Wezas
11-23-2005, 09:16 AM
So I looked at google news today because the top 3 stories are on my start-up page.
Jose Padilla story was one of the stories, from "Globe and Mail". The subject of the article, "White House reverses field on 'dirty bomb' suspect" seemed a bit mean towards the president, so I decided to do a little comparison. (boards are slow, bored at work)
Globe and Mail:
White House reverses field on 'dirty bomb' suspect (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051123/BOMBER23/TPInternational/TopStories)
Yesterday, in a stunning climbdown, the Bush administration indicted Mr. Padilla, thereby short-circuiting the Supreme Court's plan to examine the legality of the President's move to jail an American citizen indefinitely without charge by declaring him an enemy combatant.
Fox News:
'Dirty Bomb' Suspect Padilla Indicted (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176361,00.html)
"We believe it is the appropriate thing to do," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said.
The indictment says Padilla planned various overseas trips to plan terror operations and sent money and assets abroad from the United States.
Gonzales also noted that certain provisions of the Patriot Act aided the investigation.
CNN:
Terror suspect Padilla charged (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/padilla.case/index.html)
CNN seemed careful not to throw around too much of it's opinion, letting the quotes from lawyers/officials on both sides do the talking.
Washington Times:
Padilla to face federal charges (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051123-122909-7760r.htm)
Basically only the facts of the indictment and what was in it:
In March, U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd in Spartanburg, S.C., ruled the U.S. government could not hold Padilla as an enemy combatant without charging him with a crime, calling the case a "law-enforcement matter, not a military matter."
Washington Post:
Terror Suspect Jose Padilla Indicted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/22/AR2005112201046_2.html?sub=AR)
The spectacular allegations that led President Bush to classify Padilla an "enemy combatant" in 2002 _ that the former Chicago gang member sought to blow up U.S. hotels and apartment buildings and planned an attack on America with a radiological "dirty bomb" _ were not part of the indictment.
By charging Padilla, the administration is seeking to avoid a Supreme Court showdown over the issue. In 2004, the justices took up the first round of cases stemming from the war on terrorism, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring, wrote, "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra Law School, said the Padilla indictment was an effort by the administration "to avoid an adverse decision of the Supreme Court."
ABC News
Dirty Bomb Suspect Padilla Indicted (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/LegalCenter/wireStory?id=1337562)
The indictment avoids a Supreme Court showdown over how long the government may hold a U.S. citizen without charges.
"They're avoiding what the Supreme Court would say about American citizens. That's an issue the administration did not want to face," said Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor who specializes in national security. "There's no way that the Supreme Court would have ducked this issue."
CBS News:
Padilla Case Shows Abuse Of Power
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/22/opinion/courtwatch/main1070025.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories)
Jesus Christ, the entire article is slanted
MSNBC
Padilla indictment avoids high court showdown (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10152846/from/RL.1/)
By charging Padilla, the administration is seeking to avoid a Supreme Court showdown over the issue.
Eric Freedman (law professor quoted in the Washington Post article) is also quoted here.
Basically MSNBC seems to be a carbon copy of the Washington Post
Here's the AP article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ENEMY_COMBATANT_INDICTED?SITE=SALEM&SECTION=HOME&T EMPLATE=DEFAULT)
Seems that the main culprits are the Globe and Mail (who?), Washington Post, and the 4 main TV networks (CBS being the worst).
Liberal media FTW.
Jose Padilla story was one of the stories, from "Globe and Mail". The subject of the article, "White House reverses field on 'dirty bomb' suspect" seemed a bit mean towards the president, so I decided to do a little comparison. (boards are slow, bored at work)
Globe and Mail:
White House reverses field on 'dirty bomb' suspect (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051123/BOMBER23/TPInternational/TopStories)
Yesterday, in a stunning climbdown, the Bush administration indicted Mr. Padilla, thereby short-circuiting the Supreme Court's plan to examine the legality of the President's move to jail an American citizen indefinitely without charge by declaring him an enemy combatant.
Fox News:
'Dirty Bomb' Suspect Padilla Indicted (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176361,00.html)
"We believe it is the appropriate thing to do," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said.
The indictment says Padilla planned various overseas trips to plan terror operations and sent money and assets abroad from the United States.
Gonzales also noted that certain provisions of the Patriot Act aided the investigation.
CNN:
Terror suspect Padilla charged (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/padilla.case/index.html)
CNN seemed careful not to throw around too much of it's opinion, letting the quotes from lawyers/officials on both sides do the talking.
Washington Times:
Padilla to face federal charges (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051123-122909-7760r.htm)
Basically only the facts of the indictment and what was in it:
In March, U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd in Spartanburg, S.C., ruled the U.S. government could not hold Padilla as an enemy combatant without charging him with a crime, calling the case a "law-enforcement matter, not a military matter."
Washington Post:
Terror Suspect Jose Padilla Indicted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/22/AR2005112201046_2.html?sub=AR)
The spectacular allegations that led President Bush to classify Padilla an "enemy combatant" in 2002 _ that the former Chicago gang member sought to blow up U.S. hotels and apartment buildings and planned an attack on America with a radiological "dirty bomb" _ were not part of the indictment.
By charging Padilla, the administration is seeking to avoid a Supreme Court showdown over the issue. In 2004, the justices took up the first round of cases stemming from the war on terrorism, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring, wrote, "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra Law School, said the Padilla indictment was an effort by the administration "to avoid an adverse decision of the Supreme Court."
ABC News
Dirty Bomb Suspect Padilla Indicted (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/LegalCenter/wireStory?id=1337562)
The indictment avoids a Supreme Court showdown over how long the government may hold a U.S. citizen without charges.
"They're avoiding what the Supreme Court would say about American citizens. That's an issue the administration did not want to face," said Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor who specializes in national security. "There's no way that the Supreme Court would have ducked this issue."
CBS News:
Padilla Case Shows Abuse Of Power
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/22/opinion/courtwatch/main1070025.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories)
Jesus Christ, the entire article is slanted
MSNBC
Padilla indictment avoids high court showdown (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10152846/from/RL.1/)
By charging Padilla, the administration is seeking to avoid a Supreme Court showdown over the issue.
Eric Freedman (law professor quoted in the Washington Post article) is also quoted here.
Basically MSNBC seems to be a carbon copy of the Washington Post
Here's the AP article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ENEMY_COMBATANT_INDICTED?SITE=SALEM&SECTION=HOME&T EMPLATE=DEFAULT)
Seems that the main culprits are the Globe and Mail (who?), Washington Post, and the 4 main TV networks (CBS being the worst).
Liberal media FTW.