ABC's Gibson ignored Padilla's three-year detention without charges
SUMMARY: In reporting that Jose Padilla "was convicted ... of supporting terrorism,"
ABC's Charles Gibson stated that Padilla "was originally accused of plotting
with Al Qaeda to detonate a radioactive dirty bomb, but that charge was
dropped." In fact, Padilla was never "charge[d]" in relation to the alleged
"dirty bomb" plot. Indeed, Padilla, a
U.S. citizen, was held without
charges for more than three years, a fact that Gibson did not mention.
On the August 16 edition of ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson reported that "Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen from Chicago, was convicted today of supporting terrorism," without noting the controversial history surrounding Padilla's detention. Gibson reported that Padilla's case "symbolized the Bush administration's attempt to prevent homegrown terror," and that Padilla "was originally accused of plotting with Al Qaeda to detonate a radioactive dirty bomb, but that charge was dropped." Gibson then reported that "[a]fter a three-month trial in Miami," Padilla was found "[g]uilty of conspiracy to kidnap, murder, and maim people overseas and of material support for terrorism" and "could get life in prison." But contrary to Gibson's claim, Padilla was never "charge[d]" in relation to the alleged "dirty bomb" plot. Instead, as NBC legal correspondent Pete Williams reported during the same night's edition of NBC's Nightly News, President Bush originally "declared" Padilla, a U.S. citizen, "an enemy combatant" and held him "in a Navy brig for more than three years" without charges. It was only after Padilla appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that he was being unconstitutionally detained, that he was criminally indicted. Gibson made no mention of Padilla's controversial detention in his report.
Gibson spent approximately 30 seconds reporting on the Padilla verdict. By contrast, Gibson devoted approximately 90 seconds on the same program to covering the "announcement" that "Jenna Bush, one of the president's twin daughters, is to marry."
As Media Matters for America has noted, Padilla was arrested in Chicago in May 2002 on a material witness warrant; the administration claimed he had been plotting to set off a "dirty bomb" in the United States. Bush designated him an "enemy combatant" in June 2002, and he was held without charges. As a June 27, 2002, CNN.com article reported, Padilla's court-appointed attorney highlighted the fact that Padilla had not been formally charged while contesting his detention. From CNN.com:
Padilla's court-appointed defense attorney, Donna Newman, called for Padilla's release in a document known as a petition for habeas corpus. In her petition, Newman noted that Padilla has not been formally charged with any criminal activity.
"There is insufficient evidence for the government to obtain an indictment," she wrote.
"Among the rights which the government has violated are: his right to due process, his right to be free from unreasonable seizure, his right to counsel and his right to a grand jury," she continued.
In February 2005, a federal district judge in South Carolina ruled that Padilla could not be indefinitely detained and ordered the United States to either charge or release him. After the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court in September 2005, Padilla appealed to the Supreme Court. Just before the Supreme Court was to decide whether to hear the case, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced at a November 22, 2005, press conference that a federal grand jury in Florida had indicted Padilla on terrorism-related charges unconnected to the original allegations of a "dirty bomb" plot. In response, Padilla's legal team accused the Bush administration of "clearly trying to evade Supreme Court review."
On August 16, Padilla was found guilty of the lesser charges, including conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim overseas and conspiracy to provide material support for terrorists.
Yet in his report, Gibson misstated Padilla's legal status and did not report on the circumstances behind Padilla's detention or the legal battle sparked by his case. By contrast, reports on both NBC's Nightly News and the CBS Evening News made note of what NBC's Williams described as Padilla's "unusual" case. Williams reported: "He was one of the first Americans since 9-11 to be arrested in the U.S. and to be declared an enemy combatant. He was held in a Navy brig for more than three years. And then just before the Supreme Court was to consider his detention, the government brought these charges that led to today's verdict, and now Jose Padilla could face life in prison."
Similarly, on the CBS Evening News, correspondent Bob Orr noted that Padilla "was locked up in a military prison and labeled an enemy combatant for three and a half years." Orr further reported: "To avoid a showdown in the Supreme Court, the government eventually moved Padilla into the criminal system, and now he has been convicted of conspiring to support terrorists, charges far less serious than the dirty-bomb allegations first leveled by the Bush administration."
From the August 16 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: A case that symbolized the Bush administration's attempt to prevent homegrown terror ended today. Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen from Chicago, was convicted of supporting terrorism. Padilla, you may recall, was originally accused of plotting with Al Qaeda to detonate a radioactive dirty bomb, but that charge was dropped. After a three-month trial in Miami, today's verdict was guilty: guilty of conspiracy to kidnap, murder, and maim people overseas and of material support for terrorism. Padilla could get life in prison.
[...]
GIBSON: Finally tonight, an announcement from the White House. Jenna Bush, one of the president's twin daughters, is to marry. She became engaged yesterday. The young man's name? Henry Hager.
[begin video clip]
GIBSON: We have some pictures of the happy couple. This one, at a White House dinner for the Prince of Whales, is the kind that makes parents happy. This one, a picture that makes parents not so happy: Mr. Hager is 29, four years older than his fiancée. He interned for Karl Rove and worked for the Bush re-election team. His father is a former Virginia lieutenant governor -- Republican, of course. If Jenna's is a White House wedding, it would be the 18th. The last was Trisha Nixon in 1971.
In all, eight presidents gave their daughters away at the White House, only one presidential son, though -- John Quincy Adams' boy. And only one president himself ever got hitched at the White House; that was Grover Cleveland, 1886.
Henry Hager has been Jenna Bush's boyfriend for some time. There were rumors in the past they might marry. Somewhat impolitely, I asked Laura Bush on Good Morning America about the young man, a couple of years ago.
BUSH: This is not a serious boyfriend. I hate to have to be the one to say it on television, but he's a very nice young man.
GIBSON: Parents sometimes are the last to know.
[end video clip]
GIBSON: [chuckles] And that is World News for this Thursday.
From the August 16 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): There is a verdict this evening in one of the most closely watched terrorism cases of our post-9-11 era, and the verdict is guilty for Jose Padilla, an American citizen once accused of plotting to set off a radioactive, or so-called "dirty," bomb. His conviction today is on less serious charges. Our Justice correspondent Pete Williams is with us from Washington tonight for more on what all of this means -- Pete, good evening.
PETE WILLIAMS: Brian, this is a big legal victory for the Bush administration, but not on the basis that led to Jose Padilla's arrest five years ago. That's when he was accused of coming to the U.S. to set off a dirty bomb, and then the government later said he was plotting to blow up apartment buildings in New York. But today, a jury found him and two other South Florida men guilty of something much less serious: providing support for violent holy war in several countries overseas. Among the key evidence was an application that prosecutors said Padilla filled out to attend an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan.
But it wasn't just the spectacular allegations against Padilla that made his case so unusual. He was the first American citizen since 9-11 to be arrested in the U.S. and declared an enemy combatant. He was held in a Navy brig for more than three years, and then just before the Supreme Court was to consider his detention, the government brought these charges that led to today's verdict, and now Jose Padilla could face a sentence of life in prison, Brian.
BRIAN WILLIAMS: All right -- Pete Williams with the Padilla case out of Washington for us tonight. Thanks.
From the August 16 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
KATIE COURIC (anchor): To the war on terror now: A federal jury in Miami convicted 36-year-old Jose Padilla today, five years after he first made headlines as the so-called "dirty bomb" suspect. Padilla and two others were found guilty of supporting terrorists overseas. And when all was said and done, two words the jury never heard: dirty bomb. Here's our Justice correspondent, Bob Orr.
[begin video clip]
ORR: When the FBI grabbed Jose Padilla at Chicago's O'Hare Airport in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft interrupted a trip to Russia to break the news.
ASHCROFT: We have disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States.
ORR: Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was portrayed as an Al Qaeda terrorist planning to attack an American city with radiation-laced explosives. He was locked up in a military prison and labeled an enemy combatant for three and a half years.
To avoid a showdown in the Supreme Court, the government eventually moved Padilla into the criminal system, and now he's been convicted of conspiring to support terrorists, charges far less serious than the dirty-bomb allegations first leveled by the Bush administration.
It took a Miami jury just a day and a half to convict Padilla and two others of being part of a South Florida terror cell. Wiretapped phone calls, the government charged, revealed Padilla and colleagues mapped plans for jihad.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whatever Allah [inaudible] has open for us. I'm still ready, are you?
ORR: And prosecutors used this document, bearing Padilla's signature and fingerprints, to claim that he'd traveled to an Al Qaeda training camp before 9-11.
The defense contended Padilla and the others were merely interested in helping fellow Muslims suffering in war zones, but the jury rejected that argument. Now Padilla faces possible life in prison.
Bob Orr, CBS News, Washington.
Gee, misinformation about scum like Padilla. Well, let's make sure he isn't mistreated by Charles Gibson or anyone in the media. Because fair and accurate reporting of what this poor man went through for three years is uppermost in my mind, that's for sure.
Life in prison for supporting terrorism, good, throw away the key.
Sure fine, now they have finally brought him to trial I agree. However it IS an HUGE part of the story. The sixth amendment gaurantees a SPEEDY TRIAL. I dont care what you think about Padilla OUR RIGHTS are being talked about here. It IS pertinent that Bush only brought him to trial when his case was about to come up before the Supreme Court and they thought their entire the President can do anything he wants rationale would be tossed like an old rag. Leaving this out is irresponsible. Also this is not over, there will be appeals and how are you going to feel if Padilla is set FREE because of violations of his rights?
"The sixth amendment gaurantees a SPEEDY TRIAL"
You're right. It does. Padilla should've been tried in civilian court from the very beginning. Every American citizen has the right to be tried in civilian court, even if they are suspected of terrorism. But you and other liberals can't seem to differentiate between American citizens who are afforded constitutional rights and foreign terrorists who aren't protected by OUR Constitution. These foreign terrorists should be tried by military tribunals and not U.S civilian courts.
Show me where all of us liberals are contesting military tribunals. Legitimate links only please.
Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Military Commissions Act. Several voted for it, but most of them voted against it.
How do you know they supposedly voted against it solely because of the military tribunal aspect? Did they all tell you?
There appears to be a good deal of valid criticism with regards to the act as well. It doesn't appear to be directed at military tribunals specifically as a principle, but some provisions in the law that set them up.
It looks disingenuous to claim that liberals are against military tribunals competely. That doesn't hold up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act#Criticism
backup link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act#Criticism
Only "do goodies like Solon" in his postings on this site. Those are the liberals that I'm talking about. Lot of pontification of philosophy very little on practicality
"Those are the liberals I am talking about."
Um, John? The liberals you are talking about?
"But you and other liberals can't seem to differentiate between American citizens who are afforded constitutional rights and foreign terrorists who aren't protected by OUR Constitution." - RINO Hunter / Friday August 17, 2007 04:35:32 PM EST
Get your screen names straight.
Solon has posted he is not against military tribunals, so even your puny example is lacking.
Then you cant read since I said DIRECTLY that I have no problem with military tribunals as long as they are basically fair and used in their proper context, that is NOT against US citizens. Try to keep up.
José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a United States citizen convicted of aiding terrorists.
This is why we have such a large problem with it. He IS an AMERICAN citizen. Does that change your opinion?
Thank you for pointing that out to Rino. No response yet, I see.
Did you not read my post? This is what I wrote:
"You're right. It does. Padilla should've been tried in civilian court from the very beginning. Every American citizen has the right to be tried in civilian court, even if they are suspected of terrorism"
I agree with you and others in regards to Padilla. I was simply saying that you shouldn't extend civilian trials to foreign terrorists as many liberals want.
Unfortunately you followed that statement with:
"But you and other liberals can't seem to differentiate between American citizens who are afforded constitutional rights and foreign terrorists who aren't protected by OUR Constitution. These foreign terrorists should be tried by military tribunals and not U.S civilian courts."
Exactly. And that's the only part you read. You didn't even read the first part.
Yes. You apparently cannot agree with liberals against the Bush administration without also noting your disagreement with them. How big of you.
So I'm supposed to agree with you 100% of the time?
You should acknowledge reality and not throw in unrelated stuff, yes. Mentioning your opinion of what liberals want to do with non-citizens was totally off topic, not an accurate portrayal of our feelings on the subject in any case, and an unfair distraction from the issues.
If you find yourself "forced" to agree with our position on an issue, you don't have to throw out an insult to balance out that agreement.
Sue,
It's not unrelated. It's all part of the same big issue. I just pointed out that many liberals don't differentiate between U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism and foreign terrorists. It was a valid point and completely on topic.
"...many liberals don't differentiate between U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism and foreign terrorists."- RINO Hunter
Out of that "many", could you name one? And this may sound crazy, but with something to back it up?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/
And many liberals on this site have argued that foreign terrorists should be tried in civilian courts. People For the American Way have always argued against military tribunals and in favor of civilian trials for terrorists.
Your link does not support your contention as so often happens. It shows Leahy and Olberman criticising suspending Habeas Corpus. Which means pretty much give us the body. It demands that a person be charged or let go, that is it demands a TRIAL it does NOT demand a civilian trial only that due process begin. It is an 800 year old legal protection and we should ALL be ashamed that we have weakened it in ANY way.
It's a legal protection that is given to U.S. citizens, not foreigners. That was my point. You want to give foreigners the same protections as U.S. citizens.
You are the king of baseless assertions not the same rights but some rights like Habeaus Corpus should be given everyone. Even the King of England in the 1200's had to obey Habeaus Corpus and there really isnt any way to get around the FACT that the constitution does not diffferentiate between citizens and foriegners in the matters of the rule of law. It says PERSONS not citizens in all such matters. Now I am fine with using military tribunals for non citizens accused of military related offenses as long as the basics of a free trial are there. When are you going to learn that you SAYING something over and over will NEVER make it reality?
Rino,
I don't care how often you agree with me. It just comes off as a little bit childish that you cannot simply agree without qualification.
It isn't the end of the world if we disagree. I have agreed with you in the past and it didn't cost me all that much of my self-respect as I recall.
"It just comes off as a little bit childish that you cannot simply agree without qualification"
What's the fun of simply agreeing? I like to stir things up a little bit. I like to debate issues that we disagree on. It's a lot more fun that simply discussing an issue that we're in complete agreement on.
Well. I appreciate your honesty.
The entire basis of our legal system is based on credibility and reason. If we do not try suspects in a reasonable way, then we are showing the rest of the world that we are insecure that we are really right. If we believe we are right, why do we need to stack the deck? Our credibility is at stake. If we claim someone is guilty, our citizens and the rest of the world need to know that person was afforded a fair trial or tribunal as the case may warrant and the courts decision is credible and valid.
If the Republicans and conservatives get there way by removing a fundamental idea such as Habeus Corpus(sp), then no one can be confident that we are right. We have just become tyrants. There are two tragedies in life: not getting what you want and getting it. Be careful what you wish for here. Self-serving wishes often come back to bite you in the butt. Just remember the liberals were here - just like they were before the Iraq War telling you this is a collossally bad idea. You didn't listen then. Let's see if you figure it out this time.
The constitutional protections are NOT exclusively for citizens the constitution says PERSONS not citizens. I am fine for military tribunals as long as they afford the basics of a fair trial, things like no secret evidence, confronting your accuser, the basics, that would be IN THEIR PROPER PLACE. You show over and over again that you NEVER know what you are talking about.
We're better than this.
Convicted by a jury of his peers? Good.
Sentenced to rot in jail? Good.
Clear, blatant and severe violations of no less than two Constitutional amendments and the Constitutional right to Habeas Corpus? BAD, VERY BAD AND VERY NEWSWORTHY.
I am glad to see Padilla locked up. The administration almost blew that one.
The problem is that if the administration had their way, they would have done the very same thing to Padilla (or maybe even killed him), but without a trial - which is every American citizen's right.
No matter how guilty someone may seem before a trial, I hope we can agree that every American citizen deserves a trial to make that determination and not just be thrown into a dungeon by our king and/or his disciples for good or killed.
Wow, you're really missing the point on this one. If they can detain and torture "scum" without a trial or even a charge and get away with it, then they can do that to anyone. He was a U.S. citizen arrested in the U.S. Do you really not see the issue here? And now that he has been given his day in court and been found guilty, all of Bush's reasons for not doing that in the first place have been proven to be total b.s.
I am not talking about Padilla's rights, I am talking about the press not detailing his detention, as is what is being whined about here.
I say so what that Gibson didn't mention it, I could care less. Sorry, that is my opinion.
Discussing his rights as an American citizen is not the topic of this MEDIA misinformation piece.
No NOT discussing them is YOUR WHINING that MMFA is showing the blatant omission here is ludicrous its like covering the story of the Titanic without mentioning it sprung a leak.
I've explained it to the WITH Patrol before. An omission of information that has a direct bearing on the story is a credibility issue. MMFA clearly addresses credibility in its definition of "conservative misinformation".
Ignoring the Bush Administration's clear and blatant Constitutional violations in the case of Padilla does forward the conservative agenda.
Also it has been noted by me in the past that omissions also can cause some viewers to come to incorrect conclusions. Gibson is technically causing viewers to misinform themselves by his omission.
Exactly the thing about rights is they are not priveleges to be revoked when an adminstration says you are a bad guy. Either EVERYONE has rights or NO ONE has them
Sorry, wrong argument again......this is about the media's reporting.
No its NOT the wrong argument just because you WISH it were. This is absolutly an essential part of this story leaving it out is a blatant bias.
Bias against whom?
Great question. Can't wait for Solon's answer.
I guess it is bias against terrorist scum. Shame on Gibson for not showing mild support for an American terrorist. Was the same support shown to McVeigh by Gibson?
McVeigh was GIVEN A TRIAL. No ones sixth amendment rights were violated. I dont care about Padilla, but I DO care about MY SIXTH AMDENDMENT. Why is that so hard for you to understand. If they can take HIS sixth amendment away they have also taken YOURS away.
His sixth amendment rights is not the issue anymore, the man wanted to kill you and I and you do not seem to care. You want to play your partisan games and its sad and disgusting.
You seem to miss the point of a trial. Those determinations are made there. Otherwise what is the use of having any trials?
So Padilla is innocent?
That's determined in a trial. Care to try again?
But maybe the trial was tainted? Afterall poor Padilla had his rights violated.
That is a good point, but nonetheless it should be up to a court of appeals to decide. I don't see how that makes any sense out of your previous incomprehensible posts.
I find arguments like yours very peculiar. You seem to think that it is okay to violate Constitutional rights -like due process for the guilty (as you determine them to be) - of course that is circular logic as such a determination can only reasonably determined by following due process through the courts - which you don't mind denying them. The circle just repeats endlessly. I can't believe you don't realize how stupid your argument is.
I do not believe any violation of rights is acceptable.
You don't?
"His sixth amendment rights is not the issue anymore..."
And directly above you talk about "poor Padilla" having his rights violated, mockingly.
Get your story straight, please.
He was convicted, the sixth amendment story is over. It was reported in 2003 and on and on and on. This thread was originally about Gibson. The twist and turns did not stop however.
Oh, so now that the result is that he's guilty, then the violation of his rights then doesn't mean anything. But you don't want anyone's rights violated.
The verdict doesn't make that violation disappear, despite your delusions.
Oh, and the story is still about Gibson because he omitted information...about the violation of rights. As if the discussion of his unlawful detention, which Gibson failed to mention, is wildly off-topic or something. Criminy.
What the hell is going on in your head? The point that he deserves a trial is met with "Padilla is innocent?", and then you argue that a potential tainted trial is some sort of factor. So we shouldn't have trials because they might be tainted, or because it suggests that someone might be innocent? But then, you don't think anyone's rights should be violated.
What exactly do you suggest, then?
That's what I read too. "You want trials? Well, trials can be tainted!" In other words, what if I don't get the result I want out of the trial?" Can't take that risk. If we skip the trial altogether and just throw the "scum" in jail, I feel safer. That's all that counts.
Until, of course, I get accused of something. But I'm innocent, so I have nothing to worry about, right? Um, not if I'm not given a trial. The cowardly fascists on this thread make my head hurt.
They are cowards deep down. They don't have confidence in our system, so they constantly try to stack the deck. For them it is all about winning because they have no doubt about being right. That accounts for much of the way they went about selling the Iraq War as well. It is a recurring theme in this administration. Normal processes can be simply bipassed because God is on their side or whatever rationalization gets them through the night.
So laws and rules are partisan games? I'll have to remember that next time I get pulled over. I'm sad that you think rule of law and our constitution are games.
There is a difference between getting pulled over and wanting to kill you and I. Padilla could care less about political partisanship he wanted to kill us because we are American. My feeling is you probably do not care about that and instead want to use this to smear the Bush administration. Am I wrong?
There is a difference between getting pulled over and wanting to kill you and I.
He was convicted of conspiring to kill people overseas.
There are no Americans who visit overseas? Only American lives count and overseas lives do not?
That wasn't my point. Jylons thinks Padilla was trying to kill him.
And there was no specific plot to kill people overseas.
So Padilla never wanted to see anyone killed? Was that your point?
"So Padilla never wanted to see anyone killed?"
I don't know.
I told you what my point was.
Padilla wanted all of us to be killed, he could care less about our political views. He knew we were all Americans.
How do you know this?
People are people and this man wanted to help kill people.
Do you know anything about the case? It seems the only thing you know is that he was convicted of something and you extrapolate this to mean he was trying to kill you.
One of the qualities that is supposed to distinguish our civilization from savages is the 6th Amendment. Whether or not the perpetrator is a serial killer or a jay-walker, we provide them with a speedy trial. Padilla's treatment was despicable.
I just hope that when they pick me up and toss me into a prison for 5 years without legal counsel, and I lose my job and my home and cars, and my good name is disparaged, I just hope that after all that they give me a fair trial. And after I'm aquitted, I will look forward to starting all over again with nothing.
Some conservatives would not have a problem with that. If they received a trial after five years of imprisonment and they were proven not guilty by a jury of their peers, they would excuse what the government did. I was posting at another blog yesterday and some conservatives there said they would have no problem with the government imprisoning and torturing them if the government had evidence against them. I replied that they must have low self-respect.
"There is a difference between getting pulled over and wanting to kill you and I."--jlyons
Of course there is a difference. The problem is that how do we know with any degree of certainty Padilla wanted to kill someone until he was found guilty by a court of law? You act as if Padilla was found guilty the second he was picked up. Do you have a concept of chronology and that these things happened on a timeline? Is it okay to violate someone's rights if we think they will be convicted? That is what you really seem to condone here. I don't think you can hold that position and claim with any honesty that you believe in the Constitution.
With the Bush administration, up is down and down is up. Didn't you know the new standard is "guilty until proven innocent"?
But your rights don't change as a US citizen regardless of the crime you are accused of does it? I could care less about the Bush adminstration looking bad in this case. What happened here was wrong, I don't care who is President.
Padilla is also an American therefore a violation of HIS rights are a danger to OUR rights I think you dont CARE about our rights am I wrong?
Bush held an American citizen without charge for three years and possibly tortured him and this doesn't bother you.
Suppose the jury delivered a verdict of not guilty. Would you still be here defending what Bush did?
Bush personally tortured someone? Link and proof?
That's like saying Bin Laden personally killed people.
Did he? do we have proof?
I would say being held for three years without charges is torture. So yes Bush tortured him.
Bush orderd the torture of Padilla? Was Padilla tortured?
I don't know whether anyone has been allowed access to Padilla to even ask such questions. I doubt that would be definitive either considering his fairly obvious credibility problems Padilla would have. Of course, the government has a bit of a credibility problem as well with that regard.
Considering the government dropped the dirty bomb charges I suppose it may be a possibility that any evidence they had in that regard was coerced (possibly even tortured) and not reliable and/or admissable.
We are pretty much reduced to speculation because assuming there actually was torture, this administration has been pretty solid in bottling such talk up through tight compartmentalizing of information as we have seen from varied peaks into other investigations of this administration.
"I don't know whether anyone has been allowed access to Padilla to even ask such questions. I doubt that would be definitive either considering his fairly obvious credibility problems Padilla would have."
You should read Glenn Greenwald's ongoing coverage of this story, as well as the intense coverage given by various writers over at firedoglake.com. Psychiatrists have been given access to Padilla in order to ask those questions and their findings are unanimous. As Greenwald writes, by any reasonable person's definition of torture, Padilla has undoubtedly been tortured.
Thanks, clams. Obviously I was unaware of that when I wrote my post. Sorry for the ignorance. That kind of puts the legitimacy of a tribunal in question if it is true. How do we know coerced testimony wasn't used? The more I read, the more I think it is at least possible that the government may have stacked the deck against Padilla and it may not have been as fair a trial as I would have hoped. I will be interested in what Padilla's appeal argument looks like.
Imprisoning someone and placing them in solitary confinement for three years without charge, access to a lawyer , or being able to see the evidence that facilitated their confinement is torture. Bush is directly responsible for this.
So you think bin laden is absolved from his responsibility for 9-11 because he did not personally kill someone?
More proof than you have that Padilla wanted to kill all of us. You really love to hold yourself to a completely different standard than you hold everyone else to. You dont have amazing mind reading powers, you make baseless assertions THEN ask someone ELSE for proof of THEIR assertion.
You are right, Sue. Bush never personally tortured and murdered anyone. Neither did Adolph Hitler. So I guess they are both as innocent as the driven snow, right?
I feel dirty even responding to such juvenile, "I know you are but what am I?" arguments.
Solon said that he was glad he was in jail now, now that he's actually had the trial he should have gotten.
So, if someone is playing partisan games, it's not Solon.
I haven't seen a single person that has said anything close to what you have claimed we all feel.
I want our laws obeyed, even when a terrorist might have violated other of our laws. I want our Constitution to be upheld, even when it would be easier to ignore it. I want the rule of law followed, because the ends don't justify the means.
Of I care, just because you are too stupid to read isnt my fault. I said in the very first post it was good that he was behind bars moron. A violation of anyones sixth amendment rights is ALWAYS an issue. Either everyone has rights or no one has them and any violation of the bill of rights is a danger to us all. Try to keep up.
Thanks for the name calling .again.
Hey once you call us terrorist sympathizers and tell us we want to see Americans killed you lose all reasonable expectation of being treated like Pollyanna. If you thought that only YOU got to insult us then we would say please dont hurt us oh great jylon, we are subservient to you, then you were indulging in a delusion. Either dont insult us or expect us to treat you the way YOU treat us. Snivelling about it in a way that would embarass a six year old is pathetic.
That was not what I meant and I had allready apologized if I came across that way.
True, you had appologized 20 minutes before I posted this response for something you posted six hours before and I had not gotten to that point in the thread yet. The point is you START with that kind of thing its ludicrous to snivel when it comes back at you. If you dont LIKE it done to you dont DO it to others.
Solon,
It should be noted that Jlyon's "apology" was not really an apology. He/she stands by his/her words. It was an apology for how they came across to us or how we interpreted them. Jlyons never apologized or expanded on what he/she wrote or actually meant, which seems pretty dang explicit. The post I did below quotes his/her original post verbatim for your review. I don't think anyone should let him/her off the hook until he/she clarifies their meaning acceptibly.
I agree. I probably wouldnt have been as insulting had I read it though lacking as it was it still represented a backing away from the hostility. You make a good point however.
Your complaint rings hollow after what you said about other posters on this site:
"My feeling is most of the posters on here wish this terrorist slimeball was never changed and free to help or himself perform a terror attack. Then these people could turn around and blame Bush of course for Political purposes. Shameful."--jlyons
You actually expect civil debate when you post crap like that? Unbelievable.
I expect people to act in a respectful way yes and not become childish.
You apparantly mean you expect OTHER people to but dont hold yourself to any such standard.
McVeigh was given a trial and everything about that case was public. He was given due process.
Civil liberties concerned news consumers.
Bias against the mindset that we can hold people without charge, for any length of time and can do anything we want to them in the name of fighting the war on terror. The lack of mention of the horrible sham that is Jose Padilla trail, if properly reported, would damage your worldview of the Right's way of fighting terrorists.
BIAS AGAINST THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
Thank you, Clams. I was reading through these posts and wondering if ANYONE was going to get that that point. People who use words like "scum" to describe SUSPECTS better understand that they are undermining their own rights should they ever be falsely accused of a crime. We have to be VERY careful not to blur the line between "suspected terrorist" and "convicted terrorist." If you think there is no line, you have no respect for the Constitution at all. If you think that the moment someone is accused of being a terrorist, the government can do whatever it wants with that person, you really are living in the wrong country. God help us all when we abandon civil liberties in exchange for the false promise of security.
I think that these authoritarians with their good/evil mindset genuinely believe that these constitutional issues don't affect them because they are the "good people," and the "scum" don't deserve rights anyway. It's a very strange, reactionary and borderline facist way of thinking. I can't imagine how miserable it would be to go through life like that.
I think calling it "borderline" fascist is being way too kind.
Locked up without charges? Not good.
A trial & found guilty? Good.
But getting bent out of shape because Gibson didn't mention the 3yr detention? Nope.
I hope Padilla rots in jail.
Thank you J, that was exactly my point. Others want to reframe the argument, sad.
No YOU want to miss the essential element of this blatant omission. PATHETIC.
"Locked up without charges? Not good."--jeter2
So you agree with Jeter that violating Padilla's rights was a bad thing? Don't pretend like that was ever your own point - when you personally declared the topic off-limits. You are full of crap, tommy.
It is an essential part of the story. The omission is breathtaking.
Oh, breathtaking? That Gibson did not detail every detail about this worthless terrorist. My heart bleeds for the lack of fairness shown in the media towards Padilla.
Since he is an American citizen, as I assume you are, perhaps you should change your mind. While you may look out for yourself and not others when it comes to infractions of rights, I assure you we who defend the constitution are looking out for you Tommy. You can thank us later.
How many liberals does it take to ask me the same question and realize you are reframing the argument. IT IS NOT ABOUT PADILLA OR HIS RIGHTS, it is about how upset you all are getting about the media's mistreatment of him........and as I said, I DON'T CARE.
Do you care about how long he was held without charge? Are you upset they allowed his confession to be used even though it was "poisonous fruit" testimony that was extracted by torture? Does it bother you he wasn't even charged with the "dirty bomb" allegations? He is an American citizen, and maybe you can put on blinders because he is a big scary terrorist, but I want all the God given rights to extend to all citizens and detainees.
Are you upset that this report by Gibson puts Padilla in a less than flattering light than you'd like?
Because that is the point of this thread, despite your refusal to address it.
Just keep repeating that over and over tommy. No one is buying your BS. Give it up.
Haha, It's because you don't dare answer it apparently. Otherwise you'd stick to the topic issue, without a curious diversion.
Hit a nerve?
You appear to be the one narrowly tailoring your argument like a coward.
So, if you or a loved one is arrested tomorrow, you won't mind waiting three years as an American citizen for your trial?
I dont care about how they characterized Padilla. I care about how they glossed over and ignored the fact a sixth amendment violation is at stake and I care about MY BILL OF RIGHTS.
Tommy, the issue is not that we're "upset that this report by Gibson puts Padilla in a less than flattering light than you'd like?"
We're "upset" because it puts the Bush administration in a more flattering light that what they deserve. I'd love it if the Bush administration finally started behaving properly, instead of violating basic civil liberties and upholding our citizens' constitutional rights.
We're "upset" about the media's misrepresentation of the facts here. The omission of the facts about his detention without any hearing for years is misrepresenting, and it furthers the conservative agenda by failing to publicize the blatant violation of his rights as a citizen. Ignoring those blatant violations makes the Bush administration look better than they should. A fair portrait would not ignore those civil rights denied to this citizen.
So, you are more concerned with Bush looking bad than a thug terrorist? Well, ok then.
Do you think president Bush deserves to look bad here? Why or why not?
Bush isn't the issue, it's Padilla and his shoddy treatment by Gibson, according to you.
When did I say that? Have you simply lost your mind? It would explain much here.
That's why you're calling me a coward and not being a man, isn't it? Are you or are you not bothered by the bias Gibson is showing against Padilla through his omission? If you weren't, you wouldn't be getting so upset and hurling insults right and left at me.
In fact, don't even answer, I could care less what your response is. It's very evident by your defensive nature. If you want to sympathize with Padilla, go ahead. I would suggest you act like a man and own it, instead of an equivocating whiner.
I see you couldn't point to anything I said to support your BS claims. You are definitely a coward.
You're insane. You must be. You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again, even though it's completely transparent that you're the one who is desperately trying to reframe the issue. Your reframing has been torn down and crushed into the ground and yet you still keep repeating it. Honestly, you've never seemed crazier than you have in this thread.
His bias towards Padilla has never been the issue.
The effect of his neglecting to mention the history was always the issue.
No, it's never been about the shoddy treatment of Padilla by a newsman. It's always been about the lack of acknowledgement of the history behind this final disposition and how it's relevant to any story about Padilla.
Bush is the issue.
Gibson's shoddy treatment of Padilla was never the issue.
I said that above. How did you miss that? I really didn't think you were this dense.
The issue is Gibson did not make Padilla look correct, if the issue is also making Bush look bad thats fine, I just missed that point in the thread.
That depends on whether you believe in the Constituton and/or the Bill of Rights. If you believe in them then yeah, I think it makes the Bush Administration look bad. That is what tommy is apparently avoiding talking about here for some odd reason.
Thanks Jlyons. You understand perfectly why this thread is here. This is a media misinformation site, not an open forum for discussing enemy combatants and American citizen's civil rights.
Those that are sympathizing with Padilla's mistreatment here don't want to discuss that however, so they keep changing it back to Bush and the conservative agenda. And they call me a coward?
So you do not agree that he was mistreated? I'm not arguing guild or innocence, I don't think anyone here is, just the lack of mention of the mistreatment of Jose and of due process.
Mistreatment BY THE PRESS IN THIS TOPIC THREAD, BY GIBSON'S OMISSION. How many times...............?
Just put down the shovel and climb out of the hole, tommy. You're done.
Your cute little phrases only highlight your refusal to answer for your sympathy towards the plight of a terrorist thug like Padilla and his mistreatment by Gibson.
But keep trying, each and every time you prove my point even more. Thanks Pumpkin.......
Many other people have already answered this.
It's not about his mistreatment by Gibson. We've told you over and over again what it's about.
READ THE TOPIC HEADLINE! That is the topic Sue.......this has been explained to all of you over and over and you refuse to accept it, I am sorry.
No, this has been explained to you, over and over again. It is you who doesn't get it.
It's not about how Padilla was treated by Gibson, and never was.
So, you are more concerned with Bush looking bad than a thug terrorist? Well, ok then.
Nope, not about that either. I am concerned with Gibson not noting what the other network news shows covered, which was the Bush administration's responsibility with regard to the illegal detention of Padilla. I want terrorists to be tried and punished, but I want US citizens to have their Constitutional rights respected while they are being tried and punished. It's a funny thing, but reasonable people like me can want terrorists to be punished and our elected President and his staff to be held accountable when they don't do that punishment by following our laws. It's a sorry day for our country when we have citizens like you who think you have to choose between holding Bush accountable and fairly punishing a terrorist.
Oh, and I read the topic headline, and addressed it in numerous posts, just like many other people did.
The issue is that what the effect of what Gibson did is. The effect is that it makes the Bush administration look better than how they deserve to look.
I have understood the topic all along. It has been you who has been in la-la land. It must be those delusions striking again.
"READ THE TOPIC HEADLINE!"--tommy
Lol. Like you always strictly adhere to the headline. Why not look a milimeter beneath the headline or to the article itself? Do you think everything is off-limits here or that others might possibly have a valid interpretation of what this thread is about? Do you believe your opinion is absolute?
WRONG, YOU are avoiding an essential part of the story in a weak attempt to ignore the civil liberties aspect of this story an ESSENTIAL part of the story. I dont want any Americans mistreated under color of law if you do then you are a fascist but that is another story, it is a deriliction of the duty of a journalist to ignore this aspect of the story just to protect either this administration or a conservative agenda to strip us of our rights. I understand you want to pretend it doesnt exist and sure dont want to talk about it TOUGH it is an essential aspect of the story.
Tommy, correct and I do not understand why Padilla is coming off as a better person than Gibson or even Bush in this thread.
How on earth do you get that? You are insane.
More insults, nice.
No, really, you need to take a step back and take a look at yourself.
Nobody here has defended Padilla. Nobody. Not one person. Yet, you keep making these ridiculous claims about how we want him free, how we think he comes off better than Bush or Gibson, etc.
You are pulling it out of nowhere. You have no backup at all for your contempible assertions. How you can possibly expect people to treat you with respect when you behave like this is beyone all comprehension. For you to whine about insults at this point is the height of hypocrisy.
I expect people to conduct themselves in a mature manner when having a discussion, not resort to name calling. If you do not like my views on this topic, that is great but when we start acting like children in the playground we stop hearing eachother.
Your expectations of others should be mirrored by your own sense of responsibility. You make ridiculous, slanderous assertions and stand by them, then expect people not to call you names? Oh, you poor thing.
Ludicrous.
What is becoming ludicrous is your condesending attitude. I did not slander anyone, I made a statement on a MMFA thread to get a point across and you have completely twisted it. If you can not find my answer to that in the 380 long thread that is not my fault.
You're a damn liar. What was your point, besides saying that you think we'd like to see Padilla free and killing Americans to make Bush look bad? How has anyone twisted what you said? I'm familiar with every post on this thread, you simply have not explained yourself, and nobody has misrepresented you.
Spare me your indignation. You make clearly slanderous remarks, can't explain what else you could have possibly meant by them, and then act all offended that someone dares to criticize you.
It seems you think that you are on a pedestal.
Oh Please.
You had not yet explained nor actually apologized. I have read all of your comments on this thread. You have commented further down in the posting, but you still haven't explained or apologized.
You said
"His sixth amendment rights is not the issue anymore, the man wanted to kill you and I and you do not seem to care. You want to play your partisan games and its sad and disgusting."
The fact that he was denied his sixth amendment rights is an issue even after he was given a trial and convicted. The loss of his rights as a US citizen doesn't magically disappear after he's convicted. He still lost those rights. And I've never seen Solon say anything that would lead any sane person to think that he didn't want to imprison convicted terrorists. You make a strawman argument and then try to defend it by saying that Solon wants to play partisan games without a shred of evidence.
You also said
"My feeling is most of the posters on here wish this terrorist slimeball was never changed and free to help or himself perform a terror attack. Then these people could turn around and blame Bush of course for Political purposes. Shameful."
You never explained how your intent had been mistaken, what the alternative meaning of this statement could possibly be, or anything else. You told us you were sorry that it had been taken that way, but you gave us no alternative.
You said
"That was not my point. If I came across that way I apologize. I do not believe fellow Americans on here are sympathetic to terrorists."
"It was not a mistake, it was my point was not to say that others were pro terrorist. If that was how it was taken it was my mistake, Frankly I could care less if you are not going to let me off easy. That is your choice."
You had never explained how else we could take your comments.
Sue/Ellie
Give it a rest.
You say
You make a strawman argument and then try to defend it by saying that Solon wants to play partisan games without a shred of evidence.
Explain where i make a "Strawman" argument.. You have wasted valuable space on this when you will not deal with the issue. You do not like my opinions fine, do not play games however.
I haven't wasted any valuable space. It's not my problem that others have. That's another strawman argument, trying to claim that I've wasted space and therefore you won't continue discussing this topic.
"I did not slander anyone, I made a statement on a MMFA thread to get a point across and you have completely twisted it."
That's a strawman argument. You didn't get any point across, and no one has twisted it. Repeatedly people have quoted your own words. You have been asked to explain it, and when you have been asked that, you've failed completely to do so, often in unintelligible sentences, and then you tried to claim to many others that you had already explained it and wouldn't do it again.
Do you not know the definition of a strawman argument maybe?
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.
No one has twisted your words.
Sue/Ellie
You are making a strawman argument now. Give it a rest. Stop the games.
That is only the issue in your mind since no liberal here made any such argument. The issue is ignoring the HUGE aspect of the story that constitutes a danger to our civil liberties. I dont see Padilla being defended here I see OUR RIGHTS being defended. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and YOU are saying dont worry about that, dont look at the man behind the curtain, ignore the danger to the Bill of Rights you just want to demonize the liberals here.
Tommy,
The administration denied an American citizen a basic Constitutional right. Period.
YOU are the one purposely missing why this omission matters its about OUR RIGHTS. Keep pretending we are sympathetic to Padilla and his cause its garbage MY RIGHTS ARE AT STAKE and they left that out of the story.
I am not pretending anything. You and your fellow liberals are stomping your collective sympathetic feet at the fact that Padilla is not being given a fair shake by one lousy report in the media, because of a fact omission. You even call it breathtaking. If you think that's warranted, so be it.
Pure BS. You are simply trying to avoid a moral examination of the Bush Administration's actions here. Pathetic.
Exactly, which is why he fails to answer the questions posed to him in some indignant fashion.
It's not and never was Padilla's treatment that's been at issue.
It was the failure to mention the Bush administration's role in that treatment.
I don't believe you are really this dense.
Believe it, he is that dense.
You are full of it and you KNOW it. You are being purposely obtuse. We have explained ourselves ad naseum and not ONCE has anyone complained that Gibson was mean to Padilla, that is you LYING. Gibson omitted an essential part of the story one that is OBVIOUSLY an essential part of the story as any article about a violation of the bill of rights would be. YOU are just desperatly saying please dont look at the man behind the curtain stripping away the protection accorded you by the BILL OF RIGHTS. You apparantly will do ANYTHING to avoid people talking about that so you APPROVE of Gibson omitting this essential part of the story. I couldnt care less about Padilla, as you well know, he was convicted he will spend the rest of his life in prison, fine, however in a story about him desepratly avoiding the implications of a violation of the sixth amendment violates every tenet of journalistic ethics.
Guys, you are apparently all illiterate. Tommy has told us again and again what we are allowed to talk about on this thread, yet you keep talking about what YOU want to talk about. What's the matter with you? Don't you know that Tommy is the Lord and Master of this thread? If you can't acknowledge that, please move on to some other site. Please, don't make him stamp his feet again, you will regret it!
Of course your heart doesnt bleed its made of stone, but that is irrelevant, I dont care about Padilla but this story omitting the blatant violation of his rights that is rights that are essential to EVERYONE OF US, is breathtaking.
Considering these events took place while Padilla wasn't officially even charged with anything, your reasoning is suspect. Is it supposed to make the governments handling of the case at the time okay simply because Padilla is now guilty? That sounds remarkably like an amoral "the ends justifies the means" argument.
Tommy, how about the torture and isolation conditions he experienced. Couple of reports on this over at firedoglake. Stockholme syndrom anyone. If shurb can do that to an American citizen by declaring him an enemy combatant. who else can suffer this fate without conviction in any court.
Breathtaking??
Aren't you getting a tad dramatic there Solon?
I heard this story on other stations, which mentioned the 3 yr detention. Didn't move me one way or the other.
Just like Gibson not mentioning it doesn't move me one way or the other.
The guy was found guilty. He's gonna hopefully rot in jail. Now that moves me to smile.
Exactly, and why is bias against Padilla even here at all, is he a Democrat? ;)
My feeling is most of the posters on here wish this terrorist slimeball was never changed and free to help or himself perform a terror attack. Then these people could turn around and blame Bush of course for Political purposes. Shameful.
If that's your feeling, your feeling is wrong.
I have not seen anyone express any opinions that could lead anyone to come to that conclusion, so you should look into the bias against posters here you have that would have led you to such a erroneous conclusion.
We want all citizens to get a fair, prompt hearing and the punishment they deserve if they're found guilty. We want our longstanding laws and the US Constitution followed, not trashed.
Jlyons,
I think you really don't believe in Constitutional rights. Why do you hate America? Just asking.
I believe in every right, and I love America. I just wish someone once would post on here that Padilla is scum, and wanted to kill all of us.
You obviously have a reading comprehension problem. In the very second post of the entire thread Solon agreed with tommy about Padilla. In my very first post on this thread I wrote: I am glad to see Padilla locked up.
Several posters here have remarked similarly and I have added to my sentiments about Padilla along the way, but amazingly you haven't seen any of it.
You are glad he is locked up, yet he has not been treated fairly? I do not understand.
I don't know why it would be difficult. It is pretty silly that I even have to explain it.
I am glad he is locked up because he was found guilty by a court of law. Duh?
Secondly, my complaint about his mistreatment is not related to his crime or even him personally, but his status as an American citizen that is supposed to have guaranteed rights under the Constitution. You can't just revoke the rights of those you find personally despicable. That is simply unAmerican on its face and I don't know why you would support it.
My feeling is you are a complete moron incapable of comprehending the most simple concept like WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT OUR RIGHTS NOT PADILLA. Find a six year old to explain this simple concept to you.
So you resort to name calling instead of having a civil discussion? Nice we now know the real you.
Which part of you calling everyone on here a terrorist sympathizer was the civil discussion part?
That was not my point. If I came across that way I apologize. I do not believe fellow Americans on here are sympathetic to terrorists.
"My feeling is most of the posters on here wish this terrorist slimeball was never changed and free to help or himself perform a terror attack. Then these people could turn around and blame Bush of course for Political purposes. Shameful."--jlyons
Hold on a minute. How was the above quote a mistake. I am not going to let you off that easy. Your post was tremendously offensive. Please tell us what you meant to say there.
It was not a mistake, it was my point was not to say that others were pro terrorist. If that was how it was taken it was my mistake, Frankly I could care less if you are not going to let me off easy. That is your choice.
I agree with Open_mind, your excuse doesn't cut it. You said that we want Americans to be killed for political purposes. I don't see any way around that.
Without you clarifying your remarks, your comments aren't worth spit. "That's not how I meant it" doesn't help you at all.
What the hell did you mean?
Considering your remarks don't need any interpretation in order to be extremely offensive, I find your explanation that it was "not a mistake" even more puzzling. The fact you are standing behind what you wrote absolutely nullifies your "apology". You have now had the opportunity to clarify your remarks and fallen well short. Until you can satisfactorily apologize or clarify your remarks, I consider your non-apology not accepted and I will not treat you with the same consideration afforded other more forthright posters.
Until you can satisfactorily apologize or clarify your remarks, I consider your non-apology not accepted and I will not treat you with the same consideration afforded other more forthright posters.
Sorry I have gone over this allready. As far as me being treated differently, that is your right.
No, you haven't gone over this already, and have not apologized for what you said most of the posters here thought. That's why those other two posters said that you had not done it. You can bluster all you want, but that does not change the facts in this case.
There is not one poster who thinks that a terrorist should be mollycoddled. We think that American citizens, even ones charged with and likely guilty of heinous crimes or conspiracies, should be treated according to the rules set forth in the US Constitution. There are no posters here who have ever expressed the sentiments you described, or anything like that, and your attempt to claim that they did was unfair and upsetting.
We think that American citizens, even ones charged with and likely guilty of heinous crimes or conspiracies, should be treated according to the rules set forth in the US Constitution. (SO do I)
There are no posters here who have ever expressed the sentiments you described, or anything like that, and your attempt to claim that they did was unfair and upsetting.
So you speak for everyone Ellie?
I never said that either, and to twist my words with such hate and venom is what is going on here. How many times do I need to explain?
"I never said that either"
Really?
"His sixth amendment rights is not the issue anymore"
"But maybe the trial was tainted? Afterall poor Padilla had his rights violated."
So you wanted him to see trial, yet you say his rights aren't the issue and sarcastically bemoan the loss of those rights.
"...and to twist my words with such hate and venom is what is going on here. How many times do I need to explain?"
You've never explained. You apologized if people thought you meant something, without explaining how you could have possibly meant something else.
Nobody on this thread expressed the sentiments you said they did, and nobody has misrepresented you. Own up to your behavior and quit lying already.
There are no posters here who have ever expressed the sentiments you described, or anything like that, and your attempt to claim that they did was unfair and upsetting.--jlyons
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sure fine, now they have finally brought him to trial I agree. However it IS an HUGE part of the story. The sixth amendment gaurantees a SPEEDY TRIAL. I dont care what you think about Padilla OUR RIGHTS are being talked about here. It IS pertinent that Bush only brought him to trial when his case was about to come up before the Supreme Court and they thought their entire the President can do anything he wants rationale would be tossed like an old rag. Leaving this out is irresponsible. Also this is not over, there will be appeals and how are you going to feel if Padilla is set FREE because of violations of his rights?
- solon / Friday August 17, 2007 04:14:37 PM EST - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
Jlyons,
Seriously, what is with you here. You cannot possibly be so obtuse. I can't tell whether you are just insane, blind or both. The above was solon's reply to the very first posting on this thread by Tommy. Nomobush is describing that exact same argument. Not only that, that argument can be found in at least 20 or more different posts on this topic expressed many many different ways, but still the same basic argument.
Jlyons is saying that she never said she didn't want all Americans to have a trial no matter what, I believe. It's a little confusing because she's quoting from the post above without using quotes or italics or anything else to indicate it.
Good catch. My bad.
"I never said that either, and to twist my words with such hate and venom is what is going on here. How many times do I need to explain?"--jlyons
Here is what you did say: "My feeling is most of the posters on here wish this terrorist slimeball was never changed[sic] and free to help or himself perform a terror attack. Then these people could turn around and blame Bush of course for Political purposes. Shameful." You then went on to ostensibly apologize for the way your remarks "came across". You then went on to say your remarks were "not a mistake, it was my point was not to say that others were pro terrorist."
You have been given the opportunity for clarification how such words could possibly be "not a mistake" and how they shouldn't be taken with offense at face value. I am still waiting for that explanation, but I won't hold my breath.
Again , my statement was made to express how many on here look to blame America and specifially the President before a terrorist. Nowhere in that statement did i call anyone a terrorist sympathizer.
Give me one example of anyone who blamed the President before they blamed a terrorist!
A terrorist who is an American citizen can be rightfully convicted and serve time and still have his rights violated by the Bush administration. Don't you get that?
This is not that difficult. Our objections to the omission of the relevant facts that accurately portray the Bush administration's failures in the detention of Padilla are not, in any way, saying that we blame the President before we blame a terrorist. They are saying that we blame Bush's administration where they deserve blame, regardless of Padilla's crimes and deserved punishment!
You apparently don't realize that you just essentially accused the liberals on this site of siding with the terrorists. Not exactly a great way to have a healthy discussion if that is indeed your goal.
J, many on here will attack by calling others names. I have been called worse than moron. They are usually people who no longer can debate.
Usually it's directed at people who never could debate in the first place.
What is the substantive difference between suggesting the liberals here are terrorist sympathizers and calling someone a name? Such accusations forfeit the claim to civil discourse IMO.
Who called who a terrorist sympathizer?
My feeling is most of the posters on here wish this terrorist slimeball was never changed and free to help or himself perform a terror attack. Then these people could turn around and blame Bush of course for Political purposes. Shameful.
A civil discussion with someone who said we wanted to see Padilla kill Americans who as much as called us terrorists sympathizers? Let me translate WWWAHHHHHH I get rudely accuse you guys of wanting to see Americans get killed but how DARE you be mean to me WWWAHHHH. Grow up. Leave off being rude and insulting to us or grow thicker skin your WWAAAAHHH stop treating me the way I am treating you is pathetic.
Somehow, someway, someone here is gonna try to twist this omission into a Conservative something or other.
I guess we'll have to wait ;-)
I think the fact that conservatives like yourself and tommy are so oblivious to the implications of denying US citizens their rights for over 3 years demonstrates the point even better than MMFA's article did.
I must say I am deeply disappointed. I thought all Americans cared about this stuff -not only liberals.
Open_Mind,
This thread is about Gibson's omission of the 3 yr detention during his report.
Are you suggesting he had some nefarious right-wing agenda in doing so?
I'm not arguing civil rights here. This site is about the media.
I am pretty upset right now, so out of respect for what you have said in the past, I am not going to tell you what is going through my mind right now. It isn't very flattering.
Just let me say that I believe the Bush administration's actions are at the very heart of this topic and I find your argument disingenuous to put it mildly.
I'd say if you're that upset at Jeter's simple and direct question you'd better re-examine why. Or else just stop.
ABC's Gibson ignored Padilla's three-year detention without charges
And that omission benefits the Bush administration, whether Gibson intended it or not.
Also, by not mentioning that, Gibson is legitimizing the treatment an American citizen (Padilla) received which has dangerous consequences for all of us whether we're guilty or innocent.
That is right and the media obediantly AVOIDING an essential part of this story so that the very discussion you and tommy seem determined NOT to have breaking out in the country IS a deriliction of their duty.
Open,
Let me make it real simple for you - what is your reaction to the topic headline "ABC's Gibson ignored Padilla's three year detention without charges"? Does that bother you in the context that it is unfair to Padilla? Or are you OK with the Gibson's omission?
There is no need to make a blanket statement about our rights as citizens, because that is not my point or what I am asking you? I am simply asking you about the topic headline, now how can that be off topic or a diversion on my part?
"ABC's Gibson ignored Padilla's three year detention without charges"?
And when ABC did that, they furthered the conservative agenda by failing to mention the Bush administration's role in that illegal detention. They look better than they deserve to when ABC's Gibson didn't mention their role in that 3 year detention.
Fairly trying, then punishing bad people is the goal. Abusing the US Constitution to punish a bad person is something that should be mentioned when it happens.
Mr. diversion is now a topic Nazi. Nice.
No surprise, you won't even answer on the topic headline. Who's done?
I have already responded several times. You have some narrowly construed nonsensical interpretation you are insisting that everyone adhere to - apparently in order to avoid discussing the core issue. I'm simply not buying it.
At 5:48, before your reply, I answered his question.
Then he complains that he didn't get a reply.
He didn't want a reply. He only wanted to attack you for not giving him one.
Yes. And I noticed that tommy didn't answer it. He is being a troll and a coward for some reason. I don't know what is with him on this topic. I hope he goes to rehab and figures himself out sometime soon.
This isn't unusual for Tommy, but this is a pretty extreme example of his behavior. And then Jeter suddenly believes that this item is weak because it only mentions one person and doesn't prove intent. As if he hasn't been here for the last few years, or something. And then Jlyons is off her damn rocker, and Sueeld says that the item indicates MMfA wants Padilla free and Gibson jailed.
It's like some sort of mass-knee-jerk-hysteria because "Padilla" is in the title, as if that had any bearing on the validity of the item. Truly a sad display by a bunch of people who I know can do better.
I like that mass-knee-jerk-hysteria comment. Can I steal it?
Sure, but hopefully there won't be an applicable situation anytime soon.
Is the topic Gibson or not? Is he the media figure?
The topic is the omission. Who cares who the newsperson is. Does it make it okay if it was someone else?
This story was never mentioned on Countdown last night, should there be a thread to discuss why Olbermann never even brought it up?
I'm not a big fan of Olbermann. Maybe you should pick a fight with someone else who cares.
I am not picking a fight , I was asking a specific question. So it is ok if you do not even discuss the story, but its not ok if you discuss the story but do not mention that Bush is evil( which 70% of Americans agree and hate the man). I get it.
I would assume it is up to each individual to decide for themselves how they feel about an American citizen denied their rights for over 3 years by this administration.
Just give the people the information and let them decide for themselves. Withholding information is making that decision for them. Several posters have commented that they don't think it is a big deal. I would have to wonder why they would necessarily object to the public being informed about it.
Thank you, that was a good answer.
The topic is how Gibson's omission of the role that the Bush administration played in the unlawful detention of a US citizen made the Bush administration look better than they deserved to look.
They should have the unflattering portrayal of their failure to honor the US Constitution pointed out when his conviction is mentioned. Other network news shows mentioned it. Gibson didn't.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME. The three year detention WAS a violation of the sixth amendment guarantee of a speedy trial that WAS the point of the headline. Why are you being so intentionally obtuse and pretending that ISNT the point of the headline?
The bias is the bias that allows this story to be told without mentioning the illegal and immoral detention without the rights a citizen should have. The bias fails to give the Bush administration the burden it should carry for having denied basic legal rights to a citizen. It furthers the conservative agenda by failing to note that denial.
I want bad people punished, but I want our laws followed when trying to punish bad people, because every citizen deserves those rights, even if they are a bad person. If you deny those rights to any of us, you deny them to all of us.
I see the point you are trying to make here, tommy. It isn't funny. You are simply making an a$$ out of yourself by doing it.
Open_Mind,
This thread is about Gibson's omission of the 3 yr detention...can we agree on that much?
Why do you think he omitted it?
J, That is exactly what this thread is about, Gibson's omission and how upsetting that is to some. I have already said I could care less about the omission, but I never said I could care less about the 3 yr detention - but that is not the topic of this media misinformation thread.
Those that are hurt by the media mistreatment of Padilla don't want to admit that, but their constant reverting back to the civil rights discussion only reinforces that point.
Tommy, I don't understand how everyone is missing the obvious here. Or maybe they aren't? Perhaps this thread is so weak because it can only name ONE anchor that missed part of the story that some posters need to change the discussion.
No clue either.....and I get accused of derailing threads. This is a topic about media misinformation, Gibson misinforming his viewers through omission - a clear cut case. Although considering we don't know Padilla's political affiliation, I wonder why it's even here?
You and I have said we don't care about the omission by Gibson - but everyone wants to talk about civil rights. More head scratching.
It's here because it fails to hold the administration accountable for the illegal detention of an American citizen. The administration is run by Republicans.
Quit acting dumb.
Get off your high horse about personal insults, you have no moral authority here.
Keep repeating the same diversionary tactics used by all other sympathetic liberals who are just upset at the mistreatment of Padilla by Gibson.
That's the topic thread, sorry if that's "dumb" to you.
Oh, on the contrary. When I say an argument is stupid, it's made fully clear by others or by me why that is the case. When you lob insults it's because there's a point you are repeatedly refusing to address.
Don't even pretend I could be at such a low level as you commonly display, anyone who's familiar with our respective histories knows better.
Oh please. Your arrogance is astonishing. Your petty insults are warranted, or you had no choice? - but mine are gratuitous and because I can't debate properly.
You go with that little self fulfilling fantasy. And then your defense is all your fellow liberals will back you up, and I am supposed to be impressed by that?
Sell it somewhere else.
"Your petty insults are warranted, or you had no choice? - but mine are gratuitous and because I can't debate properly."
You're free to post examples to the contrary if you like. But you know your history, talking about my upbringing, lobbing an insult for no reason, then refusing to apologize, etc. If you can find anything remotely similar on my end, then you have a point.
If you can't, then what I'm saying is true, despite your lame protests.
I don't apologize for my opinions, or for my posts that are directed to those that are deserved, sorry.
But I certainly am not desperate enough, unlike you, to rationalize my insults or bolster my arguments by pointing to like minded liberals and saying "see, they agree with me".
If that's your defense, then I am glad you are safely posting here within the friendly liberal confines of MMFA - you weak arguments or partisan insults wouldn't hold up elsewhere without reinforcements, apparently.
You stay put.
"I don't apologize for my opinions, or for my posts that are directed to those that are deserved, sorry."
So what you're saying is that your petty insults were warranted, or you had no choice?
"But I certainly am not desperate enough, unlike you, to rationalize my insults or bolster my arguments by pointing to like minded liberals and saying "see, they agree with me"."
You just did rationalize your insults above. You can dismiss anyone's recognition of our histories here if you want, that doesn't change the reality of the matter. That's exactly why people don't ignore your behavior, they point it out to establish the pattern. It's done for the exact purpose of throwing it in your face when you pretend to be able to criticize people for being disingenuous or insulting.
All you have is the disingenuous and weak brush-off that I'm relying on help from anyone. I'm not. My history is out there for anyone to see. You were invited to provide examples to back up your case, and you couldn't do it.
And that says it all, really.
Tommy, in all seriousness do you or do you not feel Padillas rights were violated? And should Charles Gibson have mentioned that in his report?
Doris, in all due respect you are completely off on this topic.
Casey provide specifics in how I am off base on this topic? Does rights and freedoms count in this discussion? I have always had respect for your opinions and never mocked them, I would hope you would have the same respect for me. I feel very passionate about this case. Padilla innocent or guilty deserved equal protection as an American like the rest of us. This reminded me of Nazi Germany.
I agree. Some here are trying to be funny and acting like MMFA is coming to the defense of Padilla rather than the real heart of the matter - the omission of the fact that this administration has imprisoned an American citizen without charges for over 3 years and would have continued to do so likely if the case was not brought to the Supreme Court.
Doris , Padillas rights were not violated, he was given a fair trial. You are coming across as a friend of terrorists when you show support for scum like this.
Um, wasn't the administration arguing that they could hold him indefinitely without trial?
Casey, I am very disapointed in you . To resort to calling me a friend of a terrorist becuase I feel that the Civil Rights of an American citizen are important to uphold? Very disapointed.
You obviously haven't been paying attention at all.
Paying attention to what? I Still do not understand the anger about what Gibson did.
It's what Gibson didn't do that's relevant. If you haven't gotten the message yet that the reason this is here is because by not pointing out the illegal 3 year detention without a charge, Gibson didn't give the Bush administration the blame they deserve for that illegal detention, then there's no hope for you at all.
Multiple people have stated that reason countless times. How could you have missed it?
Oh yes they were. The sixth amendment doesnt say you have a right to a trial eventually whenever an administration feels like giving you one it guarantees a right to a SPEEDY TRIAL BY YOUR PEERS. No possible reading of three years without access to a lawyer in solitary confinement as being given a speedy trial.
Being held for 3 years without a trial is being treated fairly?
What planet are you from? In the good old USA, having a trial is not the only thing that matters when you're talking about someone who has been accused of a crime being treated fairly!
He can pretend all he wants. You nailed it.
It's not the disadvantage to Padilla's image that's the issue. It's the absence of the negative history that would make the Bush administration look bad that's the issue.
Jeter, Tommy,
Man, you guys were soooo close there. Just didn't quite reach it...
In your minds, can you separate the 3-year detention from Padilla? One is an act of a tyrannical government ignoring legal rights, the other is a citizen who was convicted of plotting to aid terrorists. Most here think that it was irresponsible for Gibson to report the Padilla conviction without reporting the associated circumstances of the 3-year detention without charges.
Basically, this story was all about poor quality reporting which omitted important related information from a story. If you don't think a tyrannical government withholding civil rights at their own discretion is important, then I can understand your confusion.
My conflict is that I don't know that Gibson didn't assume that the 3-year detention story wasn't already well-enough known among his audience that he needed to repeat it.
Neon,
I will answer this one more time because my fingers are exhausted.......and I'm getting ridiculoulsy repetitive and it's time to move on.
I never meant to inflame this argument into what it's become. My own opinion was that the omission by Gibson was immaterial to me, I could care less if his reporting put Padilla in a worse light, or Bush in a better light or any light whatsoever. I don't care, in my opinion.
If this report had been about someone worthy of my empathy or concern for even two seconds, then maybe I would share the other poster's ire against the omission. But it's Padilla, so for me I have no empathy towards any misinformation out there about him. I am sorry, that is my opinion.
I did not even view this in any Bush or Republican context either, you know me, you know I could care less about how Bush or the Republicans look. So that did not even enter in my thinking at all.
As for Padilla being denied any rights, that is not the explicit topic here either. So for me to go off on it either way is irrelevant. Yes, he was denied basic rights, but I will not shed any tears over him personally.
This is my opinion, nothing more. Thank you for your thoughtful post.
At least you admit you don't take the Constitution seriously. I can't say I'm surprised. You just don't get it.
Because it was someone generally detested, all principles just fly out the window.
Open_mind
In all seriouslness, I think the problem with this thread is that Padila is such a hateful figure. I understand what people say about the civil rights of this man but look at the big picture. As for Gibson he is truly one of the few honorable men in the media today.
Principles and rights do not change depending on the individual involved. It was once called the rule of law.
Padilla is a dispicable figure, and I have no problem with Gibson overall, a good journalist can make a mistake. Leaving this out was most definitly WRONG.
I tried to be honest about my feelings and opinions, but you twisted it to satisfy your contempt for me. What a classy guy you are.
Have a nice evening.
Where did I imply in that post you were being dishonest? I think your honesty is just as troubling as the massive amount of dishonesty you have posted here today. Sorry if that hurts, but I am just being honest.
It's not the misinformation about Padilla that's important though. It's the failure to point out the responsibility of the Bush administration in their treatment of Padilla. Padilla is not our concern. It's the Bush administration getting better publicity than they deserve on this issue.
Padilla is not our concern. It's the Bush administration getting better publicity than they deserve on this issue.
Finally a Liberal admits what this is really about. Bush might get good publicity. Can't have that.
Not when he doesn't deserve it. What's unfair about that?
Taz,
I believe this information is pretty deservedly damning, but that is just me. Others here apparently don't think it is a big deal. That is fine as well. Why don't you want ABC News' audience to decide for themselves on this? Seems kind of fascist - if intentional and a disservice to their audience if it isn't to omit this arguably important information.
Padilla is not our concern. It's the Bush administration getting better publicity than they deserve on this issue.
Finally a Liberal admits what this is really about. Bush might get good publicity. Can't have that.
Did you forget what this site is all about? It's about misinformation that furthers the conservative agenda. The failure to mention Padilla's 3 year detention makes the Bush administration look better than they should, and that furthers their agenda, because they don't want him held fully accountable for his administration's behavior.
When Bush deserves good publicity I am all for giving it to him. He deserved more negative publicity here, and Gibson didn't give it to him. If you cared about the truth more and about your side of the aisle less, this would bother you too.
And I didn't "finally admit" anything. I said the same thing, as did other people, multiple times.
His political affiliation is irrelevant. Its conservative misinformation because it furthers a conservative agenda that is protecting this administration from scrutiny for a violation of the Bill of Rights.
It's you and Tommy who have tried to change the subject.
The subject is not our good feelings towards Padilla. It's the cover for the Bush administration that Gibson provided when he didn't mention a very relevant fact when he failed to discuss the 3 year detention without charges.
Exactly. I think tommy and jeter's newfound literalism is pretty disingenuous and an attempt to skirt the real issue here.
The subject is not our good feelings towards Padilla. It's the cover for the Bush administration that Gibson provided when he didn't mention a very relevant fact when he failed to discuss the 3 year detention without charges.
Well I never posted a word about anyone's "good feelings" toward Padilla, so I'll wait for an apology on that [not holding my breath of course]
Unless you can prove that Gibson deliberately omitted a part of the story to cover for Bush then it's bad reporting not a nefarious Conservative agenda
If CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, & MSNBC all covered this story in it's entirety then Gibson's omission, for whatever reason, is perhaps sloppy, but hardly glaring in assessing the media in general.
"Unless you can prove that Gibson deliberately omitted a part of the story to cover for Bush then it's bad reporting not a nefarious Conservative agenda"--jeter
Why does Gibson's omission have to necessarily be deliberate? I don't understand that. Is it not misinformation if it isn't intentional? I think it is indeed bad reporting. The public should know about what the Bush Administration did. Do you disagree?
Numerous times you and/or Tommy and/or your crew have talked about how the issue is the bad treatment of Padilla and we want to mollycoddle him. I've copied many of those occurences below. The comment I made about "good feelings" is a reply to you after you replied to Tommy. He said "J, That is exactly what this thread is about, Gibson's omission and how upsetting that is to some." You agreed with him by saying "Tommy, I don't understand how everyone is missing the obvious here."
the man wanted to kill you and I and you do not seem to care.
So Padilla is innocent?
Padilla could care less about political partisanship he wanted to kill us because we are American. My feeling is you probably do not care about that and instead want to use this to smear the Bush administration.
So Padilla never wanted to see anyone killed? Was that your point?
But getting bent out of shape because Gibson didn't mention the 3yr detention? Nope.
Thank you J, that was exactly my point.
That Gibson did not detail every detail about this worthless terrorist. My heart bleeds for the lack of fairness shown in the media towards Padilla.
it is about how upset you all are getting about the media's mistreatment of him
Are you upset that this report by Gibson puts Padilla in a less than flattering light than you'd like?
So, you are more concerned with Bush looking bad than a thug terrorist?
Those that are sympathizing with Padilla's mistreatment here
You and your fellow liberals are stomping your collective sympathetic feet at the fact that Padilla is not being given a fair shake
Breathtaking??
Aren't you getting a tad dramatic there Solon
This thread is about Gibson's omission of the 3 yr detention
That is exactly what this thread is about, Gibson's omission and how upsetting that is to some.
Those that are hurt by the media mistreatment of Padilla don't want to admit that
Tommy, I don't understand how everyone is missing the obvious here. - this is you agreeing with Tommy who just got done saying that this is about our good feelings toward Padilla!
In all seriouslness, I think the problem with this thread is that Padila is such a hateful figure. I understand what people say about the civil rights of this man but look at the big picture.
You never change Sue, do you? Still misquoting or misinterpreting to suit your non points.
He said "J, That is exactly what this thread is about, Gibson's omission and how upsetting that is to some." You agreed with him by saying "Tommy, I don't understand how everyone is missing the obvious here."
Doing a little omitting there yourself eh Sue?
Now here's my reply:
Tommy, I don't understand how everyone is missing the obvious here. Or maybe they aren't? Perhaps this thread is so weak because it can only name ONE anchor that missed part of the story that some posters need to change the discussion.
Gee sounds a bit different when not pulled out of context you friggin liar.
the man wanted to kill you and I and you do not seem to care.
So Padilla is innocent?
Padilla could care less about political partisanship he wanted to kill us because we are American. My feeling is you probably do not care about that and instead want to use this to smear the Bush administration.
So Padilla never wanted to see anyone killed? Was that your point?
I WROTE NONE OF THE ABOVE
Sue go to hell.
Jeter are you saying I should go to hell?
No not you SueEld!!
That was for NoMoBush, who we all really know is a much hated poster named Sue. She got banned from here ages ago...but keeps coming back under new names.
Sorry for the mix-up...I like you a lot :-)
We dont all know any such thing. I doubt it myself. Just because tommy keeps saying it doesnt establish it as a fact.
Jeter,
While you may not have written much of that, you didn't correct some of these posters - especially tommy who said some pretty vile and disgusting things here like the ones that explicitly charged liberals on this site and/or MMFA as sympathizing with Padilla etc. That is what got me pretty angry. Tommy just kept repeating it taking the anger he was causing as confirmation he was right. Maybe you missed those hundred or so posts of his doing that. I took your support for him as support for those things he kept repeating.
Open_Mind I was agreeing with Tommy that this thread was about Gibson's omission. That should have been clear in my posts.
There was no need for me to "correct" Tommy, he was stating his opinion, not facts.
This thread was not about Gibson's omission, though. It was about how Gibson's omission helps the Bush administration, and there's a big difference between what you say it was about and what it was really about. Tommy was saying that it was all about our sympathy for Padilla.
I don't really have a problem with even saying this is about Gibson's omission. Your own argument would seem to be an obvious part of that discussion. On the other hand, Tommy wanted a much narrower interpretation of the topic than Jeter did and tommy wouldn't hear anything that didn't fit into that narrow self-serving and insulting view of the topic. It made him look pretty cowardly.
I never said you wrote all of the above.
Delusional as always.
As I said
"Numerous times you and/or Tommy and/or your crew have talked about how the issue is the bad treatment of Padilla and we want to mollycoddle him. I've copied many of those occurences below." I never said that you said all of those things, but I did highlight it when you specifically supported that false talking point. You agreed with Tommy. The stuff that came after that didn't change the agreement, so it was unnecessary to include it. Only a desperate person would try to claim that your second sentence was necessary and my omission was a sin, because the second sentence did nothing to contradict the first! The second sentence was on another point. Only the first sentence was about your agreement with Tommy's invalid point. I didn't neglect to include anything relevant. I don't know what Sue used to do, because I'm not Sue, but in any case, I didn't do anything wrong here!
