Julia's News

Minnesota has the highest population of Somali refugees in the United States, and throughout the past 15 years disparities in civil rights have occured nationwide as a result of the Immigration Act of 1996.

What are the intrinsic obstacles with the Immigration Act of 1996? How have these obstacles been related to the deportation of Somali refugees in the Twin Cities in the past 10 years? What is being done, or what should be done within the Hennepin and Ramsey County Criminal Justice systems in order to improve/overcome these obstacles and better accommodate the Somali community?

Andrea Carr, Immigration lawyer in St. Paul
Michele Garnett McKenzie, director of the refugee and immigrant program at Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights
Omar Jamal, executive director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center

Posted by J Kriegs at 4:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times
Blair Seeking Diplomatic Solution to Iran Standoff
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/europe/04britain.html

The Washington Post
Britain Ready to Send Team to Iran for Negotiations
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/03/AR2007040300555.html

Recent hostilities between Iran and Western governments, the United States and Britain, have caused British officials, such as Prime Minister Tony Blair, to actively seek diplomatic efforts with the Iranian government, however, not ruling out other options. The New York Times and the Washington have focused on these efforts in relation to the recent kidnapping of 15 British soldiers, and the effect of these efforts on United States policy.

The New York Times article focused solely on the Blair's emphasis on working bilaterally and keeping an "open door" with the Iranian government regarding the kidnapped soldiers, including recently released pictures of relaxed-looking soldiers despite the Iranian government's promise not to release any more images and that the Iranian president had postponed a recently scheduled press conference after the prime minister's comments. The end of the article ties in American involvement, seeming to juxtapose US policy in quoting Bush calling the Iranian actions "indefensible." The article reads smoothly, and is not too bogged down with details, focusing mostly on the diplomatic efforts of the British governement under pressure.

The Washington Post article includes much more detailed information, with a lead that is not as effective because instead of a "48-hour" release element, it includes a "12-day" process, and "bilateral" talks, and "technical team," in the first two paragraphs. Therefore, the beginning of the article is slow, with too much emphasis on detain and not enough of a human focus. However, the article tied in a separate story of the recently released Iranian diplomat who was kidnapped by militants wearing Iraqi army uniforms. The article said that US officials deny both Iraqi and American involvement. (aHowever, in a separate New York Times article, a US official is said to only have deny US involvement; although this may not be the same official, both sources must presumably be of similar credibility. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iran-Diplomat-Seized.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin). The article cites both Middle Eastern and American sources crediting and discrediting a connection between the two events, but emphasizes the possibility of such a connection. This angle is interesting, and although may be somewhat far-fetched, is intriguing nonetheless.

I preferred the Washington Post article based on content and provision of context for the reader in terms of current US involvment in Iran in a similar kidnapping case. However, the Times article is easier and more pleasing to read, and because I am familiar with both stories, I prefer them separately, however the coicidence possible connection was fun to read about.

Posted by J Kriegs at 5:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Washington Post
Bush Unwilling to Compromise on Iraq Funding
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/03/AR2007040300216.html

The New York Times
Bush Criticizes Democrats on Iraq Spending
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03cnd-prexy.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1175657774-OwNost3EWHu9PfchxkzZlA

Articles in The New York Times and The Washington Post recently covered President Bush's heated criticism of Democratic proposals in Congress regarding funding for the war in Iraq . The bill includes a troop pullout by 2008, which Bush said would be met by his veto, further accusing Democrats of subpar support of American troops. Both articles focused on the vehement rhetoric on behalf of both Bush and Democratic congressional leaders, specific funding of the bill, and describing the exchanged remarks as a kind of culmination of debate on the issue.

The Washington Post article focuses mainly on the tried-and-true "this war is a failure" angle and the fight between the two sides, blaming one another for the ensuing problems in Iraq. The article also focuses on Bush's veto threat to Congress and quotes both sides heavily. Although the comments are interesting, I felt could have been spliced or shortened a bit, and brought down the momentum of the article. The angle also is not very interesting as it is nothing new other than the latest veto threat. The only immedicacy to the article is when the authors describe the exchanges as a "showdown," over halfway through the article. I l also found it interesting that the article quotes Bush criticizing Congress for going on Spring vacation at such a pivital time, and did not include (as the Times article did) the fact that Bush would leave tomorrow for his own vacation.

The New York Times article also focuses on the veto threat and the irate back-and-forth between Congressional Democrats and Bush. The article keeps the information more immediate in focusing on "the most heated..so far," and in that way shows why the blame game is more significant in this instance. However, in the majority of the second half of the article, the topic swiches almost completely to the dissolution of Bush's support in that more former allies are turning on his initiatives and calling him "isolated." The article also points out Bushes use of the word "Democrat" in place of "Democratic," which was not pointed out in the quote-heavy Post article.

I read both of these articles earlier in the day, and the Times article was almost completely rewritten, adding quotes from people with more celebrity, like Hillary Clinton, and hypocritical vacaction-without-finishing-the-work Bush comments. However, the Post article had not been edited at all, although significant details such as these were missing. owever, the previous Democratic response to Bush's criticism of their bill that failed to support the troops, I felt, was stronger in the first article. Harry Reid had retorted that Bush was instead guilty of this for promising to delay funds that Democrats did not want to deny them. Reid's quote was replaced for Hillary Clinton's, whose stance on the issue may be more immedicate as a leading Democratic presidential candidate, but were significantly less heated or interesting. The Post article also included the number of American soldiers that had died since the beginning of the war, which the TImes did not include, but I felt was important to bring up, as the argument is essentially about the loss of American soldier's lives.

I prefered the Times article because the reporter included significant details that were important to the same information cited in the Post article, and the Post failed to let the audience know the immedicacy of the issue by portraying it at first as another Iraq war blame game. The reporters both faced the challenge, however, of keeping the story unbiased in the debate, of which the Post article, in my opinion, did a better job because it quoted both sides heavily, and didn't announce a winner as the Times article seemed to do by refracting the argument halfway through the article in shifting the attention to Bush's increasing isolation in Washington.

Posted by J Kriegs at 4:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

ShanghaiDaily.com
Supreme Court Rejects Guantanamo Appeal
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2007/200704/20070403/article_311291.htm

The New York Times
Supreme Court Denies Guantanamo Appeal
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/washington/03gitmocnd.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1175558791-GKpie8Qob3SU5ea/uTpb/w

Recent articles from The New York Times and the Shanghai Daily have reported the Supreme Court decision in the most recent development in the debate over Guantanamo Bay detainees. Both of the articles stress the prisoners demand for the rights of habeas corpus (the right to be heard before a judge in court in order to protect against illegal imprisonment), and the fact that several of the detainees have not been charged. The articles specify the reprocussions felt by the decision, which many feel is something of a monumental blow to civil rights.

The article in the Shanghai Daily protrays the decision as a victory for the Bush administration's war against terrorism, and specifies in detail what habeas corpus is and why it is important. The article does not say the specific people or how many were denied the appeal or whether these specific people have been charged, but does specify how many have been held total, and how many of those detainees have been charged. The article further stipulates the reasonings for holding the prisoners and provides some history (2004 legislation) regarding habeas corpus, quoting human rights activist group leaders and how this is likely to be an ongoing issue.

The New York Times article is much more specific, and does not describe the decision in terms of a victory or failure of the Bush administration. Instead, the article provides the specific numbers of detainees, how long they have been held, and said that none had been charged. The article mainly detailed the reasoning behind the decision of specific Supreme Court members, and also talked about the history of habeas corpus, of the Guantanamo Bay cases, and specific tribunals that lawyers of the prisoners dispute, and provide examples of other specific court cases.

I felt that the New York Times article was more complete in that it focused on the decision of court members, and the likely steps ahead in the process. I felt that the article did a good job in expaining the at times complex history of the detainees and the provisions and history of habeus corpus, and had a more effective, and accurate lead. The one area that I had an issue with was the following speculative/ editorializing comment that does not usually blemish the Times. "Despite the apparent transparency, the real story was probably one that no justice acknowledged." The sentence goes on to say what the court couldn't count on, and the sentence wasn't that horrendous, however, speculation lead-ups such as that are rare in such a refined paper.

The Shanghai Daily article did a good job in simplifying the issue and explaining to an audience the meaning of habeas corpus that may be unfamiliar with the term. I didn't think that the decision should necessarily have been portrayed as a definite "victory" for the Bush administration, especially regarding its war on terrorism. The war victory element was pretty much dropped after the beginning of the story as was further detail on the way in which it was a victory, other than to say that the administration has a war on terror (because the detainees haven't been charged, in my opinion, they cannot formally be labeled "terrorists," therefore null and voiding the war victory element). I thought it was a weak and unsupported way to begin the story, which is mainly about the civil rights of the detainees and further habeas corpus legislation. The article also almost completely ignored the reasoning of the justices behind the decision, which I felt was also very important to getting a full picture of the issue.

