"Hue and Cry" Over Detainees; U.S. the Real Threat to Human Rights; Chelsea for President!; Director Robert Altman: U.S. Flag "A Joke"
-- Extra
Edition
1) "There’s been an international hue and cry and
it continues over the condition of Afghan war detainees being held at the
U.S. naval base in Cuba," CNN’s Wolf Blitzer declared as Tom Brokaw
and Peter Jennings raised how there are "questions" about their
treatment. If only reporters had more access, two argued during the
Pentagon briefing, there wouldn’t be such misinformation.
2) Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was hit with questions which
assumed that the U.S. is the real threat to human rights in the world.
NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski: "Is there a concern that the U.S. will
somehow lose the high moral authority in this war on terrorism by the
treatment of these detainees?" AP’s Thelma LeBrecht prompted a
lively retort from Rumsfeld when she worried it will soon to too hot for
the prisoners. And a Reuters story bawled that Rumsfeld "did not
mention the disease-carrying mosquitoes on the Caribbean island."
3) Now with a Republican in the White House, the homeless
are again on the media radar. On Tuesday’s Today, weather reader Al
Roker broadcast from a homeless shelter.
4) ABC was so excited by Chelsea Clinton’s new hairstyle
that they brought aboard E! Online columnist Ted Casablanca to rave. He
claimed: "We're living vicariously through Chelsea because as a
country we don't want to let a very popular former President out of our
hands." He gushed: "This is Camelot, almost....So much for
Hillary for President -- how about Chelsea?"
5) Film director Robert Altman charged: "This present
government in America I just find disgusting, the idea that George Bush
could run a baseball team successfully -- he can’t even speak! I just
find him an embarrassment." Altman added in a Times of London
interview: "When I see an American flag flying, it’s a joke."
1
If
only the media had "more information" and the military would
"provide more open access to the media," CNN’s Jamie McIntyre
and NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski contended at Tuesday’s Pentagon briefing,
there would be less outrage over detainee treatment at Guantanamo Bay.
But on Tuesday night the networks showed again
how they were plenty willing to give credibility to the
"international human cry" about conditions for the Al Qaeda and
Taliban prisoners, treating that view as just as legitimate as the U.S.
contention that they are being treated properly.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer proclaimed Monday
afternoon on his 5pm EST show, Wolf Blitzer Reports: "There’s been
an international hue and cry and it continues over the condition of Afghan
war detainees being held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The Defense
Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, went on the offensive today, denouncing the
critics and strongly defending the U.S. handling of the Al Qaeda and
Taliban fighters."
Tom Brokaw opened the January 22 NBC Nightly
News: "On a night when the American Taliban, John Walker Lindh, is
headed back to the U.S. to stand trial in a federal court, the Pentagon
today was defending the treatment of other Taliban prisoners who have been
incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. In the case of Lindh and the
others, there are other questions tonight as well."
On ABC’s World News Tonight, anchor Peter
Jennings announced: "The news being made at the Pentagon today is
about prisoners. First, the American, John Walker, who was found with the
Taliban, is on his way back to the states. Walker will be tried in a
civilian court. The Secretary of Defense was being pressed about prisoners
today, the ones being held at Guantanamo Bay. There have been questions
about their treatment and their future. ABC’s John McWethy is at the
Pentagon tonight. John?"
McWethy checked in, as taken down by MRC
analyst Brad Wilmouth: "Peter, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld argued
today in a very feisty manner that the prisoners, the captives, are being
treated humanely, and he simply rejected all the criticism. American
soldiers, he said, are just showing a proper level of caution when
handling dangerous prisoners."
Rumsfeld:
"I’ve seen in headlines and articles, words like ‘torture’ and
one thing and another, which is just utter nonsense. When people are
moved, they are restrained. That is true in prisons across the globe. It
is not anything new. Is it inhumane to do that? No. Would it be stupid to
do anything else? Yes."
McWethy
continued, making a technical argument about the Taliban being a
government: "Rumsfeld said he had no idea how long the men would be
held and did not know when, if ever, they would face actual charges in a
court of law. Today Germany’s foreign minister joined a chorus of
critics urging the U.S. to classify the captives as prisoners of war,
giving them full rights under the Geneva Convention. The U.S. refuses to
do that, arguing these are fighters from a terrorist organization, not a
country. But some of the prisoners did fight for the Taliban, which was
the government of Afghanistan."
