CNN Submits Interview to Bin Laden. Bin Laden 2 Respond. CNN guilty of TREASON

Great Debates
21

Piffle!

Treason is a direct action with the intent of offering aid and comfort to the enemy. If anyone is newsworthy, its OBL (Piss be on his name). Further, technically speaking, we are not at war. Only Congress can declare war.

Further, though we have good and valid reason to believe that OBL is guilty, we really have little in the way of solid, “smoking gun” stuff. Clearly, this is no problem to you, but the rest of the world may have different evidentiary standards. Now, I hasten to point out that I think he is probably guilty.

Suppose he were to say something like, yeah, I did it, screw you, America. Something that would convince the doubters world-wide (believe it or not, a great many people overseas think it was all an Israeli plot!) Surely that wouldn’t be treasonous, would it?

What the hell have we to be afraid of? Let him shoot his mouth off, so what? Your kind of approach would lend uneeded credence to the idea that we fear what he has to say, as a liar might fear the truth.

22

A very dangerous argument. There’s something scary of warring propaganda machines. It’s grossly misanthropic to imagine people are drones that will be instantly incited to violence by a charismatic television personality. Seeing Charles Manson in interview didn’t give me the urge to kill. And anyone extreme enough to engage in terrorism probably already has their mind made up. No one’s going to say, “Gee, I wasn’t going to kill anyone at all, but after hearing OBL on TV, I think I’ll send anthrax to my local newscaster.”

If CNN is a traitor for simply wanting to put a lunatic on TV, then what about those of us who are opposed to thios war? Are we traitors to our various countries? Is our right to speak to be abridged, because, since we don’t belong to the propaganda machine of Bomb-the-hell-out-of-Afghanistan, we must belong to the enemy’s? Is someone who questions the strength of the evidence a traitor? What about someone who believes there are better solutions to the situation? CNN is a hawk, and if it’s being called traitor for wanting to give the enemy airtime – a move probably calculated to build support for this war – then I’m scared for the rights of everyone who’s against it.

This is a terrifying atmosphere to say anything in. If we start shutting up the press – and make no mistake, accusing someone of treason for reporting is censorship – then I fear the terrorists have won. After all, what else would we call it once we’ve been terorized into losing our basic freedoms.

23

Right, as I said: “those dumb, faceless masses out there, they must be protected, because they can’t think for themselves.”

I believe you are just getting a bit carried away with your rhetoric and are not so naive as to think that hatred of the US among Islamic extremists begins and ends with OBL. People outside the USA have had access to the thoughts of Islamic fundamentalists for years, by all manner of media, and it is rather hubristic to think that this movement has somehow ‘arrived’ on the world stage simply by exposure of OBL on CNN.

The riots that have occurred so far in Pakistan have primarily been in response to Pakistan hosting the US military. Whether or not al-Queda representatives have been on CNN hasn’t the slightest relationship to these events.

I have yet to see how your notion of heavy-handed, unconstitutional censorship of the independent media bolsters our case that we are operating from a moral high ground.

Maybe you are perfectly satisfied to get all your news out of the mouth of Ari Fleischer, but I certainly am not.

24

Philster:

**
It’s my understanding that al Jazeera TV is running statements by OBL and others in al Quaeda verbatim, as they arrive.

Further, Middle Eastern Muslim media is rampant with pro-radical-Islam, anti-American sentiment. A lot of the worst of it comes from our ally, Saudi Arabia.

Stopping CNN’s six questions is like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound.

25

I had not seen the original reports, but it turns out that CNN is piggybacking on an interview that al-Jazeera was going to put to bin Laden, anyway.

Here are the questions that CNN has proposed:
BBC - bin Laden makes media offer
I would think that any answer that he provides to these six questions could be fairly easily rebutted if he actually responded to them. Only the first one gives him room to push his own propaganda. Any response he makes to the next five (basically, denial, of course) allows the U.S. to present any evidence that it has that he has lied.

26

The original CNN report, with the disclaimers.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/16/ret.binladen.questions/index.html

27

It’s very simple for me. I am an American and I have freedom of choice. And the 1st one I’ll make is to never watch CNN again if they ever air Bin Laden’s interview.

CNN = Crime Nations Network

Chrystie - USA
Luv it or leave it :wink:

28

Wow, I have not seen so many calls for ignorance as a virtue outside of a church, ever.

Erek

29

Philster, I’ve read this thread and thought about it, and I’m coming to the conclusion that your POV borders on the obscene.

Information is never bad. Imagine -

  • if Pol Pot’s plans have been widely known before he took over Cambodia, would it have been more likely that (a) there would have been copycat Killing Fields, or (b) at least some steps would have been taken to deter or stop the Killing Fields from happening?

