About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

ABC World News ignored Democratic criticism of detainee bill; NBC, CBS downplayed story altogether

October 18, 2006 6:29 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: In her report on President Bush's signing of the controversial detainee bill, ABC's Martha Raddatz noted Sen. Russ Feingold's general opposition to the bill but gave no indication of Feingold's specific criticism -- that the bill "allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court." Nightly news broadcasts on NBC and CBS devoted little attention to the bill's signing and ignored Democratic criticism of it altogether.

7 Comments

In reporting on President Bush's October 17 signing of the controversial Military Commissions Act of 2006, ABC chief White House correspondent Martha Raddatz, on ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, noted that there were "only a few Democrats who released statements today critical of the bill. One of them, Senator Russell Feingold [D-WI], saying, 'We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history.' " Raddatz, however, did not say what Feingold's specific criticism of the bill was -- that it, in Feingold's words, "allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court."

The October 17 broadcasts of NBC's Nightly News and the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric devoted little attention to the story and ignored Democratic criticism of the bill by Feingold and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, altogether.

As Media Matters for America has noted, under the Military Commissions Act, the president can simply designate any noncitizen in the United States or elsewhere an unlawful enemy combatant and lock that person away indefinitely, with no access to any tribunal to review his or her detention.

On ABC, Raddatz reported that "[t]he language [in the bill] is so vague, say some lawyers, you could drive a truck through it. Others say, it's just wrong." ABC then aired a clip of Thomas Wilner, an attorney who has represented detainees at the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility, saying: "What this bill does is reverse 500 years of common-law history and said the president, the king, the executive can throw somebody in jail without needing to justify it to a court. That violates the rule of law and it violates our Constitution."

Raddatz's report continued:

RADDATZ: What is clear is this: The government can now proceed with the prosecution of detainees such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, accused of masterminding the 9-11 attacks. Hearsay evidence, which would not be admissible in civilian courts, will be allowed if a judge deems it reliable. And detainees are denied habeas corpus so they cannot challenge their detention in court.

There were only a few Democrats who released statements today critical of the bill. One of them, Senator Russell Feingold, saying, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history." Charlie?

GIBSON: Martha, you mentioned there were only a few politicians who spoke out against it. Many more human rights people than politicians were objecting to this bill, and I suspect there's a reason for that.

RADDATZ: There is a reason, Charlie. This has not been a winning issue for the Democrats. In fact, in recent polls, 53 percent of Americans said it was OK to have secret prisons where U.S. laws did not apply. Basically, Charlie, Americans do not want torture, but they fear terrorist attacks even more.

Raddatz's quote from Feingold's October 17 statement gave no insight into what Feingold was protesting -- that the law does not apply only to detainees captured on overseas "battlefields" but to legal residents of the United States as well. Feingold's full statement makes this clear:

The legislation signed by the President today violates basic principles and values of our constitutional system of government. It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court. And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death.

The checks and balances of our system of government and the fundamental fairness of the American people and legal system are among our greatest strengths in the fight against terrorism. I am deeply disappointed that Congress enacted this law. We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history.

Leahy's October 17 statement, which Raddatz ignored, was less specific, but Leahy's earlier statements on the detainee bill made clear that he shared Feingold's concerns. From Leahy's September 28 statement:

Going forward, the bill departs even more radically from our most fundamental values. And provisions that were profoundly troubling a week ago when the Armed Services Committee marked up the bill have gotten much worse in the course of closed-door revisions over the past week. For example, the bill has been amended to eliminate habeas corpus review even for persons inside the United States, and even for persons who have not been determined to be enemy combatants. It has moved from detention of those who are captured having taken up arms against the United States on a battlefield to millions of law-abiding Americans that the Government might suspect of sympathies for Muslim causes and who knows what else -- without any avenue for effective review.

Meanwhile, NBC and CBS barely covered the signing of the detainee bill. NBC's Nightly News devoted 69 seconds to the story, noting that the new law may not "pass the legal test." The CBS Evening News devoted 17 seconds to the story. Notably, both NBC and CBS devoted much more time to reporting on two recent studies on the seafood safety. NBC devoted 2 minutes and 18 seconds to the seafood story -- exactly twice the time it spent on the detainee bill. CBS devoted 1 minute and 37 seconds to the seafood story -- almost six times the amount of time its broadcast spent on the detainee bill.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by canuckistanian (October 18, 2006 6:59 pm ET)
         

      if congress created legislation that granted judicial review than those darn liberal activist judges would just overturn it. we need to trust the commander in chief, he's "the decider"...frankly we should just get rid of the judicial and legislative branches of government. with "the decider" in total control, government will be alot more efficient...no more checks and balances getting in the way of getting stuff done. after that we should just get rid of the liberal obstructionist media too...damn traitors all always criticizing our commander in chief. after that we can get rid of elections, cause they only help the trrorists, what with all the differing opinions and such. and if anyone doesn't like it we got a nice beachfront view down in GitMo. we need to speak with one voice, the voice of our sovereign decider: zig heil mein fuhrer...uhh, I mean gawd bless america???

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dangrady (October 18, 2006 8:53 pm ET)
           

        If Hitler was only in charge of the hooligans and formed a government without the support of the Prussians, the Noble Army, Navy, he would have been an harmless idiot that would have disgraced himself as incompetant and would likely been voted out of office.

        We need to remember these people are administratively incompetant, and unless the military sides with them as it appears their not, we stil have a chance to turn the tide.

        See the title of this post as a path to democratic redemption.

        Happy Thoughts;

        Dan Grady

        Report Abuse
    • Author by peet (October 18, 2006 8:23 pm ET)
         

      ...or, does Raddatz look like she belongs on a back porch with a jug in her hand?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by rusty shackleford (October 19, 2006 9:42 am ET)
           

        she should be introducing segments on "Tales from the Crypt."

        Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (October 19, 2006 4:51 pm ET)
         

      To begin with, I think the reason so little attention was given this law in the news is that it would benefit the Prez and show the GOP as the side fighting for America. The liberal media doesn't want to do that so close to an election.

      Feingold is either lying or confused.

      The text of the law states that it's "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their detention. [7] While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [8]

      The bill passed the Senate, 65-34, on September 28, 2006.[9]

      The bill passed in the House, 250-170-12, on September 29, 2006.[10]

      [link to en.wikipedia.org]

      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (October 19, 2006 5:55 pm ET)
           

        Here is what Fiengold said:

        the bill "allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court." <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

        See that? individuals on US soil, nowhere did Feingold specify citizens, just like the Constitution doesnt specify citizens, which is the distinction that apparantly Levy and Human Rights Watch is making. Now if you wish you can make the argument, not in the Constitution, that only CITIZENS are eligible for the centuries old tradition of Habeas Corpus. I would disagree but thats a different argument. Saying Fiengold is either a liar of confused because YOU have problems reading what he said however is completely without merit.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (October 20, 2006 3:59 am ET)
             

          So little was said about this story is because it shows how hostile this administation is to freedom, and the constitution and the media doesnt want to do that so close to an election. This administration is one of the things that Americans who love freedom and the Constitution need to be protected against. Those Bush idolotors who are begging for the chains naturally think differntly

          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.