Anybody watching the Senate?

[Inuca]

What the HELL is going on?!?! I am referring to the amnesty amendment.

[fedupinBushcountry]

1. I'm watching

flipping back and forth between the house and senate. Screaming at the TV and wondering what is happening to Kerry's admendment.

[Mass]

2. What amnisty amendment? I just arrived and all I saw was Frist

blasting Kerry's amendment as cutting and running and Reid moving to table a second degree amendment to the Kerry amendment. Frist was suggesting that "cutting and running" would lead Saddam's scientists to build WMDs again.

I dont know what the 2nd degree amendment offered by the GOP did offer, but it cant be good.

[fedupinBushcountry]

4. The amnesty admendment

was brought by Nelson (Fl) having to do with what the PM of Iraq said about giving amnesty to Iraqis that kill Americans. The republicans are against the admendment.

[_dynamicdems]

6. They are trying to bury the amnesty amendment because they want at Kerry.

The effing Repugs are planning on ganging up on him over Iraq and they see this amnesty amendment as a distraction. I think they tried to bring up the Kerry amendment on their schedule...probably because Kerry is tied up with something else if they are true to form.

There is a power play going on and a lot of Repug bullshit is flying about. Harry Reid is sticking to his guns though.

[Inuca]

12. Yes, they obviously

want to use this amendment as a pretext to attack Kerry and anybody willing to support his amendment. And watching them made me want to spit into their disgusting faces, the obviousness and cheapness of it all. But what do you think about the amnesty amendment itself? That's what got me even more angry. I expect disgusting things from the other side, less so from ours.

I still do not know exactly what they are voting on, a motion to table something, but I do not know what. I am only listening while typing, but I think that so far everybody voted yes, except Kerry, Feingold, and Boxer.

[_dynamicdems]

3. I've been screaming so loud at my tv, I'm afraid the neighbors are

going to call the police. DAMN *&#(^#@^ Repug scumbags!

GRRRR!!!

[fedupinBushcountry]

5. I'm with you

I yelled so loud at Frist the damn chickenhawk who never wore the uniform. Seemed like he was reading from Karl Rove's talking points.

[_dynamicdems]

8. Don't laugh....but I got so mad at Effing Frist that I opened a joke

gift that my sister gave me for occasions such as these: a voodoo doll kit. :D

I actually sat there sticking pins in the doll thinking of Frist. He did make a funny face after the first pin...just my imagination I'm sure.

It does help...just a little. The Frist doll looks like a porcupine because I used ALL the pins.

:rofl:

[whometense]

9. :-D

Where can I get one of those???

[_dynamicdems]

16. I think it came from Barnes & Noble. hehe...

There is a little chant that goes with the page for liars:

Liar Liar Pants on Fire
Time to Set Your Ethics Higher
Or I'LL Set Your Pants on Fire

Not Shakespeare, but funny nonetheless.

[fedupinBushcountry]

10. You rock

:rofl:

What the hell is up with the friggin searsucker suits and white shoes display. :puke:

[_dynamicdems]

13. It looks planned doesn't it? I detest Repugs.

JK just came in and voted and he didn't look too happy. I so need to see him kick some Repug ass. PLEASE, JK! Give em Hell for us.

[Inuca]

28. :-)

Was wondering the same thing earlier when I first saw Santorum. Commented to myslef that he looks like a pimp. Then I saw that he had coordinated ensembles with Frist and some others.

[whometense]

53. Believe it or not,

it was planned. You'd think they had better things to do...

Email from The Hill:

Seersucker Thursday

At least 22 senators were spotted sporting seersucker suits yesterday in a bipartisan display of Southern-tinged fashion organized by Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.).

Lott dubbed the occasion "Seersucker Thursday" and posted a notice on a table in the Senate well yesterday reminding colleagues to wear their white-and-light-blue-striped suits of cotton and rayon. He said it was the sixth or seventh annual wearing of the seersucker, which traditionally takes place on the second Thursday of June, when it gets "nice and warm.”

Senate leaders Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wore seersucker, but the Democratic leaders did not. Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) bucked their leaders by sporting seersucker suits.

In fact, Feinstein co-organized the effort by buying seersucker outfits for the women of the Senate. They cost only $150 a pop, Feinstein proudly told reporters. Still, not all of the ladies wore them. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lincoln did, but Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) did not. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) compromised by wearing the jacket her home-state colleague bought for her but her own dark-blue suit pants.

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) was one of several Northerners to participate in a display of bipartisanship, saying, “It's one of those rare moments where Republicans and Democrats are standing together smiling and sharing something."

http://blog.thehill.com/2006/06/15/when-senators-wear-seersucker-suits/#more-652

When Senators Wear Seersucker Suits
June 15th, 2006

If you’re wondering why the Senate looked like a convention of ice cream vendors Thursday, the reason is that it was the one day of the year when senators are encouraged to wear seersucker suits.

Some 20 senators showed up wearing the warm weather garb, including Majority Leader Bill Frist, who not only was wearing seersucker but white shoes as well. Three other senators did the same, including Republicans Gordon Smith of Oregon and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who was decked out in a bow tie as well.

Specter drew stares in the Senate Dining Room,not only for his unusual attire, but for the fact that he was having lunch with Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, apparently to discuss judicial nominees coming before his Judiciary Committee.

The two Mississippi Republicans, Trent Lott and Thad Cochrane, looked like they were made to wear seersucker, which they probably do in the hot Mississippi summers.

At least a half-dozen women senators were among the seersucker bridgade, thanks to Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California, who picked up the tab for their suits. They included Democrats Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Barbara Boxer of California — who went only halfway, wearing a seersucker jacket and black slacks; and Republicans Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

Conspicuous by his decision not to wear seersucker was West Virginia Democraqt Robert Byrd, who had just become the longest serving senator in history.

New Mexico Republican Pete Domenici, asked why he didn’t don the hot weather gear, said, “Because I don’t have a seersucker suit.”

To continue with the ice cream motif, many of the senators joined staffers, lobbyists, journalists and tourists in an ice cream social in the park next to the Russell Office Building later in the day.

Isn't that precious??

[Inuca]

7. Bad mouthing the innocent TV

as well, but not only at the despicable comments from Cornyn, Frist, etc. about "cut & run" re Kerry's amendment, but also at what Reid, Nelson, and other democrats are doing insisting on a formal "sense of the senate" amendment about the Iraqi government presumably wanting to give amnesty to Iraqis that have killed/attacked US troops. I see this as senseless politics, wrong politics, even more so since it seems that another formal statement came from the Iraqi government that contradicts what appeared earlier in today's paper. I am trying to explain what I understand from what is going on to anybody reading that did not follow, but I am afraid that I do not make much sense, not only because I do not fully understand it myself but also because I am upset/furious. I listened to Stevens criticizing this amendment proposed by Bill Nelson and Menedez and strongly supported by Reid, and I felt like checking my temperature to see whether I am coming down with something because I AGREED with him!! He (Stevens) mentioned amnesty and forgiveness for the Germans and Japanese, mentioned S. Africa's reconciliation, and asked why would we want to make such a strong statement condemning forgiveness for those that after all are fighting against INVADERS.

ANd now they are voting on something everybody seems to agree on, but I have no idea what it is.

[Mass]

11. Kerry and Feingold only 2 at this point to refuse to table Kerry amendment

Add Boxer, and Harkin.

We cannot say Democrats shone by their courage today.

[Inuca]

14. Harkin

also just voted no. The rest.... disgusting (and I am usually VERY reluctant at condemning the Dems).

[emulatorloo]

15. As the Repugs attack Kerry, what did the Dems do?

Stood up and denounced them? or just left Kerry hanging?

