This is coming from Republicans. They want to prosecute journalists who uncover the criminal and stupid things politicians do. For example, the video shows US Armed Forces in Iraq killing a journalist. The government wants to keep stuff like that secret. I wonder why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSMwe...&feature=share
We can't trust Republicans or Democrats to protect our freedom.
- CuteOldGuy
- 07-14-2012, 02:19 AM
- JD Barleycorn
- 07-14-2012, 05:41 AM
I would say that there is a vast difference between government wrong doing and the military. A lot of military wrong doing is done in the heat of the moment and many times there is not a complete understanding of the situation. A government official does not act in the heat of the moment and has plenty of time to understand far too well what they are doing. The idiot calling himself a journalist is wong when he said the Constitution says you can say whatever you want to say. It does not say that and the courts have found that in a number of cases. John Marshall's court decided that "fightin words" did not deserve constitutional protection and that was less than 20 years after the Constitution was written.
The nasty truth is that the freedom of the press is not absolute. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. spoke of a "clear and present danger" when he wrote the supporting opinion for the Espionage Act of 1917. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater and you can't endanger national security by printing a story. In fact an editor can be put in jail for approving of a story though it has not happened in a long time. The closest thing was the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s.
The video shows a helicopter firing on what someone called civilians. We don't really know, we have to take someone's word for it. We don't know the reason why the helicopter fired on a group of men in Iraq. I don't take the word of a leaker unless they can give me the context.
The nasty truth is that the freedom of the press is not absolute. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. spoke of a "clear and present danger" when he wrote the supporting opinion for the Espionage Act of 1917. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater and you can't endanger national security by printing a story. In fact an editor can be put in jail for approving of a story though it has not happened in a long time. The closest thing was the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s.
The video shows a helicopter firing on what someone called civilians. We don't really know, we have to take someone's word for it. We don't know the reason why the helicopter fired on a group of men in Iraq. I don't take the word of a leaker unless they can give me the context.
- Whirlaway
- 07-14-2012, 06:20 AM
This is a much more important (and real) threat to the Constitution and ones' right to freedom of speech....and the Democrats are the offending party...
http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.a...#ixzz20V7CFbFv
http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.a...#ixzz20V7CFbFv
- Guest123018-4
- 07-14-2012, 08:05 AM
War is hell. The very nature of war is to win at any cost. Anything else is a police action.
The goal of war is to force a surrender and to submit to the terms of surrender.
We should not be fighting anywhere that a war has not been declared.
We cannot afford to be the police force for the rest of the world.
If they want us to be the police, they need to pay us for that work.
We declare war, we pay and sacrifice to win at any cost.
Why has this concept been lost.
The goal of war is to force a surrender and to submit to the terms of surrender.
We should not be fighting anywhere that a war has not been declared.
We cannot afford to be the police force for the rest of the world.
If they want us to be the police, they need to pay us for that work.
We declare war, we pay and sacrifice to win at any cost.
Why has this concept been lost.
- CJ7
- 07-14-2012, 05:37 PM
deflections from the rightwingers
- UB9IB6
- 07-15-2012, 05:13 AM
War is hell. The very nature of war is to win at any cost. Anything else is a police action.
The goal of war is to force a surrender and to submit to the terms of surrender.
We should not be fighting anywhere that a war has not been declared.
We cannot afford to be the police force for the rest of the world.
If they want us to be the police, they need to pay us for that work.
We declare war, we pay and sacrifice to win at any cost.
Why has this concept been lost. Originally Posted by The2Dogs
I cannot believe I'm saying this... Really.
But I whole heartlessly agree with you.
No offense... Not usually a fan of your postings , but you hit the nail on the head.
We won ww2 because we did atrocious things that were not exposed by the media. Worked.
I'm a commie pinko socialist marxist left wing radical that believes that a war is no place for being a pussy.
- Guest040616
- 07-15-2012, 07:00 AM
I cannot believe I'm saying this... Really.I get along fine with 2Dogs, in fact he still owes me an insiginificant amount of money from a political bet that he lost. (I would rather him owe me than beat me out of it! LOL) The significance of the bet was he lost and I won. The money was inconsequential, at least from my perspective! We have been reading each others political posts longer than either of us care to mention. With all of that said, he does have a different set of standards on the topic of international conflict.
But I whole heartlessly agree with you.
No offense... Not usually a fan of your postings , but you hit the nail on the head.
We won ww2 because we did atrocious things that were not exposed by the media. Worked.
I'm a commie pinko socialist marxist left wing radical that believes that a war is no place for being a pussy. Originally Posted by UB9IB6
I do not recall 2Pups complaining too much when GW lost focus on the perpetrator's of 9/11 and decided to invade Iraq. Apparently he has more tolerance for international conflict when his personal heroes (Dub, Cheney, Wolfie, Condi and Rummy) decide a little international police action is in America's best interest!