Thursday, August 10, 2006

MSM up to their old tricks

Here's an AP article from that illustrates perfectly how the MSM in a subtle way endorses the arguments made by the regime:

An excerpt:

On Wednesday, the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia, with two judges dissenting, rejected the men's argument that pervasive community prejudice against the Cuban government and publicity surrounding the case prevented them from receiving a fair trail.

In Havana, the Communist Party daily Granma noted the ruling coincides with recent events in Cuba, where Fidel Castro temporarily ceded power to his brother Raul on July 31 after announcing he had undergone intestinal surgery.

"All of these occur in an unusual way and at a time when Miami is calling for an end to a sovereign nation," Granma said.

"This has been a political case from the beginning," Granma said, and demonstrates "hate and vengeance against the Cuban nation."
They take the statements of the Cuban government and report that as "news". There is no attempt to get a legal expert to comment on whether these accusations by Cuba have any merit. No attempt to talk to the prosecutor or a source inside the government. No explanation of how long it takes to process an appeal in Federal Court, what the procedures are and how and when decisions are published.

They just put a statement out there and nothing to counter it. It's garbage. It's either laziness or it's outright bias. They accuse the Judges of releasing the decision when they did as an attempt to take advantage of Cuba in a weak moment. This really sheds light on the way the legal system and the whole government in Cuba works. What they accuse the U.S. of is EXACTLY what they do. Cuba is the place where there is no independent judiciary. Cuba is the place where everything is politicized. But the MSM just regurgitates their baseless accusations.


Srcohiba said...

I got a chance to pull the opinion and I read it. The majority opinion (there were 2 dissenters) was written by Judge Wilson, one of the Best Judges on the Circuit and a Clinton Appointee. (He was one of the panel judges in the original Elian case that went to the 11th circuit and was the sole dissenting judge in the Schiavo case that went to the 11th Circuit). He is not an idealogue. So what the come mierdas in cuba are saying is simply crap especially since this is the same judge that agreed with the district court's original Elian decision.

Another interesting point is that the trial judge in the spy case, Judge Lenard, was also a Clinton Appointee yet as you probably saw from the opinion, she was lauded by the Appellate Court for conducting an incredible trial to make sure these spies had a fair trial.

Interestingly enough, the dissenting judge in this case was a Bush Sr. appointee joined by a Carter appointee.

None of the judges on this Court are activist judges. Some are liberal and some are conservative. But overall, they are not activists. In fact one of the most liberal judges on the panel agreed with the majority decision affirming the convictions.

As a whole, the 11th circuit is pretty conservative. So just goes to show that all these pundits who constantly rip the Courts don't know what they're talking about.

Fortunately, the majority reached the correct legal result here. Here's the key part of the opinion:

"Based on our thorough review of this case, we rely on the trial judge's judgment in assessing juror credibility and impartiality. The trial judge, as a member of the community, can better evaluate whether there is a reasonable certainty that prejudice against the defendant will prevent him from obtaining a fair trial. The judge brings to the courtroom her own perception of the depth and extent of community prejudice and pretrial publicity that might influence a juror.

Miami-Dade County is a widely diverse, multi-racial community of more than two million people. Nothing in the trial record suggests that twelve fair and impartial jurors could not be assembled by the trial judge to try the defendants impartially and fairly. The broad discretion the law reposes in the trial judge to make the complex calibrations necessary to determine whether an impartial jury can be drawn from a cross-section of the community to ensure a fair trial was not abused in this case. Although it is conceivable that, under a certain set of facts, a court might have to change venue to ensure a fair trial, the threshold for such a change is rightfully a high one. The defendants have not satisfied it."

The Supreme Court is the next stop if they decide to appeal (which I'm sure they will). No guarantee the Supreme Court will hear the case. I hope the Supreme Court simply issues the following Order:

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED.

Omar said...

Conductor -excellent analysis on the media spin.
Srcohiba-thanks for the recap of the opinion.