North: U.S. Journalists Protecting Osama bin Laden

NewsMax.com ^ | 9/21/01 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[vbmoneyspender]

Yes, I have considered it and it is quite worth the risk. BTW, if you can site me the name of just one journalist who was falsely executed as a CIA spy during the time that CIA agents were allowed to pose as journalists I'll donate a $100 to FR. If you can't, I'll expect you to donate a $100 to FR.

[vbmoneyspender]

One other point. Given that the entire job of a CIA agent is to pretend that he or she is not a spy, do you think CIA agents should be barred from posing as American businessmen or women because that might put the lives of real American business people in danger. And while you are at it, why restrict them from posing just as journalists or priests. Why not say they can't pose as embassy personnel because that would put the lives of real embassy personnel in danger. How about waiters or waitresses, or taxicab drivers, or doctors, or lawyers, or salesmen. In fact, just so that they don't put any other Americans in danger, why don't we bar CIA field agents from posing as anyone but CIA field agents. That way no one will be endangered because our enemies will be able to readily identify who is and is not a CIA field agent.

I hope the point has been made clear to you. Barring field agents from acting as journalists was nothing but a sop to the leftist dominated media during the 1970s. Simply put, there is nothing that should bar agents from posing as journalists and any rationale that attempts to justify such a restriction is logically ludicrous.

[mirkwood]

Wow. Yep. Look what can happen when you don't pay attention. We all know darn well we knew something was up. The CIA says " we knew nothing " just like Schultz on Hogan's Heroes. Give me a break. Keep on the Hillary sour-faced thing. As we have found in the past relentless e-mails and phone calls force the networks to cover it. She made faces the whole time Pres. Bush made his speech.

[Romulus]

Journalists killed in the line of duty.

[Romulus]

You make a good argument but you're overlooking the fact that because journalists necessarily ask questions and dig for information (usually without any powerful sponsors in the host country), they're uniquely in danger, in a way that businessmen are not. As for diplomats, they're not endangered because willy-nilly they're all presumptive spies, are known as such, and thus place no innocent persons in danger. When their presence in the host country becomes obnoxious, they are easily identified and expelled.

[Romulus]

More killings of politically inconvenient journalists. All you have to do is a Yahoo search -- not that hard, really.

[vbmoneyspender]

That's not a response. Those were journalists that were killed after the law was passed in the 70's and there is not even a connection raised with respect to the CIA.

And by the way, please respond to my argument about why journalists and priests should have special protection over all other types of American workers. For your argument to hold any weight, it has to be applied to every class of American worker, which would mean that a CIA agent could never pose as anyone but a CIA agent (which would kind of defeat the purpose of having spies).

Come on, be a man and admit that this law which purports to protect journalists and priests above everyone else is ludicrous.

[vbmoneyspender]

You are ridiculous. You are just citing killings of journalists. How in the hell does that support your argument. Come on, try and be honest and admit that your position is silly.

[independentmind]

It's not a good idea for an government agency that often deals in covert operations to pay people to pose as journalists. The potential for abuse domestically is not worth the risk. I don't want my government telling journalists what to say, do you?

[vbmoneyspender]

Let me take a wild guess. Are you a journalist?

[norton]

Before that.
It was pretty well established by 1970 but I don't remember the time/place it became policy.
Had more to do with safety of the entire journalism trade than with liberal take overs.
News reports themselves are sources of intelligence and they dry up when the targets don't believe that they can be trusted.
In this case however.....

[vbmoneyspender]

what are you talking about? We are talking here about field agents posing as journalists. How does that amount to the CIA telling journalists what to do and say. All it amounts to is the CIA telling an employee of theirs what to do and say. Finally, in case you aren'' aware of this, the CIA operates by law outside of the country. So what possible problem could you have with a CIA agent posing as a journalist outside of the United States. And if you do have a problem with that, then logically you must have a problem with CIA agents posing as anyone but themselves.

[Romulus]

No. Never was. Not related to one either, nor even friends with any. I'm arguing purely from a position of principle and citizenship. Imagine that!

[vbmoneyspender]

I ask you, why should journalists be entitled to more protection than any other class of Americans. Either American journalists are Americans first, in which case they should be willing to accepts the supposed risks that go with a CIA agent posing as a journalist, just as American businessmen, and American pilots, and American mechanics, and any other profession you care to name puts up with these risks. OR, American journalists are not Americans first, in which case they have no right to complain.

[vbmoneyspender]

It is ridiculous for you to say that you are arguing from a position of principle and citizenship when you argument is resulting in the elevation of journalists and priests above all other classes of American citizens. Come on, that is horse manure and you know it.

[independentmind]

Posing as a journalist isn't very good cover if you don't in fact publish anything.

[Romulus]

please respond to my argument about why journalists and priests should have special protection over all other types of American workers.

I did, in #26.

Why don't you eplain what we have to gain from endangering legitimate journalists and priests? Because your proposal would make every foreigner a presumptive spy, it would only endanger innocent people, without producing new intelligence.

If jouirnalists should be required to put their lives (and those of their colleagues) at risk by reporting to their home governments, why should you and I get a pass? Maybe the government has a right to expose me (unknowingly) to nuclear radiation), and to test your resistance to bio-warfare agents. Maybe we're all the property of governemnt to dispose of as our masters please, eh?

None for me; thanks.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Only fools would believe that these journalists who get access to bin Laden are not blindfolded and driven around in such a manner that they don't know where the hell they are. Plus, bL would be there only temporarily anyway. He moved every two days even before this atrocity.

[Benrand]

I'd believe that ABC was hiding Bin Laden. I just got done watching a disgusting bit of anti-US propaganda on Nightline. They had a rep from the Taliban in Afg. who speaks ok English and totally botched the subtitles, possibly unwittingly. He expressed opinion that the subtitles expressed as fact. It's been a steady drumbeat day after day on this show of blame being affixed to US...

I am guessing Orwell predicted the media turning against the country the membners live in. Ted Koppel is a traitor. He's not Canadian, so I can say that. ABC better hope that war doesn't come to the streets, they will be, ahem, screwed.