Adam Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 The people responsible for the interview should be arrested, and held without food, water, or anything until their reveal his wearabouts- they have no constitutional right until they do so.
UConn James Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 The people responsible for the interview should be arrested, and held without food, water, or anything until their reveal his wearabouts- they have no constitutional right until they do so. 394209[/snapback] Nevermind the fact that they were blindfolded and driven around in circles in hell's halfacre, several hundred miles.... Nevermind the fact that the journalist who conducted the interview was Russian, not American; ABC just picked the story up.... you equate talking to someone as a jailing/torture-worthy offense? The point was to ask, Why the hell are you doing this, not, How can we help you. We'd all love this guy to be under 6 feet of freshly turned dirt, but that's the military's job. You complain about Al Jazeera only showing the Arab side of the news, yet people cannot for the life of them see that our media, as you would have it, would be the same thing only for 'our side.' I'd rather find out something closer to the truth. "Congress shall make NO law..."
erynthered Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 I contend that Saddam wasn't a threat to any other country in the region. 394116[/snapback] Really? How about to his own people? How about to Kuwait? How about, look it up?
BigAL Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 Really? How about to his own people? How about to Kuwait? How about, look it up? 394218[/snapback] How about 2001, not 1991?
BigAL Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 This is where we at complete odds. I think the few steps were a decade of working through the UN. That seems more like a State Department point of view, and I'm sorry, but I don't have any faith in the State Department to defend us against terrorism. Diplomacy has had some success over the years, but it comes with the caveat that it would still allow terrorists to strike at us (and I say this not knowing if this war will end it, either). I still remember the results of our diplomatic efforts with Afghanistan's Taliban. The commitment of resources is weighed against that; you seem to be sure it weighed in favor of continued diplomacy; I remain unconvinced. I don't know if going to war with Iraq right when we did it was the right thing to do or at the right time. I do know it was a incredibly ballsy move to take a chance on changing the dynamic throughout the entire middle east. Remains to be seen whether or not it is successful. 394206[/snapback] As people are fond of saying around here... 9/11 changed everything. The few steps you refer to were before 9/11. Post 9/11 I think we had the leverage to make other countries take a hard look at what they were doing in terms of not cracking down on terrorism. You are right that Diplomacy doesn't defend us from terrorism, but it does help to break down some of the underlying causes. As far as the Taliban goes, diplomacy was not needed there. It was either give up Bin laden or die. They chose to die (or run and get away until we lose interest). We agree on your last statement. I think the risk was too high though. Hope I'm wrong.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 What do you mean by persistently belligerent? I contend that Saddam wasn't a threat to any other country in the region. Yes he paid the families of suicide bombers, but that's a symptom or catalyst for the problem, not the cause. Taking him out doesn't stop the suicide bombers. 394116[/snapback] You have GOT to be !@#$ing kidding me...
erynthered Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 You have GOT to be !@#$ing kidding me... 394227[/snapback] He's all yours..........
finknottle Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 This isn't a "Bush bad" post. It's just amazing to me that now we're worried about all these Al-Qaeda inspired offshoot organizations. That seemed kind of obvious to me before the Iraq war. Just like it was obvious to me that we would help to create the next generation of terrorists. 393798[/snapback] They are not AQ offshoots, and the distinction is telling. Their troubles started long ago and their rebellion against the Russians was more nationalistic than Islamic in character. But after a decade or so largely on their own all the moderates there are now dead, radicalized, or have thrown in their lot with the Russians. The Jihadists found this very fertile ground, and have turned it into their struggle. The same thing almost happened in Bosnia. When the muslim (and croat) areas were being cleansed, foreign jihadists came to the country to join the muslim army (croats also had volunteers, from the west); help that the muslims desperately needed even if they had no interest in Wahabism. The difference was that in Bosnia the US brought peace and worked hard to ensure that the fighters that remained did not undermine or intimidate the nascent government. The point is that these are not AQ offshoots. Rather, AQ seeks out areas of struggle and by joining hijacks the agenda.
finknottle Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 The people responsible for the interview should be arrested, and held without food, water, or anything until their reveal his wearabouts- they have no constitutional right until they do so. 394209[/snapback] Are you mocking Russian constitutional rights or pointing out the obvious?
finknottle Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 We'd all love this guy to be under 6 feet of freshly turned dirt, but that's the military's job. You complain about Al Jazeera only showing the Arab side of the news, yet people cannot for the life of them see that our media, as you would have it, would be the same thing only for 'our side.' I'd rather find out something closer to the truth. 394215[/snapback] I'm pro GWOT, but I find it very troubling that we don't want to even look at different struggles and decide for ourselves the merits... The people responsible for the interview should be arrested, and held without food, water, or anything until their reveal his wearabouts- they have no constitutional right until they do so. 394209[/snapback] Just curious - how many people here feel the same way about the IRA?
BigAL Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 You have GOT to be !@#$ing kidding me... 394227[/snapback] Do you have a point?
Chilly Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Nightline Not very long ago, there was spirited debate here and elsewhere over a Newsweek article describing Koran abuse. All over this board, various other discussion panels and wide media coverage. Now, ABC Nightline, that bastion of balanced reporting, has aired an interview with the most wanted terrorist in the Russia-Chechnya conflict. This is the man who orchestrated the attack that left 300, mostly children, dead. Also responsible for the Moscow attack that killed many - and several more. By ANY definition, this man is a killer, a terrorist and a criminal. He admits to such himself. Well, ABC made a consious decision to give him an international forum. He has a 10 million dollar reward for his capture, and is identified on many, including the UN's list of priority wanted terrorists. My view, is that a responsible party who had knowledge of this person's whereabouts should have turned them over to some authority charged with rooting out terrorism. Media has a lot of resources. What else are they sitting on? As far as ABC Nightline goes, they didn't just bump into each other on the street. This took some doing, and it most likely started on his end. I just find it very interesting that this is allowed to slip under the pundit radar. No big deal because this is Russia? I remember the general outcry when all those 3 and 4 year old blown up bodies were shown. Guess an interview with Bin Laden would be allowable as well, provided it came from an extreme left wing source with a basically anti-American agenda. 393613[/snapback] Does the Media have a responsibility to turn this guy over to the government? Not that I'm aware of. The media has only one responsibility: to obey the current laws. As far as I can tell, the media is obeying the current laws. There isn't any law against not turning over a terrorist. The real question is: do they have a moral obligation to turn over a terrorist to the government? I'm not so sure that thats the case.
OGTEleven Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Does the Media have a responsibility to turn this guy over to the government? Not that I'm aware of. The media has only one responsibility: to obey the current laws. As far as I can tell, the media is obeying the current laws. There isn't any law against not turning over a terrorist. The real question is: do they have a moral obligation to turn over a terrorist to the government? I'm not so sure that thats the case. 394289[/snapback] Where did you study Chechnyan law? There is no moral obligation. Plus it's good for business. If they leave him out there he can kill 300 more kids and ratings will go to the moon. Maybe he'll even tip them off and they can get the cameras in position. Think pay per view. At least your high fallutin intellectual theory of the medias role will be intact. Too bad for the future exploded kids, but hey we have standards to uphold. I'm sure if the Islamists win the battle in Chechnya and/or elsewhere, they will remember the media's neutrality and treat them very kindly. They'll probably write an amendment to their constitution just like our #1.
Chilly Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Where did you study Chechnyan law? There is no moral obligation. Plus it's good for business. If they leave him out there he can kill 300 more kids and ratings will go to the moon. Maybe he'll even tip them off and they can get the cameras in position. Think pay per view. At least your high fallutin intellectual theory of the medias role will be intact. Too bad for the future exploded kids, but hey we have standards to uphold. I'm sure if the Islamists win the battle in Chechnya and/or elsewhere, they will remember the media's neutrality and treat them very kindly. They'll probably write an amendment to their constitution just like our #1. 394296[/snapback] I must have studied it the same place you studied capitalism. Our media isn't part of the government. Its a direct result of capitalism. People want entertainment, and they want the news, so the two combined form our media. The problem that people are having right now, is that the media is too much entertainment and not enough news. We are seeing the results of this in the decline of viewership of TV media, and increase in alternate news sources such as blogs. This cycle will continue until either the media conglomerates will even themselves out or American citizens will get their news from other sources, while the television media will continue to shift into a strictly entertainment stage. You're part of the growing masses that are turning away from the media, causing this shift. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but its not the media's responsibility to do such a thing. In fact - don't you think it would increase their faltering ratings BY turning over someone such as this and becomming a hero to the American people? They will, in time, as they continue to lose viewers and lose viewers. Things like this take time, unfortunately America doesn't seem to have a lot of patients. Everyone harps about how the GWOT is gonna take patients, but no one seems to understand that everything is going to take patients to win. Tom Friedman had a great article this past week about Lance Armstrong and what America should learn from it - most of America is all about now, now, now in the present times, including the media. The great part about this country is that we have the opportunity to change it from now, now, now into a patient battle with everything, including the media. Instead, most people would like to harp on the media about not foreseeing the future, while it is most American's which are the ones who can't foresee the future enough to have patients.
OGTEleven Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 I must have studied it the same place you studied capitalism. Our media isn't part of the government. Its a direct result of capitalism. People want entertainment, and they want the news, so the two combined form our media. The problem that people are having right now, is that the media is too much entertainment and not enough news. We are seeing the results of this in the decline of viewership of TV media, and increase in alternate news sources such as blogs. This cycle will continue until either the media conglomerates will even themselves out or American citizens will get their news from other sources, while the television media will continue to shift into a strictly entertainment stage. You're part of the growing masses that are turning away from the media, causing this shift. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but its not the media's responsibility to do such a thing. In fact - don't you think it would increase their faltering ratings BY turning over someone such as this and becomming a hero to the American people? They will, in time, as they continue to lose viewers and lose viewers. Things like this take time, unfortunately America doesn't seem to have a lot of patients. Everyone harps about how the GWOT is gonna take patients, but no one seems to understand that everything is going to take patients to win. Tom Friedman had a great article this past week about Lance Armstrong and what America should learn from it - most of America is all about now, now, now in the present times, including the media. The great part about this country is that we have the opportunity to change it from now, now, now into a patient battle with everything, including the media. Instead, most people would like to harp on the media about not foreseeing the future, while it is most American's which are the ones who can't foresee the future enough to have patients. 394304[/snapback] The "problem" is not bad ratings. The "problem" is giving a forum to a guy that killed 300 kids and would gladly kill 300 more. That problem is rooted in the media seeing itself as "outside observers" of the news. There is merit to being an unbiased reporter of the news. Giving a forum to an individual such as this so that he may air his grievances might be considered news BEFORE HE FRIGGIN BLEW UP A BUNCH OF KIDS.
Ghost of BiB Posted July 31, 2005 Author Posted July 31, 2005 This wasn't meant to become a treatise on the merits of GWOT. Few actually understand what that is about, anyway. Especially here. Not anyone's fault, just a lot of the pertinent information to have an informed opinion is very hard to come by. Thinking it over some more, and reading some of the responses, I'll modify to say that it probably isn't in the best interest of the press - in general - to turn someone like that in. That could have definite repercussions down the road in terms of legitimate sources and legitimate news. What I'm STILL certain of, though. Is that ABC should have taken the bye on this one. Not every story out there needs to be aired simply because it's available. I still view this as ratings over "journalism", and while perhaps not unethical journalistically, it's ill advised and harmful. Organized terrorists view the media, any media as their own private PR machine. It is part of their doctrine to use it any way, shape or form - whether it be granting interviews, or timing and locating attacks to gain the best coverage. Each situation serves a purpose. What was the gain, here? Questions and further comment: How many Americans actually care? How many would even know this guys name if not for TV? Answer to the above being pretty obvious, what positive purpose has been served by ABC vs: 1. Giving an internationally wanted terrorist with radical fundamentalist Islamic ties a recognized "legitimate" American forum to get his 15 minutes. (Let them buy airtime, like everyone else if they want to air a commercial). 2. Slapping the face of a supposed ally in not only the GWOT, but a major player in counter/non-proliferation issues (If I were sharing intelligence, this would definitely stick in my craw were I a Russian analyst). Media irresponsibility and lack of vision is not doing a single thing to make this situation better. Anyone with an understanding of how this game is played understands that. The news networks certainly do, but they choose to do things detrimental to the effort anyway. "Sensationalize" every little scrap that can be gathered on prisoner "abuse". If you don't think that affects other countries (in a word, their politicians) you're wrong. Give terrorists a forum. Publish story after story touting how the situation is out of control, and we're not handling it, when the actual facts - strategically - are that we are doing very well. Well, it's no secret here that I'm generally unhappy with the media.
EC-Bills Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Anyway, I still have issue with the fact ABC has been given a bye. It's no secret that Nightline has an agenda. Maybe in their view not anti-American, but definitely anti administration. Things are much more layered, nebulous and complicated than a 30 minute TV spot. When the media goes out and offers a forum such as this, without balance to an allied nations's number one bad guy, it has theater security cooperation agreement and policy ramifications. ABC well knows that, even if the average viewer doesn't. 394042[/snapback] Apparently Russia's Military is no longer giving ABC a bye. Linky
Reuben Gant Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Apparently Russia's Military is no longer giving ABC a bye. Linky 394550[/snapback] Thanks for link.
Ghost of BiB Posted July 31, 2005 Author Posted July 31, 2005 Apparently Russia's Military is no longer giving ABC a bye. Linky 394550[/snapback] Good for them. However, NOW you'll get the left-wing indignation, and the "throttling of the media" response. Will be interesting to see ABC's take.
Reuben Gant Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Good for them. However, NOW you'll get the left-wing indignation, and the "throttling of the media" response. Will be interesting to see ABC's take. 394556[/snapback] Just speculation, but I bet ABC will turn it into a Nightline, "When does the Media go too far" referencing this and Mike Wallace interviews with Hamas.
Recommended Posts