Thanks fer the flag Peacerose.Seems to me like the simplest solution to this problem is...
Did you hear Israel is considering taking CNN off their cable?
Posted on 06/19/2002 9:01:48 PM PDT by Peacerose
"Good evening again. I'm Aaron Brown. So here's a nice day at the office. The administration says the half-century-old doctrine of containment in matters military is outdated and the United States in the future will exercise, if it so chooses, a first strike option against terrorists in those countries that harbor them. We've always said we are not a country that starts wars -- and mostly that's been true, though perhaps the thugs who ran the island of Grenada might argue the point. It is another sign the world is changing, that the whole notion of war as we used to know it is changing as well. And it's not the only thing that's changing.
Brown has erased and rewritten "containment" in a way that is unrecognizable. "Containment" was a principle developed in a famous essay by "X" (who turned out to be George Kennan) ca. 1947. It was a doctrine for limiting the expansion of communism, while avoiding a shooting war with the Soviet Union, IOW, the groundwork for the "cold" war. The term is entirely irrelevant to the current war, because ... it's a war! 1. WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ATTACKED! and 2. Our enemy, Islam, already controls all the nations it's going to control. We're in a shooting war (read: a real war), not a "cold" (read: metaphorical) war.
As for Brown's concerns re Jose Padilla. I have no problem with holding Padilla incommunicado as an enemy combatant. However, this was a nation conceived in liberty, not in chains. When we make newsmen (or even, talking heads) afraid to raise civil liberty questions, we will be just a dictatorship with pretenses. And since Brown talked about the criticisms he received, I think he did his job very well. One of the main problems with media bias, is that media outlets publish or broadcast a one-sided view, and refuse to acknowledge the disagreement by large portions (sometimes the vast majority) of the public. It is the misrepresentation of a political slant as an unchallenged, received truth, that turns bias into propaganda.
We are in very real danger of losing the last vestiges of civil liberties we had left pre-911. Have you read Lee Shelton's satire on the security for liberty swap? Believe me, it didn't make me laugh. Satire is serious business.
I am also not at all disturbed by Brown's use of the first-person pronoun; in fact, I wish all his colleagues would follow suit. It's much more honest than putting one's opinions in the mouths of anonymous "sources," "experts," and "the public."
Thanks fer the flag Peacerose.Seems to me like the simplest solution to this problem is...
Did you hear Israel is considering taking CNN off their cable?
Say what you will about Brown, at least he has the stones to admit when he is discussing his own opinions. Not only that, he makes no attempts to hide when he is -- as opposed to Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, Williams, Couric, Sawyer, and the myriad others behind the microphone.
I don't agree with him much of the time, but I have to respect him for at least having the courage of his convictions, and the courage to stand behind his own opinions.
LOL! The name game.
It's also like watching re-runs of the Jack Paar Show on TV Land. I guess that's the same thing.
Like many of his ilk, his words are smooth and his ways are subtle. He didn't SAY the current administration was wrong...exactly. He only suggested it as a possibility you see. NOT a problem.
The problem, as you and I of course know, is that he hasn't and won't hold his liberal komrades in the Dim party to the same standard. To him, conservatives are the enemy, and everything that goes through his pea brain has to pass through that filter.
The larger question is, who puts and keeps these utopian, socialist wannabes on the payroll??????
FGS
Consider what another poster said about Ruby Ridge, or one closer to my home, Waco. While the media handling of the events at Waco are not as clear as they once were, I can tell you this: The Propaganda Ministry's concerns for the civil liberties of the Branch Davidians was nil. At best, they were a bunch of wacko, gun running, dope manufacturing Jesus freaks! THEY were a danger to society, and had to be dealt with.....harshly! Kids and all. How many in the media bemoaned the trashing of THEIR civil liberties?
The problem again, is the selective application of the Propaganda Ministry's cry of FOUL on civil liberties. The only pretense here is that of Aaron Brown as a news man. Surely you can see that?
FGS
Say what you will about Brown, at least he has the stones to admit when he is discussing his own opinions. Not only that, he makes no attempts to hide when he is -- as opposed to Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, Williams, Couric, Sawyer, and the myriad others behind the microphone.
I don't agree with him much of the time, but I have to respect him for at least having the courage of his convictions, and the courage to stand behind his own opinions.
Exactimiento!
Consider what another poster said about Ruby Ridge, or one closer to my home, Waco. While the media handling of the events at Waco are not as clear as they once were, I can tell you this: The Propaganda Ministry's concerns for the civil liberties of the Branch Davidians was nil. At best, they were a bunch of wacko, gun running, dope manufacturing Jesus freaks! THEY were a danger to society, and had to be dealt with.....harshly! Kids and all. How many in the media bemoaned the trashing of THEIR civil liberties?
The problem again, is the selective application of the Propaganda Ministry's cry of FOUL on civil liberties. The only pretense here is that of Aaron Brown as a news man. Surely you can see that?
FGS
Your post is a series of non-sequiturs: '1. The media did not respect the civil liberties of the Branch Davidians; 2. Aaron Brown spoke up for the civil liberties of accused terrorists; therefore, 3. Brown is no newsman.'
I see some pretenses here, but they are not Aaron Brown's.
Granted my post was not, nor was it intended to be, a legal brief.
That said, what are your thoughts on my "conclusion": The problem again, is the selective application of the Propaganda Ministry's cry of FOUL on civil liberties. ???????
No pretenses here my friend. Only trying to point out the subtle, and not so subtle ways of the liberal cheerleaders/waterboys.
FGS
No argument. At FR and elsewhere, I have hammered these guys again and again and again. But for reasons I spelled out above, I simply do not think that this particular case merited such focus and condemnation. I have seen so much worse from Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw, who either refuse to admit that anyone has criticized them, or treat their critics as if they're nuts who don't need to be listened to. (Brokaw, in particular, wants state censorship of the net, just so he can shut down FR). Hence, I think your anger at Aaron Brown is either misplaced, or you're angry at him over some previous offense.
My anger is towards the media generally, the "news" divisions especially, and there's plenty left over for the useful idiots they parade, unchallenged, before the unwashed every single day. And yes, there have been and will continue to be more egregious acts by the likes of the captain and pretty Petah, but others need to be called on the carpet from time to time so they don't feel left out ; )
FGS
(1) being naturalized in a foreign state; Nope.
(2) taking and oath or making a declaration to a foreign state; Nope. Al-Queida is not a foreign state. It is a private organization, like the KKK, Dallas Cowboys, Hemlock Society, or the DU
(3) serving in the armed forces of a foreign state;Nope. The US gov't position is that Al-Queida is not an army of a foreign state. If they did, prisoners at X-RAY would be under the Geneva Convention.
(4) accepting employment with a foreign government or; Nope. Al-Queida is not a foreign gov't.
(5) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer overseas. Nope.
For detailed information, consult the nearest American Embassy or Consulate or contact the oOfice of Citizens Consular Services, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520 or call 202-647-3444.
OK, so now that your passport argument is gone, what now?
Allow me...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury...Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, whithout due process of law...
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherin the crime shall have been comitted, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to thave the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Talk all you want about some law, or judge, or previous action. We are not at war. This creep is a citizen. He was on US soil, and above lists many of the rights he is being denied.
If it can happen to him, it can happen to you.
Out-bloody-standing!! I didn't know we had such a beastie!
Now, on the subject of Mr Brown, of whom I have never heard (no cable, no TV, happy camper here). He makes a common error in discussing the "presumption of innocence." That is a judicial presumption. It doesn't mean that reasonable men and women have to pretend the creep is innocent. It means that when he gets his day in court -- and he will, although it might not be Mr Brown's idea of a perfect court -- the jurors or judges or tribunal members (the finders of fact) must start from a "clean slate" presumption of innocence. The prosecution is required to prove its case -- they must prove each element of each charge. If that is not done, Padilla or Al-Mujahir or Geraldo or whatever he wants to call himself by then, goes free.
So the presumption of innocence is something the courts work on. It is not what the police use in investigating cases -- hell, no. They presume the suspect is guilty as they work to find enough data to let the lawyers prove it. But one's entitlement to the presumption of innocence only goes as far as the courthouse door and the public media's expressions of fact.
Compare and contrast CNN's take on the guilt of various terrorist suspects, and CNN's take on the guilt of similarly accused gay priests. In this farm some of the animals are more equal than others.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
I don't have a dog in that fight, just helped out in response to a FReeper's request to learn what it says in my passport.
Nice try though. Guess the practice [Kinda like you were shadow boxing/] won't go astray?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.