Today, Good Morning America provided detention bill supporters' arguments, ignored opposition
SUMMARY: In their coverage of President Bush's signing later that morning of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell reported that "there has been plenty of controversy" surrounding the bill but did not elaborate on what that controversy might be, while ABC News' Kate Snow did not mention that there is opposition to the bill, much less any of the reasons for that opposition.
In their coverage of President Bush's signing later that morning of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, both NBC's Today and ABC's Good Morning America adopted or reported the arguments of the legislation's supporters, but provided no substantive coverage of the bill's opponents or their specific reasons for opposing the bill. Wholly absent from their coverage was any mention of the bill's most controversial provision, which, as Media Matters for America has noted, effectively grants the president the authority to detain any non-citizen in the United States or outside its borders, for any reason, and for as long as the campaign against terrorism continues. Also, as Media Matters has noted, several Senate Democrats stressed this provision in their denunciations of the bill. Moreover, as Media Matters has further noted, Bush has asserted the same authority with respect to U.S. citizens, a claim that the bill leaves unaddressed.
On Today, NBC White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell reported that "there has been plenty of controversy about [the bill]." But, rather than provide any substantive explanation of the "controversy," O'Donnell simply reported that, whatever that "controversy" might be, "the White House believes [the bill] will prevent future terrorist attacks." And, on Good Morning America, co-host Kate Snow did not mention that there is opposition to the bill, much less any of the reasons for that opposition.
Neither show explained that the detention legislation does not simply authorize military commissions to try terrorism suspects or regulate interrogation rules. It also denies the right of non-citizens designated by the government as "unlawful enemy combatants" to challenge their detention in federal civilian court through writs of habeas corpus, allowing only a limited right to challenge their status as unlawful enemy combatant. But even that more limited right of challenge can be delayed by the government indefinitely by postponing the detainee's initial hearing to review that designation. In other words, the bill provides no time limit by which suspects deemed unlawful enemy combatants must receive a hearing on their designation, in effect, granting the president the authority to designate any non-citizen an unlawful enemy combatant for any reason for the duration of the "war on terror." As Media Matters has noted, many Democrats strongly objected to this part of the legislation, with 48 senators -- including three Republicans -- voting to remove the habeas-stripping section of the bill.
In addition, Snow described the bill in a way that ignores the bill's broad scope, saying that the legislation "sets the rules for interrogating and trying top terror suspects." But the law does not limit the use of those interrogation procedures to "top terror suspects" but purports to allow their use on anyone -- citizen or non-citizen -- who the government claims is a "terrorism suspect." If, during their "tough[]" interrogation, a "suspect" happens to confirm what the government suspected about them, then the government can bring them before its review board. If not, the statute does not contain a deadline for the government to bring terrorism suspects before a review board, and, at least for non-citizens, purports to eliminate their right to challenge their detention through a writ of habeas corpus.
CBS' The Early Show did not cover the detention bill's signing.
From the October 17 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America:
SNOW: President Bush is signing the terror detainee bill into law this morning. The measure sets the rules for interrogating and trying top terror suspects. But officials say it may be a month or two before the first military commissions, as they appoint lawyers, set up courtrooms, and collect evidence.
[...]
SNOW: A political victory for the White House as anti-terror legislation becomes law today. President Bush is signing the terrorist detainee bill, clearing the way for new standards to speed up interrogation and prosecution of suspects.
From the October 17 broadcast of NBC's Today:
O'DONNELL: Today, the president signs into law the CIA interrogation bill that will give law enforcement and special operatives an opportunity to use those tougher tactics we've been hearing about in questioning. It also allows for military tribunals to prosecute terror suspects. There's been plenty of controversy about this, but the White House says it believes it will prevent future terror attacks. Meredith.
[...]
ANN CURRY (anchor): President Bush signs the terror detainee bill today that sets boundaries for questioning and trying top terror suspects. The White House says it will immediately begin working toward the prosecution of high-value terror suspects held at Guantánamo Bay.
it's only for those "top" terrorist suspects.As long as the Islamo-fascists tune into Kasey Kasem's American top 40 terrorists countdown every week, they'll know where they rank, and can adjust their behavior accordingly.
...not with news, facts, or even pundits. But with the perky girl/friendly guy next door peddling this poison.
This bill wipes out 200 years of American tradition. You, I, or anyone the president doesn't like can be arrested, imprisoned, and kept incarcarated forever without trial or even a hearing.
This is the cornerstone of the fascist dictatorship Bush is creating for this country, and I wouldn't be surprised if I am visited soon by the terror police for writing this email.
The judgement of history shall fall squarely on you, Mr. Bush. You have undone what millions of Americans have fought for and shed blood for. May God forgive you, I cannot.
that posting here in opposition to this particular administration could be considered SUPPORTING ENEMY COMBATANTS? Political speech... in opposition to governmental policy... could now be ruled an act of treason. Especially if the only one who has to deem it so is Dubya' (or a puppet panel appointed by him). Any one of us could be whisked off to Gitmo, AND THERE WOULDN'T BE A GODDAMNED THING THAT ANYONE COULD DO ABOUT IT! Opposing the neocon agenda... in other words, exercising the basic tenets of liberty... is no longer a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is now a right extended only through the whims of a tyrant.
Being an American no longer means what we've always thought it did. We are no longer a free people. We are now subjects of an authoritarian regime.
And a majority of our fellow citizens don't give a flying f*ck about this disgracful happening.
Don't forget to vote! November's election may be our LAST opportunity to undo this act of treason. SAVE DEMOCRACY! VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
But the Democrats have OK'd all of this. Save Democracy. Don't vote Dem or Repub.
Do you seriously believe that America would have been looted as rapaciously - that half a million Iraqis & nearly 3000 American soldiers would be dead - that all rights guaranteed to the American people through the Constitution would be stripped so unceremoniuosly away - that we would be proudly torturing people - that the enviroment would be nearly so degraded - that electronic voting machines would be used to falsify elections - that the US government would give Israel winking approval of its assault on Lebanon - that the suffering & death of American citizens in New Orleans would be allowed to be shrugged so indifferently off if Al Gore had been allowed to take the office that HE HAD BEEN ELECTED TO in 2000?
Or if John Kerry had not been denied the electoral majority that he undoubtedly won in 2004?
Could there have been a more disasterous regime for the American people (American people? FOR THE WORLD!) than the neocon thugs that have pillaged America for the last six years?
I agree that the Democrats have hardly been a panacea over the years. They too often whore themselves out to the same corporate interests as the Pugs. However, they have a basic resect for the Constitution & the institutions of democracy, know at least SOME level of moderation, & have historically advanced the interests of Labor & oppressed minorities.
The real question that we must grapple with at this moment in history is whether we as a people can continue to tolerate the criminal abuses that the neocons have so unrelentingly subjected us to. Are we going to continue to allow them to rule, or are we going to throw our support to those that have the best chance of stemming this rising tide of fascism? In a more perfect world I would be voting Green, but I realise that this would simply keep us divided into small, competing groups of orthodoxy, while the black shirts continue their goose-stepping parade, picking off our rights, one after another.
Let me correct one thing that I said in the above post. Free speech is NOT "a right extended only through the whims of a tyrant." IT IS NO LONGER A RIGHT AT ALL! it is now a PRIVILIGE that the neocons may extend or deny us, according to its usefullness to their cause.
We are now all children of the state.
~ I believe I saw Howard Fineman on the beginning of the O'Donnell clip. Is that not considered "balance" or opposition? Perhaps he didn't explain...
Most of the urgency to get the terror bill presented and passed related to crimes he did under the pre-terror bill. So much so, his CIA terror masters refuse to work another day under the law environment they worked under.
Will the Supreme Court save our tradition of fairness that held America apart from other nations as the leaders in humane treatment?
The Bush administration truly took a complex situation and made is simple for the sake of advancing their agenda. What was even more deceptive was the bit by the three so-called hold out conservatives, who claimed the moral high ground and at first refused to support the president. Isn't it funny how without much "arm twisting" they turned over their fairness stand in favor of the president's terror bill. We must not forget the phony stance John McCain and company made.
Hang on November will soon be here.
Joseph