Sleeping With The Devil

A researcher in the New York Times Beijing office will stand trial next month in a Chinese court, despite mounting pressure from US officials and President Bush himself. If convicted, Zhao Yan will face a maximum penalty of death for a crime that is considered especially serious under Chinese law; acquittals in such cases are exceptionally rare. Indeed, the crime that Yan allegedly committed is especially heinous and worthy of condemnation: He reported the news.

The Chinese, however, cleverly mask the utter repugnance of their legal system. Rather than condemning Zhao Yan for reporting the news, he is instead accused of divulging state secrets.

Here's some context:

Zhao was detained in September 2004, shortly after the Times published a story predicting that former president Jiang Zemin would resign as head of the party’s Central Military Commission, making way for [Chinese president, Hu Jintao], to complete his hold on the levers of power in Beijing. The story proved accurate, but it reportedly upset party leaders, who ban any unauthorized information on senior figures.

The Times said Zhao had not provided the information in the story and urged his release. But Zhao was charged with leaking state secrets to foreigners.

Despite direct pleas from President Bush, a tentative trial date has been set for June 8. Any such trial, however, demands immediate consequences for the communist country. In the international arena, China occupies an exalted position of power and influence; in the moral arena, China sits alongside tyrants and scoundrels.

The depth of Sino-American interdependence imposes severe restrictions on an American response to China's vicious assault on human rights. Nevertheless, the crimes of this communist government cannot be ignored. There are large numbers of Americans who live and work in communist China, and to allow this trial to move forward without repercussions places them in an extremely dangerous position.

Though President Bush did not set the precedent for tolerating certain criminal regimes while ignoring others, he will definitely perpetuate it by acquiescing to China on this issue. In fact, the solution to this problem rests in the very features of democracy that China spits on: a free press.

President Bush should warn the Chinese government that if they refuse to back off this case he will take to America's airwaves and demonize their criminal actions. President Bush and other US officials should become regular, if not daily, features on American television, highlighting the gross conduct of China's communist regime. Americans are a conscientious people who will not tolerate this behavior and that is our greatest weapon against the Chinese government. After all, they would gladly forgo this tenuous case should it shield them form the unforgiving wrath of the American people. In any case, our judgment will be the last.

Posted by Dr Politico at May 28, 2006 3:14 PM
Comments
Comment #152224

Dr. P.

I completely agree that we need to hold china to account on this and thier many other abuses (china still has Tibetan lamas in prison).

Unfortunatly we are severly limited in what we can do. China is our creditor, we are its debtor. We cannot afford to take any meaningful action against china.

Posted by: montanademocrat at May 28, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #152225

He he he he…

You a funny man, Politico.

There are about 8,000,000,000,000 reasons why China could do this.

You should be more concerned about the US Reporters going to prison for reporting United States State Secrets. Worry about other countries later.

Posted by: Aldous at May 28, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #152227
Americans are a conscientious people who will not tolerate this behavior and that is our greatest weapon against the Chinese government. After all, they would gladly forgo this tenuous case should it shield them form the unforgiving wrath of the American people.

Well, I guess Bush would have more “capital” to spend on this matter if his own house were in order. Didnt we just have an uproar re reporters “reporting the news”? Oh, wait, that was about upper white house staff leaking to the press to punish those who tried to go against their agenda….. Now that I think about it, that is a completely different matter.

It is a shame that the US has lost its once renowned claim to moral leadership in the world. Now when we most need credibility on this issue, we have little or none. And the world is watching to see just how much conscientious Americans are willing to tolerate.

And, much as I hate to hear of this action against this man, where is the moral leadership in the Sudan/Darfor region? where millions have been displaced, murdered, raped, maimed for the simple act of not ascribing to the faith proscribed by the government? Where is all the angst and outrage against those tyrants and militia?

How much more can the American people tolerate??? I thought I knew, but the line keeps moving ——-

Posted by: Maggie Rose at May 28, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #152230

Maggie Rose!!!
Excellent reply!!

Posted by: Linda H. at May 28, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #152232

Aldous

One again, the fact that you write this indicates you don’t believe it.

If you cannot tell the difference between humnan rights in China and those in America, you may want to return to school. But you know it very well. It is easy to speak truth to power in the U.S. Everybody knows that and they can stand up an howl loudly about the risk they are taking, since they know there is none.

Maggie

Do you advocate unilateral U.S. military action in Sudan? The UN will not allow action. Those same Chinese and Russian who blocked action in Iraq are doing it Sudan. If you liked what we did in Iraq, you can advocate the same in Sudan. Otherwise, you are talking about nothing .

Posted by: Jack at May 28, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #152236

Aldous,

“There are about 8,000,000,000,000 reasons why China could do this.”

If you are alluding to China’s purchasing of US debt, that figure should read $1 trillion, not 8. While I understand your point, you need to recognize that China is as dependent on the US for their export industry as we are on them for their credit. Here’s an example, if WalMart were an independent country, it would be China’s 6th largest trading partner worldwide. China’s road to industrialization would come to an abrupt end were it not for US dollars being pumped into their economy. Hence, the term interdependence.

Maggie Rose,

“And, much as I hate to hear of this action against this man, where is the moral leadership in the Sudan/Darfor region?”

I don’t disagree with you, though the Sudan situation would require a military response—which I would support—whereas this situation requires the American government to raise its voice. Since the 1970s, when the Sino-American relationship began moving toward what it is today, the US has handled China with a royal touch for myriad reasons. That feature of the relationship has never been reciprocated. The time has come for the US to stop kissing Sino ass.

Where is all the angst and outrage against those tyrants and militia?

A preview of my “angst and outrage” is right here.


Posted by: Dr Politico at May 28, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #152243

Dr. Politico-
The trouble here is that we’re dealing with a sovereign country. Personally, I’d like to see this president make a definitive statement of values about the worth of a free press that can report on the internal workings of a government without folks being punished for publishing mundane but inconvenient truths about them.

Then I’d like to see Bush handle reporter’s questions after that! There would sure be some choice ones, let me tell you!

And that would be entirely in keeping with the theme of the event, however stressful that final part would be for our rather secretive chief executive.

If we want to, we can start punishing China for its actions through various sanctions. I’m not sure what else we can do, though.

One’s record and one’s attitudes can be rather important in dealing with what one later asks of people. It’s rather troubling that we have to be wary of pointing out the human rights records of others, now that our own has been so besmirched.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 28, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #152256

“China’s road to industrialization would come to an abrupt end were it not for US dollars being pumped into their economy. Hence, the term interdependence.”

Gotta disagree. It wouldn’t take much for the Chinese to switch their economy from export to consumption where they would start using what they produce for themselves. Remember, savings rates are much higher than here (where they are zero to negative). The United States has no leverage against China, economically or politically. We would be much worse off without them than they would without us.

Posted by: Greg at May 28, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #152258

Jack and Politico:

I understand this very well. All China has to do is switch from dollars to euros.

Then all your moral indignation will be drowned in a sea of bankrupcies.

Posted by: Aldous at May 28, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #152260

BTW

The Chinese card is something we play too often. Clinton used it against Bush 1. Then he got into bed with them. Bush 2 used it against Clinton and then did the same. WHY? becuase China is important and we have to deal w China, no matter who is in office. Many such realities are just the way it is. Both parties come to very similar conclusions.

Posted by: Jack at May 28, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #152262

Aldous

It is more complicated than you think. Currencies have value because of their economic underpinning. China does not have that much independent power. The Euro cannot sustain the demand as a world currency. Maybe some day, but not today.

I don’t have alot of indignation toward the Chinese. It is an oppressive place. It is a dirty place. But it is much better than it used to be and probably will be better still in the future.

It is easy to overestimate China. It is growing fast, but its economy is still very much smaller than the U.S. economy. Productivity is low. Pollution is high. It will hit a big demographic bump in about ten years. And its political system probalby is unsuited to the type of economy it is building.

If China really pulled the weight of its populalation, the world would be better off. WOrld economy is not a zero sum game. We all benefit when others get richer. It is in U.S. interests for China to prosper and the reverse is also true.

And it is about time some countries did their fair share of innovation and economic progress.

Posted by: Jack at May 28, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #152264

Doc,

Is this gentleman a Chinese citizen?

If he is, what right do we have to meddle in Chinese affairs?

Posted by: Rocky at May 28, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #152269

Rocky,

By your logic we shouldn’t be bothered by genocide in Sudan either. After all, the people being slaughtered are Sudanese.

Greg,

while the louder voices in our country make it seem like China is a well-to-do country, they’re not even close. GDP per capita is only $5600. Cut that number in half without US dollars.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 28, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #152270

greg,

I meant to add that with income at that level, saving is next to none.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 28, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #152274

In a recent report a man was hanged for treason against our legitimate government. This traitorous ne’er do well did give aid and comfort to the enemy,and did in fact supply them with our troop movements and supply lists.
He was heard to mumble some stupidity before his justified execution, and I am happy to report that the cretin,Otherwise known as John Henry,was then thrown into a unmarked grave. It was reported in the underground press that some would consider him a hero,but we know that the only patriots are those who fight for our glorious king!

Posted by: jblym at May 28, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #152275

It has come to the attention of the Tory Press that the actual name of the traitor was not john Henry,but that was an alias, we appeal to our readers,can anyone tell us the real name of the traitor?

Posted by: jblym at May 28, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #152284

Doc,

“By your logic we shouldn’t be bothered by genocide in Sudan either. After all, the people being slaughtered are Sudanese.”

Sorry that’s baloney. Think Doc.

I am talking about the laws of a sovergin nation, not a rebellion, or an insurgentcy.

Posted by: Rocky at May 28, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #152287

Politico,

They are not well to do…yet. However, they are setting themselves up to challenge the US economically and politically, and with the Russians, possibly militarily.

Mind you that the cost of living across the pacific is probably much lower than here, and yes, it is possible to save part of your income if it does not cost as much to live. The chinese haven’t adopted the “make and spend, and then some” habits of we Americans…prime example: all of the money they send back when they buy treasury securities. WE OWE THEM, not the other way around.

It’s hard to negotiate with your creditors when your entire economy depends on them.

Posted by: Greg at May 28, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #152288

China does’t have freedom of the press. If they don’t allow this type of story then Zhao shoildn’t have reproted on it. He broke the law.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 28, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #152289

jblym
Try Patrick.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 28, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #152290

greg,

The problem is not my thought process, it’s your original post. I don’t think you fully considered what it was that you were trying to say. If I were you I wouldn’t defend that original position, but instead clarify it. After all, your rebuttal points me to Nazi Germany. They had laws and there was no insurgency. Should we not be bothered by that situation?

The absurdity of your original post is not remedied by the weak defense you have just offered. Try starting over. No harm done.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 28, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #152292

greg,

If only we could have a face to face conversation, I think we would agree more than you think. You are absolutely correct that they are in a position today to become a real power some day. However, that is still many years off. Should the Americans stop spending money on their goods, no country—or group of countries—could fill that void. More importantly, the rate of growth that China’s economy is currently experiencing, which is fueling their industrialization process, would all but dissapear.

I would like to also point out—just for clarity—that I do not support the idea of ending trade with China, I am just defending a position that happened to come up in this thread. My actual post only called for vocal condemnations of these actions. Knowing that the Chinese would prefer to save face, I think it would be effective. If not, at least we tried.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 28, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #152294

Dr. P
Human Rights? Psshhhh, what a bunch of hypocrites. The US gov’t shouldn’t be criticizing China for its “inhumanitarian” actions, when we ourselves have authorized torture and cruel punishments.
The US has threatened to throw reporters into prison for “reporting the news” also, so we are in no condition to attack China for the same actions that we do.

Posted by: greenstuff at May 28, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #152296

Doc,

“The problem is not my thought process, it’s your original post. I don’t think you fully considered what it was that you were trying to say. If I were you I wouldn’t defend that original position, but instead clarify it. After all, your rebuttal points me to Nazi Germany. They had laws and there was no insurgency. Should we not be bothered by that situation?

The absurdity of your original post is not remedied by the weak defense you have just offered. Try starting over. No harm done.”

I can only assume that this was aimed at me.

Absurdity? Nazi Germany? Oh, please.

If the situations were reversed, we would tell them to stick it in their ear, and rightly so.

The United States DOES NOT have the right to DEMAND anything from another sovereign nation.

We didn’t have the right in Iraq, what makes you think we have the right in China?

Posted by: Rocky at May 28, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #152299

GUys,
Here’s what I’m seeing, correct me if I’m wrong but if a Democrat had brought this issue to light the entire argument would be a complete 180. there would be a liberal outcy and yes for some odd reason Bush would be too blame still.

The point is this is a non-partisan issue and an international issue of great humanitarian and anti-oligarchical concern.

I say send soldiers of fortune into Sudan. Help create an underground network throughout the middle east to get women out of potential honor killing situations. And by all means whether Bush (a man I hardly like) is on the side I’m on or not. The point is that this is a miscarriage of common sanity should this man be sentenced to death for political reporting. It is really indicative of the mindset with whom we deal and I hope Bush gets it through loud and clear making a stink in his wake—even if I see him as a shlub who was just luckily born into the right kind of family with the right kind of money (and little else to make him applicable for the post of president).

The point is this, it is a travesty of human rights and thusly even though a right-winger brings it up it should not be all the less valid a point of unpartisan cohesion in understanding the issue.

The point is a man could be sentenced to die (possibly by firing squad)for reporting what is really just meaningless politico tripe in our own country within our own laws. It’s insane and I hope Bush gets the point across that this is highly unacceptable (even if he is an idiotic d*ckhead).

Posted by: Hereford at May 28, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #152300

Rocky,

You originally said:

“Is this gentleman a Chinese citizen?

If he is, what right do we have to meddle in Chinese affairs?”

I was simply pointing out that this is an illogical assertion. I stick by that claim.

By the way, I used Nazi Germany and Sudan as examples because they are so extreme, not because they are similar to China. They do illustrate, however, that in certain situations the US has not only the right, but the duty to meddle.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 28, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #152301

Hereford,

THANK YOU!!!

I didn’t think this would be such a controversial post. Partisan insanity (from which either side suffers), simple and clear.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 28, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #152306

Doc,

“They do illustrate, however, that in certain situations the US has not only the right, but the duty to meddle.”

Please point out to me where, in the US Constitution, it says that we have the right to meddle in other countries affairs.
You aren’t going find it cause it isn’t there.

The right is always crowing how we should be going by a strict adherence to the Constitution.
Where in our laws does it give us this right?

Posted by: Rocky at May 28, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #152312

Dr. Politico,

There was a time, many many moons ago, in what seems like a galaxy far far away called the 1990’s when Dems/liberals were against PNTR to China, World bank recall of debts to third world nations, thirdworld slavery, harsh child labor practices overseas and sweatshops, and sex trafficking, amongst numerous other things. There was a humanitarian streak, then national politics got in the way, Clinton was impeached, Fox went on the air and Bush part deux got into office and so on and so on until we became in some ways what we were against—apathy.

Posted by: Hereford at May 28, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #152313

Doc,

I would say that, as humans, we have the duty to ask, or negotiate.

Just because we are Americans doesn’t give us the right to demand anything.

By the way, what could possibly be illogical about my first questions?

I will repeat them;

Is this gentleman a Chinese citizen?

If he is, what right do we have to meddle in Chinese affairs?

Posted by: Rocky at May 29, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #152318

Rocky,

We as a nation used to have a thing called diplomacy—rememeber that? WE have the right to speak on behalf of people and if Bush can wind that doll up again we’d use it to get through the message that we as a nation neeed to have. That we are not all a nation of heartless ass-holes and I have to say when we are in employment of that that is our finest byproduct, the fight for human rights.

So yes through diplomatic means, mister I Rocky support the UN, DIPLOMACY big guy.

It’s not my fault you are wrong on this one.

Posted by: Hereford at May 29, 2006 12:14 AM
Comment #152321

Hereford,

“I would say that, as humans, we have the duty to ask, or negotiate.

Just because we are Americans doesn’t give us the right to demand anything.”

Did you bother to read those lines?

There is a huge gap between the words demand and diplomacy.

Posted by: Rocky at May 29, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #152323

Nations demand alot of things, what is the difference? Clinton used to avidly condemn things (whatever that meant exactly) but in diplomacy sides have demands. We are not meddling as you put it—Bush isn’t going in and taking him into American custody for God sakes.

I think you just want to split hairs whereby getting the shot at kicking a republican in the testes with his own issue.

Part of what I’m saying is that it is a non-partisan issue made partisan by it being posted here on this side of the aisle, this red column.

Posted by: Hereford at May 29, 2006 12:28 AM
Comment #152328

Hereford,

Frankly I enjoy living here in America. I have visited China several times and worked while I was there.
While I was in China I did my best to follow the Chinese laws as they were laid out to me. If I had been arrested in China for breaking Chinese laws it would have been my own fault.
And I would have had to pay the consequences of my actions.
In the airport in TaiPei, Taiwan, there is a sign that says “Drug Trafficking is Punishable By Death”. It’s a REALLY big sign.
I would have to say that makes it pretty clear.
Just because I am an American doesn’t make me special except when I am in America.
That is why I asked the nationality of the accused.

Now, that said, if diplomatically, we want to “request” that the Chinese government review the charges against this man, I don’t have a problem with that.

I don’t mean to cast aspersions, but there is a real world out there beyond the borders of the US, and most Americans don’t have a clue what it is like.
Believe me when I say it isn’t at all like we see on TV.

Posted by: Rocky at May 29, 2006 12:49 AM
Comment #152330

Also Doctor Politico,

On the last paragraph of your above piece, we’d all like to see that BUT really how many lobbyists for corporations who outsource their manufacturing to China do you think are going to be behind such a series of heroic events? I don’t think that will be Bush’s path to getting this across—do you? Yes, it is a travesty against human rights and the State Department is on it and all our national newspapers should have this story front and center, I agree as it is rediculous in this day and age.

But this guy, Bush, doesn’t do those sorts of things and is way too beholden to too many foreign manufacturing lobbies to ever consider it—though I hope he proves me wrong. Presidential caped crusaderism—not a chance. Maybe super Condi using her spidey sense not to make waves—that sadly sounds more like it from these Bush folks.

Posted by: Hereford at May 29, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #152331

Rocky,
We as a nation have a right to speak out against tyranny and that seems to be what he is doing. China is in violation of so many human rights that I’m almosts saddened that Clinton gave them preferred trade status as that was such a cop-out (much like him bending over for Castro and getting jack diddley squat). We as a nation should speak out in the face of insurrection and they need to join more with the modern day and what the man did does not appear to be worthy of the death penalty in any way shape or form. they need a freer press and that should be this nation’s fight as well as for free internet rights.

As I see it communism the world over needs to come toppling down and i don’t think it is in our best interest to back down from calling a spade a spade.

That is my opinion.

Posted by: Hereford at May 29, 2006 1:04 AM
Comment #152342


I can’t understand why everyone is so upset over one little Chinese guy who gave away state secrets. There are two or three dozen like him here in America that Dick Cheney wouldn’t mind see hanging in the public square.

The more important issue is the 800 million pesants that are being suppressed by a 100 million strong military and 100 million government officials and bureaucrats. If President Bush is truly serious about bringing freedom and liberty to the opressed people of the world then why not go after the Chinese next. We take out China and we won’t hear anymore crap coming out of Iran.

With a well planned, well organized military operation on several fronts we can take them out in a couple hours using no more than a couple dozen nukes. Catch the party officials all gathered together at one of their big feel good parties and zap—- one nuke and the head is cut off. Use the other nukes to go after the army and their ICBM’s while our navy rip’s that puny navy of theirs apart. Problem solved, all you got left is 750,000,000 pesants, 50,000,000 government employes and some U.S. corporate employes. What could be better. We can make Tipei the new capital of all China. North Korea will be hung out, upside down like a Thanksgiving turkey. and,the rest of the World will think twice before they consider messing with us. Hell, we will be feeling so good we might even give the liberals Tibet.

Posted by: jlw at May 29, 2006 2:29 AM
Comment #152347

Can someone please explain to me how damn near everybody that was agreeing a few days/hours ago about the military being overstretched now thinks we should go into Sudan? The last time we tried one of these idiotic humanitarian missions, Soldiers were dragged naked through the streets of Mogadishu. One of the doctrines of military thought that was killed by Clinton, who managed to deploy the military more in 8 years thatn it had in the last 40, and buried by Bush was the Powell doctrine. It stated that we shouldn’t be going anywhere unless we had a clear intrest, the will to see the job finished, and a clear cut exit strategy. We have none of these.

Number one, we have no interests in Sudan whatsoever. We’re fighting and dying in Iraq, but at least they have oil. I’ve always found it hilarious that we should never use the military in our own interests but don’t mind using it in someone else’s. I don’t like the idea of innocent people dying in the Sudan, but I like the idea of me dying there for absolutely no purpose even less. And since I and other Soldiers like me will actually get to visit this scenic part of the world, I think we should be heard. I’m no coward, but I’ll desert sooner than go to Sudan.

Number two, we obviously don’t have the will to win. The constant harping about the number of deaths over here is proof. We’ve lost less than 1ooo Soldiers per year over a 3 year occupation of a hostile nation. Not to sound cruel or unthinking to the families of those who have died, but we should be ecstatic. We were losing more people a week in Vietnam than we are in Iraq in a month. We lost as many Soldiers in a few seconds on some Civil War battlefields as we have in Iraq since we got here. We have a population of almost 300 million that is being told we’re in a war for the sruvival of our civilization and we have trouble keeping a 500 thousand man army. Guess what, instant gratification doesn’t work in war, and until we figure that out, we will not deserve to win them.

Finally, there will be no exit strategy. We are not the world’s police force and the fact that we are sad that one group of people is killing another group of people will not stop it. Instead, we’ll either end up doing nothing and getting killed ourselves or killing people from both groups which is what we would have been sent there to prevent. Since we do not have the strength of will to commit the resources needed to make peace, which would be no different than what we would need to conquer it, we might stop thenm killing each other long enough to start getting along and killing us before going back to killing each other again.

jlw, if you are not joking, it wouldn’t take a couple of hours. The time from launch to weapons effects with ICBMs is about 20 minutes. That’s a fun thought to bear in mind. The entire world is 20 minutes away from destruction and all that prevents it is the mental state of the least stable leader in charge of ICBMs. Happy thoughts for the happy times we live in.

Posted by: 1LT B at May 29, 2006 5:39 AM
Comment #152359

Dr. Politico, Bravo on a great post.

This does go to the heart of the difference between a free society and a tyranny. While I doubt there will be major political or economic perturbances on the basis of one reporter or thousands of Chinese dissidents. I applaud your choice of a real value difference that shows the Shining light of America.

Jack,

While I agree comparing recent issues with the press and Bush, to China’s policies is ridiculous; we hold ourselves to different standards and I hope we always do. I am concerned with some of the so called leak investigations. They smack of the fifties and Unamerican Activities Committee. We are not immune from repressive policies.

Posted by: gergle at May 29, 2006 8:18 AM
Comment #152369
China is important and we have to deal w China, no matter who is in office.

No doubt. Christoper Hill was in Singapore last week and he talked about that. It’s going to be business as usual no matter who’s in office.

Every President since Nixon has turned a blind eye to the periodic Chinese government abuses because — so far — the progress toward a free-market democracy has outweighed the slips. Even Bush Sr. played down the Tiananmen Square massacre because he understood the Chinese Communist Party’s factional infighting.

DP, I’m not surprised that your article has been called hypcritical. The Chinese Communist Party’s crackdown on press leaks can be compared to the the Republican Party’s crackdown on press leaks. The US government should clearly have the moral high ground on this — and many other issues — but they don’t. It weakens us as a nation, and that’s unfortunate.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 29, 2006 9:25 AM
Comment #152583

Hereford and Dr. Politico,

“I didn’t think this would be such a controversial post. Partisan insanity (from which either side suffers), simple and clear.”

Pointing out the hypocrisy of the post is partisan?
It was less than two weeks ago that Gonzales announced his intentions of arresting reporters who “report the news.”
Under President Bush the United States has tortured, increased secrecy, attacked a sovereign nation based on lies, arrested and threatened the press with arrest for doing their jobs, allowed the growth of corruption and exposed our leaders as corporate whores, continually lie to the American people,lost our position as a nation of high moral character and are seen by many nations as medling hypocrites who bully others.
Why are we worried about China? I know….So we can continue to pretend that the Republicans have not all but destoyed this nations credibility.
What a joke.
Let’s focus our attention on corruption in Mexico so we can pretend it doesn’t exist here….Oh yeah, we already did.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 30, 2006 9:15 AM
Comment #152693

DrP

Good article. As a nation of liberty we need to stand up with a unified voice and condemn this action. This offense is not worthy of death by any standard that is considered humane. I realize that the UN will not stand up to this. I hope as a country we wil but I doubt it.

We are (as far as I know) the only major industrialized nation to condemn the Sudanese goverment for Genocide. though that is not enough in my opinion it is a step in the right direction.

anyone who puts someone who may or may not try to censor a reporter to killing a reporter for reporting a story is not thinking very straight there is no comparison. There seems to be many people who will equate what happens here in the US but I can not see the resemblence. I would like to see some factual information regarding anytime our government has killed a reporter for reporting a story it did not like.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 30, 2006 3:53 PM
Post a comment