PDA

View Full Version : G.I.'s Padlock Baghdad Paper Critical of U.S.




zimv20
Mar 29, 2004, 12:47 AM
link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/29/international/worldspecial/29PRES.html?hp)

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 28 — American soldiers shut down a popular Baghdad newspaper on Sunday and tightened chains across the doors after the occupation authorities accused it of printing lies that incited violence.
[...]
The American authorities said Al Hawza could reopen in 60 days. The paper's editors, however, said they had been put out of business.

"We have been evicted from our offices, and we have no jobs," Saadoon Mohsen Thamad, a news editor, said as he stared at a large padlock hanging from the front gate. "How are we going to continue?"

Among Iraqi journalists, Al Hawza was known for printing wild rumors, especially anti-American ones. A broadsheet of about eight pages, the paper is considered a mouthpiece for Moktada al-Sadr, a fiery young Shiite cleric and one of the most outspoken critics of the Americans.

The letter ordering the paper closed, signed by L. Paul Bremer III, the top administrator in Iraq, cited what the American authorities called several examples of false reports in Al Hawza, including a February dispatch that said the cause of an explosion that killed more than 50 Iraqi police recruits was not a car bomb, as occupation officials had said, but an American missile.

Many newspapers and television stations have sprouted in Iraq since the fall of the Hussein government. But under a law passed by the occupying authorities in June, a news media organization must be licensed, and that license can be revoked if the organization publishes or broadcasts material that incites violence or civil disorder or "advocates alterations to Iraq's borders by violent means."

But the letter outlining the reasons for taking action against Al Hawza did not cite any material that directly advocated violence. Several Iraqi journalists said that meant there was no basis to shut Al Hawza down.

"That paper might have been anti-American, but it should be free to express its opinion," said Kamal Abdul Karim, night editor of the daily Azzaman.

Omar Jassem, a freelance reporter, said he thought that democracy meant many viewpoints and many newspapers. "I guess this is the Bush edition of democracy," he said.
[...]
Tom Rosenstiel, vice chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, said there was a basic irony in Americans' practicing censorship in Iraq.

"If you're trying to promote democracy in a country that has never had it, you have to lead by example," Mr. Rosenstiel said. "I'm not in Iraq. But it's hard for me to see how the suppression of information, even false information, is going to help our cause."

woo-hoo! freedom!



Thanatoast
Mar 29, 2004, 01:17 AM
...

I find my vocabulary insufficient to formulate a commensurate response to such a...pathetically stupid situation.

And yet here I am typing.

...

beefcake
Mar 29, 2004, 02:08 AM
I think this sounds a lot worse than it really is. If you're attempting to rebuild a torn country, and every other day countrymen who take your side and try to be the leaders of this movement are violently killed, don't you think it would be a good idea to make the general public didn't turn on these men as well? The Hussein loyalists can stay in business and under the radar even when they kill their own people because newspapers like the one shut down spread lies that the Americans are doing all the killing. I equate it to yelling Fire! in a movie theater. If the newspaper wanted to stay in business, it shouldn't have printed unsupported rumors that could only incite the people against the only government it has (American and Iraqi).

pseudobrit
Mar 29, 2004, 02:10 AM
When do we shutter up the Drudge Report?

zimv20
Mar 29, 2004, 03:04 AM
If the newspaper wanted to stay in business, it shouldn't have printed unsupported rumors that could only incite the people against the only government it has (American and Iraqi).
yeah, you're right. 'cuz if it's not stopped now, what's next? maybe a gov't using unsupported rumors to invade another country!

there's always two sides to the truth. who gets to decide? the occupiers trying to win a popularity contest?

skunk
Mar 29, 2004, 05:38 AM
"Operation Iraqi Freedom (to a Point)"

IJ Reilly
Mar 29, 2004, 11:27 AM
The front page story on this event in the LA Times this morning featured a Reuters photo of the lock and chain. The padlock has "American Lock Made in USA" and a US flag imprinted on it. Hard to miss the symbolism there.

Incidentally, according to a "senior coalition official:"

"This is not the first time. We've given them a chance to retract and clean themselves up," the official said. "But if they continue to spew vitriol, well…. "

Well, indeed.

patrick0brien
Mar 30, 2004, 01:30 PM
-Gents

It is martial law right now, and technically anything that threatens the chain of command of the controlling forces is fair game.

Let's hope the transfer of power is a clean and solid one so our troops can leave in good conscience.

When do we shutter up the Drudge Report?

Hee hee!

mactastic
Mar 30, 2004, 02:54 PM
The transfer of power does NOT mean our troops will be leaving anytime soon, good conscience or no.

patrick0brien
Mar 30, 2004, 03:49 PM
The transfer of power does NOT mean our troops will be leaving anytime soon, good conscience or no.

-mactastic

This is true. In all likelihood, the U.S. will prefer to establish a permanent base there, contingent, of course, upon the invitation of the Iraqi gov't.

Now I can see cause to argue about that point, but that would be borrowing trouble against tomorrow, another issue for another day.