Bush on Guantanamo
Go to Jail and do not collect $200 even if you pass go.I was reading an article about Bush's recent Iraq trip, when I came across a weird Bush statement related to the Guantanamo detention facility.
"Sometimes we get criticized for sending some people out of Guantanamo back to their home country because of the nature of the home countries; [it's] a little bit of a Catch-22," he said.
I'm confused. Is Bush saying that detainees are treated better in Guantanamo then they are in their home countries? I guess that might be true if their home countries find the person guilty and throw him in a prison with worse treatment then Guantanamo. However, there are hundreds who have been held in Guantanamo for months if not years while not being charged for a crime. Check out this from ABC News:
Only 10 of the 460 people held there as "enemy combatants" have been formally charged since the camp opened in early 2002 at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
It's entirely possible that 70% or more are guilty. Just the same, the government should be trying to figure out who is guilty 24/7 instead of twiddling their thumbs. What happened to justice? What about the war on terror? The problem is that this is also occurring in Iraq. Innocent people are thrown in a jail only to be released 6-12 months later. At least in the USA run prisons, the survival rate is much higher than in the Iraqi run prisons.
Tags:
* politics * president * george bush * republican * democrat * conservative * liberal * congress
* human rights * Guantanamo * Iraq * prison * ABC * war on terror * Cuba * justice * law * crime
* illegal * detention facility
posted by Mike K at 6/14/2006
9 Comments:
Why did the media constantly barrage us with 8 years of Whitewater coverage that yielded no convictions for a land deal prior to the presidency? Yet they act as if there is nothing suspicious or un-American about locking people up for years without access to a lawyer or under rules established in the Geneva Convention?
Guess it's just that gosh darn liberal media bias.
"Guess it's just that gosh darn liberal media bias. "
Is there a liberal media bias? In part, that depends on where you stand on issues. If what you see in the news media agrees with your own positions on issues, then you probably don't think the reports are biased. But where is the political 'middle' from which bias can be measured relative to the nation as a whole? The 'Center for Basic Research in the Social Sciences' at Harvard put out a study that addressed the issue. They used a three step method for assessing any potential bias in the major media outlets. First, they identified the liberal/conservative 'score' of members of Congress using the assessment by the liberal organization 'Americans for Democratic Action' (ADA). Since Congress represents the people, their average position on political issues should reflect the average of the people as a whole. Then they reviewed what 'think tanks' each member of Congress found compelling enough to include as source material for speeches and entries in the Congressional record. That allowed them to 'score' the various think tanks for any political bias based on how they align with the already-scored members of Congress. Finally, the study by the Harvard CBRSS researched which think tanks the various news outlets themselves used. If a particular news outlet reported on the findings of studies on political issues in a way that emphasized conservative think tanks more than Congress itself did, then it would be evidence that the news outlet had a conservative bias relative to Congress, and therefore a bias relative to the people that Congress represents. And, once again, the converse applies.
What did Harvard find? They found a pronounced liberal bias. The only major news organization that was close to the average of Congress itself was the Fox News Channel. The Drudge report was next, though it was significantly to the liberal side of the spectrum, followed by such organizations as ABC News and NBC News. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and CBS News lined up virtually at the Democratic Party Line, far from the average of Congress as a whole.
No wonder Fox News Channel is winning the ratings battle. They truly are 'Fair and Balanced.' And no wonder more and more people are turning to alternative sources of news - like the Internet - instead of the elite media establishment.
Submitted by Bob Schafer
Source: Tim Groseclose - Department of Political Science, UCLA, and Graduate School of Business, Stanford University &
Jeff Milyo - Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago
I avoid televised news like the plague. It is an awful way to get a world view. Fox News in my opinion is extremely unreliable and is more entertainment than informative.
In my opinion the the best printed news source is the Week. It is published once a week and combines the best stories from both conservative and liberal newspapers: NYT, Washington State Journal, Chicago Times, Newsweek, and Time. Check it out if you ever have time. You will be exposed to both conservative and liberal opinions. Sometimes, in the same article. Gasp!
Online news is usually ok for facts and what not. It is always important when reading an editorial to understand what spectrum the author is writing from.
You had my interest until you said Fox News is fair and balanced. Just check out how misinformed Fox News viewers are compared to other viewers. It's actually quite scary.
Well, the line about Fox being fair and balanced was intended tongue in cheek - they're anything but. My point is simply that Fox notwithstanidng, the media in general is slanted to the left.
This is precisely why Fox had this vacuum to fill. If the media in general had been more balanced over the last 40 years or so there wouldn't be a Fox today.
What we really need is a balanced source of responsible, professional news (which as far as I am concerned doesn't exist). Now there's a vacuum to be filled. Whata concept - the unvarnished truth! Who will be the first to capitalize on it?
I would welcome that idea. Seriously check out the Week though. Here is the online address.
PS- Regarding the 'Fox News viewers are ignorant' study - I assume yuo mean the one by PIPA.
The results if this study are somewhat misleading. The general conclusion of the study is that Fox viewers are especially ignorant or misinformed about certain key issues pertaining to the conflict in the Middle East (Iraq and elsewhere). The obvious factor the report fails to consider is that the Fox viewership base is pre-existing biases in a large number of Fox Viewers. it's hardly surprising folks who prefer Fox to CNN or the NY Times might entertain a rosier or even deluded view of the affairs in the Mid east - people tend to believe what they want to believe. I'd wager people who get their news primarily from left leaning outfits like CNN or NPR have an exagerated sense of say, how bad off certain minorities are in this country. Is it because CNN and NPR misinform th epublic wrt suchissues, or is it the bias theliberal viewer brings to the table? Probably a combo of both.
Be more objective - they're all biased bastards!!! ;)
What follows is a reoposting of the above, which was fatallky flawed with typos and grammatical tragedies (I was in a rush):
PS- Regarding the 'Fox News viewers are ignorant' study - I assume you mean the one by PIPA.
The results OF this study are somewhat misleading. The general conclusion of the study is that Fox viewers are especially ignorant or misinformed about certain key issues pertaining to the conflict in the Middle East (Iraq and elsewhere). The obvious factor the report fails to consider is THE IMPACT OF pre-existing biases in a large number of Fox Viewers. It's hardly surprising folks who prefer Fox to CNN or the NY Times might entertain a rosier or even deluded view of the affairs in the Mid East - people tend to believe what they want to believe. In other words, people who have their head in the sand with respect to Iraq are more likely to prefer Fox to say, the NY Times. This doesn't mean Fox is necessarily to blame. Similarly,I'd wager that people who get their news primarily from left leaning outfits like CNN or NPR have might an exagerated sense of say, how bad off certain minority groups are in this country. Is it because the guilty white libs at CNN and NPR exagerrate the misfortues of minorities, or do liberal viewers already such such slanted views? I suspect it's a combination of both; most news sources have a political slant (right or left - usually left), however, people with a certain political POV will gravitate towards news osurces that reinforce their world view.
hmph...I quit watching the news. I get my scoop here.
Thanks Tom and Mike. "Doin' Time on the Front Lines of Journalism."
Post a Comment
<< Main