I agree that the media narrative is a HUGE problem on this issue and others. I also agree that our establishment media is projecting their own guilt onto everyone including the public.

I actually wondered the other day when the Washington Post was trying to change the topic of conversation by writing a blue million pieces focusing on Nancy Pelosi whether the WH had met with media owners to "brief" them on torture long before any of us knew about it. I wondered if those owners agreed to downplay the torture story whenever they could. For instance how long did the Post hold back publishing the CIA black site story?

The stories on Pelosi in the Post this past weekend all failed to include important (and very obvious) facts because they didn't fit the narrative that our establishment media was pushing. I even wrote a post on my blog about the Post ignoring a 2006 front page story from the Post where a former deputy inspector general, Mary McCarthy, had accused the CIA of lying to Congress in their briefings to Congress. Ms. McCarthy was actually one of the Post's key sources for Dana Priest's CIA Black Site story and yet not one word about her claims that the CIA lied to Congress appeared in any story or opinion piece in the Post. Why not?

I agree with you. I'd sure like to know what the media knew and when they knew it because I'm real tired of the continuing propaganda campaign directed at the public.

daka101, you evidently credit him with more intelligence than I do. I don't think he was just being provocative, I think that's how he thinks. They have the video up on this at MSNBC already. It's some 6 plus minutes into the video.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#30853424

Sorry T.H. I didn't know you made the comment earlier in the thread. I'm with you, I was appalled by his statement. I didn't stick around to find out how Chambliss and Nelson responded to that comment. I certainly hope they didn't agree with him. Did you hear their response?

Thank you. By the way you shouldn't feel a twinge of guilt for making your statement. You were right to state what should have been obvious to the person you responded to in your post.

On Hardball tonight Chris Matthews was talking with Saxby Chambliss and Ben Nelson about Guantanamo prisoners. Out of nowhere Matthews says something to the effect of ...Why don't we just execute them and be done with it. And this man was going to run for the Senate. Gawd - he is so pathetic but all we could do was to change the channel. My fiance said..we voted the Republicans out now how can we vote to remove these A-holes from our establishment media?

Julian Epstein told TV viewers before Hardball came on that all of the issues we care about here, like Guantanamo, state secrets, torture, etc. are "B" list issues for Obama. Isn't THAT special.

Thanks Ondelette. That article was much better than the one I found. LOL

Will this now go to the Supreme Court because of the two different rulings?

Thanks for the links, ej.

Am I correct in thinking that now that there are two different rulings on whether Obama can indefinitely detain those who provided "support" that this will probably go to the Supreme Court for a final determination?

Here's more info on the Bates ruling. Looks like Obama didn't get EVERYTHING he wanted.

Judge John D. Bates (D.D.C.) ruled today that the government lacks authority to detain individuals in the global struggle against terrorism based merely upon their "substantial support" of Taliban, al Qaida, or associated forces or merely upon their "direct support" in aid of such forces.

Bates's ruling comes in response to the Obama administration's refined position on detainable individuals, filed with the court on March 13. Under the Obama administration's preferred definition, the government would have had authority to detain not only those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" of 9/11 and anyone who harbored them, but also those who "substantially supported" Taliban, al Qaida, or associated forces and those who "directly supported hostilities" in aid of those forces.

In a separate case, Judge Walton (D.D.C.) previously approved the administration's preferred approach in its entirety.

Bates concluded that the government had authority under the AUMF and the laws of war to detain those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" for the same reasons that Walton so concluded.

But Bates broke with Walton on the "substantial support" component and ruled that the government lacked authority under the AUMF and the laws of war to detain those who merely "substantially supported" Taliban, al Qaida, or associated forces, or those who "directly supported" hostilities in aid of such forces. Bates suggested that allowing the administration to detain these individuals may run afoul of separation-of-powers principles (because the President would be operating beyond Congressional authorization and outside the laws of war) and nondelegation principles (because the administration's preferred interpretation would have meant that the AUMF was too vague and left the administration to make law).

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2009/05/judge-bates-no-detention-based-merely-on-substantial-support.html

Pdf file

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv1236-116