http://www.slate.com/id/2150529/?nav=fix
Bill of No Rights
By Alexander Dryer
Posted Thursday, Sept. 28, 2006, at 5:15 AM ET
The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times lead with the House's
approval of the Bush administration's bill on the interrogation and
trial of terror suspects. The legislation is likely to clear the Senate
tomorrow, handing the president an important pre-election victory on a
signature issue. The Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox
with the vote and an update on other legislative business. The New York
Times and USA Today stuff the House's decision; the NYT leads with an
update on Democrats' campaign for the Senate, while USAT's top spot goes
to NASA funding cuts that endanger efforts to modernize air traffic
control systems.
Accounts of the terror legislation all focus on the political and
parliamentary maneuvering surrounding its passage, largely setting aside
any substantive examination of its provisions. The Post traces the nasty
back-and-forth over the bill in the House, which the LAT describes as a
prelude to the fall campaign, when Republicans will turn support for the
measure into a political issue. (The paper quotes House Majority Leader
John Boehner, R-Ohio, virtually taunting opponents to vote against the
GOP.) The NYT, meanwhile, reports on efforts to amend the legislation in
the Senate. But all these stories (along with the similar one inside
USAT) are worth skipping for the NYT's editorial, which should have run
as an "analysis" on Page One.
In plain language the news accounts lack, the Gray Lady lays out the
array of breathtaking problems with the bill, from its embrace of
coerced evidence to its narrow definition of torture. (The complete list
illustrates just how credulous the straight reporting is; consider it
alongside USAT's article, which describes Congress as working to
"balance national security needs with the rights of prisoners," or the
Post's lead, which asserts that the president "yielded some ground
during weeks of negotiations.") The editorial's forceful conclusion puts
the bill in context: "Americans of the future won't remember the
pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration. They'll know
that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with
the low points in American democracy, our generation's version of the
Alien and Sedition Acts."
In the present, of course, Democrats think caving is a savvy political
move. Under the headline (in the print edition) "Democrats Cite New Hope
in Bid for Senate," the NYT's lead is an examination of the party's
chances for an upset in November. But dig in and you'll see that Dems
themselves don't seem to be stocking up on Moët. Even with newly
competitive races in Virginia and Tennessee, the party faces long odds;
the article itself concedes Democrats "would have to win nearly every
close race." The only Dem actually quoted, New York's Chuck Schumer,
offers a decidedly downbeat rallying cry: "[I]f the stars continue to
align, we can take back the Senate." As the NYT notes, part of the
problem for Democrats is two unexpectedly close races in what should be
safe blue states, New Jersey and Maryland. The Post fronts the latest
from the contest in Maryland, where racial politics are complicating
Democrats' efforts to hold on to an open seat. USAT steps back from the
horse-race campaign reporting and fronts an examination of the
continuing problems with overseas voting. The paper suggests technology
may be the answer.
/end
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