It's too bad that when you get caught like you were caught today, you resort to personal attacks rather than admitting your error.
The issue was always how his failure to mention the Bush administration's behavior in regard to the 3 year detention gives them a pass on that responsibility and the shame they deserve for that behavior. You and Tommy and your crew tried really hard to ignore that, even after you all were told countless times.
Only a desperate person would try to claim that your second sentence was necessary and my omission was a sin, because the second sentence did nothing to contradict the first! The second sentence was on another point. Only the first sentence was about your agreement with Tommy's invalid point....by Sue aka NoMoBush
Now you're a mind reader???
I was stating quite clearly that everyone was missing the obvious--which in my opinion was the subject of the thread...Gibson's omission.
Tommy, I don't understand how everyone is missing the obvious here. Or maybe they aren't? Perhaps this thread is so weak because it can only name ONE anchor that missed part of the story that some posters need to change the discussion.
One thought NOT two:
is missing the obvious here. Or maybe they aren't? Perhaps this thread is so weak
You wrote: Numerous times you and/or Tommy and/or your crew have talked about how the issue is the bad treatment of Padilla and we want to mollycoddle him.
I didn't write any such thing. Stop lying.
Maybe you can't stop lying NoMoSue. Must be a sickness.
You did too. You agreed with Tommy several times, and he agreed with you. You never disagreed with him, and by those actions, you stood behind the same things that he did.
You did too. You agreed with Tommy several times, and he agreed with you.
We agreed about what we believed was the subject of this thread...Gibson's omission of the 3yr detention. Neither of us saw it as nefarious on Gibson or ABC's part. IF you were an honest person, which you clearly are not, you would admit that NOT ONCE did I make any comment about bad treatment of Padilla & Liberals wanting to "mollycoddle" him.
I suggest that you either cough up posts to prove otherwise or STFU.
We both know you can't or you would have done so by now. You are such a friggin liar, & it's nice to have everyone see you for what you are.
You never disagreed with him, and by those actions, you stood behind the same things that he did.
Oh good Lord-- man you are delusional! No make that deranged...Seriously, that sounds more like what passes for logic in the Bush administration.
Is this the new standard you've suddenly dictated at your whim? So if you don't post a disagreement then you automatically agree? Who the f#ck put you in charge of the rules?
Maybe I'll comb through every thread here to see who you didn't disagree with & figure it must mean you obviously agreed with them. Could be some surprises...
Go take your meds NoMoSue. Then get back to the mothership before they leave without you back to whatever planet you came from.
Jeter,
I see your point and apologize for taking your statements of agreement with tommy to go beyond what you have stated.
In tommy's responses to your IMO more legitimate analysis, tommy would not-so-subtly tack on his own little insulting nonsense onto your point. A much more narrow and IMO false interpretation of the topic than what you said.
Maybe you didn't catch what he was doing, but he was definitely poisoning your own posts by doing this. Your further agreement with him that you were both arguing the same point - (which a careful review of your posts shows not to be true) only made the confusion worse. Here is a perfect example of one such exchange:
Open_Mind,
This thread is about Gibson's omission of the 3 yr detention...can we agree on that much?
Why do you think he omitted it?
- jeter2 / Friday August 17, 2007 05:19:45 PM EST - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
J, That is exactly what this thread is about, Gibson's omission and how upsetting that is to some. I have already said I could care less about the omission, but I never said I could care less about the 3 yr detention - but that is not the topic of this media misinformation thread.
Those that are hurt by the media mistreatment of Padilla don't want to admit that, but their constant reverting back to the civil rights discussion only reinforces that point.
- tommy / Friday August 17, 2007 05:25:17 PM EST - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
When I said you failed to "correct" tommy is referring to your not telling tommy "No. I wasn't quite arguing that" or something to that effect. Since you didn't do that, and continue to indicate your complete agreement with him, I was under the apparently mistaken impression you were completely endorsing tommy's insulting words. It now appears you don't believe you were doing that and I will take you at your word. I am sorry for that.
Open_Mind,Thank you for your post & apology. I appreciate it :-)I went back through the threads myself & could only find one post [the one you cited] where there could have been some confusion about the exchange between Tommy & I. I'm sure that at the time I was more focused on the point we [Tommy & I] were agreeing on [Gibson's omission & a motive behind it or in this case lack of one] & did not catch, or perhaps pay any attention to him writing "Those that are hurt by the media mistreatment of Padilla don't want to admit that". As I believe you've noted, I never made any mention of that myself. And for good reason. I didn't agree with it. Others here [JLyon, SueEld etc] did get into that discussion, & had I agreed with them I would have posted as much.My point here, lost among the 350 plus posts may have seemed to some to be very narrow.So I'll try to explain: MMFA has often highlighted instances when just ONE single anchor [Katie Couric comes to mind] or ONE single other news source has not covered a particular story...even though everyone else seemingly has. I simply felt that this ONE omission by ONE anchor [Brian Williams] was not part of some nefarious Conservative agenda to protect Bush or anyone else. I even wrote in one post that I wasn't discussing civil rights, I was discussing the media.That was my point. Guess just about everybody else was arguing about something different.Let me add to that discussion now:Of course I expect the media to cover an entire story, warts & all. And it was important for Padilla's 3 year detention to be included in this particular story. However, I didn't believe William's omission was intentional & believed it was nothing more than sloppy reporting. No excuse of course, but IMO, a more realistic explanation than ABC trying to protect the Bush administration. Also if every other media source was reporting the complete story, then I wasn't too worried that the public would be mis-informed.Anyway that was my argument in a nutshell. Hope it clears things up for you & anyone else who wasn't certain what the heck I was going on about on Friday.One more note: I do not appreciate posters like NoMoBush [SUE] misquoting me & lying about my opinions. And I appreciate that you Open_Mind & others here, even when we disagree, do not stoop to those type of tactics.
Just to clarify here, this is what you said:"Are you saying that Gibson & ABC deliberately set about to cover-up the story?...That was what I thought this thread was about."
The only reference I see to anything that might justify that take is the phrase "give cover", which was said by Nomobush, but your comment above was directed at Open_mind, after he said that intent wasn't the concern. Additionally you said "Perhaps this thread is so weak because it can only name ONE anchor that missed part of the story that some posters need to change the discussion". The way all this comes off is that you're talking about the MMfA item itself, as if it's not a valid example of misinformation just because only one anchor failed to mention it, or because it doesn't prove intent. When several people asked for clarification, you didn't answer any of them.
Surely you've seen items on here where only one person said something false or omitted something. But for some odd reason, this one isn't worth mentioning at all because not everyone was misinformed. And if the commentary about intent was regarding the item itself, that's equally puzzling coming from someone who's been here longer than a day or two.
Maybe it's just such a long thread that there's some vital context I'm missing. Otherwise, I'm genuinely curious what you were talking about.
I'm genuinely curious what you were talking about.
You'll have to forgive me Brabantio for questioning your sincerity here, considering your lack of scrutinizing & questioning your own Liberal clique with the persistence you expend on Conservative posters. NoMoBush has misquoted & smeared me, yet not a peep from you or the others. Interesting.
Though it may be difficult to follow this rambling 350 plus thread I believe I was quite explicit on what part of this topic I personally was examining & offering my opinion about. From the start I said it was wrong to hold this man in detention for 3 years. That was the extent to my opinion on civil rights. Instead of expanding on that I chose to cover the omission by Williams. I even wrote that I was not discussing civil rights, but instead the media. MMFA is after all a media watchdog. My opinion was that MMFA had included this thread to somehow claim that Williams omission was proof that he, as a member of the media, was furthering the Conservative agenda. Intent is very much a part of what posters here often point to. As did I.
I wrote:
Unless you can prove that Gibson deliberately omitted a part of the story to cover for Bush then it's bad reporting not a nefarious Conservative agenda
- jeter2 / Friday August 17, 2007 06:09:20 PM EST
That I chose to post about this rather than concentrate on Padilla's civil rights, somehow has caused several here to have a friggin meltdown.
This is hardly a new direction for me. I've questioned similar threads in the past. I realize many of you here think the entire media met with Rove every morning for coffee & to get the GOP talking points, but I've never bought into the paranoia of some here about a nefarious Conservative biased media out there. Bias, Liberal & Conservative can be found scattered among the press. Just because MMFA ONLY highlights ONE side doesn't mean it is telling the full story.
As for me not answering EVERY post here, please I do have a life, & that doesn't include going through a 350 plus thread to address everyone.
I've already wasted too much time having to defend myself for not conforming to what you & others apparently have set down as the rules of engagement.
"You'll have to forgive me Brabantio for questioning your sincerity here, considering your lack of scrutinizing & questioning your own Liberal clique with the persistence you expend on Conservative posters."
Actually, you may have noticed that I've been very much in step with Open_mind on this thread, yet on the O'Reilly "relax on the gay stuff" thread I corrected him and took issue with what he was saying. While doing that I actually helped to support what Wesley was saying. Do you understand that? Wesley. If you're familiar with my history with him, you should feel embarrassed for saying I'm purely partisan or unfair. If I were a reasonable conservative, I would have corrected Tommy because he was so far out of line. I've defended Tommy and I've defended you in the past, although you're not giving me a lot of motivation to be so fair in the future. Think about that, instead of being so defensive, please.
"Furthering conservative misinformation" in no way speaks to intent. I can make a mistake and further someone else's goals. I don't care how many times you've said it, it's nonsense.
I know what you said about bad reporting. It is bad reporting, and that qualifies as misinformation. The civil rights aspect is exactly what makes the omission a valid criticism of someone in the media. You seem to want to separate the two, and I don't understand how that works in your head. Nor do you seem able to clarify it.
But if you can't explain it, then you're clinging to an irrational position. I expect better from you, and perhaps I'm wrong for doing so. Forgive me for daring to ask you for clarification, so I could better understand where you were coming from. How unfair of me, truly.
Actually, you may have noticed that I've been very much in step with Open_mind on this thread, yet on the O'Reilly "relax on the gay stuff" thread I corrected him and took issue with what he was saying. While doing that I actually helped to support what Wesley was saying. Do you understand that? Wesley. If you're familiar with my history with him, you should feel embarrassed for saying I'm purely partisan or unfair
No I didn't catch your disagreement with Open_Mind, or agreement with Wesley. You are to be commended then for doing what I do on a fairly regular basis: Not come at every issue as a partisan & attempt to be fair.
If I were a reasonable conservative, I would have corrected Tommy because he was so far out of line.
Should I have also corrected JLyon, SueEld, CaseySpring etc? They also appeared to agree with Tommy's stance on this topic. I don't understand why you expect me to spend my time here "correcting" every Conservative that posts an opinion. Am I their legal guardian?
There was no need for me to jump into the fray on this thread as it appeared they were all getting a thrashing from the Liberals here.
Often times I scroll past posts by RINO, NL, auto etc without offering an opinion or a scolding...& thus far no one has criticized me for not reaming them out.
This insistence by you that I was expected to "correct" Tommy is ridiculous.
I've read some whacked out posts here from Liberal posters & not seen even one of you other Liberals "correct" them. Heru is a great example. This guy spews racist insulting crap here about Conservatives & none of you "correct" him.
"Furthering conservative misinformation" in no way speaks to intent. I can make a mistake and further someone else's goals. I don't care how many times you've said it, it's nonsense.
Huh? Of course it can. If Rove or some Conservative pundit spins information, & it turns out to be mis-information, are you saying he didn't intend on doing just that?
I know what you said about bad reporting. It is bad reporting, and that qualifies as misinformation. The civil rights aspect is exactly what makes the omission a valid criticism of someone in the media. You seem to want to separate the two, and I don't understand how that works in your head. Nor do you seem able to clarify it.
How many times do I need to clarify this for you? I wrote:
From the start I said it was wrong to hold this man in detention for 3 years. That was the extent to my opinion on civil rights. Instead of expanding on that I chose to cover the omission by Williams. I even wrote that I was not discussing civil rights, but instead the media. MMFA is after all a media watchdog. My opinion was that MMFA had included this thread to somehow claim that Williams omission was proof that he, as a member of the media, was furthering the Conservative agenda. Intent is very much a part of what posters here often point to. As did I.
Also IF you read my reply to Open_Mind above I wrote:
.Let me add to that discussion now:Of course I expect the media to cover an entire story, warts & all. And it was important for Padilla's 3 year detention to be included in this particular story. However, I didn't believe William's omission was intentional & believed it was nothing more than sloppy reporting. No excuse of course, but IMO, a more realistic explanation than ABC trying to protect the Bush administration. Also if every other media source was reporting the complete story, then I wasn't too worried that the public would be mis-informed
If this doesn't clear thing up for you, then nothing more I can say will.
You didn't have to disagree with anyone else because you weren't having a dialogue with any of them. You were having a dialogue with Tommy, and that's the difference. If someone says something outrageous when seeming to agree with me, I point it out. I'm not saying you have to read everyone's posts and chastise them if you disagree, or that you should be expected to do so. I would have tried to avoid that misunderstanding, whether fair or unfair, that's all I'm saying.
People like Heru and Coop get flagged. I'm the one who flagged all of Coop's posts last time I saw him here, because his behavior is unacceptable. What was your point again?
"Huh? Of course it can. If Rove or some Conservative pundit spins information, & it turns out to be mis-information, are you saying he didn't intend on doing just that?"
Huh yourself. You're reversing the argument. It can be intentional and be misinformation, but it doesn't have to be intentional to be misinformation. You are confusing "part-to-whole" with "whole-to-part" reasoning here.
None of this is a clarification, and it never was. I know exactly what you said, but you are relying on these planted axioms of intent and number of misinformers to say that the item wasn't actually about media misinformation, or that it's somehow weak. One person can say something misleading, without intent, and without proving anything about a general bias, and it's still misinformation. Gibson's audience was left in the dark, whether they could have gotten that information on another network or not. Your supposed clarification is irrelevant to what I've been saying the whole time. If you can't even make an attempt to actually address what I'm saying, then indeed nothing you post can help your cause.
If you can't even make an attempt to actually address what I'm saying, then indeed nothing you post can help your cause.
Help my cause?
What cause would that be? To try & convince a closed minded individual who has already decided he is correct & nothing sort of agreeing with him is the answer.
No thanks.
Help my cause.. geez what am I on trial or something? What a friggin pompous thing to say.
