military tribunals. It had only to do with setting a Rovian trap for Democrats in specific locals where terror is foremost on the minds of the voters. If NJ, which lost huge numbers of people on 9/11 isn't one of those places then I'll eat my hat.

[MrCoffee]

21. To say that this bill has nothing to do with torture is to look for ignore

the 500 lb gorilla that is the bill. The only "Rovian trap" here is the one that gutted the Constitution.

[Jersey Devil]

27. Oh really? Then tell me what Bush wasn't doing before the torture bill

that he can do now? Nothing! Hell, there was no real habeas for those people up to now. If they wanted to suspend habeas for them they just shipped them off to secret prisons and tortured them there and no one to this day knows there names, where they were or what happened to them.

So how does this torture bill change anything? It doesn't. The only thing it changes is election tactics.

[U4ikLefty]

39. No, it makes something that was illegal, to now be legal. n/t

[flyarm]

62. i have to disagree..sorry..but i have to

if we give up our core values..then just what are we voting for??

i live in NJ and i was a crew member for one of the airlines involved..and i took off out of Newark the morning of 9/11 in front of UAL flt 93..same type of aircraft..and it was my co-workers who died that morning..and my supervisors nephew was killed by her own airline..i grew up and lived in Middletown Nj a town that lost the most victims in NJ ..that awful day..

and i was the 2001 flt attend of the yr for my airline for the entire NY base..thats JFK. LGA and EWR..

and i have to disagree ...my neighbor lost her son that morning in the WTC..

and if we do not stand up for what is right....for the values we have had as Americans..not only do the terrorists win..we loose..we lose something so valuable and so big..we may never get it back..

the only time Habeas corpus has been removed from us is during the Civil War..and that was a huge huge mistake and was paid for in so many ways..

we never allowed Habeas Corpus to be removed in WWI or WWII or Korea, or Vietnam.. we never removed Habeas Corpus during the cold war..nor any other time since the Civil War..

were we not under intense dangers during WWI? my grandfather fought in that war..on the USS Arizona..he left his eye on that ship

Were the dangers in WWII any less than now?? nooo ..my father , father in law, and mother in law fought in that war..and habeas was not destroyed when a mad man was killing 12 million human beings, and occupying one country after another..
we were fighting two wars in two theaters...worlds apart..did we shit on our constitution then??

no... my family fought for that constitution!

iN VIETNAM MY BROTHERS BOTH FOUGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY and our constitution..or so they were told they were..
my husband was in the Reserves..during Nam..and he served out his time..for the constitution

so please do not say..for Menendez to save his seat ..he must vote to destroy the constitution..and the very values many before him fought for..

and as someone who lost dear friends on 9/11 and co-workers..from NJ..i do not buy the excuses..

I have done speaches for Menendez..and i have given him alot of money..

i will not give another dime..i was supposed to give out flyers for him this weekend..and i will not be doing so..

i will inform the campaign of such in the morning..

I have seen too much needless death..and i will not in any way support my country becoming a third world torturing disgrace.

and this has nothing to do with 9/11 and the victims of terrorists..this is a free ride for the sick mad man in our white house that is guilty of war crimes..and his getting off on the torture he has already committed illegally

we have always been a country that was predicated on the rule of law..

we have a mad man who shits on the rule of law..each and every day he is in our white house

and every one who voted for this bill to get him out of the crimes he has already committed and in our name.....as far as i am concerned they too now join those who would commit crimes against our constitution..

and i refuse to give them an excuse..

my co-workers died on 9/11 ..i do not believe they would want this to be the legacy they would want left behind them..

i know if it had been me..i would hope my family would not have tolerated this being done in my name! or be part of my legacy. or an excuse to destroy the very values we as a nation have always had pride in..

today i am ashamed of my nation...

and even more i have nager for this will put a bullseye on every American that goes out of this country from business and pleasure..

and this has seriously put a bullseye on all of our soldiers backs..

this is a very sad day for our nation..

and i will say this and i mean it..today Bin Laden won..he won because we so easily gave up our rights and values as Americans!

fly

[Jersey Devil]

69. We agree but we don't agree

I agree with everything you said about the importance and sanctity of habeas corpus. As a lawyer I value the Consitution above all else.

I don't agree with Menendez vote and wish he had voted no (along with Lautenberg who I assume voted yes to give Menendez political cover). But I understand why he did it - to get elected so that Democrats can do (and undo) the things they and their constituents would like done for our country.

To me the most important thing, the big picture, is to get Republicans out of power. Then, after Dems take over, if they don't undo the atrocities of the Bush regime I'll be right next to you protesting them.

[mmonk]

11. They should be run out of town

after the 06 elections. They should not be elected beyond this one time in order to get a majority unless they make amends by voting for legislation that complies with the US constitution. They betrayed the people of the US just as the repukes have.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

13. If people don't understand habeas corpus then it needs to be explained to

them, and then they need to be asked if they still support losing this basic protection.

It's not a really hard concept.

Tyrant throws you in dungeon. You have right to a trial and to see evidence against you, and not rot in jail forever in secret.

[Jersey Devil]

18. Yeah, sure, that would be a piece of cake

As I suggested, try it tomorrow morning. Just stop 2 or 3 people at random and ask them what habeas corpus is and if they don't know then try to explain it to them. Good luck! I think you'd have as much success getting them to understand as you would asking them about res ipsa loquitur.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

24. Do you think the concept, as I outlined above, is that hard?

Even for stupid Americans to get?

[Jersey Devil]

33. Yes, it would be "that hard"

There are millions of people who just tune out and don't listen but do vote. One third of America thinks Saddam attacked us on 9/11. If after all this time and all the news and all the saturation of information that screams "SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11" they haven't been convinced, then how the hell do you expect to be able to convince them that you are right and the Repubs are wrong about a legal term phrased in Latin that is generally only understood by lawyers?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

61. So do Democratic politicians bear no responsibility to try and educate

those voters and not vote for torture bills on the assumption that THAT is the winning strategy?

[never_get_over_it]

16. Well on your way to work when you ask someone

what habeas corpus means and they don't know - take the time to explain to them that the Congress has just voted to detain someone - not tell them why - give them no access to the court - and when that person says well who gives a shit they are just dirty rotten terrorists - and then look them in the eye and say and what if its you next time - or one of your relatives

And then when you're finished discussing habeas corpus - ask this person on the way to work - what would you think if a someone BROKE THE LAW oh say Bill Clinton and before he was prosecuted the Congress magically changed the law rhetroactively in order to save him from accountablity - after they say OH MY GOD THAT IS WRONG then explain that is just what the Congress did for good old King George....

That's what the Dems need to do - instead of giving in to these thugs they need to EXPLAIN WHY THE REPUNKS ARE WRONG

And since your post seems to relate to NJ perhaps you can explain to us what the FUCK was up with Frank Lautengerg - he isn't up for reelection

I for one will not be voting for Bill Nelson - every single issue I have called him on he has voted with the repunks - he does not represent me and I will not vote for someone who voted that its perfectly all right that MY COUNTRY and MY TAX DOLLARS support torture - not in my name Mr. Nelson

[Jersey Devil]

22. Then Senator Cruella would be just the thing for you

You can be smug about it because Harris doesn't have a chance of a snowball in hell.

You'd need legions of lawyers with hours to kill to explain habeas to the general population and they'd be no match for the 30 second soundbites that Kean would hang around Menendez neck saying he doesn't give a shit about New Jerseyans who died on 9/11. It is a very emotional issue in NJ, one that does not relate at all to other areas.

[never_get_over_it]

49. Oh I imagine it is pretty emotional in NY too

and how did Hillary and Chuck vote? And I lived in the DC metro area and lost people I knew on 9/11 too and I'm not so stupid to think torturing is the answer to that - and you know I know a lot of people from NJ and I bet they're not that stupid either.

And on a very serious note - do you have any idea what was up with Lautenberg because I am more than serious his vote ASTONISHES ME.

also I'm not saying that you shouldn't vote for him or saying that I have a particular problem with you voting for him - I'm just saying I can't vote for someone who voted that way

And I know habeas corpus is complicated but that doesn't mean we just give in to these freaking repunks - I think if you and I in our conversations with folk simply explained that habeas corpus means you have a right to know the charges, you have the right to legal council, you have the right to see the evidence against you - basically you have the right to defend yourself - and this legislation TAKES THAT AWAY from ANYONE King George decides to take that away from including you and me and them - I think most people can understand that.

And the whole rhetroactive thing is so freaking disgusting - oh its all disgusting....