  • ditto the Rwandan genocide

  • ditto Milosevic’s atrocities in Bosnia

etc.

As for anything else I might say, tomndebb has, as usual, said it first and said it better.

Sua

30

I believe the interview should be allowed. By all means. Free speech is free speech.

I, however, will not watch. OBL will not speak the truth, but only rhetoric. CNN should know this already. IMHO, it makes them look very bad, and will cost them in the future.

But it is their decision.

31

Oh, like I didn’t know the free speechers would show up for this one. FWIW, I tend to be very conservative in my interpretations of the Constitution.

OBL seems to know more about the processes that most drastically affect the United States than the average American (read “you”) seems to understand.

It is not about free speech. You are letting the free speech issue cloud your “judgement”. Judgement should not suffer at the hand of free speech just so we can enjoy our constitutional right to be ignorant.

The problem has a root in this: Americans will blindly defend free speech when no one is even challenging it. What it comes down to is the fact that no one has the balls to deny the interview, or to make a decision not to play the game. You owe more to people who had BALLS than you do to anyone else.

I would shed blood for free speech. However, during this conflict - zippity doo dah, Congress didn’t declare a “war” - we have new challenges that we never had to address before, all with the greates implications that our country is at risk like never before.

Now, I am supposed to sit back, and believe that airing OBL is “harmless”. I just want to make sure I have that correct.

Let’s see…American News Agency exchanges comments with Bin Laden. That’s harmless? Every potential follower, lover, extremist has already had their destiny mapped out for them…so this interview will not motivate anyone towards OBL…no one…it doesn’t lend him any support? He doesn’t grow in importance? He is not magnified on the world scale? No OBL supporters are more convinced of his power? This is all “harmless”? History denies you the right to call any of his harmless.

See, it’s cute to call me naive, but you can’t refuse that elevating OBL one iota creates trouble for us when we go to kill him or capture him. Good Lord…Islamic Extremism is the long term problem and OBL is the short term problem that can make a long term problem worse when you facilitate his desire to be the martyr…the Celebrity! By doing ANYTHING to elevate his stature you are only creating a bigger Islamic Extremist cause. Only a damned fool would ignore the importance of accepting such a risk.

There is a risk in providing any opportunity for OBL to become a celebrity or enhance his celebrity stature. Celebrities need air time and a terrorist celebrity getting an interview on the world stage with the USA is a celebrity with alot more kick in the terrorist world network.

And since that is a reasonable conclusion, we should not allow an interview, no more than free speech allows you to tell Al Quada where Dick Cheney is hiding.

32

Geez, any more spluttering and the flying spittle is gonna short out your keyboard, man.

Flip a coin: which does more to enhance OBL’s stature: gagging him by threatening the news media or letting him hang himself with his own words?

As stated several times previously, OBL’s views already have contacts with many different media outlets, with worldwide distribution. What’s so freakin’ special about CNN?

Soon after Septmeber 11, PBS ran a special which featured a lengthy interview with OBL that had been shot sometime previously. I found it very informative concerning his intentions, but founjd it also made him out as the dangerous lunatic that he apparently is. Should special this also have been suppressed?

Have you read the questions? If OBL answers them with candor, he incriminates himself as an unfeeling mass murderer. If he doesn’t, he comes off as liar and a coward.

It’s not that big a deal. Really.

33

If this is your position on free speech, you are most decidedly not “very conservative” in your interpretations of the Constitution. Read Scalia’s and Rehnquist’s First Amendment jurisprudence.

As for the rest of your position, let’s forget about the glories of free speech and the press. Your approach would be ineffective and indeed counterproductive to the United States’ efforts to combat bin Laden.

The key here is the “hearts and minds” of Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia. Through al-Jazeera and other outlets, they will hear bin Laden’s words. (Cutting off CNN from broadcasting those words will essentially only cut them off from Americans and Europeans, who I doubt will be swayed much by Osama’s charms.)

So, the people we are trying to win over will hear the words you wish to suppress. That being the fact, what should we do about it? Ignore them, make them seem more important than they are by trying and failing to suppress them? Or face them head on and rebut them?

Sua

34

While Philster and I part ways on applying the word treason to this CNN mess, I do agree with him on one thing:

You can’t apply the concept of free speech to this situation. Bin Laden has no right to free speech. Not as we understand it and (try to) practice it in this country. He’s not a citizen of this country.

CNN’s choice to broadcast the tape (if they choose to broadcast it) doesn’t represent an endorsement of what he’s saying, in the same way repeatedly broadcasting the Rodney King beating doesn’t mean they approve of that, either. It’s freedom of the press, not freedom of speech. Maybe that’s semantics, but I’d say there’s a difference between repeating what some other guy said and saying and believing it yourself.

