News Pentagon Gags Aussies: US Free Society Double-Standards

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Here is a perfect example of the double-standards imposed by the US supposed "free society".

http://au.news.yahoo.com/031210/21/mv93.html

Freedom of Speech (thought) in the US (sorry, Cuba) is well and truly dead.

 

[Nereid]

But Dogon, don't you know there's a war going on? As Mr Hicks is in Guantanamo Bay, he must be an enemy combatant (if he weren't, he wouldn't be there; the various US authorities are infallible when it comes to being able to tell who's a
'goodie' and who's a 'baddie' ).

One must admire Mr Kenny; he must surely know that the outcome of any trial is certain, so why waste time and money? Worse, the whole thing creates legitimacy where none can possibly exist.

What I'm curious about is why the Bush Administration isn't being slammed harder for their sheer hypocrisy; the State Department is really big on criticising various countries for lack of due process and sham trials, yet it's quite OK for Ashcroft and Rumsfeld to indulge in precisely the same behaviour.

 

[russ_watters]

Freedom if speech is not, never has been, and never was intended to be absolute.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Freedom if speech is not, never has been, and never was intended to be absolute.

Perhaps Dogon will comment on this.

Would you care to comment on the apparent hypocrisy of the Bush Administration fiercely criticising some countries for lack of due process, but engaging in the same behaviour itself?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Nereid
fiercely criticising some countries for lack of due process, but engaging in the same behaviour itself?

just curious..can you give me the quote or something where Bush "fiercely" criticised?

 

[Njorl]

I am of mixed emotions about the detentions at Guantanamo. We ARE engaged in a war. Terrorists do want to harm us. It is entirely reasonable that we may have captured high ranking terrorists who would transmit information through their lawyers if they could, possibly without the lawyer's knowledge.

On the other hand, there has to be some recourse to due process. Many men have recently been released because we learned they were implicated by those who had personal vendettas against them. These ordinary men spent two years in isolated detention for no reason at all. That is appalling. There has to be some independent auditing. Someone has to pay for excesses.

Njorl

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by kat
just curious..can you give me the quote or something where Bush "fiercely" criticised?

A good place to start would be the State Department's Human Rights reports, for example the 2002 one, with this section on Syria:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18289.htm

Some quotes (you can judge for yourself the degree to which they're 'out of context'):

"The Government did not permit independent monitoring of prison or detention center conditions, although diplomatic or consular officials were granted access in high profile cases."

"Arbitrary arrest and detention were significant problems."

"Defendants in civil and criminal trials had the right to bail hearings and the possible release from detention on their own recognizance. Bail was not allowed for those accused of state security offenses. Unlike defendants in regular criminal and civil cases, security detainees did not have access to lawyers prior to or during questioning. "

"Detainees had no legal redress for false arrest. Security forces often did not provide detainees' families with information regarding their welfare or location while in detention. Consequently many persons who have disappeared in past years are believed to be in long-term detention without charge or possibly to have died in detention"

Connection to Bush? Read his speeches on 'the axis of evil'; count the number of references that his team makes in their speeches to human rights (with direct or indirect reference to the State Department's annual reports); ...

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Freedom of Speech IS Absolute

Originally posted by russ_waters;
“Freedom if speech is not, never has been, and never was intended to be absolute.”

Geez, that’s piss-poor.
You are either FOR freedom of speech or AGAINST it.
There is no in-between. There are no boundaries.

I think what Russ means is that Freedom of Speech is a limited right reserved for those who proclaim "acceptable truths" championed by the entrenched establishment.
Am I wrong?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
Originally posted by russ_waters;
“Freedom if speech is not, never has been, and never was intended to be absolute.”

Geez, that’s piss-poor.
You are either FOR freedom of speech or AGAINST it.
There is no in-between. There are no boundaries.

I think what Russ means is that Freedom of Speech is a limited right reserved for those who proclaim "acceptable truths" championed by the entrenched establishment.
Am I wrong?

