Month: February 2006

Daily Press Briefing from the State Department; they did discuss the Danish cartoons – scroll down:

QUESTION: Yes? Can you say anything about a U.S. response or a U.S. reaction to this uproar in Europe over the Prophet Muhammad pictures? Do you have any reaction to it? Are you concerned that the violence is going to spread and make everything just —

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven’t seen any — first of all, this is matter of fact. I haven’t seen it. I have seen a lot of protests. I’ve seen a great deal of distress expressed by Muslims across the globe. The Muslims around the world have expressed the fact that they are outraged and that they take great offense at the images that were printed in the Danish newspaper, as well as in other newspapers around the world.

Our response is to say that while we certainly don’t agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy — democracies around the world — and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.

We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may — like I said, we may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view.

For example — and on the particular cartoon that was published — I know the Prime Minister of Denmark has talked about his, I know that the newspaper that originally printed it has apologized, so they have addressed this particular issue. So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images.

QUESTION: That the Muslims speak out with equal vigor when they see — that’s what you’re asking?

MR. MCCORMACK: We would — we believe that it is an important principle that peoples around the world encourage dialogue, not violence; dialogue, not misunderstanding and that when you see an image that is offensive to another particular group, to speak out against that. Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief. We have to remember and respect the deeply held beliefs of those who have different beliefs from us. But it is important that we also support the rights of individuals to express their freely held views.

QUESTION: So basically you’re just hoping that it doesn’t — I’m sorry I misspoke when I said there was violence, I meant uproar. Your bottom line is that both sides have the right to do exactly as they’re doing and you just hope it doesn’t get worse?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I —

QUESTION: You just hope it doesn’t escalate.

MR. MCCORMACK: I gave a pretty long answer, so —

QUESTION: You did. I’m trying to sum it up for you. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: A couple of years ago, I think it was a couple of years ago when, I think it was the Syrians and the Lebanese were introducing this documentary about the Jews — or it was the Egyptians — this Administration spoke out very strongly about that and called it offensive, said it was —

MR. MCCORMACK: I just said that the images were offensive; we found them offensive.

QUESTION: Well, no you said that you understand that the Muslims found them offensive, but —

MR. MCCORMACK: I’m saying now, we find them offensive. And we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.

Yes.

QUESTION: One word is puzzling me in this, Sean, and that’s the use of the word “unacceptable” and “not acceptable,” exactly what that implies. I mean, it’s not quite obvious that you find the images offensive. When you say “unacceptable,” it applies some sort of action against the people who perpetrate those images.

MR. MCCORMACK: No. I think I made it very clear that our defense of freedom of expression and the ability of individuals and media organizations to engage in free expression is forthright and it is strong, you know. This is — our First Amendment rights, the freedom of expression, are some of the most strongly held and dearly held views that we have here in America. And certainly nothing that I said, I would hope, would imply any diminution of that support.

QUESTION: It’s just the one word “unacceptable,” I’m just wondering if that implied any action, you know. But it doesn’t you say?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

The American population bases many of their decisions on what they have read, heard, or viewed on television.

How many citizens have read the “Information Operations Roadmap”?

Except:

“information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa”

“the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of USG [U.S. government] intent rather than information dissemination practices.”

Off and on little bleeps concerning Bush’s early plans to attack Iraq have been discussed. Now, A memo has been released about this very subject, with little if no coverage in American news. Cold Flute has a great blog article, More Memos from the British, by Poechewe, on this subject.

The present administration has taken advantage of the fury of fear that Sept. 11th created in the American population. Bush has ordered the NSA, FBI, Pentagon, and the CIA to expand domestic spying operations to levels we have never seen before.

As always I question the validity of the information and dis-information that shapes my opinions.

Are Cindy Sheehan and Beverly Young guilty of a crime? I think not and apparently, the police finally figured this out. Did they show poor taste in their attire for such a traditional affair? Probably. Were their Civil Rights violated?

Glenn Greenwald on The Unclaimed Territory did a great job explaining the legal stuff for my tired mind here.

My simplified version is:

The section of law that the police used to arrest Sheehan “It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons willfully and knowingly . . . to parade, demonstrate or picket within any Capitol Building.” 140 U.S.C. 193(f)(b)(7) The courts ruling in Bynum vs. U.S Capitol Police Bd, decided this did not include merely wearing T-shirts.