<div>Bruce et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'm abusing my privileges on Vision2020 with too many posts today... This is the last!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Given the importance of habeas corpus in the legislation recently debated in the US Congress on the Geneva Convention and the war on terror, etc. to the fundamental human rights issues that were debated, to say that the legislators writing the language that weakened habeas corpus for detainees were not to some extent using the lack of exposure in the media regarding exactly what they were doing as "cover" to "get away" with their efforts, is not very credible.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We are talking about legislation that contradicts the US Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, a ruling that explicitly provided habeas corpus protections to detainees in the war on terror. This should have been a central and heavily debated and exposed aspect of the debate, both in the US Congress and in the media. The fact that it wasn't is so blatant an omission that it strains credibility to dismiss the assertion that the media, whether intentionally or not, provided a "smoke screen" to allow the legislators to more easily weaken habeas corpus for detainees in the war on terror, with legal implications that provide cover for US agents to avoid prosecution for war crimes
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Manufacturing Consent" indeed, as the book title by Noam Chomsky describes it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>