There are a number of types of speech that are NOT protected by the First Amdendment. They include hate speech, slander/libel, vulgarity, and speech that causes dangerous situations (yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater).

There is no argument on this point. If you want, you can argue whether or not these things should be protected, but it is a FACT that they are NOT.

This is also another one of those scenarios where either you didn't know what you were talking about or you did and purposely misrepresented what I wrote. Ignorance is ok if you are willing to learn. Belligerent ignorance is not ok.

 

[FZ+]

There are a number of types of speech that are NOT protected by the First Amdendment. They include hate speech, slander/libel, vulgarity, and speech that causes dangerous situations (yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater).

Certainly many politicians have been guilty of hate speeches, such as towards a certain Mr Saddam... So when do we impeach them?

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Very Selective...

For a mentor, you have the logic of a gnat;
“There are a number of types of speech that are NOT protected by the First Amdendment. They include hate speech, slander/libel, vulgarity, and speech that causes dangerous situations (yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater).

There is no argument on this point. If you want, you can argue whether or not these things should be protected, but it is a FACT that they are NOT.

This is also another one of those scenarios where either you didn't know what you were talking about or you did and purposely misrepresented what I wrote. Ignorance is ok if you are willing to learn. Belligerent ignorance is not ok.”

I quote Chomsky;
“Noam Chomsky: Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech.”

Read some Noam Chomsky and go back to school. You are the ignorant one;
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/7/1/Chomsky123-127.html

Do you want me to give you some links (I could come up with at least 100) where Bush's speeches contain HATEFUL, RACIST comments. Do you want them?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)


Read some Noam Chomsky and go back to school. You are the ignorant one;

lol, thanks for the laugh.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Boy I like a lot of leftist writers, but anyone who takes Chomky seriously needs a brain lavage. He is the most selective evidence-spinner of 'em all. If an atrocity is done by somebody he likes it's an alleged event, if mentioned at all. Every accidental death by the forces of those he hates (mostly the US) is the worst thing since Attilla the Hun. Read Bear Left, or Chun the Unavoidable, or Ken Macleod, and the people they link to, but avoid Chomsky, the Ann Coulter of the left.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
Read some Noam Chomsky and go back to school.

Jeez, for some reason I thought Jefferson and the other founding fathers wrote the Constitution and based it on the ideas of Locke and Rousseau. Maybe I do need to go back to school.

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Are You Serious?

Oh yeh, Noam Chomsky would know nothing about how the media can manipulate ignorants through the simple use of “selective phrases” and the “dumbing down” of analysis in the English language. After all, he’s only an;
(Institute Professor; Professor of Linguistics. He specialises in Linguistic Theory, Syntax, Semantics, Philosophy of Language)
http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/chomsky.home.html
You’re right. All his books are crap. I don’t know why he bothered. How many of these books have you guys read? I’ve read them all (+ most of the books regarding syntax theory);
http://www.erraticimpact.com/cgi-bin/amazon_products_feed.pl?input_templates=1&input_mode=books&input_string=noam+chomsky
I’m sure, everybody out there feels better that you guys don’t like Chomsky.

Posted by Russ;
“Jeez, for some reason I thought Jefferson and the other founding fathers wrote the Constitution and based it on the ideas of Locke and Rousseau. Maybe I do need to go back to school.”

Oh yeh, Rousseau. The guy was the original blueprint for the Nazi. Taken from;
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/rousseau.htm
“The Social Contract, on the text that all men are born free and equal, regards the State as a contract in which individuals surrender none of their natural rights, but rather agree for the protection of them. Most remarkable in this projected republic was the provision to banish aliens to the state religion and to punish dissenters with death. The Social Contract became the text-book of the French Revolution, and Rousseau's theories as protests bore fruit in the frenzied bloody orgies of the Commune as well as in the rejuvenation of France and the history of the entire Western world.”

