Well, just so we’re clear that people are both keeping things from me, secrets or not, and that they are deciding what to keep from me in what is supposed to be a free press. I mean, it isn’t like they are censoring the “f” word.
I think noting “hey, here was a message from bin Laden on national news three days before the attack which could be interpreted thus…”
You don’t know that he is doing that. I’ve seen no particular evidence that he has done that. I would rather his bullshit be spread large and wide so people can see what a fucking idiot he is and say something like, “You know, maybe those dumb imperialistic Americans aren’t that bad after all, and we shouldn’t arbitraily kill them.”
There are lots of things I don’t need to know about; that is neither a prerequisite for my agreement with censorship nor a sufficient condition.
The man, obviously, has many methods of commincating and allocating funds to people all over the world. I highly doubt that censoring press releases are going to impact the force terrorist organizations can muster up.
Should we inspect all suspect “classified” ads, too? I mean, you have no need to buy a '98 Honda Civic that “needs work.”
A quaint, old-fashioned phrase comes to my mind here - Loose Lips Sink Ships.
Another thing that comes to mind? Nonsensical phrases the Allies broadcast over WWII Europe to tell Resistance groups “It’s a go!”.
Yeah, I know it’s far-fetched. Never mind mythical and fairly tale-ish.
But ya know what? If CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS/NPR chooses to rely on their own Arabic-speaking translators to give us the news, rather than playing bin Laden in real time, that is NO skin off my back.
**What makes you think you should be privy to “secret” communications?
**
So we should reveal that we know how he communicates?
**
This is the best argument yet that OBL’s propaganda should not be publicized. If you, in your infinite wisdom, can’t see the possibility of anything underhanded, then it must be fit for general publication.
**
Like I said…do you speak Arabic? What do you think you have to gain? And, since we’ve eliminated most of his communication network in order to prevent him from being able to “get his word out”, why should we allow him any sort of communication at all?
**
Hello, Strawman. Need any help standing upright?
Eris, if you’re as transparent as you seem to be, then you’re a waste of my time.
Well, first of all, if a reporter did decide to “relay information” in the way you are talking, he or she would be, IMHO, perfectly within his or her first amendment rights. And you can trot out all the pathetic Congressional laws, Presidential edicts and Supreme Court decisions that you like (Sedition acts etc.) which declare that in certain times of crisis free speech should be curtailed, but you’ll be hard pressed to show that any of these were motivated primarily by “national security” rather than by a desire to suppress dissent.
It’s precisely in times of crisis that freedom of speech needs to be most closely guarded. Witness all the so-called free speech supporters over the past few weeks spouting lines like “This isn’t the time to be criticizing the government”, “We all need to line up behind the President”, “Bill Maher is unAmerican”, etc. etc. etc. Of course, people who make such claims always add that they are not really trying to suppress freedom of speech, but the threatening gestures and heavy-handed rhetoric that often accompany such statements makes their intention pretty obvious.
I’m not saying that people have to criticize the government, or that people should not line up behind the President, or that Bill Maher’s ideas should all be agreed with. What i am saying is that those who choose to exercise their right to free expression in ways that run counter to the prevailing orthodoxy should not be criticized for this.
Now of course, some people will say that criticizing people is also an aspect of free speech. True enough, but it depends on how you do it. For example, if someone expresses opposition to government policy, and you think they’re wrong, then by all means tell them and give them an argument as to why their criticism is unjustified. That is freedom of speech at work. But don’t just say to them, as many people have been doing over the past weeks, that they should not, on principle, be criticizing the government. That is simply a veiled attempt to suppress free speech.
And, getting back to the post that i quoted above, in the current atmosphere of kowtowing to government edicts and the media wanting to appear all red-white-and-blue, if you think that the Condoleezza Rice’s “request” was anything less than an order, then you’re dreaming. Duck Duck Goose wrote:
Well, sort of. But what is happening here is a “request” for self-censorship which, when complied with by the media, has consequences for public knowledge and public debate that can be virtually indistinguishable from official censorship. Why is it that people seem to think, as evidenced in the quoted post, that only government practices censorship? Have you ever read the “Project Censored” reports that come out each year, which list incredible stories that don’t make the news because they are not considered “important” enough by media corporations?
And all this free speech stuff aside, it amazes me that people really believe that Bin Laden can’t get messages to his cohorts in a more subtle way than some code-word in a spoken message. And even if the news in the US decides not to play this stuff, i’ll bet that transcripts and even video of Bin Laden’s pronouncements can be found on dozens of websites from parts of the Muslim world and/or from western European countries. And some of these would most likely be in the orginal language that would allow more subtle codes to be passed on, rather than in the English translations seen on American networks up until now.
Duck Duck Goose also wrote:
I’m sure you’re right. If the request does lead to self-censorship, we should be asking the government why they made the request, but we should also be asking the media why they fell into line and obeyed it.
And as erislover has pointed out,
It seems to me that, if other attacks do occur, chances are that they have been planned for a long time, with a very clear sense of when and where they would be carried out. I doubt they need someone on the other side of the world to give the green light - Bin Laden has already given a blanket go-ahead by declaring war on the US and its allies.
And i think the most amusing post on this thread has to go to Rysdad who advocates censorship and then says:
Talk about a supporter of the “ignorance is bliss” school of public information! American history has shown that, more often than not, the secrets we “have no business knowing” are not ones that keep the country secure, but rather are ones that save corrupt and criminal government officials from embarrassment or criminal indictments.
In sum, i believe that both the principles of free speech and the logistics of the particular issue we are discussing indicate that little effect will be served by censoring Bin Laden’s speeches. Although i will add that, if he keeps saying the sort of thing that he has said already, then i don’t really have a great deal of interest in listening to him anyway. We’ve heard it all before, and threats of terror and indiscriminate killing are just a sign of how deranged he is.
I believe we could stop right right here and dismiss you arguments out of hand, but what the hell…
It is to laugh. Do you feel that your freedom of speech is threatened? By whom? Is Rush Limbaugh going to come to your house and duct tape your face? You still have your voice. Go out. Create a sign. Proudly proclaim that “I WANT TO HEAR BIN LADEN SPEAK!” You can do that, if you wish.
They’re not. At least for expressing their opinions. The content, however, may be freely criticized.
Bzzzzzt. Wrong again. The expressed, explicit intent was to disallow OBL any means of communication. Why do you persist in thinking that you must be allowed to hear each and every single syllable he utters? What good does it do you? You’re going to hear it via an interpreter anyway. The press can still print whatever they want. They choose, however, to be responsible and not allow a madman to rant on national television. Who does that harm?
This statement exceeds even basic ignorance. Cite, or shut up.
Then you go on to finally agree with me that OBL isn’t worth listening to, and that you’re not interested in hearing what he has to say anyway.
Game. Set. Match.
I guess you just want to exercise your right to hear him speak. Well, guess what? You don’t get to. Smarter minds than yours have decided that it’s not in the country’s best interest to allow an avowed enemy free access to our airwaves.
You may speak your mind to your heart’s content. He may not.
"But that’s censorship!"
Tough.
You’ll hear the gist of it, and that’s good enough for you. Unless you speak Arabic, it doesn’t make any difference anyway.
Someday you’ll come to understand that you have neither the right -nor the need- to know everything the government knows.
As for who is going to determine who will reveal what to whom, well, you have the right to vote and speak your mind. I don’t think that there’s going to be a “100% Disclosure Party” any time soon, though.
I don’t know about that. I’m fairly confident there’s not a FedEx drop box outside bin laden’s cave, though I could be wrong.
Seriously, he does NOT want to be traced. That rules out any means of communication that uses radio waves. It also rules out mail service to a large extent. I don’t know any air carrier that doesn’t trace their packages. Besides the logistics problem that he’s probably hiding out in Podunktown that doesn’t HAVE mail service and it would look a little obvious if some poor goat farmer came in with 15 packages going to 15 different countries…
So if bin laden has to get a message out to his shadowy network, which spans dozens of countries, in a short amount of time, what BETTER way than to have it hidden in a video. Then you have one man arranging to have one video sent to, say, the BBC. Once it reaches them, bin laden knows that THEY’LL handle the copying, distributing, publicizing and airing.
Actually, while I understand why the White House made the request, to me it is simply the flip side of the first serious mistake that Bush & Co. have made in this campaign.
On the one hand, he doesn’t want the broadcasters to give the total text of broadcast of bin Laden’s speeches, ostensibly to prevent bin Laden from sending secret messages. Say What? Unless you utterly paraphrase every word bin Laden uttered, there is no way to know whether we eliminated the special code, so reducing the amount of his rhetoric that is broadcast has only a limited chance of interrupting his message. (And if I were going to send a secret message that said “attack now,” I would generally imbed it in the catchphrase that highlighted my point, making even a paraphrase likely to convey the message.)
In addition, are the posters on this thread the only ones in the world who do not have satellite TV? I would suspect that a lot of people in the world (including the U.S.) have no trouble at all watching al Jazeera TV. And for the few who don’t, they can certainly log in to the TV station’s web site,* http://www.aljazeera.net/, to find out all the information they want.
It is not 1942 in Europe where the only possible means of broadcast is the BBC clear channel and BBC short wave. There are dozens of widely available means of getting the word out that have nothing to do with CBS, NBC, or ABC.
It is basically a propaganda device to reduce bin Laden’s exposure in the U.S. consciousness.
Which brings us to the obverse side of this failure:
Bush & Co. have utterly refused to address the points that bin Laden has made, claiming that they are simply the rhetoric of an evil madman. However, al Jazeera TV is broadcasting bin Laden’s comments directly to the people of the Islamic world (and everyone else who wants to see the unedited version).
Our administration is allowing bin Laden to claim to the Islamic and Arab world that he is simply supporting the Palestinian struggle, despite the fact that he has never included them in any of his rhetoric until the current Intifada–he is cynically using their cause as a tool, nothing more.
Our administration has done nothing to show that bin Laden has attacked other Islamic governments, both physically and rhetorically; we have done nothing to publish or broadcast any moderate Islamic religious leader who condemned bin Laden’s theology. (There have been such condemnations, but the administration has ignored them.)
bin Laden has made a number of specific and specifically false statements in his broadcast tape that the U.S. government has allowed to pass, unremarked, as if (to the eyes of someone outside the U.S.) they could not be refuted.
In other words, we are waging a rather silly propaganda campaign in the U.S. (where such is hardly needed) while totally ignoring the much more necessary propaganda campaign among the people whom we need to bring to our side.
*(That site is in Arabic, so it may lock or slow browsers attempting to open it if they do not have Arabic fonts loaded.)
I will also point out, from a little further down this CNN article, that the networks are far from simply buckling and not showing the video.
It’s too long to quote here, but in the article the rest of the Western world basically says, “Well, we’ll show whatever parts of Bin Laden’s videos we feel are newsworthy.” That includes Rupert Murdoch, the BBC, Reuters, the Dutch, the Japanese, and all but one Italian broadcaster.
The French are the only ones who have said they won’t give him any more air time at all.
And the guy from Dutch television points out:
…which I think is a good point.
So I don’t think there’s a serious danger of the Western world going into a total news lockdown because the Feds are “requesting” the media not to show any more Bin Laden videos. And there’s always the Internet…
I think it is very clear who is being transparent here. (how “punny” is that?)
You don’t feel that people should hear what bin Laden is saying. The government, apparently, is on your side. I fail to see how portioning out bin Laden’s speech is going to have any effect but to promote ignorance.
No thank you. I think we’re isolated enough as it is. Long live McCarthy? I don’t think so.
I would think that we’ve provided evidence to the Saudis of his tie-in to the barracks bombing in their country as well as to the attacks on the two embassies in Africa. The African nations may not be Islamic, but Saudi Arabia certainly is.
Secondly, I would certainly agree that I would like to see more Islamic condemnation of his perversion of Islam. If I were a muslim, I wouldn’t appreciate someone speaking as if he represented me in his fanatical ravings.
This shows that i have no trouble with criticism of content; but the first paragraph also shows that, in my experience at least, people are criticizing others for expressing their opinions. What else does it mean when you say: “This isn’t the time to be criticizing the government”? Can you honestly say you haven’t heard similar sentiments expressed since September 11.
