Al Manar: Propaganda/News

I'm having issues with this arrest of a cable provider who is transmitting Al Manar TV. I just don't see this as anything that can be supported by the law or the constitution, never mind logic. (I also can't stop thinking of the station as Al Manure. But that's another topic.)

Federal prosecutors who charged a man on Thursday with providing Hezbollah television access in New York made unusual use of a law more often employed to bar financial contributions to terrorist groups, legal experts said yesterday.

The broadly defined statute, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, is also used frequently to block the importation of goods and services that would directly support terrorist operations.

The law, which went into effect in 1977, was meant to put legal teeth in international trade embargoes with other nations, but once it was amended by the Patriot Act after 9/11, the government began to use it far more frequently against particular groups and individuals.

The use of the law, however, to focus on television broadcasts seemed to fall under an exemption laid out in a 1988 amendment to the act, several experts said, and it raised concerns among civil libertarians and some constitutional scholars about limiting the free marketplace of ideas.

The exemption covers publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact discs, CD-ROM's, art works and newswire feeds.

"One person's news is another's propaganda," said Rod Smolla, the dean of the University of Richmond Law School and a First Amendment expert. "It runs counter to all of our First Amendment traditions to ban the free flow of news and information across borders, yet at the same time all nations have historically reserved the right to ban the importation of propaganda from a hostile nation."

Smolla has a point. Even if this is openly propaganda, the use by citizens of the US shouldn't be eliminated. I don't understand the posture that this "supports" a terrorist group when access to the same information can be obtained elsewhere with no restrictions.

Critics took a far harsher view. David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who frequently criticizes the Justice Department and is challenging several aspects of the act in federal court in California, said the case against Mr. Iqbal combined what he called tactics of the McCarthy era - punishment of speech, and guilt by association.

"Mr. Iqbal is being penalized for doing nothing more than facilitating speech, and is being punished not because the speech itself is harmful, but because it is associated with Hezbollah." he said.

This on the other hand is pretty good propaganda in itself. Throwing "McCarthy era" into the argument immediately slimes the discussion due to visceral reactions to the sledgehammer tactics that McCarthy used. And it completely ignores that McCarthy did in fact find real enemies during his witch-hunt. Of course, that has no real relevance here.

What threat does the showing of Al Manar really pose? I don't see any reality to threats like those claimed that they can be used to trigger attacks in the US. Those triggers would be more likely found on the internet, which has more open availability than the cable coverage of Al Manar.

I would like to see an explanation of how this supports a terrorist organization. I don't doubt that there is some valid arguments there. Such as the broadcasts spread the propaganda to sympathetic or semi-sympatetic minds within this country who could then be used to further support the terrorists goals. But seeing that the NYTimes and other rags are so responsible in their journalistic efforts, you can witness that no such portion of their news provides that equal balance on the information needed to make a learned decision.

Then you have to love the WaPo coverage. Such as this bit:

"This is a prosecution for importing information, basically," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "That raises serious First Amendment concerns because in a free society the exchange of information of ideas is at the core."

Lieberman said the case was another example of the Bush administration's push to expand its executive powers in the pretext of fighting terrorism.

I'd love to hear the logic on the Bush expansion of executive powers. Strange that this is the application of a law that was passed by the congress, and the Bush administration is providing the law enforcement duties that the law requires in their view. Could their view be flawed? Sure, but that doesn't make it an expansion of executive powers. But hey, why not throw in some scary words into the interview. Not trying to frighten anyone with that supposition.

But at least they provide a rebuttal of sorts.

But others following the case say the government must halt material support for terrorist groups, even if the transaction involves such activities as news dissemination.

Facilitating speech that advocates violence is not always protected by the First Amendment, said Andy McCarthy, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

"You can't help (a terrorist group's) ostensibly legitimate activities without making them more efficient in their brutality," McCarthy said. "The way to reform these groups is to ... choke them until they cease to exist."

I'm not convinced that this goes to that level. In fact, I'd say that the censorship of such "news" when it is equally available by other means is ineffective.

I'd find this less worrisome if the MSM in this country were less political in their own reporting. The US government is hardly allowed to make any clear declamatory statements that aren't immediately labeled as propaganda. If they aren't, they are quickly taken out of context or pushed through an opinion sieve that distorts the statements or twists the governments spin.