[Inuca]

17. Left hanging

Reid replied to McConnell comments (criticizing the amnesty amendment, and saying that instead of waisting their time on this he was hoping they will be debating the Kerry amendment about cutting & running), so Reid replied that the discussion is not about a hypothetical amendment that may or may not come up for discussion.

By the way, Kennedy just voted AYE as well :-(

[Inuca]

23. Kennedy

just changed his aye to a no, and so did Byrd. And I saw that they were voting on a 2nd degree amendment by McConnell to Nelson's amnesty amendment, whatever that was... It had to do with Kerry's amendment, forcing it somehow to the floor. And for those with no acces to TV or streaming, Kerry just finished short remarks, condemning the way McConnell tried to shortcome the discussion with the amendement that was just tabled. And from what I understand discussion on the issue/amendment will happen next week.

[_dynamicdems]

18. The ONLY thing any of the Dems addressed was the amnesty

amendment. Bullshit. TOTAL bullshit.

Kennedy voted NO.

[_dynamicdems]

19. JK going to speak in a minute! n/t

[Mass]

20. 6 senators voted NO - Kerry, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Byrd.

[fedupinBushcountry]

34. I wonder

have these five signed on to the admendment ?

[whometense]

40. Here's what I could find

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d109:./temp/~bdaOvQ0:1<1-321>(Amendments_For_H.R.4939)&./temp/~bd56w6

117. S.AMDT.3654 to H.R.4939 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 4/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/26/2006 Senate amendment submitted


http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:117:./temp/~bdi2sB::

S.AMDT.3654
Amends: H.R.4939
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (submitted 4/26/2006)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S3621-3622

THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | FirstGov

Not very informative, I'm afraid...

[whometense]

42. Stumbled across this

list of all recent Kerry amendments...it's like trying to read Greek (and I can't read Greek!)

35. S.AMDT.2768 to S.852 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 2/14/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 2/14/2006 Senate amendment submitted

36. S.AMDT.2927 to S.2349 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 3/7/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 3/7/2006 Senate amendment submitted

37. S.AMDT.2928 to S.2349 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 3/7/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 3/7/2006 Senate amendment submitted

38. S.AMDT.3072 to S.CON.RES.83 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 3/15/2006) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 3/15/2006 Senate amendment submitted

39. S.AMDT.3080 to S.CON.RES.83 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 3/15/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 3/15/2006 Senate amendment submitted

40. S.AMDT.3143 to S.CON.RES.83 To prevent the imposition of excessive TRICARE fees and co-pays on military retirees.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 3/16/2006) Cosponsors (5)
Latest Major Action: 3/16/2006 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3143 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 46 - 53. Record Vote Number: 67.

41. S.AMDT.3256 to S.2454 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 4/4/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/4/2006 Senate amendment submitted

42. S.AMDT.3335 to S.2454 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 4/5/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/5/2006 Senate amendment submitted

43. S.AMDT.3336 to S.2454 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 4/5/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/5/2006 Senate amendment submitted

44. S.AMDT.3337 to S.2454 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 4/5/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/5/2006 Senate amendment submitted

45. S.AMDT.3654 to H.R.4939 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 4/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/26/2006 Senate amendment submitted

46. S.AMDT.3762 to H.R.4939 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 5/1/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/1/2006 Senate amendment submitted

47. S.AMDT.3763 to H.R.4939 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 5/1/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/1/2006 Senate amendment submitted

48. S.AMDT.3764 to H.R.4939 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 5/1/2006) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 5/1/2006 Senate amendment submitted

49. S.AMDT.3765 to H.R.4939 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 5/1/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/1/2006 Senate amendment submitted

50. S.AMDT.3766 to H.R.4939 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 5/1/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/1/2006 Senate amendment submitted

51. S.AMDT.3767 to H.R.4939 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 5/1/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/1/2006 Senate amendment submitted

52. S.AMDT.3862 to S.1955 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 5/9/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/9/2006 Senate amendment submitted