Prof. Sean
Murphy, George Washington University Law School: "If that’s the
case, then I think we’ve gone down a road that’s inappropriate and
illegal and may come back to bite us in future conflicts where our own
military forces are at stake."
McWethy
concluded: "Rumsfeld said he is now focusing on two things. That is,
getting intelligence from the prisoners and keeping them in custody for as
long as possible because he says that will prevent them from going back
out and killing more people."
You’d think that might justify slightly
stricter treatment.
Rumsfeld was forced to spend much of his
slightly over an hour-long briefing on Tuesday defending the conditions
imposed on the prisoners, mainly British complaints which were fueled by
Pentagon-released photos of prisoners kneeling with their eyes and mouths
covered. Rumsfeld explained those measures were imposed just during
transport.
CNN’s McIntyre and NBC’s Miklaszewski
tried to convince Rumsfeld that media access would have alleviated
concerns about mistreatment:
McIntyre: "Mr. Secretary, you said it was
unfortunate that that photograph was released. I would just argue that it
was unfortunate that it wasn’t released with more information."
Rumsfeld:
"Maybe. Yeah. That’s fair."
McIntyre:
"The lesson here ought not to be-"
Rumsfeld:
"I mean, I’m not blaming anyone for releasing it, but-"
McIntyre:
"-less information or withholding photographs, but simply releasing
more information-"
Rumsfeld:
"Fair enough."
McIntyre:
"-so we can make better judgments."
Miklaszewski:
"And Mr. Secretary, would it be more beneficial to provide more open
access to the media to allow the media to see for itself how these
prisoners are being treated, to convey that information? You’ve spent
now nearly an hour trying to explain what’s going on there, when over
the past couple of weeks, if the media would’ve had more open access,
the stories that you’re telling today would have been, perhaps, better
told over the past couple of weeks."
Rumsfeld:
"You mean the facts that I’m presenting-"
Miklaszewski:
"Exactly."
Rumsfeld:
"-as opposed, I thought that’s what you meant."
Miklaszewski:
"The facts as they’ve been conveyed to you, because you, yourself,
have not been there yourself."
Rumsfeld:
"That’s right."
Miklaszewski:
"So, do you think it would be more beneficial if there were more open
access-"
Rumsfeld:
"Aren’t there a lot of people down there?"
Miklaszewski:
"Well, but they’re not allowed any access or any access to the
detention facilities themselves."
If they are, they’ll probably just find more
to complain about. Like the terrorists having to contend with too many
mosquitos or having to endure life without air conditioning. See item #2
below for proof.
2
Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was hit with a series of hostile questions at
Tuesday’s Pentagon briefing which assumed that U.S. soldiers guarding
the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay are the real threat to human rights
in the world.
ABC’s John McWethy lamented that a
"future entity could say to the U.S., ‘You didn’t abide by the
Geneva Convention on this. You didn’t call them prisoners of war. Why
should we?’" NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski worried: "Is there a
concern that the U.S. will somehow lose the high moral authority in this
war on terrorism by the treatment of these detainees?"
CNN’s Jamie McIntyre, noting how the
Pentagon argues the detainees were illegal combatants, not soldiers
entitled to POW rights, contended U.S. operatives inside Afghanistan were
the same as Al Qaeda terrorists inside the U.S.: "Weren’t there
times when U.S. troops, Special Forces and others, wore native garb in
Afghanistan and did not display insignias and uniforms?"
In the ultimate complaint, AP Broadcast
service reporter Thelma LeBrecht seemed to worry about the lack of air
conditioning: "As you know, in a few months it’s going to be very,
very hot down there and there is going to be more complaints about them
being held in open conditions like that." Rumsfeld shot down that
concern in a way only he could.
The wackiest media complaint, however, popped
up in a Reuters dispatch caught by James Taranto’s "Best of the
Web" column (http://opinionjournal.com/best/).
An unbylined story, headlined, "Rumsfeld: U.S. Not Mistreating Afghan
Detainees," included this recitation of facts:
"Rumsfeld
also noted the climate in Cuba was warmer than in Afghanistan and so
holding the detainees in open-air cells with roofs was not mistreatment.
"‘Guantanamo
Bay's climate is different than Afghanistan. To be in a
eight-(feet)-by-eight (2.5-meters-by-2.5- meters) cell in beautiful sunny
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is not inhumane treatment,’ he said. He did not
mention the disease-carrying mosquitoes on the Caribbean island."
