Fox Guest Says ABC News Is “Killing American Soldiers”
Fox Guest Says ABC News Is “Killing American Soldiers”
You might think that in a free society the media should find the facts and truthfully report them to the public. But former Army intelligence officer Lt. Col. Ralph Peters disagrees. In his recent book, “New Glory: Expanding America’s Global Supremacy,†Peters argues that the media should act as “combatants†in wartime:
The media can no longer sustain their pretenses of being aloof, objective observers dispassionately recording events. The media are combatants. [New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy, Page 49]
Peters took his thesis to Fox News last night. When asked about a recent ABC report that the CIA moved detainees out of secret prisons in Europe prior to Secretary of State Rice’s visit, he said:
When ABC or any other outlet gives away our national secrets, or verifies them, and underscores them by repeating what others have said, and seems to verify for the world — look, they are putting Americans at risk. They’re putting our allies at risk, as you observed. And they’re putting our programs at risk. … But worst of all, Bill, it’s killing American soldiers. [The O’Reilly Factor, 12/6/05]
Bill O’Reilly agreed with Peters’ new definition of the media:
I would not have reported what ABC News reported. I would not have done it. I — as you know — didn’t put Abu Ghraib pictures on this broadcast, the only television journalist not to do so. I do feel that the press has a responsibility to help the government in the war on terror. [The O’Reilly Factor, 12/6/05]
Funny, and we thought freedom of the press was a fundamental democratic value.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well.. I guess it CAN put troops at risk. But if America didn’t do it in the first place, ABC wouldn’t have to report it!
December 7th, 2005 at 4:06 pmAll these people crowing about “spreading democracy” are going to figure out that we Americans are only 5% of the world, and they won’t be so keen on democracy when they learn they only have 5% of the vote.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:10 pmAnd when a top Presidential advisor gives away our national secrets, or verifies them, and underscores them by repeating what others have said…?
December 7th, 2005 at 4:11 pmSo Bill is admitting he is a propagandist?
December 7th, 2005 at 4:11 pmI knew that, but are the “fair and balance”
followers ready for that?
Loose lips do sink ships, but how does the
knowledge of the existence of “black sites”
get anyone killed anyway?
Media shills for a lying war mongering president.
I thought we lived in a better country that this.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:16 pmReally? I thought it was the other way around:
December 7th, 2005 at 4:17 pmhttp://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/64BEFBCA-210E-4E39-B8CD-A2EC8E0EB2F1.htm
Why was the energy policy discussions
with top corporate honchos a national
secret?
Why does the government in a so-called democracy
feel the need to make everything secret?
What are they afraid of in their every memo and note?
If torture is either:
1) Not happening (Oops guess that doesn’t play very well, right
Condi?)
2) Legal (Right Mr. AG, AKA “torture man”?)
Why do they have to hide?
December 7th, 2005 at 4:19 pmsooo…Fox refuses to report truths because it may hurt the administration (NOT the country!!! this administration is doing enough to hurt our people and pointing it out will save our country)
December 7th, 2005 at 4:19 pmThis Peters guy seems like a real nutjob. Look at the cover of his book. As if the U.S. owns the planet. Maybe that kind of attitude is why the rest of the world looks at us with disdain. The media isn’t killing U.S. troops, Bush and his insane administration are killing U.S. troops. Muzzling the media in our own country really sets a shining example of Democracy for the rest of the world. Democracy, coming to your country soon, at the end of a rifle.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:19 pmI’m sure if the media were more positive, our government could make a promise not to do anything illegal or morally wrong… (Wow, fascism’s getting thick in here.)
December 7th, 2005 at 4:31 pmstop telling the truth!….that’s just great o’liely.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:33 pmNo…….The bombs and bullets are killing the soldiers.
And if they would listen to Jack Murtha, and pull them “over the horizon” that would stop.
Are these idiots are saying that if we all just SHUT UP, and listen to propaganda, then no more soldiers will die?
No, I think the bombs and bullets will still hurt just as bad, but IF we keep talking, maybe they will listen to us, move them out of the way, and THEN they will stop dying.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:38 pmI think TP would get more bang for their buck if they threaded stories about when Fox does something mundane and not contraversial.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:39 pmC’mon, TP! Find the money link! The pipeline from WH to Fox! That’s what we want to know about!
December 7th, 2005 at 4:41 pmSo, I take this to mean that during a democratic presidency, Fox will report only comes out of the Oval Office? Gimme a f***n’ break. Anybody remember the story of Bill and the Blue Dress?
December 7th, 2005 at 4:45 pmMeanwhile, in Europe, they get a real conversation about a real concern. How is it that their media is oh so freak’n much better than our’s???
“…Pinter said the US justification for invading Iraq – that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction – “was not true”.
“(America) has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good.”
“The truth is something entirely different,” Pinter added. “The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it.”
Pinter said that since World War II the US government “supported and in many cases engendered every right-wing military dictatorship in the world”…”
[from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4505874.stm ]
December 7th, 2005 at 4:49 pmSlight correction on the previous:
“Pinter said the US justification for invading Iraq – that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction – “was not true”.
“The truth is something entirely different,” Pinter added. “The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it.”
Pinter said that since World War II the US government “supported and in many cases engendered every right-wing military dictatorship in the world”.
I somehow copied the sidebar text that was out of context.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:50 pmBut Fox hired Geraldo, who endangered troops by giving out troop positions during the actual combat!
Why does Fox want to kill American soldiers?
December 7th, 2005 at 4:51 pmRemember Fox’s motto Fair and Balanced, well they never said compared to any one in particular so pick your references. Fair , compared to? Balanced, balancing against what? They set the standard for hyped comparative broadcasting. Have they ever said they are journalists? if you constantly question the source then a standard has to be some where for comparison. They do it all by default, in essence they proclaim not what ever their competion is not. Really if i need to know all i can about Michael Jackson I always go with Fox, don’t you? Grab the flag and call everyone a traitor who disagrees with you. Fear, Fear and more Fear. watch them and then like their viewers have a choice to do also TURN THE DAMN CHANNEL. Thanks for the daily reminder of my choices TP!
December 7th, 2005 at 4:54 pmWell joshowitz,
I’m sure this sounds like a faulty
December 7th, 2005 at 4:57 pmiPod (modern translation of broken record)
but hypocrisy is the only true
crooked crony conservative value.
joshowitz
Thats the damned funniest thing I’ve heard all night!! LMAO!
December 7th, 2005 at 5:00 pmGeraldo, the new most dangerous threat to American troops.
I can see it now,the troops trading him to the enemy for an authentic burka.:|
December 7th, 2005 at 5:01 pmthen the enemy trying to trade him back for a case of MRE’s….
December 7th, 2005 at 5:02 pmallawi to the troops,
“come on guys, we’ll even through in a bottle of that cheap wine you like”
December 7th, 2005 at 5:05 pmIsn’t it time that America stops listening to the lie machine called Fox News? Fox News has damaged the integrity of journalism possibly to the point of irreversible. Beside propagating lies, Fox News spread trash TV all over the airwaves, polluting and corrupting the minds of the American young and old alike.
The rightwing conservatives have redefined the meaning of hypocrisy, if not perpetuating the word’s strength in today’s society.
Karen Hughes
December 7th, 2005 at 5:07 pmA former Republican
Not to mention, they threw the election of 2000 to Bush, courtesy of the presidents 1st cousin, who is a news manager there.
December 7th, 2005 at 5:09 pmFunny, and we thought freedom of the press was a fundamental democratic value.
It is… And that’s why the Republicans are so adamant that it is wrong.
Thank you, I’ll be here all week.
Z.
December 7th, 2005 at 5:09 pmBTW Karen, uh, glad to see you decided to come over,,,:D
December 7th, 2005 at 5:10 pmhere is an insight into Col. Petersons’s provenance
December 7th, 2005 at 5:14 pmcarlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/98spring/peters.htm
… and the gvt. outing a covert operative to the press didn’t endanger anyone?…
December 7th, 2005 at 5:24 pmWhat Col Peters was saying basically this: “we want the media to lie so we can get away with murder”. At the same time, Fox News and its “allies” are crying bloddy murder about oppression of freedom of speech else where in the world. It seems as if O’Reilly is nothing but a primitive robot running on low battery.
December 7th, 2005 at 5:30 pmif I were to listen to someone who authored a book with “America’s Global Supremecy” in the title, I guess I would support this administration – but since I have no desire to pushing america to world domination or supremacy (aren’t we all created equal) – and would actually like to see some changes take place within our borders before we invade other countries to restore democracy (is restore even appropriate??!!) – Col. Peters can say the sky is pink for all I care
December 7th, 2005 at 5:37 pmO’Lielly believes the press is obliged to support the government. Well that says it all right there doesn’t it — his idea of journalism is propaganda.
Most of us learned in school that the job of journalism is to challenge the government, to employ critical thinking in examining the arguments of the government, to work for the people.
December 7th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
Rupert Murdoch despises the idea of “objectivity” in the news. He does not understand that journalism is supposed to be about objectivity and requires no “balance” whatsoever. If you report that Tom DeLay was charged with money laundering, you are under no obligation to air him denying the charges. You do not have to hear both sides of every story, just the objective and relevant facts.
Murdoch has made a business decision that he can make more money promoting a conservative “news” channel (an oxymoron IMHO) than a liberal one. Yet of all his networks (FOX, FX, FNC, etc.), “The Simpsons” has usually been one of the highest rated despite its very obvious anti-Republican, anti-conservative stance. (Great show, BTW.) I’m sure that Murdoch doesn;t mind the money that show makes for him. He is at heart a capitalist.
Side note: For those who wonder what hell-hole Geraldo Rivera crawled out of, I’ll tell you that he got his big break in journalism (real journalism) working for WABC-TV in New York when he uncovered the horrendous treatment of the mentally ill children at Willowbrook Institute. He interviewed the people there on camera (arranged in advance) and then went back the next day with a hidden camera to reveal that the children’s clothes had been taken away and that they were living in filth. It was a great story and he deserved all the praise he got for uncovering it. I’m not exactly sure when he started going downhill, but it wsas before he got hit in the nose by a chair thrown by a neo-Nazi on his Springer-type program.
December 7th, 2005 at 5:49 pmThe litmus test: If Clinton was the President, or any Democrat, or Green, or Libertarian, for that matter, would these guys be saying the same thing.
The world was coming to an end according to these guys because Clinton got a BJ (which doesn’t appear unusual for the political power crowd – and O’Reilly knows some too), and they were going after him constantly. So no, these guys have no credibility left. I’d rather have an intelligent thoughtful man or woman who understood other people’s situations who got some, than someone that was privileged all his life, walks all over people, takes us to war on manipulated data, purposely divides our nation, and refuses to admit to any problems, personal or otherwise.
These guys are using “fear” tactics, and a lot of people are buying it because they can’t see behind the wolfs’ clothing.
December 7th, 2005 at 5:53 pmAny “democracy” that needs to resort to these tactics and measures to ensure it’s global supremacy is selling something no one is interested in buying, unless at the point of a gun. Too bad, really. Peters does get some things about the military right on occasion but he’s out of his depth here.
December 7th, 2005 at 6:09 pmHowever, it is a riot to watch the military and the “right” become the touchy-feely “I’ll use my daily affirmations to maintain a positive attitudinal adjustment” like the Al Franken SNL character Stuart Smalley that O’Reilly likes to make fun of.
December 7th, 2005 at 6:13 pmHere’s another newsworthy item on Hillary Clinton, whose pr
oblems with the antiwar left TP continues to ignore . . .
>
This one comes from an article in today’s New York Sun:
“A longtime labor advocate launched his challenge to Senator Clinton’s reelection while another anti-war Senate hopeful yesterday suggested the two join forces against Mrs. Clinton in the 10-month lead-up to the Democratic primary.
“A former head of the National Writers Union, Jonathan Tasini, announced his bid in a 20-minute speech to supporters and members of the press at the W Hotel in Union Square. The address largely focused on his opposition to the Iraq war: He said Mrs. Clinton and other Democrats who voted for it ‘abdicated their responsibility to the American people and to the values of the Democratic Party.’”
When will Sen. Clinton respond directly to these charges? When will TP post some comments on the developing challenges to Sen. Clinton from her left?
Most people on this site are so full of Bush hatred that they’re still fussing over the last election, and completely losing site of the next election. That’s a good way to get another weak pro-war Democrat on the 2008 presidential ticket – which is just the right prescription for another GOP victory at the ballot box!
December 7th, 2005 at 6:42 pmWait a minute…what’s that sound? Is it? Could it be?
Yes! It is Ben Franklin turning over in his grave!
December 7th, 2005 at 6:45 pmBSR,
What’s your point? Most progressives aren’t particularly fond of any of the DLC members of the democratic party, hillary included. But just like the ‘economics’ section which quotes the coach of a 4-12 record playing up how he won the 4 games, this is similar to republicans in general. The fact is she’s a 12-4 record, and bush is a 15-1 at best, and the 1 was a tie game.
As much as the DLC and Hillary frankly is fairly far from progressive values, at least she’s in sight. Republicans are stuck in Nazi Germany, and are entirely unrecognizably evil.
December 7th, 2005 at 6:50 pmBSR,
The only way republicans can win at the ballot box at this point is Diebold or one of the other suck-up fraud machines you guys shove out. Republicans are as unpopular as syphillis carrier at a nudist convention!
December 7th, 2005 at 6:52 pmFrom a resident of New Yoerk State:
I would rather re-elect Sen Clinton in 2006 to the Senate and reject any bid on her part to run for President in 2008. So far, it’s primarily Dick Morris who thinks that she will run for President. I do not believe that there is the “groundswell” of support for her to launch a presidential bid that I hear so much about. It’s mostly conservatives I hear that are convinced she will run, and liberals who say only that it’s being talked about.
Publicly, she has said that she is going to concentrate on her Senate re-election and not look past that until then. And if we re-elect her to the Senate, we expect her to serve out her full term, because we can’t take the chance that a Republican won’t be the governor should she have to be replaced.
December 7th, 2005 at 7:22 pmSheesh, you’d think I could spell my own state’s name! I’m losing it.
Good night all.
December 7th, 2005 at 7:23 pmBSR, somebody must have pissed in your beer, bro. Really, as a redneck dipshit myself, I was hoping I would get thru a night here without some other desperate dipstick bringing up Bill or Hillary Clinton.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your lame-assed post in #39 has absolutely nothing to do with the article here. Go back to top, read down: Its about a former
Army intelligence officer (who didn’t even make full bird Colonel) bullshitting with a draftdodger on Fox News in hopes of getting a little paycheck from the factor and 15 minutes of glory before he fades back to obscurity.
Get a clue, pal.
December 7th, 2005 at 7:29 pmBlue State Red,
First of all, post a link if you want us to read a story, that way we can get the whole story and now just a couple of paragraphs. As far as we know, the story you post goes on to say “And that was if this was true, which it is not.”
Second of all:
News Flash not everyone here supports Hillary for President. She is part of the Carlyle Group, just like the Bush fanily and the Saud family.
December 7th, 2005 at 7:36 pmWell said Spudge. The big push for Hillary for President was Hannity’s idea, hoping to set up a strawman.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I kind of like lots of others and right now I like former Gov. Warner of Virginia—if I was a liberal anyway. And even if I ain’t.
December 7th, 2005 at 7:43 pmI have never understood the “logic” that revealing the lies and hypocrisies of our government gets our soldiers killed. I would think that the fact that these illegal prisons exist is more the cause than the fact that they were revealed. When will this administration learn that the best way to not have stories published saying that you are doing something illegal or immoral is to not do illegal or immoral things in the first place!
It’s like the other adgae that telling the truth is best because it’s the easiest thing to remember.
December 7th, 2005 at 7:50 pmHi, Joe, I agree with you about Mark Warner. I haven’t heard an awful lot about him, but what I have heard sounds like he is a respectable and ethical guy. As a New York State resident (I can spell it right the first time even if Wayne can’t!), I’m not overly fond of Hillary but I’d rather contain her in NY rather than let her loose running entire country. Her recent idea of bringing up an amendment against flag-burning astounded me, and I’m willing to bet that Bill Clinton probably wasn’t thrilled with it either.
December 7th, 2005 at 7:55 pmMost people on this site are so full of Bush hatred that they’re still fussing over the last election, and completely losing site of the next election. That’s a good way to get another weak pro-war Democrat on the 2008 presidential ticket – which is just the right prescription for another GOP victory at the ballot box!
Comment by Blue State Red — December 7, 2005
I told you it was fun to watch these assclowns on the right turn into Stuart Smalley. They don’t even realize he was a parody. They think he’s really cool.
December 7th, 2005 at 8:04 pmThe Litmus Test: Fascism vs. Democracy
Some people believe that during wartime, our civil liberties should be effectively suspended, even if that war is a never ending war like the “War on Terror”. Think Progress quotes Bill O’Reilly and one of his guests former Army intelligence officer…
December 7th, 2005 at 8:32 pmJane #49, if I wasn’t the solid, redneck, conservative dipstick that I am I could support a woman for president. Hillary is probably lousy in bed, but I think even she would do fairly well as president after junior. Her ass is bigger than Condi Rice’s, but as a redneck I find that kind of a plus.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but many liberals here think that the only agenda or plan of action a democrat needs can be summed up in two words: undo Bush. As for Mark Warner, as of right now, he’s my horse in the race, as long as he doesn’t make a jackass out of himself like Dean has done lately.
December 7th, 2005 at 8:33 pmHow ’bout Evan Byah ? Unlike Dan Quale this Indiana boy knows his ass from applebutter . Too bad Indiana’s only three electorial votes .
December 7th, 2005 at 8:35 pmYou know, in the words of George Bush I just had a “heckofa” thought. What if Murtha could be talked into running for president?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but how the hell else has been standing up to Bush, Cheney, and the entire Administration and half the suckass generals they can muster? I mean, wouldn’t that frost everyones little bottoms from Fox News pundits Hannity and O’Really, right down to Joe Lieberman’s?
December 7th, 2005 at 8:44 pmBSR et al
I am left of all of you and I agree with BSR about HRC. THe rest of you reach into the old grab bag of Democratic candidates and pull her head out and say, gee she looks like she could win, lets back her.
Let me remind you that Lyndon Johnson was as big if not a bigger war monger than any Republican candidate to date.
The DLC has nothing on the REpublicans in the arena of war. So stop pretending that Hilary, regardless of her stripes, looks better than Bush and his cronies.
To my thinking, my son’s life is safer with BushCo in power than with HRC. She would start a draft cause she’s into “fairness,” of course only as long as her daughter isn’t drafted. At least the criminal BushCO is too afraid to even mention a draft.
And as far as fairness is concerned, the Dems who tout a draft as a means to stop the war are just lying – they want a draft all right – and they’ll haul out all the old standards – fairness, equality – as far as I’m concerned at this point it’s every man, woman, and child for themselves. If you are stupid enough to join up, then you are just plain stupid. And the Dems damn well better not try a draft thinking they can get away with it. Not again.
December 7th, 2005 at 9:13 pmGOI,
You’re a commie, you aren’t ‘left’, you’re a totalitarian whacko just like the reichwinger. You have more in common with them, than you do with any progressive.
December 7th, 2005 at 9:25 pmGOI shows that politics is not a straight line, but a circle. When you circle back from the far left, you reach the far right. Just like limbaugh used to be a commie, goi is a banana peel (as is obvious by his saying nice things about them) from being a reichwing moron.
December 7th, 2005 at 9:26 pmGuardian of Indifference,
Did you just come here and assume you know what we all think?
I can’t speak for everyone, I don’t think Hillary is any better than Bush and friends.
In fact I think she is one of them. She and Bill are part of the Carlyle Group. A defense think tank. The family Saud is also part of Carlyle.
December 7th, 2005 at 10:39 pm#48, I was just telling a 7 year old the value of telling the truth. Among the benefits: you never have to remember what you said, because if you tell the truth, you’ll always know it.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:14 pm#54, Joe,
December 7th, 2005 at 11:18 pmI think Murtha would be rejected because he is 74 years old. I want to see a female president for many reasons, but I don’t think Clinton is the right one. I think I want to know more about Mark Warner — what I know about him to date is favorable.
As for Evan Bayh (Indiana), he is so close to the middle that he leans right too much for me.
This woman was charged with making a Statement on AOL board, yet FAUX news can say BLOW UP and KILL ? While I dont agree with what she said;;aw heck read it yourself.
Anyway, BE very Careful WHAT you SAY. –Aj
~~~~
“If she dies, I will kill Michael Schiavo and the judge,” Jones wrote. “This is real!”
U.S. District Court Judge James Whittemore, the Florida judge assigned to the case, declined to issue an order to reinsert Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube on March 22. She died nine days later.
After Whittemore read the Jones’ posting on the AOL message board, he became concerned for his safety and the safety of his family, according to court testimony.
FBI agents determined that Jones was the source of the message, even though it was registered in another person’s name.
Jones, who remains free on bond, was scheduled for sentencing in March in San Francisco. She faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:39 amApologies for being off-topic, but if you haven’t seen Jon Stewart’s take on today’s Senate hearings on cable television issues, check it out [Indecent Proposal]. Hilarious.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:40 amRalph Peters is telling it like it is.
I only wish that the Constititution would allow President Bush to have another term in office.
December 8th, 2005 at 1:07 amThank god the 22nd Amendment stops that from happening.
December 8th, 2005 at 1:27 amRyan,
Bush has become a much better speaker over the last couple of years. He has given the same speech over and over this whole time.
December 8th, 2005 at 3:03 am[...] Think Progress reports that a former army intelligence officer is spruking the idea that journalists are “combatants” in wartime: You might think that in a free society the media should find the facts and truthfully report them to the public. But former Army intelligence officer Lt. Col. Ralph Peters disagrees. In his recent book, “New Glory: Expanding America’s Global Supremacy,†Peters argues that the media should act as “combatants†in wartime: The media can no longer sustain their pretenses of being aloof, objective observers dispassionately recording events. The media are combatants. [New Glory: Expanding America’s Global Supremacy, Page 49] [...]
