"National Security" or 1st Amendment rights denial?

[AKIron]

What I read at CNN's web site was that they wouldn't air anything from Al Qaeda live. That they would review it and weigh it before airing it.

[Fury]

Yea my understanding is that they agreed to review and edit if necessary, but still might show stuff.

The Govt did not outright tell them not to show stuff, they asked them -- so in reality, the networks could have said "no".  since nobody said "no", we'll never really know how far the govt would go to stop the networks.

I find it interesting to see what bin Laden et all have to say, but if someone feels there might be "hidden messages" in the tapes then I guess I won't be seeing many more of them.  I'm not an expert, so I can't say if it's all smoke and mirrors or if bin Laden's double-blink actually means something.

[easymo]

This is the first thing that has happened since Sep.11 that has caused me to be embarrassed.  Even the suggestion of chipping at our constitution, out of fear of some cave dwelling pigs.  Is absolutely ridiculous.

  The old, white, guys that invented this country, where some pretty sharp fellows.  They knew that political trends would come, and go.  That various types of threats,  some unforeseeable, would plague us as years passed by.  They wrote the constitution in such a way that it would give us continuity from one generation to the next.  In this way, it protects us from any mistakes we might make in electing some nitwit, or even producing an entire generation of cowards.

  It is no accident that American soldiers do NOT take an oath to defend the people of the United States.  Or any individual.  They take an oath to defend the constitution.  That is what matters.  This is what provides us that continuity.  Our young troops are not fighting for us, although our survival is a byproduct.  They are fighting for the Americans that will live a hundred years from now, and beyond.  So that they might enjoy the same fruits of freedom that we always have.

  The first amendment was the FIRST for a reason.  If we chuck it out of fear.  We don't deserve to have it.  We might as well give the place to the pigs.

[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: easymo ]

[Toad]

Steady, all.

No one attacked the First.

Clearly, instant access to world wide communications is an asset in battle. If you can broadcast your message to your troops in a nano second, that's a good thing for you, bad for your enemies.

Don't almost all military strategists encourage disrupting the communications of the enemy?

OK.

What they asked them to do was to be careful in this regard.. that's all. Didn't ban anything, didn't prohibit anything.

Many messages can be passed either in the speech or the actions of those filmed. That little bit like lifting a glass of water with the right hand and sipping at the end of the tape could be a signal.

I think it's a bit foolish to think broadcasts of this type CAN'T be used to communicate more than is on the surface.

No point in giving the enemy communications a free ride.

So, what to do? First, delay airing a while. Check it over; use common sense. Let some military analysts/FBI types go over it before it airs. Go from there.

Release news commentary on it but perhaps delay the actual airing until enough time has passed to make it "non-instant" communications.

This IS a war. Even the Justices of the Supreme Court have acknowledged that the Constitution gets bent and stretched in war. But it returns to its original shape when its over.

[Ripsnort]

Sort of on-topic:
This is a letter written to all Americans from a Marine Corps pilot.

It is in response to that Canadian newspaper article that is flying around everyone's e-mail praising the U.S. This is his opinion but many in the military community can't help but agree with it. Read and pass on.

Remember John Glenn's famous quote when he was asked what it felt like sitting atop the rocket, ready to launch? "I felt about as good as anybody would,sitting in a capsule on top of a rocket that were both built by the lowest bidder."
(Senator John Glenn, Major USMC, Retired)



Dear Americans:

When I opened my e-mail this morning, I had about 20 forwards of the
article written by Gordon Sinclair, the Canadian who so eloquently praised
the United States. What most of you do not realize is that this commentary
was written many years ago. Those of us in the military service have known
about it for a long time. Now Americans are flooding the net with it as if
it were new. It is not. When it was written, most Americans didn't read it
because most Americans did not care. The tragedy that befell all of us on
September 11th shocked America.
America no longer feels safe. Many of you have said, "The government should
have known! Thirty billion dollars is spent on intelligence! What about the
military?!?"

Just a reminder America: you voted our government into office. For years,
you allowed some dishonest politicians and twisted television media
personalities to shape your ideas about the defense of our nation. Why?
Because most Americans were too lazy to look beyond the three-minute sound
bites on the evening news. Here's a news flash not being broadcast much:
"On September 11th, America had the exact level of protection, both
militarily and intelligence, that it was willing to pay for."

Only yesterday, the Congress and the Senate approved 40 BILLION dollars as
a "down payment" to fight this war. A short time ago, our politicians said
a 100 million dollar increase for the Navy budget was substantial. In that
same bill, they ordered the Navy to conduct an 85 million dollar study on
... missile defense? (No) desperately needed parts for our fighter
aircraft? (wrong again) training for Navy SEALs? (Nah) They wanted breast
cancer research. Yes, America, your elected officials decided that the U.S.
Navy needed more mammograms and less missiles. Was this an under-the-table
sneaky move? No, it was right out in the open. The Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of the Navy both opposed it. A New York Senatorial candidate
(yes, she's the one) was enraged that the military would be so sexist and
irresponsible to the needs of civilians and wanted the Navy to give the
money back immediately!

But the media paid it little mind. So America paid little attention.

Did anyone ever watch CSPAN? Particularly when the heads of our armed
services essentially begged OUR representatives to give the military more
money to fight terrorism and maintain a strong defense? Did you see the
debates by the heads of the intelligence services that terrorism was the
new threat? They told the committees of Congress that the CIA, the FBI, and
the military did not have the money to build the necessary intelligence
networks in the areas where terrorists were being harbored. They warned
again and
again that there was clear and present danger within America's borders.

America must have been watching one of the other 114 satellite channels.

The military said: "We need more money to maintain military readiness and
combat training." America answered: "What the military needs is sensitivity
training! You're all sexist homophobes! I saw it on 60 Minutes!"

The military said: "We need money to build ships, planes, and tanks and to
improve our technology. America still has credible threats throughout the
world. Terrorism will come to America's doorstep." America answered:
"You're all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. There is no more Soviet
threat! My Senator told me so! He/she says we do not need such a big
military! You're dinosaurs trying to hold onto the Cold War! We need social
programs!"

The military said: "We need to recruit more Americans into the military. We
need to increase our force." America answered: "You're not taking my kids!
We're going to shut down the ROTC programs at our high schools and
universities because you discriminate against alternative lifestyles! ROTC
teaches children (under 21) how to shoot guns! You just want another
Columbine! Rosie and Oprah say so!"


The military said: "We can't keep interfering in the civil wars of small,
insignificant countries. It wastes our time, expends our resources,
decreases training, and demoralizes our troops. The men and women of the
United States are warriors trying to defend OUR nation; we are not the
Third World's police force." America answered: "You heartless [Oops!]!
Can't you see the tear in the eye of that starving child?! There are flies
on her
face, for Christ's sake! Get moving! Jesse Jackson on CNN said that is what
we pay you for!"

The military asked: "Why isn't America enraged over the terrorist attack
on
the USS Cole that killed 17 AMERICAN sailors? How about the Air Force
barracks bombed in Saudi Arabia? the embassy staffs in Africa? the soldiers
mutilated and dragged through the streets in Somalia?" America answered:
"We
don't have time right now! We're busy defending animal rights! Our schools
are handing out automatic weapons! The federal government is discriminating
against cross-dressing Bolivian hermaphrodites!

The police are all members of the Ku Klux Klan! The lack of ozone is
ruining my tan! If they cut deeper into food stamps, those poor women will
have to move down to Size 18/20 Chanel dresses! AND THE WORST! Corporations
are raising the prices of their products sooo high that I might not be able
to afford the multi-disc DVD player for my 36" digital-ready TV!
Besides, YOU GUYS ARE PAID TO DIE!"

So - while you sit on your couch or around your office coffee pots and ask,
"Why did those terrorists kill innocent civilians? Why didn't they go after
the military?" - remember this, America: They already had gone after the
military - but America didn't care. These terrorists realized that they
needed to kill American civilians - and lots of them - before they could
have their desired reaction from the people of this country. Well, now
they have it.

Semper Fidelis
[/i]

[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]

[easymo]

" But it returns to its original shape when its over"

  And you base this on what?

  Before WW2 federal income tax was more or less ignored.  During the war the money was needed for obvious reasons.  After the war ended did it go away?

[Ripsnort]

Easymo, I think the author is saying that the military is constantly underfunded.  In 1980, Carter, before giving the reigns to Reagan, had a state of the union address where he admitted that he should have increased military spending, specifically the Navy, after the failures in both preventing a substantial show of power with the invasion of Afghanastan by the Soviets and the Hostage situation over in Iran.  We tend to do the same thing over and over again.  We need to always make sure that our military is powerful, or things like what has happened recently, and in the past, occur.

[Toad]

Well, easymo, I base it on the Justices of the Supreme Court, the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch.

The nation has to survive for the Constitution to survive.

Basically, I trust Justices to keep the other two branches straight on this. I rely on the checks and balances the old, really smart guys built in.

I believe that one of the Justices wrote a book on this issue just recently (published before the attack).

As far as the Income Tax... it wasn't War 2. The Sixteenth Amendment was theoretically ratified in 1913. Still there's another argument that the 16th granted Congress no new powers that it did not already have.
 http://www.taxableincome.net/other/16thamend.html

Thus, at least in that argument, the Income Tax is moot. The bastiges will get our bucks one way or the other.. it has nothing to do with war or stretching the Constitution, since they already had the power to "indirect tax".

[10Bears]

Eagler:
Gotta love ole Arty, his press guy ..top notch! How many press secs did ole Slick go through 5 or 6?

Ari has already lied a number of times. His first day on the job he makes a slander lie regarding the outgoing administration trashing AirForce 1 and the Whitehouse.  He’s got a thing for Air Force 1.. another  was the President’s plane targeted. You might think Ari is top notch, but to me he’s not exactly the bastion of confidence.

Asks NBC not to air interview with former President Clinton... what are they afraid of?

Requests news orgs to not show interview with Osama... As what was pointed out above, the news orgs said they would review tapes sent to them and not air them live. But they will certainly not be ordered or told what to show.. Last time I checked we still had a strong free press in this country.

Today they request.. tomorrow they will order.
Wants to chip away Constitution a little bit at a time.  Roving wire taps/ warrentless searches what not. Since who is a terrorist is not really defined, anyone can be a terrorist... music terrorist,  liberal spew terrorist. Some kind of barefoot tree hugger terrorist.  

Wants to give security info to only 8 members of Congress. This is to add plausible deniability in case spook ops go horrorable  wrong .  Luckily, that got shot down right away.  Congress threatened to hold back conformations.  Checks and Balances? Bah! why not just appoint Chenny dictator and be done with it.

What President Channey wants here is a canned pre-packaged war.  They don’t want anyone interviewing the families of the UN mine disposal crew that were killed in air attacks etc.

Question: Have the Republicans softened their stance on federalizing security at airports/bus and train stations?.. I know the Demos have been trying to get that through for years but it keeps getting blocked. The Republicans say it would be too inconvenient and expensive.

[easymo]

Toad. If I read this right.  You are saying that we will trust politician to control there own need for power.  Trust Politicians?  Are you insane?

  The point of my post was not about tax's.  It was about how politicians wittle at our rights.  Before WW2 very few Americans paid income tax.  Politicians are not fools.  They know if the stand up and say " Hey! we have decided to take a huge chunk of you money" Their career would be over.  So they ease into it.  Bit by bit taking more. It is the same with all our rights.  Including the First amendment.  If they can set this precedent, from now on who is to decide what constitutes a national emergency?  The Presidents?   We will be another banana republic in no time.

They don't move all at once.  Its chip, chip, chip. The more power people have, the less their leaders have.  Why do you think these people go into politics in the first place?  To serve?  Please.  If you want to serve you go into the armed forces.  They are interested in power.


  The bill of rights are there to protect us from our own politicians.  Make no mistake about that.

[Eagler]

still paraniod 10bears?  

Ah, the White House was trashed,Air Force One was vandalised as were items that belonged to the White House taken by the hillbillies when they ran back to their rock.. I'm aggravated this admin didnt make the big deal of these issues or the criminal last minute pardons but Bush was just trying to get along ...

I want the airport safe whatever it takes. I think the private sector can do it as well if not better and definitely cheaper the the gov but they need STRICT and enforced guidelines read rules with HEAVY $$ penalties if they are not followed. THe airlines need to get off their wallets and do their parts too.

THe media has to be put in its place.. There are extremes at both ends and they are way out on the "freedom" side now ... Do you really think they care about the issues, informing us little ppl or getting the eyes for their latest and greatest talk soup news show they can charge hundreds of thousands of $$ for the next 30 sec Nike spot???
I guess it's all in who you trust...

[Tumor]

I think OBL's messages should be closely looked at before they are aired...who know's what a certain gesture, string of words or facial expression actually MEANS to the terrorists of the world.  On the military...the Bush administration is and was doing a good job.  MUCH to the dissapointment of our Military Leader's, Bush's first move to improve the military was to make sure THE PEOPLE were taken care of first with a substantial pay raise, which I have no problem with.  We have enough weaponry and platforms now..although spare parts would be nice.  I'm sure Bush had planned to better fund R&D at a later date.

Tumor

[weazel]

I am particularly interested in replies from our friends that are left of center, the FD-ski's, the Weazels, the Nash's, etc.  Whats your take on this?

I'm no fan of the mainstream media and distrust them about as much as politicians.

In this age of instant information <internet,etc> I find this policy as laughable as the putz in the white house.

Ah, the White House was trashed,Air Force One was vandalised as were items that belonged to the White House taken by the hillbillies when they ran back to their rock.

Wasn't this proven to be a LIE after a few weeks passed?

Oops - I forgot...the shiney white knights in the Republican party would NEVER stoop to lying.  

[easymo]

What are you people afraid of?  A hand full of guys with pocket knives?  We are far safer now than we were before Sep, 11.  We were wide open then.  A setting duck.  Now we have our garde up at least.  Chucking our first amendment rights for these clowns is absurd.

  Please don't repeat the ghosty story's of the newsweenes.  If they had nukes/biological/ect.  They would have used them before Sep,11.

[Eagler]

easymo
I just don't want to watch another sand monkey screaming death to america on the news. I think a quick still shot of those morons with a cliff note voice over is enough coverage, anything more than about 10 seconds is more than they deserve or warrant ..

I think it's just feeding their head wrapped egos. As someone else pointed out, I doubt they broadcast Blair or Bush everytime we say something about them.

The next time I want to see a Talban leader or Obin on the set is with a crosshair on his ass, about tens secs, just enough time to see the hollow point enter his right eye ...