Skip to comments.
North: U.S. Journalists Protecting Osama bin Laden
NewsMax.com ^
| 9/21/01
| Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
Posted on 09/21/2001 7:50:33 PM PDT by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
1
posted on
09/21/2001 7:50:33 PM PDT
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
It seems silly to me that the CIA never sent "journalists" in there to interview him. They must have. If not, what a joke!
To: kattracks
And therein you have the answer to the question of why the Dems would not pass a declaration of war. Leaks become treason, failure to answer these questions result in jail time.
To: kattracks
Japan's Kyodo News Agency is reporting this hour - quoting U.S. and Pakistan government sources - that Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar has fled Kandahar.
4
posted on
09/21/2001 7:58:54 PM PDT
by
HAL9000
To: JeepInMazar
Under American law, the CIA is barred from having agents pose as journalists and priests. Kind of silly, but that was part of the fallout from the radical left's takeover of the Democratic Party in the early 70's
To: kattracks
Whack em in the knuts 14 times, then ask again.
6
posted on
09/21/2001 8:01:32 PM PDT
by
Waco
To: kattracks
I'm sure Osama hasn't moved from the spot where he was interviewed two months ago.
7
posted on
09/21/2001 8:07:14 PM PDT
by
Restorer
To: vbmoneyspender
Wow. I hope we wake up as a nation. This needs to change.
Comment #9 Removed by Moderator
To: kattracks
Good Ole Ollie North almost got it right, but there is a large chance that the whole "reason" CNN reporters were ordered to leave Afghanistan was to aid and cover Osama's flight to "safety."
I wonder if the son of Laden will interview anyone while he poses as a journalist.
Moreover, I wonder if the reason that Air Force 1 code words were used by the terrorists on 9/11 was because someone in the press pool on that plane was treasonously providing our President's location to the assassins...
10
posted on
09/21/2001 8:09:20 PM PDT
by
Southack
To: JeepInMazar
It seems silly to me that the CIA never sent "journalists" in there to interview him. They must have. If not, what a joke! If I'm not mistaken I believe CIA operatives are banned from imitating journalists and missionaries.
11
posted on
09/21/2001 8:21:02 PM PDT
by
Grim
To: LLAN-DDEUSANT
He may have had. But he shredded those papers 14 years ago. Do you think there is the possibility Bin Laden might have changes his locations and M.O. in 14 years.
Or, are you one of those guys who figured Charles Lindberg should've sat out World War II and kept his mouth shut because he had a photo-op with the German Luftwaffe commander in 1934?
To: kattracks
Wouldn't matter anyways. most interviews were from last year or the year before last. He could be anywhere now.
13
posted on
09/21/2001 8:29:34 PM PDT
by
Bommer
To: vbmoneyspender
Thank you, Frank Church.
To: Bommer
..Wouldn't matter anyways. most interviews were from last year or the year before last...They still could have told where he was, but journalists often settle for any conditions to get a story. I had wondered myself how some of these folks could interview him and not tell the authorities where he was.
15
posted on
09/21/2001 8:34:39 PM PDT
by
mafree
To: kattracks
Kinda funny that the CIA wasn't tracking the journalists. That's not a high-end intelligence conclusion - tracking journalists and their stories. Even Saddam Hussein figured that out.
To: LLAN-DDEUSANT
FFOR-RREAL? Oh, I get it... you were just being glib.
The spirit of Bernard Shaw is still carried within the hearts and minds of journalists everywhere! Men and women of objectivity and the steely resolve to bring us nothing but the truth! John Reed would be proud.
Ed
To: vbmoneyspender
Kind of silly, Is it? Have you considered the consequences if journalists were to disclose privileged information to the CIA, or if the CIA were to impersonate journalists or priests? Do you not realise that every real journalist and priest would then be a suspected spy, with his life in danger?
Apart from the fact that there's a practical benefit to be gained from the unhindered practice of journalism, it's profoundly immoral to endanger legitimate civilian non-combatants by hiding behind their innocence.
Please try to understand the reason civilised countries accept the execution of spies in wartime: not so much because they work by stealth, as because they endanger non-combatants (who would otherwise be cast into suspicion).
18
posted on
09/21/2001 8:39:20 PM PDT
by
Romulus
To: Romulus
BuMp for a fine explaination.
19
posted on
09/21/2001 8:44:14 PM PDT
by
spunkets
To: Grim
If I'm not mistaken I believe CIA operatives are banned from imitating journalists and missionaries.And, apparently, journalists are banned from imitating Americans.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson