POWs and the New Media: Hugh Hewitt warns of danger to troops from Hollywood blathering

For the duration of the war, I suggest you change your home page to the POW-MIA and casualty page of Have You Forgotten. The presence of POWs changes everything about how Americans should speak publicly about the war. It is, of course, the right of every American to be a dishonorable and dishonest lout like Michael Moore, but the fact of American POWs and the instantaneous operation of modern media changes the ethics of commentary during the war.

It will not be a long war, though it will have and already has had an enormous cost attached to it for any family that loses a loved one. There will be no great sacrifice by the television and radio talking heads and the larger blathering class, if they collectively keep anti-American rants to themselves for the duration. But there could be enormous costs for POWs for those who shout screeds into open mikes while Americans are captive.

If Moore hasn't already considered it, he ought to be thinking about the reception he will receive if it turns out that his frothings were replayed for any of our captives. His website apparently shut down yesterday, and I doubt it was because of the congratulations he received. If any of our captives comes home and lets it be known that Moore's incoherence was part of their abuse, we can only hope that no one ever exhibits his silly pictures again.

These are the consequences of a wired world and dish networks. I cringe when I see any interview that could be used to harass prisoners, and there are many such interviews. Of course, the propaganda value of Moore and his like is already high for our enemies, but this is just a cost of freedom: Idiots can get amplification.

But since self-discipline is the only discipline that will ever be applied to the posers of the left, perhaps if they can see the faces of those that might suffer more because of their self-indulgence, they will display a little decency. The odds are not great that they will, but the website above is a good place to start.

If Moore hasn't already considered it, he ought to be thinking about the reception he will receive if it turns out that his frothings were replayed for any of our captives...
This treasonous fool's words are ALREADY being used against us, from the Toronto Star:

Mar. 26, 2003. 01:00 AM

`Stop the stupid bloody war'
Tens of thousands join peace march in Syrian capital
U.S., British flags torched as Arab anger mounts

MITCH POTTER

DAMASCUS—Grandmothers, accountants, teachers and students came out. Syrians, Muslim and Christian alike, came out. Displaced Iraqis and Palestinians came out. Even the occasional Communist was here.
They came, they chanted, they left. And save for a handful of arrests, the occasional stone thrown toward a cordon of riot-ready Syrian police — and the endemic torching of American and British flags — yesterday's anti-war march by tens of thousands through the streets of Damascus was altogether peaceful.
Still, there was something very different about Day 6 in the continuing wave of demonstrations in the Syrian capital. Not only was it far larger — perhaps by a factor of 10 — than any that preceded it, this protest was the first to receive the wholesale blessing and organizational heft of the Syrian government.
Unlike the sometimes violent rallies erupting elsewhere in the Arab world — such as those of Cairo, where police have been busy detaining anti-government ringleaders — the Syrian leadership and its people are on the same page in united opposition to war.
That doesn't make the anger any less genuine. But yesterday's display of state-sanctioned dissent was every bit an exercise in carefully controlled fury.
With civil servants and schools given the morning off, a distinctly youthful assembly of marchers converged from three directions on downtown Damascus, converging on a central square over which a boom crane dangled a television camera, broadcasting live across the country.
"Stop the stupid bloody war," read one banner. "Bush and Blair are the terrorists," read another. Others expressed themselves in pictures, carrying placards of U.S. President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, each smeared with red paint symbolizing blood.
"We are here because Iraqi children are dying," said one among a group of four high school teachers walking in unison. We are proud of Syria, for taking a brave stand against this terrible American aggression. If enough of us keep walking, maybe we can make it stop."
Photos of Saddam were nowhere to be seen. But everywhere could be seen placards with the young visage of Syrian President Bashar Assad, easily outnumbering those of his late father, Hafez.
Western diplomatic sources in Damascus say the younger Assad has slowly accrued credibility throughout the Arab world for his outspoken defence of Palestinians since the onset of the new intifada 2 1/2 years ago.
"To have come out as strongly as he has against the attack on Iraq has raised his profile considerably," a source told the Star. "The Arab world is starting to take notice of this guy."
To underscore the point, protesters singled out the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and Kuwait, chanting against their support for the war. Jordan's King Abdullah was labeled a "Zionist" while Egypt's Hosni Mubarak was called a "dollar worshipper."
Whether Syrian solidarity with Iraq will go beyond demonstrations and humanitarian relief remains to be seen. Several sources at the eastern border town of Abu Kamal said in interviews as many as 100 hardline Syrian activists — including members of Hamas and Hezbollah — made their way to Baghdad in advance of the U.S. invasion with the stated intention of defending the Iraqi people. Other unconfirmed rumours persist of low-key recruitment drives to send fighters to the war next door.
But clearly, the vast majority of Syrians are content for the time being to register their objections on foot.
One particularly gleeful protester brandished an e-mail with an Arabic translation of American filmmaker Michael Moore's anti-war salvo from the podium of Sunday night's Academy Awards ceremony.
"Listen! This man told America `We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons,'" he read.
"We don't know who this Mr. Moore is. But we love him..."

.
CLICK HERE for the rest of the article

See also Hugh's OTHER article posted today:

Commentary and Consequences (Hugh Hewitt)
The Weekly Standard ^ | 26 March 2003 | Hugh Hewitt
Posted on 03/26/2003 3:30 PM PST by SMEDLEYBUTLER

Commentary and Consequences
Do protesters have the right to assail the war during hostilities? Of course. Are they morally responsible for the consequences of their protest? You betcha.
by Hugh Hewitt
03/26/2003 3:25:00 PM

Hugh Hewitt, contributing writer

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Law School Professor Erwin Chemerinsky has been my colleague in the commentary business for a decade, and for the past three years a weekly guest, along with Chapman Law School Professor John Eastman, on my radio program. Together we try to make the issues of constitutional law entertaining and accessible. Erwin is hard left but brilliant, one of the intellectual architects of the Estrada filibuster, for example, and one of the self-appointed guardians of the rights of al Qaeda prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.

He crossed a line yesterday, and I called him on it on the air. He's not alone in crossing this line, but his column is recent and available on the web, so it is a perfect example. In yesterday's ] Los Angeles Times he wrote:

"On Sunday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld quickly invoked international law in condemning Iraq's treatment of American prisoners of war . . . Rumsfeld's hypocrisy here is enormous. For two years, the Bush administration has ignored and violated international law and thus has undermined the very legitimacy of the treaties and principles that constitute the law of nations. Though we all hope, of course, for the quick and safe return of the American prisoners of war, the fact is that--unfortunately--Iraq and other nations may feel much freer today to violate international law in the way they treat war captives and the way they wage war. . . . The United States cannot expect other nations to treat our prisoners in accord with international law if we ignore it. If the United States wants other nations to live by the rule of law, it too must do so."

Not only is the argument wrong, but Erwin does not include even a routine denunciation of the idea that the Iraqis "may feel much freer today to violate international law." They ought not to so feel, and Erwin should have included that message. In fact, as Erwin put it, the article might well encourage the Iraqis to think such criminal thoughts, and to base their behavior towards our POWs on his twisted logic. If there is any restraint at all within this sadistic regime, it cannot be deep and we ought not to be encouraging its corrosion.

I pressed Erwin if he had considered that his writing could be read in Iraq and that it might have consequences. He avoided the question, and objected that I was questioning his loyalty. He avoided opining even on the morality of Jane Fonda's visit to North Vietnam so many years ago or of this sign carried in "peace" demonstrations over the weekend: "We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers." In short, Erwin had no firm opinion except that the U.S. government is violating international law.

Though he did not intend it, Erwin's piece is an invitation to the Iraqi brutes to continue in their mistreatment of our prisoners and in their underhanded tactics on the battlefield. I asked Erwin how he would feel if our post-war investigations turned up his article in "The Ministry of Justice." He scoffed at the idea. This is willful blindness about the reach of modern media, and it is not Erwin's problem alone. The antiwar/anti-Bush crowd abandoned all self-restraint months ago, but they ought not to be allowed to pretend that their actions won't have consequences abroad.

The Iraqi propaganda machine is vast and effective, as are the propaganda networks of our enemies in the rest of the world. Erwin's piece and every other bit of commentary is available anywhere there's a computer and a modem line. I watched in disbelief as POW's family was interviewed on TV a night ago, and prayed that Iraqi captors did not see it and glean from it details with which to torment the prisoner. I watch embedded journalists broadcast details of troop conditions and am shocked at the casual way the desires of the audience have overwhelmed ordinary caution.

And I read screed after screed in major newspapers about the motives of the Bush administration or the collapse of public support. With each one, I shook my head at the left's inability to exercise self-discipline even for this relatively brief period of actual combat. It is at best soft racism to assume that the enemy lacks the skill to exploit American media for its own purposes. In most of these instances, however, it is merely self-interested posing.

Erwin already raised the threat of McCarthyism in response to my criticism--the first refuge of the irresponsible in search of cover--so let me also add the ritual incantation that it is the absolute right of the left to be irresponsible, dangerous, and unethical. But the public should be heard on this matter, and the Michael Moore caucus cannot expect to endanger the lives of troops and still enjoy the acclaim--or even the patience--of Americans who know better.

Hugh Hewitt is the host of The Hugh Hewitt Show, a nationally syndicated radio talkshow, and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard.

CLICK HERE for the rest of the thread

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.