For the entire Reuters story:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020122/ts/attack_military_detainees_dc_2.html
Below are some of the odder questions posed at
the January 22 briefing, a listing made possible by the MRC’s Rich Noyes
who compared the transcript to the videotape in order to provide accurate
quotes:
-- A reporter named "Charlie"
demanded: "Mr. Secretary, you intimated that people who criticize the
condition of these detainees are charging that military people, that
individual members of the U.S. military, are mistreating these people.
Aren’t these charges that U.S. policy is unfair and inhumane, in that
these people are being kept in eight-by-eight outdoor cells for an
indeterminate time? Do you plan any -- any -- immediate changes to address
these charges?"
-- John McWethy of ABC News: "Mr.
Secretary, two points: Why not call them prisoners of war? And you’re
indicating that that’s just some legal debate which is up there. Are you
not concerned that this could come back and somehow haunt the United
States in potential future treatment of American soldiers who are taken in
whatever kind of conditions, so that [a] future entity could say to the
U.S., ‘You didn’t abide by the Geneva Convention on this. You didn’t
call them prisoners of war. Why should we?’"
-- Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News: "Mr.
Secretary, last week, Friday, the U.S. military took into custody six
Algerians in Bosnia not directly related to the combat underway in
Afghanistan. In previous renditions, usually the civilian law enforcement
agencies -- FBI and the like -- have done these renditions. Under what
authority did the U.S. military have to take those six individuals into
custody and then transport them to Guantanamo after they were released by
the Bosnian government for lack of evidence against them?"
Miklaszewski followed up: "If, in fact,
as you say, these prisoners are being treated humanely, that’s certainly
not the perception in some quarters. Is there a concern that the U.S. will
somehow lose the high moral authority in this war on terrorism by the
treatment of these detainees and any subsequent rendition, such as the one
with the Algerians?"
Rumsfeld hoped: "Well, I guess I think
the truth ultimately wins out, and the truth of the matter is, they’re
being treated humanely. And people down there are fine young men and women
and the commanders are talented and responsible people. And the work
that’s being done to create facilities that are appropriate is moving
forward with dispatch. And I think that the American people will see that,
and indeed, I think the people of the world will."
-- Jamie McIntyre of CNN: "Mr. Secretary,
you’ve mentioned a couple of times -- matter of fact, it’s been the
first criteria you’ve mentioned in making the distinction between lawful
and unlawful combatants -- wearing uniforms and insignia. Weren’t there
times when U.S. troops, Special Forces and others, wore native garb in
Afghanistan and did not display insignias and uniforms?"
-- Thelma LeBrecht, of the AP Broadcast
service, a voice you may have heard on the radio: "You mentioned
earlier that Cuba has a beautiful climate. But as you know, in a few
months it’s going to be very, very hot down there and there is going to
be more complaints about them being held in open conditions like that. And also, again going back to some of the
criticism, the criticism being the open-ended nature, that they are going
to be there for an undetermined period, how would you, again, respond to
that?"
Rumsfeld
retorted: "I don’t know how many times I’ve been to Guantanamo
Bay, but it’s a lot, and it frequently was in the summer when I was Navy
pilot, and that was back in the days before air conditioning. And it’s
just amazing, but people do fine. [scattered laughter.] I mean, there are
a lot of people in Cuba with no air conditioning. [more light laughter.] I
know that will come as a surprise. But I was in Washington before there
was air conditioning, and the windows used to open! It’s amazing."
Rumsfeld added: "The worry for me is not
that. I’ve been, also been in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in a hurricane and
that is not a nice thing. But that’s hard on anybody no matter where
you’re living, what you’re in -- a cinder-block house or whatever. So
that is a bigger worry for me, quite honestly, than the temperature."
Later, a reporter named Pam told Rumsfeld:
"I grew up in South Florida, and my mom never turned on the air
conditioning, and I’m here to tell you it was torture."
Rumsfeld
joked: "Would you please refrain from using that word? [laughter.]
Look at you. You’ve survived admirably."
For a photo of LeBrecht, go to this page and
scroll down:
http://www.apbroadcast.com/AP+Broadcast/About+Us/Miscellaneous/More+Profiles.htm
On his FNC show Tuesday night Brit Hume
relayed how a poll of 400 registered voters by Andrews-McKenna Research
discovered that when asked to name an "obstacle to continuing the war
on terrorism," 27 percent listed "the terrorists," but a
statistically identical 26 percent cited the "American media."