BTW - I don't think any of this shit can stand up in court and it is probably all big fat piece of Karl Rove BS - but it literally hurts my soul to think that people who profess to be Dems could support this shit.

[Jersey Devil]

57. Well, you see, that is NOT what habeas corpus means

My point is that is is very hard to explain. It has nothing to do with knowing the details of the charges against you or having a lawyer or seeing the evidence against you. Those are other rights covered in other parts of the constitution that have nothing to do with habeas and many of those rights apply only to US citizens.

Habeas corpus is actually a writ that says that the government must either release or put on trial someone that it is holding in custody. It is, in effect, someone in custody saying, "What's going on here? Why am I being held? Put me on trial or let me go."

The other rights that you discuss like the right to counsel are totally separate issues.

[never_get_over_it]

70. Well see you explained it just perfectly in a few sentences

which is what I think we need to let people know - and you are right I'm so worked up tonight I wasn't thinking straight - but holding indefinitely kind of leads to the loss of those other rights but my point is I think in a few sentences just like you did we can explain to people that this could happen to them too not just the dirty rotten terrorist - who may not be dirty rotten terrorist at all - like the poor guy from Canada that got renditions to Syria

There are just TOO MANY PEOPLE in this country who don't appreciate the Constitution and I think we should become "Warriors for the Constitution" - you know instead of Jesus Camp we should have a Constitution Camp - I'm just saying we need to TRY to make people understand and our Dem leaders need to make the case instead of just giving up and voting with them. And I KNOW IT IS HARD we have a serious MSM issues ... we have reelection issues - lets face it we have a shit load of issues but the constitution is going to slip right through our hands if you and me and our Dem politicians don't defend it - that's all I'm trying to say and that I AM SO TIRED OF BEING DISAPPOINTED time and time again.

[Jersey Devil]

73. I don't disagree with what you say, just with what you propose to

do about it.

I am very upset about how these Dems voted for torture as you are.

I guess all I have been trying to say is that we have to let go so that we can get Democrats elected. If, after taking power, they abandon the principles of the Constitution, then yes, off with their heads.

Now, before having power, they think a no vote would mean they could be painted as soft on terror. They may very well be wrong about that as pointed out by many in this string, including your proposal to explain these concepts to people. But to me the fact that they may be wrong is not strong enough a reason to abandon them and allow Repubs to continue in power.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

28. OMG! You're voting for Katherine Harris!

What a thing to be proud of!

[never_get_over_it]

37. Did I say I was voting for Katherine Harris? eom

[Jersey Devil]

42. You could vote for Harry the Hippo

Any vote that is not for Nelson by a Democrat helps Harris.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

48. Never thought I'd be talking to someone here who was going to enable

Cruella to win. You are one very stubborn person.

[never_get_over_it]

55. I am not enabling Harris to win

if you knew ANYTHING about the race you'd know she doesn't have a prayer - and since when is standing for one's VALUES being stubborn....

there happens to be a very progressive independent candidate running who I like better than either Bill Nelson or the witch - and so he will get my vote - but one other small fact I will be voting in FL - how I vote and how they count my vote are most likely two entirely different things.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

88. We'll probably both end up "voting" for her no matter what....

I'm too afraid that it could accidentlly vote her in - that would be just a total nightmare for me. I absolutely hate her.

[Jersey Devil]

90. That's what Franken said about voting for Nader in 2000

Sort of, well, maybe not quite.

[never_get_over_it]

83. Come on now

you said before that I could be smug because the witch doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell and she doesn't - so my vote for a progressive independent who I really do like is not going to hurt our chance to keep a Dem if in name only in the Senate from FL.... and it will be good for my soul to vote for someone I actually LIKE....

I actually had a write in campaign in Virginia one year when nobody was running against my repunk Congress critter - probably got 15 to 20 votes - hey its a start!!! lol

[Moochy]

79. What utter crap

[brentspeak]

53. I don't understand what you're getting mad at

The Republicans already had the votes to pass the bill. It doesn't matter how the Democrats voted. Frank Lautenberg and the other eleven Democrats who voted 'yea' could all have voted 'nay', and the end result would have differed, how?

