This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Post-9/11, the same pattern repeated ruthlessly against hundreds of innocent victims. Pronounced guilty by accusation, America's media shamelessly regurgitate fabricated hate charges, not legitimate honest accounts, doing what good journalists should - their job.
On July 5, New York Times writers Charlie Savage and Eric Schmitt headlined, "US to Prosecute Somali Suspect in Civilian Court," saying:
Obama's Justice Department will "prosecute (Warsame) in civilian court," likely "reignit(ing) debate about (whether) to bring newly captured detainees to" Guantanamo, try them before military commissions, or do it "in civilian court."
While admitting Warsame plotted no attack, and that administration officials gave contradictory accounts of his importance, the article presumed guilt by accusation.
It failed to question whether or not charges are legitimate, let alone his illegal capture, detention, interrogation, and likely torture at sea secretly for over two months.
A same day Karen DeYoung, Greg Miller, Greg Jaffe Washington Post article headlined, "US indicts Somali on terrorism charges," was just as one-sided, presuming guilt because administration officials say so.
Quoting "human rights attorney" John Sifton, his best shot was saying, "It is not exactly satisfactory, from a legal point of view," adding "that the Justice Department is better suited to prosecute" than a military tribunal, instead of explaining what authority gives either the right.
In addition, he didn't question the core guilt or innocence issue or whether Warsame can get due process and judicial fairness in any court, given the circumstances of his capture, charges with no evidence, and America media's acting as judge, jury and executioner.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
