|
Post by TheCritique on Oct 8, 2004 20:24:08 GMT
I am depressed to announce the murder of Ken Bigley. But this topic is discussion over the crucial question:
Should the freedom of the press to report Iraq kidnappings be prohibited?
Think about it: Why do these militant groups take hostages?: Press coverage - attempting to rally the masses against governments. So if the public was oblivious to hostage takings, as the press is prohibited, and as governments cannot negociate with terrorists, hostage taking would become utterly pointless.
So by restricting freedom of the press, we would potentially be saving lives.
Any comments?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 8, 2004 20:28:35 GMT
I don't think there should be much press coverage, in the case of the Mardi Gra bomber the police instigated a media blackout on the bomber's activity because he craved media attention. In these circumstances it may be better to keep the general public in the dark in these cases, especially when news of a very emotional video showing Ken Bigley in a cage pleading for his life was shown on TV and stills from it put on news websites & in newspapers. I think this is very insensitive indeed to show something like that to the general public. Just my opinion of course, I feel very sorry for the family of Ken Bigley. I always held some hope this could be resolved in a better way, sadly it has come to a brutal and unjustified murder once again.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 8, 2004 22:19:37 GMT
I'd like to know what Billy Connolly has to say for himself now, after those tactless jokes he made a couple of days back. It's yet another truly obscene waste of human life, but almost fading into the background of so many thousands of lives already lost to the conflict.
On the matter you raise, Will, the freedom of the press is always a matter of deep ambivalence for me. On the one hand, there's no doubt that it's a freedom that is very important. Anything that is allowed to gag sources of information has terrible power, as it can do anything without being exposed for it or held to account. On the other hand, there's no doubt many areas of the media, especially tabloid newspapers, abuse that freedom sickeningly. And of course there's the matter you raise of publicity seekers, especially of the violent kind, benefitting from the oxygen of exposure. The establishment exploits silence, the anti-establishment exploits the sound.
To be honest, I think the balance is more or less right as it stands. The one area that needs straightening out is the ongoing problem of the press itself exploiting its own sound for sensationalism.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 9, 2004 17:00:13 GMT
There really is no right or wrong answer, just to how far in either direction things should be allowed. The public have a right to be informed but taking it too far is removing the privacy that emotional and sensitive videos should be treated with. As for Billy Connolly I was both shocked and appalled at how he could bring himself to make such unfunny and thoughtless comments in such a situation. I did think Billy was a pretty funny guy up until reading about those comments, I hope he & his fans are truely disgusted with him. Senationalism is the worst part of today's media, along with the fact that as soon as news happens we are told how to think about things through slanted media coverage (although a lot of that is more in the US than here). A lot of papers hype up stupid things to the point where the Iraq war is knocked off the news to talk about some starlet's engagement, or another star's sex scandal.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Oct 9, 2004 20:12:01 GMT
I must agree on the Billy Connelly matter. He went far too far on this issue and his aim outstretched his reach, and he should apologise for the remarks. Especially seeing as Mr Bigley has been killed. His remarks were tactless and cheap attempt to gain a humorous response. Personally I never found him funny to begin with.
But now onto the main issue. TheCritique is right, if we did not have this much media coverage in this first place then the terrorists would not carry out kidnappings, and perhaps if we did restrict access to Iraq then it might work. However, I going to have to say that I think that the media should be allowed to stay there. For the simple reason that it is their job to report on events going on elsewhere in the world. Could imagine the public outcry if their access was shut off. We have had enough controversy and scandal surrounding this war and it's events already. If the Coalition were to shut out the media altogether, then there would be pandemonium.
Public opinion would state that the politicians must have something to hide. AND the Coalition is in enough trouble as it is. The leaders need to stay in power long enough to finish the job that they started; otherwise Iraq will remain as it is. A MESS. As well, we all have a right to know what is happening there, and it would be farcical to shut off the only real the families of the soldiers and others have to the events that are effecting their loved ones. No, the implications are too great. But I mourn Mr Bigley, and my heart goes out to family at this dark hour.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 9, 2004 20:49:14 GMT
No one has, to the best of my knowledge from rereading all the posts here, suggested we remove all media from Iraq. We're debating the freedom to report kidnappings, one aspect in a big picture, you seemed to have jumped the gun on this. It's pretty obvious there would be a huge outcry & so no one has suggested the full removal of the press.
Certain events must be reported, but others I believe, for instance the broadcasting of a doomed man's desperate last appeal for help, should not really be broadcast to the general public. We do have a right to know what is going on, but perhaps only the important details should be broadcast & things like the case of Ken Bigley show a bit too much media coverage. Sometimes the media must be responsible and know when to keep their distance.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 11, 2004 8:45:38 GMT
I wouldn't assume the terrorists only kidnap people for media attention, they do it for leverage with the governments. Regardless of whether it gets out, the government is meant to protect it's citizens above all else. Removing the press's right to tell people would remove the accountablity of the government, and so even if kidnappings continued they'd be quite free to ignore anything to do with it, and just abandon people to their fate.
The freedom of the press is the only thing which holds governments in line, and to remove that from Iraq by allowing a gag that B 'n' B can slap down on whatever issue they can justify (and it'd be all of them) would be a disaster. They're already acting as power-mad imperialists, and giving either of them even more power is absurd.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Oct 11, 2004 11:40:12 GMT
Hardly. Will a government that sent thousands of troops to secure our oil supplies, causing the death of many troops and thousands of Iraqi civilians in the process really care about one civilian? The only reason they care is because of the implications it has on them – the press attention – the public attention. So they invest all these resources and manpower in hostage searches when they could be better used protecting larger numbers of Iraqi civilians – to be seen to be doing the right thing.
While the freedom of the press is a great check on the power and actions of governments, there are already D-Notices, which can be issued to prevent the press reporting the specified event. So governments already have the power to hamper the press. The question is should they exercise it in hostage crises.
And its not like hostage crises are going to affect the government’s power. If the government was handing itself more powers, then it is right that that should be brought to the public attention. But what of a hostage crisis? What power does that bring to governments.
So to conclude, hostage takers know that their actions will not have much leverage on governments without the press attention in those countries – people power. Therefore, we should restrict the press, as it will, in the long run, save lives, and does not increase the government’s power – hostage takers will not bother.
In other news - Mike, reading your post I could not ascertain your position on this subject. Please verify.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 11, 2004 12:22:55 GMT
Will, I said a government is MEANT to protect it's people. The fact is they wouldn't if the press didn't hold them to account for it, and that's why the press shouldn't be kept away from situations like this. However, they should have a monitoring body to ensure that it remains tasteful and sympathetic, rather than becoming some kind of press freak-show to sell more copies.
The argument that the government used to justify the war was one of protection. They NEVER admitted it was a war for oil. They will always claim that it was done to protect the people, because otherwise the press will tear them apart, and rightly so. The government endangered thousands of soldiers, killed many innocent civilians, and even now imprisons others for no really sound reason at all. Yes, there are D-notices, but the government only uses them extremely rarely because gagging the press is cutting freedom of speech, which is almost unjustifiable. To allow them to do it for hostage crisises would just expand the power and they'd start trying to get it for anything else. Fifty troops killed in Baghdad? Keep it quiet, or the public'll moan about being stuck in a war they were against. Al-Qeada bomb a previously neutral country that joined the coalition? Hush it up, don't want coalition citizens worrying about that. Just gives the terrorists attention in both cases, but people should be told.
Governments should serve their people, but they won't even pretend to try to unless you have the press to tell the people what's going on. Even a very specific cut in press freedoms can be distorted and abused by the kind low-down filthy slime that we seem to like electing in the UK and US, and so should be avoided at all cost.
More importantly, if hostage takers stop taking them then they'll probably just switch to doing stuff too big to hush up. Planes and buildings, trains, maybe oil tankers. Not going to really save lives, is it? They aren't going to go 'oh well, theres no chance we can get them to stop, we might as well just give up this terrorist lark and sell double-glazing instead', they're still going to want to put their message out. You don't change anything except how they choose to do it, and what if they (inevitably) choose something far more violent and dangerous than hostage-taking?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 11, 2004 17:38:44 GMT
There's also the practical point that it's not actually possible to gag the press these days. The internet is so vast and so difficult to police that the news will filter through one way or another. At best it will be delayed by a few days.
Furthermore, I'd argue that press coverage of these things will demonstrate to people when they just shouldn't be going to dangerous parts of the world i.e. any post-revolutionary environment. The enormity of the danger often misses people when they aren't faced with the full reality of the threat (which, let's face it, was one of the reasons why Bigley was there in the first place; because he didn't realise the true danger).
I'd even argue that silencing the press in these situations, at least in the short term, will probably increase the threat to hostages. As long as media attention is possible, the hostage-takers will have a reason to keep their prisoners alive. If they find that nobody's paying a blind bit of notice, the hostages will cease to be of any use to them and will almost certainly be executed.
But above all, I just think that, as Nas has pointed out, gagging the press is the start of a slippery slope into the realm of governmental total control, especially government control of message. It must not be allowed. The flow of information must be, like the Law of the land itself, an independent power, unto itself, able to judge and apply to everyone, and not just those below the top strata. It must not controlled by those in power at the top of society. Freedom of message is the only check against their unlimited power. To take away that would make them unanswerable to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Oct 13, 2004 9:58:49 GMT
On the contrary: All the press are saying that Bigley’s fate was sealed from the beginning. The press attention will merely make the death have more impact on the public – the reason for the start of this topic.
But your argument that press coverage actually saves lives is logical: People, seeing the threat of kidnapping, will avoid Iraq – this could result in less kidnappings also.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 13, 2004 11:08:34 GMT
I wouldn't say his fate was sealed from the start. It's entirely possible he would have been released if some of those illegally held without trial by coalition (read: US) governments had been released. So unless you mean that his fate was sealed by Dick, Bush and Blair (Read: arsehole. The three fit better, and it more or less fits) then I wouldn't say he was doomed.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 13, 2004 16:15:45 GMT
On the contrary: All the press are saying that Bigley’s fate was sealed from the beginning. The press attention will merely make the death have more impact on the public. Well, as usual we should be careful about accepting everything we read in a newspaper, but the point was that as long as Bigley existed as a bargaining chip of some kind the kidnappers had a reason to keep him alive. Maybe long enough at least to give the security forces more time to search for him. I know there was no way the kidnappers were going to free him, but he might have been rescued, and while there may have been a slim chance of that, it's still better than no chance at all. We should also remember that Bigley was executed having tried to escape. If he hadn't tried that he may still have been alive now.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Oct 13, 2004 18:41:08 GMT
The speculation is that the ringleader of this group knows how to manipulate the media. He was trying to make sure Bigley was a big public issue, and then get massive attention when they finally executed him.
And this speculation is backed up by the nature of the hostage takers' demands: Release all women prisoners. The only two women imprisoned are scientist supporters of Saddam's regieme. I.e. They cannot be released. But the kidnappers still persisted in their demands, although they knew that their demands could not be met. Therefore it seems like Bigley's fate was sealed from the moment he was taken captive.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 14, 2004 8:52:57 GMT
Well now that's hard to say. Could it not just be that, outraged by the now numerous scandals involving US prisoners being, to say the least, mis-treated, the hostage takers wanted to ensure that the two women would come to no harm? Asking for the release of just two prisoners is quite reasonable, actually, and what exactly did the group have to gain by executing Ken without any of their demands being met? Five minutes of fame? "I was the guy wearing the balaclava on that tape!" Not exactly a starring role.
I find it interesting that, in the fox-hunting thread, you say not to trust what the papers say, but here you're quite happy to base and argument upon it.
There was no reason why the women couldn't be released and kept under house-arrest or servelance, really. Except for the stubbornness of the US and UK attitude. They ask for TWO people to be released, two women who cannot be terrorists due to the fundamental laws of Islam, and this is supposed to be thoroughly unreasonable? If I'd been looking to make a demand I knew would never be met, I'd demand Saddam's re-instatement, or the withdrawl of US troops from Kabul, or some such. Not that two unimportant non-military prisoners be released.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Oct 14, 2004 16:14:25 GMT
There's a difference you appear to have ignored: The newspaper in question in the fox hunting topic is the Mirror. This is only one newspaper.
Meanwhile, with this topic, the Bigley speculation stated in my previous post appears in loads of newspapers (I'd go as far to say all of them), including broadsheets. Therefore the Bigley newspaper argument has more 'substance', don't you think?
If two high profile prisoners were released, that alone could cause trouble: What if they join Al Qaeda, or conspire? House arrest is not a solution. Prison is.
Considering these women's part in Saddam's regieme they ought to be locked up permanantly.
And, most important of all, we CANNOT[/i] negociate with terrorists: If the west is seen to be negociating with terrorists, kidnappings would increase, and any ransom funds would proliferate terrorism. etc. etc. The reasons are quite obvious, really.
Why? If they see it as supporting their Islamic cause, why not?
That's out of perspective. Executing hostages strikes fear into ordinary people - they can gain from that. And no demand they make is reasonable - we cannot negociate, as said before in this post.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 14, 2004 17:28:41 GMT
First up, how many newspapers outside of the West will be so supportive?
Second, the Fox hunting thing, admittedly, was only reported on here to be in the Mirror. However, that's only because we didn't look for others very hard. I'll have another spin on LexisNexis tomorrow if I get time, see what I can dig up.
Third, fundamentalist Islam does not allow women to be terrorists. They cannot be warriors of any form, in fact. They are property, and are treated as such. A man does not send his pigs or his wife into battle, he goes himself. Islamic terrorists are almost all men.
Forth, if we can't negociate with terrorists, then: a) what exactly are the peace talks in Northern Ireland (sorry, forgot. that's negotiation with freedom fighters, isn't it)
b) Why does the CIA not merely talk with, but fund and even RUN so many terrorist groups? (Shit, no, those are freedom fighters again, aren't they.)
c) Why, in essence, do we do it ALL THE TIME?
In what way is asking that two female prisoners, who are held without trial, be released so unreasonable?
When people have been invaded, their homes destroyed, their government diposed, their jobs destroyed, their police force scattered, and generally their lives ruined, you have to expect them to have something to say about it. Then, when you hold their wives in a prison and you refuse to acknowledge any lawful attempts to register a protest, people will turn to terrorism.
Iraq didn't have a terrorist problem under Saddam. It does now.
Afganistan didn't have a terrorist problem under the Taliban. It does now.
Are you spotting a pattern yet? The US has ruined these people's lives and occupied their country. It has imprisoned their people (usually without trial), shut down their media, and has been seen to have TORTURED their people. I don't think that killing Ken Bigley was right, or fair, or just. But these people may well have tried reason over and over and hit a blank wall. So they tried the only thing left to them. The demands they gave weren't exactly hugely taxing. They didn't want money, or guns, or tactical nuclear weapons. They wanted two people to be set free. And the governments of the UK and the US ignored them completely.
This isn't so one-sided as you would have us believe, or as the papers would have us believe either.
Oh, and by the way; house arrest is a solution to the women joining Al Qaeda (who wouldn't take them anyway) or 'conspiring'. Being in a house that is monitored constantly tends to keep you from active terrorist activity.
|
|
|
Post by Incubus on Oct 14, 2004 18:04:06 GMT
I don't exactly think that shooting and beheading innocent people is the last resort that Iraq has. If they cared about their own well-being, they wouldn't demand the release of some of the most dangerous female terrorists in Iraq.
Terrorists are anti-constitutional fanatics. They claim that "Allah"has allowed them to wage holy war against innocent people, even though the Koran states that pacifism is essential to being a Muslim (I may be wrong in my quotation, as I have never actually read the Koran, but have heard it from secondary sources).
Certain US and UK army battalions may be abusing their powers by torturing and cruelly abusing Iraqi prisoners, but that does not represent the whole of the two countries. You all heard the news about the recent mass grave discovery; Saddam Hussein was treating his OWN people like a piece of paper being torn to pieces, and this is why the war is justified, despite the fact that Blair seems to have a different reason (and is not telling us).
(I realise I am going slightly off-topic here. I apologise for the deviation)
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 14, 2004 18:19:35 GMT
Not all terrorists are Muslims, the IRA are a prime example. I haven't read the Koran either, but I do know the idea of violence in the name of their God isn't something Christians (or all other religions for that matter) should criticise too heavily, lets not forget the crusades the violent slaughter of other cultures in attempt to 'reclaim the holy land', land which wasn't exactly theirs in the first place.
Removing Saddam because he was a threat to his own people & a total git is a just cause, but that's not why we went to war. We were given lies not only about his WMDs, but the fact that he could deploy them in the time it takes some people to drive to work in the morning. That was a terrifying claim, not that many people believed it, but the fact that this evidence was quite clearly 'sexed up' and full of spin then we went to war.
Never did the government say we were only going to war because Saddam had to be removed as he posed a threat to his own people, we were told he was a global threat who could wipe us all out in three quarters of an hour.
Getting back to the subject at hand, negociating with terrorist groups isn't something we don't do at all, Naselus has already cited plenty of examples. I do agree their method of doing things is appalling and quite frankly wrong. Although judging the religion of Islam by these fundamentalist killers is like judging christianity by the psychos who cut someone up and claim God told them to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Incubus on Oct 14, 2004 18:28:24 GMT
Just to clear something up which I think is being touched upon:
I did not write the last post with Christianity in mind. I wrote it because I felt it had to be said, not because of my religious beliefs.
Please do not make a mockery of my views please. I am not saying that they cannot be attacked (that would just be arrogance), but they shouldn't be ridiculed.
Regards,
Liquidus
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 14, 2004 18:36:54 GMT
I see, well, it's still worth bearing in mind that Islam is not the only religion with extremists & their extremists aren't any worse than those of other religions. With Islamic terrorist groups people see them as a representation of Islam in some cases, rather than the violent and twisted individuals they actually are.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 14, 2004 19:30:24 GMT
Gentlemen, forget the religious aspect because it has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, no matter what anyone says. It's all political. Except possibly in Ireland, but that's Christian infighting (once again, Christianity displays the shining light of reason to the infidels, eh Liq? Just kidding ) Intriguingly, after the captors made contact the monday before the ill-fated escape attempt, "Messages were ferried between Ken Bigley's kidnappers and the British government via an intermediary", with the kidnappers attempting to open negotiations to a peaceful settlement. The Times said attempts were being made to draw up a different deal by international diplomats, religious clerics, tribal chiefs, Iraqi medics and the son of Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi, Saif. So that doesn't count as negotiation then, Will? "the prime minister had made clear he would listen to any approach by the captors, whilst maintaining he would not negotiate with terrorists." Which is political speak for 'I'll take any deal I like, but none that you would.' The women weren't terrorists. They worked for Saddam's regime, but I can find little reference to exactly what it is they stand accused of. They are scientists. Biotechnicians who happened to work for the wrong government at the wrong time. More importantly, they're cases were 'under review', a term currently used while coalition forces are trying to find any evidence at all to hold people for. Which there probably isn't any of anyway. Mr Bigley's death was by no means automatic, and most of the media is debating the issue rather than claiming that it actually was. The BBC comes down in the negative, claiming he probably wouldn't have been killed if he hadn't tried to escape.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Oct 15, 2004 17:50:23 GMT
Er, I think Liquidus was referring to the terrorists in Iraq, not terrorists in general.
Where do you draw the line? Those who protested against the Iraq war didn't have their protests 'registered', but did they have to turn to hostage taking and detonating car bombs outside Whitehall? And anyway, if these terrorists co-operated the country would get some sort of government (however corrupt, its a start, and its surely better than Iraq being run by either a brutal dictator, or warlords, accountable to absolutely no-one). Instead they decide to blow things up, making Iraq ungovernable, and the most unstable country in the world.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 15, 2004 19:02:56 GMT
Well, from his post he referred to terrorists as a whole and then talked about how they believe 'Allah' wants them to etc, so I think he was referring to all terrorists. Was just making a point clear. Is a corrupt, Yank controlled government really any better than no government at all? Especially when the chances are with so much chaos elections will be difficult to hold. I agree though that turning to hostage taking and terrorism is going too far but I do wonder what other options these people can consider, if they do co-operate they'll have to wait however long it takes for their wives to be aquitted & released, if indeed the US ever get round to it.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 15, 2004 19:11:37 GMT
Where do you draw the line? Those who protested against the Iraq war didn't have their protests 'registered', but did they have to turn to hostage taking and detonating car bombs outside Whitehall? No, but then it wasn't the UK that was about to be invaded, so there wasn't the same sense of helplessness and fear. The question you should ask is, how would the British have behaved if the UK was occupied by an outside power and all attempts at peaceful protest against human rights abuses by the invading power were just brushed aside? Iraq was already the most unstable country in the world before the terrorist groups started out. That's what happens every time there's a violent political revolution in any country. As for being better than Iraq being run by dictators or warlords accountable to no one, well in fact I can't see too much difference between that and an Iraq ruled by an unelected puppet leader who is effectively owned by George W Bush. You can be sure, just like in Afghanistan right now, that when these promised "free and fair" elections in Iraq take place, El Alawi is going to have unlimited campaign funds provided from the USA, enough probably to keep him in power and so keep Iraq in America's pocket for years to come. But above all, why should the terrorists co-operate with an occupation of their country that they didn't want to happen, and the rule of a man they oppose and who has no more mandate for power than Saddam Hussein had before him? While I abhor the terrorists' methods as much as the next man, I will defend to the last breath their right to refuse to conform to the designs of unelected rulers, especially those put in power by outside nations who conquered the country illegally in the first place.
|
|