Nothing to hide, nothing to fear

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
WRONG. The job of the press is to REPORT the TRUTH. That is where the press has gone astray. They don't REPORT the TRUTH, they CREATE STORIES. The bias in the press has made the press a joke, and the backlash is becoming evident. Soon, no one will believe anything printed in the mainstream media unless they've already seen it or heard it themsleves from a more reliable source. In their hunger to get the scoop and further their agenda, they've become blinded by their own ambitions and bias.

No, that's a cultural myth: the job of the press is to sell either newspapers or advertising or both. To do that you have to appeal to the most readers and/or advertisers you possibly can.

Any reporting of the truth is rather coincidental: telling the truth does not pay people wages, and in fact may often lead to expensive legal proceedings or even a drop in sales and especially a drop in advertising (which is itself, lets face it, either seriously misleading or complete lies). The "truth" that can be reported is only really what the government, courts and the advertisers will allow, and what the editors think people will read - ie what is culturally held as being "true". And indeed arguably, the only reason the "truth" as such gets a look in at all is to avoid big court fines.

Generally speaking in this day and age any newspaper's "agenda" is set by its perception of what sells to big businesses (advertisers) or the masses (the readers). The whole liberal media allegation is a bit silly: essentially it's all about the sales figures - and what could be a more right wing agenda than that, eh?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by -dead-

Generally speaking in this day and age any newspaper's "agenda" is set by its perception of what sells to big businesses (advertisers) or the masses (the readers). The whole liberal media allegation is a bit silly: essentially it's all about the sales figures - and what could be a more right wing agenda than that, eh?

that's easy, exposing and sounding off against the right wing agenda sells.

[Staga]

GWB & Co are diverting US from rest of the world and IMHO that's good

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
that's easy, exposing and sounding off against the right wing agenda sells.

To who? Doesn't that imply that the majority of Americans who buy newspapers are left wing?

[Eagler]

they have already found some of those released trying to kill us again

lock them up and throw away the key

we are safe until a bleeding heart, un/eu liberal friendly twit is elected into the big house. next homeland attack will be under that losers watch and it will make 911 seem like nothing

[-dead-]

And in that case what are the right wing whining about? - the liberal bias clearly doesn't affect them, because they don't buy enough of the newspapers to affect the bias.

[Seeker]

I thought America and Britain invaded on the pretext of dissatisfaction with inspectors access; or lack of; to Iraqs diverse facilities.

Now the current admistration is denying access to inspectors.

There's a logic here somewhere?

And unilateraly declaring a whole new type of people's enemy:

"Unlawfull combatants"; "Western Crusaders".

Do both sides really share the same awfull speech writers?

[Seeker]

I thought America and Britain invaded on the pretext of dissatisfaction with inspectors access; or lack of; to Iraq's diverse facilities.

Now the current admnistration is denying access to inspectors.

There's a logic here somewhere?

And unilateraly declaring a whole new type of people's enemy:

"Unlawfully combatants"; "Western Crusaders".

Do both sides really share the same awfully speech writers?

[Seeker]

I thought America and Britain invaded on the pretext of dissatisfaction with inspectors access; or lack of; to Iraq's diverse facilities.

Now the current admnistration is denying access to inspectors.

There's a logic here somewhere?

And unilateraly declaring a whole new type of people's enemy:

"Unlawfull combatants"; "Western Crusaders".

Do both sides really share the same awfully speech writers?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Seeker
I thought America and Britain invaded on the pretext of dissatisfaction with inspectors access; or lack of; to Iraq's diverse facilities.

Now the current admnistration is denying access to inspectors.

There's a logic here somewhere?

And unilateraly declaring a whole new type of people's enemy:

"Unlawfull combatants"; "Western Crusaders".

Do both sides really share the same awfully speech writers?

The inspectors had ZERO access before America placed a large military force on the ground. The problem was that the UN was never going to be able to make Iraq do squat.

It was the US that forced inspectors back and tried to allow the UN to enforce it's resolutions. The UN failed, so we did the job of making Iraq compliant.

Now Iraq is in full compliance and there is no need for UN inspectors that I can see.

And were excatly did you hear that we have  unilaterally declared a whole "new type" of people's enemy? What does that even mean?

An unlawful enemy combatant is someone who does not follow the rules of war set forth in the Geneva conventions. It's really pretty cut and dry and simple.

In war, there are lawful enemy combatans and unlawful enemy combatants. Either type, when captured in battle, can legally be held for the duration of the conflict. Nothing new or exciting about it.

[Staga]

Originally posted by NUKE
The inspectors had ZERO access before America placed a large military force on the ground. The problem was that the UN was never going to be able to make Iraq do squat.

It was the US that forced inspectors back and tried to allow the UN to enforce it's resolutions. The UN failed, so we did the job of making Iraq compliant.

Now Iraq is in full compliance and there is no need for UN inspectors that I can see.

And were excatly did you hear that we have  unilaterally declared a whole "new type" of people's enemy? What does that even mean?

An unlawful enemy combatant is someone who does not follow the rules of war set forth in the Geneva conventions. It's really pretty cut and dry and simple.

In war, there are lawful enemy combatans and unlawful enemy combatants. Either type, when captured in battle, can legally be held for the duration of the conflict. Nothing new or exciting about it.

Inspectors got access and couldn't find WMDs and when you didn't believe their reports and deciced to use yours you attacked and found nothing.

Oh and if "Unlawful enemy combatant" is someone who doesn't follow GC then it's whole US armed forces including GWB & Co. who should be sitting in that concentration camp of yours.

I can understand what went wrong; already Hitler and G�ebbels knew the might of well lubricated propaganda machine. It's just bit sad to see so many people falling into fabricated "truths"; aka lies.

[Hangtime]

Staga.. "that is NOT our Munkie."

[Gato]

Take it from a nam war vet - The press does NOT want the truth.  The U.N. doesn't want the truth.  The World as a whole doesn't want the truth.  They want to feel good and have a scape goat for everything wrong and bad.
If we really want to torture them at GITMO, really serve them nothing but JELLO.  It's made from pork.
When some one is killing you, either a regular soldier or not, you should take them out - PERIOD.
The good being done is over shadowed by nothing more than Bull!

[lazs2]

so seeker... do you believe that there is a potential weapon or danger to the entire world at gitmo that needs to be inspected?

If we don't allow the inspectors the UN can allways write us a nasty letter or ten.

lazs

[Seeker]

Originally posted by lazs2
so seeker... do you believe that there is a potential weapon or danger to the entire world at gitmo that needs to be inspected?

If we don't allow the inspectors the UN can allways write us a nasty letter or ten.

lazs

I've no idea what's at Gitmo. I don't really believe that America is systamaticaly tortureing or abuseing people either; a few rotten apples don't spoil the whole barrel in my book.

However; how do you feel about your administration "dissapearing" people to such a place? How does the Patriot act make you feel?

I'm certainly uncomfortable with any administration, anywhere, withholding liberty with out charge for such a length of time. Ileagal combatants? Fine; so charge (and try!) them with that then; at least you'd be working in a recognisable format.

As it is; the image I'm getting from a state declaiming "freedom!" from the roof tops while supporting and defending institutions such as Gitmo is rather similar to the image of a mother proclaiming "chastity!" to her kids whilst having a torrid affair with a neighbour; in other words: moral bankruptcy.

You don't win insurgent wars with a big stick and a bad attitude. If you did; we'd still own all of Ireland; and not just be stuck with a little bit we can't get rid of.

I do believe there is a potential danger to the world at Gitmo which needs examination; and that's the danger of a central government doing stuff it knows  is unacceptable and getting away with it. That's not a uniquely American problem by any means. But what is uniquely American is the effect such a process could have on the rest of the world if it's left unchecked or unexamined; especialy now your enforcement agencies have taken to kidnapping foreign nationals from foreign lands.

If Belgium tried that stuff America is more than big enough to stop it. But who's big enough to stop America?