Posted on 05/24/2010 5:46:49 PM PDT by jveritas
In his most recent interview with an Al Qaeda media outlet terrorist “Anwar Al Awlaki” the US born Al Qaeda terrorist said that he stopped his communications when he read in the Washington Post that he is being tracked by US intelligence. He said that once he stopped his communications he left the area in Yemen where he was hiding and then this area was bombed by US airstrikes.
He also said that both terrorists “Nidal Hassan” who killed 13 of our troops at Fort Hood and “Omar Farouk Abd Al Moutaleb” who had the failed terrorist attack on the Delta Detroit plane on Christmas Day 2009 were his students and that he is honored and proud that they were his students.
In his interview he called for every muslim serving in the US military to imitate what terrorist “Nidal Hassan” did and kill US soldiers.
He said that he is very proud of his role to incite violence against Americans.
The text of his video interview with “Al Malahem” which the media outlet of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula can be found on this link below which is from “al falojah” terrorist forum. It is in Arabic.
http://alfaloja.ws/vb/showthread.php?t=117974
Below is the translation of terrorist Anwar Al Awlaki statement regarding the Washington Post article:
Beginning of the translation
Question from “Malahem” Al Qaeda media: The Americans are saying that after Nidal Hassan attack they tighten the noose around your neck, they closed your website on the internet and now you are being chased, is that true?
Answer from terrorist Al Awlaki: Yes they closed this website after Nidal Hassan attack, I wrote on the website an article approving of what Nidal Hassan did and then after that they closed the website. After that I read an article in the Washington Post that they are monitoring my communications so I was forced to stop these communications and left the area and then after that the American bombardment occurred.
End of the translation
But since they were just making nice with the ROP, it won't happen.
ping for later reading
They not only watch our media for intelligence information, but even our cartoons. Remember the Danish cartoon flap. I just ran across this cartoon, which hails from Australia, where hopefully the blogger is safer from death. I am only listing the link as I do not want to get kicked off for a very obscene drawing. Do not click if such things bother you.
http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/2010/05/another-carton_16.html
They should be hung as traitors in time of war.
Despicable vermin.
What a stinking hypocrite, al Awlaki .. he’s a
sex-starved pervert, patronized hookers on CA
and DC street corners and was arrested for
solitication, as well as being noticed hanging
around schools, while preaching his pure living,
‘martyr’ crappolla and the 72 virgins fantasy
to his brainwashed numbskulls.
If he believes it so much, why hasn’t he just
volunteered to be martyred, if he believes it ?
Did you see the FNC American Terrorist special
about him? It’s a MUST see.
Imagine your hometown newspaper outing police methods and targets.
Question from “Malahem” Al Qaeda media: The Americans are saying that after Nidal Hassan attack they tighten the noose around your neck, they closed your website on the internet and now you are being chased, is that true?Answer from terrorist Al Awlaki: Yes they closed this website after Nidal Hassan attack, I wrote on the website an article approving of what Nidal Hassan did and then after that they closed the website. After that I read an article in the Washington Post that they are monitoring my communications so I was forced to stop these communications and left the area and then after that the American bombardment occurred.
So, Katherine’s Salon should be burned as an enemy installation.... She’s not with us
Another example of how the Compost hates America and loves our enemies.
The Compost and Ny Slimes can’t go out business fast enough to make me happy.
No you have to control the leakers. First amendment you know.
The problem is, that's a methodology that has been used as long as I've been alive -- and -- it simply has not stopped things from getting printed in the news.
It appears to me -- especially with people here posting that these papers shouldn't be printing this stuff -- that if someone really wants to stop it (not stop it by a methology that has never effectively stopped it in over 50 years that I'm aware of) -- then one is going to have to do it at the "printing level" not the "leaking level".
And yes, there is the First Amendment, and thus, it would require changes of that, to stop important state secrets at the "printing level" ...
All I'm saying here is that "if" people are not happy with the "print media" -- then -- you're going to have to stop this at the "print media level" and that will require changing the law to do it. Otherwise, the print media is going to keep right on printing this stuff...
I seem to recall a female journalist from the Washington Poop at a Pentagon press conference. The spokesman that day asked why doesn’t the media report any of the positive news that was coming out of Iraq that week. She said that they would NOT run such propaganda. Except they were willing to run propaganda that benefitted the cause of Islamic extremism.
Lies by omission are lies all the same. It’s why Howard Zinn was a COMMUNIST and not a historian.
I disagree.
What you do is find the leak, drag them into the street, and SHOOT THEM IN THE F'ING HEAD!!!
Well, here's the thing about that ... you can't do that ... LOL ... and hence, your problem.
What I'm saying is that for my lifetime and me observing these kinds of "leaks" for all that time, it keeps right on happening, without fail, over all that period of time that I've known about it. It never stops.
SO..., I'm saying that the "methodology" of stopping the leaks from the "leaker's standpoint" is not working. Thus, if you really want to stop this from getting "out in the press" -- you're gonna have to change your "methodology" and stop the press from printing it, by having some kind of State Secrets act and modifying the press' ability to "print anything, even state secrets". That's the only way you're going to "really stop it".
And... from the complaints that I see here... the complaints are mainly directed "at the press" ... so if you are directing your complaint "at the press" -- then solve the problem "at the press level" and stop it completely. It only makes sense.
BUT, as I said, it would take "changing the law" to do that. But, if you (i.e., anyone who complains about the "press printing these things") complain about the press doing that -- then that's what you're gonna have to do about the "press"...
Not really. Very few have gotten more than a slap on the wrist for leaking to the press. The worst leakers are the highest level folks, in both the Excutive and legislative branches. They all seem to believe that the law doesn't apply to them. It's just for us "little people". (A 360 lb little person, who knew?
give a few of them a good stiff dose of Club Fed, say at Leavenworth Kansas, and then evaluate again.
It seems to me, from reading some of these posts, though, that a good number of posters are blaming the press. And if that’s the case, then there needs to be laws to limit the press in terms of state secrets. That’s the only way I see as effective.
But, if one is actually blaming the leakers, the don’t blame the press for what they can do with no problem (i.e., “no legal restrictions”), since there is no laws restraining the press in that manner ... while, on the other hand, there are laws that can be applied to the “leakers” ...
However, I don’t think that one will ever stop that from happening, on the “leaker side” of things, because once the “horse is out of the barn” — then any in the press can print it.
I have never and will not believe anything, any left wing mediot has to say that is posing as news.
Just because there is no law against something, doesn't mean it's a Good Thing to do. I blame the press as well, the lying anti American SOBs. But then I don't pay their salaries, buy their papers, and rarely watch their news programs. And the first amendment must still be obeyed. "Congress shall make no law" means just that, just as "shall not be infringed" means they are to keep their stiking hands off.
Just because there is no law against something, doesn't mean it's a Good Thing to do.
"Good" or "bad" isn't going to "do anything" for you, as long as it's legal.
It's like the "porn" debate, in that there's a whole lot of people who think it's really bad to have it out there. But, then again, you've got a whole lot of people who say, "Mind your own business and don't get it if you don't want it! It's my choice and you can't interfere with my choice!"
Now, you've got that kind of situation where you and other here will say, "That's a real bad decision there! Look at what harm it does to catching these terrorists!" But, then again, someone else is going to say, "It's freedom of the press and as long as it's not illegal, then the public has the right to know about it, regardless of whether the terrorist reads about it!"
So, all you've got then is simply one side arguing with the other -- and the stuff still gets printed (just like the "porn" still gets distributed). Nothing changes.
If you want to change something -- then change the law regarding what the press can and cannot print -- especially in regards to state secrets.
Otherwise -- keep complaining, because as long as there's no law preventing it -- you're gonna see this continue on -- into perpetuity.
I prefer that if something is "serious enough" to want it stopped -- then -- you make a law about that, to prevent it -- and you enforce that law. And, of course, making a law doesn't stop things from happening, as we still have murder and theft and all sorts of other crimes, but at least, you can "put away" the perpetrators for printing state secrets. And there are only so many papers and so many writers [they'll run out of writers quick enough, if you keep jailing them for doing that].
So you are willing to give up on the Constitution and the people? I'm not, not yet, not ever.
Now there might be civil remedies, not involving the government, except in so far as the courts are the mediators. Reckless endangerment suits by the families of those harmed by the printing of the leaks, would be a possibility.
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams, Notes for an oration at Braintree (Spring 1772)
I prefer that if something is "serious enough" to want it stopped -- then -- you make a law about that, to prevent it -- and you enforce that law. And, of course, making a law doesn't stop things from happening, as we still have murder and theft and all sorts of other crimes, but at least, you can "put away" the perpetrators for printing state secrets. And there are only so many papers and so many writers [they'll run out of writers quick enough, if you keep jailing them for doing that].
Just like we're running out of drug dealers?
The plain fact is that most of these leaks are done by politicians or their syncopants trying to score political points They can be prosecuted for violation of their security agreements. The "reporters" can be punished by civil suits and not buying their crap.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
o Letter to Abigail Adams (1775-07-17)
So you are willing to give up on the Constitution and the people? I'm not, not yet, not ever.
No, I don't advocate giving up on the Constitution, what I say is that if people think it's worth it to keep state secrets that secret, then they can do something about it and change the law ... [i.e., the Constitution has been changed numerous times, without "giving up on it" ... :-) ...]
It's up to the people -- if they think it's important enough -- then they can do it. If they don't think it's important enough, then things remain as they are now... and the papers will keep on printing stuff like this -- that's all.
It sure sounded like -- from reading some of the FReepers posts -- that they wanted to stop the newspapers and other media from being able to distribute that kind of information -- but maybe they were just "having a gripe session" ... instead, and I misunderstood them. I thought that some would like to stop those newspapers from printing state secrets like that.
Now there might be civil remedies, not involving the government, except in so far as the courts are the mediators. Reckless endangerment suits by the families of those harmed by the printing of the leaks, would be a possibility.
As it stands right now, with the Constitution, I would say that newspapers and other media don't have a problem with that. They've done it before (print those kinds of "secrets") and under the present situation -- they will continue to do so.
If someone wants to change the situation and they don't want the newspapers to be able to print that -- then they are going to have to change the law.
Just like we're running out of drug dealers?
Oh... drug dealers are a world-apart from news reporters ... LOL ... I mean, drug dealers will do their time in prison and come out ready to do it again.
I think those news reporters will think twice before they want to sit in prison with those other drug dealers who are already there ... :-)
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
I guess that means you're stuck with those pesky newspapers printing these things, then ...
But no article of the Bill of Rights has been changed or repealed. Some states refused to ratify the Constitution unless it contained such a bill of rights, although enough relented on the promise of one to get the Constitution adopted.
I guess that means you're stuck with those pesky newspapers printing these things, then ...
Yep, at least in an absolute sense. I still say that exposing and were possible prosecuting the leakers to the full extent of the law, with treason charges possible since their actions resulted in aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, would cut down on the frequency of the leaks. A whole lot better than putting a few reporters in jail. But as Franklin wrote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
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.