View Full Version : Something disturbing - Free Press ???
U.S. Drops to #53 on World Press Freedom Index List
Reporters Without Borders has released its fifth annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index and it shows the level of press freedom in the United States continues to fall. In 2002 the U.S. was rated as having the seventeenth freest press ˆ now it is ranked fifty-third. Reporters Without Borders criticized the Bush administration for using the so-called war on terrorism to crack down on press freedoms. The report also criticized the United States for jailing journalists at home and abroad. Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf remains in a San Francisco jail for refusing to hand over video to the police. Al Jazeera camerman Sami Al Haj has been locked up at Guantanamo for over four years. Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held in Iraq since April. Neither Al Haj or Hussein have ever faced charges. Reporters Without Borders found that the nations with the freest press were Finland, Iceland, Ireland and the Netherlands. North Korea was rated as the worst upholder of press freedom
Due to an experience I had recently in customs while reentering the US I believe I am on some list. I was searched and refused an answer as to why.
defenseman
10-24-2006, 12:44 PM
Hmmmm, considering the liberal nature of the press these days, and it's "spin" of the real truth to meet their objectives, it is difficult for me to feel sorry for some of these folks. The above take "assumes" these guys are not guilty. I don't assume they are anything, however, it sometimes does go with the territory. You gotta be careful these days. SF guy not handing video over to police? If it was necessary for an investigation, then, he should. If he doesn't, stick him in jail and let him rot is fine with me. Then again, I'm assuming the police need to video to prosecute a crime, as a citizen he should want to put bad guys behind bars.......dman
defenseman
10-24-2006, 12:47 PM
Due to an experience I had recently in customs while reentering the US I believe I am on some list. I was searched and refused an answer as to why.
And? I got searched up at Ohare in Chicago. No good reason , but it happened. And? Many of them happen to have a policy to search every 30 or 40 or whatever people flying. These are just a search as part of policy. So they did their search, and I was on my way. I don't have a problem with that........dman
alkemical
10-24-2006, 12:50 PM
If you are detained or searched, there should be answer as to WHY dman.
Can't have a 'free' society with secrecy so rampant.
Of course, maybe the gov't knows people are unhappy - thus we have to be cattle prodded like the meat we are.
And? I got searched up at Ohare in Chicago. No good reason , but it happened. And? Many of them happen to have a policy to search every 30 or 40 or whatever people flying. These are just a search as part of policy. So they did their search, and I was on my way. I don't have a problem with that........dman
I should have explained further. I was first off the plane and customs was empty I walked to the clearing station with the customs officer and we chatted all the way but when he scanned my passport the color drained from his face and his friendliness disappeared. He read something that changed his attitude and treated me like a suspect from then on. He clearly read something that caused this change and he refused to tell me what he read even though I asked several times. It was not routine and it was not pleasant. All I wanted is to know what was on my file and if you still think their refusal to disclose the information than you deserve what you get from your precious government.
defenseman
10-24-2006, 01:17 PM
I should have explained further. I was first off the plane and customs was empty I walked to the clearing station with the customs office and we chatted all the way buy when he scanned my passport the color drained from his face and his friendliness disappeared. He read something that changed his attitude and treated me like a suspect from then on. He clearly read something that caused this change and he refused to tell me what he read even though I asked several times. It was not routine and it was not pleasant. All I wanted is to know what was on my file and if you still think their refusal to disclose the information than you deserve what you get from your precious government.
Don't know what to tell ya. I know if you've got nothing to hide, then, you've got nothing to hide. The rest of it, the best I could do is venture a guess, however it would just be a guess. Interesting occurence for sure if it played out the way you describe. I'd be making some inquiries on my own behalf if I were you...dman
*Who to inquire to escapes me at this point. Perhaps the DOHLS....
I'm going to SD next week and if it happens again I'm getting a lawyer.
D man,
No I have nothing to hide and yes it happened exactly the way i said further more if you doubt what I say you should no bother to read my posts
defenseman
10-24-2006, 01:36 PM
D man,
No I have nothing to hide and yes it happened exactly the way i said further more if you doubt what I say you should no bother to read my posts
I don't doubt a thing. Under such scrutiny, occassionally people react in different , very uncharacteristic ways. I believe you to the letter, have no doubt. Such scrutiny has a way of placing someone in a very defensive manner and posture. Seen it many times. I always have to go back during such events and ensure my perceptions were or were not correct. You are rock solid on your take, I again re-iterate that I'm sure the events played out exactly as you described. DOHLS may be a place to start. As far as lawyers, get names, times , badge numbers and any bystanders available for contact. Never get belligerant, never challenge their process. It could get you locked up if for no other reason than you refused to partake in whatever inquiry they desired deeming it unnecessary since you do know yourself better than they. The rest will play out as it may..dman
*I do know, they have alot of authority at the border. I also know they won't hesitate to take action if things aren't going properly..
alkemical
10-24-2006, 02:12 PM
Don't know what to tell ya. I know if you've got nothing to hide, then, you've got nothing to hide. The rest of it, the best I could do is venture a guess, however it would just be a guess. Interesting occurence for sure if it played out the way you describe. I'd be making some inquiries on my own behalf if I were you...dman
*Who to inquire to escapes me at this point. Perhaps the DOHLS....
So you believe we should have total disclosure for citizens v. gov't - but not the other way around.
Equiv. Exchange - if the gov't doesn't trust me - why should i trust it?
defenseman
10-24-2006, 02:21 PM
So you believe we should have total disclosure for citizens v. gov't - but not the other way around.
Equiv. Exchange - if the gov't doesn't trust me - why should i trust it?
In many instances no. For example, the NYT's published our method of locating and cutting off terrorists. Was that right? Of course not. So now, you've got a drug lord moving in and out of the country. He throws a fit because he's always getting searched. We have to disclose what goods we have on him to date? I'm thinking not only no, but hell no. We can continue to make his life miserable until the time is right and then take him out. Secure info is what it is. I'm sure if I would be concerned if someone had something on me that I knew I didn't do. On the same token, depending on who, what , where , and why etc...etc....there may not be a damn thing I can do about it presently. Perhaps a dedicated pursuit through official channels can get resolution. However, things of that nature do take time....dman
I don't doubt a thing. Under such scrutiny, occassionally people react in different , very uncharacteristic ways. I believe you to the letter, have no doubt. Such scrutiny has a way of placing someone in a very defensive manner and posture. Seen it many times. I always have to go back during such events and ensure my perceptions were or were not correct. You are rock solid on your take, I again re-iterate that I'm sure the events played out exactly as you described. DOHLS may be a place to start. As far as lawyers, get names, times , badge numbers and any bystanders available for contact. Never get belligerant, never challenge their process. It could get you locked up if for no other reason than you refused to partake in whatever inquiry they desired deeming it unnecessary since you do know yourself better than they. The rest will play out as it may..dman
*I do know, they have alot of authority at the border. I also know they won't hesitate to take action if things aren't going properly..
That's solid advise Dman thanks! ;D
BTW this happened in Salt Lake City airport not the border
defenseman
10-24-2006, 02:30 PM
That's solid advise Dman thanks! ;D
BTW this happened in Salt Lake City airport not the border
SLC? that my friend is interesting. Hmmm.....TSA?...dman
alkemical
10-24-2006, 02:32 PM
In many instances no. For example, the NYT's published our method of locating and cutting off terrorists. Was that right? Of course not. So now, you've got a drug lord moving in and out of the country. He throws a fit because he's always getting searched. We have to disclose what goods we have on him to date? I'm thinking not only no, but hell no. We can continue to make his life miserable until the time is right and then take him out. Secure info is what it is. I'm sure if I would be concerned if someone had something on me that I knew I didn't do. On the same token, depending on who, what , where , and why etc...etc....there may not be a damn thing I can do about it presently. Perhaps a dedicated pursuit through official channels can get resolution. However, things of that nature do take time....dman
My point is Dman - with the Military act that was just passed (denoting torture as acceptable, and even stating that some constitutional rights are no longer valid when you are labeled "enemy combatant") -
When do i become and enemy combantant? If i can't view the evidence against me, except for a summary how is that constitutionally legal?
The problem is Dman - it isn't for Drug Dealers or terrorists. The way the laws are being applied and the definition of "terrorist" being changed - You saying the GOP sucks and put "kill bush" on your myspace page - you can be considered a terrorist. No due process - you are whisked away and locked up.
is it like this today? No. But how many years would this take with the current rate of technology increasing further and faster that can track 'transactions' (which can be your license plate via yourhometown's CCTV setup), cellphone, email, etc?
It's not that hard. Here at work we have "containers" for each person that has their VOIP (voice over IP), email, userID for system access - and ID badge - and i can track where they are (physical local at work)- the last email they got - etc....
So, you ready for that Nat'l ID? Don't worry it should get you some nat'l healthcare soon - where there will be no privacy - the gov't will know pretty much everything you do.
Now you say "i've got nothing to hide" - but why should i be treated guilty and not innocent?
And yes, i do know i paint some Skynet/matrix/orwellian computer system - but it's not impossible to do a level of data collection that would get the primary method of transportation, communication and location (cellphone w/gps) - but i'd rather look at the worst case scenario since, well - the gov't doesn't trust me - and i'm obviously a suspect somehow someway - i might as well look at the reality of the applications of technology and how it can be used in a bad way.
defenseman
10-24-2006, 03:00 PM
I honestly believe it won't get to that point, but, that's just my opinion. I will say, my personal life continues on status quo. Unaffected by any recent security developments. I do see the worst case though as you have adeptly displayed in the depicted scenario. Perhaps, others on capitol hill see the same as you and will stand in the way of such progress getting "out of the box". I don't know. I do know, we all need to be on the side of dillegence when it comes to the security of our own borders. That said, I'm still VERY VERY pissed at GW and the REPUBS for NOT SECURING THE BORDERS THE WAY THEY NEED TO BE.......REALLY FIRED UP ABOUT THIS. Let me have the border for about a month, I'll make the minutemen look like boy scouts. And NO ONE will dare cross the border for fear of losing the only thing really important, their life.....dman
*Swear to ya, turn me loose with men and supplies and the border will be secure in a month, unapproachable in 3.
alkemical
10-24-2006, 03:01 PM
dman,
you just said the piece that puts it all together.
They don't secure the boarders - so all this other stuff - isn't for terrorists or illegals....
yavoon
10-24-2006, 03:03 PM
The case law on journalists' efforts to withhold information from grand juries rarely favors reporters. The most frequently cited precedent is Branzburg v. Hayes, a 1972 Supreme Court case in which it was determined that, with rare exceptions, journalists have no greater protection than other citizens when it comes to complying with a grand jury. The exceptions are when the prosecutor's actions can be reasonably considered harassment, or when disclosure would violate the journalists' Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.
in america, if a grand jury says hand it over, u still more or less have to.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-24-2006, 05:42 PM
Hmmmm, considering the liberal nature of the press these days...
Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!
defenseman
10-25-2006, 06:35 AM
Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!
Agreed, the media circus is Hilarious!ROFL! ....dman
Rohirrim
10-25-2006, 07:18 AM
If you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear.
Bronco_Beerslug
10-25-2006, 07:43 AM
Pretty disgusting! Countries like Slovenia, Latvia, Bolivia, Nambia, etc... all have more open press than us.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4671/rankup0.png
alkemical
10-25-2006, 07:43 AM
If you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear.
Why am I guilty before innocent?
Rohirrim
10-25-2006, 07:51 AM
Why am I guilty before innocent?
Our enemies are everywhere. They use our freedoms against us. The only path to security is through giving up those freedoms. It's only temporary. And, it's in the interests of national security. I'm sure we can count on you to do your part. Only an enemy would refuse. It's for the greater good. If you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear. God bless America.
Our enemies are everywhere. They use our freedoms against us. The only path to security is through giving up those freedoms. It's only temporary. And, it's in the interests of national security. I'm sure we can count on you to do your part. Only an enemy would refuse. It's for the greater good. If you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear. God bless America.
Please tell me this is sarcasm
Rohirrim
10-25-2006, 08:13 AM
Please tell me this is sarcasm
If it's hard to tell, that says something.
Barry Ramey
10-25-2006, 08:24 AM
What crap. Like there's any real legit way to rate this. Besides, when in time of war, just makes some sense that we don't have our media going around telling everyone the plans and strategy being used. Plus, how many countries listed ahead of the U.S. have made themselves that useful in helping the war against muslim terrorists? Not many. So what is it they need to suppress since not even involved in the war? Not much.
What crap. Like there's any real legit way to rate this. Besides, when in time of war, <b>just makes some sense that we don't have our media going around telling everyone the plans and strategy being used. </b>
.Plus, how many countries listed ahead of the U.S. have made themselves that useful in helping the war against muslim terrorists? Not many. So what is it they need to suppress since not even involved in the war? Not much.
What plan would that be.. 'Stay the course' ???
If it's hard to tell, that says something.
just read barry's post and tell me the one's that need to get it will get will get it, ;D
Rohirrim
10-25-2006, 08:48 AM
What plan would that be.. 'Stay the course' ???
We don't use that phrase any more. We haven't changed our strategy or our tactics, but changing the language we use is an important improvement, don't you think? It won't get any fewer Americans killed, but it might help with the elections.
Our enemies are everywhere. They use our freedoms against us. The only path to security is through giving up those freedoms. It's only temporary. And, it's in the interests of national security. I'm sure we can count on you to do your part. Only an enemy would refuse. It's for the greater good. If you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear. God bless America.
Sounds a lot like what lefty academics claim when they restrict free speech on campus.
Or the rhetoric coming from Dems and Reps when the topic is drugs.
Sounds a lot like what lefty academics claim when they restrict free speech on campus.
Or the rhetoric coming from Dems and Reps when the topic is drugs.
YOU lied about your location in your avatar didn't you Wags
Rohirrim
10-25-2006, 09:05 AM
Sounds a lot like what lefty academics claim when they restrict free speech on campus.
Or the rhetoric coming from Dems and Reps when the topic is drugs.
I don't want this to sound like I'm being insensitive, but do you have ADD or something? Try to stay on topic.
Far be it for leftys to examine their beliefs too closely.
Rohirrim
10-25-2006, 09:14 AM
Far be it for leftys to examine their beliefs too closely.
Perhaps instead of trying to twist other threads into what you want them to be, you could try opening your own threads, like "Lefty Academics Oppose Free Speech" and then post a few examples to get it going?
Don't care for your own rhetoric being used (correctly) against your own ideology, eh?
Tough.
alkemical
10-25-2006, 09:19 AM
Our enemies are everywhere. They use our freedoms against us. The only path to security is through giving up those freedoms. It's only temporary. And, it's in the interests of national security. I'm sure we can count on you to do your part. Only an enemy would refuse. It's for the greater good. If you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear. God bless America.
Ro - i am not sure if you are serious, or sarcastic.
IF sarcastic = yes
Then display :)
ELSEIF serious = yes
Then display = FU
/End
Rohirrim
10-25-2006, 09:21 AM
:approve:
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-25-2006, 05:42 PM
Pretty disgusting! Countries like Slovenia, Latvia, Bolivia, Nambia, etc... all have more open press than us.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4671/rankup0.png
Yet dman describes, with a straight face, America's media as "liberal."
Maybe dman needs to look up "liberal" in the dictionary.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-25-2006, 05:43 PM
I don't want this to sound like I'm being insensitive, but do you have ADD or something? Try to stay on topic.
ROFL!
Wait a sec - the rankings are flawed.
Venezuela, as LABF has assured us (via his "VHeadline" links) has the most free press in the hemisphere. Yet the US is ranked even higher.
How can this be?