December 8th, 2005 at 8:31 amQuite funny. On topic – fascists who don’t hide their stripes. If only every other minion and oficial in bushco could cough up a truthful hairball once in a while. btw – I completely disagree with the “good” intel officer. Maybe he should read 1984 or possibly Farenheight 451 to see what he is asking for.
Off topic – you trolls kill me. BSR you are so toast. You can’t say anything about the thread so you try to change the subject to Clinton bashing. Hey, it worked in the ‘00 elections. I don’t agree with several points of view that both Bill or Hillary represent or put forth. But I will take them in a heartbeat over they lying, democracy hating, fascist bastards that the republican party has come to be. Bill and/or Hillary are not my enemies. Bushco, DeLay, Frist, and all the other idiots are. They are the ones I will fight against. Not my own who I don’t completely agree with.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:49 am“Funny, and we thought freedom of the press was a fundamental democratic value. ”
You don’t have the freedom to help kill us.
TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I – CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 – TREASON, SEDITION,
AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Sec. 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so–
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:17 amThis is too funny.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
[...] Think Progress » Fox Guest Says ABC News Is “Killing American Soldiers” I would not have reported what ABC News reported. I would not have done it. I – as you know – didn’t put Abu Ghraib pictures on this broadcast, the only television journalist not to do so. I do feel that the press has a responsibility to help the government in the war on terror. [The O`Reilly Factor, 12/6/05] [...]
December 8th, 2005 at 12:28 pmI-Right-I
Notice that (a) says make false reports… You can still tell the truth. The second paragraph is about inciting mutiny… Irrelevant…
So as long as ABC reported truthfully they didn’t breach (a)
(b) is about conspiracy to commit anything under (a)
(c) is about hiding someone who did (a)
(d) states that this applies within US controlled waters and “on the high seas”…
So… What is your point.
Unless the media wilfully tried to cause a mutiny, or wilfully lied to create problems for the army then they have done nothing wrong under this section of law. So, yes they have every freedom they need to tell the truth no matter how inconvenient that truth is for the military.
But why do you say US, or have you joined up in the last week?
Z.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:37 pmPoint is, God did not set you free to Kill. Thou Shalt Not Kill. Especially the weak and poor.
read the story of able and cain. here:
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 ¶ And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
8 ¶ And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
9 ¶ And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?
10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.
11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;
12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
13 ¶ And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
16 ¶ And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:58 pm17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
19 ¶ And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
23 ¶ And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
25 ¶ And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
Did he just call himself a “journalist”?
On-air personality? – Yes. Pundit? – Yes. Journalist? – No.
December 8th, 2005 at 1:03 pm[...] The other night, a guest on Fox News accused ABC News of “putting Americans at risk†and “killing American soldiers.†Today, conservative pundits continued to blame the media for the administration’s failed strategy in Iraq. [...]
December 8th, 2005 at 1:24 pmOK – ABC is only killing Americans troops when they provide troop movements or prisoner movements or etc….The rest of the time….well, the rest of the time…
Not to change the subject…much(!)… THANK YOU Dems and Progs for the gift that keeps on giving – Howarrrrd Deannnn!(drumroll…applause, APPLAUSE!!! In the latest scoring match up, do we lump Dean in with Pelosi and Murtha or with the crowd who wants to win …but just hates George Bush!??!
December 8th, 2005 at 4:47 pmSo when Geraldo did that for Fox it was perfectly acceptable?
And as for you “lump”ing Howard Dean…
Why don’t you ask him, at least he lets people ask questions.
Z.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:04 pmNo, Zwack, Geraldo was stupid!! But please don’t tell me you think Aaron Brown is hoping for a US victory!!???
December 8th, 2005 at 8:09 pmO’Mighty Envelope of Foam and Flux
How Close you are,
the Truth you speak
but did not type.
The gift that Keeps Giving…
From the Book
you left Unread
Ezekiel the one who
says The Whirling Wheels,
The Vedic, the Torah, Qubbalah, the Bible,
the Buddah, The Vida, the Trees of Life
Would you agree?
For what did Ezekiel See?
The eyes, the watchers, the Angels..
The Beginning middle and end
Birth and Love and Life
Time-Life, Light, Space
The Three Wheels
spinning as one,
Life and Light and Love
as light of Train
at end of tunnel
It approaches,Inevitable.
passing turning to see,
approaching again
our words, our lights,
our actions the cargo.
Coming, faster…
Nowhere to go….
Again, and Again
to Sea, to Sky, to Sun..
Light to Dark it runs
forward to back
back to forward
Twisting and turning
our Words, our Thoughts,
our Spirit, our Aura, our Light
to this to that,
faster faster
forth and back
A Blur of grey
Chaos then Order,
Focus then thought
Thought to seek
Seek to Find -Aj
Greetz Fellow Texan Ellie!,
December 8th, 2005 at 9:52 pmAphrodite, IRI resident Trollips.
Dont take the ‘TROLLWAY’,
for their bridge does not span the arch.
How Bush Stole Christmas
December 8, 2005
First, the inspiration: on the Press Democrat, page A2, People column, principal photo shot of the First lady Laura Bush reading “How the Grinch Stole Christmas†to a group of young patients at a children hospital in Washington. Now for the article “Bush concedes ‘uneven’ progress in rebuilding Iraq†by Peter Baker spits out more platitudes from Bush along with anecdotal excuses for failure. This time Bush admits recovery and rebuilding of Iraq was hindered by “corruption, misplaced priorities and insurgent attacks.†He explains (tries, in my opinion) that his strategic errors dragged on in “fits and starts.†But all his failures and deceptions are more costly than he wants to admit or to justify; for the very foundation of this war is nothing more than one Big Fat Lie. The book Laura Bush should be reading, and before Congress, is “How George W. Bush Stole Christmas†from 2100 plus families whose children return from Iraq in coffins. And how he stole Christmas from America in worth of $277 billion and is expect to grow $100 billion more. To President Bush’s “efforts†in Iraq I said “Bah! Humbug.â€
December 8th, 2005 at 11:05 pmFitting Armando…
The Tiny Heart of the Grinch.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:15 amAll of the comments here just amaze me. Nearly all of you do not understand that the media IS part of the battlespace in our current war.
Our enemies – the terrorists, remember them? – have said that in their own memos. They love to see ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, et al. wring their hands over the war and report the way they are doing.
No one – including O’Reilly or Ralph Peters – is asking our press to lie. But perhaps a little bit of objectivity – and including a balance of what GOOD is happening in Iraq – would be good for the country. But they don’t want good for the country because that would translate to good for Bush. So they’d rather lose the war, bring home our troops and put us at HIGHER RISK for decades to come rather than see that happen.
Is it asking too much for them to just CONSIDER what impact a story may have on our war efforts before they print it? When the insurgents pull stories from the front page of the New York Times and use them for their own propaganda efforts – with no editing required whatsoever – none of you see that as a problem?
December 9th, 2005 at 2:13 amDo Pay Attention to The Backstabber behind the Curtain
December 9, 2005
A week ago top Republicans and Democrats exchanged sharp new words over the Iraq war as President Bush dismissed Democrats as “pessimists,” those raising questions about his strategy and calling for a troop withdrawal. Bush condemned Howard Dean’s remarks at a San Antonio, Texas, radio station when Dean said “the idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.” The president referred Dean’s words as “Oh, there’re pessimists, you know, and politicians who try to score points and our troops need to know that the American people stand with them, and we have a strategy for victory.” House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert quickly weighed in, saying that Dean had “made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender.” Vice President Dick Cheney toss his two cents in, supporting the administration’s determination to resist a withdrawal of troops as “unwise in the extreme” to leave prematurely. “To leave that country before the job is done would be to hand Iraq over to car bombers and assassins,” Cheney said. Well, enough is enough. The Bush/Cheney Duet doesn’t have any plans to secure America or Americans. They have no tangible benchmarks for success and fail to provide an honest assessment of the reasons for the increased violence on the ground, and then ignore the real challenges of securing a lasting peace in Iraq and combating global security threats. The Bush administration has no true effective strategy for victory and no honest assessment of what is happening on the ground in Iraq. Unless Bush is willing to put aside all his “rose-colored scenarios†the mess and the carnage in Iraq will continue. And ignoring the increase insurgent attacks on US forces occurring at an all time like 100 per day according to the Pentagon the size of the insurgency is likely to increase at a lethal pace as well. Since the Administration has not given us a credible reading on the actual number of trained Iraqi security forces the impact of our prolonged occupation will determined the willingness of Iraqis to whether support the insurgency or not. Bush’s refusal for a benchmark for success is a sure fire for failure. Recently the Senate overwhelmingly endorsed an amendment calling the Bush administration to create a timetable to complete this war. Bush flat-out refused; wasn’t he who once demanded President Clinton a timetable when he was at war with Bosnia? And Bush and the rest of the war happy Republicans had the temerity to call Howard Dean a “pessimist?†All the above proves that the Bush administration isn’t really interested in providing security for our nation. Bush and the pro-war Republicans and the right-wing talking heads are only interest in draining the resources of our nation and life’s blood of our citizens and our troops abroad. The recent 2100 plus deaths of our troops and the fiasco of the Katrina Hurricane are but small examples of Bush’s lack of compassion and cynical nature to bleed this nation dry and then some.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:58 amDoesn’t anyone here know about FDR’s Office of Propoganda? If not, look it up. Do you people comprehend that our country is at war? GWB isn’t doing HALF of what our government did back in WWII. Not yet, at least. And for anyone who is confused about terms, we ARE in WWIII.
If we lose this one, we’ll all need to start memorizing the Koran – IF they even allow us to keep our heads connected to our shoulders! WAKE UP PEOPLE. This ain’t no kiddy game.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:01 amYes you are definetly an old timer ignorance shows greatly.Yes, government always has propaganda when it needs to accomplish something. Its like when when a business advertises some dmn thing. Ya right, dude we will be memorizing the koran and this why I call you ignorant. Have you seen the artilley the muslims have. Wow, they’ll really accomplish something with their rpgs against our Armoured tanks and strapping bombs to themselves. They don’t have a navy they can’t even come here.
The crazy thing I dont know why people havent acknowledged this. Is why there arent many terrorists attacks here in the U.S. especially with the border problems? With how easy it is for 2 high schoolers to get submachine guns kill 17 or so students.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:14 amYeah, when you go to walmart you can even buy a rifle there to. WHy if mulims hate us SO MUCH!! Why arent there
so many americans dying from terrorist attacks. Yeah i guess maybe they are planning something so terrible what could it be!!Or maybe the CIA is doing their job? The only thing that could be worse than 9/11,and if in fact they really did that,would be a nuclear attack, so with all these easy ways for someone to commit murder why isnt it happening?Explique Moi, Sil vous plait?
Plus about the media giving up troop movements, I mean how many people in the third world have satellite television. Come on, shouldnt we be able to track osama bin laden with his reciept to directv or look outside of each cave to see if theres one on top that must be him. Or maybe I’m wrong.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:28 amMighty Aphrodite,
I don’t know what Aaron Brown is hoping… Nor do I see the relevance of Aaron Brown to Fox criticising ABC, considering he left ABC before 9/11…
Bob and OldTimer…
Yes, other people have used propaganda. However other people have generally used propaganda to help with actual efforts while the Bush administration uses propaganda instead of actual efforts. “Good Job Brownie!”
Considering the Bill O’Reilly frequently lies, I wouldn’t use him as an example of what the media should do. Given that the media are having trouble reporting on the “good” as they can’t afford to pay $1,000 for bodyguards to protect them while they drive through combat zones to the “official opening of X”. Perhaps the fact that “reconstruction” is happening in active comabat zones is a bit of a problem… Frankly, I think the fact that we invaded a completely unrelated country and haven’t fulfilled any of our promises there might put us more at risk than say… If we had let the UN weapons inspectors do their work (you know, looking for the WMDs that we still haven’t found)… The Iraqi people have less amenities and more risk of being killed while going about their daily lives now than before we invaded. We are making sure that large numbers of them hate us. Several independent studies have found that the invasion of Iraq is actually a recruiting tool for the terrorists. Not in theory, but in actual practice.
No, I don’t see people using stories from American papers as their own propaganda as a problem… I see the fact that a truthful story CAN be used against us as a problem. If there weren’t truthful stories like “Innocent person kidnapped by Americans, whisked across the globe and held and interrogated for months” then they couldn’t be used against us. If the only stories in Iraq were “insurgents killed X innocent people and some troops” and “Insurgents activities delayed the restoration of power in Y” then they couldn’t be used against us. The fact that Rendition occurs and that the CIA runs secret prison camps in foreign countries is a disgrace to this country.
The best way to make sure that the press reports positive stories is to make sure that there are no negative stories about what we are up to.
Z.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:38 pmI know Zwack – sometimes comparisons ARE difficult!!!!!! I’m with Old Timer, thank God (!!!) FDR and Truman didn’t have many of you in the peanut gallery. Most of the people at that time WANTED to win the war.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:12 pmAn interesting thread here. What role should the media play in wartime America? Let’s look at some facts:
A bit of history is necessary here. The blue dress did come out of the oval office, complete with stain. In any other CEO’s office, when that kind of contact occurs between the CEO and an intern, it is defined as “sexual harassment” and subjects the company to civil liability. That’s one of the reasons this story was covered by the press.
Here’s a unique view of journalism from a fellow New Yorker (full post #35). I wonder how a journalist goes about collecting the “objective” facts. If you report that Tom DeLay was charged with money laundering, from whom do you learn about this? From the prosecuting attorney, obviously, who brought the charge. This person isn’t objective. They want to get a conviction on the charge. Based upon Mr. Schneider’s view of journalism, you couldn’t write this story because you wouldn’t have an objective source. I don’t think ignoring a story like this would be an example of good journalism.
Zwack has perhaps the best, though perhaps not the most practical, solution.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
My apologies for the repeat post, but apparently my skills with the italics are somewhat lacking. Hopefully this is easier to read. Cheers!
An interesting thread here. What role should the media play in wartime America? Let’s look at some facts.
So, I take this to mean that during a democratic presidency, Fox will report only comes out of the Oval Office? Gimme a f***n’ break. Anybody remember the story of Bill and the Blue Dress? (post #15)
A bit of history is necessary here. The blue dress did come out of the oval office, complete with stain. In any other CEO’s office, when that kind of contact occurs between the CEO and an intern, it is defined as “sexual harassment†and subjects the company to civil liability. That’s one of the reasons this story was covered by the press.
You do not have to hear both sides of every story, just the objective and relevant facts.
Here’s a unique view of journalism from a fellow New Yorker (full post #35). I wonder how a journalist goes about collecting the “objective†facts. If you report that Tom DeLay was charged with money laundering, from whom do you learn about this? From the prosecuting attorney, obviously, who brought the charge. This person isn’t objective. They want to get a conviction on the charge. Based upon Mr. Schneider’s view of journalism, you couldn’t write this story because you wouldn’t have an objective source. I don’t think ignoring a story like this would be an example of good journalism.
Zwack has perhaps the best, though perhaps not the most practical, solution.
The best way to make sure that the press reports positive stories is to make sure that there are no negative stories about what we are up to. (post #87)
As a practical matter, the actions of any person (or government) will subject them to criticism from some corner. Here in New York, Mayor Bloomberg used his own money to fund his re-election campaign. This literally saved the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, but was criticized by many (particularly in the press) as a demonstration that Mr. Bloomberg was seeking to “buy†a second term.
In this case, Mr. Bloomberg followed the law. He did not put one person in physical harm, injure the environment, or mislead the voters. However, I defy anyone to find a positive story about this man using his own wealth to seek public office. To the contray, the papers were rife with stories detailing how much was spent at each stage of the campaign, and how much was predicted to be spent. (As a side note, the predictions were off my nearly 25%, but no paper saw fit to print a retraction.) The point is this; the press will always look for the negative side of any story. And, as Zwack accurately suggests, the more negative stories you give them, the more they have to work with.
So where does this leave us? I think we are left with a press corps that is cynical and utterly disinterested in seeking the truth. The news organizations are bent on pushing their respective agendas. They present the news in a lopsided fashion that bears no semblance to journalism. Sadly, they abuse the special privileges afforded journalists to a degree that we should question why those privileges are afforded in the first place.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:18 pmThe Deke,
Thanks for the kudos. Yes, the press like Negative stories. They also like being able to “package” stories.
But there are two sides to this. The press should be allowed to raise what they consider to be issues. Otherwise people won’t know about them and they will continue.
As a hypothetical example, if a company, let’s call it Mercury Industries Corporation was polluting the groundwater in your town, would you want the press to publish a negative story atttacking them for doing it, raising awareness and causing M.I.C. to change their policies, or would you rather have a puff piece that said how great it was that M.I.C. was opening another plant and that anyone living in the area should be glad for the boost to the local economy? Both pieces have their place. But if I lived there I would want them to stop polluting the groundwater.
Depending on the press to only report good stories is bad. Making sure that there are as few bad stories to report is the way to go. Sure, as a result you may have no stories about you published, but that won’t be usable against you.
Would you rather no stories about Iraq were published, or only ones that highlight the fact that the confrontation is ongoing and that Americans are performing some questionable acts?
I would like to hear good news, but I don’t think that we should ignore bad news either.
Z.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:47 pmZwack, the choice between a news blackout of events in Iraq or biased coverage isn’t much of a choice. However, it is what we are offered by the mainstream press. My preference is for accurate coverage, detailing both the positive and the negative. I’m not convinced that we’re offered such coverage in any part of the press.
As an historical matter, I question whether our founding fathers intended to create a press corps fixated on destruction of our own government. There is an enormous difference between questioning the actions of government officials in a search for the truth and attacking government officials in an effort to discredit their agenda. Our press corps has chosen the latter tactic, and the result has been that they have lost credibility.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:04 pmTo the moron Bob #82
December 10th, 2005 at 4:07 amIf you want to find out what’s going good in Iraq, please refer to BoyGeorge’s speech at Foreign Relations. The light at the end of the tunnel glows brighter and brighter.
YOU WHITE FLAG WAVING COWARDS!
December 10th, 2005 at 5:17 pmTo: purvis ames (#93)
I teach and interact with dozens of Army Majors that have been IN IRAQ. I do not need to listen to anyone else that has not been there to know what is going on.
Man afer man they tell me what they see on the news does NOT accurately reflect what is happening over there.
December 10th, 2005 at 11:18 pmThere is always the problem that reporting the truth will put lives at risk; sometimes innocent lives (a soldier who obeys a command to commit abuses is not innocent). However, if the truth about our actions is unpallatable, then it is not the reporting of the truth that should be questioned but the actions being reported.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:13 amBob,
In what way do they think it is inaccurate? Can you be more specific? Do they think that there are more casualties than being reported? more progress? both?
Your comment, while interestingf is also meaningless without specifics.
Z.
December 12th, 2005 at 10:37 amWay to go Fox News for not reporting every junk that could potentially be a good story BUT ISN’T YET KNOWN TO BE THE TRUTH and could/will put our Soldiers at risk. Those people out there that don’t care about the Soldiers safety most likly don’t have a loved one serving there or at least nobody close to them. Don’t you people got yet that we are at war? Terrorists don’t care about nobody, case and point SEPTEMBER 11, have you already forgotten what happened that day and how we all felt and wanted to go and kick some ass? I sure haven’t. You have every right to voice your opinion about the war, but don’t forget you have that right because of the Soldier and Soldiers are still at work so you can keep it!
December 14th, 2005 at 11:17 amSandra I. Please can your empty Rhetoric.
1) Fox News doesn’t report stories that are known to be the truth unless they fit their own political agenda. Geraldo, reporting for Fox, gave away exact US military positions. How does that not “put our Soldiers at risk”? So, don’t praise Fox for that.
2) Perhaps people DO care about the safety of the troops and so want them safe at home rather than unsafe in a foreign country that we invaded for no good reason.
3) Who are we at war with? This is the war on Terror isn’t it? So why did we stop hunting down Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and go and invade a secular (not Islamic) middle eastern country that had no ties to either Al Qaeda or September 11th 2001?
4) No, I haven’t forgotten how I felt on September 11th, 2001. Nor have I forgotten how I felt on December 21st 1988 (Pan-Am flight 103 was blown up and “landed” on the Scottish town of Lockerbie. I was travelling from Liverpool to Edinburgh through Lockerbie the following day) Nor have I forgotten how I felt on 19th March 1993 (IRA bomb in Warrington, UK. killed two small boys, guess where I was living at the time…), Nor have I forgotten how I felt on June 15th 1996 (IRA bomb in Manchester, UK. I passed through Manchester the previous day, and again the following day). So don’t claim to know anything about how I feel about terrorists. However, while I don’t like terrorists it doesn’t make me feel that I should “go and kick some” random “ass”.
If you want to discuss the impact of Terrorism on human life then please feel free. I’ve lived for most of my life in the shadow of terrorism, and terrorism funded by American citizens at that.
Z.
December 14th, 2005 at 11:49 amFoxNews yesterday ran a ticker saying “2 MI Women(Teens?) given Probation for Praying in Public”. This is not Journalism this is Urinalism. The 2 girls were arrested for disorderly conduct. They were praying while lying prone blocking an entrance to a BP/McDonalds. The girls would only say they were told by God to do this. They have been arrested on 2 other similar incidents.
December 17th, 2005 at 11:02 amLoose Lips sink ships.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:52 pmwedding ring
wedding rings
January 1st, 2006 at 1:18 pmhttp://myblogma.com/handbags/ handbags handbags
December 8th, 2006 at 3:44 am