Why we are losing the war in Iraq...

[1journeyman]

Aztec, I'm still waiting for the name of one journalist in jail right now for reporting what the government told them not too.
I'm also waiting for you to show me the "law" that says they can only report what the Government wants them to report.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Aztec, I'm still waiting for the name of one journalist in jail right now for reporting what the government told them not too.
I'm also waiting for you to show me the "law" that says they can only report what the Government wants them to report.
If this were true, I don't think they would tell us. What about those G-Bay prisoners. Are we allowed to hold these people without a trial or formal charges? I think many of them are held based soley on suspicion they did something or that they may have knowledge of a terror network... What's the deal with that?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
If this were true, I don't think they would tell us. What about those G-Bay prisoners. Are we allowed to hold these people without a trial or formal charges? I think many of them are held based soley on suspicion they did something or that they may have knowledge of a terror network... What's the deal with that?
You mean the terrorists caught on the battlefield attacking US soldiers? Last time I checked the Geneva Convention did not apply to them, nor did our Constitution.
Aztec has stated it's against the "law" for journalists to report what the government doesn't want them to report. I want names of arrested journalists, as well as what law they broke.
Don't confuse foreign terorists with what Aztec was saying happens to American citizens in the USA.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
You mean the terrorists caught on the battlefield attacking US soldiers? Last time I checked the Geneva Convention did not apply to them, nor did our Constitution.
Aztec has stated it's against the "law" for journalists to report what the government doesn't want them to report. I want names of arrested journalists, as well as what law they broke.
Don't confuse foreign terorists with what Aztec was saying happens to American citizens in the USA.
Yes and no, I bet some them are not terrorist or people caught attacking U.S soilders, but some are suspected of knowing something about a terrorist or may just be in wrong place at wrong time. As far as I know they are not considered prisoners of war but are detainees that are being questioned- there are no charges against them.

 

[reefraff]

Do you kids know what happened to "enemy combatants", which is a person not in a uniform engaged in military actions in previous wars? They were shot as spies. They have no rights under the conventions. Most the people being held in gitmo fall into that class.
Anyone with an IQ above room temp can figure out the government can't control the media. Ask ANYONE who has served in Iraq if they think the media is under reporting the negative aspects of Iraq. I don't mean to flame anyone but if you belive the government is controlling what the media is reporting you are a nut job. It is just too obvious they can't control the reporting. Here are a few glaring examples.
The government requested that the photos from Abu Garib not be released but they were. If they controlled the media do you think they would have even let that story out?
The New York Times printed stories about secret CIA prisons and then NSA wire taps. Those were questionably national security issues and the government still couldn't prevent them from being reported.
Pat Tillman. You really think the government wanted to acknowledge anything in this case?
---- Cheney hunting accident.
cBS report about Bush being AWOL. This one was even backed up with forged documents and it was reported.
Bill and Monica
Bill and Paula
Bill and Juanita
Whitewater
Ron Brown assasination. They had to dig up his body and do an autopsy to debunk that myth
Ruby Ridge.
I really can't believe anyone would make a serious case about this.

 

[rbaldino]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
There is currently a story on CNN's website talking about the anniversary of the atomic bomb in Japan. The story talks about a new documentry on HBO and that how footage of the survivors and aftermath of the bomb had been banned for 25 years. I believe the gov't gives access to information they want reported, but if they don't want to then it won't get out. All the scandals that have broke have dealt with individuals only, not cover ups or govermental conspiracies, simply nothing that puts our government as a whole in a bad light. If a report does come out, it will be after all involved are gone and dead. So welll probably start hearing things that occured in the late 60's and early 70's soon.
There's a difference between classifying information and controlling the media.
BTW - If you really feel this way about the American government and media, I suggest you move to China or Cuba.

 

[rbaldino]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I believe the government will do what they need to do to sway majority of public opinion in their favor.
Yeah, all the negative Iraq coverage has been a clever ploy by the government to increase support for the war.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Yes and no, I bet some them are not terrorist or people caught attacking U.S soilders, but some are suspected of knowing something about a terrorist or may just be in wrong place at wrong time. As far as I know they are not considered prisoners of war but are detainees that are being questioned- there are no charges against them.

We have the right to detain combatants in a war zone until the end of the conflict or they are charged with a crime and tried. Individuals captured in a war zone may be held till the conflict is over without ever being charged with a crime.
Therefore this rhetoric about not charging those we capture in a war zone and giving them a trial does not apply or even have ground to stand on. Now if the Afghanistan war and Iraq war ever comes to an end we have no choice but to release these people back to their country if we have not charged them with a crime.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
Yeah, all the negative Iraq coverage has been a clever ploy by the government to increase support for the war.
the positive coverage could be... just like the whole reason for going over there.

 

[rbaldino]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
the positive coverage could be... just like the whole reason for going over there.
If the government had control of the media, then the positive coverage wouldn't have stopped. You can't have it both ways. Either they have complete control, or they have none.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
If the government had control of the media, then the positive coverage wouldn't have stopped. You can't have it both ways. Either they have complete control, or they have none.
or they have some????

 

[rbaldino]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
or they have some????
Some wouldn't do them any good. What's the point of having "some" control of the media? Why even bother if you don't have complete control?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Yes and no, I bet some them are not terrorist or people caught attacking U.S soilders, but some are suspected of knowing something about a terrorist or may just be in wrong place at wrong time. ....
what do you base this on?

 

[aztec reef]

Ok, show me that the Goverment doesn't control the media... Lets talk about OIL..Show me some info about oil, wether we aren't getting any or wether we're getting a barrel a day..or something.. maybe the Goverment has complete control over that hu????
You guys are soo smart let me hear something about oil.. and btw what's the next move on this war???
FYI: any negative story about Iraq doesn't get much coverage..
Do you think there's no other negative storys other than the ones we know of or hear about?? of course there is!!
Most of negative stories LEAK out of the hands of the Goverment..Or some reporter is lucky enuf to find it, which only happends in each full moon..
P>S> remember we're talking about control of WAr reportings & other contraversial subjects.. wich don't get covered enuf, And they should cause they're still over there in Iraq..
"ztec, I'm still waiting for the name of one journalist in jail right now for reporting what the government told them not too."
There's plenty in other countries Yet there's O for the USA..What does that tell you?? that all reporters follow the law? please!!
The Law?
"The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message". what does this tell you!!!

 

[aztec reef]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
We have the right to detain combatants in a war zone until the end of the conflict or they are charged with a crime and tried. Individuals captured in a war zone may be held till the conflict is over without ever being charged with a crime.
Therefore this rhetoric about not charging those we capture in a war zone and giving them a trial does not apply or even have ground to stand on. Now if the Afghanistan war and Iraq war ever comes to an end we have no choice but to release these people back to their country if we have not charged them with a crime.

1. Sure you have the right, how long is this conflict going to take? So you are saying that the war is gonna keep going until the US captures every SUSPECTED single Insurgent, wether they are guilty or not?? Geez your in for the long ride, aren't you! What if most of the pow's aren't guilty..that's a big waste of time...
2. Its fine, charge those that are guilty. I have no problem with that..But if you haven't even charge BIN LADEN or capture him so that he can be tried in the court of law and convicted .. how can you charge some low rank insurgents with anything??
"Now if the Afghanistan war and Iraq war ever comes to an end we have no choice but to release these people back to their country if we have not charged them with a crime"
Then all of your efforts will be fruitless..What if those people that you released ARE actually Terrorists?? but you didn't find any links to alqaeda or any terrorists groups at that moment..that's a big mistake..
The funny thing is that 9/11 wasn't the first attack on american soil, So why did it took a catastrophe such as 911 for the US to invade Iraq?? there has been terrorist threads since i was born, and that's ancient times..
Is it going to take another 911 on american soil for the troops to retrive and secure their homeland first..Lets face it, saddam, his two sons, and a bunch of big players have been taking out.. what's next? I don't think you'll get Usama at least not while stationed over there, he ain't stupid..

 

[aztec reef]

"The government requested that the photos from Abu Garib not be released but they were. If they controlled the media do you think they would have even let that story out?
The New York Times printed stories about secret CIA prisons and then NSA wire taps. Those were questionably national security issues and the government still couldn't prevent them from being reported.
Pat Tillman. You really think the government wanted to acknowledge anything in this case?
---- Cheney hunting accident.
cBS report about Bush being AWOL. This one was even backed up with forged documents and it was reported.
Bill and Monica
Bill and Paula
Bill and Juanita
Whitewater
Ron Brown assasination. They had to dig up his body and do an autopsy to debunk that myth
Ruby Ridge.
I really can't believe anyone would make a serious case about this".

ALL OF THIS ARE CONSIDERED MISDEMINORS to the Goverment!!!! who killed JFK smart guy?!? Show me some manly stuff...

 

[rbaldino]

Originally Posted by Aztec Reef
The Law?
"The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message". what does this tell you!!!
It means that you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there's no fire.

 

[rbaldino]

Aztec, are you even a U.S. citizen? Have you spent much time in the country? It sounds to me like you don't have a very good grasp on our laws and culture.

 

[aztec reef]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
Aztec, are you even a U.S. citizen? Have you spent much time in the country? It sounds to me like you don't have a very good grasp on our laws and culture.
please

..if having a certificate of naturalization doesn't mean it(then i don't know what does).. I've spend plenty of time in this country..You don't even know what your talking about...So go take your meds and answer some of my quetions if you have the Intelligence!!!! You're just mad that i'm making you look dumb! last time i checked there wasn't much culture..and i'm married to an American, so anything that you know about laws or culture i know..But do you know everything that i know??

 

[aztec reef]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
It means that you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there's no fire.

Do you think the Goverment or me gives a rat's arse if you yell fire??? I'm glad i wasn't brought up on Ignorance like you.. thank god!!!