Dammit! No, Ann Flaherty, AP 'reporter', the Senate didn't refuse, the repukes did!

[babylonsister]

:nuke: :grr:

Senate refuses to expand detainee rights

Senate Rejects Bill to Give Terrorism Suspects Access to Federal Courts

ANNE FLAHERTY
AP News

Sep 19, 2007 11:24 EDT

The Senate narrowly rejected legislation on Wednesday that would have given military detainees the right to protest their detention in federal court.

The 56-43 vote against the bill, by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., fell four votes shy of the 60 needed to cut off debate. It was a blow for human rights groups that say a current ban on habeas corpus petitions could lead to the indefinite detention of individuals wrongfully suspected of terrorism.

President Bush and conservative Republicans counter that the ban, enacted last year, was necessary to stem the tide of legal protests flooding civilian courts.

Leahy said he would try again to repeal it, although he was not sure when he would get another chance.

more...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/09/senate_refuses_to_expand_detai.php

[librechik]

1. ACK!! IGNORAMUS!!

this is unacceptable and imprecise wording.

No wonder we keep losing. When the media thinks 56 FOR 43 against is a Loss!!!!!

[AndyTiedye]

2. Because ALL of the Repiggies GooseStep Together and Filibuster EVERYTHING

[Bitwit1234]

3. That is what I have posted about the bills

the republicans block everything, the MSM says the senate won't pass it. Instead of saying that the republicans are deliberately filibustering every thing the democrats try to pass they twist it to try to put the blame on the democrats.

[coco77]

4. They do this all the time..

no matter what the issue. Larry Craig got caught creeping but, the Dems. Vitter got caught in a whorehouse but, the Dems. Bush is a liar,thief and murder but, the Dems.and on and on and on...

[EST]

5. Worse still, those mental masturbating midgets seem to think,

without thinking, that congress today is the same as congress last year, five years ago or a decade hence. They can't seem to make the simple connection that the congress changes every two years and sometimes more often. Because of the narrowness of the dem majority, we still effectively have a mostly repuke controlled congress.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Astroturfing Accomplish

These people live by "conventional wisdom"...which is neither conventional or wise these days, but this is the bubble world our corporate media created and comfortably lives in. Remember the memes:

Despite poll after poll saying Americans want a troop withdrawl WITH timelines...and now even favor defunding the war...this is considered a "minority" opionion from the "anti-war left". "Conventional Wisdom" says we need to throw more money and blood at this mess cause our feckless leader says its so...and thus it must be so. Any dissent is looked upon as a "disruptor".

All votes against booosh are a "minority" vote as, surely, this isn't what the people these stenographers talk to think. They spend most their time "cultivating" administration contacts or "inside sources" that always reassure them that day is night and up and down...and as long as they say so, it must be...or else they'll miss out on that next "big exclusive".

In a fair world, the headlines should read "Repugnicans Obstruct Your Right To A Fair Trial". But, of course, that would get the stenographer dirty looks from his/her friends inside the fishbowl.

[ljm2002]

7. This is extremely important...

...and we need to push it.

How can we write to the reporter?

The statement "The 56-43 vote against the bill" is not imprecise, it is simply false. The vote was 56-43 FOR the bill, and it is extremely important that it is reported this way -- IOW it's important for our news org's to TELL THE DAMNED TRUTH FOR ONCE!!!!!

[Enrique]

9. [e-mail]

put the reporter's name in the subject, they'll forward it to her.

[ljm2002]

10. Thank you, here's what I sent:

Hi --

In her Sep 19 article on this issue (see excerpt below the ===), Anne Flaherty begins a paragraph with the following lead-in: "The 56-43 vote against the bill...". This is misleading at best; really, it's an outright falsehood. The vote was 56-43 FOR the bill, not against it. Furthermore, the article states that it fell 4 votes short of the 60 required to cut off debate; yet nowhere does it mention that the reason they need 60 votes to cut off debate is that the Republican minority used a filibuster to block the bill. Somehow that word is not used these days, when the minority party is the Republicans. Now why would that be?

In any case, it is important when reporting on legislative matters like this to give people a true picture of what the votes are. At the very least, we deserve to know that a MAJORITY of the Senate voted FOR the bill.

Please, run a correction to this piece, clarifying the reality of the vote.

Thank you for your consideration,

--xxxxx xxxxx
Las Vegas, NV

===

Senate Rejects Bill to Give Terrorism Suspects Access to Federal Courts

ANNE FLAHERTY
AP News

Sep 19, 2007 11:24 EDT

The Senate narrowly rejected legislation on Wednesday that would have given military detainees the right to protest their detention in federal court.

The 56-43 vote against the bill, by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., fell four votes shy of the 60 needed to cut off debate. It was a blow for human rights groups that say a current ban on habeas corpus petitions could lead to the indefinite detention of individuals wrongfully suspected of terrorism.

President Bush and conservative Republicans counter that the ban, enacted last year, was necessary to stem the tide of legal protests flooding civilian courts.

Leahy said he would try again to repeal it, although he was not sure when he would get another chance.

[Enrique]

8. "the 56-43 vote against the bill"

jeez, how misleading can you get. In what possible sense can you call this accurate?

I hardly ever say this, but this seems specifically worded to mislead.