• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Admin No Longer Protecting Journalists Overseas

jpn

jpn

Retired Navy Commander
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
15,603
Reaction score
16,530
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This was reported in September, but I just learned about it. I find it amazing.

During an address at Brown University, AG Sulzberger, the NYT publisher, related what happened when a Times journalist was endangered by the Egyptian government.

Two years ago, the Times received a call from a U.S. government official warning the newspaper’s brass of the imminent arrest of a NY Times reporter based in Egypt. His name is Declan Walsh.

“Though the news was alarming, the call was actually fairly standard. Over the years we’ve received countless such warnings from American diplomats, military leaders and national security officials. But this particular call took a surprising and distressing turn. We learned the official was passing along this warning without the knowledge or permission of the Trump Administration.

“Rather than trying to stop the Egyptian government or assist the reporter, the official believed the Trump Administration intended to sit on the information and let the arrest be carried out. The official feared being punished for even alerting us to the danger.”

Times top leaders felt they were unable to count on their own government to prevent the arrest or help free the reporter if he was imprisoned. So they turned to Walsh’s native country, Ireland, for aid.

“Within an hour, Irish diplomats traveled to (Walsh’s) house and safely escorted him to the airport before Egyptian forces could detain him,” said Sulzberger.

Trump’s administration has “retreated from our country’s historical role as a defender of the free press. Seeing that, other countries are targeting journalists with a growing sense of impunity,” said Sulzberger.
Click to expand...

You can see his address at this link.

I believe a free press is an essential ingredient in any functioning democracy. Attacking it is the work of despots.

p.s. 18 months later another NYT reporter arrived in Egypt. He was detained and deported in apparent retaliation for exposing information that was embarrassing to the Egyptian government. When the NYT protested the move, a senior official at the US embassy in Cairo said, "what did you expect would happen? His reporting made the government look bad."
 
Last edited:
jpn said:
This was reported in September, but I just learned about it. I find it amazing.

During an address at Brown University, AG Sulzberger, the NYT publisher, related what happened when a Times journalist was endangered by the Egyptian government.



You can see his address at this link.

I believe a free press is an essential ingredient in any functioning democracy. Attacking it is the work of despots.

p.s. 18 months later another NYT reporter arrived in Egypt. He was detained and deported in apparent retaliation for exposing information that was embarrassing to the Egyptian government. When the NYT protested the move, a senior official at the US embassy in Cairo said, "what did you expect would happen? His reporting made the government look bad."
Click to expand...

It IS NOT the job of the United States government to protect reporters overseas. It IS the job the United States government to preserve the freedom of the press here in the US.
 
PirateMk1 said:
It IS NOT the job of the United States government to protect reporters overseas. It IS the job the United States government to preserve the freedom of the press here in the US.
Click to expand...

Cowardly nationalist garbage. All men are created equal. All men have rights to life, expression and self defense. All men should enjoy the protections afforded in our Constitution. That's called patriotism and it's nothing like nationalism.

Patriotism and nationalism, in the case of the US, are mutually exclusive. The former inclusive and the latter exclusive. Being exclusive, nationalists cannot honestly claim the ideals of this nation.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I'm sorry. Did I just crush nationalism like a ****ing bug? Perhaps a nazi would like to scrape it off.
 
PirateMk1 said:
It IS NOT the job of the United States government to protect reporters overseas. It IS the job the United States government to preserve the freedom of the press here in the US.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're saying all we should care about is domestic news. Without foreign correspondents, how are supposed to know what's going on in the world? How would we know that the leader of Egypt, who our president supports, is a corrupt dictator? How do we, as citizens, evaluate our foreign policy if we don't know what's going on?
 
jpn said:
It sounds like you're saying all we should care about is domestic news. Without foreign correspondents, how are supposed to know what's going on in the world? How would we know that the leader of Egypt, who our president supports, is a corrupt dictator? How do we, as citizens, evaluate our foreign policy if we don't know what's going on?
Click to expand...

Trump News
 
ecofarm said:
Cowardly nationalist garbage. All men are created equal. All men have rights to life, expression and self defense. All men should enjoy the protections afforded in our Constitution. That's called patriotism and it's nothing like nationalism.
Click to expand...
I agree in principle, but we can't make every other country follow our example. It sounds like you're advocating interventionism worldwide against any government that doesn't share our first amendment value.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
I agree in principle, but we can't make every other country follow our example. It sounds like you're advocating interventionism worldwide against any government that doesn't share our first amendment value.
Click to expand...

