PressEthic

On Friday, the New York Times's top story focused on how three Republicans reached an accord with the White House on the details of the detainee bill. The story talks about a "victory" for the Republican senators, who made sure "President Bush dropped his demand that Congress redefine the nation’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions." The author of the story then gives us a reassuring quote from John McCain:

“There is no doubt that the integrity and the letter and the spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved,” said Mr. McCain, who was tortured during more than five years as a prisoner in North Vietnam.

Well, there you go. That's all you need to know, right? If McCain, who was tortured himself, agrees with it, then it should be fine. If that wasn't convincing enough, this should do it for you then:

The adjustment to the War Crimes Act, “will put the C.I.A. on notice of what they can and can’t do,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who, along with Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, joined Mr. McCain in leading resistance to the White House approach. “It would take off the table things that are not within American values.”

Oh wow, I feel better already. So for most people, who read the lead and maybe a couple of the following paragraphs, this is a success story about how a potentially disastrous bill proposal was averted.

But for those who diligently trudged through the entire story, the ending may have seemed a bit surprising. On the very last paragraph of the story, which as we all learn in journalism school, under the inverted pyramid hard news system, is usually the least important bit of news, we are treated with this:

Still, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he would press to change a provision in the proposal that would deny detainees a right to challenge their captivity in court.

Um...excuse me? Could you possibly be talking about the removal of habeas corpus? And this is on the last paragraph? A closer look at the bill, offered here by NPR, reveals some rather scary propositions, namely:

According to the bill, detainees held by the United States at any overseas location cannot file a lawsuit challenging their detention. This wipes out both pending and future lawsuits. The bill also says no one can file a lawsuit claiming a violation of their rights under the Geneva Conventions.

and how about this:

The bill gives the president the power to "interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions," a phrase that may clash with another part of the bill, which says, "Nothing in this section shall affect the constitutional functions and responsibilities of Congress and the judicial branch."

Okay, so perhaps I'm just overreacting that our Congress may just pass a bill that would eliminate habeas corpus and legalize various forms of torture, while leaving it to the discretion of the president.

On second thought, I don't think I am. And it worries me that such an important aspect of a bill will go unmentioned until the very end of a story. Perhaps the onus should be on the reader to get more information, but I feel the paper should be able to at least emphasis and highlight some key aspects of a revolutionary bill.