Nay by Party

Why do I continue to be surprised by outcomes such as this one? (banging head against wall)

This is one of the most misleading and ridiculous things I have ever read. Nobody with half a brain and any knowledge of US government would actually suggest that there has been a suspension of habeas corpus in the US since 2001. What we have done is deny Prisoners of War the same legal rights extended to American citizens. Only one American was ever detained under this indefinite detention policy, and the Supreme Court has already ordered him released or charged. His name was Padilla, and he has since been convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison for conspiring to commit acts of terrorism in the US. Swivel should never have made this a featured graph, and anyone who cares about honest information should let Swivel know that this is incredibly misleading.

Maybe you need to tell the Senate that, then? (See the Sources below the graph). And no, I didn't create this graph. I'm just not sure why this should be turned into some kind of a political statement by you when it obviously wasn't meant to be anything more than a presentation of data garnered directly from the source. I think it's important, by the way, to point out that there IS a difference between "rights" with "practices".

(make that rights *versus* practices.

After reading the more detailed voting information, I realize that this graph is far more misleading than I had thought. The vote was on ending debate on the amendment to bring it to the floor. The Senate has always required cloture to cast a final vote on a bill or amendment to a bill. This vote was simply procedural and would have brought the question of whether or not to restore habeas corpus to a meaningful vote if it had 60 members supporting, so it was hardly a vote denying habeas corpus to anyone. As far as I am concerned it was a question unworthy of a vote and thus correctly rejected on quorum call.

From my understanding of the source, the question of the debate was on the cloture motion you mention; the statement of purpose is stated as "to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States."

This vote itself doesn't deny the right of habeas corpus; however the amendment sponsored by Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter is to restore the rights of habeas corpus to detainees. According to a news article in NPR, "In 2006, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act, which established a military-run tribunal system for prosecuting enemy combatants. The provision bars habeas corpus petitions, which means that only detainees selected for trial are able to confront charges against them. That leaves most military detainees in custody without a chance to plead their case." (http://www.npr.org/template...)

The question of whether or not the vote was meaningful is up to individual judgment. Senator Chris Dodd, Connecticut, seems to think the vote was important. He was quoted: "Each of us in the Senate faced a decision either to cast a vote in favor of helping to restore America's reputation in the world, or to help dig deeper the hole of utter disrespect for the rule of law that the Bush Administration has created. Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues chose the latter" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/the...)

Now that I am rereading your first comment, I can see how the posted description may have been misleading and I apologize for that. Habeas corpus has only been suspended for detained prisoners, not for the larger American population.

There are people being held in Guantanamo Bay as "prisoners of war." They are prisoners in the "war" on terror. They may or may not be American citizens. They are being denied Habeus Corpus. They have been held for more than 5 years each. This is a travesty. How can anyone think this is acceptable?

That being said, this graphic is neither informative nor clear. The source data was regarding a vote on cloture. A less intentionally inflammatory graphic would have shown all votes by party affiliation: yea's by democrats, yea's by republicans, etc.

@ rebelagenda

I agree that the graphic is not clear, and I also think your suggestion on how to improve the graphic is right on. However, your points about the people being held at Guantanamo are clearly based on a misunderstanding of the actual situation. The people held there were mostly captured in the mountains of Afghanistan where the Marines are currently fighting the Taliban. Some have been captured in places other than Afghanistan, but the overwhelming majority of all detainees have been released without charges after being interrogated. Very few (I will check what percentage) have been held there for 5 years, and many have been recaptured fighting our Marines after being released once already. I assume you agree that the people we are fighting in Afghanistan are unquestionably the enemies of America, and though they may be stateless, they are certainly capable of inflicting immeasurable harm to America and its citizens.

Not to mention the fact that Guantanamo is like a resort compared to the places we imprison actual American citizens. See this article: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/...

I suggest we throw the people we capture in the general population at Rikers Island. I bet we get all the information we need out of them real fast under those conditions.

rebelagenda and spreadneck, i transposed the original spreadsheet so that votes could be compared across parties.=) the "less inflammatory graphic" can be found here: http://www.swivel.com/graph...

Thanks Natalie, I hope you didn't take offense at my comments. I appreciate your interest in the subject and I hope you understand my points.

I do, and thank you for your comments. =) Part of what I like about Swivel is that it opens the floor for discussion to take place on issues like this.