SourceMay 11, 5:13 PM (ET)
By MUSADEQ SADEQ
JALALABAD, Afghanistan (AP) - Shouting "Death to America!" more than 1,000 demonstrators rioted and threw stones at a U.S. military convoy Wednesday, as protests spread to four Afghan provinces over a report that interrogators desecrated Islam's holy book at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay.
Police fired on the protesters, many of them students, trying to stifle the biggest display of anti-American anger since the ouster of the ruling Taliban militia 3 1/2 years ago. There were no reports of American casualties, but the violence left four dead and 71 injured in Jalalabad, a city 80 miles east of the capital, Kabul.
-snip-
The source of anger was a brief report in the May 9 edition of Newsweek that interrogators at Guantanamo placed Qurans on toilets to rattle suspects, and in at least one case "flushed a holy book down the toilet."
I don’t see that it serves any purpose for that information to become public knowledge. The military will take care of the person “accused” if they are found guilty of a crime. What possible good could come from airing our dirty laundry while our men and women are in a war zone. I think it shows a callus disregard for their safety. When Bob Novak mentioned the name of a CIA “operative” Valarie Plame, the lefties wanted him fired, wanted him fined, and wanted him charged with a crime. SourceI can't see how a reporter can't tell the story. No operational info was given up, so no need for military censorship, and the story reveals things that need to be corrected within the penal system, so it seems good for the republic in the big picture.
SourceIn the entire course of American history, Mr. Stone observes, ''the national government has never attempted to punish opposition to government policies, except in time of war.'' He cites six periods during which the United States attempted to punish individuals for criticizing government officials or policies:
$(6$)Under President John Adams the Federalists enacted the Sedition Act of 1798, which prohibited any person from writing, publishing or uttering anything of a ''false, scandalous and malicious'' nature against the government of the United States; although it was supposedly adopted as a measure to strengthen the nation in an impending war with France, Mr. Stone argues, ''it served primarily as a political weapon to strengthen the Federalists.''
$(6$)During the Civil War, President Lincoln on eight separate occasions suspended the writ of habeas corpus (which enables a person who has been detained by government officials to seek a judicial determination on the legality of that detention); and individuals were arrested for speech critical of the administration.
$(6$)During World War I the federal government prosecuted some 2,000 people for their opposition to the war and the draft; those convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 routinely received sentences ranging from 10 to 20 years in prison. President Wilson pushed without success to get a censorship provision included, arguing that ''authority to exercise censorship over the press'' was ''absolutely necessary to the public safety.''
$(6$)During World War II 120,000 individuals of Japanese descent were interned. In the years preceding Pearl Harbor, a Congressional committee began investigating ''the extent, character and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States''; the F.B.I. established an aggressive informer program; and Congress passed the Alien Registration Act of 1940 (the Smith Act), which forbade individuals to advocate the propriety of overthrowing the government by force.
$(6$)During the cold war, President Truman established a loyalty program for all civilian government employees; the House Un-American Activities Committee, or HUAC, cited 135 people for contempt (more than the entire Congress had cited for contempt in the history of the country to that point); and Senator Joseph R. McCarthy launched his virulent rampage.
$(6$)During the Vietnam War the F.B.I. carried out a wide-ranging program to ''expose, disrupt and otherwise neutralize'' dissident political activities; the federal government sought to enjoin The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers; and protesters were prosecuted for burning their draft cards and expressing contempt for the American flag.
Reform what? Some liberals definition of torture? A probably false report of a military man desecrating the Quran?By having it in a reputable newssource, the public has a chance to complain about it and reform the system.
Private contractor was never on my list with CO’s, and none of the MP’s that I knew would take suggestions as you imply.My understanding is that our troops are being made to look bad by private contractors who engage in a lot of this activity and encourage the MP's to do it as well (and if you remember what it was like being in the military, pretty much anyone who had some level of authority had quite a bit of influence over your activities).
It is always easy to second guess actions after the fact. Liberals thrive on twenty, twenty hindsight, and would of course make apologies even hundreds of years later. Throw in some restitution also, that helps heal the wounds.I would hope that the examples you gave about press restrictions during wartime aren't meant as more than precedents. I mean, the alien and sedition act is considered a black mark on our record. After it lapsed under Jefferson, all prisoners were released and fines returned. An apology, of sorts.
The civil war one doesn't apply because of critical nature of the speech (the story linkes isn't critical, it's meerely a statement of record..
The "Pentagon Papers" was a losing case. The supreme court sided with the governement with one of the weirdest set of appeals/injunctions in histrory (PS, I loved McNamara's "Fog of War" I was tre pleased the documentarian didn't turn him into some monster, and let him tell his story.)
And, of course the japanese internment. I don't think anyone can say this was a triumph of constitutional law. Rather a sad moment in out history which was apologized for.
I think all the left wing anti-war, Bush bashers, are doing it to be malicious and they do impact how our troops are treated around the world. It does spread hate for America to other Countries.So, as can be seen from a selction of examples, most are constutionally questionable, or have been overturned and apologized for. Therefore, the paper is well within its perview to write the story (of course, were they to writie it maliciously, I might be convined libel was involved).
Our Government didn’t do anything. One or more soldiers May have. It was irresponsible for Newsweek to put an unsubstantiated story out.If our governemnt is doing something wrong, we need to know. The Press is given the privelege of informing us. This is seems to be a clear cut case where their privelege outweighs the gov'ts need for secrecy.
The latest report I heard there isn't any evidence that allegations were even made. The military investigates charges no matter who they are from, of course it would be looked into if a complaint was filed. If it turns out this was a fabricated story, what do you think the punishment to Newsweek and or the reporter should be?The newspaper may have gotten it wrong. The guy may have been full of flaming goat terds, I won't disagree with that. But don't we owe it to our national honor to investigate the charge? If it weren't for the story, do you think it would be pursued?
shuamort said:Any restrictions or limits on the press, especially during wartime, is unconstitutional. Plain and simple.
Then again, if it could stop Fox News' Geraldo from doing any more "stories" from Kandaharspin: *ahem* Tora Bora *ahem*:spin: ), then maybe it would be a good thing.
Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and head of the Christian Broadcasting Network, appeared on ABC's "This Week" earlier this month and criticized the federal courts. "Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," he said.
Lefkow said that kind of "harsh rhetoric is truly dangerous."
"I have never encountered a judge in the federal judiciary who can remotely be described as posing a threat, as Mr. Robertson said, 'probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings,'" she said.
Lefkow called on Congress to increase funding for the U.S. Marshals Service, which protects judges. She also wants legislation to ban putting personal information about judges and other government officials on the Internet without their permission.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., focused on the importance of judges being willing to request protection when needed. He asked Lefkow why she didn't request protection after the white supremacist group threatened her life several years ago.
Lefkow said she lacked the expertise to properly assess the threat and that, to her knowledge, no system was in place to properly assess and protect her safety.
Congress should make sure that money that has been allocated for home security systems for federal judges gets to them as fast as possible, she said.
Congress has approved $12 million to install home security systems for the 2,200 active and semiretired judges and magistrates in the federal court system.
"As recently as last Friday, which was May 13, I was spotted and harassed in a restaurant in downtown Chicago," Lefkow said. "Had that harasser come back rather than left a nasty sign and had a gun, then obviously I wouldn't be here today."
Yeah. **** the First Ammendment. That was only meant to apply to times of peace when the govt says it's okay. Why should the electorate be able to keep tabs on the govt anyway? I mean it's composed of politicians. Who's more resonsible and trustworthy than politicians?Squawker said:If the media isn’t going to be responsible by themselves, I think the government or courts should be able to put a gag order on them while our servicemen are in harms way.
That's All Abu Ghraib was about to you? Making the Admin look bad?Squawker said:The New York Times had story after story about the events at abu ghraib . I wonder how many people got killed just because they wanted to make the Administration look bad.
That is all it was to the NY Times. They were obsessed over it. The Military was investigating and would deal with the people involved, they didn't need the NY Times spreading more hate and discontent around the world with rumors. Some of the stories were grossly exaggerated, that is propaganda, pure and simple.That's All Abu Ghraib was about to you? Making the Admin look bad?
How will we know?Squawker said:The military will take care of the person “accused” if they are found guilty of a crime.
I know it's a tad too conservative and old fashioned for today's tastes, but we used to prize something that was called public accountability. You see, we didn't used to trust politicians, the government and govt institutions. So, we wanted them to have to keep everything above board where we could see it. Back in the day we used to think of ourselves as the govt's boss since we are the ones who sign the paychecks so to speak. We wanted to have some way of making wure that they were behaving. But like I said, that was back before, in the bad old days when we didn't trust politicians- not even the ones who cloaked themselves in the mantle of "conservatism." Course, nowadays we got the first PotUS who has never told a lie since the first GW.Squawker said:What possible good could come from airing our dirty laundry while our men and women are in a war zone.
Why is the word operative in quotations?Squawker said:I think it shows a callus disregard for their safety. When Bob Novak mentioned the name of a CIA “operative” Valarie Plame, the lefties wanted him fired, wanted him fined, and wanted him charged with a crime. Source
Actually, a number of items that you have cited are examples where the USG did go too far and did engage in illegal activities.Squawker said:Geraldo was punished for revealing their position, and I believe he was removed from the battlefield. Putting restrictions on the press isn’t illegal during war time, and I think we need to at least put pressure on the media to act responsibly, so people don’t get killed because of something they printed.
Source
I see. It had nothing to dio with iots newsworthiness? It was merely a part of the Liberal Media conspiracy against Team Bush I take it?Squawker said:That is all it was to the NY Times. They were obsessed over it. The Military was investigating and would deal with the people involved, they didn't need the NY Times spreading more hate and discontent around the world with rumors. Some of the stories were grossly exaggerated, that is propaganda, pure and simple.
Newsmax.com had 674 stories with the words Abu Gharib in them including a lot of propaganda and exaggeration in them as well.Squawker said:That is all it was to the NY Times. They were obsessed over it. The Military was investigating and would deal with the people involved, they didn't need the NY Times spreading more hate and discontent around the world with rumors. Some of the stories were grossly exaggerated, that is propaganda, pure and simple.
I would assume Newsmax was on the defensive as a result of the negative stories from the left wing media. I think there needs to be a limit to the rhetoric and misinformation that may incite violence during war time. Should Judges be protected because some nut case might kill or threaten them? Lets deal with the hypocrisy of the two situations.Newsmax.com had 674 stories with the words Abu Gharib in them including a lot of propaganda and exaggeration in them as well.
No, let's deal with the fact that you feel it's ok to ignore the founding father's directive on free speech.Squawker said:I would assume Newsmax was on the defensive as a result of the negative stories from the left wing media. I think there needs to be a limit to the rhetoric and misinformation that may incite violence during war time. Should Judges be protected because some nut case might kill or threaten them? Lets deal with the hypocrisy of the two situations.
Simon, you know as well as I do, the NY Times hates Republicans. There isn't any news in disecting every move made by our military men and women at Abu Ghraib. That was just left wing snot.I see. It had nothing to dio with iots newsworthiness?
To be perfectly honest, I know no such thing. I'm not saying your assertion is false, but I don't know it to be true. Off the top of my head, I can't even name a single editor of the NYT let alone know anything about who they hate.Squawker said:Simon, you know as well as I do, the NY Times hates Republicans.
Rather than disecting "every move" it tended to focus on the illegal, improper and what our SECDEF called un-American actions- things like "intentional violent or sexual abuse." Intentional violent or sexual abuses, in this instance, includes acts causing bodily harm using unlawful force as well as sexual offenses including, but not limited to rape, sodomy and indecent assault as those offenses are defined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. You know, frat house fun.Squawker said:There isn't any news in disecting every move made by our military men and women at Abu Ghraib.
Have you read the Taguba report, btw?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?