Overall, I preferred the New York Times article, because I got a better understanding of the issue immediately, and more questions that I had followed, flowing seamlessly throughout the article. I'm sure the Shanghai Daily is catering to a slightly different audience who may want to hear more about Bush and the war on terror than the future of habeas corpus in America, or what Ruth Bader Ginsbrug thinks, so I can understand why they included and omitted certain information, and the article was still effective in simplifying the issue.

Posted by J Kriegs at 1:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Pelosi to Take Israeli Message to Syria
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=81079

Israeli Acting President Defends Pelosi Syria Trip
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-israel-usa-pelosi.html

Recent articles from Reuters in the New York Times yesterday, and AP in the Lebanon Daily Star both covered the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi's visit to the Middle East, focusing on her visit to Israel and her planned trip to Syria. Both articles focused on different aspects of her visit to Israel, but covered the same issue on her contraversial visit to Syria in that the White House thinks it's a "bad idea," and the message that she plans to convey to Syrian officials on behalf of the Israeli government.

The Reuters article focused mainly on the supportive statements of the Israeli acting President, Dalia Itzik. The article quotes both Itzik and Pelosi heavily, emphasizing Pelosi's mission to free the three Israeli soldiers who were captured last summer by Hamas and Hezbollah, and Itzik's confidence in Pelosi to advocate issues that are important to the Israeli people.
The article also mentions briefly the Bush administration's dissaproval of the visit near the end, and the State Department's preparations for her visit, despite White House "opposition." The article doesn't specify if this "oppostion" is toward the preparations of the State Department for her visit, the White House stance in general, or both.
The article also mentions Syria's denial of housing insurgents, and blame of the United States for lack of suffient security on the Iraqi border to prevent it.

The Associated Press article also focused on Pelosi's visit to Israel, and what she plans to say in Syria, however, elaborates heavily on her visit with Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. The article even details how long they met and how their extended meeting delayed other appointments. Pelosi's message to Syria that the article focused on was not freeing the Israeli soldiers, however, as in the Reuters article.
Instead, her dissaproval of Syria's support of terrorism, and efforts for peace between Israeli and Syrian governments, and mentioned her disapproval of Syrian housing of insurgents, but did not mention Syria's denial of this.
The article details other Congressional members on the trip with her, quoting them and their denouncement of terrorism and comments on current issues, and uses the same Reuters quote, "bad idea" of the Bush administration's view of her visit. The article includes that Iraq was not mentioned, and that Pelosi spoke of the "bipartisan" support of Israel and the need for a moderation of the Hamas-led Palestinean government.
The article also talked about focus of Olmert on Iran, and his hesitant reaction toward a peace plan with Syria, providing background on past peace initiatives that had failed in the past, or remained "dormant."

Although the articles focus on different appointements and therefore a shift in Pelosi's main message to Syria, they both convey the controversy of her visit, her support of Israel, and the main issues that she plans to discuss with the Syrian government.
I felt that important details in both articles were left out. In the Reuters article, which usually provides a lot of background, failed to mention the possible peace agreements, and past agreements, other Congressional members visiting the country, and more detail on her meeting with Olmert, and the issues discussed during that meeting that touch on Iran and Syria more specifically.
The AP article was left out details about the State Departement, and the Syrian denial of housing insurgents. This article was interesting,however, because the perspective is not one that would commonly be found in United States articles, so it suprised me when I saw that it was AP. The mention of things that were "not mentioned," and the expansion on the other members visiting, particularly Rep. Keith Ellison, etc. were particularly interesting and helped to expand the issue; painting a full picture of the visit and major current issues.
I preferred the Daily Star article for these reasons, as I prefer more detail and a more complete story, The Reuters article, I felt, was too quoted, much of what was said could have been paraphrased, and many of the important detains were thrown in at the very end, like the expansion on the Bush administration's disapproval of the visit.

Posted by J Kriegs at 5:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Supreme Court Rebukes Bush Administration on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070402-0717-scotus-greenhousegases.html

Court Rebukes Administration in Global Warming Case
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Scotus-Greenhouse-Gase.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the power to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas-causing emissions from cars under the Clean Air Act. This was a 5-4 decision, the first Supreme Court case ever to deal with global warming, and was against Bush administration policy.

The articles come from AP (the San Diego Union Tribune) and Reuters (the New York Times). Both articles emphasize the blow to Bush Administration policy, and both say that the decision was 5-4, specified the governmental agency, and specified the Clean Air Act or clean air law.

The Reuters article offers the majority of the information in the lead, but provides more detail in that it gives quotes, says that the ruling is the first in the Supreme Court on global warming, and specifies which Justices were opposed to the regulation. The article further noted that the court rejected the agency's argument for refusal to regulate emissions. More specificity was provided as well, in terms of saying what greenhouse gas emissions are, and why they're harmful, and that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation. The only problem I had with the article was that the lead and the title both talk about the Bush administration's defeat in the ruling, but fails to say why until the end of article; the second to last paragraph. I felt that this detail is one of the most important, and that it should have been mentioned earlier, at least before details like what greenhouse gases are, something that most people should already generally understand, or at least derive from the name.

The AP article was much shorter, only two paragraphs. The article talks provides only the meat of the story, what it is, what it will do, the fact that the Bush administration. The article doesn't go into any detail about the "why," such as the reasoning behind the close vote, who was for or against it other than the Bush administration. A few of the major details that the Reuters article offered that this one doesn't are: the fact that it is the first Supreme Court ruling on the issue, the fact that the agency receiving the power didn't want it, etc. I did not mind the lack of definitions of commonly used names or terms.

Overall, I felt that the Reuters article was better written in that is was more efficient in offering detail in a condensed space. However, since this is such an important issue, (and I still want more detail) I thought that the Reuters article was more complete, filling in interesting blanks that are excluded from the Reuters article.

Posted by J Kriegs at 4:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/world/middleeast/01gaza.html?ref=world

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/4/1/worldupdates/2007-04-01T063652Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-292843-1&sec=Worldupdates

Concerns in the United States and Israel over Hamas gaining military and diplomatic power with help from Iran and from the recent agreements between Hamas and Fatah in Mecca have risen recently as talks of military action grow.
Articles on the issue appearing in both the New York Times and Reuters articles in the Malaysian Star have focused primarily on the possibility of Israeli military action in Gaza with the premise of Hamas’s increasing military and weaponry “buildup,� a word used in both articles in either the title or the lead. Both articles cited the “10,000� Hamas recruited militants in Gaza, and quoted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasizing that Israel doesn’t have plans to take any immediate military action, but also quoting others in the government saying that the option isn’t off the table.
The New York Times article specified more definitions such as what Hamas is; things that may have been confusing to a reader who is not familiar with Middle Eastern politics. Further, the article weaved in some of the background for the reader. For example, the credentials of an Israeli official as his history of speaking on the same topic in the war in Lebanon last summer.
The article immediately states specific examples of how Hamas is increasing militarily, according to Israeli officials, and events within the last two weeks that have added to concerns. The article expands more on the role of other countries, like the United States and Egypt and effectively ties in other current issues effecting the situation in Gaza, like the recent peace initiative offering by the Arab League, and the tensions there due to the Israeli government’s reluctance toward it.
Moreover, the article offers speculation from credible sources about the potential effects of military action to both Israeli and Palestinian governments and people.
The Reuters article in the Malaysian Star is much shorter, focusing primarily on Olmert, and his repeated statements saying that he has no plans to go to war. The article uses the term “expanded� twice in the beginning of the article in reference to military action in Gaza, and ignores contributing factors such as recent events in Gaza and elsewhere. The article also doesn’t mention the role of any other countries other than the United States, but did cite Washington’s plans to provide $59 million to “bolster Abbas’s presidential guard,� which the New York Times article did not mention. The article ended with a kind of back-and-forth between Olmert and Abu Ubaida, a spokesperson for Hamas’s military wing, in order to demonstrate tensions, and essentially how much they dislike one another. This didn’t really add any information to the already short article, but did add a little color to a story that could have ended up laden with numbers and figures.
In general, I preferred the New York Times article because it provided more detail on the issue and tied in important contributing factors. I also thought that the chronological order of the article worked particularly well, which can be difficult to do. I didn’t think that the Reuters article was as complete as it could have been, but it did offer some interesting insight from a non-American press that focused on the American diplomatic role beyond the tried-and-true Condoleezza Rice references.

Posted by J Kriegs at 8:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)