There has been plenty of debate over whether military detainees should be put through civilan courts in the U.S. The ACLU think so and even want the detainees in Gitmo to be dragged through American courts. The AP throws all objectivity out the window and picks a side of the debate. Unsurprisingly, they choose the side of far left liberals.
The Associated Press, reporters groups and advocates for press freedoms urged the Supreme Court on Friday to reject Bush administration arguments that people held by the military in Iraq have no access to American courts.
The government's view, if ratified by the court in a case that will be argued in March, would make it harder for journalists and others who are detained in the heat of battle, particularly in urban areas, to seek their freedom, the organizations said in a legal filing.
Take whatever side you want in the debate, but the AP reveals why they are taking sides in the debate.
The AP has been fighting the detention of photographer Bilal Hussein, who has been held by the U.S. military without charges for 22 months. He waited 20 months before his first hearing in an Iraqi court.
Of course the AP release made no mention of the charges against him. There was no mention of how Bilal Hussein staged anti-war propaganda photos, or how in April of 2006 American forces detained him with al Qaeda terrorists and a cache of weapons. What is the line between spreading enemy propaganda, having contacts with the enemy, and actually being one of the enemy? Of course since the AP is a global press they will have every chance in the world to paint their own as an innocent detained by the evil U.S. military. the AP ought to recuse itself from reporting on the Hussein case at all if they want to retain any appearance of objectivity. Of course they won't.
Personally I think bringing every military detainee through the American Court system would be a chaotic mess, and giving individuals rights that they really don't have in the situation of war. Regardless, the qualm I have here is the media getting involved and taking sides to the point of trying to sway the court, then using their own power to publish this action to the world. Next time you hear the AP report about a detainee, can you really believe their reporting will be untainted by bias? Of course not.
—John Stephenson is editor of Stop The ACLU.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
One reason
February 29, 2008 - 19:05 ET by ArcherBThe only reason these ass-hats want terrorists to go through civilian is because they hope that something will come out in the public courtroom that they can use as an impeachment tool, or at least a legacy ruiner.
Read my sig for evidence.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
The AP and ACLU are being
February 29, 2008 - 19:20 ET by R D HelmThe AP and ACLU are being disengenuous here, as they are only looking to put this country on trial. This is just another tactic in the left's ongoing effort to weaken this country.
I beleieve that in the case of many of them, it is a deliberate effort to aid the cause of our enemies in this war.
I sincerely hope the Supreme Court rules in the government's favor.
John McCain is a liberal. He said so himself.
"deliberate effort to aid" our enemies
February 29, 2008 - 20:39 ET by general companyI have thought this for some time, even if they were ALL convicted by our courts it would not end there. They would continue their non substantial claims.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
gc,
February 29, 2008 - 23:52 ET by R D HelmYou are correct, as the MSM and the ACLU make up the core of what I consider to be the "enemy within."
John McCain is a liberal. He said so himself.
Does the MSM screen their employees in Iraq?
February 29, 2008 - 19:57 ET by nkviking75Given the MSM's propensity for hiring local people as reporters, photographers, cameramen, audio technicians, etc., the question has to be asked: How thoroughly do media outlets investigate their employees before turning them loose in a war zone? The MSM may not intentionally aid the other side, but they might unwittingly be giving the enemy an opportunity to be heard in America and around the world. When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
It isn't named the
February 29, 2008 - 19:57 ET by TEIt isn't named the Associated (with terrorists) Press for nothing.
This is another attempt by
February 29, 2008 - 20:00 ET by rbosqueThis is another attempt by domestic enemies of the Constitution and America to smear the Administration and the country. Throw AP into a GTMO cell for aiding and abetting!
This is an attempt to diminish the threat of the terrorists
February 29, 2008 - 20:46 ET by c5thenAnd to morph the issue from a military matter into a police/legal matter. Just like W.J. Clinton's treatment of a declaration of war on the US by Al Qaeda in the 1990's by bombing US Embasies in Africa as if it was an arson and sent in the FBI rather then the Marines.
The liberals are in denial about the reality of the situation. They actually believe that if the US is "nice" to our enemies, then they will be "nice" to us in return.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
AP - urges free press?? Where?
February 29, 2008 - 20:56 ET by Gary HallAP - urges free press?? Where?
Where we have a freee press, in the US, that's where:
Would not it be refreshing, and uplifting, if the AP and these other reporter groups and advocates were so anxioius to "ugre press freedoms" in those countries where a free press is banned?
Cuba
Iran
China
Syria
etc...
The media inconvenienced
February 29, 2008 - 22:23 ET by KC MulvilleIf you told me that the price of my freedom and safety from terrorists was ... that journalists would be inconvenienced ... it would be scientifically impossible to measure how quickly I would opt for more security.
Don't see any of those prima donnas trying to make my job any easier!
I am shocked, shocked I
March 1, 2008 - 02:54 ET by sixgunI am shocked, shocked I tell you.
To think that the A ll P ropaganda news service and the A ll C ommunist L itigation U nit would want to get their "freedom fighters" in front of the 9th Circus.
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty teeth.-George Washington
Access to American Courts
March 1, 2008 - 08:25 ET by allanfGreat idea. Let's ship the Federal Judges, AP Lawyers and ACLU lawyers over to Iraq, and let them hold court without US Military protection.
For some reason, Federal District Judges often lose sight of the fact that their court and office is a statutory creation of Congress. The jurisdiction of the court comes via statute.
Reaching
March 1, 2008 - 08:32 ET by UnsaneThe media just desperately wants another William Kunstler to step forward and blast his own nation before the court. That's all there is to it...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Same old, same old
March 1, 2008 - 10:40 ET by rammingspeedIf it weren't for ACLU attorneys, what attorneys would there be for the AP to root for?
This is disgusting, but I believe it's necessary for us to see this garbage coming from the "professionals" in the news media. They are slashing their own wrists on a daily basis - as proof, I show you NewsBusters.
An American Empire
March 1, 2008 - 11:27 ET by CobraManSomeone needs to remind the idiots that American Criminal and Civil law does not have jurisdiction outside the sovereign territories of the US. What these dimwits are asking for is to extend American Civil and Criminal law to encompass the entire world. They're demanding American Imperialism, something they claim they oppose!