Room for a View > Briefs
Accuracy in Reporting?
edited by Lorna Tychostup

While the great media lords have been doling out their daily endorsement of the younger Bush’s war with Iraq, it seems they’ve been caught with their pants down. National media watchdog FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) did a short comparative study as to what “they” were saying four years ago and what “they” are saying now about why those UN inspectors left Iraq.

One has to won-der if anyone is out there checking sources anymore. Or is it simply that war sells much better than coverage of a crumbling economy or the growing peace movement the major media outlets are loath to talk about.

The bottom line is that you can do some-thing about what your favorite newspaper, TV station, or radio show is spewing at you. Call them, write them, harass them daily if need be. Tell them what you do and don’t like about their reporting. Don’t wait for someone else to speak up for you, because it just might be too late. The dogs may not always be watching your back.

Just for the record, UN chief weapons inspector Richard Butler pulled the weapons inspectors out of Iraq. As he was delivering his report to the UN Security Council, Great Britain and the US unilaterally launched Operation Desert Fox.

—Lorna Tychostup

“The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today’s evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq’s failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes.”
—Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98

“If he has secret weapons, he’s had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them.”
—Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02

“Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council.”
—USA Today, 12/17/98

“Saddam expelled UN weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being US spies.”
—USA Today, 9/4/02

“The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief UN weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and—as they had promised to do. As a result, the UN ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning.”
—Katie Couric, NBC “Today”, 12/16/98

“As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting UN weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago.”
—Maurice DuBois, NBC’s “Saturday Today,” 8/3/02

“The chief UN weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate—a report that renewed the threat of US and British air strikes.”
—AP, 12/16/98

“Information on Iraq’s programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.”
—AP, 9/7/02

“This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible US-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at UN headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain.”
—Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98

“What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out.”
—John King, CNN, 8/18/02

“But the most recent irritant was Mr. Butler’s quick withdrawal from Iraq on Wednesday of all his inspectors and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iraqi nuclear programs, without Security Council permission. Mr. Butler acted after a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, the American representative to the United Nations, and a discussion with Secretary General Kofi Annan, who had also spoken to Mr. Burleigh.”
—New York Times, 12/18/98

“America’s goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons.... To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations arms inspectors four years ago.”
—New York Times editorial, 8/3/02

“Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night—at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report.”
—Washington Post, 12/18/98

“Since 1998, when UN inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons.”
—Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02

“The UN orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the cheif inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.”
—Sheila MacVitar, ABC “World News This Morning, 12/16/98

“To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory UN inpectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.”
—John McWerthy, ABC “World News Tonight, 08/12/02

Source: www.fair.org

Washington a Sacrifice-Free Zone

“Let us pause on the eve of war to reflect on who the AMericans are who will die. In any war, nearly all of the fighting and nearly all of the dying are done by the youngest soldiers who hold the lowest rank. Of the 58,152 Americans killed in the Vietnam War, three out of four between the ages of 17 and 22, and three out of four were under the rank of staff sergeant—corporals and privates.

Today, there are 1,182,412 enlisted men and women on active duty in the United States military. It is from their ranks that the vast majority of all American combat casualties in the next war will come. If you need further proof of the complete separation of the people in power in Washington from the people at peril in the Persian Gulf, just consider this: Not one of the 435 members of the US House of Representatives has a son or daughter on active duty in the enlisted ranks of this nation’s military.”

—Mark Shields, from “In the War Against Iraq,
Washington is a Sacrifice-Free Zone,” 10/12/02.
Full text available at www.creators.com

State of the First Amendment

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Ratified in 1791, the First Amendment, like the rest of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, protects Americans from excess government intervention. The First Amendment was crafted by the Founders to check the enormous power the Constitution placed in the hands of the new central government.
The First Amendment Center, a project of the nonpartisan Freedom Forum Foundation, which works to preserve and protect First Amendment freedoms through information and education, has conducted a survey each of the last five years tracking American attitudes toward the First Amendment. For this year’s “The State of the First Amendment” survey, the FAC has collaborated with the American Journalism Review to take a closer look at how the nation views the First Amendment after September 11. The results of the 2002 survey suggest that Americans are more inclined to view First Amendment freedoms as obstacles to security than they have in the past.

Among the key findings from the 2002 survey:

• For the first time, respondents said that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. About 49 percent said the First Amendment gives us too much freedom, up 39 percent from last year and 22 percent from the year before.

