I strongly disagree with the governments decision to censor the gunmans 911 calls. I understand the reasoning behind it but find it absurd for this nation (USA).
We are a mature nation and we can handle the truth. We benefit by being exposed to the killers mindset. We can better understand the motives of him and his fellow travellors. We can best judge his motivation by his own words rather than have them filtered through the government.
The USA does not have an underclass of potential terrorists like western Europe. Releasing the unfiltered transcripts will have virtually no negative consequences on the nation. Censoring them is against our values as a nation. And I wonder whether it will stand up to a court challenge.
The eyewitness account that I saw only mentioned the killer held the “bombing of his country” as the motivation for the attack. He was a US born son of of Afganis. This isn’t something that has been a part of the media narrative surrounding the attack. Probably because both president Obama and Republicans have caused this particular example of blowback. The media has been a lapdog to bipartisan war, and will continue to be.
The argument over whether the killer was affiliated with ISIS fits neatly into partisan bickering.
It wouldn’t bother me if 911 calls weren’t released publicly at all. If I call 911, it would be nice to know that my privacy was protected HIPAA law style.
While I dont agree that the calls of deceased killers should be held back, they should either release the transcripts complete or not release them at all. It isnt up to our government to filter in formation that isnt top secret or would put specific lives at risk.
I’m a bit mystified why the Justice Department is setting terms for what will be released. Typically 9-1-1 centers are a state/local issue and a state governor would be the highest executive authority controlling such a decision which might be delegated to the state attorney general.
I work in a 9-1-1 center, albeit outside the United States, and prepare audio recordings for release. Overwhelmingly the recordings are for the police or court and are unedited.
On rare occasions a recording for release to a member of the public under Freedom of Information legislation will have personally identifiable details (name of parties involved, home address, telephone number and a person’s personal medical information) edited out.
But some calls might be refused release altogether if releasing such to the public might compromise an ongoing police investigation. I could envision refusing to release Mateen’s calls, at least for now, under such an exemption. But I couldn’t see editing out statements about his motive if the call was approved for release.
Maybe they don’t want recordings of his words to end up in recruiting videos? Maybe he gave away info about his friends that the DHS wants to keep quiet? Without knowing what’s on it, it’s kind of hard to say if they should public.
(I agree with bobot, though, listening to other peoples’ 911 calls feels skeevy.)
The reason I’m asking is because I don’t know who you’re talking about.
Since you’re talking about "the history of the two regions, perhaps you mean the Irish, the Basques, or members of the former Yugoslavia.
The first reference to this story I saw this morning was a Fox News link, so I assumed it to be bullshit spin on Fox’s part, and was surprised (as anyone ought to be) that their reporting was accurate.
I understand the motivation for redacting the transcripts, but it doesn’t sit right with me, and unfortunately plays directly into the “Obama and the Democrats want us to stick our heads in the sand about Muslim terrorists until it’s too late!” narrative. Another nice boost for Trump.
Maybe among the kind of people who already were supporting him. Beyond that, though, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that Trump’s approach to this issue is a boost for a him at all… rather the opposite, in fact.
I agree with this. It seems pretty obvious that the Justice Department is trying to spin this shooting as having nothing to do with ISIS or Islamic terrorism. And it is rather remarkably clumsy - everybody already knows that he pledged allegiance to ISIL during the shooting. What purpose does it serve to play Let’s Pretend with the transcripts?
I understand the desire to push the idea that this was “really” about homophobia or it was “really” caused because we don’t have enough gun control or whatever. But if the government tries to do that by editing out what the terrorist actually said, it ain’t gonna work and it is gonna make them look both duplicitous and stupid.
It is a matter of NOT rewarding criminal conduct. If you can do things like this and as a result get whatever message you want broadcast to the world, wouldn’t that encourage more behavior such as this?
Same as caving in to terrorist demands. Give them what they want, then these things will happen more often. Thus why many countries have a policy of NOT negotiating with terrorists period!
I agree with the FBI. Note I think the FBI knows what it is doing and knows what is best for this country. If you know more about criminal behavior than them, what is your training/background?
Well, sure – people are always on about “don’t give terrorists/mass murderers the publicity they want” … But then it turns out the public WANTS to hear/read what the criminal had to say, to see what they can read into it.