New York Times calls Wall St. Journal what it is: Murdoch propaganda outlet

By GottaLaff

Rumble! Everyone duck and cover!

The Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief, Robert Thomson, has today claimed the New York Times is "uncomfortable" about his paper's increasing success "while its own circulation and credibility are in retreat".

Oh now, that was just rude. Just because a Times column said that the Journal represents right wing talking points and that Rupert Murdoch "plays politics"?

"Principle is but a bystander at the New York Times," said Thomson, in response to a New York Times column by David Carr, which said Murdoch's conservative preferences were infecting news coverage at the paper he acquired two years ago.

Here's a link to Carr's piece. Here's a link to Thomson's statement. So, whatcha gonna do about that little digaroony, New York Times?

Keller later responded:

"While David's column clearly got under Mr Thomson's skin, I don't see anything in this response that casts doubt upon it. The column was scrupulously fair and, if anything, understated, and I have no inclination to help Mr Thomson change the subject," he said.

Take that, Robert Rupert Murdoch Thomson. Well, actually, that was pretty mild. Come on, let's take off the gloves.

Wait. What's that I hear? Sounds like strains from the West Side Story sound track.

Carr's New York Times piece was also critical of Gerard Baker, the Wall Street Journal's deputy managing editor and former Times US editor, whom it called "a neo-conservative columnist of acute political views ... especially active in managing coverage in Washington".

Where's Riff when you need him?

H/t: DCPlod

Headline of the Day

Via the Wall Street Journal no less. h/t Greg.

Did the First Dog Leave a Number Two on Air Force One?

Pentagon v. Dep't. of Justice: New Rift Opens Over Rights of Detainees

By GottaLaff

Agence France-Preese/Getty Images

I'm bumping and updating. Here is an interesting e-mail response to this piece that I got from an old pal who serves in the military. We correspond from time to time:

There is a battle on going between the lawyers over at the Pentagon and the DOJ as to which protections if any should be extended to the detainees; it's window dressing to give the appearance that detainee's rights are seriously being discussed. In short it is all bullshit so that Faux News can say see, you are coddling the terrorists on the one hand; and the liberals will see serious discussion as fundamental rights is in play. In the end it really is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic system of justice they both want.

What both sides (Pentagon/DOJ) want to avoid is Federal District Court because they will lose control in a real system judicial system. What is left is Military Court Martial which also has established rules so neither desire that; so what each side wants is to appear concerned but in control.

Remember under a Military Commission process the DOJ will be the prosecutors (of course there will be few military prosecutors for appearances, but the DOJ will the call the shots {the really concerned ones in this story}), while developing the rules of evidence and controlling what evidence is revealed to the defense. I believe this story was first given to the WSJ to say hey "they want the worst of worst given rights and living in your neighborhood." It really is just window dressing between to competing groups who have the same goal, "develop a system around factually weak cases, and then claim it was fair."

And let's not forget who owns the WSJ.

Original post:

Picking up on a link Paddy posted earlier, at least it's a positive that this subject is getting more attention. As you know it's become a cause of mine. Here's the latest wrinkle in the Pentagon v. DoJ:

The Justice Department has determined that detainees tried by military commissions in the U.S. can claim at least some constitutional rights, particularly protection against the use of statements taken through coercive interrogations, officials said.

The conclusion, explained in a confidential memorandum whose contents were shared with The Wall Street Journal, could alter significantly the way the commissions operate -- and has created new divisions among the agencies responsible for overseeing the commissions.

Defense Department officials warn that the Justice Department position could reduce the chance of convicting some defendants. Military prosecutors have said involuntary statements comprise the lion's share of their evidence against dozens of Guantanamo prisoners who could be tried.

So Defense is unhappy because coerced statements can't be used to convict their abused clients? Did I get that right?

The Obama Justice Department's view is a sharp turn from that of the Bush administration, which argued detainees have no constitutional rights. It isn't clear how the Obama administration will act, but the Justice Department's legal counsel's office traditionally has the last word on constitutional interpretation in the executive branch. The White House declined to comment.

The dispute over what rights military commission defendants can claim has intensified as President Barack Obama tries to implement his decision to close the Guantanamo prison by January. [...]

Since 2004, several aspects of the commissions and their related detention system have been invalidated by the Supreme Court. A Justice Department task force has been seeking ways to try prisoners by military commission that would be more likely to survive further constitutional challenge. The task force is scheduled to complete its work by July 21. [...]

In a memorandum issued May 4, David Barron, acting assistant attorney general, said the office believes there is a "serious risk" that federal courts "would adopt a constitutional due process approach" when evaluating military commission trials, people familiar with the memo say.

Mr. Barron advised that federal courts were unlikely to require strict adherence to Bill of Rights provisions spelling out specific procedures, such as the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right, or the Miranda warning, which the Supreme Court imposed in 1966 to ensure compliance with the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney.

But Mr. Barron advised that courts were likely to view the use of coerced statements to convict and punish defendants as violating any definition of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which courts have cited in establishing a baseline of fundamental rights. As a result, some officials believe a legislative fix to the Military Commissions Act should include additional rights for defendants in order to lower the chances courts would strike it down.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said Friday he has included language in a pending defense authorization bill to make commissions more closely resemble courts-martial. A 2006 Supreme Court opinion suggested military commissions could be lawful if their deviations from "court-martial practice" were justified by "practical need." The text is expected to be released this week.

Now, think: Why is David Barron handling all of this....

Mr. Barron, a professor on leave from Harvard Law School, is in charge while Mr. Obama's nominee to head the legal-counsel office, Dawn Johnsen, awaits Senate confirmation. Mr. Barron's conclusion has met Pentagon opposition. "We believe that military commissions, as distinct from other courts, are designed to not provide constitutional rights," Navy Capt. John F. Murphy, the Obama administration's chief military prosecutor, said in an interview.

The one exception, he said, was that created by the Supreme Court last year, when it ruled the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutionally stripped Guantanamo detainees of habeas corpus, a legal proceeding to challenge unlawful detention. [...]

"There is a school of thought...that if they actually convene these things in the [U.S.], the courts will quickly find that all the due process constitutional stuff we deal with in criminal courts will be applicable," said another military official familiar with the talks. "The main push for this argument comes out of" the Justice Department and the Office of Legal Counsel, the official said. "It hasn't gotten a lot of traction with other folks."

"Constitutional stuff"?

This person said Pentagon officials preferred not to provide defendants additional rights unless courts forced them to.

What do Gitmo lawyers say about all this?

On the other side, criminal defense lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees say that simply recognizing due process, without other constitutional rights, will not fix a system they contend is stacked against defendants. "The minute they're making a distinction of 'what we can get away with'...they are creating something of dubious legal viability," said Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, a Naval Reserve lawyer appointed to represent alleged Sept. 11 conspirator Ramzi Binalshibh.

By trying to patch a system that has been beset for years by internal disarray and court setbacks, "they are buying themselves more legal problems," she said. Rather than the "swift and certain justice" that President Obama has promised, it "means years of appeals when we're challenging all of these issues -- most of which have already been resolved" for trials in courts-martial or federal court, she said.

What a mess. It's no wonder Lt. Col. Barry Wingard and his client, Fayiz al-Kandari, are so frustrated.

If you'd like to scroll through every post I've written on this subject, most of them eye-openers, please go here. That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you use Twitter, the hashtag is #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

NY Times: “I’ve had more unsolicited offers ... from the Obama people in 45 days than in the last 8 years from Bush”

By GottaLaff

(Unrelated photo via)

Yesterday I posted about President Obama (with audio) following up-- unsolicited-- on a (ridiculous) question by the New York Times about whether he was a socialist. Yes, that question.

But here's what isn't ridiculous: Our very smart, very savvy prez isn't just reaching out to Congress, or red states, or Goldendoodles. He's reaching out to the very same conservative media that so often misquotes, disagrees, or outright bashes him:

“I’ve had more unsolicited offers for participation from the Obama people in 45 days than in the last eight years from Bush,” said [Andrew Rosenthal, The Times’ editorial page director].

Rosenthal said the Obama administration’s approach is consistent with the one the Obama campaign used, and for a reason: It worked. Citing an example, he said that an Obama campaign aide succeeded in convincing him back in July — before an editorial ran — that Obama had not, in fact, reversed his position on a controversial D.C. handgun ban.

“With columnists and editorial writers,” Rosenthal said, “I think the theory is that you can actually have an impact.”

Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt said in an e-mail that the Obama team has been “open and responsive” to requests from The Post’s editorial writers. Hiatt said that helps The Post “produce smarter and more knowledgeable editorials.”

“My general view is, the more exchange of views, the better,” Hiatt added. “I welcome any outreach from the White House to my columnists or editorial board.” [...]

In an interview, [David] Brooks said that Obama’s people respond quickly to columns with which they find fault — but that, in doing so, they refrain from “personal insults,” opting for a “very nice, very evidence-based” approach instead.

The Obama outreach effort is different than Bush’s in part because the previous administration “only reached out to people who automatically agreed with them.” [...]

Rosenthal wondered if the Bush team had the kind of contact with The Wall Street Journal editorial board that the Obama team does now. WSJ editorial page editor Paul Gigot declined comment, but Tony Blankley — who ran The Washington Times’ conservative editorial page during the bulk of Bush’s tenure — suggested that it probably wasn’t so.

Although Blankley said he spoke regularly with senior Bush administration officials, many of whom he’d known for years, he said the Bush press team’s outreach was not as “aggressive in putting out useful things or complaining about editorials they didn’t like” as Obama’s is.

Part of the reason for that, says Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page, is that, like former President Bill Clinton, Obama “likes this sort of thing — the exchange with pundits.” [...]

[The Post's Kathleen] Parker, a conservative who clashed with Republicans over the Sarah Palin nomination, wrote a very personal account of the trip for The Daily Beast. There, she talked about the “adorable” Obama daughters and the president’s calm nature. “If you cut Obama open,” she said, “you’d find a little Buddha sitting inside, smiling.”

The personal touch is important, Dionne said, because “human beings, being who we are, it’s probably harder to eviscerate someone who you’ve sat down with and decided isn’t an evil person.”

Then why didn't they eviscerate Bush?

Bush SEC Holdovers Cite Exec Privilege In Stonewalling Congress About Madoff Scandal

Seems some fun stuff happened today in the Congressional hearings (skip to about 5:15). Another little tidbit from the whistleblower testmony-

A bombshell is buried in Harry Markopolos' prepared testimony to a House panel today: he contacted the Wall Street Journal on the Bernie Madoff fraud three years ago, and the newspaper did nothing.

I feel for the WSJ, it's never easy to admit your buddies are crooks.

NBC/WSJ Poll- Obama still soaring

Because Clancy was getting antsy.

Despite the Blagojevich mess, the ordeal over whether to seat Burris in the Senate, and Bill Richardson's withdrawal as Commerce secretary, the American public continues to overwhelmingly approve of Obama's transition, according to the latest NBC/WSJ poll.

Seventy-one percent say they approve of the president-elect's transition, which is virtually unchanged from December.

Also in the poll, a combined 74 percent believe that the recession will last at least another year -- and likely longer than that. Fifty-seven percent it will be over in one to three years, while another 17 percent say it will go on for more than three years.

The rest of the NBC/WSJ poll will be released at 6:30 pm ET on NBC Nightly News and MSNBC.com.

Wall Street Journal: Gramm-pa McCain "unpresidential"

By GottaLaff

Here is what the Wall Street Journal, not exactly a liberal paper, says about Gramm-pa's grasp of the economy, based on his own remarks:

Wow. "Betrayed the public's trust." Was Mr. Cox dishonest? No. He merely changed some minor rules, and didn't change others, on short-selling. String him up! Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential.

The Wall Street Journal just labeled Gramm-pa a liar.

The SEC further tightened its rules against naked shorting just hours before Mr. McCain excoriated Mr. Cox for doing nothing. [...]

While he was at it, Mr. McCain added the wholly unsupported assertion that "speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground." It wasn't very long ago that he blamed speculators on the long side for sky-high oil prices. Then oil prices fell. Now Mr. McCain wants voters to believe speculators are responsible for driving mismanaged financial companies to ruin. The irony is that this critique puts Mr. McCain in the same camp as some of the Wall Street CEOs who have led their firms so poorly. They also want someone (else) to blame.

In case Mr. McCain is interested, overall short interest in financial companies actually declined by 20% between July and the end of August. That's right: Far from driving this crisis, shorts were net buyers of financial stocks this summer, as they must buy stocks back to close their positions and realize their gains (or losses).

In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution. He'll never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000.

Heckuva job, Gramm-py.