• The least popular First Amendment right is freedom of the press. Forty-two percent of respondents said the press in America has too much freedom. More than 40 percent said newspapers should not be allowed to criticize the US military about its strategy and performance. Roughly half of those surveyed said the American press has been too aggressive in asking the government for information about the war on terrorism.

• More than four in 10 said they would limit the academic freedom of professors and bar criticism of military policy.

• About half of those surveyed said the government should be able to monitor religious groups in the interest of national security, even if that means infringing upon religious freedom.

• More than four in 10 said the government should have greater power to monitor the activities of Muslims in the US than it does other religious groups.

A downloadable PDF version of “State of the First Amendment 2002” is available at www.freedomforum.org.

—Brian K. Mahoney

American Civil Liberties Union to the Rescue

In response to the growing concerns among Americans about President Bush’s and Attorney General Ashcroft’s assault on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has begun a landmark national campaign to safeguard these hard-won American freedoms.

The ACLU’s $3.5 million campaign, “Keep America Safe and Free” launched on the first anniversary of the US Patriot Act, includes for the first time paid television advertising and a massive mobilization of its 53 offices and 300,000 members across the US to litigate, organize and lobby in defense of liberty. Their goals include putting an end to government spying on political and religious activities; repealing anti-civil liberties provisions in the US Patriot Act; and protecting privacy by limiting surveillance, data collection, and information sharing.

“Look what John Ashcroft is doing to our constitution,” the first TV ad says, while a pair of scissor-wielding hands cut out sections of the Constitution. “He’s seized powers for the Bush Administration no president should ever have. The right to investigate you for what you say, to intrude on your privacy, to hold you in jail without charging you with a crime.”

“Those who ask the American people to choose whether they want to be ‘safe or free’ are presenting a false and dangerous choice,” says Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. “The real difficult task ahead is to create a new and more powerful balance between two fundamental values—liberty and security. In this way, America can be both safe and free.”

Romero cites the case of Danny Muller, who has traveled to Iraq with Voices in the Wilderness, a group that opposes economic sanctions against Iraq. Last November, Muller and a colleague attempted to purchase 4,000 stamps for a mailing. Requesting stamps without the American flag, they were asked if Statue of Liberty stamps were OK. “Yes, we love liberty,” they replied. The clerk called the police, and Danny and his colleague were questioned about their patriotism. They were unable to purchase stamps that day. When Danny’s colleague returned to the post office the next day he was asked to meet with the Postal Inspector, who quizzed him at length about the Voices in the Wilderness group.
The Patriot Act, which was rushed through Congress in the immediate aftermath of September 11, has severely altered our nation’s immigration laws, expanded the government’s ability to spy on US citizens, and increased the capacity for unreasonable searches and seizures. The ACLU will continue to monitor implementation of the US Patriot Act, and will begin working toward passage of local and state ordinances prohibiting local law enforcement participation in repressive Administration initiatives—such as the Justice Department’s plan to deputize local and state police to enforce immigration laws.

Nine communities have passed local initiatives already—including Cambridge and Northhampton, MA; Sante Fe, NM; Ann Arbor, MI; and Carrboro, NC; and organizing efforts have started in 30 municipalities around the country.

“Last December, Ashcroft, the chief law enforcement officer of this country, effectively accused those who ‘frighten peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty”’ of siding with the terrorists,” said ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office Director, Laura W. Murphy. “Now more than ever, it is necessary to stand up for the Bill of Rights. We strongly believe that it is patriotic to question the actions of an overreaching government.”

“A growing number of people in America are frightened and angry about the government’s anti-civil liberties response to the terrorist attacks—and are ready to act,” adds Murphy. “We are going to organize them, expand their numbers and put politicians in Washington on notice that the American people want the checks and balances of democracy, not the edicts and decrees of kings.”

For more information contact the ACLU at (212) 549-2585; or www.aclu.org.

—Lorna Tychostup

Federal Judge “Startled” by Justice Dept. Revelation about Cheney Papers

October 17, 2002
“That is a startling revelation,” US District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan repeated not once, but twice, after Justice Department lawyer Shannon Coffin admitted that documents from Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force had never been reviewed by his office. This, after more than a year of repeated claims that they were “too sensitive” to be released.

Back in July 2001—some two months after President Bush announced his National Energy Policy—Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan government watchdog organization, and environmentalists including Sierra Club, initiated a lawsuit (as has the General Accounting Office, a congressional investigative agency), demanding that the sensitive documents be released to the public. Established by Bush two weeks into his presidency and chaired by Cheney, the National Energy Policy Development Group was given the task “to develop a national energy policy designed to help the private sector, and, as necessary and appropriate, state and local governments, promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution for the future.”

Bush and Cheney have refused to reveal the names of the identities of Task Force participants, how it operated, and Cheney’s role in the Task Force. Their Justice Department attorneys argue that Task Force documents involve “sensitive deliberations at the highest level of the executive branch, including presumptively privileged presidential communications;” “are all presumptively privileged because they all involve sensitive communications between the president and his closest advisors,” and that turning them over would “raise separation-of-powers concern.”

Yet, it seems that Bush and Cheney’s government attorneys haven’t reviewed any of the documents at all. Or have they? An excerpt from an exchange between Justice Department lawyer Coffin, Larry Klayman, chairman and general counsel of Judicial Watch, and Judge Sullivan:

“We haven’t done a document review of the office of the vice president,” Coffin told Judge Sullivan.

“How can you be asserting this is privileged information if you haven’t looked at it?” demanded Sullivan.

“We haven’t completed the review,” said Coffin, changing his story. “We’ve done enough to know our arguments are correct. I misspoke.”

“He made a plain statement,” challenged Larry Klayman. “And now he’s backing off because it’s ‘bad press.’”

“We’ve made a review,” explained Coffin. “But we’re not going to ask our clients to complete that review because it’s an unconstitutional burden.”
Judicial Watch and other plaintiffs don’t agree with Coffin’s assessment. They argue the public has a right to know the details of any industry influence, from Enron for instance, on the National Energy Policy that Cheney’s Task Force crafted more than a year ago.

“For the vice president to cite executive privilege and ‘constitutional concerns’ over documents no one has yet examined shows that the arrogance and bad faith stonewalling of the Bush administration has risen to new heights,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Their gamesmanship must end.”

Judge Sullivan ordered government lawyers representing Vice President Dick Cheney to produce, by November 5 (Election Day), key documents which would clearly identify members of the National Energy Policy Development Group. This was the second request made to Cheney’s lawyers by US District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to disclose the documents. The first was made this past August.

“Their entire strategy is delay,” said Klayman. “That’s why they’re willing to thumb their nose at the court.”

—Lorna Tychostup
Sources: Las Vegas Sun, Washington Post, Judicial Watch.org

Fraud in Florida: How the White House Was Won

Everyone knows about butterfly ballots in the Florida presidential election of 2000. But according to BBC journalist Greg Palast, the election was actually stolen five months before a single chad was dimpled.

In a story that made the front pages in Europe, but was scarcely reported in the US, Palast reported that Katherine Harris had thousands of legal voters, mostly black and overwhelmingly Democrats, removed from the Florida voting roles by a company called Database Technologies (now merged into ChoicePoint). DBT was paid $4 million by the State of Florida to purge former felons from the roles, but was also instructed to remove all voters with names and birthdates similar to those of former felons.

Just how many voters were wrongly turned away at the polls is a matter of debate. Palast claims that up to 57,000 legal voters were denied suffrage because their names resembled those of felons; the national office of the League of Women Voters puts this figure at approximately 8,000—still a significant number considering that the margin of victory was 537. According to the US Commission on Civil Rights, a disproportionate share of those wrongfully purged from the voter rolls were African Americans.

This story was overwhelmingly ignored by the US mainstream media. But now an hour-long film, Counting on Democracy, documents Palast’s findings in Florida. The film is directed by Emmy-award winner Danny Schechter, who worked with CNN and ABC News before co-founding Globalvision, an independent media company.

Counting on Democracy was featured at the Hamptons International Film Festival in October, and the Taos Talking Picture Festival in April. Although the PBS network refused to broadcast it, several of the nation’s top PBS stations are airing the report independently. (In New York, the film will be broadcast at midnight, November 4 on WNET.) Reviewers say the film is shocking. Harris called Palast’s work “twisted and maniacal.”

Counting on Democracy is available to the public. To order a copy for personal viewing, send $79 to Voter March, Ltd., PO Box 3275, Grand Central Station, New York, NY 10163. Copies for public screenings are available for $204, from the same address.

Palast has also written a book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, that covers Election 2000, the Bush family, Bin Ladin, Global Crossing, Enron, and the World Bank. For more information, visit www.votermarch.org/Palast.htm.

—Todd Paul