I wish that what you've written here was not true but sadly it is all too true. Media personalities like Broder are just totally clueless and are part of the problem not the solution. Perhaps if they spent less time at the celebrity filled dinners and cocktail parties gossipying about inconsequential matters and more time familiarizing themselves with our country's history and Constitution they might begin to become the watch dogs that our country needs and their profession requires. But I don't hold out much hope that this scenario will ever happen. The only way for America to regain the free press that we need is to remove the corporate influence and remove the "celebrity" journalists that litter our media institutions.

Glenn, I hope you sent a copy of your piece to Mr. Lichtblau. Maybe he can print a correction or followup piece. Yeah, right.

Does anyone know if the Counter Punch website is a propaganda site or whether they publish accurate info? The reason I ask is that I just read a piece that if true is stunning.

SueAnn Arrigo’s Explosive Revelations

Exposing Pentagon and CIA Corruption

By STEPHEN LENDMAN

http://www.counterpunch.org/lendman06112008.html

I posted this earlier this morning but have since done some additional checking. Unless I hear Waxman or some other reliable source talking about it then I think it's probably more fiction than fact. I just don't see any evidence in the story that backs up these claims other than the word of Ms. Arrigo. So, I guess I answered my own question. LOL

Off Topic Question

Does anyone know if the Counter Punch website is a propaganda site or whether they publish accurate info? The reason I ask is that I just read a piece that if true is stunning.

SueAnn Arrigo’s Explosive Revelations

Exposing Pentagon and CIA Corruption

By STEPHEN LENDMAN

http://www.counterpunch.org/lendman06112008.html

Thanks for the Wiki reference Bystander.

In the WaPo's editorial they make the following comment:

"The court wisely limited its holding only to detainees at Guantanamo; it left open the question of whether noncitizens held elsewhere outside the United States were entitled to such protections"

In the Court's opinion they talk about Guantanamo not being a transient possession of the U.S.

Is it possible that if Bush moved all the prisoners at Guantanamo to a location where the U.S. only has a transient possession of the facility that it would allow Bush to get around habeas?

Thanks for reminding me, what I should have known already, that Marty Lederman's blog would have discussions on this opinion. In fact here he sums up my concern:

Most importantly, the Court strongly implies that if, as in this case, the government chooses a foreign detention facility for the very purpose of avoiding judicial review (or perhaps even if the military retains a prisoner at a battlefield locale for the same reason), the Court will not look kindly upon such efforts. As I noted below, I believe the single most important sentence in the opinion might be this one: "The test for determining the scope of [the Suspension Clause] must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain." The political branches will not be permitted "to govern without legal constraint" or to "have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will."

@pmorlan

Is it possible that if Bush moved all the prisoners at Guantanamo to a location where the U.S. only has a transient possession of the facility that it would allow Bush to get around habeas?

Not meaning to cut Glenn off at all, but might I recommend Marty Lederman's post on this at Balkinization.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-does-court-say-about-two-big.html

-- GlennNYC

I can hardly wait for your FISA update.

The immunity for the Telecoms just infuriates me. Last week I made phone calls to Hoyer, Pelosi and Obama. Are we organizing to get a Senator to put a hold on this? Should we threaten to back Nader? What can we do? Any suggestions?

"Commentary like Remnick and Shapiro's -- and there's a lot of it -- is really testing my ability to avoid this topic for a little while longer." - Glenn Greenwald

I tried that for awhile but finally had to comment yesterday when I read two pieces on HuffPo.

Peter Sims:

Tim Russert: A Different Type of American Royalty

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-sims/tim-russert-a-different-t_b_107121.html

My Comment:

I've tried really hard not to knock Russert because a lot of people liked him and it's just plain rude to go after someone when their friends and family are feeling pain at the loss of the person. But I'm afraid that I have to draw the line at allowing the comment that he was American Royalty to Washington go without comment.

We don't need media personalities treated like royalty. What we need are journalists that are like bulldogs when it comes to looking for the truth. We need rabble rousing commoners to serve as our media watchdogs not people who want to have their ring kissed. I have no doubt that there are those in Washington who did look upon Tim as royalty because they feel that they too are part of that royalty. And that is why I had such a problem with Tim as a journalist. Because he was part of the Washington royalty scene he didn't always do his job holding them accountable. Now I'm sorry if I offended anyone by my comments but if Tim Russert was as great a journalist as his friends claim then he won't mind a bit to have different opinions included in the comments section.

Meet Tim Russert, Mentor of the Press

Andrew Tyndall

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-tyndall/meet-tim-russert-mentor-o_b_107160.html

My comment:

So Russert was the leader of the "pack". Well that certainly helps explain a great many things about the quality of our current crop of media personalities. - pmorlan