What is un-American about shutting down a terrorist's paper that leads to the death of American soldiers? To the Kevin Rodericks of the world, the free speech rights of terrorists are more important than the lives of American soldiers.

If the publishers of that paper were truly terrorists, or if there were even a strong suspicion that they were, I suspect the occupying forces would have imposed more than a time-out.

Fact is, the US (at least so far) has not brought democracy to Iraq. Rather, it has installed a military government -- not the most hospitable environment for recognition of anyone's civil rights. Course, if you notice the inconsistencies between "freeing the Iraqi people" and padlocking an annoying newspaper, must mean you're a terrorist too. When, oh when, will the FBI finally notice?

I will vote for "the Kevin Rodericks of the world" every time.

First Amendment prohibits the deliberate incitement to violence/murder. I'm with poster one. Of course, unlike most journos, I'd love to see our efforts in Iraq succeed.

I'm not surprised that our current administration would take such actions. I didn't vote for Bush. Kevin, I never knew that you were so controversial. (;

To many Iraqi readers, however, the articles in Al Hawza seem more like shrill tabloid fare than dangerous rhetoric that would merit the serious step of closing a newspaper, especially given the potential backlash.

Inciting to violence is not cool here or anywhere else, yes? Unfortunately, it seems likely that pushing the issue with a mere tiny tabloid was silly overkill that will now be paid in kind. This was not smart.

None of you have read the paper in question, which says a lot about both sides in this debate. And actually it is not really un-american to shut down newspapers in times of war- it happened in every major conflict up to Viet Nam, until they got more sophisticated about it. Now they don't even need to shut them down, they work in concert most of the time!

Anyway interesting post, Kevin, about something I was unaware of.

unlike most journos, I'd love to see our efforts in Iraq succeed.

I assume you've got hard data for that self-aggrandizing assertion, Leah?

Another great example of winning the battle but losing the war. This just makes the American forces look so stupid. You can padlock the door, but the rhetoric will only be strengthened by this kind of thing.

Incitement to violence is not protected speech. Never has been. Hopefully, never will be.

None of you have read the paper in question, which says a lot about both sides in this debate.

I would think that, as I did, everyone takes this into consideration when posting thoughts based on information in a fairly balanced NYT article. It's ethically correct (on Kohlberg's scale) to shut down any cult inciting violence against others -- it just might not have been the best long term strategy with a currently inconsequential cult in an occupied country low on ethical reasoning scales.

Incitement to violence is not protected speech. Never has been. Hopefully, never will be.

There is no evidence cited that the paper specifically incited to to violence.

According to the New York Times: "[T]he letter outlining the reasons for taking action against Al Hawza did not cite any material that directly advocated violence."

The LA Times says that Bremer's letter "gave several examples of the newspaper impugning the work of the coalition or lying about activities of the U.S.-led occupation forces in ways that were likely to inflame anti-American feelings."

But "inflaming anti-American feeling" is not the same as "inciting violence," is it?

I'm glad our hackles go up when we hear of newspapers being shuttered. I'm also glad that the staff of that newspaper and their families will not have their brains splattered for what the paper published. In all likelihood, they'll be back on line and publishing once they understand that even a free press has limits. This story sounds similar to actions taken during the Kosovo invasion.

USA Today's report on the shuttering provides more insight:

Coalition officials worry about the spread of misinformation or outright propaganda because it can lead to violence and undermine efforts to stabilize Iraq. This week, a Baghdad newspaper run by followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was shut down after coalition officials said the publication incited violence against the U.S.-led force occupying Iraq. Military officials say the newspaper, Al-Hawza, called on readers to take up arms against U.S. forces.

"It's one thing to call us pigs," one coalition official says. "But when you call on people to take up a rifle or take up a knife to slit the throat of the American pigs, that crosses the line. If we let this go on unchecked, people will die."

If inciting violence is bad, does that mean that American papers which supported the invasion of Iraq should have been shut down?

I'm just asking here. Is violence only bad when it's directed against "us," but when "we" do it, it's okay to promote violence?

--Kynn

Welch: Most journos, according to published accounts, are liberals. Liberals oppose the Iraq invasion. Most mainstream newspapers op-eds reflect this view. NYTimes, LATimes, WaPo, Boston Globe; include editorial of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN. Taken as a whole, whether implied or explicit, the deliberate, selective reporting on Iraq (John Burns a notable exception) seeks to influence public opinion against our efforts. Apocryphal, yes. Empirical, no. Self-aggrandizing, me?

I disagree with the characterization of liberal opinion "leah" offers.

I identify as a liberal and opposed the Iraq invasion as a mistake -- the "imminent threat" case wasn't convincingly made, our relationship with leading Western European countries is too important to our security to trash the way Bush did, and we would have done better to focus our energies on eliminating al Qaeda.

Invading when we did, in the way we did, was a mistake. Nevertheless, having made the mistake, we have to see the situation through. I very much hope our efforts in Iraq succeed. If we fail, we've created a new Lebanon writ large, and a new failed state to serve as a terrorist base. We would also leave the Middle East even more destabilized than when we went in.

We need a self-governing Iraq with an agreed-upon modus vivendi among Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis before we can leave. An extremely tall order -- we almost certainly need much more help from the rest of the world to make it happen. That seems to be Kerry's view and the mainstream Democratic view. Internationalize the Iraqi effort, but don't abandon it and create a national security disaster.

I have not heard Kerry campaigning to "bring the troops home."

I also think "leah" misses the mark with her claims of deliberately selective or distorted reporting on Iraq. It seems to me a lot of courageous "journos" have been working extremely hard to tell Americans the truth on the ground in Iraq, as they see it. The picture they draw may be far different from the Donald Rumsfeld view, but that's all to the good if you prefer reality to fiction.

Leah -- There's a huge chasm between not agreeing with a decision to go to war, and wishing for your own side to lose. Howard Dean, to cite one anti-war liberal, argued that our troop level in Afghanistan should be increased 500 percent, and our Iraq involvement should be deeper and longer than currently contemplated by the Bush Administration. There are journalists who root for the other side -- John Pilger comes to mind -- and you'll see him pilloried on the websites of many liberal journalists who didn't support the war. I know dozens of journalists who disagreed with Gulf War II, and not one of them, to my knowledge, doesn't want to see our efforts in Iraq succeed.

Welch/McGarry: The "imminent threat" meme has to be put to bed. Bush favored pre-emptive action to head off an imminent threat ("we must not wait until a threat is imminent; since when do terrorists provide warnings of their actions"); our relationship with western European countries has been redefined by their conspiracy to circumvent sanctions and abet the criminalization of the UN oil-for-food program. After all, we're really talking about the veto states of France, Germany, Russia and China, whose approval we are appropriately uninterested in. We have the support, in blood and treasure, of Spain (which will cease with the new Socialist government), Italy, Britain (the truest friend we ever had), Australia, former Soviet bloc countries (for whom totalitarianism is a recent memory) and others denigrated as an "illegitimate" coalition by Candidate Kerry. Enforcing violations of 1441 after the UN kabuki we endured was swift and successful. As for Kerry's position, "seems" is the operative word. He has never definitively offered a post-war plan that can be analyzed. As for the courage of journos; Eason Jordan's prostitution of access springs to mind; Howell Raines unembarrassed embargo of conservative opinion; anecdotal versions of pressroom comments that confirm successes for the coalition mean advantage to the Bush administration; warblogs such as HealingIraq, WindsofChange, etc. are redefining coverage of this story. Raising troop levels invites conscription, as well as more targets. Color me cynical, but mainstream news reports read like advocacy, especially for these positions. And it ain't accidental!

There's a huge chasm between not agreeing with a decision to go to war, and wishing for your own side to lose.

And . . . . not all of us who approach things from the left were against the war.

It is patently absurd for the United States to claim it has brought democracy and freedom
to Iraq, and then it shuts down a newspaper, an extremely un-democratic and repressive
action.

It's hypocrisy in its most ludicrous cloak.

Democracies do not shut down newspapers. Free governments do not shut down
newspapers. Totalitarian regimes do.

This action is like claiming to bring freedom of religion and then blowing up a mosque.

Hitler claimed there was freedom of the press in Germany. This was after he shuttered all the opposition newspapers.