[never_get_over_it]

78. My dear friend it so matters how the Dems voted....

ok so lets say someone introduced a law to KILL all 4 foot 11 inch - blue eyed - red haird - females for no apparent reason - just because we wanted to - it was a wildly popular idea and lets say it was an absolute given that this law would pass

And lets say there had been people ILLEGALLY killing 4 foot 11 inch - blue eyed - red haired - females for years - but had yet to be prosecuted and this new law states - no problme what you did before when it was illegal - don't worry about rhetroactively not illegal any more...

would it matter if someone voted for it?

TORTURE IS IMMORAL
TORTURE DOES NOT WORK
IF WE TORTURE THEM THEY'RE GOING TO TORTURE US


First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

I don't understand why you don't understand.....

[xxqqqzme]

17. They have a 'D' behind their names

they had NO business sanctioning torture - None. If they think their constituents won't understand then it is their job as Senators to explain it to their idiot masses. I can remember Senators that would travel to their states and hold meetings to explain legislation. THAT'S THEIR JOB! It is especially their job if they are democrats living in a blue state.

[Jersey Devil]

36. Sure, Menendez can talk to all 16 million New Jerseyans

Maybe he should start the door to door campaign now, whaddya think?

[U4ikLefty]

43. Hey rocket scientist....it's called TV. n/t

[Jersey Devil]

47. That's all you got? Ad hominem?

NJ is the most expensive TV market in the world. In law school it takes a few weeks to describe a principle like habeas corpus so that it is fully understood and you think it can be explained in 30 second ads?

Inflabis me.

[U4ikLefty]

52. Don't get mad...I assumed you were a rocket scientist because you

are sooooooo smart...lol!!!

[Jersey Devil]

50. PS - here ya go

Put this in a 30 second add Mr. DeMille:

habeas corpus

Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.

In Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992), the court observed that the Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that`he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.' Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). " Therefore, the writ must be "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected." Harris, 394 U.S. at 291.

The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action." Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). Because the habeas process delays the finality of a criminal case, however, the Supreme Court in recent years has attempted to police the writ to ensure that the costs of the process do not exceed its manifest benefits. In McCleskey the Court raised barriers against successive and abusive petitions. The Court raised these barriers based on significant concerns about delay, cost, prejudice to the prosecution, frustration of the sovereign power of the States, and the "heavy burden" federal collateral litigation places on "scarce federal judicial resources," a burden that "threatens the capacity of the system to resolve primary disputes." McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 467.

The Court observed that"he writ of habeas corpus is one of the centerpieces of our liberties. `But the writ has potentialities for evil as well as for good. Abuse of the writ may undermine the orderly administration of justice and therefore weaken the forces of authority that are essential for civilization.' " McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 496 (quoting Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 512 (1952) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.))

The predominant inquiry on habeas is a legal one: whether the "petitioner's custody simpliciter" is valid as measured by the Constitution. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 730 (1991). The purpose of the great writ is not to relitigate state trials.

Dismissal of habeas petition under the "total exhaustion" rule of Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982) (each claim raised by petitioner must be exhausted before district court may reach the merits of any claim in habeas petition).

Jury exposure to facts not in evidence deprives a defendant of the rights to confrontation, cross-examination and assistance of counsel embodied in the Sixth Amendment. Dickson v. Sullivan, 849 F.2d 403, 406 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Jeffries v. Blodgett, 5 F.3d 1180, 1191 (9th Cir. 1993) (introduction of extraneous prior bad acts evidence during deliberations constitutes error of constitutional proportions), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1294 (1994). However, a petitioner is entitled to habeas relief only if it can be established that the constitutional error had "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." Brecht v. Abrahamson, 113 S. Ct. 1710, 1722 & n.9 (1993). Whether the constitutional error was harmless is not a factual determination entitled to the statutory presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. S 2254(d). Dickson, 849 F.2d at 405; Marino v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d 499, 504 (9th Cir. 1987).

In a habeas corpus proceeding, a federal court generally "will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 111 S. Ct. 2546, 2553-54 (1991). This doctrine applies to bar federal habeas review when the state court has declined to address the petitioner's federal claims because he failed to meet state procedural requirements. Id. at 2254; see also Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. 527, 119 L. Ed. 2d 326, 337 (1992). Thus, the independent state grounds doctrine bars the federal courts from reconsidering the issue in the context of habeas corpus review as long as the state court explicitly invokes a state procedural bar rule as a separate basis for its decision. Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 264 n.10 (1988).

Habeas petitioners are not entitled to habeas relief based on trial error unless they can establish that it resulted in actual prejudice. O'Neal v. McAninch, 115 S. Ct. 992, 994-95 (1995). It is the responsibility of the court, once it concludes there was error, to determine whether the error affected the judgment. If the court is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand. Id.

On a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the standard of review for a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, like the standard of review for a claim of judicial misconduct, is " 'the narrow one of due process, and not the broad exercise of supervisory power.' " Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 642 (1974)). "The relevant question is whether the prosecutor<'s> comments 'so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.' " Id. (quoting Donnelly, 416 U.S. at 643).

A federal court has no supervisory authority over criminal proceedings in state courts. The only standards we can impose on the states are those dictated by the Constitution. Daye, 712 F.2d at 1571. Objectionable as some actions might be, when considered in the context of the trial as a whole they are not "of sufficient gravity to warrant the conclusion that fundamental fairness has been denied." Id. at 1572. See Gayle v. Scully, 779 F.2d at 807 (trial judge's caustic, sarcastic comments and offensive conduct, although perhaps inconsistent with institutional standards of federal courts, did not violate due process); Daye, 712 F.2d at 1572 (trial judge's skeptical attitude toward defendant's testimony, and his reinforcement of identification evidence by government witnesses, "approached but did not cross the line that permits that the Constitution has been violated").

The fact that a jury instruction is inadequate by Federal Court direct appeal standards does not mean a petitioner who relies on such an inadequacy will be entitled to habeas relief from a state court conviction. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 71-72 (1991). In habeas proceedings challenging state court convictions, relief is available only for constitutional violations.

Whether a constitutional violation has occurred will depend upon the evidence in the case and the overall instructions given to the jury. See Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. at 147 (constitutionality determined not by focusing on ailing instruction "in artificial isolation" but by considering effect of instruction "in the context of the overall charge."). See also Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 155 (1977) (recognizing that "n omission, or an incomplete instruction, is less likely to be prejudicial than a misstatement of the law" and, therefore, a habeas petitioner whose claim of error involves the failure to give a particular instruction bears an "especially heavy" burden).

Shackling, except in extreme forms, is susceptible to harmless error analysis. Castillo v. Stainer, 997 F.2d at 669. In a habeas case dealing with a state court sentence, the question is whether the shackling "had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." Id. (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 113 S. Ct. 1710, 1714 (1993)). If we are in "grave doubt" whether the error affected the verdict, the error is not harmless. O'Neal v. McAninch, 115 S. Ct. 992, 994 (1995).

The risk of doubt, however, is on the state. Id. at 996 (rejecting language in Brecht v. Abrahamson which places on defendant burden of showing prejudice). See Castillo v. Stainer, 983 F.2d at 149 (finding shackling at trial harmless error because defendant only wore waist chain that could not be seen by jury).
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm

[U4ikLefty]

58. It's called TV news. I see you look to limit the possibilities

because it helps you candidate's BS vote.

If I was running a 30 second spot I would start with a WHITE MALE being roughly-arrested & thrown in a cell. He would be saying "I did nothing...why am I here"!!! Then spomething like "we have always been able to get a day in court in America...until today!!!" and then the line "support the constitution...say no to torture!!!"

...and that's just off the top of my (uncreative) head. Just hit the "in a cell"..."without a judge"...& the "unconstitutional" points and Americans will get it.

But you really weren't looking for solutions were you???

[Moochy]

85. Apologia For Pro-Torture Votes

Them New Jersey peoples love torture, what's a power-crazed fascist enabler to do? :shrug:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

93. ^^Truth spoken in this post (#58)

OP is promoting the idea that voting for this bill was the only smart and valid thing the Dirty Dozen could have done.

[The Straight Story]

19. So because most people might be ignorant, we should cave?

I don't think so. These folks in power knew what they were voting for, shame on them.

[savemefromdumbya]

20. people from New Jersey must be mainly sadists?

well?

[brentspeak]

29. I live in NJ

I have no idea why Menendez and Lautenberg voted 'yea' on this. But their votes were meaningless, anyway; the Republicans had enough votes of their own to get it passed.

My guess (and it's only a guess) as to why my senators voted for the bill is that they were allowed to modify it in some way. In any case, this (soon to be) law a) has to get past SCOTUS (we'll find out once and for all what kind of chief justice Roberts is); and b) can be emasculated, if not outright repealed, by Febuary or March if the Democrats gain control of Congress.

