Amongst the Forces Are Such Diverse Factors As…

Speaking of whether Donald Rumsfeld's days in the Bush administration are (or should be) numbered, a "news analysis" in The New York Times explains that "three critical forces will probably determine whether the defense secretary keeps his job: the White House, Republican lawmakers and Mr. Rumsfeld himself." Of these, "The White House is the most important." Still, "Perhaps the single greatest factor in whether Mr. Rumsfeld remains in his job is Mr. Rumsfeld himself." Then again, those Republican lawmakers are pretty important too. I think I prefer my news unanalyzed.

Comments

[Gadfly]

Here's an interesting side bit from a lawyer associated with the Padilla case just argued before the Supreme Court.

"By requesting that CBS delay its report on prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib by two weeks [news story, May 4], Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, deprived the country of a full and forthright oral argument before the Supreme Court on the rights of U.S. citizens whom the government has detained as "enemy combatants."
Oral argument in those cases, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Padilla v. Rumsfeld, ended about noon April 28. CBS aired the report eight hours later. Had the report aired the previous week, the government's responses to certain questions at oral argument would certainly have been different. Specifically, it would have been clear what abuses could be perpetrated under the government's theory that "enemy combatants" have no rights..."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/10/113239/665

[Mo]

... and a fanatical devotion to the Pope? Oh wait, that's the group that wants to deny John Kerry communion.

[Mo]

that should be an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

[Dan]

Specifically, it would have been clear what abuses could be perpetrated under the government's theory that "enemy combatants" have no rights

Are you under the mistaken impression that that argument makes sense? The question of whether or not it's possible for prisoners to be abused at the hands of the government is irrelevant; the Supreme Court was addressing whether or not the government had the rightful power to act as it did. The Supreme Court is not in the business of deciding whether or not the government can be trusted with power. It's in the business of deciding how much power the government is *entitled* to under the Constitution.

[Bob A. Bui]

Jacob, thanks so much for making me spit coffee this morning. Another reminder why this is my favorite weblog...

[Call me snake]

Jacob,

Please watch yourself...hit and run is getting very close to the dangerous pseudo-journalism practiced on certain non left leaning news channels and on the internet....at least according to the LA Times editor's speech in Oregon recently.

Let's face it...we didn't graduate from the Medill School, or Columbia school of journalism, or the Annenberg school of communications at USC....don't you see we MUST have our news analyzed!!??

Frankly, we can't fathom the dogged commitment to objectivity exhibited by news organizations like the NYT...please let the professionals do their jobs and confine hit and run to linking to cool essays about nihilism.

[Gadfly]

I guess my point, Dan, by posting that tidbit is not to argue the guy's case but to raise the question of why did they ask CBS to delay reporting this? Was it the Padilla case? Or maybe waiting for a late Friday release to miss the news cycle? Or somebody having a sensitive stock transaction going on? Or we had Bin Laden cornered and didn't want to let this screw it up? Or any of a million other things.

I just think it's curious.