Tweet
Re: China will attack US, Canada and Australia?
[ QUOTE ]
"Freedom Of The Press", in case you haven't figured any of this out, is protected only by the US Constitution WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES and it will NEVER include coverage of military operations.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here is the 1st ammendment. I know it sucks that there's a difference between what the Constitution says and what you want it to say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[ QUOTE ]
Now, as for "why" there should be no media coverage of our troops, the troops do NOT need Geraldo shoving a camera up every G.I.s ass and blasting it live to the ACLU here at home. There's too much that CAN'T be done to WIN this war because someone's afraid it's gonna end up on CNN, and then they'll worry about "world opinion" and how the rest of the world perceives us.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then you're at odds with the highest brass at the military then. Embeds were approved by them. The reason being, they wanted a 1st hand account of their progress to counter the Iraq Minister of Information. Remember him? What would you rather have, Cheney reporting on the progress of the war? He'd be like our version of the Iraq Minister of Information. This is exactly why our founding fathers specifically put freedom of the press into the Constitution...to guarantee American citizens that there are multiple sources of information as opposed to ONLY ONE (the goverment). I'm not saying the CNN is right/wrong or Fox is right/wrong. But it's better to have the citizens evaluate multiple streams information than to only have one filtered source.
And the reason why freedom of press is SO IMPORTANT in a war zone is that these are our sons/daughters whose lives are being put on the line. You don't think their mothers/fathers should have the right to multiple sources of information regarding what their sons/daughters are fighting for?
[ QUOTE ]
Pulling the troops out is not the answer.
[/ QUOTE ]
In fact I agree with you here. We need to fix our clusterfuck. I'm just saying that the desire to pull out the troops is not a "liberal" idea. It's now being echoed by noted Republicans.
[ QUOTE ]
Pulling the MEDIA and other non-combatants out IS the answer. That way we can go about leveling mosques and other terrorist hiding places without anyone here proclaiming that our troops are violating some imagined "rights" these people have.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I also agree that the military needs to be in the job of winning conflicts without second guessing themselves. But, again, at the highest levels, the decision has been made to NOT create polarizing events for Muslims. Again, do you think that destroying sacred mosques is going to decrease the number of terrorists or increase them? Al Qaida can just turn that event into a 9/11 for poor, uneducated Muslim youths (just like they're doing with Iraq in general). So this is a strategic decision.
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a news flash:
The Constitution of The United States Of America only applies to Citizens of The United States Of America. It does not cover Iraqis in Iraq, Mexicans in Mexico, Chinese in China, or Canadians in Canada.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that many Constitutional rights apply to non-citizens. If you would like me to post links to actual apropos decisions I will. Damn, activist judges!
[ QUOTE ]
And yes, I'm sure that our presence in Iraq is causing terrorists to flock from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Jordan, and Egypt into Iraq. Would you prefer they were flocking into the USA instead? It sounds like it to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't hope that they are going to the U.S. You're putting words in my mouth, and you know it. [img]/images/graemlins/bs.gif[/img]
I think you're being naive if you think they are just going to Iraq. That's the last gasp tortured logic of someone who is still saying that invading Iraq was a good thing. Here's the reality: they are already going all over the world. News flash, the terrorists in London were, by definition, not in Iraq. The terrorists who fired a missle at our ships were, by definition, not in Iraq.
[ QUOTE ]
"Freedom Of The Press", in case you haven't figured any of this out, is protected only by the US Constitution WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES and it will NEVER include coverage of military operations.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here is the 1st ammendment. I know it sucks that there's a difference between what the Constitution says and what you want it to say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[ QUOTE ]
Now, as for "why" there should be no media coverage of our troops, the troops do NOT need Geraldo shoving a camera up every G.I.s ass and blasting it live to the ACLU here at home. There's too much that CAN'T be done to WIN this war because someone's afraid it's gonna end up on CNN, and then they'll worry about "world opinion" and how the rest of the world perceives us.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then you're at odds with the highest brass at the military then. Embeds were approved by them. The reason being, they wanted a 1st hand account of their progress to counter the Iraq Minister of Information. Remember him? What would you rather have, Cheney reporting on the progress of the war? He'd be like our version of the Iraq Minister of Information. This is exactly why our founding fathers specifically put freedom of the press into the Constitution...to guarantee American citizens that there are multiple sources of information as opposed to ONLY ONE (the goverment). I'm not saying the CNN is right/wrong or Fox is right/wrong. But it's better to have the citizens evaluate multiple streams information than to only have one filtered source.
And the reason why freedom of press is SO IMPORTANT in a war zone is that these are our sons/daughters whose lives are being put on the line. You don't think their mothers/fathers should have the right to multiple sources of information regarding what their sons/daughters are fighting for?
[ QUOTE ]
Pulling the troops out is not the answer.
[/ QUOTE ]
In fact I agree with you here. We need to fix our clusterfuck. I'm just saying that the desire to pull out the troops is not a "liberal" idea. It's now being echoed by noted Republicans.
[ QUOTE ]
Pulling the MEDIA and other non-combatants out IS the answer. That way we can go about leveling mosques and other terrorist hiding places without anyone here proclaiming that our troops are violating some imagined "rights" these people have.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I also agree that the military needs to be in the job of winning conflicts without second guessing themselves. But, again, at the highest levels, the decision has been made to NOT create polarizing events for Muslims. Again, do you think that destroying sacred mosques is going to decrease the number of terrorists or increase them? Al Qaida can just turn that event into a 9/11 for poor, uneducated Muslim youths (just like they're doing with Iraq in general). So this is a strategic decision.
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a news flash:
The Constitution of The United States Of America only applies to Citizens of The United States Of America. It does not cover Iraqis in Iraq, Mexicans in Mexico, Chinese in China, or Canadians in Canada.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that many Constitutional rights apply to non-citizens. If you would like me to post links to actual apropos decisions I will. Damn, activist judges!
[ QUOTE ]
And yes, I'm sure that our presence in Iraq is causing terrorists to flock from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Jordan, and Egypt into Iraq. Would you prefer they were flocking into the USA instead? It sounds like it to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't hope that they are going to the U.S. You're putting words in my mouth, and you know it. [img]/images/graemlins/bs.gif[/img]
I think you're being naive if you think they are just going to Iraq. That's the last gasp tortured logic of someone who is still saying that invading Iraq was a good thing. Here's the reality: they are already going all over the world. News flash, the terrorists in London were, by definition, not in Iraq. The terrorists who fired a missle at our ships were, by definition, not in Iraq.
Comment