First of all, there’s no need to get hostile just because someone doesn’t agree with you. It’s this sort of attitude that makes makes me question your general commitment to free speech. Instead of saying that you would be more convinced by a citation, you tell me to “cite, or shut up” - nice way to encourage debate. :rolleyes:
Now, with respect to the keeping of secrets, there are any one of a number of authors whose works you could read regarding the way in which official secrets tend mainly to protect the powerful from ther own misdeeds. Ward Chruchill and Jim Vander Wall’s book, The Cointelpro Papers shows how the keeping of secrets by the FBI helped for a long time to protect the Bureau from investigation of its crminal activities. Much of Noam Chomsky’s work discusses the way in which official secrets about US foreign interventions are kept from the American public far longer than necessary to justify any possible national security concerns. Or look at any one of a multitude of works regarding US involvement in internal conflicts from Guatemala to Chile to Iran. And a good recent example is the way that American “friendly-fire” deaths in the Gulf War were denied and covered up for much longer than they needed to be on “national security” grounds because Defense Force brass were worried about the possible consequences. Or, if all that stuff requires too much reading, you could look at Christopher Hitchens’ two-part article on Henry Kissinger in Harper’s earlier this year (February and March, 2001)
And if you want stuff on American laws passed in defiance of the First Amendment, go to any decent book on American History and look up the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, or the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1918 as just two examples of what i’m talking about. And what about the complicity of congress and the judicial system in the anticommunist crusade of the 1940s and 1950s? Surely you wouldn’t argue that everyone who lost their job and/or went to jail for refusing to talk to McCarthy and HUAC represented a danger to national security? Or, then again, maybe you would.
A recent textbook of American History says that:
(Just for starters, see Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, and David Caute, The Great Fear: The Anti-Communist Purge under Truman and Eisenhower; and if you can’t bothered looking at books, go to Yahoo or Google and put in the keywords “alien sedition act 1798 1918” and you will get plenty of responses).
Um, i don’t think so. Just because i have no particular interest in hearing him does not mean that the government should be “requesting” that the media censor itself in reporting his words. As an atheist, i have no particular interest in attending religious ceremonies either, but i would still be very angry if government “suggested” that people refrain from going to church, mosque, synagogue etc. What i want to listen to or do, and what people should be allowed to listen to or do, are not the same thing. Unlike you, i don’t make the assumption that just because i’m not interested in seeing or doing something, the rest of the population will automatically agree with me.
And i think tomndebb’s post points to some the issues that the US really needs to be concentrating on.
Oh, how the ad hominems are welling up in me, but I resist.
It’s also clear that you don’t know me very well, or you’d know that I’m about as far from isolationist as a person can get.
For the last time…just what is it that you expect or hope to hear? What can OBL say now that will change anyone’s mind? On the slight chance that there is a coded message in his words or gestures, is it still worthwhile to listen to an Arabic translation of his words?
I don’t feel that I would be any more enlightened by what OBL has to say, and I’m satisfied with the translations that are provided.
Of course, you could go study Arabic and then translate his speeches yourself. Then you can come back to this board and say, “See, I told ya! He was really saying, “Sorry 'bout those bombing things, folks. Y’see, there was this wild party, and a few of the guys got a little out of hand…””
I’ve got better things to do than listen to a fanatic espouse genocide.
I’m sure that we have addressed issues regarding the barracks bombing with the Saudi government.
What we have failed to do is provide the evidence (and there is evidence) to the Islamic-oriented public that bin Laden and al Qaeda have engaged destabilizing attacks on governments in Islamic countries and that bin Laden has falsely accused various Islamic nations of betraying (his version of) Islam.
Rather than having a spokesman for Bush (Fleischer, I think, rather that Rice), tell the world that Bush “dismissed” bin Laden’s taped interview, we should have put together a point-by-point rebuttal to it and invited a reporter from al Jazeera TV to an exclusive interview to hear it, then publish it to the world the following day. Instead, we have Colin Powell visiting Qatar to ask that the government lean on al Jazeera to cool it. What does that look like to moderate followers of Islam?
Ok, in the interest of brevity, I’d like a citation where you can show that there are more secrets protecting “corrupt and criminal government officials from embarrassment or criminal indictments” than there are pertaining to national defense.
Sorry about the hostility, but when you make such a patently false statement, you’ve got to expect someone to call you on it.
You mentioned several articles/books that seem to prove to you that the government is one big cover-up due to the failings of politicians and foreign policy. Of course if you’re of a mindset to believe that, then I doubt you can be swayed. Would it tend to persuade you if I said there are rooms full of classified documents related to the operation of just one of the satellites that are used to gather intelligence? Multiply that by countless other systems, operations, ordnance, infrastructure, plans, and related intelligence.
Suffice it to say that I don’t believe that most government secrets “are ones that save corrupt and criminal government officials from embarrassment or criminal indictments.”
Also, I seem to recall that there was gun-sight film of the friendly fire incident where a US Army helicopter mistakenly hit a friendly APC. You complain that this evidence was covered up “much longer than it needed to be.” Unfortunately, you’re not the arbiter of the exact amount of time that must elapse between the incident and its publication. Actually, the footage was shown relatively soon after when it happened.
Can I honestly say that I haven’t heard people say, “This isn’t the time to be criticizing the goverment?” I can. Absolutely. I haven’t heard that. I have heard people say, “It’s time to set aside differences and work together toward a complete and final resolution of this problem.” I’ve heard that from US Congressmen.
Have you been told that the time’s not right to criticize the government? Did you see it on the news? Did a friend-of-a-friend-of-the-lady-at-the-grocery-store say that they’d heard it? I really want to know where you heard it. If it was a Congressman or a news anchor, please let me know so I can write him. If it was your cousin Edsel, then it was your responsibility to contradict and/or educate him.
Or, more likely, did you feel that, whatever it was you had to say was unlikely to garner a positive response, and you therefore edited yourself? If that was the case, then you are the weakest link. If you’ve a right, and don’t use it, you have nobody to blame but yourself.
(OK. That was a WAG, but I’m guessing it was appropriate.)
Sure, there will be some flag-waving, America-Right-Or-Wrong extremists that will be shouting at the top of their lungs to “Love it or leave it!” It’s their right, too. Of course, you don’t have to do as they wish, but don’t feel as though they have the ability to stifle your freedom of expression. They don’t.
No, I don’t feel that the First Amendment is under attack. Hell, we’re exercizing it right now. And, I further feel that any attempt by government to curtail the free expression of speech would meet with immediate failure. The world is far too interconnected now. Words typed here, slogans shouted in front of news cameras, and signs waved in front of embassies appear instantaneously around the world.
I don’t think First Amendment advocates would give up their internet any sooner than 2nd Amendment supporters would hand over their rifles.
In sum, you’re certainly free to say what you will. Remember, too, that with rights come responsibilities. When you imply that most goverment secrets exist for the protection of ruthless politicians, it’s your responsibility to back up that claim…or retract it, if you’re honorable.
A Google search on “al jazeera colin powell” turns up several hits–often commentary, not news, but enough to see the news behind the commentary.
From what I have read in the last three weeks, al Jazeera does tend to broadcast both sides of the struggle. They may slant it a bit one way (as if Western media does not?), but they do present both sides.
A Google search on “al jazeera colin powell” turns up several hits–often commentary, not news, but enough to see the news behind the commentary.
From what I have read in the last three weeks, al Jazeera does tend to broadcast both sides of the struggle. They may slant it a bit one way (as if Western media does not?), but they do present both sides.
Thanks for the link, tomndeb. Maybe the SecState was trying to get them to do something similar to what’s being done here–a bit of editing rather than showing the complete footage?
I dunno. I don’t think he’d have the cojones to try and get them to ban OBL’s words completely, would he?
How very strong of you after telling me I am seemingly transparent—showing what, I’m not sure, but I know now it was meant to be a friendly, topic-centric comment.
Well, I only know what you say on the boards in this thread. You strike me as isolationist, saying that—effectively—bin Laden has nothing to say that is worth hearing. I disagree.
His words, translated as well as can be hoped into English.
Change anyone’s mind? I just want to hear what it is he has to say.
I think that chance is very slight indeed, so much so that I hear black helicopters flying overhead.
Well, that is all I was asking for. I feel the media should remain free to transmit, in whole or in part, whatever they feel is worth transmitting. They retain that right. I am glad.
So don’t listen. I’ve got better ways of trying to understand world affairs than by sticking my fingers in my ears. We are launching missles and dropping bombs on him and “his kind.” I would appreciate being kept abreast of who we are fighting: straight from the horses mouth when possible, and from our own sources when it isn’t.
I surely don’t need to learn his native language just to hear his message. his message is the most important thing to listen to, because he uses it to recruit people into the fray. Some may say that is an even better reason to paraphrase and censor. I disagree. I think when all cards are layed face up on the table the game and its outcome are clear.