And when you say Locke, are you referring to this raving Christian loonie?
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/locke.htm
“Locke's greatest philosophical contribution is his Essay, and we have his own account of the origin of that work. In the winter of 1670, five or six friends were conversing in his room, probably in London. The topic was the "principles of morality and revealed religion," but difficulties arose and no progress was made.”

But don’t listen to me, I obviously don’t know what I am talking about…

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

The Fourth Reich’s Illegal Detention of Hicks

Back to the bull**** double-standards that I started this thread for. Let David Hicks go.
David Hicks’ daily doings;
http://blogs.salon.com/0001186/
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8181030%255E1702,00.html
http://www.fairgofordavid.org/

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Let David Go!

Three years and no charges.
Just let him go (he's not going to start a Terrorist Cell, for Christ's sake).

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/16/1082055627374.html

 

[member 5645]

I quote Chomsky;
“Noam Chomsky: Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech.”

You've got to be kidding me...

 

[Zero]

You've got to be kidding me...

Problem with freedom?

 

[kawikdx225]

Are you people suggesting that yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre should be protected as free speech??

 

[Zero]

Are you people suggesting that yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre should be protected as free speech??

Yes...if there is an actual fire, or at least the appearance or odor of smoke.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes...if there is an actual fire, or at least the appearance or odor of smoke.

I'm sure you know, Zero, that wasn't the intent of the question. 'Yelling "fire" in a crouded theater' is the standard case study on the limit of the freedom of speech right. We've discussed it before.

edit: Oy - this is the thread where we discussed it before. It so didn't need to be resurrected.

 

[Zero]

I'm sure you know, Zero, that wasn't the intent of the question. 'Yelling "fire" in a crouded theater' is the standard case study on the limit of the freedom of speech right. We've discussed it before.

edit: Oy - this is the thread where we discussed it before. It so didn't need to be resurrected.

I knew exactly what I was talking about. Some people will insist that nothing should be said even as the place is burning down around our ears. You know, like accusing people or being negative, as though you can't be negative and also right.

 

[Adam]

Are you people suggesting that yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre should be protected as free speech??

Absolutely. Free speech should be limited not by the state (which leads to someone else enforcing their standards on the individual), but by personal responsibility. I know that's probably a rare thing in the land of litigation, but I like it.

 

[pelastration]

These ordinary men spent two years in isolated detention for no reason at all. That is appalling. There has to be some independent auditing. Someone has to pay for excesses.

And KIDS, remember?
What was their age: 12, 13 and 14. Was the kid of 12 a personal assistent to Osama? A general? A bom-specialist? ...

And about freedom of speech in US? Does include that also the ban on photo's about the coffins? We know why don't we ... one image tells more than 1000 words.
Have you ever seen some on the net?

 

[kat]

And KIDS, remember?
What was their age: 12, 13 and 14. Was the kid of 12 a personal assistent to Osama? A general? A bom-specialist? ...

I don't know...I remember that 14 year old afghani who was head of his own regiment..child soldiers are a big and very serious issue..
It seemed like these kids were better off (and actually enjoyed, comparatively) at Guatanamo bay then they were being used as soldiers..maybe?

 

[RageSk8]

I'm sure you know, Zero, that wasn't the intent of the question. 'Yelling "fire" in a crouded theater' is the standard case study on the limit of the freedom of speech right.

Yes, it is the cliché response and it is a valid example. It is also illegal to threaten to kill someone (assault). However, what the hell do these (valid) examples have to do with the gag order on the Aussie lawyer? Absolutely nothing! I view your and kat's posts on this thread as incredibly irrelevant, even laughably so. That is not to let Adam off the hook for being sucked into your mindless dribble and stating absurdly off base views of free speech. The question at hand is whether or not the US government is overstepping its bounds in the censorship of Kenny. Parading hackneyed expressions that are inapplicable to the topic does the thread a disservice.

Alright, back to topic. I am no legal expert, so I cannot give a definitive opinion. But this situation sure as hell doesn?t look good. There is no tailoring of the governments gag, Kenny can't speak publicly about "anything to do with Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks." (emphasis mine)

 

[Dayle Record]

Democracy and freedom of speech are convenient, and colorful banners with which to wrap ones self while making speeches.

Democracy and freedom of speech are somewhat a moot point, if ones body is dead, or if one belongs to a gender that has no value in a society except for services rendered. So regarding the "kids" serving as soldiers, here is an old Afghani saying. "Better a girl have her first period in her husbands house than in her fathers house." These "kids" in the fundamentalist world are used in every way imaginable, and then they also have great power. Shall we say that they are accepted as adult in society as soon as they even vaguely mature sexually. This is how we used to be, when the queens and kings of Europe were teenagers. An historical figure like Napoleon's Josephine, was eighteen at her coronation, maybe even younger. These youthful and wealthy and all powerful rulers brought Europe such smash hits as the Hundred Years War, and etc.

So democracy was only supposed to ever work, if the society was educated. With our results oriented new Corporate Government, education is there for those that are willing to man a corporate niche, soldiers if you will, in the cause of commerce. I had a history teacher who used to wax passionate regarding the fact that The United States Of America is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. We would do well to remember that. Freedom of speech is moot, if the information that needs to be spoken is concealed in the confidential paperwork of corporations, that subcontract for the government; but do not answer to the government of the people, by the people and for the people. For this current government to babble on about bringing Democracy there or there, why don't they try it out here first?

The next time the President speaks in Utah, or the Vice President, we can just go over to our little "Free Speech Area", and talk among our selves, unless of course, we are given such headaches we can't even hear or speak, by the new, sonic crowd control weaponry that has been developed in the private sector, for sale to the Government. Well if the government legislates that it is too inhumane for the military (chortle), then the private subcontractors can always haul it out, pointing out that Rock Concerts are loud, and jet airplanes, so what's the fuss? Freedom of speech? Look up silent scream, on google. A lot of this equipment is made by mainstream makers of audio systems, so, silent scream, or microwave to skull communications, coming to a theater near you. The folks that make this equipment will have no problem with the freedom of speech, or screech issue.

White scientists rule, if not now, very soon. You will be able to say, "Yes, yes, yes sir.", all you like. Let us practice now.

 

[pelastration]

I don't know...I remember that 14 year old afghani who was head of his own regiment..child soldiers are a big and very serious issue..
It seemed like these kids were better off (and actually enjoyed, comparatively) at Guatanamo bay then they were being used as soldiers..maybe?

So apply this too on the criminal gangs of youngster in NY, Chicago, LA, ...? No rights, no lawyer, ... all communication forbidden ...

 

[Adam]

These "kids" in the fundamentalist world...

This, from Utah? :P

 

[toloXXX]

This, from Utah? :P

Yes, Utah.
See location ?

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Hicks Is Innocent by USA Admissions

Hicks (by the US's own admission) has never;
(1) Fought against any US forces
(2) Never harmed any US citizen (or threatened to harm)
(3) Was "on the outer" of the "outlawed" organisation, he was supposedly involved in.

Hicks is a scapegoat for an Admin desperately trying to justify it's stuff-ups, and cover-ups related to it's fictional "war on terrorism". Its all a smokescreen...

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, it is the cliché response and it is a valid example. It is also illegal to threaten to kill someone (assault). However, what the hell do these (valid) examples have to do with the gag order on the Aussie lawyer? Absolutely nothing! I view your and kat's posts on this thread as incredibly irrelevant, even laughably so.

This thread was dug-up from the dead after 4 months and got a little fractured. I used that example on the first page and it followed directly an assertion that freedom of speech was 'dead,' and the implication that it must be absolue to exist at all.

There was another issue that I either missed or let go at the time: the characterization of those held in 'Gitmo was incorrect in several posts - and I believe that was what kat was getting at. We discussed that in another thread though.

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

I Dug It Up Because Americans Like To Bury Injustice

Let's bury this thread six feet under, wrap it's coffin in the Stars 'n' Stripes, and pray for American justice - which is dead.

David Hicks is still illegally interned in a Concentration Camp in Cuba. The issue remains alive, even though his rights are non-existent.

When American treats it's allies like this, what hope it's enemies?

 

[kat]

Let's bury this thread six feet under, wrap it's coffin in the Stars 'n' Stripes, and pray for American justice - which is dead.

David Hicks is still illegally interned in a Concentration Camp in Cuba. The issue remains alive, even though his rights are non-existent.

When American treats it's allies like this, what hope it's enemies?

I could swear I saw a transcript from a pre-trial hearing on this guy. But, anyway...Americans are treating a person who was a member of a terrorist organization and captured in the middle of a war like this, he's not an ally...if anything he's a traitor and an illegal combatant.

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Posted by kat:
"I could swear I saw a transcript from a pre-trial hearing on this guy."
Bull****

"..if anything he's a traitor and an illegal combatant."
A traitor to who?
Not to me, I'm Australian, you're not.
"..who was a member of a terrorist organization and captured in the middle of a war like this.."
Which organisation?
What war?

Show me the transcript, or go back to LAH-LAH Land...

 

[hughes johnson]

Freedom of Speech (thought) in the US (sorry, Cuba) is well and truly dead.

Freedom of speech (thought) in the US is alive and well. Check out our newspapers, and our television and radio stations and you will see how wrong you are. You are badly misinformed.

 

[kat]

Posted by kat:
"I could swear I saw a transcript from a pre-trial hearing on this guy."
Bull****

"..if anything he's a traitor and an illegal combatant."
A traitor to who?
Not to me, I'm Australian, you're not.
"..who was a member of a terrorist organization and captured in the middle of a war like this.."
Which organisation?
What war?[/QUOTE[

Apparently people in YOUR government think it was Al Queda.

Journalist: Reports that David Hicks was trained as a suicide bomber ...(inaudible)...

Downer: Well I don't know about suicide bomber, but I do know that David Hicks trained with al-Qaida. And this was something we ourselves were aware of. This is something that has been confirmed by David Hicks' father. And this is something that has now been confirmed by an investigating officer apparently. But the fact is that David Hicks trained with al-Qaida, which is the world's most evil terrorist organisation. And he of course has got himself into a great deal of trouble as a result of that. We hope that his hearing before the military commission will take place soon, and that's a work in progress. But it's merciful if it's true that he was asked to be a suicide bomber he said he wouldn't. That at least is a merciful thing.

Journalist: What's your understanding of the nature of the training?

Downer: Well I don't have the details with me now, and I would have to recheck. But as I understand it, it was broadly speaking terrorist training with al-Qaida, and there were various components of that - weapons training and training for urban activities and so on.

Show me the transcript, or go back to LAH-LAH Land...

Oh byte me I never presented it as anything concrete.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

There's at least one US citizen in Gitmo, correct?

 

[hughes johnson]

pray for American justice - which is dead.

David Hicks is still illegally interned in a Concentration Camp in Cuba.

When American treats it's allies like this, what hope it's enemies?

American justice is alive and well. The vast majority of the people on our streets do not belong in prison, and the vast majority of the people in our prisons do not belong on our streets. American justice works very well, thank you very much.

No court has ruled that the terrorist Hicks is imprisoned illegally, as far as I know.

We don't consider terrorists like Hicks to be our allies.

 

[Nereid]

American justice is alive and well. The vast majority of the people on our streets do not belong in prison, and the vast majority of the people in our prisons do not belong on our streets. American justice works very well, thank you very much.

No court has ruled that the terrorist Hicks is imprisoned illegally, as far as I know.

We don't consider terrorists like Hicks to be our allies.

How do you know he's a 'terrorist'? Because John Ashcroft/GW/Rummy said so? How do they know?

Unless I'm mistaken, a US citizen in the US cannot be held indefinitely in Gitmo without any charges being made against her, and an opportunity (however proscribed) to defend herself against those charges. Further, if a US citizen is held indefinitely by the authorities in some non-US country, without charges, I am sure John, Dubya, and the boys would raise all kinds of fuss. And doesn't the State Department castigate regimes quite harshly for lack of due process? In fact, isn't that an element in the reason given by Wolfie, today, why Saddam just 'had' to be overthrown??

Remind me again how you spell 'hypocrisy'

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Posted by kat:
"Oh byte me I never presented it as anything concrete."
You never present anything at all.

Next time Olly North (can easily be applied to ANY American citizen, with a bit of "spin") takes a holiday to a foreign country, I hope some rogue nation's terrorists (Intelligence Agencies) pick him up, charge him with "picking some daisies from a garden", make all sorts of unsubstantiated allegations, lock him in a cage (you wouldn't keep a dog in", and withhold all info from the public.

Like Nereid said, you'd all be crying like babies if it was of your own. In fact, you'd probably lob a couple of Crusie Missiles and use your Veto.

 

[Adam]

"Oh byte me I never presented it as anything concrete."
You never present anything at all.

Oh, that's not entirely true. If you say black is black, white is white, she'll argue that it's open to interpretation until she's blue in the face.

Anyway, the international law has been covered extensively. Even the USA's own civil rights groups know it. The ONLY group on the opposing side is the USA govermnent, which just happens to have all the guns and money.

 

[kat]

Oh, that's not entirely true. If you say black is black, white is white, she'll argue that it's open to interpretation until she's blue in the face.

And adam hominem the king of ad hominem chimes in.

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Kat's Wasted Posts

Hey kat, out of 703 posts, have you EVER had 1 idea of your own?

Feel free to prove me wrong, by posting something original (ie. a thought of YOUR OWN).

You logged off pretty quickly, after I posted that Kat. Ha ha...

 

[Adam]

Woohoo! Bite that worm!

 

[hughes johnson]

Next time Olly North (can easily be applied to ANY American citizen, with a bit of "spin") takes a holiday to a foreign country, I hope some rogue nation's terrorists (Intelligence Agencies) pick him up, charge him with "picking some daisies from a garden", make all sorts of unsubstantiated allegations, lock him in a cage (you wouldn't keep a dog in", and withhold all info from the public.

"Can easily be applied to ANY American citizen"? You hope that "ANY American citizen" is picked up by terrorists and locked up in a cage? Is this what you really hope for? This would make you feel good?

 

[schwarzchildradius]

rotfl. okay come on somebody answer my little question please?
BTW so I've heard, WW2 vets are angry about what's going on in Gitmo, for the obvious (to some) precedent that it sets, i.e. American P.O.W.'s & US citizens could be detained indefinitely with no law & order except the law of the jungle, and that's unacceptable to civilized human beings.

 

[kat]

There's at least one US citizen in Gitmo, correct?

something original for you ...no, there are not any there that I am aware of. I believe early on there were a few who were naturalized citizens but they are not there any longer.


*edit: actually, the more I think about this..I don't think there were actually any americans held at Gitmo. Someone else can chime in and help me out...John Lindh was the only American? Although there was prescedence from Ex Parte Quirin that could have allowed the United States to claim he had renounced his citizen ship and then treat him the same as other the other combatants.

 

[kat]

BTW so I've heard, WW2 vets are angry about what's going on in Gitmo, for the obvious (to some) precedent that it sets, i.e. American P.O.W.'s & US citizens could be detained indefinitely with no law & order except the law of the jungle, and that's unacceptable to civilized human beings.

It's interesting that WW2 vets would say this about Gitmo setting a precedent when the precedent was set because of a case involving German combatants during the ww2 era.