rssThe ‘Gitmo Nine,’ the ‘al-Qaeda Seven’ and Pure McCarthyism
Wednesday, March 03, 2010 at 9:20 am
- 10 Comments
For more on the Cheneyite right’s intimations that there’s something shameful about providing legal counsel for Guantanamo detainees, see Adam Serwer’s new piece for the American Prospect, which pivots off Keep America Safe’s bottom-scraping ad:
The group put out a web video demanding that Holder name the other Justice Department lawyers who had previously represented terror detainees or worked on similar issues for groups that opposed the Bush administration’s near-limitless assumption of executive power. “Whose values do they share?,” a voice asks ominously. “Americans have a right to know the identity of the al-Qaeda Seven.” The ad echoed [National Review writer Andy] McCarthy’s references to the “al Qaeda bar” from months earlier.
“This is exactly what Joe McCarthy did,” said Gude. “Not kind of like McCarthyism, this is exactly McCarthyism.”
That’s Ken Gude of the Center for American Progress. Yesterday, retired Air Force Col. Morris Davis, a former chief prosecutor of the military commissions, wondered whether these people would call John Adams a British symp for defending the perpetrators of the Boston Massacre.
Nevertheless, the Los Angeles Times runs a story reporting this exactly the way the right wants it reported, with credulous intimations that there’s something “hidden” about the Justice Department lawyers. “It’s time for these policies to meet the light of day — and for the public to get the answers they deserve,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told the paper’s Richard Serrano, who didn’t ask Sessions whether he had a list of the Justice Department’s al-Qaeda sympathizers in his jacket pocket. This is a constant theme on the right. In 2006, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) told me that there were unnamed CIA officials who harbored sympathy with al-Qaeda. He was chairman of the House intelligence committee at the time.
Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter
10 Comments
Comment posted March 3, 2010 @ 10:01 am
Has the republican party lost its collective mind?
Comment posted March 3, 2010 @ 10:05 am
In 1954, the collegiate debate topic dealt with recognition of Communist China. Several schools, including all military service academies and the teacher colleges of Nebraska, declined to participate in debate that year, fearing that affirming the resolution would literally be engaging in communist indoctrination.
Edward R. Murrow covered the controversy and produced a scathing report for CBS news–condemning those who criticized the resolution so harshly that the segment itself became news. This report is now seen as the turning-point in Murrow's public pushback against McCarthyism
All of this leads me to ask the question–would any major news anchors do the same today?
Comment posted March 3, 2010 @ 10:31 am
Cate, I think your question is unfair.
Murrow had an incisive mind that he turned toward news analysis. His news story was the product of his desire to recognize and expose the truth.
Today's news anchors are overwhelmingly eye candy, incapable of distinguishing cause from effect. Their news stories are scripts.
I sincerely believe the question is:
Can any major news anchors do the same today?
My own opinion is that they are not only incapable, but that it is unfair to expect any other behavior.
Comment posted March 3, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
Murrow was an actual journalist, something in astonishingly short supply on TV news these days.
Comment posted March 3, 2010 @ 3:05 pm
In 1954, the collegiate debate topic dealt with recognition of Communist China. Several schools, including all military service academies and the teacher colleges of Nebraska, declined to participate in debate that year, fearing that affirming the resolution would literally be engaging in communist indoctrination.
Edward R. Murrow covered the controversy and produced a scathing report for CBS news–condemning those who criticized the resolution so harshly that the segment itself became news. This report is now seen as the turning-point in Murrow's public pushback against McCarthyism
All of this leads me to ask the question–would any major news anchors do the same today?
Comment posted March 3, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Cate, I think your question is unfair.
Murrow had an incisive mind that he turned toward news analysis. His news story was the product of his desire to recognize and expose the truth.
Today's news anchors are overwhelmingly eye candy, incapable of distinguishing cause from effect. Their news stories are scripts.
I sincerely believe the question is:
Can any major news anchors do the same today?
My own opinion is that they are not only incapable, but that it is unfair to expect any other behavior.
Comment posted March 3, 2010 @ 6:00 pm
Murrow was an actual journalist, something in astonishingly short supply on TV news these days.
Comment posted April 25, 2011 @ 10:03 am
Not only such, this literary reference in the new testament · Coach UK Hangbags Matthew in issued the background plot perspective, also get out the meaning of the distribution of wealth. Emphasize We know, this literary reference is in two days before the MBT Shoes Usa crucifixion speak, I thought he gave its disciple of meaning is clear: the teacher that I’ll be out of town, the doctrine of entrusted to you well to MBT Fanaka carry forward! Otherwise… . Along this logic down may safely draw a conclusion, the emphasis of allusion actually not the distribution of wealth, but a.to entrusted career finish others the incentive mechanism. Explain the white, who devoted to complete the entrusted by others, career, and those MBT Lami who will get far more laziness and cunning guy, will lose everything! In this sense, Matthew effect can be understood as god and reward for truly! This is Matthew effect to express.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