53. S.AMDT.3872 to S.1955 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 5/9/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/9/2006 Senate amendment submitted

54. S.AMDT.3999 to S.2611 To improve the capacity of the United States Border Patrol to rapidly respond to threats to border security.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 5/16/2006) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 5/16/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3999 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

55. S.AMDT.4039 to S.2611 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 5/17/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/17/2006 Senate amendment submitted

56. S.AMDT.4040 to S.2611 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 5/17/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/17/2006 Senate amendment submitted

57. S.AMDT.4203 to S.2766 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 6/12/2006) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 6/12/2006 Senate amendment submitted

58. S.AMDT.4204 to S.2766 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 6/12/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 6/12/2006 Senate amendment submitted

The co-sponsor for #57 is Barbara Boxer.

[_dynamicdems]

45. Hmmm... not sure if Byrd did. I think the others did. Anyone know? n/t

[whometense]

46. Here's the vote record

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00174

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table McConnell Amdt. 4269 )
Vote Number: 174 Vote Date: June 15, 2006, 02:54 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion to Table Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4269 to S.Amdt. 4265 to S. 2766 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 )
Statement of Purpose: To require the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq and urge the convening of an Iraq summit.

Vote Counts: YEAs 93
NAYs 6
Not Voting 1

NAYs ---6
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)

[ginnyinWI]

50. a word about Harkin

He was the other senator who went to investigate the Contras with Kerry back in the 80s. And is a Vietnam vet. A low profile guy, but seems to be a good ally to JK.

[Mass]

21. Frist forced the amendment on the floor against Kerry's wish.\nt

[_dynamicdems]

22. He certainly did. And Warner wasn't happy either. He told the bastard

that Kerry was busy and wasn't ready, and then when Warner wasn't there, FUCKING FRIST went ahead.

JK looks pissed. These bastards.

[ginnyinWI]

26. That's why I saw that evil little smile on Frist's face

as he began to speak. What a dirty player.

[_dynamicdems]

44. He's the scum of the earth. We should all write to him and tell him

just exactly that. n/t

[ProSense]

27. I'm not watching, but

I know Kerry will continue this fight!

[beachmom]

24. I'm very confused. What happened?

What was John Warner talking about? I did call his office yesterday in favor of Kerry's amendment. Not sure what effect that had, if any.

[Mass]

25. Kerry was still negotiating the amendment with dems when Frist called

it on the floor. Kerry did not get to speak, not did Feingold, or Boxer, ...

Reid did what he had to do, given they were not ready. He moved to table.

[_dynamicdems]

29. What I don't get is why nobody said squat about what the Repugs did.

What the Hell?

So now what?

[Inuca]

33. From what I understand

two things: now they go back to discussign the amnesty amendment, and later (next week, according to JK) they will discuss the Kerry amendment and (or?) related issues.

[Inuca]

30. What was tabled

was some McConnell amendment RELATED to Kerry's. Some rules maneuver that I did not really understand. Also question: if the dem consensus was to table because they were not ready, and also Kerry just said that he agrees with what Reid did, why did he and the others vote NO? A statement of some sort I guess, but not sure....

[Mass]

35. nO, IT WAS THE KERRY AMENDMENT PRESENTED BY MCCONNELL.

But Kerry did not agree to present it to a vote.

[Inuca]

38. I think you are right

after the vote I saw McConnell's name associated with the tabled amendment, but now I seem to remember that when McC presented it he did mention Kerry. Sorry for the confusion.

[_dynamicdems]

39. The NO votes were not going to change the outcome, so yes, it was a

statement of support or protest, not of Reid's action, but of the underhanded crap that Frist pulled.

From what I gather, it was a save, but annoying nonetheless. It seems that this would set the Dems progress back a bit. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

[karendc]

31. I appreciate this running commentary

distressing as it is. It is important to have it, and to use it to understand what is happening to the good legislators in Congress.