You could make an argument that showing the Rodney King beating, over and over, in the wake of the not guilty verdict contributed to the LA riots. Does that mean CNN, ABC, and NBC are responsible for the damage?

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, Philster, so let know if I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like you’re arguing that the very act of broadcasting a bin Laden tape lends some sort of validity and weight to what the man is saying.

I actually think that’s a good point, and I’d agree–if CNN were the only station broadcasting it worldwide. But the frigging thing is going to be broadcast on Al-Jazeera anyway.

So it doesn’t do us any good to sit here and play see-hear-speak no evil, and let him co-opt the propaganda game.

35

Here’s a question for you, Philster:

Aren’t you interested in knowing more about our enemy? My god, if I was one of the families who lost someone in the WTC collapse (a close call–luckily, my brother-in-law stopped for coffee, and never made the subway in time), I’m sure I’d be crying out to the heavens asking “Why? Why?” And if I could ask OBL face-to-face, “Did you do this thing? Why did you do it? What do you WANT?” I sure would.

CNN is only asking questions that i think everyone in America is asking. And OBL’s answers will be illuminating, just as the insanity spouted by Hitler and his buddies and by modern-day KKK spokesmen is illuminating. We see what fuels their madness.

36

There seems to be a fundamental disagreement here on whether broadcasting a bin Laden tape helps him, hurts him, or does nothing for him either way. Philster and others, why should we take your word that airing a bin Laden interview helps him and puts us in danger? You keep talking about “elevating his status”. What does that mean? Can you explain this in non-rhetorical, concrete terms?

How do you know there aren’t a lot of people who aren’t sure whether he’s a madman or just misunderstood, people for whom seeing the tapes would just make them go “Ayuh, he’s crazy allright”.

We’ve already established that people outside the U.S. will see the interview with or without CNN, so you couldn’t possibly be arguing that such a broadcast will increase anti-American violence in other countries. Are you saying that people here in the U.S. will waver in their support of American efforts upon hearing bin Laden’s nasally voice? If so, then make that case, not the one that says we’re making a celebrity out of him.

Suppose the American media did make a celebrity out of bin Laden. So what? Ricky Martin is a celebrity, do you think people would rise up and clash with our leaders if he declared a jihad???

37

Philster, you keep drooling that them damn furriners don’t have the rights that Americans do.

You’re wrong.

They are not guaranteed those rights. But it is one of the fundamnetal precepts of the US that everyone, everywhere, has fundamental human rights which should be preserved and supported.

Of course, if you truly are the Constitutional conservative you claim to be, you’d know that the US government does not grant rights, it protects them.

38

That’s cute from a legal standpoint: Our gov. protects our rights, but doesn’t grant them.

In the real world (you know, the one where all this is happening), your government of the USA grants them for all intents and purposes. I guess you were born with rights and the gov just “protects” them. News Flash: It sounds nice, but really , we are essentially granted them because we aren’t born with any rights.

You want to argue ‘rights’ now? Hello, this conflict isn’t concerning itself with his rights, or presumption of anything, etc, etc. The rules tend to get bent a bit during times like this. Maybe you never noticed? Maybe you never noticed that, for you “protection”…protection in the sense that you can contine living your life…for your protection, your rights are often compromised. Then, when it’s okay, the gov will go back to “granting” you your rights again, yet they never stopped protecting them. Get it? Your rights are granted, revised, revoked, but they are always protected.

Again, you folks are not paying attention: No matter who airs his answers, he succeeds because he prompted CNN (American News essentially) to submit questions, and when he answers them, he gets the attention of the world wanting to see this terrorist celebrity answer the Americans.

BTW, this whole thing was his idea. Now, based on what I know of OBL already, his little ideas are pretty well thought out… he is pretty good at this sort of thing. It’s one of his few tactics to choose from now.

But that’s just fine. Cater to his idea…his tactics. He knows this tactic will help him. Has anyone here proved they are capable of outsmarting him yet?

Oh, Andros, furriners don’t have the rights that we do. Maybe on your little piece of paper, but in the real world, we’ll pick and choose who has rights to best suit our needs.

39

I have ten bucks on Bin Laden playing any propoganda game in the Islamic world better than the USA. You want to deal with him on his terms? You are a damned fool.

He knows his answers will be played in full, and carefully watched by Muslim TV.

The questions are IRRELEVANT! He gets a platform, based on the fact that he is answering the Americans. This is his tactic, and I am acknowleging that he understands these tactics as they relate to the Muslim world better than the US. A terrorist should not have his tactics facilitated by an American news agency.

40

I believe you posted in the wrong forum, Philster. I believe you meant to post in GQ. You know the truth. There is no debate here.

Sua
[sub]hmm, gotta pull out the DSM-IV. Can’t decide if these are symptoms of narcisstic personality disorder or ambulatory schizophrenia.[/sub]