censorship during war Re: [LINK] Guardian: Al-Jazeera tells the truth about war

[Deus Ex Machina]

Robin Whittle [rw at firstpr.com.au] wrote:
> 
> Vic, did you once rail against censorship, but now accept it as
> necessary and good, for instance in times of war?  It seems there is a
> pattern of some old lefties getting into their thirties, forties and
> fifties and toughening up, becoming bitter and hard, accepting and
> supporting things they previously fought so hard against.  

thats a misinterpretation of my position. I am not in the slightest
bit pro-censorship, what I am saying is you are seeing censorship where
its just not happening. and yes my views have I would like to think, matured
over the last 20 years.

that doesnt mean we should not be vigilant, that we should not rally
against censorship, which I have done, and would do again. however
what is the point of focusing where a threat well just isnt there.

trust me, in the last 6 years in this industry I have seen covert
government interference in action, well I wouldnt even call it covert.
I would call it gov pressure. the message was clear, get your act together
or we will get it together for you. and possibly wouldnt even call it
interference, more like guided pressure towards a perticular outcome.

however what I am saying is when the government had a chance to pressure us on some
online content, they simple showed no interest. I even asked them if they wanted
us to take some action, and nope no interest. they didnt even say, its up to you.

government is very very conscious about being seen to be doing the right thing.

why waste energy on something that isnt there? its like troops pounding an empty field.
I am home sick today, and all day, all I hear about is troops killing 7 iraqi civilans.
is that the sign of a government inflicting heavy censorship?

imo the war on censorship has pretty much been won, there a few isolated pockets
of resistance in a modern democracy but these melt when you put a spot light on them.

what does need to be watched is that he measures imposed because of war are removed
after the war.

> I don't know you, but the way you write about some of these issues made
> me wonder whether this applies to you.   It seems that it applies in
> some sense to the "neo-cons" who are behind W. Bush's invasion of Iraq:
> 
>   http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html   
> 
> People are killing and being killed in Iraq because certain individuals
> in Washington DC, who have never been in a war themselves, are
> inflicting their twisted notions on the world, rather than re-evaluating
> what they think when it seems (to others at least) that their notions
> are at odds with reality.  So figuring out such misguided
> singlemindedness, especially if it is a pattern of development in
> idealistic people, seems to be crucial to understanding what is going on
> here.

it appears to you as singleminded misguideness because you are focusing on the 
details not the big picture. if you yourself in the shoes
of someone like Colin Powel, and look at what they seem to be trying to achieve,
then it isnt misguided, it is the democratisation of the middle east.

the democratisation of the middle east is a heroic step forward for mankind!

Bush has pressured pakistan to move towards democracy, afghanistan
is heading towards democracy. palestine is moving towards statehood and democracy.
iraq, cross fingers will move towards democracy.

so what are you saying? that because a few thousand lives may be lost that bringing
democracy to possibly hundreds of millions of people, should not be pursued?

and the irony is that bin-laden is the single most noticeable factor behind this tidal
change that is sweeping the middle east.


> what extent do your views on this change in times of war?

100%

to actively sabotage a war effort is treason, this is the highest crime in the land.

stop. you need to reflect on that last sentence.  treason is the highest crime in the land.

during war the government *must* release a tremendous amount of mis-information.

we have no rights to the truth till *after* the war.

having said all that, it appears that the US government is controling
a very limited amount of information, or controling it for very short time spans.
and the amount if disinformation doesnt seem to be perticularly high either.

for example they have openly said there is a hit-squad in bahgdad. really?
is it just to unsettle sadam or is the truth? can you honestly
say we have a right to know?


> You have criticised a number of people on this list for being critical
> of the government.  I would be curious to know what your limits are. 

my limits are that I do not break the law. I recognise that while our system
in not perfect its not that bad either. and I also recognise that our system
has tremendous momentum and that fighting it head on is a waste of time. we
all want a better society, but utopia starts from within. utopia starts at home.

if someone can not recognise in themselves the qualities they dont like in others first
then they have no right to seek to change others.

the anger craig feels towards the government is the same anger that a suicide bomber feels
towards innocent israeli citizens. maybe a different intensity but its the same emotion.

the strong distaste that richard feels towards the brown shirts is the same distate
the brown shirts feel towards those books they burnt. both persecute without understanding.

when an anti-war protest turns violent, how is that violence any differnt from the violence
of war itself?


> I guess the criteria is democracy - but what if there is a gerrymander,
> failure to properly count votes, a system with immense power of money
> and media (such as in the USA) or intimidation.

at least we have democracy, iraq has no democracy and if the war goes well, then
maybe they will at least have the opportunity to be able to complain about the flaws
of democracy.

> Democracy is more than voting.  When democratic governments start
> censoring their own citizen's ability to communicate privately and
> publicly, and when they hide information about matters like war (and the
> war is *our* responsibility, since we pay for and create the
> government), isn't this the start of a slippery slope leading to
> suppression of debate, gross manipulation of the citizen's ability to
> know important things etc.?

sure. but how many australian lives are you willing to put to risk on the front lines
for access to these truths? the more truth you have the greater the risk to our troops.
you need to wait till the war is over and then you can have acess to the "truth" whatever that
might be.

everything is a balance of interelatedness.

I think its a great pity there are no or very few embeded journalists on the front
lines with the australian troops. these kids are puting their lives on the line for you.
you might say I didnt ask for it, or I dont agree with it, but that doesnt negate that act
of bravery.

and I have asked myself would I put my life on the line for something I beleived in? now thats
a tough question. and I realise that yes there are situations where I would. and keep this in
mind, if countless of our predecessors did not put their lives
on the line for basic rights, for democracy, for freedom to trade, for freedom from slavery,
freedom from oppression. etc etc. would we be here discussing censorship in war?

Vic