Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 3 (since 2012-11-21 01:56:49)

worried we're doomed

Showing comments 3 - 1
Page:

  • In electric atmosphere, Medea Benjamin takes over the president's speech
    • rsmatesic May 24, 2013 at 3:09 pm

      When do you suppose was the last time the man who makes his living speaking from a podium began his address without a prepared rebuttal to any potential hecklers?

  • Biden says Jewish 'influence' behind American cultural politics is 'immense... immense'
    • rsmatesic May 22, 2013 at 1:00 pm

      The problem with Philo-anygroup is that no collection of human beings constitutes an unqualified good, given that human beings are by their very nature flawed, corrupt, and corruptible. So if we feel compelled to attribute to the humans of Group A certain virtues, what then are their vices?

  • No balance: CNN slobbers over Peres, grills Meshaal
    • rsmatesic November 30, 2012 at 6:19 pm with 1 replies

      I wish someone would ask Amanpour whether her reluctance to fawn over Meeshal in the manner displayed by Blitzer in his segment with Peres had anything to do with avoiding an indictment under the Patriot Act. I think her answer could kickstart a very interesting discussion.

      In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 08-1498 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a provision of the Patriot Act making it a felony to provide "material support" to a "foreign terrorist" organization. In doing so, the court swept aside an advocacy group’s First Amendment challenge to the law, namely, that it impermissibly burdened their efforts to train the PKK and Tamil Tigers to use non-violent legal means to resolve disputes.

      Under § 2339A(b)(1) of the law, "material support or resources" includes any “service, including . . . communications equipment [or] facilities . . ." Because the U.S. defines Hamas (but not Israel, despite what 3 out of 4 Goldstone Report authors say) as a foreign terrorist organization, I’m betting CNN’s producers, editors, and correspondents have at some point been reminded by their legal department that claims made by Hamas are to be met with deep skepticism, if not outright hostility. Meanwhile, CNN can offer Peres, Netanyahu, et al., a worldwide platform from which to spew their terroristic inanities (Dahiyeh Doctrine, anyone?), and no one loses a wink’s worth of sleep over it.

      That said, I don't believe for a moment that Amanpour would have been anything other than hostile to Meeshal in the absence of the HLP decision. Rather, that in the aftermath of HLP, it should surprise no one that talking heads perceive even less of an incentive to accord any legitimacy to Hamas. After all, why invite an inquiry by the DOJ into whether your communications facilities have supported the purposes of “terrorism” if you don’t have to?

Showing comments 3 - 1
Page:

Comments are closed.