I'm talking cowboy, Ollie North, yee-haw ****ing diplomacy.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm talking cowboy, Ollie North, yee-haw ****ing diplomacy.
Click to expand...
I don't know how to take this. Is it serious? I don't know you so I don't know your brand of sarcasm, or if this fits within it. You want us to invade China because they don't respect the free speech rights of their journalists? Honestly, I can't tell.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
I agree in principle, but we can't make every other country follow our example. It sounds like you're advocating interventionism worldwide against any government that doesn't share our first amendment value.
Click to expand...
Seems fair enough that we don't imprison foreign journalists and ask that the same courtesy be extended to ours abroad or we will rain hellfire on them.

Freedom of the press must be defended globally otherwise, what's the point?

[emoji328]
 
Grizzly Adams said:
I don't know how to take this. Is it serious? I don't know you so I don't know your brand of sarcasm, or if this fits within it. You want us to invade China because they don't respect the free speech rights of their journalists? Honestly, I can't tell.
Click to expand...

China, like Saudi, has agreed to drag-feet into the 20th century. They're modernizing slowly but methodically, including social issues. It'll take a couple generations or three, but each will eventually join the socially developed world. There's no need to create geopolitical problems for either regime.

See, we gotta have priorities. We can't advance the world to developed social status overnight. The diplomatic toolbox contains quite the variety. Sometimes diplomacy, sometimes economic engagement, sometimes international efforts. There are a million ways to push development wheel-barrels. Sometimes, however, problems occur. One cannot push a wheel-barrel with no wheel. When a wheel-barrel needs a wheel, that's regime change.
 
Other nations are "sovereign."

We cannot compel them to obey OUR ideals and laws in THEIR nations. Any more than they could compel US in OUR nation.

Oh sure, we can take "action." We can impose sanctions, expel diplomats, try all sorts of economic "pressures."

These things typically work, but then those nations simply try to find other sources of aid, trade, etc.. They would be welcomed by our other declared enemies and competitors.

So while I support the ideal of free press outside our nation, what exactly do you people think we are supposed to do to enforce OUR beliefs on THEIR countries?
 
Hatuey said:
Seems fair enough that we don't imprison foreign journalists and ask that the same courtesy be extended to ours abroad or we will rain hellfire on them.

Freedom of the press must be defended globally otherwise, what's the point?

[emoji328]
Click to expand...

Is this only applicable to journalism? If it is, why not other rights? If it isn't, who do you plan to bomb first? It's a long list. And it includes some close allies.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Is this only applicable to journalism? If it is, why not other rights? If it isn't, who do you plan to bomb first? It's a long list. And it includes some close allies.
Click to expand...
Sure, why not. Don't kidnap US citizens, and we don't bomb you or kidnap yours. Seems like a fair trade.

[emoji328]
 
Captain Adverse said:
Other nations are "sovereign."

We cannot compel them to obey OUR ideals and laws in THEIR nations. Any more than they could compel US in OUR nation.

Oh sure, we can take "action." We can impose sanctions, expel diplomats, try all sorts of economic "pressures."

These things typically work, but then those nations simply try to find other sources of aid, trade, etc.. They would be welcomed by our other declared enemies and competitors.

So while I support the ideal of free press outside our nation, what exactly do you people think we are supposed to do to enforce OUR beliefs on THEIR countries?
Click to expand...
Bomb anyone who tries to hurt our own for trying to tell us what's going on abroad.

Seems reasonable. Not the time to get soft on abusers of human rights.

Me say war.



[emoji328]
 
Captain Adverse said:
Other nations are "sovereign."

We cannot compel them to obey OUR ideals and laws in THEIR nations. Any more than they could compel US in OUR nation.

Oh sure, we can take "action." We can impose sanctions, expel diplomats, try all sorts of economic "pressures."

These things typically work, but then those nations simply try to find other sources of aid, trade, etc.. They would be welcomed by our other declared enemies and competitors.

So while I support the ideal of free press outside our nation, what exactly do you people think we are supposed to do to enforce OUR beliefs on THEIR countries?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between a sovereign nation and a sovereign regime. A nation is the people. A regime is not representation. We are under no obligation whatsoever to respect the sovereignty of a regime. The existence of a regime means - by definition - the nation, the people, are not sovereign.

Egypt is not a sovereign nation. It's a sovereign regime. And that requires no respect at all. It means nothing.
 
ecofarm said:
There's a difference between a sovereign nation and a sovereign regime. A nation is the people. A regime is not representation. We are under no obligation whatsoever to respect the sovereignty of a regime. The existence of a regime means - by definition - the nation, the people, are not sovereign.

Egypt is not a sovereign nation. It's a sovereign regime. And that requires no respect at all. It means nothing.
Click to expand...
They're up for defending freedom of speech in America. Except when it's the MSM asking for access to Trump. Then it's the enemy of the people.

When it comes down to easy questions of defending our journalists abroad, they get all philosophical on you. They'll stand by bombing Iranian head honchos without knowledge of Democrats but get concerned about defending freedom of speech abroad.

The Trump brand is strong but it isn't always logical.

Shame.

[emoji328]
 
Hatuey said:
They're up for defending freedom of speech in America. Except when it's the MSM asking for access to Trump. Then it's the enemy of the people.
Click to expand...

Fair point. Those claiming we only need to defend our freedoms domestically are the same supporting the President controlling access.
 
ecofarm said:
Fair point. Those claiming we only need to defend our freedoms domestically are the same supporting the President controlling access.
Click to expand...
Trump threw his lot in with the Putin, Kims and Dutertes for a reason. Their sole goal is increase their own regional strength. Can't have the press mess with that.


[emoji328]
 
Hatuey said:
Trump threw his lot in with the Putin, Kims and Dutertes for a reason. Their sole goal is increase their own regional strength. Can't have the press mess with that.


[emoji328]
Click to expand...

In regard to both the Press Corps and his campaign rallies, the President has abused power in attempt to control access for personal benefit.
 
ecofarm said:
China, like Saudi, has agreed to drag-feet into the 20th century. They're modernizing slowly but methodically, including social issues. It'll take a couple generations or three, but each will eventually join the socially developed world. There's no need to create geopolitical problems for either regime.

See, we gotta have priorities. We can't advance the world to developed social status overnight. The diplomatic toolbox contains quite the variety. Sometimes diplomacy, sometimes economic engagement, sometimes international efforts. There are a million ways to push development wheel-barrels. Sometimes, however, problems occur. One cannot push a wheel-barrel with no wheel. When a wheel-barrel needs a wheel, that's regime change.
Click to expand...


What century are you living in?


WTF is a wheel-barrel?

Spell-check, amirite?
 
Rexedgar said:
What century are you living in?


WTF is a wheel-barrel?

Spell-check, amirite?
Click to expand...
China has almost complete control of all media outlets in China. The ones they can't really **** with openly are foreign journalists. A journalists only hope of getting out of some situation can be the strength of their passports and what happens if they just off the guy.

We should have everyone on board with the idea that the rule is global. Don't touch our guys, we won't make yours disappear either.

Not sure what the problem here is. You telling us people shouldn't respect our citizens when they leave our borders? If the Chinese answer is maybe, they live in the 20th century.

Not the 21st.



[emoji328]
 
jpn said:
This was reported in September, but I just learned about it. I find it amazing.

During an address at Brown University, AG Sulzberger, the NYT publisher, related what happened when a Times journalist was endangered by the Egyptian government.



You can see his address at this link.

I believe a free press is an essential ingredient in any functioning democracy. Attacking it is the work of despots.

p.s. 18 months later another NYT reporter arrived in Egypt. He was detained and deported in apparent retaliation for exposing information that was embarrassing to the Egyptian government. When the NYT protested the move, a senior official at the US embassy in Cairo said, "what did you expect would happen? His reporting made the government look bad."
Click to expand...

Why were they going to arrest him?
 
Hatuey said:
Seems fair enough that we don't imprison foreign journalists and ask that the same courtesy be extended to ours abroad or we will rain hellfire on them.

Freedom of the press must be defended globally otherwise, what's the point?

[emoji328]
Click to expand...

Something just froze over because I happen to agree with you. I am wondering though if freedom of the press is subject to interpretation. Is reporting monitored and/or censored in some nations?
 
Hatuey said:
China has almost complete control of all media outlets in China. The ones they can't really **** with openly are foreign journalists. A journalists only hope of getting out of some situation can be the strength of their passports and what happens if they just off the guy.

We should have everyone on board with the idea that the rule is global. Don't touch our guys, we won't make yours disappear either.

Not sure what the problem here is. You telling us people shouldn't respect our citizens when they leave our borders? If the Chinese answer is maybe, they live in the 20th century.

Not the 21st.



[emoji328]
Click to expand...

What are you responding to? I’m ****ing with eco, what are you doing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom