The danger of padlocking a paper in Baghdad

After two days, I remain even more disturbed by Bremer's decision to silence the Shiite paper Al Hawza. Reading a couple of the letters in today's TIMES brought it into even starker relief. One letter, from NJ, startled. The author opined that Al Hawza, the radical weekly was "a propaganda sheet" and not a real newspaper; therefore, stopping it was key. Excuse me, since when is stopping the flow of propaganda in sync with anyone's idea of democracy? Another letter opined that the publication is the jouranlistic equivalent of shouting fire in a theater. Fire is shouted daily in post-Saddam Iraq. Stopping one hate-mongering rag won't stop that; the sentimets behind it must be addressed. I fear for the world, and even more for our soliders (the saving of whom was used to justify this ham-fisted action) if these attitudes toward free speech prevail.

All American-determined actions in Iraq now play on a world stage, and become emblematic, whether we want them to or not. It's shocking how Bremer and company didn't weigh the impact of this, seemingly oblivious to the SYMBOLISM of stopping any paper. As the Times states, such opinions will only find their way into other publications, and the Iraq perception that America wants *total control* of "...the hearts and minds..." has been enhanced. Even if the paper disseminates lies -- hello, welcome to the free world. Lies are sold daily, folks. In the press and all over TV.

Has the administration so readily failed to heed what Donald Rumsfeld said, famously, after the insurgency began: "Democracy is messy." Indeed, and curtailing any aspect of it with swift, stiffling acts has consequences. Perhaps dire ones.

---

Updated On: 3/31/04 at 10:26 AM

At least five more Americans were killed this morning.
The victims were then hacked apart with glee and burned.

---

---

Updated On: 3/31/04 at 12:40 PM

auggie, my apologies, i was wound up about this from something else and allowed myself to tee off on you without reading your full post. my apologies. that was insensitive and unfair. i will work to avoid that in the future, but cannot alwats promise to live up to my extraordinary potential.

it coulda been worse, padlocking the rag is better than they would have gotten 18 months ago when a paper that made statements about the previous ruling authority could expect to have its writers tortured to death in front of their families. moqtada al sadr is a poisonous fanatic who represents the very worst that not just islam but humanity has to offer and i defend anyone who shuts him and people like him up. anyone who uses the name of god to incite people to kill or be killed has no right to continue to breathe.

i think it's a question of tolerance vs. freedom. are we to be tolerant of someone who daily calls for us to be killed? would you defend so quickly an american newspaper that daily led off its headline with "god commands you to kill the all the heathen faggots whose poisonous existance is an affront to all men of faith?" i mean, defending freedom of speech is one thing, but defending hatred intolerance and incitement of murder is wrong.

as far as hearts and minds, one imam can draw a thousand people into the streets. but just as in america you can see 100,000 protesting the war, opinion polls taken during that same time showed americans to be overwhelmingly supportive of it. those who scream the loudest seldom represent the majority. if they did, they would not need to scream so loudly to make their voices heard.

there is a great deal of work to be done, but silencing one voice of hatred is a start.

---