Before playing, at the conclusion of Special
Report with Brit Hume, the LeBrecht/Rumsfeld exchange about her worry that
Guantanamo Bay will be too "hot" for the terrorists, Hume
reminded his audience of the public suspicion of the media, ruminating:
"Wonder why? Watch this."
Great minds think alike. Before Hume had shown
the LeBrecht question I had decided it would make an excellent RealPlayer
clip for the MRC home page. So, by late this morning EST the MRC’s Mez
Djouadi should have it posted at: http://www.mediaresearch.org
3
Now with
a Democrat out of, and a Republican in, the White House, the homeless are
again on the media radar.
All this week NBC’s Today is running a
series called "Lend a Hand" in which weather reader Al Roker
travels the country to plug local charities.
On Tuesday morning, MRC analyst Geoffrey
Dickens observed, Roker showed up at a homeless shelter in Los Angeles. He
asked Tanya Tull, of a group called Beyond Shelter: "Well you talk
about homelessness. Since, with the economy turning have you, have you
seen a rise in homelessness here in South Central L.A?"
Tull
confirmed: "We've seen a rise in homelessness in Los Angeles in every
city of the country. And this in particularly, in Southern California the
recession, kind of the economy in the fall even before 9/11 there is
definitely an increase and we are going to see more of it. We have not
seen the peak yet, I can tell you."
Not as long as the news media can hype it.
4
NBC’s
Today showed photos on Tuesday morning of the made-over Chelsea Clinton,
with a new hairstyle she debuted at a Paris fashion show. But ABC’s Good
Morning America was so excited about it the show brought aboard E! Online
columnist Ted Casablanca, who seriously maintained that though "what
we're talking about is a haircut," another "dynamic" is
"that we cannot let the Clinton legacy go. We're living vicariously
through Chelsea because as a country we don't want to let a very popular
former President out of our hands."
Casablanca enthused: "This is Camelot,
almost. We're trying to create another legacy here to hold on with with
the Clintons, and you know, so much for Hillary for President -- how about
Chelsea? I mean, I'm hearing some of that, have you?"
I sure haven’t.
Diane Sawyer set up the 8am half hour segment,
which MRC analyst Jessica Anderson caught: "It's Fashion Week in
Paris, but at the Versace show, couture was the last thing on anyone's
mind. They had a surprise guest: Chelsea Clinton, soon to be just 22. She
took the crowd of fashionistas by storm with a new look and a kind of last
laugh at adolescence."
Over a photo of Chelsea sporting a new
un-frizzed, straight hairstyle, Sawyer admired: "At the star-studded
Versace fashion show in Paris, a new face stole the show. Not Madonna, not
Gwyneth, not the supermodels. The star of the night was former first
daughter Chelsea Clinton." Sawyer was awestruck: "What a
transformation. Gone the shy 12-year-old in her father's shadow; the
gangly teen, behind mom at a presidential function; and the 18-year-old,
trying to make her way privately at college."
In a soundbite,
Lisa Kramer of People magazine opined: "We've all watched her grow up
from that girl with braces to this incredibly poised young lady."
Sawyer agreed:
"Yes, we watched as the Clintons vetted their beloved daughter in
style for her 21st birthday and as they beamed with pride when she
graduated Stanford with honors. And when she helped her mother win a seat
in the Senate, she did it with elegance, grace and a sense of self that no
family turmoil or scandal could ruffle."
Michael Beschloss, historian: "Had she not stood by that father or had she,
let's say, given an interview saying how humiliated and hurt she had been
by what had happened in that scandal, I think public opinion would have
been much less on Bill Clinton's side."
Sawyer
concluded her set up piece: "Chelsea's transformation is now
complete. A sheltered first daughter emerging as a worldly young woman,
confident enough to sit in a room with some of the world's most celebrated
celebrities and all the eyes on her."
GMA viewers then saw Sawyer discuss Chelsea
with Lesley Jane Seymour, Editor of Marie Claire magazine, who was in
studio, and via satellite from Los Angeles, E! Online columnist Ted
Casablanca. (What are the chances that’s his real name?)
Sawyer soon asked Casablanca: "So Ted, I
know over the years, you've watched a lot of people grow up in the public
eye. What can you tell us about watching Chelsea Clinton make her way
through childhood, adolescence, all the way to this new stage?"
Casablanca
responded by seeing evidence that we all miss Chelsea’s father:
"Well, I think what's going on is we forever have the image of a
gawky 12-year-old in the Oval Office playing around with her dad, much
like Amy Carter, and it's stunning to see this transformation into this
beautiful woman who's been remade. But basically what we're talking about
is a haircut and I think another dynamic that we're living through is that
we cannot let the Clinton legacy go. We're living vicariously through
Chelsea because as a country we don't want to let a very popular former
President out of our hands, and here's another chance with Chelsea."
That was even too much for Sawyer, though she
didn’t counter him, just demurred as she moved back to Seymour:
"Well, the most talked about presidency, without question..."
Getting back to Casablanca, Sawyer wondered:
"So Ted, this world of the fashionistas and celebrity, how quickly
can you get lost in it?"
Casablanca
showed he has a one-track mind, this time elevating the Clintons to
liberal hero status and suggesting Chelsea for President, all because she
got a new hairstyle: "Well, a bad haircut, you know, we're not going
to be talking about it quite as much, but I think this is, you know, this
is Camelot, almost. We're trying to create another legacy here to hold on
with with the Clintons, and you know, so much for Hillary for President --
how about Chelsea? I mean, I'm hearing some of that, have you?"
Sawyer didn’t take him up on his bizarre
question. At that point she ended the interview by thanking both guests
for appearing.
As for Casablanca’s claim about hearing talk
about Chelsea for President, it’s just more evidence that Hollywood is
every bit as wacky as you feared. Definitely a fantasy land.
Casablanca writes "The Awful Truth"
column for E! Online:
http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/index.html
To see the photo of the new Chelsea, sitting
next to actress Gwyneth Paltrow, go to:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/News/01/22/fashion.celebs/index.html
5
Famed
film director and producer Robert Altman, who directed the
presently-playing movie Gosford Park, rebuked America’s election choice:
"This present government in America I just find disgusting, the idea
that George Bush could run a baseball team successfully -- he can’t even
speak! I just find him an embarrassment."
In Times of London interview, which James
Taranto’s "Best of the Web" column (http://opinionjournal.com/best/)
highlighted on Tuesday, Altman snarled: "When I see an American flag
flying, it’s a joke." As for moving to London permanently, the
Kansas City-born Altman declared: "There’s nothing in America that
I would miss at all."
An excerpt from the interview with Altman by
Stephen Dalton in the January 21 Times of London:
....Although Gosford Park takes a largely dispassionate stance on class, Altman has long been considered a
left-of-centre voice since coming to prominence during the halcyon days of
the American New Wave with such
counter-culture classics as MASH. However, aside from tapping into
generalised social themes, his films have rarely made concrete political
statements.
"I am a political person," Altman says, "but I don’t
have to put a strong debate into a film. This present government in
America I just find disgusting, the idea that George Bush could run a
baseball team successfully -- he can’t even speak! I just find him an
embarrassment. I was over here when the election was on and I couldn’t
believe it -- and I’m 76 years old. Then when the Supreme Court came in
and turned out to be a totally political animal, the last shred of any
naivety that was left in me has gone. When I see an American flag flying,
it’s a joke."
An enraged Altman suddenly checks himself, aware that he is on
sensitive ground in our post-September 11 world. But, controversially, he
thinks that Hollywood may have inspired the World Trade Centre attacks.
"We gave them the ideas -- it was a movie," he fumes. "We
should be ashamed of ourselves."
Altman also disagrees with bombing Afghanistan, even though he flew
B-24 bombers in the South Pacific during the Second World War. "I
don’t think there was a moral choice then," he argues. "But
this thing we’re involved in now -- these people don’t even have a
country, and maybe that’s the problem."...
END of Excerpt
To read the entire interview, go to:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,62-2002032543,00.html
For a photo of Altman, access the Internet
Movie Database page on him:
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Altman,+Robert
The same page lists his credits as a director
or producer. Amongst the better known: Gosford Park (2001), Dr. T &
the Women (2000), The Player(1992), Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy
Dean, Jimmy Dean (1982), Popeye (1980), Nashville (1975), M*A*S*H (1970),
Bonanza (1959) TV series and Maverick (1957) TV series.
Asked by Dalton in the Times of London
interview about shooting another film in Britain, as he did Gosford Park,
Altman replied: "If you asked would I live in London the rest of my
life, yeah, I’d be very happy to stay here. There’s nothing in America
that I would miss at all."
Speaking for every American, except probably
for Phil Donahue and Susan Sontag, we wouldn’t miss him.