CNN might have made the most pathetic attempt in a week filled with ignorant media talking about Ketanji Jackson.
You can’t miss the way the news media have built an entire human pyramid while chanting the name Ketanji Jackson. Daily, there has been no shortage of journos who see the Republican senators asking questions about Justice Jackson’s work record as nothing but hateful racism, while claiming they have never before seen such offensive behavior in these chambers.
Asking for clarification on past rulings seems far more vile than accusing someone with committing rape when they are drunk.
The media’s bias this week is evident in the busyness of fact-checking organizations. Not with verifying KBJ’s record, mind you, but with diligently verifying the GOP senators’ questions.
PolitiFact and FactCheck.org only have a handful of entries from the hearing. All are focused on answering questions by the GOP. This is a perfect example of the practice, as illustrated by The Associated Press. These are the headlines for the three. APFact-checks at the confirmation hearings Republicans Skew Jackson’s Record… – Republicans Twist Jackson’s Judicial Record… — Senators misrepresent Jackson on Abortion…
Then, as if needing to curry approval from the truth-detecting brethren, CNN’s Daniel Dale leaps to the fore with another GOP question getting the Zapruder treatment. It was a Lindsey Graham challenge. Dale makes a fine point.This could be used as a basis for a position document on rice grains.
It is not an easy task to walk through this process, but you can trust me. Graham begins by describing a period when Jackson was, in his capacity as federal public defender assigned, the Guantanamo detainees case. Brown stated that plaintiffs suffered torture and inhumane conditions while being held.
John Cornyn was also present during this interrogation. Graham asked Jackson to explain why Jackson used the term government in her arguments. “A war criminal when attempting to bring charges against terrorists“She was also challenged by him for calling George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld “Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld”. A legal filing for war criminals: “It seems so out of character for you.”
Daniel Dale couldn’t stomach this much. You can expect heavy amounts of shading and nuance.
Graham and Cornyn both left out crucial context. Specifically, neither mentioned that Jackson’s allegation of war crimes was about torture. Also, Jackson didn’t explicitly use the phrase “war criminal.”
So, although she did accuse the government of torture and inhospitable treatment, her accusations were not enough to prove that the George Bush government was guilty. But, actually, she did just that. Court filingWe get the following language under the SIXTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF:
By the actions described above, Respondents’ acts directing, ordering, confirming, ratifying, and/or conspiring to bring about the torture and other inhumane treatment of Petitioner Alsawam constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity in violation of the law of nations under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, in that the acts violated, among others, the Fourth Geneva Convention, Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols I and II of the Geneva Conventions as well as customary international law prohibiting war crimes as reflected, expressed, and defined in other multilateral treaties and international instruments, international and domestic judicial decision, and other authorities.
To help Mr. Dale, we have named the defendants as GEORGE W. Bush, DONALD RUMSELD, and ARMY BRIGA. GEN. JAY HOOD, ARMY COL. MIKE BUMGARNER — the last two names being the commanders of the Gitmo facility. Now, how does Daniel Dale explain that KBJ charged the leaders of our federal government with committing war crimes, but not never labeled them as ‘war criminals’?
Even the strictest technicalities. Dale writes:
Jackson and her colleague noted in each filing that “all references” to the actions of respondents were meant to cover actions performed by “respondents’ agents or employees, other government agents or employees or contractor employees.” A White House official said in an email on Tuesday that “Judge Jackson never filed habeas petitions that called either President Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld war criminals.”
This means that even as they are named directly in the suit, as well as at the top of those habeas petitions, she didn’t mean TheyJust the one responsible for doing those bad things. Although war crimes were made, no one was being charged with those crimes. While she accused people within the government of war crimes, she did not name anyone as a war criminal. This is how this system works.
The only way this could have been better was if he simply said, “She wrote ‘war crimes’ in the court documents, but she never SAID anyone was a ‘war criminal,’ you see.” Now with that cleared up, we can move on to my colleague Jeff Charles’ column on GOP senators being called racist for referring to official court documents to make their case.
About Post Author
