Posted on 03/31/2006 4:07:26 PM PST by Overwatcher
To censor, or not to censor? That is the question. The only censorship I believe in is protecting military/national security secrets (especially regarding our methodology and results).
To sanitize, or not to sanitize? That is another question.
I believe the poster above was alluding to Jack Nicholson's comments in A Few Good Men when he stated, "You can't handle the truth!" Well, we get way too much sanitizing of the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts.
I don't think it's true censorship in this instance. We know the tapes exist- no one denies that. We can hear the tapes of the recipient of the calls- and can certainly imagine what might be said by the caller.
They've been attacking us since 630 a.d.
If it were me - and it very nearly was me, twice! - I wouldn't want my cries for help to be censored. I would want them to live on as an eternal reminder that without vigilance what happened to me could happen to anyone at any time.
Why were there recordings released late on a Friday as well? This is crazy.
Thank you! And my fear is exactly that - that without vigilance and courage, we are doomed. NO, I don't want or need ghoulish internet entertainment listening to the cries for help, but I would rather have us painfully reminded just what took place on that day - and I want us vigilant, so that it doesn't happen again. With forgetting comes complacency, and with that you might as well bend over and kiss it goodbye, baby.
That's just another way of saying the same thing, only it sounds better. Like "it's for the children".
This is what is unsettling for me. This was a historic news event that technology has preserved like few others in our nation's history.
Many, for "diplomacy" or PC would love to erase it from the national memory, which is significantly worse than simply irritating.
I see this as significant, if not more so, as the Kennedy assasination, which has been replayed over and over ad nauseam. I know Kennedy was a public figure and these victims are not; or more precisely were not, but they certainly are now.
If the family members do not wish to risk hearing their loved ones, they can simply never watch or listen. But simply preventing this historic event to be seen or heard ever by anyone, is simply another instance of controlling the rest of the world simply because you can.
OK then, let's not ever make them a public broadcast, but allow DVD versions to be available to those Americans who, for whatever reason, wish to experience them. That is not unreasonable. Only the last names need to be edited out, so far as I can see.
I'm old enough to remember when film shots of Pearl Harbor, and the aftermath, were a regular feature ... this was several years after WWII, but reinforced the point why America went to war. Today we have a comparable situation with 9-11 and it's as if it never happened ... film footage (which exists) is rarely shown, still photo's of the jumpers is off limits, now real time voice recordings of victims in WTC I & II calling 911 are off limits. This country has turned into a nation of wussies.
Alas, I am afraid you are correct, Sir. And, that also concerns me deeply.
Since you are the first one who mentioned this line of thought, I respond by asking why then did the families of the victims (along with the NY Times/Slimes) sue to have the tapes released in their entirety?
What do you think of having Jill Carroll listen to the tapes? The unedited tapes, that is. Maybe not, it would just encourage her to praise the terrorists even more than she already has. How about Congressman Murtha? Maybe he should give a listen. My list could be really long, you know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.