Fox News Misrepresents Treason?

20+ MORE examples of Fox News Biased Video Editing at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=814374ED833C9047

100+ MORE examples of Fox News Bias at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D

Whether it’s misrepresenting the law of treason or the applicability of Miranda warnings, Fox News contributors on “Fox and Friends” this week spent a lot of time making a false legal distinction between citizens and non-citizens in the discussion of the arrest of Faisal Shahzad, the man accused of planting an SUV bomb in New York City’s Times Square on May 1, as I show in this video.

The clips of Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson and Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr., come from the segment on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends” broadcast May 5, 2010, available in the foxnewschannel YouTube video titled “Terror and Treason” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld2zP53kYCE

The clips of Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napalitano, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, and Fox News anchor Brian Kilmeade come from a segment on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends” broadcast May 4, 2010 (which I have not been able to find online).

The image of my February 2010 video titled “Sarah Palin Says Only Americans Worthy of Rights?” comes from the YouTube player page at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3fm_IQ5Hco

The quote of Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution comes from the Cornell University Law School page at http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

And, finally, the quote from the US Supreme Court case of Radich v. Hutchins, 95 U.S. 210 (1877) comes from the webpage at http://supreme.justia.com/us/95/210/case.html

Duration : 0:7:21


Post Author: mark

25 thoughts on “Fox News Misrepresents Treason?

    number154

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    @PressA2Die It was …
    @PressA2Die It was under the precedent of the Insular Cases, for example, that the Supreme Court found that Guantanamo detainees had the right to habeas corpus even though Guantanamo is technically on Cuban soil, because the U.S. exercises “complete jurisdiction and control” over Guantanamo, regardless of the fact that Cuba was technically sovereign there, and also because habeas corpus is a judicial check on the executive that is necessary to bind the latter to the law.

    number154

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    @number154 (cont’d) …
    @number154 (cont’d) a Constitutional right that no one can violate, the question is whether the person has a Constitutional right that the U.S. government can’t violate. Most of the rights in the Constitution are afforded to all people regardless of their citizenship.

    number154

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    @PressA2Die Under …
    @PressA2Die Under the Insular Cases, Constitutional provisions bind the U.S. government abroad unless they would be “impracticable and anomalous”, in making this decision, Courts are to consider, on a case by case basis, the nature of the provision, its purpose, and the extent to which the U.S. has exclusive control in the area or over the person in question. The Constitution is framed in such a way that it limits government action, so the question isn’t whether the person has… (cont’d)

    PressA2Die

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    I got a question… …
    I got a question… As far as I understand it the US constitution is not valid outside of US boarders. Right? It’s not law. E.g. Europeans in Europe have zero responsibility to it. Is it the same for US citizens abroad? Tourists? US soldiers are said that they have to follow the constitution and defend it, where ever they are? Must they apply it to people who are not subject to it? I’m pretty ignorant on the issue, I would appreciate some enlightenment.

    Zentz29

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    fuck fox!
    fox!

    11111011

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    I found it …
    I found it interesting that they put 05.05.10 up on the big screen behind them to associate a failed half-assed terrorist attack with the likes of 9/11 and 7/7.

    Makes for a good presentation in a piece on charging some nitwit with treason, but that’s the only place for it.
    If anything, we should celebrate 5/5/10 with mockery for his incompetence. retard couldn’t even detonate an incompetent bomb.

    nasalisx

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    Wow, Glenn Beck …
    Wow, Glenn Beck actually being relatively sane. Never thought I’d see the day. Looks like fox is at it again trying to pull something out of a possible tragedy and link it polically. They should just change their name to Right-Wing Bias News.

    MrHambergator

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    Treason is not the …
    Treason is not the worst thing one can commit, at least morally. Treason is against the US. The government is not the people. The government is made of individuals who serve the United States. Far too much credence is given to the government, which is meant to serve, not rule us.

    FvckTheFvckingSystem

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    Weapon of “mass …
    Weapon of “mass destruction”?

    What the fuck?

    Since when is a home-made bomb a WMD?

    klutterkicker

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    I don’t see treason …
    I don’t see treason as “the most heinous crime”; clearly there are so many worse things you can do to a person, to the world, or even to a nation. I always thought the concept of treason was defined to protect a country’s government.

    As for the whys of exaggerating the definition of citizenship, I can only imagine it’s a justification for degrading non-citizens. In effect they’re saying “you’re not good enough to betray us.”

    G58

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    I agree with all …
    I agree with all you’ve said here.

    But there’s another rather suspect emphasis in there where PJ jnr says: “and in an issue like this, an issue of such national emport [sic], the Attorney General I believe – the Justice Department needs to look carefully, and consider in a political way and a legal way whether or not he should in fact be charged with treason.”

    The emphasis on political before legal betrays his bias and faux expertise. Surely the rule of law takes precedence?

    number154

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    @number154 Again, …
    @number154 Again, note that you don’t need to be a citizen under the statute, you only need to “owe allegiance” to to the United States, which in legal terms means either you are a citizen, or you are within the borders of the United States and subject to U.S. law, or you own property in the United States.

    number154

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    @number154 So the …
    @number154 So the most lenient punishment available for treason is five years in jail and a fine of $10,000, plus the inability to ever hold office under the United States (though in theory the President could still commute the sentence to something lighter).

    number154

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    @bizskithead It …
    @bizskithead It doesn’t have to be death 18 U.S.C section 2381 (the treason statute) reads: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. “

    Dewdaahman

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    and faux opinion …
    and faux opinion channel is still listened to..? their female show host’s are paid to give their audience an “upskirt” shot as often as they can w/o it being apparent.. no credibility, none whatsoever..

    Dewdaahman

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    Treason is “killing …
    Treason is “killing or doing harm to a US Sovereign..” an alarm clock w/o batteries is good for 1 thing, twice a day.. the time.. and fertilizer that couldn’t blow up.. can anyone say “false flag”..?

    0001rbn

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    Very nice analysis …
    Very nice analysis of some of the most pressing issues of our time.

    sabbirsa

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    maybe you should …
    maybe you should unsubscribe. just a suggestion. please don’t hurt me. lollll

    DoomHippie

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    LiberalViewer , …
    LiberalViewer , c’mon now! I subscribed because I desired a liberal viewpoint on the current events. Why not TALK ABOUT WHAT’S GOING ON INSTEAD OF RANTING AGAINST FOX NEWS!

    We all know that Fox is biased. We all know that MSNBC is biased. We all know that the media as a whole is biased! We don’t need your videos to tell us that fact.

    Talk about the actual issues! Don’t simply attack Fox News, what’s the point?

    jx14aby

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    @number154


    @number154

    Exactly. But Beck is short on legal reasoning and long on hyperbole.

    jx14aby

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    Another good reason …
    Another good reason to kill your television.

    Now FoxNews wants to invent a controversy simply to make Obama look bad.

    Did FoxNews suggest treason charges when the vice-president and his chief of staff outed an undercover agent of the CIA during wartime?

    bizskithead

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    if you make it …
    if you make it treason you can kill them legally no exception the penalty for treason is death

    BlitzNeko

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    Now I can think of …
    Now I can think of a lot worse than making a failed IED. Like incited public discourse, via attempted entrapment under the shield of free press…. but thats just me….

    jebus6kryst

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    No.
    They exaggerate …

    No.
    They exaggerate it because they feel it is their god given right.

    KDALove

    (May 9, 2010 - 5:58 am)

    @dye013 Actually, ” …
    @dye013 Actually, “Pawned” and “pwn” can be exchanged since they generally have the same unofficial meaning.

Leave a Reply