[Vidar]

31. Vote the fuckers in for Conyers' sake & hang the Republicans first,

but Stabenou & the other traitor dems should look forward to prison time.

[William Bloode]

32. If i had my way they'd be in jail.

With their little repuke friends. Also ya gotta draw the line somewhere, and if there ever was a line this is it. I cannot nor do not have to vote for any of the 34 house dems, or 12 senate dems who voted for this garbage. But i will not endorse, campaign, speak well of, or donate money to any of them. I will infact do whats in my power to seek their removal.

I personalt can not do much, but there are enough of us out there right now who are very upset. All of us together could help effect change.

There is no excuse for voting for this. Looking weak on terrorism is a bullshit argument. They should have showed a spine.

Thats 46 dems that make my enemy list.

[Jersey Devil]

38. Excellent strategy for self immolation

Maybe we should all set ourselves on fire in protest. I see little difference between that and what you propose.

[William Bloode]

54. Sorry....

But sometimes you have to be willing to take a few lumps and make a stand for what you really believe. People with a spine and some intestinal fortitude know this.

Won't vote for a traitor, won't support a traitor. I would vote for a repuke who voted no on this bill, before i voted for a dem who voted yes. Thats right, every single time.

It's called standing up for your principles, try it sometime ya might like. It just hurts like hell, so many tend to avoid it.

[brentspeak]

51. Why is this the twelve Senate Democrats' fault?

Even if all twelve voted 'nay', the bill was still going to be passed. The House Democrats who voted for the bill are one thing, but what difference did the twelve Senate Democrats voting 'yea' make? None.

[William Bloode]

66. They voted for torture.

They have no excuse. It's the fault of every single politician who voted for this bill, which includes 34 House dems, 12 Senate dems. These 46 dems were complict, and deserve my ire, hence they shall have it.

[mdmc]

34. why vote gop-lite when you can be well satisfied with the real deal?

By saying that this bill is good, he is saying that Kean is a better candidate then he is. Bush needs this bill - Kean's party gave it to him. Most dems voted against this bill.

By not opposing this prima facie (another term folks won't know), he hurt his race.

...hope he wins, though. Prefer him to do Bush's bidding over Kean any day of the year.

[Imagevision]

35. Menendez must eliminate Kean jr. - Kean is another Santorum!!

[Toucano]

41. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

This is the same kind of analysis and excuse making that has turned the public off. It's the tired old "conventional wisdom" that advisors have been feeding candidates for a generation.

People can accurately say, "What's the difference?" whenever anyone tries to recruit them to participate in the political process.

An election year is when candidates must stand by their principles MORE, not less. The perception of Democrats is not only that they're soft on terror and defense, but that they STAND FOR NOTHING!! When Democrats lie down and roll over for Bush (especially when he's at his worst), it reinforces what Republicans say about them. These enablers make it harder for all Democrats.



IWR
CAFTA
Prescription drug bill
Bankruptcy reform
Confirmation of Rice, Gonzales, Roberts, etc.



These are all TERRIBLE things that DEMOCRATS -- fucking DEMOCRATS! helped Bush accomplish.

Half of them aren't up for re-election anyway, for Pete's sake!!!

"Sometimes you have to suck it up and do things you don't want to do in order to survive."

I don't give a shit if Bush's lap dogs survive or not. I want the country to survive and the only way that can happen is if there is genuine OPPOSITION to Bush's agenda from our side of the aisle. The opposition needs to be strong and united.

[Jersey Devil]

45. Sounds to me like you really don't want power but just an image

of principle. Fine, then vote only for those who agree with those principles you support and if they waiver at all from what you think is right abandon them and allow the Republicans to maintain control.

Myself, I don't want to spend the rest of life whining about how awful the Republicans are, so yeah, if it means having to wallow in mud to get there (a majority), then so be it.

[Buzz Clik]

68. If you vote for a D, but he votes like an R, what have you accomplished?

Not a gd thing.

Vote them out. All the Dems, all the Repukes who voted for this bill.

[Jersey Devil]

71. Menendez does not vote like a Repub

I think you'd be hard pressed to find one single issue other than this vote today where Menendez voted with the Republicans. As much as I disagree with his vote today I am willing to give him a pass on it because I know that Tom Kean will be just another rubber stamp for Bush. Menendez will never be that.

[Toucano]

77. You'll never your majority that way.

That's the whole point.

Besides, you just want an image of power that you call a majority. If Landreau and Benator Nelson always vote with Bush, what difference will it make to have a majority? You'll control committees, but won't be able to pass anything anyway.

The Republicans gained power over the last 25 years by standing up, staying consistent, and remaining unified. Dissent in their ranks is so unusual, it makes headlines.

Even when they're wrong (99% of the time), the electorate BELIEVES they are strong, predictable, steady. This inspires confidence and loyalty, which are especially important now.

Democrats are for torture. Or are they against it? Who the fuck knows?!

And don't give me that god-damned, hackneyed Big Tent bullshit. If the tent is large enough to allow people who sanction torture in, then the tent is too fucking big.

So now the Republicans can paint the good Senator from New Jersey as pandering for votes in an election year because he voted for a heinous bill he doesn't believe in. Strong on torture, weak on integrity.

[brentspeak]

46. I think only the bankruptcy "reform" was aided by Democrats

The others, like this one, were bills and nominees the Democrats did not have the votes to affect.

[Toucano]

74. Please check again.

Every Democratic vote for these travesties helped Bush and weakened Democrats because he can claim "bi-partisan" support. You have to count votes for cloture also.

CAFTA was passed by 1 vote in the House. A union-money-grabbing-faux-Democrat vote.

[otherlander]

44. Whigs tried to do the same thing.

They didn't stand up for ideals that they knew some people would disagree with. Instead, they tried to be the party of everybody. There are no more Whigs in the American government.

[Crunchy Frog]

56. Just like they couldn't paint Max Cleland as soft on terror

because he voted "yes" on the IWR. This strategy worked so well in '02, I expect it to work just as well in '06.

[Jersey Devil]

63. I did not say that what Menendez did was right or smart

I for one am very angry at both my NJ senators for how they voted.

My point simply was that they saw it that way, that it would help Menendez in the election. They may be (and based on your argument re Clelland probably are) very wrong, but all the hysterical posts here calling them traitors and swearing never to support any Dem who voted yes on the bill today are foolish because all that would do is enable Republicans to continue in power.

[Toucano]

80. No, the Dems who voted yes today are foolish because the will enable

Republicans to continue in power.

This legislation consolidates Bush's power. Takes it AWAY from Congress.

They voted to give Bush more power. Period.

Menendez may win (this vote won't help, IMO), but he wins a seat in a weaker body.

Break out the balloons and noise makers! We won a majority in a weaker Senate! I'm bustin' with Democratic pride!

[LynneSin]

59. I would vote for Menendez in heartbeat

He was against both the IWR and Patriot Act

[Jersey Devil]

60. Of course, but now he has a blemish on his cheek

and for that the Purist Police want to lop off his head.

[Kool Kitty]

64. Look, sometimes a shitty Democrat

is better than the best republican. (Not that Menendez is a shitty Democrat, all things considered. But you know what I mean.) I'll hold my nose and vote for Menendez.

[William Bloode]

72. Purist police?

I find not endorsing torture a damn fine pure place to stand. I find defending our right to not be disappeared at the whim of the government a nice pure place to stand. These people voted to kill the very thing that made us what we were. They ripped the heart out of great nation. Every single politician repuke, and dem alike who voted for this travesty deserve every bit of scorn heaped upon them.

Those who support them deserve a fair bit of scorn themselves.

[Moochy]

81. Purist Police

Better to stand with the torturers. (note I'm not calling you pro-torture) just that your airquotes around "Purity Police" is just so fucking cute, and ignores the ugly truth. If someone can't be a purist against this, then what?

[Jersey Devil]

84. Gee, thanks for not saying that I am "pro-torture"

Do you really think that the Dems who voted yes today are "pro-torture"?

[Moochy]

86. Its necessary to split hairs here

Why I didnt call you "pro-torture"?
Calling folks who voted yes for torture, pro torture seems obvious to me.

I'll call anyone who voted for this bill pro-torture.
Redefining torture and essentially issueing a "signing statement" on the Geneva Convention is bullshit. But we agree right? :shrug:

Shifting definitions doesnt make it right or legal. It means that those who voted yes, are PRO-TORTURE.
Pretty fucking simple, IMO. I respect your right to disagree, and cheer for your candidate's strategy.

However, as disgusted as I am by the lack of solidarity amongst dems on this issue
I *STILL* say vote for the (D) even the ones who voted yes.

Keep on demeaning this so-called "feigned" outrage as "Purity Police" ... Ad Hominem much?

[Jersey Devil]

89. Purity Police was my diabolical revenge for

somebody upthread calling me a "rocket scientist". Not to be nitpicky, but how can something be ad hominem when the insult is generic, or, does that also make me a smartass?

[Moochy]

91. No just one prone to use cute catch phrases like "purity police"

phrases like "Purity Police" I'll readily accept that it got snippy upthread, and probably uncalled for.

Hey since we are self-diagnosing here, I'm often guilty of being a smartass too, I just don't like that we can't call this move cowardly without being called "purity police" noone is saying withhold votes, and if they are they are in the minority here.

"Purity Police" Is your cutesy way of smearing and trying to ridicule those who are passionately against torture. Maybe not an ad hominem, but a broad brush smear and a shitty rhetorical tactic.

Others mock this outrage as "Kabuki Theatre" in other threads and call it "Feigned outrage" Beleive me it aint feigned.

Vote for (D) even the crappy scared shitless dems, and to Quoth The Magistrate:

"LETS GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS"

[Jersey Devil]

92. Yeah, me too. I hate "shitty rhetorical tactics

Especially when in graphic form.

[Moochy]

94. Ah so a graphic representation of torture was

So examples of torture are considered unfair by you? Oh brother. :shrug:

An example of a "shitty rhetorical tactics" I've seen here:

To falsely claim that those who hate todays spineless gutless actions of pro-torture dems should either

a) leave the party, since they hate Dems so much...
b) vote for the (R) opponent
c) are members of the "Purity Police"
d) are feigning outrage

Anyways I hope we are both happy come Nov. 3rd.

Peace Out.

[Moochy]

82. Lop off his head

nice Isnt that what the terrists do?

Bob Boulderang would be proud. Fucking purity police.... that gem goes in the save file.

[Jack Rabbit]

67. OK, it can work like this

First, we get Menendez elected to the Senate. Hopefully, that means the Democrats will have a majority and, along with the their majority in the House, will investigate the manipulation of intelligence prior to the Iraq invasion, the NSA wiretapping program and so on ans so forth. Oh, just for good measure, be sure to investigate how the Big Dick arranged for Halliburton to get big, fat contracts on a no bid basis.

Then, after the investigations and after the House sends a few articles of impeachment over to the Senate, Menendez can vote to convict the two war criminals, ending this unhappy chapter in American history.

Unfortunately, the job still isn't finished. Because of the votes today, Bush and Cheney, by an act of Congress, are not war criminals. By an act of Congress, they never ordered any one to torture anybody. And by an act of Congress, torture isn't torture.

So, if we want to try them for war crimes, then we will first have to find a court with jurisdiction. That can't be an American court because COngress, with Senator Menendez voting Aye, exonerated the regime's war criminals. If we want these people to face justice -- and I do -- we'll just have to ask an international tribunal to hear the case, because no American court can.

Now, I believe shielding war criminals by a legislative act is a war crime in itself. It is possible that an international tribunal might to talk the members of the world's most exclusive club about this and what reasons they had or what the fuck they thought they were doing by voting to shield these thugs from prosecution for acts of torture. The tribunal just may agree with me.

And I know this is Democratic Underground, but quite frankly I cannot think of a fair or valid argument for saying that Republican Senators and Congressmen who voted Aye the last two days should be sent to The Hague for voting to shield war criminals from prosecution in US courts, but not Democratic Senators and Congressmen. Can anybody?

So let's put him Menendez and the other Democrats who voted to shield war criminals today (but not the de facto Republican Lieberman) back in the Senate and House and then, if they are indicted by an international tribunal, agree to send Senator Menendez and the others to The Hague.

[Pithy Cherub]

75. That is just poetically righteous!

May all who were a part of legalizing torture and eviscerating habeus corpus bear responsibility and accountability in the remedy.

[Jersey Devil]

76. Sure, we can have Don and Sancho bring them over to the Hague

On the way they can stop off and knock over a few windmills.

Melodrama is always such fun.

[Moochy]

87. Almost as fun as this!

[Poll_Blind]

99. Damn! n/t

PB