http://www.americanchronicle.com/

–Szandor Blestman

I have recently written separate commentaries on two jailed journalists. One, Roxana Saberi, has received a great deal of attention from the mainstream media and her case has been widely reported on and disseminated across the globe. The other case is that of Sam Dodson. His case has gotten virtually no attention from the mainstream media. As he languishes in a jail cell refusing to eat his plight has only been discussed on few liberty oriented blogs. I begin to wonder why this should be and thought an examination of the differences between the two cases might shed some light on this phenomenon.reason

It was interesting to note, as I researched these cases, that the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported that last year there were 125 journalists jailed worldwide as of their census of Dec. 1st, 2008. Yet one must wonder exactly how accurate their count is in these times when the Internet provides a means for anyone to become a journalist. The CPJ itself makes an interesting statement on its website that the United States will hold journalists in jail for a few days without charge and then release them. These journalists apparently are not counted in the census, so the true scope of the problem is clearly unknown and severely under reported. I suppose Roxana Saberi and Sam Dodson could count themselves lucky to be getting any attention considering how much attention the other 123 journalists are getting.

That said, why is it that Roxana Saberi gets so much attention while Sam Dodson´s case seems to be followed by only a few – shall we say – lesser known news outlets? Well, perhaps it´s because Ms. Saberi´s case is taking place in Iran whereas Mr. Dodson´s case is playing out in these United States of America, in New Hampshire to be exact. It is always easier to point out the imperfections in one´s neighbor than it is to see the same faults in one´s self. In the same manner, I suppose it´s always easier to see the tyranny and injustice in another´s government than it is to see the same in one´s own.

Read More…

At least I’m assuming it was Code Pink given the bright pink dress she was wearing. The crowd started yelling “U, S, A” to drown out the protesters. McCain then said something about not letting people get worked up over ground static or something to that affect.

Funny that he claims we all have inalienable rights. McCain/Feingold? Supporting wiretapping? Supporting unconstitutional, aggressive wars? Supporting ignoring of habeas corpus? Supporting Lincoln? Attacking Democrats for being “me first, country second?”

He has a funny definition of ‘inalienable’ and ‘rights.’

http://www.cbsnews.com/…

Calling it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country,” John McCain ripped into the Supreme Court’s decision to allow Guantanamo detainees access to civilian trials for the second day in a row. “We’re now going to have the courts flooded with so-called “habeas corpus suits” against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material,” McCain said. “Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation and the men and women who defend it. This decision will harm our ability to do that.”

The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 yesterday that enemy combatants can challenge their detention at Guantanamo Bay in U.S. courts, instead of military tribunals. It was a decision welcomed by McCain’s rival. “The Court’s decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo – yet another failed policy supported by John McCain,” Barack Obama said. “This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.”

At a town hall meeting here today, McCain sought to use Obama’s embrace of the decision against him. “Sen. Obama applauds this decision and he supports it,” McCain said. “I argue against it and will do what I can to at least narrow down some of the wide open aspects of this Supreme Court decision.”

He shows how much of a warmonger he is yet again. He doesn’t want to give these individuals one of the most fundamental rights in western and common law, habeas corpus. He wants the government to be able to just lock people up indefiently with no charges brought up in front of their peers. Why? Likely because he knows it will show that this war on terror is a farse and that many of these men held have done nothing to harm US subjects. This and the last warmonger info to come out should be more than enough to discredit this man and keep him from being dog catcher let alone president.