Since MSNBC has apparently forgotten who comprises its viewership, I have been

[gateley]

surprised at the level of actual news reporting I've found on CNN today.

And although I didn't like it, Sanchez had an interesting clip on Lindsey Graham kind of putting Eric Holder on the spot with a pointed, and kills me to admit it, valid question. Didn't even know that Holder was getting grilled today.

I know CNN is 'news' and MSNBC is 'politics' but Palin's book signing isn't even politics. CNN at least delivered on the news today. Who knew Hillary had gone to Afghanistan? :shrug:

[Echo In Light]

1. GE has far greater allegiance to other vested interests than it does NBC's viewership

[graywarrior]

2. I no longer watch CNN or MSNBC

MSNBC makes fun of Palin a thousand times a day. WTF? Why? Why must they cover an attention whore who is not relevant to anything in this country that requires a SOLUTION? She's a waste of airtime when we could be watching NEWS, not fluff about her meaningless life.

[gateley]

7. Although I'm partial to MSNBC, you're right -- they've almost become just

a snark machine about anything Conservative/RW/Palin, etc.

I'd stopped watching CNN because I felt it was often Fox Lite, but as I said, today they actually did a good job of reporting the news at times. Far better than MSNBC's Palin Watch did.

Actually, the best and quickest way I find out about something is usually DU. Guess that's because we don't have to worry about market share. :)

[graywarrior]

9. I love that I can log on here to decide whether I need to watch cable news or not

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. Imagine what it will be like when Comcast takes over

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. Probably to the right of FAUX

this cannot be allowed to happen :scared:

[Recursion]

4. Constitutes

The viewership comprises people; people constitute the viewership.

Pet peeve of mine. Feel free to smack me.

[gateley]

8. No smack from me -- I appreciate the correction. Now I just

have to think on it a bit to actually 'get' it. :hi:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

5. I've been watching Sanchez today

He had an interesting story that no one seems to be discussing, the incident in the courtroom in Maricopa County, Arizona where a Sheriff's Deputy stole documents out of a defense attorney's file in open court. A judge sentenced that Deputy to have to give an apology for violating the 4th amendement and the attorney client privilege and his boss Sheriff Joe Arpaio's order to that Deputy to not comply with the court's sentence. I hope a warrant is issued for Arpaio's arrrest.

And Sanchez just finished showing the bows made by other Presidents including Eisenhower and the Chimp's kisses with the Saudi Prince.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

10. I watch Sanchez every day

I have given up on daytime MSNBC programming.

[gateley]

11. Think I may join you, although I do like David Shuster a lot (but they tend

to get silly frequently)

[leftynyc]

12. What was Graham's

pointed question?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

13. I believe he was asking if individuals like bin Laden were tried by Article III courts

and treated like "persons" under the Constitution within the United States instead of the nebulous "enemy combatants" offshore as previously categorized, whether they would then be afforded Fifth Amendment protections like Miranda and the right to remain silent and other safeguards.

[leftynyc]

15. Good question

What did Holder say (if you don't mind)?

[gateley]

16. Boy you summed that up nicely. Wish I'd have seen your post before I responded

in my rambling, never-too-accurate way. Thanks! :hi:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

23. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what the Republicans want

My impression is that the Republcians want to continue the military commissions that they had at Guantanamo behind closed doors. There, the suspects are treated like enemy combatants and not like persons under the Constitution. I believe there have only been three out of about eight hundred suspects going before these commissions. Under the Code of Military Justice, I think that service personnel get all their Constitutional rights protected, like any U.S. citizen in a civilian court. But is this what the Republicans want? I'm not sure how the suspects would be treated in this framework.

I'm completely amazed at the fact the suspects are being tried and convicted before a trial. I recall that many of the suspects held at Guantanamo were sold to the CIA for bounties by Afghan warlords and that the government knew that some of them were probably innocent. Maybe they're only going to try the ones most likely to be found guilty. But to me it's important for our image in the world to have these trials occur publicly with all facts brought out in the light of day to eliminate any possibly that some of them might be put to death unjustly. Could there not be even one man held at Guantanamo who was mistakenly captured and imprisoned?

[gateley]

14. He said (paraphrasing) if you captured Osama bin Laden today would you read

him his Miranda rights?

Holder said, that's complicated because he's already been indicted (continued on saying it would depend on circumstances, etc.)

Graham said yes, but when tried as a civilian, custodial questioning may not take place without informing of Miranda rights.

I'm sure it's not that simple or cut and dried (or is it?) I just thought it was a good, thought-provoking question. From someone whose neck I usually want to wring! :7

[leftynyc]

19. As I understand it

(and I'm not a lawyer - just related to a bunch of them), unless they use statements given after taken into custody, Miranda would not apply. They have evidence taken from his computer plus a confession given before custody. I'm guessing since Holder and Pres Obama are both very good lawyers, they decided that if they have the evidence to convict that isn't tainted, the person gets a regular trial - if the evidence is tainted, they get a military tribunal. Anyone else know for sure?

[gateley]

21. Another Republican said that he'd confessed already and asked to be put to

death, so what more could Holder possibly expect to get from him?

Holder said -- HE doesn't get to determine how and when he's tried, I do. Liked that answer. The Reps were stomping all over him and he was in a tough spot. The reporter said the Dems supported him (of course) but they only showed a few Republican exchanges. Someone also mentioned, and I'd forgotten this, that Lindsey was a military lawyer, so he was pretty sure of himself.

I hope someone who does know answers your question re: regular trial/military tribunal. But you're right -- both Holder and Obama are sharp, they won't get themselves into a situation that could turn on them.

Oh! Holder also apparently said that that he was convinced a trial would result in conviction. A Republican said "how can you be so sure? We have juries!" I'm thinking, I really don't think there are too many Americans who wouldn't vote to convict.

[leftynyc]

25. I think that is espcially true

in New York. Our thirst for justice was not satisfied by the bombs over Baghdad. If he confessed (and it is admissable because not under torture), it's over already. I'm not sure how I feel about the penalty. While the death penalty is well deserved, it's much too easy. A supermax prison where he gets no visitors and is in lockdown 24/7 works better for me. Why make him a martyr?

[WI_DEM]

17. Who comprises its viewership? By day MSNBC is more conservative and at night

it's more liberal.

[gateley]

18. I assumed (I know) that very few, if any, conservatives watched MSNBC because

the RW loves to bash it so.

So, I guess I was just talking about me. Liberal. :shrug:

[truebrit71]

20. That's because the liberals are busy at their jobs during the day...

...:evilgrin:

[PHIMG]

22. MSNBC daytime is crap! No argument from me.

[Catshrink]

24. And don't you just love it on weekends?

I can't live without my 48 hour dose of Lockdown.

:sarcasm: