Putin vetoes restrictions on media reporting terrorism

[opus512]

http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=51180&id=200211251515000140980

MOSCOW (AP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin vetoed media legislation Monday that would have sharply restricted terrorism coverage, but lashed out at the country's press, television and radio for their handing of last month's hostage crisis at a Moscow theater.

The legislation, passed by both houses of parliament, would have prohibited reports seen as hindering counter-terrorist operations and banned the broadcast or publication of rebel statements or extremist ``propaganda.''

Putin's decision to veto the measure ahead of next year's parliamentary elections was widely seen as an attempt to burnish his image as a defender of free speech. Critics have accused him and his government of cracking down on independent television.

``No truly democratic power can exist without publicity and openness, which are provided by the mass media,'' Putin said, adding that he had asked parliamentary leaders to form a commission to come up with new legislation.

Would Bush have vetoed it?

Personaly, I think we're lucky we won't have to find out.

[FluxCapacitor]

if that were here it would be passed in the interest of "homeland security". :rollies:

[sj_hurst]

Putin seems to know a thing or two about economics as well. He lowered the Russian income tax rate to 13% a while back and the Russian economy has been steadily growing ever since.
http://www.vor.ru/Russian_Economy/

Bush Jr seems to do whatever's good for him and his big business buds nowadays. IMO, almost all U.S. politicians are too authoritarian these days. It's like they think that being U.S. politicians is enough to grant them absolute power/control. Overall, I'm for smaller government. And from what I can tell, Jr's coming across as just another typical "bigger government is better" politician in most of what he does.

Check out this pic of Hillary. http://www.freeavatars.net/vpimages/signs/fhfun1001.gif
So much for the so-called "liberal" politicians taking a stand against Bush's foreign policy. :D

Seriously though, get a load of this crap. It's a quote of her explaining why she voted to approve Bush's new UN resolution and her support for that House resolution that gave Bush broader authority in the matter of war.

“And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this president, or any future president, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war,” she said.
http://www.nysun.com/sunarticle.asp?artID=261

Here's more of Hillary's hopping on the president's bandwagon nonsense.
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues_middleeast.html
Perhaps she's aiming for the office of president (maybe in 2008 or 2012). Regardless, she's just one paltry example of why Bush has so much authority (and perhaps a reason why the libs lost so much power).

[opus512]

As for jumping on Jr's bandwagon, it's political death not to, just ask Max Cleland, a triple amputee Vietnam Vet with the Congresional Medal Of Honor, who was portrayed to frightening (by his Republican oponent who showed him in TV add's right next to Osama Bin Laden) effectivness as soft on terrorism because he had the balls to vote against the Homeland Defense bill.

[opus512]

Originally posted by sj_hurst
Putin seems to know a thing or two about economics as well. He lowered the Russian income tax rate to 13% a while back and the Russian economy has been steadily growing ever since.
http://www.vor.ru/Russian_Economy/


Also, I find it a bit ironic that the Russian president seems to be more democraticaly inclined, for what ever reason, then the president of the United States :P

[EG]

Originally posted by opus512


Also, I find it a bit ironic that the Russian president seems to be more democraticaly inclined, for what ever reason, then the president of the United States :P

Move to Russia become a citizen and you too can vote for Putin...:D

[EG]

Originally posted by opus512
http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=51180&id=200211251515000140980



Would Bush have vetoed it?

Personaly, I think we're lucky we won't have to find out.

you must have missed the class on that thing called "The Bill of Rights" in school......

[GrimFaceOfReality]

Originally posted by EGhadsGhost


you must have missed the class on that thing called "The Bill of Rights" is school......

Apparantly, so has much of the Administration.

[msan_msw]

Originally posted by GrimFaceOfReality


Apparantly, so has much of the Administration.

No crap. At least once a week there's an article on a major news site about U.S. citizens being held with no charge and for and indefinite amount of time... Some have been lucky and got out and eventually sued the government but there's still plenty being held. I hope they get the chance to sue too. They might be able to if they had the rights they're entitled to as U.S. citizens... oh wait... doh.. they are...

[Blindf8th]

Does it matter to you if hes a known terrorist? Or if he has provable ties? Does this change his Rights?

If these people are being held for that type of reason, then I say rock on. You just lost all of your LA privilages son

Droop <word>

[msan_msw]

Originally posted by Malachi
Does it matter to you if hes a known terrorist? Or if he has provable ties? Does this change his Rights?

That's the thing. These people are under suspicion... not "proven" or even directly linked... This is why when they are released they successfully sue the government. Stick your head into Slacker's cubical and ask him for the URL for Salon.com and you can start reading these horror stories and injustices that you won't see on CNN or MSNBC or any other pseudo-state run network.

Originally posted by Malachi


You just lost all of your LA privilages son

Droop <word>

Huh?

[Blindf8th]

So it would be your opinion that a high suspicion of this type of activity is not cause enough to detain for questioning in the interests of national security?

Just want to make sure I understand you right.


As for the LA statement, it references Pulp Fiction and my thoughts towards people being detained for questioning that have been shown to have certain ties with terrorist organizations.

Droop <kickin it in da workplace>

[msan_msw]

Originally posted by Malachi
So it would be your opinion that a high suspicion of this type of activity is not cause enough to detain for questioning in the interests of national security?



Nope, because this administration considers being a Muslim that has ever lived in a select few countries as a "high suspicion". Regardless, of the 3000 that have been questioned and detained the vast majority were taken into custody on immigration violations and had nothing to do with the WOT. Previously these cases were not grounds for indefinite incarceration.. they're just immigration violations for goodness sake. Why aren't we taking immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, or Mexico and placing them into indefinite incarceration? It's the same crime. Most of these people have absolutely no link to Al Qaida. This doesn't even add in the factor of U.S. citizens being held and completely losing their rights. The fact is, if you are a U.S. citizen you are a U.S. citizen with all the rights associated. It shouldn't be up to this administration to arbitrarily and selectively take citizen's rights in this type of situation.

[opus512]

There's a difference between detaining someone for questioning and detaining someone indefinatly, with no access to a lawyer, no access to family, no access to anything, for as long as the government deems necesary, with no limits at all.

[Blindf8th]

So how many people have been detained and questioned? What period of time are we talking about? Like we really know or understand what goes on behind those doors in the first place. Do you think we have all knowledge of every detained suspect knowmatter who they are? You act as if your actually in the loop on everything and I'm saying I'm sure there are a number of things we dont have a clue on that could easilly weigh into our personal thoughts. Reading a few stories in the New York Times and quoting a few people hardly puts us at the Judges stand.

Based on what we know, you might be completely right. However, I do not believe that our Government is out to detain all Muslims from all states just to be a prick? Does this even make sense? If you have just cause (suspect to opinion) to detain someone that might be a possible threat in some way, I say detain them.


Droop <we dont have all the scoop peeps>

[PaleDuke]

Originally posted by sj_hurst
Putin seems to know a thing or two about economics as well. He lowered the Russian income tax rate to 13% a while back and the Russian economy has been steadily growing ever since.
http://www.vor.ru/Russian_Economy/

Bush Jr seems to do whatever's good for him and his big business buds nowadays. IMO, almost all U.S. politicians are too authoritarian these days. It's like they think that being U.S. politicians is enough to grant them absolute power/control. Overall, I'm for smaller government. And from what I can tell, Jr's coming across as just another typical "bigger government is better" politician in most of what he does.

Check out this pic of Hillary. http://www.freeavatars.net/vpimages/signs/fhfun1001.gif
So much for the so-called "liberal" politicians taking a stand against Bush's foreign policy. :D

Seriously though, get a load of this crap. It's a quote of her explaining why she voted to approve Bush's new UN resolution and her support for that House resolution that gave Bush broader authority in the matter of war.


http://www.nysun.com/sunarticle.asp?artID=261

Here's more of Hillary's hopping on the president's bandwagon nonsense.
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues_middleeast.html
Perhaps she's aiming for the office of president (maybe in 2008 or 2012). Regardless, she's just one paltry example of why Bush has so much authority (and perhaps a reason why the libs lost so much power).

:stupid:

Nice post ! :)

[msan_msw]

Well, I already said how many Droop... That has been pretty well documented. Why? The excuse is immigration violations. As far "do we have all the scoop".. NO! That's the whole point here. The government isn't giving out any information about these folks for the most part. "Does this even make sense?" NO! I think you're starting to catch on here Droop. "... just to be pricks", well, ask the thousands of Japanese who were rounded up during WWII (and were later given money as compensation do to the fact the were unjustly incarcerated). History is repeating itself somewhat here.....

[Blindf8th]

Originally posted by msan_msw
Well, I already said how many Droop... That has been pretty well documented. Why? The excuse is immigration violations. As far "do we have all the scoop".. NO! That's the whole point here. The government isn't giving out any information about these folks for the most part. "Does this even make sense?" NO! I think you're starting to catch on here Droop. "... just to be pricks", well, ask the thousands of Japanese who were rounded up during WWII (and were later given money as compensation do to the fact the were unjustly incarcerated). History is repeating itself somewhat here.....

How can you prove its not immigration? Simply based upon you disagreeing with it does not make it an excuse does it?

So in order for the Government to act, are you saying that you as a citizen should have the right to the whole story knowmatter what it compromises?

POWs and terrorists are 2 different things bro. Thats like me saying go talk to the Jews if you want a little history on injust incarciration. We are talking a world of difference so lets leave the Japanese and Jews out of it ok.


Let me ask you this because I still am trying to get a definite answer on where you stand.

If detaining lets say 1000 Muslims for questioning lead onto a large cover up and saved US lives, is it still wrong?

If detaining again 1000 Muslims for questioning ment a much higher chance of finding someone who could assist in aiding the US with information that could lead to preventing or stopping another attack are you still against it?

Droop <ponders why disco was phased out>

[nextbillgates]

If detaining again 1000 Muslims for questioning ment a much higher chance of finding someone who could assist in aiding the US with information that could lead to preventing or stopping another attack are you still against it?

I'm not going to speak for msan, but....

YES!!!

We would have a much greater chance of finding "evil-doers" if we were a dictatorship and our supreme leader could do whatever he wanted. Do you want to live like that? I don't. If going through due process means a greater risk of attack, I'll take my chances.

[Blindf8th]

Originally posted by nextbillgates


I'm not going to speak for msan, but....

YES!!!

We would have a much greater chance of finding "evil-doers" if we were a dictatorship and our supreme leader could do whatever he wanted. Do you want to live like that? I don't. If going through due process means a greater risk of attack, I'll take my chances.


Is your answer the same for both?
If detaining lets say 1000 Muslims for questioning lead onto a large cover up and saved US lives, is it still wrong?

Droop <word>

[msan_msw]

Yeah, NBG hit that on the head. Plus, this is just going in circles...

msan <got a headache>

[nextbillgates]

Originally posted by Malachi



Is your answer the same for both?
If detaining lets say 1000 Muslims for questioning lead onto a large cover up and saved US lives, is it still wrong?

Droop <word>

Yes.

If the only way of finding out about a large "coverup" (not sure what you mean by that, I'm guessing terror operation) is by detaining 1000 muslims, we're doing something wrong.

[EG]

Originally posted by msan_msw


That's the thing. These people are under suspicion... not "proven" or even directly linked... This is why when they are released they successfully sue the government. Stick your head into Slacker's cubical and ask him for the URL for Salon.com and you can start reading these horror stories and injustices that you won't see on CNN or MSNBC or any other pseudo-state run network.



Huh?

yes but is Salon.com telling the whole story?

[msan_msw]

Originally posted by EGhadsGhost


yes but is Salon.com telling the whole story?

Of course not. To tell the entire story fact by fact would take volumes and the stories on Salon are only about 3-4 pages :P The stories they run are written by smart folks who condense the topic into a media article... as are most articles presented by the media. I happen to think they do a pretty good job...

To me there's a different "commons sense" that the two camps are subscribing to. There's the "hey, we need to get the terrorists and it's common sense to round up anyone and everyone that could be linked to terrorism... it's just common sense." On the other hand there are the folks that say, "Hey, it's just common sense that if you're going to begin arresting people you better have some grounds on which to base the arrest AND you have to follow the laws of the land which are based on certain rights AND you can't go changing those rights just to meet your needs while violating people's lives."

I happen to belong to the camp of folks who believe that people have basic rights and the government shouldn't have the right to void people's rights in order to meet a certain administrations wishes. I also feel that we've condemned these types of actions when other countries have done similar things (China) and now we're being hypocritical, spinning issues, and making a mockery of what our country stands for. If the people are linked to terrorism, issue charges and send them to court. If they are not linked to terrorism such as an immigration violation then follow other procedures (based on precedent) and use that process. If they are innocent and the government is harassing or break the laws of the land and are still being held unconditionally... sue the living crap out of the government... That's my take.

[BCRICH]

I agree with everything except the sue the living crap out of the government. Because when you sue the government in reality your just suing us tax payers :D

[opus512]

The whole problem is the administrations insistance that we are 'at war'.

You can argue the poing untill the sheep go home with Msan, I don't care, we are *not* 'at war' in the classical sense.

But as long as the administration can claim we are 'at war', then they can claim 'national security'. And secrecy in the name of national security is the most insidious secrecy of all, and the most succeptable to abuse, been proven all through history, time and time again.

[EG]

Originally posted by msan_msw


Of course not. To tell the entire story fact by fact would take volumes and the stories on Salon are only about 3-4 pages :P The stories they run are written by smart folks who condense the topic into a media article... as are most articles presented by the media. I happen to think they do a pretty good job...

To me there's a different "commons sense" that the two camps are subscribing to. There's the "hey, we need to get the terrorists and it's common sense to round up anyone and everyone that could be linked to terrorism... it's just common sense." On the other hand there are the folks that say, "Hey, it's just common sense that if you're going to begin arresting people you better have some grounds on which to base the arrest AND you have to follow the laws of the land which are based on certain rights AND you can't go changing those rights just to meet your needs while violating people's lives."


I happen to belong to the camp of folks who believe that people have basic rights and the government shouldn't have the right to void people's rights in order to meet a certain administrations wishes. I also feel that we've condemned these types of actions when other countries have done similar things (China) and now we're being hypocritical, spinning issues, and making a mockery of what our country stands for. If the people are linked to terrorism, issue charges and send them to court. If they are not linked to terrorism such as an immigration violation then follow other procedures (based on precedent) and use that process. If they are innocent and the government is harassing or break the laws of the land and are still being held unconditionally... sue the living crap out of the government... That's my take.

well to fully evaluate this we would have to look at every case individually....

I wouldnt expect anybody involved in terrrorist activities to admit that they are guilty would you?

after dealing with people for over 26 years most of them present the case most favorable to them...

[EG]

Originally posted by opus512
The whole problem is the administrations insistance that we are 'at war'.

You can argue the poing untill the sheep go home with Msan, I don't care, we are *not* 'at war' in the classical sense.

But as long as the administration can claim we are 'at war', then they can claim 'national security'. And secrecy in the name of national security is the most insidious secrecy of all, and the most succeptable to abuse, been proven all through history, time and time again.

so then you beleive that no terrorists exist within the US at this time and that no further attacks will occur?

[opus512]

Originally posted by EGhadsGhost


so then you beleive that no terrorists exist within the US at this time and that no further attacks will occur?

The cause is not the point, the effect is.

[EG]

Originally posted by opus512


The cause is not the point, the effect is.

ummmm

that makes absolutely no sense.....

[opus512]

Originally posted by EGhadsGhost


ummmm

that makes absolutely no sense.....

The fact whether there are terrorists or not is not the point, it's what we do about the terrorists. Little more clearer now?

[Ambience]

Originally posted by opus512


The cause is not the point, the effect is.

LOL ^^^

ROFL HAHAHAHAHAHA

Freedom is to be free, not free to be freedom.

Don't eat the oil, the oil will eat you.

Stupid is as stupid does.

[EG]

Originally posted by opus512


The fact whether there are terrorists or not is not the point, it's what we do about the terrorists. Little more clearer now?

clear as mud..........

[sj_hurst]

Originally posted by opus512


The fact whether there are terrorists or not is not the point, it's what we do about the terrorists. Little more clearer now?

:confused:

You know that old saying, "the ends don't justify the means." There's the meaning of Opus's convoluted riddles, I think. :P True, the U.S. could kill thousands of terrorists and new ones will just keep popping up. However, if the U.S. just sits back and does nothing, they'll attack anyway, with greater numbers and force. Better off to reduce the threat than do nothing at all. ;)

[msan_msw]

Yeah, I think I understood what he was saying. I'm the type to thing the process is just as important as the outcome. I think in this case some people feel that a process that violates people rights is justifiable due to circumstances. The other side feels that there should be a process but the process should be "just". Sometimes having a process based on justice isn't the most expedient way to an outcome and takes a bit more thought and a tad less emotion...

Either method has it's strengths and shortcomings. I also think that most people are "process people" even if they don't think they are. Most would say that taking over the world through military force isn't the best process to ensure our peace i.e. they have boundaries they aren't fully aware of even in discussions where they feel that the outcome is more important than the process.

[opus512]

You could take it either way, partly the ends not justifying the means, but mostly what I mean was, that our problem is not that there are terrorists in the country, the problem is what we do, and how we do it, about the terrorists. Of course there are terrorists in the country, only an idiot would argue against it, but what are we willing to do, to what extremes are we willing to go, to get theterrorsits?

There will always be terrorists in the country, no matter what we do. Oklahoma anyone? Cornbread and apple pie, right here at home.

[EG]

I beleive that there has to be a middle ground sometimes...not 100% one way or 100% the other way.

I just finished up some anti-terrorist training....things you need to do harm to bunches of people can be had at Wal-Mart. After sitting through some of those classes it gave me a pucker factor of 10 to the third.....

Local law enforcemnt does not have the resources to deal with this threat. Agencies like the NSA and FBI do. I realize that in the upper echelons there are probaly some folks that do dubious things and are a@@hats. I would be willing to bet there are many in those agencies that are dedicated to doing the job right and not abusing rights. All we get to see are the bad examples.