The reason? Because they gave up on real - unbiased investigative - journalism decades ago.
Tribune ad revenue is down 20% already this year and they're laying off employees all over. Any connection between the two? I say yes.
Case in point: From last Sunday's Tribune Magazine. "Gorman vs. Goliath - The Guantanamo Labyrinth."
The article, written by Tom Hundley, is inaccurate on so many levels that I suspect it was written with a 6th grade audience in mind. That doesn't seem to bother the editorial board over at the Tribune though. As long as it undermines our war effort, emboldens our enemies, points a bloody finger at Bush & Co., and bestows United States constitutional rights on foreign combatants, they're more than willing to overlook the facts. Here's an excerpt:
In the months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the highest-ranking officials in the Bush administration -- Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, CIA Director George Tenet and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- met in the White House and quietly agreed to override some of the basic provisions of the U.S. Constitution that protect individual rights. They also decided to disregard the Geneva Conventions and to sanction the use of torture, which they renamed "enhanced interrogation techniques." All of this they did in the name of national security.
To provide legal cover for these activities (and to immunize themselves against future prosecution), they enlisted a cadre of government lawyers to draft opinions that cloaked what many believe to be war crimes in an aura of respectability. Ashcroft, a man of ponderous public piety, reportedly warned the group that "history will not judge us kindly."
Restoring the rule of law has been a long, tough slog for a disparate and dedicated group of lawyers, including a large contingent from Chicago.
The article descends into Unhinged Leftist pabulum from there. The fact is that the Bush administration didn't have to "quietly agree to override some of the basic provisions of the U.S. constitution that protect individual rights" because the "rights" do not extend to foreigners fighters captured during war. There is plenty of precedent regarding that but the Left conveniently forgets many things that are still relevant.
Second, the precious Geneva Conventions that the LibTards are so enamored with apply in the following situations ONLY (with respect to POWs)
* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
* 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
* 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
* 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
* 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
* 4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
(Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.)
So, cherished reader, straight from the Geneva Protocols themselves - you can plainly read that AQ Terrorists aren't protected combatants. You wouldn't know that if you just read the headlines at the NYTimes, LATimes and ChiCom Tribune.
And the word Torture has been so dummied down over the last 10 years that the following are now considered "torture" by our unenlightened Liberal handlers:
* exposure to loud music
* exposure to cold
* exposure to female nudity
* exposure to furry caterpillars
* sleep deprivation
* simulated drowning (waterboarding)
You call that torture??!?!!? Al-Qaeda and other genuine terrorists know how to "really" torture. Here is an image from their official, unofficial guide to infidel torture by Al-Qaeda:
I used to know a Tribune reporter. His name was Ernie and he spent alot of time in the Middle East. He was in Egypt right after the Luxor massacre. He witnessed first-hand how the Eqyptian government handled the incident. Their secret police scooped up almost 2,500 people and shoved them into jails. One by one they interrogated them until they found about 2 dozen who were probably involved.
Most countries have real world common sense initiatives when it comes to Jihadi violence.
Not the United States apparently. Not with Leftist idiots part of the Fifth Column.