Journalist uses Democratic Party Judge to slime President Bush
Gerard Jackson
The Bush-bashing Phillip Coorey of the Herald and Weekly Times couldn't wait to hammer out the story of how a US Federal judge had ordered that "Military Commission proceedings against a Guantanamo Bay inmate be stopped immediately" (Court strikes at heart of Hicks case 10 November).
According to Judge James Robertson "President George W. Bush had no authority to classify inmates as 'enemy combatants', which denies them prisoner of war rights under the Geneva Conventions".
That was one in the eye for Bush. Or was it? Once again it's what lefty journalists leave out that matters. And in this case it matters a great deal. What Coorey didn't report is that Judge Robertson is a Bush-hating Clinton appointee with a history.
When Clinton pal Webster Hubbell was being held pending trial for tax evasion friends of the Clintons paid him nearly US$1 million for services rendered. How Hubbell was able to render such high-value services from his prison cell was never explained.
Now a certain Judge Johnson successfully manoeuvred to have Hubbell's case heard by Judge Robertson. Naturally, the fact that Judge Johnson was a partisan Democrat and donor to the Clinton campaign had nothing to do with his legal shenanigans.
Needless to say, Judge Johnson did his duty — to the Democratic Party, that is. Using fiery language this upright judge declared that he had a duty to overrule the Office of Independent Counsel, declaring that it did not have the right to prosecute Hubbell.
He also stated that he could ignore the findings of the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit with respect to Hubbell. Moreover, he stated that tax documents that had been subpoenaed from Hubbell by OIC were declared out of bounds. Nevertheless, other judges disagreed with Robertson's finding and an appeals court overruled him.
When the OIC asked Judge Robertson to set a trial date for Hubbell he refused. Apparently Robertson thought this was an outrage. Didn't the OIC realise that Hubbell was a loyal and influential Democrat? Why else would other loyal Dems slip him US$1 million green ones?
Completely free of embarrassment, Judge Robertson's friends assigned him to another Hubbell case. Well, what was a good Democrat supposed to do, as if we didn't know. Robertson dismissed the case against Hubbell, only to be overruled once again by an appeals court.
It was later found that Clinton appointed judges on the DC district court had been holding secret meetings. This raised an important question: Was this how they rigged Hubbell's case?
Judge Robertson's views on terrorists and the Geneva Conventions don't hold water. These conventions make a clear distinction between those forces that are entitled to POW status and those that are not. That's why Iraqi soldiers were treated as POWs but Zarqawi's sadistic goons are treated as terrorists.
It should therefore be clear, even to the half-witted Coorey, that those who do not obey the laws of war and who do not wear uniforms are not entitled to POW treatment. To argue otherwise would be to legitimise terrorism.
Do Coorey and Robertson really believe that Taliban thugs who terrorise Afghan women and the terrorists who are waging a murderous war in Iraq really deserve to be treated as prisoners of war?
So what's Judge Robertson's real objection to tribunals to try terrorists? Could it be that this partisan Democrat is trying to use the war on terrorism to deligitimise President Bush by painting him as a threat to civil rights? Is this why Robertson ignored US Supreme Court's decision in the World War II regarding the Quirin case?
More articles about Coorey's one-sided style of reporting
Another Murdoch journalist bends the facts to support John Kerry
Lefty journalists attack Republican wolf ad. They think it's "scary"
Marian Wilkinson distorts Edwards-Cheney debate
Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 15 November 2004