Censorship in Iraq?

[sobeton]

Iraqi Government Shuts Al-Jazeera Station

07:40 PM EST - August 07, 2004

The Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq

Police ordered Al-Jazeera's employees out of their newsroom Saturday after the Iraqi government accused the Arab satellite channel of inciting violence and closed its office for 30 days.

Iraqi Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib said the closure was intended to give the station "a chance to re-adjust their policy against Iraq."

"They have been showing a lot of crimes and criminals on TV, and they transfer a bad picture about Iraq and about Iraqis and encourage criminals to increase their activities," he said. "We want to protect our people."

Al-Jazeera officials said the closure was an ominous violation of freedom of the press. Haider al-Mulla, a lawyer for Al-Jazeera, said the channel would respect the decision but study its legal options.

Senior Iraqi police officials arrived at the station's central Baghdad office Saturday evening and, in an extraordinary scene broadcast live on the network, sat at a table drinking soft drinks with senior staff as they calmly explained the order.

Al-Mullah said the closure decision was unclear and objected to its phrasing. The police said they had to execute the order anyway, asking al-Mullah to take his complaints to the Interior Ministry.

The police refused to leave the office before locking the newsroom and ordering employees to go home. Crossing his wrists as if handcuffed, a police officer warned al-Mullah against violating the decision.

"It is a regrettable decision, but Al-Jazeera will endeavor to cover the situation in Iraq as best as we can within the constraints," Jihad Ballout, the network's spokesman, said.

In an Arab world rife with conspiracy theories, the decision to close the offices of the popular channel could reinforce the perception that decisions by Iraq's interim government are influenced by the United States, which has long complained about Al-Jazeera's coverage.

Government ministers in Iraq have grown increasingly critical of the television station in recent weeks.

Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said Saturday that the government had convened an independent commission a month ago to monitor Al-Jazeera's daily coverage "to see what kind of violence they are advocating, inciting hatred and problems and racial tension."

Based on the commission's finding, the National Security Committee ordered the monthlong closure, Allawi said.

Iraq's now-disbanded Governing Council, in place during the U.S. occupation, banned the station's reporters from entering its offices or covering its news conferences for a month in January because it had reportedly shown disrespect toward prominent Iraqis.

That was the second such ban imposed by the Governing Council on the station.

Al-Jazeera has occasionally run into problems with authorities in other Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and the former Iraqi regime. Unlike Arab state-run media, the station often airs views of local opposition figures and their criticisms of their countries' rulers.

Senior U.S. officials also have frequently criticized the station for its coverage of the war in Iraq. They accuse it of being an outlet for the al-Qaida terror network for broadcasting videotapes and audiotapes purportedly from Osama bin Laden or his aides. Al-Jazeera denies the allegations.

By MARIAM FAM Associated Press Writer

[siceone]

I think the prime minister did the right thing. freedom of speach doesn't mean absolute freedom of speech. if what you're doing is inciting violence they absolutely should be censored.

[sobeton]

I believe it was the wrong move. Aljazeera reports the news, they don’t make it. the idea that they incite violence is ludicrous. they don’t incite violence any more then any other media outlet. they may choose to report things, which perhaps other media outlets may not, but that is there choice. closing the Aljazeera offices, accomplishes nothing because they are still going to report on Iraq. they just won’t be doing it from inside Iraq. it's censorship pure and simple, and it reflects bad on the Iraqi government.

[igloo]

I believe it was the wrong move. Aljazeera reports the news, they don’t make it. the idea that they incite violence is ludicrous. they don’t incite violence any more then any other media outlet. they may choose to report things, which perhaps other media outlets may not, but that is there choice. closing the Aljazeera offices, accomplishes nothing because they are still going to report on Iraq. they just won’t be doing it from inside Iraq. it's censorship pure and simple, and it reflects bad on the Iraqi government.

WOW!

[sobeton]

Aljazeera vows to cover Iraq despite closure

by

Saturday 07 August 2004 1:40 PM GMT

Aljazeera has criticised the closure as unjustified

Aljazeera has vowed to continue its Iraq coverage despite the one-month closure of its Baghdad office announced by the Iraqi interim government on Saturday.

In a statement Aljazeera expressed regret for the unjustified move, and said it was contrary to pledges made by the interim Iraqi government to start a new era of free speech and openness.

Aljazeera said it held the Iraqi authorities responsible for the safety of Aljazeera staff in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

The station's Baghdad staff said the decision to close the office had been expected for some time.

They said they had been facing difficulties covering the news from Baghdad and that Iraqi officials had been reacting negatively to requests submitted by the channel.

Demanding change

Iraqi police officers arrived in the early evening at the Baghdad office to implement the closure decision. The station's lawyers said police officers did not carry an order from a court as the country's law requires in such a case.

Instead, the police had an order from the interior ministry addressed "to whom it may concern", ordering the closure.

Lawyers said they were given a document stating Aljazeera had to promise to change its policy regarding its Iraq coverage if it wanted the office to be re-opened after the one-month punishment.

The lawyers refused to sign the document.

Under scrutiny

An Aljazeera reporter being

escorted out of the office

While Iraqi Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib announced the closure at a Baghdad news conference, Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said: "We asked an independent committee to monitor Aljazeera for the last four weeks... to see what kind of violence they are advocating, inciting hatred and problems and racial tensions.

"This is a decision taken by the national security committee to protect the people of Iraq, in the interests of the Iraqi people," he said.

Channels criticised

The development followed reports that US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had accused Aljazeera and the other main Arab news channel, Al-Arabiya, of harming the image of the US in the Arab world.

Rumsfeld made the remarks at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, Aljazeera said.

Earlier this month, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hushiar Zibari criticised Aljazeera, the Saudi-funded Al-Arabiya and other Arab and Iranian stations for their coverage of Iraq, and threatened to close their Baghdad offices.

Zibari said Aljazeera, Al-Arabiya, the Lebanese Hizb Allah's Al-Manar television and Iran's Al-Alam were "channels of incitement working against the interests, security and stability of the Iraqi people".

He added: "We will no longer tolerate this in the future."

"It is a disappointing move. Aljazeera is the sincerest channel, although it does not report the whole truth"

Muhammad Bashar al-Faidhi, AMS's spokesman

Aljazeera has frequently been accused by US and Iraqi authorities of inciting violence by screening "exclusive" videotapes from Iraqi resistance and alleged al-Qaida-linked groups.

Reactions

Muhammad Bashar al-Faidhi, a spokesman for the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS), has criticised the closure saying Iraqis are disappointed to learn they are not experiencing freedom of speech yet.

"It is a disappointing move. Aljazeera is the sincerest channel, although it does not report the whole truth.

"There are a lot of tragedies that have gone unreported. We used to wonder why Aljazeera had not been reporting those facts, and we were annoyed at it, but when we learned about the American pressure on this channel, we understood," said al-Faidhi.

Saaid al-Burini, a candidate for the US Congress, said the US did not want an Arab source of news.

"The US is not happy with the idea that an Arab media organisation is on the ground and reporting independently," he said.

Aljazeera + Agencies

By

You can find this article at:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9C888134-9481-485A-A675-DD3C50DA224D.htm

[obby]

Great move by the new Government!!!!!!

The best part is how Al-Jazeera's says this is a violation of the "freedom of the press".

LOL

Key word: "Freedom"

Mind you...this is a new word for them. Must be nice to finally be able to use a word like "freedom"........but do they understand how not to abuse that right?

Would this be the "freedom" they now have due to our American and coalition troops?

[tasrit]

Great move by the new Government!!!!!!

The best part is how Al-Jazeera's says this is a violation of the "freedom of the press".

LOL

Key word: "Freedom"

Mind you...this is a new word for them. Must be nice to finally be able to use a word like "freedom"........but do they understand how not to abuse that right?

Would this be the "freedom" they now have due to our American and coalition troops?

You make a fool of yourself by saying this things. Freedom isn't a new word for Al-Jazeera. Al-jazeera didn't need "our American and coalition troops" to use their "freedom".

"freedom"....but do they understand how not to abuse that right?" are the words of a dictator.

[obby]

You make a fool of yourself by saying this things. Freedom isn't a new word for Al-Jazeera. Al-jazeera didn't need "our American and coalition troops" to use their "freedom".

"freedom"....but do they understand how not to abuse that right?" are the words of a dictator.

Let me get this straight. So if prior to our liberation....if Al-Jazeera decided to air negative comments regarding Sadam or it's evil regime.....they would still be around? No consequences what's so ever?

?????????

Freedom is a new word for the Country of Iraq. Please prove me wrong !!!!!!!

[tasrit]

Freedom is a new word for the Country of Iraq. Please prove me wrong !!!!!!!

I was talking about Al-Jazeera. Al-Jazeera doesn't represent "the Country of Iraq"

Freedom is a word that still has to be invented in Iraq.

[tasrit]

and please...keep religious talk like 'evil' out of a discussion

[bigpoppanils]

Let me get this straight. So if prior to our liberation....if Al-Jazeera decided to air negative comments regarding Sadam or it's evil regime.....they would still be around? No consequences what's so ever?

Saddam would have removed them just as we just did.

[obby]

and please...keep religious talk like 'evil' out of a discussion

Ohhh I apologize. How would you like me to title individuals (radicals) who cut off human heads in the name of god ????? How about naughty ??? Can I title them naughty ????? What would you title them ??????

Can you please elaborate on your avatar and signature. I myself am curious. School me.

Saddam would have removed them just as we just did.

Do you really think that Saddam would have JUST taken them off the air as we did?

Very doubtful. I don't think he would have been as nice and I think you know that as well.

[sobeton]

Do you really think that Saddam would have JUST taken them off the air as we did?.

we took Aljazeera off the air

[mursa]

Ohhh I apologize. How would you like me to title individuals (radicals) who cut off human heads in the name of god ????? How about naughty ??? Can I title them naughty ????? What would you title them ??????

.

In a vast majority of islamic countries ..cutting off heads (execution) , hands (stealing) , limbs etc etc are part of their everyday lives , and in particular their judicial system .

So call em Naughty or EVIL if you want, but in the END you are the one passing judgement on a culture/religion thats over 1500 years old . And one you have never experienced nor belong to .

[bigpoppanils]

In a vast majority of islamic countries ..cutting off heads (execution) , hands (stealing) , limbs etc etc are part of their everyday lives , and in particular their judicial system .

So call em Naughty or EVIL if you want, but in the END you are the one passing judgement on a culture/religion thats over 1500 years old . And one you have never experienced nor belong to .

He's conservative. He's allowed to do that. They do it all the time.

You didnt get the memo?

[igloo]

In a vast majority of islamic countries ..cutting off heads (execution) , hands (stealing) , limbs etc etc are part of their everyday lives , and in particular their judicial system .

So call em Naughty or EVIL if you want, but in the END you are the one passing judgement on a culture/religion thats over 1500 years old . And one you have never experienced nor belong to .

wow.....is this ridiculously dumb

[mursa]

He's conservative. He's allowed to do that. They do it all the time.

You didnt get the memo?

.. ...the keepers of the ultimate truth and moral guidance .

[tres-b]

I believe it was the wrong move. Aljazeera reports the news, they don’t make it. the idea that they incite violence is ludicrous. QUOTE]

You are clearly misinformed. Aljazeera doesnt report the news, they report whatever they want to incite violence and hatred against the US. God bless President Bush.

[sobeton]

I believe it was the wrong move. Aljazeera reports the news, they don’t make it. the idea that they incite violence is ludicrous. QUOTE]

You are clearly misinformed. Aljazeera doesnt report the news, they report whatever they want to incite violence and hatred against the US. God bless President Bush.

your right they report whatever they want, as they should be allowed to. will you next be telling me, violence in media leads one to commit violent acts? our perhaps you can show a documented instance, where Aljazeera incited violence against the US. if this had happen on US soil the actions of the government, would have been the bases of civil litigation.

[igloo]

your right they report whatever they want, as they should be allowed to. will you next be telling me, violence in media leads one to commit violent acts? our perhaps you can show a documented instance, where Aljazeera incited violence against the US. if this had happen on US soil the actions of the government, would have been the bases of civil litigation.

Do you really think that Al Jazeera does NOT provide, at best, an anti-American slant in their "reporting"........do you really think that?

And at worst, do you really think that AL Jazeera's "reporting" does not stir up more hatred towards the U.S?

You guys are amazing--you spew more venom at Fox News and their "powers" to effectthe mindless sheep in the U.S., but Al jazeera is the Temple of Objectivity...

Just wondering, ever hear about the connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Jazeera?.......I wonder if other Arab govts have that same type of relationship?...hmmm....

[sobeton]

Do you really think that Al Jazeera does NOT provide, at best, an anti-American slant in their "reporting"........do you really think that?

And at worst, do you really think that AL Jazeera's "reporting" does not stir up more hatred towards the U.S?

You guys are amazing--you spew more venom at Fox News and their "powers" to effectthe mindless sheep in the U.S., but Al jazeera is the Temple of Objectivity...

Just wondering, ever hear about the connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Jazeera?.......I wonder if other Arab govts have that same type of relationship?...hmmm....

do you really believe the american press provides an objective few of arabs? do you believe the american press; is somewhat bias in their reporting? Al-Jazeera falls somewhere between objective and bias, as does the american press.

naturally Al-Jazeera reporting would stir hatred of the US, among those who already dislike the US. however, Al-Jazeera does not create the news. .they simply report the news from their perspective... people in the Arab world are not a bunch naive people; who just act out. you need to give them more credit for having common sense.

Al-Jazeera is no more objective then the american media. as far as connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Jazeera. until any viable proof is brought forth it amounts to nothing more then speculation.

[igloo]

do you really believe the american press provides an objective few of arabs? do you believe the american press; is somewhat bias in their reporting? Al-Jazeera falls somewhere between objective and bias, as does the american press.

naturally Al-Jazeera reporting would stir hatred of the US, among those who already dislike the US. however, Al-Jazeera does not create the news. .they simply report the news from their perspective... people in the Arab world are not a bunch naive people; who just act out. you need to give them more credit for having common sense.

Al-Jazeera is no more objective then the american media. as far as connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Jazeera. until any viable proof is brought forth it amounts to nothing more then speculation.

DO I believe the American press provides an objective view of Arabs?........Overall, I certainly do not believe they provide an anti-Arab view....as a matter of fact, I think it leans towards the more "politically correct side".......

And by Al Jazeera reporting the "news" from their perspective, they are indeed creating the news........when facts are left out, when only one side is portrayed, when information is twisted and misrepresented, when events are distorted, when only certain camera shots are used, etc, etc....you are not reporting the news, you are creating propoganda, and in essence you are creating the "news" that people see...

Al jazeera does not only stir up hatred in those who hate the U.S., but they influence those who may have had a more nuetral stance.....

And I believe you need to get a better understanding of how naive the Arab world is , particularly towards the U.S..........is all Arabs, aboslutely not...but if you do not think that is a big problem, you are horribly mistaken....

If you do not think overall education levels and the state-run bullshit that is fed to the masses and the garbage that is spewed in editorial pages in their newspapers (the few that are allowed) is a problem (let alone what goes on in radical religious schools and mosques), then I believe you are again mistaken....

And AL Jazeera simply makes it worse.....and comparing Al Jazeera to the overall American media is ridiculously absurd and ignorant.....an absolute absurd comparison......like I said, people like you believe FNC is more harmful than Al Jazeera.....because, unlike people in the the Arab world, those who watch FNC are naive with no common sense right?....and Americans only have the FNC as a choice right, unlike the masses in the Arab world with the free flow of ideas and choices..

Lastly, there was plenty of proof about Saddam Hussein's connections with Al Jazeera, including payoffs, bribes, etc... well established and known.....His sons had personal Al jazeera companions---I am sure they were objective........not speculation, but fact. Or is it that the FNC is the only media outlet in the world who is a mouth piece for a party or govt....

No offense, but do some research, and you may learn something instead of simply dismissing what may prove you wrong....

Here is an article you may find interesting:

The Al Jazeera Effect

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Al Jazeera Effect

How the Arab TV network's coverage of the Coalition is influencing opinion in Iraq.

by Robert D. Alt

Baghdad

THE PAST TWO WEEKS have witnessed an increase not only in anti-Coalition activity, but also in anti-Coalition sentiment among Iraqis. The majority of Iraqis still appear to support the Coalition, however this negative creep in public opinion has the potential to threaten that, and thereby may be far more detrimental to the long-term effort in Iraq than the recent series of failed insurgencies. While it is difficult to isolate a single cause, the shift in opinion does not appear to be motivated by either an increase in the popular mandate of Muktada al-Sadr's cause, or by any alliance of convenience between the Sunnis and Shias. Rather, it is a backlash--a visceral negative response to the perceived wrongs committed by the Coalition. It is, in other words, the Al Jazeera effect.

Following the Marine offensive in Falluja, Iraqi journalists began grilling Coalition officials at nearly every briefing as to why Americans were targeting women and children, and why the Americans were punishing so many innocent Iraqis for the wrongs committed by the few who desecrated the bodies in Falluja. Coalition spokesman Dan Senor and Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt explained that the Coalition is not executing a campaign of collective punishment, is targeting only those who had demonstrated themselves to be violently anti-Coalition, and is following strict rules of engagement and stringent policies concerning the use of force. But these assurances fell on deaf ears. The journalists had seen the purported proof of the Coalition's barbarity: they had watched satellite networks like Al Jazeera

and Al Arabia.

Upon modest examination, however, the evidence of Coalition inhumanity turns out to be a combination of half-truths and no-truths. For example, these networks reported that the Coalition dropped a JDAM on a mosque in Falluja. This much is true, however many news sources failed to report why the bomb was dropped, or incorrectly stated that the action was unprovoked. In reality, anti-Coalition forces had overtaken the mosque, and were using the high ground of the minarets to fire on Coalition forces. The bomb was dropped to permit the Marines to breach one side of the mosque, and thereby to return order. By omitting any reference to the gunmen in the mosque, media outlets were able to neatly transform an act of self-defense on the part of the Marines into a purported violation of the Geneva Convention.

THE MORE GENERAL CLAIMS of Coalition forces targeting women and children likewise have been supported by a hodge-podge of unreliable and largely unsubstantiated evidence. First, there have been reports of extraordinarily high body counts, always followed with the assertion that most of the dead are women and children. But there has yet to be a single count confirmed by an independent agency, such as the Iraqi Ministry of Health. The Marines have vehemently denied that the majority are women and children, saying that they have taken due care to avoid collateral injuries. This denial, needless to say, gets little attention in the local media.

The most damning evidence of Coalition forces targeting civilians comes in the form of eyewitness accounts, and pictures of the dead and wounded from the scene. However, even assuming the veracity of the witnesses, this evidence tells us little more than that women and children were hurt or killed, without clarifying who committed the acts, or why they were committed. This is because many of the eyewitnesses only claim to have seen the injured or dead, but not the shooting or the shooter. For example, an American reporter relayed to me what she thought was convincing evidence that the Coalition was targeting civilians. An eyewitness from Falluja informed her that his relative was shot in the streets by a sniper. The witness claimed that the shooter must have been a member of the Coalition, because the Coalition controlled all the high ground. But this premise was untrue: anti-Coalition forces had been using the minarets of mosques--the highest ground in the city--to conduct attacks. While there are some sophisticated snipers among the insurgents, many insurgents don't bother with the sites of the weapon, preferring to spray rounds in the hope that, insha Allah, the bullets will find their enemy. Given this poor technique, and the fact that insurgents occupied the high ground, the witness had provided no evidence as to who actually shot the relative. Yet this is precisely the sort of testimony which has been bandied about as authoritative proof of Coalition malfeasance.

UNFORTUNATELY, there are women and children among the wounded and dead. Indeed, there is substantial evidence that the insurgents are taking deliberate steps to increase the number of women and children killed by Coalition forces. In a firefight over the weekend in the border town of Husaybah, insurgents used women and children as human shields to block mortar positions. Similar reports are beginning to come from Falluja, where the fighters chose to bring the fight into the city, and specifically into areas where women and children were likely to be in the hopes that the Americans would either not fire or would kill non-combatants. Through these acts, the insurgents have demonstrated that they are willing to sacrifice women and children in order to generate bad press for the Coalition in Iraq and abroad, or alternatively to save their cowardly skins. The Coalition, by contrast, has put Marines in harms way in order to minimize injuries to non-combatants.

While telling half of the story is bad enough, there is substantial evidence that outlets like Al Jazeera are in fact acting in concert with terrorists to generate overtly false and misleading news reports. Colonel William Rabena, who commands the 2d Battalion, 3d Field Artillery Regiment Gunners in the Adhamiya region of Baghdad, related a scam coordinated between anti-Coalition elements and Al Jazeera in his area of operation. A gunman would go to the mosque, where Al Jazeera, as luck would have it, would be setting up. The man would open fire in order

to draw fire from the Coalition. After he was inevitably taken down by the Coalition, a bystander would rush over to check his condition, and in the melee secret away the firearm. Al Jazeera then would swoop in for the story: Coalition guns down unarmed man in front of mosque! And as in Falluja, they would have the pictures to prove it.

The Western press, while not acting in concert with the terrorists, has performed little better. Too often, Western media outlets ran the unconfirmed casualty statistics from Falluja, without providing caveats about the accuracy of the reports and without providing a Coalition response. And too often, Western media outlets ran "eyewitness" accounts of Coalition forces killing civilians without confirming the accuracy of the statements, and without even suggesting that they sought Coalition comment on the serious allegations.

While some of this reporting is undoubtedly a function of haste, some inevitably is a function of bias. By way of example, long before the events in Falluja, an Iraqi reporter at a press briefing asked whether it was Coalition policy to target women and children. After the briefing, a reporter for a major U.S. network congratulated the journalist for asking such a fine question. It takes a uniquely skewed perspective to believe not only that soldiers are targeting innocents, but that a "good question" is whether this is official policy. Given this jaundiced view, it is little wonder that the news out of Iraq is perpetually bleak.

In the last two weeks, the Coalition has suffered stinging losses, not in military battles, but in the battle for public opinion. Most notably, those who have demonstrated a willingness to kill women and children have successfully blamed the Coalition for inhumane acts, while the Coalition has suffered increased casualties in its attempt to be more humane. The lesson is clear: the most powerful weapon the insurgents possess is the aid of sympathetic channels like Al Jazeera and Al Arabia, which they have used to great effect in shaping opinion in Iraq and abroad. To secure long-term popular support and regional stability, the Coalition must do more than win militarily. Rather, they must find a way to overcome the Al Jazeera effect.

Robert D. Alt is a Fellow in Legal and International Affairs at The John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University

[sobeton]

the Iraqi government’s actions against Al-Jazeera where inappropriate, have failed to prevent Al-Jazeera from reporting on Iraq, and increased anti-american sentiment among the arab world. igloo know matter what your view is, the real winner here is Al-Jazeera as they continue to exist in spite of the Iraqi and US governments attempt to silence them; this fact is undisputable.

[igloo]

the Iraqi government’s actions against Al-Jazeera where inappropriate, have failed to prevent Al-Jazeera from reporting on Iraq, and increased anti-american sentiment among the arab world. igloo know matter what your view is, the real winner here is Al-Jazeera as they continue to exist in spite of the Iraqi and US governments attempt to silence them; this fact is undisputable.

I don't think this was the issue at hand though......but if you want to go off on a tangent, fine....

The winner was going to be AL jazeera, either way....I agree.........but an indisputable fact is also was AL jazeera was anti-american, fiercly biased and one-sided, and a negative contributor to events that simply make things worse, not better....and put more lives, both Iraqis and Americans, in more danger.......

Inappropriate------I think not, completely warranted and understandable.........Ineffective may be a better word

[sobeton]

I don't think this was the issue at hand though......but if you want to go off on a tangent, fine....

The winner was going to be AL jazeera, either way....I agree.........but an indisputable fact is also was AL jazeera was anti-american, fiercly biased and one-sided, and a negative contributor to events that simply make things worse, not better....and put more lives, both Iraqis and Americans, in more danger.......

Inappropriate------I think not, completely warranted and understandable.........Ineffective may be a better word

being anti-american, fiercely biased, one-sided, and arguably a negative contributor to events is not a wrong. publicly unacceptable perhaps to some, but certainly not a wrong. conversely if we applied those above mentioned principles , as they relate to US laws. you would be well within your constitutional rights, to hold those principles as your own.

to believe a media outlet directly or indirectly puts people’s lives in danger, is a far stretch. the Iraqi government's actions where inappropriate and ineffective as I alluded to previously and still maintain.