Newsweek is at it again
In their July 4th issue (available online now), Newsweek's reporter Michael Isikoff (sound familiar? Remember the Qu'aran flushing story?) is running a story about post 9/11 use of "material witness" arrests by the Justice Department titled "Exclusive: A Sharp New Look at 'Material Witness' Arrests". It heavily cites a report being put out by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch claiming the practice may account for "...the most civil-liberties abuses of any post-9/11 policy." [play heavy melodramatic chords here]. (Note the pre-supposition of guilt by the ACLU / HRW / Isikoff / Newsweek in claiming that the arrests are civil-liberties abuses)
Mr. Isikoff goes on to make a point of stating that of those held under these material witness warrants that "—almost all of them [were] Muslim men—" Why did he have to point of the religion of the suspects in such a blatantly provoking way? I mean, yes, it could make a difference, however one must consider the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslim. That Osama bin Laden is Muslim. That al Qaeda is a radical, fundamentalist group of....Muslims. Therefore, when investigating a terrorist group and arresting people based on those tips and intelligence that one would probably investigating or arresting a larger number of Muslim's? When investigating the KKK and the Aryan Nation don't you tend to find mostly white Christians? How come that is never pointed out in quite the same manner?
The editorial review at Newsweek is becoming ridiculous. This article is so blatantly biased as to be laughable. After dedicating the ENTIRE article to the ACLU / HRW version of events and the ACLU / HRW interpretation of the law, Mr. Isikoff then devotes TWO whole sentences to a rebuttal by the Justice Department. Mr. Isikoff almost as an afterthought acknowledges that the arrests are made under a warrant signed by a federal judge and of course require evidence.
Newsweek should be ashamed.
Mr. Isikoff goes on to make a point of stating that of those held under these material witness warrants that "—almost all of them [were] Muslim men—" Why did he have to point of the religion of the suspects in such a blatantly provoking way? I mean, yes, it could make a difference, however one must consider the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslim. That Osama bin Laden is Muslim. That al Qaeda is a radical, fundamentalist group of....Muslims. Therefore, when investigating a terrorist group and arresting people based on those tips and intelligence that one would probably investigating or arresting a larger number of Muslim's? When investigating the KKK and the Aryan Nation don't you tend to find mostly white Christians? How come that is never pointed out in quite the same manner?
The editorial review at Newsweek is becoming ridiculous. This article is so blatantly biased as to be laughable. After dedicating the ENTIRE article to the ACLU / HRW version of events and the ACLU / HRW interpretation of the law, Mr. Isikoff then devotes TWO whole sentences to a rebuttal by the Justice Department. Mr. Isikoff almost as an afterthought acknowledges that the arrests are made under a warrant signed by a federal judge and of course require evidence.
Newsweek should be ashamed.
