Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Pentagon Gags Aussies

  1. Dec 9, 2003 #1
    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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 10, 2003 #2

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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' :wink: ).

    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.
     
  4. Dec 11, 2003 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Freedom if speech is not, never has been, and never was intended to be absolute.
     
  5. Dec 11, 2003 #4

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  6. Dec 11, 2003 #5

    kat

    User Avatar

    just curious..can you give me the quote or something where Bush "fiercely" criticised?
     
  7. Dec 11, 2003 #6

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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
     
  8. Dec 11, 2003 #7

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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); ...
     
  9. Dec 15, 2003 #8
    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?
     
  10. Dec 16, 2003 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: Freedom of Speech IS Absolute

    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 arguement 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.
     
  11. Dec 16, 2003 #10

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Certainly many politicians have been guilty of hate speeches, such as towards a certain Mr Saddam... So when do we impeach them?
     
  12. Dec 16, 2003 #11
    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 arguement 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?
     
  13. Dec 16, 2003 #12

    kat

    User Avatar

    Re: Very Selective...

    lol, thanks for the laugh.:wink:
     
  14. Dec 16, 2003 #13

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  15. Dec 16, 2003 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: Very Selective...

    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.
     
  16. Dec 17, 2003 #15
    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-bi...=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…
     
  17. Dec 17, 2003 #16
  18. Apr 15, 2004 #17
  19. Apr 16, 2004 #18
    You've got to be kidding me......
     
  20. Apr 16, 2004 #19
    Problem with freedom?
     
  21. Apr 16, 2004 #20
    Are you people suggesting that yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre should be protected as free speech????????????
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Pentagon Gags Aussies
  1. Pentagon Strike 9-11 (Replies: 2)

Loading...