I am sitting in a Starbuck's in NYC and this is a great source of information. Thank you all.

[_dynamicdems]

47. It was stressful. The underhanded blinkety blanks! I could used some

java myself right about now.

My family doesn't understand why I get so angry when I watch C-Span. They think it's dull. If only!

[_dynamicdems]

32. Warner passed along the information to Frist, per Kerry's request, that

Kerry was not ready to proceed on his amendment because the Dems were still hashing it out. Warner wasn't present when Frist pulled his fast one. Knowing full well that Kerry didn't want the amendment brought to the floor, the bastard did it anyhow. He made Warner look like a horse's ass too. Real slimball that Frist. He never ceases to amaze me with how low he will stoop.

[Inuca]

36. He (Frist) is really pathetic

And not very smart either.

[fedupinBushcountry]

37. So

was McConnell's secondary admendment a way for Frist to pull this? Thes slimey thugs are really disgusting. Kerry must be pissed and I hope he gives them hell when he finally gets to bring this to the floor.

[wisteria]

49. he is doing Rove and Chaney's dirty jobs.

I don't get all the logistics,but this seems some what similar to what they did to Murtha. Trying to trap the Dems into voting or not voting for something so they can use it against them later.
It is just horrible that there can not be honest debate on this serious issue. For many republicans it seems the war and the casualties mean nothing. It's all a game to crush the Dem's. It is always a power play.
The public needs to hear about this. Many, many American's want to see us withdraw some of our troops by the end of the year. I wonder how they would react knowing the Republicans tried to pull a fast one reducing this important issue to nothing more than a power grab.
Frist is truly a dispicable POS.

[Inuca]

41. Sorry to insist, but

does anybody have any comment about the amnesty amendment itself? Nelson is still speaking about it (and pissing Warner in the process), and he continues to speak about himslef in the 3rd person which I find weird and annoying. I think that the amnesty amendment is a mistake, and I agree with the republicans on this, horrified as I may be at what I am doing. Is there anything I am missing???? Help!

[_dynamicdems]

43. All the Repugs rabidly opposed it. I thought Ted Stevens was going to

have a coronary over it. I'm not sure why they were so against it, unless it was just a diversion to take away from what was really going on. It is a simple amendment in response to statements from the Iraqi government that were probably taken out of context. No harm in making our position clear. Maybe the wording could be changed to thank them for clarifying that they won't give amnesty to terrorists, but still it isn't anything to get so riled up about.

Strange that all the Repugs jumped all over the amendment.

They seemed to be making it a referendum on the war itself.

[nolies32fouettes]

48. why didn't the dems vote against this?

and what amnesty?

[_dynamicdems]

51. It's about that WAPO article about the PM of Iraq making a statement

about giving amnesty to terrorists who have killed Americans. Sen. Nelson offered an amendment to let the Iraq government (and President Bush) know that that is not acceptable.

The Republicans went nuts over this. They all strongly opposed it.

Apparently there was a clarification by Iraq that the statement was not meant the way it came across, but the Dem. Senators wanted to put through the amendment anyhow to make the US position absolutely clear: we do not accept amnesty for the terrorists who have been killing our troops.

What was most amazing was how the Republicans equated "terrorists" with enemy combatants in their opposition. It was absolutely nutty how they compared terrorists to Germans after WWII and other such nonsense. They should be reminded that the ordinary soldiers in a war are given amnesty after a war, but the WAR CRIMINALS are not. Suddenly, they elevated terrorists (who we the reason why we "supposedly" are in Iraq in the first place) to the level of enemy combatants. It was amazing to watch the worm turn when it suited them to do so. Wasn't the existence of places like Guantanamo justified because terrorists aren't considered regular troops and are not even entitled to the tenets of the Geneva Convention.

[fedupinBushcountry]

52. This is what the vote was on

Motion to Table McConnell Amdt. 4269; To require the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq and urge the convening of an Iraq summit.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm