News Suppression (political)

R. Richard

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 24, 2003
Posts
10,382
The following is a story you have almost certainly not read.
I picked it up from international news sites while looking for something else. What bothers me is that a story with major US interest is not being properly covered by the US media. To summarize, three Algerians were arrested after plotting attacks in both Italy and the US. How were the plots detected? WIRE TAPS! Why was the story not covered by the US media? Could it be that the story would have, in large measure, justified the wire taps that President Bush is using to try to prevent the same kinds of attacks?

It doesn’t matter if you agree with the tactic of wire tapping or not [and I know that a lot of Literotica people don’t]. The story is news and data that is needed to really evaluate a reasoned position on wire tapping. The suppression of such news is shameful!

Comment?

From: http://thezeropoint.blogspot.com/
Thursday, January 12, 2006
The U.S. Media Blackout Continues
Ever see this headline? "Plans to 'top' 9/11 strikes"
Rome - Three Algerians arrested in an anti-terrorist operation in southern Italy are suspected of being linked to a planned new series of attacks in the United States, interior minister Giuseppe Pisanu said Friday.

The attacks would have targeted ships, stadiums or railway stations in a bid to outdo the September 11 2001 strikes by al-Qaeda in New York and Washington which killed about 2 700 people, Pisanu said.

The Algerians, suspected of belonging to a cell established by an al-Qaeda-linked Algerian extremist organisation, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), were named as Achour Rabah, Tartaq Sami and Yasmine Bouhrama.
Strange that the U.S. media hasn't reported it yet. You have to go to the international press to get any follow-up reporting. But of course, it's what the foreign press is reporting that might have the U.S. media reluctant to break their silence.

The three in custody are also alleged to have procured false papers and funds to finance the GSPC, a hardline fundamentalist movement that rejects the Algerian government's attempt to draw a line under years of Islamist rebellion.

Pisanu said Friday's swoop was part of a wider operation involving other countries.

Links were uncovered between the GSPC's Italian activities and groups in Britain, the Italian news agency Ansa reported.

Interesting. And how were the links uncovered?

Italian authorities stepped up their internal surveillance programs after July's terrorist bombings in London. Their domestic wiretaps picked up phone conversations by Algerian Yasmine Bouhrama that discussed terrorist attacks in Italy and abroad.

Italian authorities arrested Bouhrama on November 15 and he remains in prison. Authorities later arrested two other men, Achour Rabah and Tartaq Sami, who are believed to be Bouhrama's chief aides in planning the attacks.

The arrests were a major coup for Italian anti-terror forces, and the story was carried in most major newspapers from Europe to China.

Well would you look at that - wiretapping! Who would have thought? Gosh it's too bad the U.S. media won't report on that, because that would actually go a long way in helping the American public understand that whole NSA thing that was leaked to the New York Times.

"My impression is that the major media want to use the NSA story to try and impeach the president," says Cliff Kincaid, editor of the Accuracy in Media Report published by the grassroots Accuracy in Media organization.

"If you remind people that terrorists actually are planning to kill us, that tends to support the case made by President Bush. They will ignore any issue that shows that this kind of [wiretapping] tactic can work in the war on terror."

"The mainstream media have framed the story as one of the nefarious President Bush 'spying on U.S. citizens,' where the average American is a victim not a beneficiary," commented Brent Baker, vice president of the Media Research Center, a Washington, D.C.-based organization dedicated to encouraging balanced news coverage, "so journalists have little interest in any evidence that the program has helped save lives by uncovering terrorist plans."

The Associated Press version of the story did not disclose that the men planned to target the U.S. Nor did it report that the evidence against the suspects was gathered via a wiretapping surveillance operation.

As I've said before, this is the war on terror, protecting the homeland. This is not Iraq. This is not even Afghanistan. And there is no amount of classified program leaking, article writing, media scaremongering, media blackout-ing, Cindy Sheehan wailing, Senate hearing, poll skewing, scandal swearing that will turn the public against a program that is demonstrably keeping this country safe. Whatever the public feels about wiretapping or their rights, they understand that they'll have no rights (except maybe last rights) if they're dead.

But the media dares not report on this, because such stories would support the President. And so they will dig themselves even deeper by keeping something like this quiet.

Pretty despicable if you ask me.
 
lilredjammies said:
Actually, R., only about 10% of international news offered by the AP to American media is picked up. It has less to do with "smearing Bush" than it does with the essential isolationism of the American public. Simply put, "foreign" news doesn't sell papers or ads on news broadcasts.

I hop you will excuse me, but I think that news involving a planned major attack on the US would be of some interest to the American public.

JMHO.
 
lilredjammies said:
Actually, R., only about 10% of international news offered by the AP to American media is picked up. It has less to do with "smearing Bush" than it does with the essential isolationism of the American public. Simply put, "foreign" news doesn't sell papers or ads on news broadcasts.

Actually, the two are pretty much hand-in-hand. Smearing Bush, or any other major political figure, regardless of political party (though Bush has become quite the target these days) does sell newpapers and magazines. This doesn't really attack anyone, so I guess it makes no difference what it has to offer.

Curiously, where did you find this, R. Richard?

Q_C
 
orchestration?

this complaint, in almost identical words, has been popping up at GOP websites for the last week, e.g,

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/01/08/all-the-news-thats-fit-to-bury/

http://forums.joeuser.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=3&AID=97467

http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/002905.html

the transparent motive is to justify domestic surveillance measures that may have gotten Mr. GWB in trouble.

the gist is "See, there really are people trying to kill us [Americans]"

the left are simply deluded wimps who want to be 'pals' of the Islamists and forgive them for any plotting or terrorism
 
Pure said:
this complaint, in almost identical words, has been popping up at GOP websites for the last week, e.g,

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/01/08/all-the-news-thats-fit-to-bury/

http://forums.joeuser.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=3&AID=97467

http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/002905.html

the transparent motive is to justify domestic surveillance measures that may have gotten Mr. GWB in trouble.

the gist is "See, there really are people trying to kill us [Americans]"

the left are simply deluded wimps who want to be 'pals' of the Islamists and forgive them for any plotting or terrorism

Is your argument, "See, there really aren't people trying to kill us [Americans]"
 
your question illustrates this sleazy strategy perfectly-- attack the 'reality base' of anyone mentioning the real issue, "Does the President have to respect the law, or just make it up as he goes along."
 
Pure said:
your question illustrates this sleazy strategy perfectly-- attack the 'reality base' of anyone mentioning the real issue, "Does the President have to respect the law, or just make it up as he goes along."

Pardon me, but there is a legal basis for the President using wire tapping without a court order. Actually, the basis was issued as a Presidential Order by the last Democratic President [his name escapes me].
 
Pure said:
your question illustrates this sleazy strategy perfectly-- attack the 'reality base' of anyone mentioning the real issue, "Does the President have to respect the law, or just make it up as he goes along."

Some people seem to think the President, who may want power and more within the U.S., is actually less of a thret than, say... the people mentioned in this story who want to kill us. Their version of the "real issue" tends to focus more of those people and less of GW. After 9/11, and since then, truthfully, there is good reason for their concern.

Q_C
 
R. Richard said:
The NYT has admitted that terrorist surveillance is necessary, however, they'd be reluctant to print any evidence to support their confession.
 
News selection

It isn't just a US phenomenon. If you buy English, French and German quality newspapers on the same day you will see that different stories have prominence and many stories beyond the country's borders are completely different.

European papers will have far more 'World' news than similar US papers and will cover US events in some depth.

If you buy scandal rags then apart from the tits and bums the stories are similar but different.

TV news is much more selective than newspapers. Although European TV News broadcasts will cover events beyond Europe, there are so few stories in any news programme by comparison with any newspaper that anyone relying solely on TV news would be unaware of 75% of stories on any day.

One of my daughters is a reporter for a local weekly newspaper. She writes between 70 and 90 stories a week of which about 35 to 45 are printed. The decision on what is printed rests with the editor who decides what is 'newsworthy'. The local radio station, owned by the newspaper group, selects some, maybe 8 to 10, of her 35 to 45 news stories. Yet everything not printed or broadcast is still 'news'.

It's not necessarily a conspiracy. It is selection from a wide range of news to sell the product - newspaper or news programme.

Og
 
Og:
I understand that only a small amount of "news" is actually printed/broadcast. There are too many "dog bites man" stories for each one to be printed/broadcast. However, a story in which a major attack on the US is broken up is more in the nature of a "man bites dog" story. It is BIG news and should be printed/broadcast.

Even when the story was printed/broadcast in the US, it was either buried in the back pages or the story was printed/broadcast with key details missing.

It is an editor's decision as to whether or not a news item is printed/broadcast. However, if a news story is printed/broadcast, then it needs to be done in a fair and reasonably complete form.

My complaint is with the general omission of the story and the almost complete omission of the wire tapping aspect when the story was indeed printed/broadcast.
 
Wire tapping

Wire tapping is no big deal in Europe.

Mobile/cell phone conversations can be monitored using equipment available in your neighbourhood store.

Wireless/cordless phones can be picked up on several types of radio.

The UK government has been wiretapping for generations.

The European Community is now requiring mobile phone companies to keep details of mobile phone calls for 3 years so that evidence can be given to a court.

Assuming that your phone conversations are secure is about is stupid as assuming that a post on a public forum like Literotica can only be read by defined members of the Author's Hangout.

Og
 
Wire-tapping in Italy has to be authorized by a judge (who isn't a political nominee). Why would this piece of news have any influence in Bush's current scandle, I have no idea.
 
Lauren Hynde said:
Wire-tapping in Italy has to be authorized by a judge (who isn't a political nominee). Why would this piece of news have any influence in Bush's current scandle, I have no idea.
Exactly. So if the American media is only interrested in smearing Bush, then they SHOULD run this story. Because it indicates that wire-tapping done with proper judicial backing is effective in stopping terrorism.

Afaik, the controversy about US wire-taps was never about wether they should use them, but whether they should do so without a court order, and that traditional legal process was surpassed.
 
Hi Lauren, note to Liar,


the thinking, Lauren, as evidenced in RR's postings is that BECAUSE the US has *real enemies* that the President's decision for domestic wiretapping, on his own authority, and bypassing the judicial mechanism set in place, is wise and admirably decisive.

IF the US has real enemies, then our Imperial President is acting in a necessary and admirable fashion. So the 'reasoning' goes.

the mechanism showed a pattern of approving most requests for 'national security' wiretaps, and for doing so very swiftly (often within a day). hence its bypassing, IMO, was not for speed, so much as to say, "The President has the inherent power to proceed, here, on his own authority."

---
Liar, good points. IF judicially authorized wiretapping was involved, then the right wing's theory of left-wing NY Times suppression --to avoid making Bush look justified-- is nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
Pure said:
the thinking, Lauren, as evidenced in RR's postings is that BECAUSE the US has *real enemies* that the President's decision for domestic wiretapping, on his own authority, and bypassing the judicial mechanism set in place, is wise and admirably decisive.

IF the US has real enemies, then our Imperial President is acting in a necessary and admirable fashion. So the 'reasoning' goes.

the mechanism showed a pattern of approving most requests for 'national security' wiretaps, and for doing so very swiftly (often within a day). hence its bypassing, IMO, was not for speed, so much as to say, "The President has the inherent power to proceed, here, on his own authority."
So, because the US has *real enemies*, it justifies the swift transition to a fascist police state? That's cool. I'm sure the enemies will be pleased enough with that.
 
Lauren Hynde said:
Wire-tapping in Italy has to be authorized by a judge (who isn't a political nominee). Why would this piece of news have any influence in Bush's current scandle, I have no idea.

If I might politely point out, the President has the legal authority to conduct wire taps and even physical searches. The wire tap authority comes from Executive Order 12139 [23 May 1979]. The physical search authority comes from Executive Order 12949 [February 9, 1995]. The careful reader will note that said [Presidential] Executive Orders were done NOT by President Bush, but by two Democratic Presidents. If the Executive Orders are authoritarian/fascist, then the blame should not be put on President Bush, but on the Presidents who issued said orders. Google it!
 
i for one think that Osama was and is immensely pleased with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

this is in support of the thesis that the US has become a (more) fascist and (more) imperialist [seeking world domination] state AND that the Iraq war, like the "Homeland Security" activities thus far, have strengthened the enemies of the US.
 
Lauren Hynde said:
So, because the US has *real enemies*, it justifies the swift transition to a fascist police state? That's cool. I'm sure the enemies will be pleased enough with that.

"the mechanism showed a pattern of approving most requests for 'national security' wiretaps, and for doing so very swiftly (often within a day). hence its bypassing, IMO, was not for speed, so much as to say, "The President has the inherent power to proceed, here, on his own authority."

When one is dealing with terrorists, actions must be often be taken quickly. As I have pointed out in a previous post, the action was NOT taken on President Bush's authority, but rather on the authority of a Democrat9ic President.

As to "a fascist police state," you might consider that wire tapping is one thing and a thing that President Bush has admitted using. However, to the best of my knowledge, Bush has not used warrentless physical searches as authorized by yet another Democratic President. Why is it that wire tapping is "a fascist police state" but warrentless physical searches are apparently not?

Just asking.
 
R Richard,

The order you say authorizes wiretapping on the president's authority alone is as below. It does NOT say what you claim. Secondly it's not plausible that the(a) President's order(s) could increase the lawful power of the President over that of the Congress and Courts.

Thirdly, the actual Republican main defense was NOT from this or any order, but from the President's inherent powers, and his powers as commander in chief (and secondarily from the Act which gave him powers to prosecute the war in Iraq and Aghanistan). This is clearly a stronger and more logical --if wrong-- line to take, compared to yours.

EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
EO 12139
23 May 1979

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


By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to
approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information.

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national
security or defense, is designated to make the certifications
required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications
to conduct electronic surveillance:

(a) Secretary of State.

(b) Secretary of Defense.

(c) Director of Central Intelligence.

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(e) Deputy Secretary of State.

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined
in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be
conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes
electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that
Act as well as this Order.''.

Jimmy Carter.
 
Baloney

RR Why is it that wire tapping is "a fascist police state" but warrentless physical searches are apparently not?

We are far beyond illegal search. A US citizen, Padilla, was hived off to a military prison (brig) and held without charges or access to a lawyer for a couple years.

There are US and UK citizens imprisoned in Guantanamo without charges being brought. (a few have come up lately for review by a military tribunal).
 
R. Richard said:
If I might politely point out, the President has the legal authority to conduct wire taps and even physical searches. The wire tap authority comes from Executive Order 12139 [23 May 1979]. The physical search authority comes from Executive Order 12949 [February 9, 1995]. The careful reader will note that said [Presidential] Executive Orders were done NOT by President Bush, but by two Democratic Presidents. If the Executive Orders are authoritarian/fascist, then the blame should not be put on President Bush, but on the Presidents who issued said orders. Google it!
Er... What does that have to do with anything? Whoever said Bush had the exclusive on fascist orders? The mere fact that he has the legal authority to do it - combined with the entire judiciary system being in politicians hands, including the Supreme Court - is proof that the authoritarianism of a politically motivated police state is there for grabs.

The enemies of the US just have to be thrilled that someone is grabbing it now.
 
Back
Top