To make it look like you're not saying something completely nonsensical. Why is this unfair? What's pompous about the fact that you appear to be criticizing MMfA for absolutely nothing, like Tommy does so often?
How am I being closed-minded here? I'm asking questions you refuse to answer. I'm waiting to understand your rationale here, but if you don't give me anything meaningful, how can I?
How am I supposed to be the bad guy here? Really, what is going on with you?
I went back and looked at the Gibson/Stewart thread from Wednesday, and I noticed that "readeverything" said that Imus wasn't a qualifier for the "worst person in the world" because it was just "name-calling". If that wasn't archived, I would disagree with that, and I'll do so here instead.
That's backing you up, and I'm disagreeing with someone who seems to be "on my side". I can recognize that you were right there, but still question you here. If that seems insincere, that's something you'll have to figure out on your own I guess.
brabantio,
If I had a history here of being insincere, then I'd understand why you'd be questioning me on this. I've always posted simply what I've thought, & I believe my history will clearly show it hasn't always been what is concidered to parrot Consevative opinion.
You'll just have to take me at my word.
The whole point is that I find this glaring lapse of reasoning unusual for you, which is why I wanted to give you a chance to address the points or point out any context I may have missed. From what I saw, it seemed like your (justified) hatred of Padilla was clouding your judgement, not necessarily having anything to do with honesty or sincerity on your part. Your defensive reaction to an honest question on my part didn't do anything to erase that impression.
From what I saw, it seemed like your (justified) hatred of Padilla was clouding your judgment
Sorry your mind-reading skills are off-kilter. My judgment is just fine, thanks.
Your defensive reaction to an honest question on my part didn't do anything to erase that impression.
Defensive my ass. How many times do I need to explain my postion to you? I'm sorry I bothered wasting my time even responding to your posts. And quite frankly at this point I couldn't care less about your "impressions".
BTW I don't appreciate your condescending attitude.
Well if that wasn't the cause, then why are you being so unreasonable that you can't address my point? You have not clarified anything, and you're going into a snit because I'm not going to take your word that you have a valid argument, when there's no evidence of it elsewhere.
I think I have to go back to what Tommy said, that if your reaction to an honest question is like this, you might want to either ask yourself why, or just stop. This is becoming alarming, frankly, and I have no idea what's gotten into you.
"However, I didn't believe William's omission was intentional & believed it was nothing more than sloppy reporting. No excuse of course, but IMO, a more realistic explanation than ABC trying to protect the Bush administration. Also if every other media source was reporting the complete story, then I wasn't too worried that the public would be mis-informed.Anyway that was my argument in a nutshell."--jeter
I wish we could start all over. I understand your argument and don't find any part of it offensive. I hope you get a chance to read this and I am looking forward to your response.
I agree with you that this is pretty sloppy reporting. I disagree that misinforming people requires an intent component to do so. I don't see where MMFA has ever stated it was necessary either. Regardless, this omission would seem to benefit the administration independent of any intent.
Secondly, more than 7 million people per week - more than twice as many people than even watch the O'Reilly Factor in a given week watch ABC Evening News. That said, I haven't seen anyone post that O'Reilly threads not be addressed at all merely because people could get the correct information somewhere else or that because something was widely reported elsewhere (even though his much lower ratings would seem to merit that argument more than that argument would seem to apply to Gibson). I don't think it is ureasonable to assume that for some people, ABC News may be their only source for information. Not everyone even has cable, the internet or gets newspapers - Gibson is broadcast over the air. Do you agree that there are some people who are likely being denied pertinant information (intended or not) that should hear it? I have no idea how many people that would be, but I'm guessing you don't either - so does that even really matter to the argument? Wouldn't the likelihood that anyone was likely misinformed as a result of the omission give MMFA adequate enough reason to criticize it?
Open_Mind, I hope everything is cool with us:-)
I think of you as one of my cyber-buddies here & you are one of the most civil & reasonable posters on this forum & I respect your opinions.
I agree with you that this is pretty sloppy reporting. I disagree that misinforming people requires an intent component to do so. I don't see where MMFA has ever stated it was necessary either. Regardless, this omission would seem to benefit the administration independent of any intent.
You're right, mis-informing does not necessarily require intent. Sorry, I guess I kept missing and/or refusing to see that point. MMFA does not accuse mis-information as being deliberate, however I have read [at least here on this forum] posters often accusing the "mis-informer" of doing it intentionally. And doing it to further a Conservative agenda. Of course for many it often may depend on the messenger. Mis-information delivered by a FOX host for example. But an honest mistake or omission by a neutral source can also produce mis-information.
Secondly, more than 7 million people per week - more than twice as many people than even watch the O'Reilly Factor in a given week watch ABC Evening News. That said, I haven't seen anyone post that O'Reilly threads not be addressed at all merely because people could get the correct information somewhere else or that because something was widely reported elsewhere
Another good point, though I've probably been guilty myself of making that very argument IF it happen to be a particularly well known news event. Not that O'Reilly shouldn't be called on the carpet--just that most folks probably heard the story elsewhere so any mis-information Billy was spewing would only affect that portion of his audience that only got the info from him. Or believed him over other sources.
I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that for some people, ABC News may be their only source for information. Not everyone even has cable, the internet or gets newspapers - Gibson is broadcast over the air. Do you agree that there are some people who are likely being denied pertinent information (intended or not) that should hear it? I have no idea how many people that would be, but I'm guessing you don't either - so does that even really matter to the argument?
I sometimes forget that not everyone has cable or access to the internet, & perhaps I also assume [wrongly] that most folks must be reading newspapers/magazines to supplement their news...just because some of us do. Of course if one only listens to a 30 minute news summary every evening they are likely missing a great many stories that might be important in forming intelligent opinions. But, again I see your point [much better now]
Wouldn't the likelihood that anyone was likely misinformed as a result of the omission give MMFA adequate enough reason to criticize it?
Absolutely. I think what got me here was the near hysteria by some that Gibson's omission had poisoned the entire nation about their civil rights by not including that part of the Padilla story. This is why I wrote that one omission by one anchor did not worry me as the story was covered elsewhere. Perhaps I came off as a tad cavalier about the situation.
Did this omission help the Bush administration? Well I suppose it could have if the folks that only heard about the conviction of this guy & not the 3yr detention credited Bush with locking away another bad guy. I'd like to believe that most of this nation wouldn't credit Bush with getting across the street safely without someone to hold his hand.
I wish this thread had just been posted. I'd like to hope I'd be a bit more mindful of what I was writing.
BTW, I noticed on some of my posts I'd written Brian Williams instead of Charles Gibson. Sorry for my mix-up. Or mis-information LOL ;-)
Since you've come back, can you explain what set you off so badly earlier? The only thing I see in my original post on this page (which asks the same questions as Open_mind) was the "longer than a day or two" part. If that was over the line, I apologize. I wasn't trying to antagonize you, I really wanted to know what you were saying. Otherwise, I don't see the difference in tone between the two requests for clarification of your position. I'm asking for my own knowledge, honestly, because I'd like to know what I did.
Also realize that my point about Tommy was simply to demonstrate that I'm not interested in cliques. That's not saying you are, or you were obligated to do anything. It was just to further address your questioning of my sincerity.
The response you gave to Open_mind was exactly the sort of thing I normally expect from you. I'm glad to see it, and glad to hear you address the matter. Thank you.
Brabantio,
Thank you for your post. I was actually going to come back later [after I wrote to Open_Mind] and respond to your last post from yesterday. And apologize. You've backed me in the past & I have always appreciated that. You had every right to ask me what exactly I was getting at. Perhaps yesterday I couldn't convey it very well.
I suppose the easy explanation for my tone with you yesterday was that I was still heated about NoMoBush's B.S. in mis-quoting me. I don't mind someone throwing up what I wrote, but it bugs the hell out of me when someone lies & I have to spend time defending myself. NoMoBush does that a lot. Of course I believe NoMoBush is really Sue, but that's another topic which has nada to do with you, but I guess I felt as if I was getting piled on here, & I felt as if you were talking down to me as if I were a naughty 8 yr old. That may have been a faulty impression on my part, but that's the way it came off to me during our discussion yesterday. And perhaps I was being a tad pig-headed as well.
I may have simply been in an defensive mode so anything you wrote rubbed me wrong. I do apologize for my snippy attitude.
These long threads are often hard to follow, & after awhile I give up trying to reply to everyone that has left me a post. I usually just find a few that essentially say something similar & reply to one or two of those.
This morning when I replied to Open_Mind, maybe I was simply thinking clearer. New morning. New day.
Again, sorry for going off on you yesterday. Hope between this post & the one I wrote Open_Mind, my explanation is a bit clearer.
You're a good guy Brab, & that you even bothered to come back here to offer an apology & a good word took a lot of class.
We may not always agree, but I look forward to our discussions/debates in the future :-)
Of course, and thank you for the kind words.
Naturally I wasn't trying to chastise you. As I said in multiple posts yesterday, I was genuinely surprised by what you were saying, and that's why I was pursuing the point.
I admit, the Nomobush thing didn't really occur to me at the time, since that was a separate issue, but that certainly does help to explain things. It's all good.
"Absolutely. I think what got me here was the near hysteria by some that Gibson's omission had poisoned the entire nation about their civil rights by not including that part of the Padilla story." - Jeter
Where did this happen? When?
It didn't happen. There was nothing close to hysteria. There was vociferous disagreement with Tommy that this was what this said about our empathy with Padilla's rights, because that was never the point of MMfA or of us either.
What did happen was an explanation of why this was here for the benefit of anyone deceived by the WITH team.
NoMoSue,
Your histrionics were the worst of the bunch. But then again they usually are.
What part of "where" did you not understand?
You're throwing out accusations without cause.
I never did that. No one did. It never happened. I pointed out that your accusation was without foundation and when I did you make a delusional attack that I'm someone I'm not and then make the same accusation without foundation.
I don't know what planet you're from, but saying the same lie over and over again here on Earth doesn't magically make it become true.
You're throwing out accusations without cause.
I pointed out that your accusation was without foundation
I don't know what planet you're from, but saying the same lie over and over again here on Earth doesn't magically make it become true.
Yeah sounds sort of like what I told you when you kept lying about what I said & couldn't pull a quote out of even your ass to prove it
How's it feel to have the tables turned on ya Susie?
Sue is back on her game Smearing again. It is really quite sad how this thread is almost 400 comments long, and many of them are Sue/Ellie attacking and being vicious.
Jeter
Telling someone to "go to hell" is really uncalled for. What is the matter tonight with some of my favorite posters you and Casey? You are both angry and in attack mode?
Sorry Doris I don't usually lose my cool.
Certain posters occasionally deserve it though.
I'm gonna take a few deep breathes & step away from my computer for awhile ;-)
Its ok Jeter, I still like reading your posts . Have a drink ;-)
Two things I dont see how YOU TWO can be missing this point. Second is that IF only Gibson left this part out how isnt that clear evidence to YOU that it is an essential part of the story. NOW once you concede it IS an essential part of the story ask yourself AGAIN why he left it out and whether it can be seen as furthering a conservative agenda therefore being EXACTLY what this site is all about covering.
YOU refuse to concede the point that the media mistreatment was of US, it is OUR RIGHTS at stake, the violation of the sixth amendment is an attack on US.
Jeter,
I don't speculate as to intent. The Bush Administration deserves a good deal of criticism about this. It's omission is not providing the public with proper information that some may be concerned about and entitled to know about.
It's omission is not providing the public with proper information that some may be concerned about and entitled to know about.
Yes by one anchor on one network. This hardly constitutes media bias in general since the entire story was covered I assume [or there would be a thread that read Media ommits 3 yr detention] by every other network.
Are you saying that Gibson & ABC deliberately set about to cover-up the story?
That was what I thought this thread was about. Sorry you find me disingenuous.
Jeter would you agree or not agree that everyone has a right to expand on the thread topic? that is exactly what was done here.
"Yes by one anchor on one network. This hardly constitutes media bias in general..."
This is really surprising coming from you. When did this become the standard for examples of misinformation in the media? Whether by intent or sloppiness or apathy, Gibson omitted a relevant portion of the story that reflects badly on the Bush administration. It's as simple as that.
Nothing you've mentioned has ever been a qualifier for conservative misinformation, not during the entire time you've been here. It can be one person, it can be unintentional, and it doesn't have to prove anything about media bias in general.
"This hardly constitutes media bias in general"--jeter
Perhaps that is the crux of it. I don't care about media bias. Never have. I am not even out to prove it. I see this site as doing what it says it is doing -- pointing out conservative misinformation. I think you are reading into things again. We have had this conversation before. MMFA never mentions bias nor do they try to prove it. If you are infering something different, then that is on you. This is simply misinformation that forwards the conservative (Bush administration) agenda regardless of whatever anyone's intent is.
Great point.
The conservatives have a site which tries to prove liberal bias. MMfA does not. They allow their readers to make those decisions.
"Are you saying that Gibson & ABC deliberately set about to cover-up the story?"
No one said Gibson or ABC did it deliberately.
Exactly, but it is MMFA duty and mission to report the omission. No one said Gibson is on the Karl Rove payroll.
Yes by one anchor on one network. This hardly constitutes media bias in general since the entire story was covered I assume [or there would be a thread that read Media ommits 3 yr detention] by every other network.
Why does it have to be covered by all the networks in order to further the conservative agenda by making the Bush administration not look as bad as they should for the illegal 3 year detention? It doesn't have to constitute media bias in general. All it shows is that Gibson gave cover to the Bush administration.
Are you saying that Gibson & ABC deliberately set about to cover-up the story?
They don't have to have planned to do it for it to have happened. The intent is not the issue. The results are the issue. Often there is bad intent, but it's not required in order for their to be misinformation that furthers the conservative agenda.
The bias is FOR protecting the Bush administration. And FOR hiding an agenda to deny Americans their bill of rights. Apparantly you dont CARE about the Bill of rights excuse us of WE DO.
Solon, the scary thing I see in this discussion is that an American citizens rights were violated and many posters see no issue with that.
I agree completely
No its not, what is dramatic is watching my sixth amendment dissapear before my eyes and other Americans yawning while it happens. ANYONE mentioning this story without that essential element is doing the news consuming public a disservice.
This is why there is nothing wrong with expanding the discussion on this thread. Padillas 6th amendment rights were violated and he was held without being charged by an administration that has played on our fears. I do not believe Gibson is a Administration propagandist however he should issue an expansion on this story.
I have as good an opinion of Gibson as about any of the mainstream reporters. Not that it is relevant. As always its about WHAT not WHO. For whatever reason he blew this story, MMFA called him on it just like they should. They shouldnt give passes to those who usually do a good job.
oh my gosh now i see pure drama......
So you decided to break the tension with a post that is pure comedy?
Free Padilla
Jail Charlie Gibson
Padilla is innocent
Is that the point ?
As usual - no. That's not the point at all. Thanks for coming.
Poor thing.
Then what is the point? Is Gibson a Bush administration talking point? Poor Padila should be released ? Padilla hates Bush so he is ok?
I will ask you this. Do you think the Bush Administration should be noted for trying to deny an American citizen their Constitutional rights? Do you think that omitting that information informs the public properly of what their government is doing?
Do you think the Bush Administration should be noted for trying to deny an American citizen their Constitutional rights? Yes
Do you think that omitting that information informs the public properly of what their government is doing?Yes
So My question to you, Gibson must be a Bush administration mouth piece?
He's forwarding the conservative agenda by making the Bush administration look better than they deserve to look.
Other networks mentioned the fact that the Bush administration held this guy without regard to the protections given to all US citizens in the US Constitution.
I don't care if he's a serial distorter of events or if this was the one and only time he did it. He made the Bush admin look better than they deserved to, and that should be pointed out, just like MMfA did.
So Gibson should be punished or fired?
Actually I think he should be garrotted, drawn and quartered, burned and then we really let him have it!
What a stupid question. Do you think something more than an article by MMFA is warranted here? I don't.
Why is it a stupid question? If there is no outcome to misinformation, will misinformation not continue?
Nothing more than an article seems to be needed. What I found stupid was your trying to unreasonably push things beyond anything anyone has said. You appear to be oddly egging on a fight here.
What do you mean, if there is no outcome for misinformation?
What do you think this is here, exactly?
This is the outcome. It was pointed out that he did it. These actions by MMfA are having effects on people in the MSM. Those effects are not implemented by MMfA. Those effects come from their advertisers or from their bosses or from they themselves as they attack MMfA when they accurately point out the misinformation and it makes those targets uncomfortable.
MMfA is not the punisher. That's why they don't try to claim media bias. They point out the flaws. It's the job of others to discipline those who made the flaws.
Man, you authoritarians are just scary. This is the mindset that allows this sort of thing to happen in the first place. And now we're seeing that same mindset attempt to rationalize and/or dismiss it after it's happened. You must think it could never happen to you because you're the "good people," and it's only the "evil people" who get unlawfully detained and tortured. Because they deserve it, right?
Clams exactly right, the point of the entire thread is not only the neglect of ABC to tell the entire story but the view of some posters that it is ok to pick and choose whos rights should be violated?
"So My question to you, Gibson must be a Bush administration mouth piece?"--sueld
That is irrelevant, but to answer your question I don't know why I would even think that Gibson is a mouthpiece for anyone other than himself or his network either. I am not claiming some nefarious plot here, just what you just agreed to that the people should be informed of this.
Then Gibson must be a talking point, no?
I will refer you to my previous posting. It is completely irrelevant to anything. What reason would I have to believe that?
Is Gibson a talking point? No, Gibson is a martini. Or a Guitar.
Conservative misinformation can come from anyone even a comitted liberal. It is about WHAT not WHO. I guess such a nuance is far too complex for your Manichean black/white worldview.
Here is a point. CAN YOU READ? Has anyone here said Padilla is innocent? That he doesnt deserve to be locked up? No one I have seen that is just what you WISH were being said so your contempt would make sense, which it doesnt. Feel free to cast your rights aside if you want to. Just dont expect those of us that LOVE the constitution to follow your sheeplike lead.
Please stop talking about how Bush violates the Bill of rights.
Dont look at the man behind the curtain
Dont expose conservative attacks on the Bill of rights.
Is THAT the point?
How dare Gibson discuss Jenna Bush getting married. That is an outrage.
You missed the point again.
He was willing to give that story much more time than he gave to the story about Padilla. If time pressures were a concern, then he should have cut short his comments about her being engaged and covered the fact that Padilla had a 3 year detention without charges. He didn't cover that fact, and by doing so, he provided cover for the Bush administration, the people who perpetrated that violation of an American citizen's rights. If he was a bad guy, then he should be punished, but he should be detained and punished according to the rights given to every US citizen. That didn't happen, and not covering it makes the Bush administration look better than they deserve to look.
Sue how did I miss the point, I agree with all of that. It is an outrage that he would even mention that wedding. Why did she not serve in Iraq?
I assumed that your first post was being sarcastic.
It's not outrageous for him to have mentioned her wedding. It's perfectly reasonable for it to have been mentioned. It's the first time a daughter of a sitting President has gotten engaged since Nixon. It's news.
So, if you were being sarcastic in your first post, you're wrong for the reasons I said in my first post. If you were not being sarcastic, and truly think that it's not newsworthy, then you're wrong for the reasons stated above.
Add to that the fact that you're delusional about me being Sue, and compound that with the fact that who I am doesn't change the point I made, and I'd say that you started drinking too early today.
Sue I was not being sarcastic, most Americans could care less about the Bush Twins. Gibson wasted time talking about her getting married when he could be talking about how the Bush Administration for the past 7 years wants to take away our rights, Talking about the Bush daughter makes them seem more humane than they are.
Can you, Casey, Tommy and Jeter2 actually give one credible example of how this poster is Sue? Can you please shut up about NOMOBUSH being Sue already? You're being childish bullies.
Here would be an example Casey, SueEld and JLyon all post in a similar manner. Short post asking obvious questions. Most of the questions posed by all 3 posters are usually written in a similar manner and IMO are designed to irritate other posters. Should we start addressing you as Casey/SueEld/Jlyon?
You missed this part of the thread before it was removed. If you look at the above exchange, sue continues Casey's argument for him, saying "I was not being sarcastic". Casey got called out on it, and neither one of them made any genuine attempt to explain it. I wouldn't be surprised if Jlyons was the same person, her dishonest idiocy is remarkably similar.
More games, smearing me over this thread , taking things out of context and overlooking my long record on here just for some game you and Sue/Ellie/Casey and Sueeld are playing. give it a rest none of us are impressed.
NomoBush, I agree with you on this one. The story was not completely told and the Bush administration comes across as being all nice and legal. They violated this mans rights, our civil rights should always be held in the highest esteem.
What our personal feelings are of Jose Padilla, the point should be that his rights were violated. Even though he may have been dound guilty the way he was held was wrong, and Gibson should have mentioned it. ABC gets an F last night.
Doris, Gibson was not required to go into every detail of the case. Lets face the fact this story was written because people do not trust (right or wrong) our government when it comes to the war on terror. I for one believe in rights however public safety is just as important.
Casey you are entilted to your views , but remember there is someone out there that may want to lock you up for 2 years without charging you. How do you like that?
So the media should present only what supports your own view? I think the people should be informed of any relevant information. I think the 3 year detention without any due process or other Constitutional rights is relevant. Call me crazy.
I dont care what color his hair is, nor what kindergarten he went to but a detail about a violation of the BILL OF RIGHTS is newsworthy to ALL responsible Americans. THAT is a crucial and essential part of THIS story. It doesnt happen often.
Solon you have said summed this up the best tonight and it should not matter what or who Padilla was the fact is his rights were violated.
Evening Solon...looks like I missed the fireworks. I am not sure if the issue of his detention should have been addressed in the manner everyone here is implying...turning it into a report about the errosion of our rights. Although I certainly think it is a topic that shold be covered and covered often. With respect to reporting the conviction I think the issue should have been raised with respect to the validity of the conviction. Because of the administrations actions it is very possible that on appeal the constitutional violations will mandate the verdict be thrown-out. It would have been important to point out that the verdict may not hold up. Just my opinion. I wonder if all those who didn't think the issue was important will feel that way if a man who may want to harm us is set free to act upon his wants.
An important point Lostlogic. This will certainly BE appealed and on that very issue.
Good points. There are many people worried about that. Especially with regards to Gitmo. It seems not much has been considered about what lies at the end of the roads the Bush Administration has foolishly chosen. The administration's own investigators have tried to tell the Bush Administration that they are jeopardizing prosecutions with their policies, but apparently to no avail.
I suppose when/if any suspected terrorists are set free on Constitutional grounds, many conservatives will simply bang their shoes on the table ranting about "liberal activist" judges who sympathize with the terrorists. No doubt the screechmonkeys will all chime in dutifully.
From my point of veiw Padilla escaped. Those of you into pain can rest assured the escape was horrific and ended in the death of what used to animate that hated figure. The gentleman shown signs as John Doe. Part of his training. He agrees with you that he should spend the rest of his life in prison. Anything other than going back to the brig.
I'm in favor of punishing terrorist, this one is already dead.
Check Fosers article today.
310 comments later, I would still like to respond to Tommy, who started this discussion by calling Padilla scum. While this may be exactly what the government wants us all to think, the facts of the case are cause for alarm to anyone who wants to live in a country with a fair court system. Jose Padilla was convicted of conspiracy to murder on the basis of a data form he had filled out while at an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan in 2000. There was no evidence presented at his trial for a specific murder plot nor was there evidence of any intended victims. The case rests merely on the basis of association. Jose Padilla may have been an al-Qaeda terrorist in training or he may have had other motivations, as his defense team asserted. But there is something very wrong with a justice system that denies an American citizen due process for three years and then convicts him of conspiracy to murder on the basis of filling out a form. In the case of ABC, we are being told, in effect, that our rights to due process aren’t important anymore. After all, they found him guilty didn’t they? Who’s next?
I had to skip to the end of the 300 comments. Did Tommy ever get that the lack of reporting on Constitutional rights was the issue, and not the lack of reporting on Padilla's feelings?
Wow, this was a long and troublesome thread. For me it's quite simple, although I don't profess to know the details of the case.
A man named Padilla (although it could have been anyone) was detained without trial for three years. When he eventually made it to court, he was tried for something different to why he was first detained. In the three years from detention to trial, he was probably tortured which is morally reprehensible but also had no access to legal counsel or presumably anything-else.
The issue with this article is that ABC news didn't mentioned the above when reporting on the trial. Some don't care about the omission as he was found guilty (Tommy I think...) but the omission was important. Regardless of the fact that he was found guilty, there should be and needs to be a debate on the morality of holding people in isolation and torturing them whilst they are still presumed innocent (clearly they are only guilty after being tried by their peers). It doesn't get much more important than this.
If the media, even one news channel, fails to mention this then it is not doing it's job in both reporting the facts and stimulating debate with all the facts to hand. My belief is that there should be a massive debate on whether this kind of treatment of suspects is justified, leaving this out of reports consistently means that some people (who may only get their news from that channel) are not aware of it and therefore are unable to take that debate forward.
Our media has a responability to report the facts, stimulate debate on issues of national and democratic interest and hold the administration (whichever wing of the political spectrum) to account for its actions.
To many people are seeing this a dig at the Bush. It's a fault with the current administration that is led by Bush. If it had happened under Clinton, Reagan or Nixon I would expect the same sort of debate.
History will not look kindly on Gitmo.
Well put, but there is even something more basic it seems you missed. The Bush Administration actually argued that Padilla had no right to Constitutionally guaranteed civilian courts at all. The Bush Administration faught tooth and nail to keep Padilla locked up without any official government charges although unofficially they told the media that Padilla wanted to detonate a dirty bomb - a charge that was never filed against Padilla.
The Bush Administration even argued that under the congressional authorization for war that the courts could not intervene at all and Padilla could be held forever - without charge.
The administration only pressed charges right before an important hearing on habeas corpus (questioning the reason and jurisdiction of the detaining authority) was to be heard. In other words, the government only charged Padilla because Padilla was finally able to press the issue.
I am actually pretty concerned about how a debate would end up here. The conservatives have become so self-serving in their style of argument and the country is so polarized, I am not confident we can even have an honest debate here. Look what happened before Iraq? There was a complete manipulation of the media. I am not convinced the conservatives aren't still capable of that kind of deceit. Our country is in the worst shape it has ever been in IMO. God help us.
Not as far as I could tell.
As the saying gos SI-W, you nailed it.
Gibson's report was accurate. Padilla was being held, not as a criminal, not as an enemy combatant but as a terrorist. As such he was treated accordingly to our current laws. You are finding fault with Gibson where none exists.
It would be impossible to produce a news program that conforms to all of your hyper-sensitivities within the time alloted for each news block.
The constitution applies to all citizens. Labeling him an enemy combatant doesn't take that away, sorry.
Thats exactly right, SL. More than three hundred comments, at least two hundred of which seemed to consist of Americans arguing whether or not it was ok for the Government to hold an American captive for three years without charging him. Dozens of posts seemed to indicate the opinion that there was nothing wrong with holding Padilla as long as he was identified as "scum" (something less than human, and therefore not worthy of human rights as defined in the Constitution) and a "terrorist suspect," blurring the lines between "suspect" and "convicted criminal." And it's ok to blur those lines, because we are talking about terrorism here.
There's something a lot scarier to me than terrorists- and that's cowardly bed-wetters who are willing to sacrifice their freedom, and mine, and yours, in exchange for security. People need to learn, before it's too late, that there are much worse things than a society that is subject to the periodic terrorist attack, such as the society that has turned all power over to a government which then proceeds to terrorize it's own people. In the 1950s a popular slogan was "Better Dead than Red." That was a different generation, one that had actually fought to preserve freedom and was expressing it's willingness to go down fighting before seeing that freedom taken away. Today's slogan should be "Better Fascist than Dead," because clearly a lot of people would rather live in a police state than a Democracy if it means we might be able to avoid another 9/11. In that sense, the terrorists have already won, haven't they? They "hated our way of life, especially our freedoms" and now we are changing our way of life and throwing our freedoms overboard.
Great comments about the constitution, the bill of rights and our democracy; something the modern media too often ignore. Even if Padilla wasn't a rather clueless loser who fell into the black hole of Neo-con hell; if he truly was a black hearted creature of the night who only had evil intentions; we still must preserve his rights as an American citizen (and dare I say it!) a human being.
We're still after all this time having a debate as to whether we truly want the United States of America envisioned by the founders "with liberty and justice for all."
I think conservatives should just change the end of the Pledge of Allegiance to "with liberty and justice for most" or "for many". I think it is safe to say that "for all" is a bit quaint based on their attitudes about Civil Rights.
Even better, they could change "the Bill of Rights" to "the Bill of Privileges". That would do the trick.
I hope you don't mind if I steal that. It is a classic.
You're welcome to it, glad you like it.