What is wrong with Americans? (Merged) - Page 9 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Meridious · #**121** (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Censoring who? The channel (in question) that broadcasts support for terrorism has been illegal here since BEFORE 9/11. AFTER 9/11 enforcement began for real.

The story is very old and was carried by all the networks.

The guy knew he was receiving it illegally. He had been warned twice.

Slon · #**122** (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridious

Censoring who? The channel (in question) that broadcasts support for terrorism has been illegal here since BEFORE 9/11. AFTER 9/11 enforcement began for real.

The story is very old and was carried by all the networks.

The guy knew he was receiving it illegally. He had been warned twice.

The news channel. Why is it illegal?

DGG · #**123** (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by laca

Does Bush controls what channels Americans can watch? Well we know that Bush has trouble stringing a sentence together but what about his neo conservative bosses, conclude for yourself.
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/al-manar-0907/

It might come as a surprise to you, but the USA has this thing called a Constitution, whereby every American is ensured the right of free speech and free press (Amendment I to the Constitution). The President cannot do anything about that.

Meridious · #**124** (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

The news channel. Why is it illegal?

WHy do you keep asking what has been answered here and in the article?

It is a terrorist-supporting-backing organization that regurgitates terrorist messages on demand and calls for the destruction of America.

The funding comes from terrorist organizations. The messages come from terrorist organizations, and the station continuously calls for the destruction of America and the West in general.

Like I said...it was illegal prior to 9/11 and is one among several. Do not get US citizens' free speech confused with foreign nation communications being fed into the US in order to support terrorist actions.

Slon · #**125** (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridious

WHy do you keep asking what has been answered here and in the article?

It is a terrorist-supporting-backing organization that regurgitates terrorist messages on demand and calls for the destruction of America.

The funding comes from terrorist organizations. The messages come from terrorist organizations, and the station continuously calls for the destruction of America and the West in general.

Like I said...it was illegal prior to 9/11 and is one among several. Do not get US citizens' free speech confused with foreign nation communications being fed into the US in order to support terrorist actions.

Are you saying that we should censor foreigners, even when someone in the States tries to broadcast their messages? Should we block all images of foreign dictators speaking? Or are you saying that supporting certain causes is grounds for censoring?

chassisman · #**126** (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by laca

http://www.workers.org/2006/us/al-manar-0907/

Yes but he uses excuses that USA is in a war.

War???? I thought you wanted to know if our government controls what we are allowed to watch?

A moderator can rebame this thread if you wish (suggestion: American Television Programming/Bush/War)

MattLarson · #**127** (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

What exactly are Bush's reasons for censoring them? Does it say in the article?

They are not censored.

If someone wanted to broadcast them in such a way that they derived no financial benefit from it, they would be free to do so.

The law - a law passed long before Bush - says that companies in the US cannot conduct business with terrorist organizations.

If Al Mansar wanted to provide their feed for free to a US station, who then broadcast it for free, there would be no problem.

Matt

MattLarson · #**128** (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by laca

Does Bush controls what channels Americans can watch? Well we know that Bush has trouble stringing a sentence together but what about his neo conservative bosses, conclude for yourself.
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/al-manar-0907/

Does Fidel control what you watch?

Yup, he sure does:

Quote:

In Cuba extreme censorship is real. It is not just a marketing moniker so freely applied to corn chips, soda and SUVs. In Cuba, the government doesn't just control the public's access to media or the content of media, they outlaw any media that is not controlled by the government, with the exception of a few publications by Catholic dioceses in Cuba that offer only the most hesitant and indirect criticism of the Castro regime. In their efforts to control the media they have even gone so far as to confiscate pens and paper from "dissident" journalists.
In March of 2003, Fidel Castro arrested and imprisoned over 50 political dissidents along with 26 independent journalists. These independent journalists did not publish in Cuban outlets. They are Cubans writing for newspapers outside of Cuba, mostly in The United States. Their sentences range from 14 years to 28 years. Castro's precious "beloved leader" image was safe with the people of Cuba from these dissidents because they could not legally access any foreign media sources. What was really at stake for Castro was the truth of his brutal, degrading, freedom-hating dictatorship being known to the world. Not that the world doesn't already know about the violations of freedom that occur under Castro, but the daily details, which these journalists reported to the world, must be known. The world should be constantly reminded of the details of the evils of communism under Castro. http://unix.dfn.org/printer_Extreme_Censorship.shtml

Quote:

The intensity of Cuban censorship is summarized in President Fidel Castro's sweeping remark that "All criticism is opposition and all opposition is counterrevolutionary." According to Amnesty International, "[F]reedom of expression, association and assembly are severely restricted in law and in practice [for Cuban citizens].... Those who attempt to express views, organize meetings or form organizations that conflict with government policy are frequently subjected to punitive measures." The Committee to Protect Journalists names Cuba among the world's "Ten Worst Enemies of the Press." Reporters Sans Frontieres has declared Cuba to be among the world's "Twenty Worst Enemies of the Internet." A global coalition of organizations advocating freedom of the press has denounced "the complete lack of freedom in Cuba" and cautioned members of the international community that "by ignoring the situation existing in Cuba, which amounts to a crime against humanity, they make themselves accomplices." To read detailed reports on Cuba and the independent libraries by internationally renowned human rights organizations, refer to our section on Documentation. http://www.friendsofcubanlibraries.o...om%20in%20Cuba

Must be a true paradise there, able to read and watch only what Fidel approves of.....

Matt

MattLarson · #**129** (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

GENEVA - Cuba has failed to improve its human rights record, a U.N. expert said Tuesday, citing censorship, the imprisonment of political activists, and restrictions on rights campaigners as particular concerns.

''The situation doesn't seem today to be anything that could be described as improved, and I'm putting it mildly,'' Christine Chanet told the 47-nation U.N. Human Rights Council.

Cuba immediately slammed the report as libelous, and accused Chanet of double standards, selectivity and political manipulation.

Chanet, a French lawyer who reports to the council on a mandate carried over from the discontinued Human Rights Commission, said she had been hampered in her work by Cuban authorities' refusal to cooperate with her.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...s/15617033.htm

I hope you get to read these, laca. I am sure your political masters will block the links.....

Matt

Slon · #**130** (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

They are not censored.

If someone wanted to broadcast them in such a way that they derived no financial benefit from it, they would be free to do so.

The law - a law passed long before Bush - says that companies in the US cannot conduct business with terrorist organizations.

If Al Mansar wanted to provide their feed for free to a US station, who then broadcast it for free, there would be no problem.

Matt

And who gets to define what a "terrorist" is? The same people who financed irregular muslim extremists (known as "freedom fighters" at the time) in Afghanistan?

SamInTheSouth · #**131** (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

I have to ask why you all continue to respond to Laca's posts and be so easily baitable? Is it not obvious that he puts this stuff up here simply to piss you all off and yet many of you seem to always fall for it.

Analyst · #**132** (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridious

And???

And all over the world...sorry for my sarcasm.

USA has transported nuclear weapon to all the seas of the world and also to many countries everywhere. This has been seen as a threath to many countries and this is also the basic problem why so many countries want to have nukes as well. There are nukes very close to Iranian border - in Iraq and in the carriers just off-shore. There are nukes in S Korea and off-shore of N Korea...etc.

There are two options - all those counrtries which have US nukes close to their borders must have nukes as well.
Or USA should withdraw all its weapons to inside of its own borders, which is actually a normal situation ... who has authorized the siting of the nukes to other countries. And USA is the only country violating that principle. As a facist country, this is not acceptable for the international community.

Kevin · #**133** (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

The fidel guy isn't going to defend himself with rational argument, he'll just dodge the issue and swing it back to attacking the "imperialist blah blah blah" and linking extremist propaganda. I agree with sam now, just let his cries fall on deaf ears.

Calvin X · #**134** (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

And who gets to define what a "terrorist" is? The same people who financed irregular muslim extremists (known as "freedom fighters" at the time) in Afghanistan?

Are you claiming that the guerilla fighters supported by the US during the Soviet occupation conducted a terrorist campaign? I recall quite a bit a news about their attacks on the Soviet and puppet goverment military forces, but I don't recall that there was a concerted effort to target the civilian population. Perhaps you could provide some link to back up this claim?

MattLarson · #**135** (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

And who gets to define what a "terrorist" is? The same people who financed irregular muslim extremists (known as "freedom fighters" at the time) in Afghanistan?

The State Department.

In the instant case of Al-Mansar's parent entity, Hezbollah, the designation was made by the Clinton white house:

Quote:

On January 25, 1995, the Annex to Executive Order 12947 listed Hizballah as a Specially Designated Terrorist. The Department of State designated Hizballah as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997. Additionally, on October 31, 2001, Hizballah was designated as a Specially Designated Global terrorist under Executive Order 13224.

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js4134.htm

Matt

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode