N. Korea Incarcerates Journalists

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:39 pm

Twelve years is a pretty harsh sentence, but these two journalists KNOWINGLY broke the law and knew that if they were caught they would be punished. I am no fan of N. Korea, but how come what they did and how this is viewed by N. Korea has not been reported widely.

Whatcha think?

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:43 pm

Not sure why it hasn't been in the news much. They were arrested in March 2009 and have been in jail since then. They are now bargaining chips for what ever reason.

It is barely in the news now was on the front page this morning and now you have to search to find it.

Victoria · Post by **Victoria** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:02 pm

Laura Ling 32 and Euna Lee 36 ..I read they will serve the 12 years under the 're-education through work' program...translated...hard labour.

The charges were that they knowingly sneaked across the border with China thus illegal entry and serious crimes against the state. They should count themselves lucky they weren't shot as spies.

Honestly? they knew what they were doing but they knew if they got a big scoop it could mean fame and fortune so they took the gamble ... they lost ...tough.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:27 pm

After the number of times I've read Americans on here post about what they'd like to see done to people illegally crossing into the USA from Mexico? I don't really think criticism would be anything but hypocritical. Don't enforcement officers shoot them dead with impunity?

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:24 am

Victoria;1201478 wrote: Laura Ling 32 and Euna Lee 36 ..I read they will serve the 12 years under the 're-education through work' program...translated...hard labour.

The charges were that they knowingly sneaked across the border with China thus illegal entry and serious crimes against the state. They should count themselves lucky they weren't shot as spies.

Honestly? they knew what they were doing but they knew if they got a big scoop it could mean fame and fortune so they took the gamble ... they lost ...tough.

I don't agree. Please check this web site:

Press Freedom Online - Committee to Protect Journalists

The fact is that there are still some dedicated journalists out there who are still interested in real stories and reporting abuses of human rights, even if the western general population is only interested in what Paris Hilton is doing this week..

Look at the faces of these two journalists and tell me that it is â€˜toughâ€™ for them to be sentenced that way that they are. These are the brave people that risk their lives to bring stories to the world of what is happening in these horrific places.

I pray for them and hope that they are safe.

From 1992 â€“ 2009 734 journalists have been killed around the world just so that you can watch or read about world events while you sit in the comfort of your living room.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:58 am

spot;1201481 wrote: After the number of times I've read Americans on here post about what they'd like to see done to people illegally crossing into the USA from Mexico? I don't really think criticism would be anything but hypocritical. Don't enforcement officers shoot them dead with impunity?
No, but I can see how you would hope for such a thing.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:02 am

Lon;1201460 wrote: Twelve years is a pretty harsh sentence, but these two journalists KNOWINGLY broke the law and knew that if they were caught they would be punished. I am no fan of N. Korea, but how come what they did and how this is viewed by N. Korea has not been reported widely.

Whatcha think?
We in the US are a nation of laws. As such, we have to respect the established laws of other sovereign states. Not doing so is what has created the mess we have in the Middle East.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:13 am

mikeinie;1201485 wrote: I don't agree. Please check this web site:

Press Freedom Online - Committee to Protect Journalists

The fact is that there are still some dedicated journalists out there who are still interested in real stories and reporting abuses of human rights, even if the western general population is only interested in what Paris Hilton is doing this week..

Look at the faces of these two journalists and tell me that it is â€˜toughâ€™ for them to be sentenced that way that they are. These are the brave people that risk their lives to bring stories to the world of what is happening in these horrific places.

I pray for them and hope that they are safe.

From 1992 â€“ 2009 734 journalists have been killed around the world just so that you can watch or read about world events while you sit in the comfort of your living room.

Breaking a nation's laws for these stories is a whole 'nother ball game.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:17 am

hoppy;1201502 wrote: Breaking a nation's laws for these stories is a whole 'nother ball game.

Every hear of 'Freedom of the Press'?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:20 am

mikeinie;1201503 wrote: Every hear of 'Freedom of the Press'?

Doesn't mean freedom FROM laws.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:31 am

mikeinie;1201503 wrote: Every hear of 'Freedom of the Press'?
The reporters knew the risks. The valuable information they got out should be taken to the oh-so-powerful UN, if it is enough to hurt N Korea. What more would you have someone do?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:55 am

spot;1201481 wrote: After the number of times I've read Americans on here post about what they'd like to see done to people illegally crossing into the USA from Mexico? I don't really think criticism would be anything but hypocritical. Don't enforcement officers shoot them dead with impunity?
From what I remember most if not all Americans just wanted them deported not put into labor camps for 12 years. Maybe I missed a few radical posts but I don't recall any Americans asking for 12 years hard labor?

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:55 am

NO most of the time we rescue them from the desert, ocean, streams feed them cloth them and if necessary hospitalize them to treat their wounds. They are then put on a bus and taken back across the border so they can try again next week.

[QUOTE]After the number of times I've read Americans on here post about what they'd like to see done to people illegally crossing into the USA from Mexico? I don't really think criticism would be anything but hypocritical. Don't enforcement officers shoot them dead with impunity?[/QUOTE]

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:58 am

hoppy;1201506 wrote: Doesn't mean freedom FROM laws.

So if there is a law censoring the press and trying to stop journalists reporting government or corporate crimes that law should be respected?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:27 am

gmc;1201582 wrote: So if there is a law censoring the press and trying to stop journalists reporting government or corporate crimes that law should be respected?

So should we pick and choose which laws we want to obey?

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:36 am

hoppy;1201590 wrote: So should we pick and choose which laws we want to obey?

If I am not mistaken, the whole reason for the constitutional freedom of press is for exactly that purpose, so that governments cannot use law to suppress the freedom of information. If they suddenly brought in censorship and laws limiting the freedom of the press in the USA, would you be OK with that because, â€™it is the lawâ€™?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:39 am

mikeinie;1201593 wrote: If I am not mistaken, the whole reason for the constitutional freedom of press is for exactly that purpose, so that governments cannot use law to suppress the freedom of information. If they suddenly brought in censorship and laws limiting the freedom of the press in the USA, would you be OK with that because, â€™it is the lawâ€™?

So you condone lawbreaking?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:43 am

They illegally entered a rogue nation. How smart is that?

Richard Bell · Post by **Richard Bell** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:44 am

It may be that North Korea was the lawbreaker in this case :

From cbc.ca :

The journalists — working for former vice-president Al Gore's California-based Current TV — were arrested March 17 as they were reporting about the trafficking of women. It's unclear if they strayed into the North or were grabbed by aggressive border guards who crossed into China.

CBC.ca Mobile

I watched a TV news report in which it was noted that the journalists claim they were in Chinese territory, and the North Korean border guards illegally took them into custody.

The North Koreans have previously kidnapped foreigners outside of their borders. There are instances were Japanese citizens were taken by them from Japanese soil.

From guardian.co.uk :

The breakthrough came on September 17, (2002), when after years of denials, the North Korean

leader, Kim Jong-il, told Mr Koizumi during bilateral talks in Pyongyang that his country's special forces had indeed kidnapped Japanese and used them to teach their language to spies.

more...

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:51 am

Richard Bell;1201598 wrote: It may be that North Korea was the lawbreaker in this case :

From cbc.ca :

CBC.ca Mobile

I watched a TV news report in which it was noted that the journalists claim they were in Chinese territory, and the North Korean border guards illegally took them into custody.

The North Koreans have previously kidnapped foreigners outside of their borders. There are instances were Japanese citizens were taken by them from Japanese soil.

If that's the case, then let's sock it to 'em.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:03 am

gmc;1201582 wrote: So if there is a law censoring the press and trying to stop journalists reporting government or corporate crimes that law should be respected?

Respected no, obeyed yes.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:07 am

I thought I'd dropped in on a word game for a sec. Answer a question with a question.

gmc;1201582 wrote: So if there is a law censoring the press and trying to stop journalists reporting government or corporate crimes that law should be respected?Yes, foreign journalists should understand that they are not above any law. When they are in a foreign land they are subject to that country's laws.

hoppy;1201590 wrote: So should we pick and choose which laws we want to obey?Yes, but we should also be willing and ready to pay the consequences of disobedience.

mikeinie;1201593 wrote: If I am not mistaken, the whole reason for the constitutional freedom of press is for exactly that purpose, so that governments cannot use law to suppress the freedom of information. If they suddenly brought in censorship and laws limiting the freedom of the press in the USA, would you be OK with that because, â€™it is the lawâ€™?You're mixing things up. Such a law would not stand in the US exactly bacause of our constitution. However, our constitution does not/can not/should not trump the laws of another sovereign nation.

hoppy;1201594 wrote: So you condone lawbreaking?Condone, encourage, demand ... absolutely, under the right circumstances.

hoppy;1201596 wrote: They illegally entered a rogue nation. How smart is that?That's stupid as Hell. Hopefully they got some good information out before they were caught.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:26 am

Aren't many of the current world problems being brought about by a government trying to infuse their morals, ethics, politics, religion, etc. on others? North Korea, as bizarre as their actions and government is, has every right to expect that those entering their domain obey the laws. Though there is Freedom of the Press in many countries, that's not the case with others. By what right do others have to disobey when in that particular country, unless they are fully prepared for the consequences?

I do not believe that the two journalists were abducted and taken across the N. Korean border. I think that is anti N. Korean sentiment. I believe they knowingly went there to pursue a story, a story that could not be fully done by staying in S. Korea. If that were the case, they could just as well have stayed home and done a story.:-3

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:31 am

Yup yup! :yh_clap

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:08 pm

mikeinie;1201485 wrote: The fact is that there are still some dedicated journalists out there who are still interested in real stories and reporting abuses of human rights, even if the western general population is only interested in what Paris Hilton is doing this week..Fixing the rest of the world's problems is more important than cleansing the Augean stables perhaps. I think not, personally.

The state of North Korea's society may or may not be distressing, both to "world opinion" and to the North Koreans in general (though I doubt the latter). There's such a wealth of biased pious claptrap smeared over the subject by Western interests that I have little way of knowing. What I'm quite certain of is that life in Korea, North and South, would be entirely different had the US and their satraps not interfered in the Korean Civil War in the early 1950s - not just different but, I suggest, an overall improvement for the whole.

Meanwhile, if you're an "investigative journalist", clean up the piles of dung in your own back yard please. That's more important.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:49 pm

Glad to see you never miss a chance to take a pot shot at us, Spock. I'm sure China was completely uninvolved, eh?

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:08 pm

What many of us question is the validity of the charges by North Korea. We just don't trust North Korea.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:17 pm

Accountable;1201638 wrote: Glad to see you never miss a chance to take a pot shot at us, Spock. I'm sure China was completely uninvolved, eh?

As a reaction to the Western invasion of a bordering country? Of course they were. It's their back yard, unlike America's, and they responded to the provocation just as the US would if any Asiatic armed force landed a quarter million troops in Mexico. Wouldn't you find that provocative? Fortunately they're not expansionist, they have no race-superior Manifest Destiny driving their foreign policy.

along-for-the-ride;1201640 wrote: What many of us question is the validity of the charges by North Korea. We just don't trust North Korea.

There's Fox News for you then. Somewhat biased. With that sort of drip drip generating xenophobia how can you expect to decide what's real and what isn't?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:16 pm

spot;1201655 wrote:

There's Fox News for you then. Somewhat biased. With that sort of drip drip generating xenophobia how can you expect to decide what's real and what isn't?
Phuckin swizzle stick.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:07 pm

Accountable;1201711 wrote: Phuckin swizzle stick.

You don't find Fox News xenophobic? That says a lot in its own right.

I note that, as usual, you ignore my more critically relevant comments.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:20 am

hoppy;1201590 wrote: So should we pick and choose which laws we want to obey?

So if private gun ownership was banned in the US would you respect that law?

The UK is in the middle of a massive constitutional crisis prompted by a newspaper which illegally obtained information the govt was trying to hide and published it. Those responsible, if it came to court, would be feted as heroes and it's highly unlikely a jury would be prepared to convict them. Actually if they tried it would probably be the last straw and the end of the present government.

Its one of the main reasons you have a right to a fair trial and juries to make judgement it's intended to prevent a government passing laws and locking people up just because it wants to.

How about the journalists that reported on abu grahb or watergate-both acted illegally should they be jailed as well?

posted by lon

Respected no, obeyed yes.

So all the civil disobedience campaigns in 60's america during the civil rights era were wrong then?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:46 am

gmc;1201747 wrote: How about the journalists that reported on abu grahb or watergate-both acted illegally should they be jailed as well?

This is the first I've heard of this. In what way did the journalists break the law?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:09 am

Accountable;1201770 wrote: This is the first I've heard of this. In what way did the journalists break the law?

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On May 7, 2004, United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made the following statements before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them. I take full responsibility. It is my obligation to evaluate what happened, to make sure those who have committed wrongdoing are brought to justice, and to make changes as needed to see that it doesn't happen again. I feel terrible about what happened to these Iraqi detainees. They are human beings. They were in U.S. custody. Our country had an obligation to treat them right. We didn't do that. That was wrong. To those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of U.S. armed forces, I offer my deepest apology. It was un-American. And it was inconsistent with the values of our nation.

â€”Donald Rumsfeld, [33]

He also was quoted:

[QUOTE]We're functioning in a â€” with peacetime restraints, with legal requirements in a wartime situation, in the information age, where people are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise, when they had not even arrived in the Pentagon.
â€”Donald Rumsfeld, [34]

The implication is that if the media hadn't ignored the law and published the photos it would never have come out. Those passing on the photos were breaking the law as were those who published them

Woodward and bernstein used an inside informant both they and the informant were breaking the law.

You can find dozens of examples where the letter of the law has been ignored on order to get stories out.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:02 pm

The media broke no law. They simply published what was passed to them. As far as I know, there's no requirement to get permission from the Pentagon to publish.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:22 am

Accountable;1202061 wrote: The media broke no law. They simply published what was passed to them. As far as I know, there's no requirement to get permission from the Pentagon to publish.

If you publish information you know has been obtained illegally-and paying someone to give you confidential documents is illegal-or is supposedly secret then you are breaking the law are you not? Although I do not claim to be an expert on American law. Certainly Cheney seems to think the law was broken over abu graib. There are plenty of journalists who have refused to reveal their sources in all countries around the world.

Certainly in our case the daily telegraph was acting illegally publishing confidential documents they had paid for.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:19 am

gmc;1202097 wrote: If you publish information you know has been obtained illegally-and paying someone to give you confidential documents is illegal-or is supposedly secret then you are breaking the law are you not? Although I do not claim to be an expert on American law. Certainly Cheney seems to think the law was broken over abu graib. There are plenty of journalists who have refused to reveal their sources in all countries around the world.

Certainly in our case the daily telegraph was acting illegally publishing confidential documents they had paid for.
The law was broken, just not by the media. News agencies enjoy a special privileged place in our society. Their job is to expose the government shenanigans. Unfortunately they're falling down on the job right now ... too busy falling over themselves to kiss Obama's ass.

The tradition of not revealing sources is a long and honorable one. Many a journalist has been jailed for contempt of court for not reporting another person's known criminal activity, but none have been jailed for reporting the truth, no matter where the information came from. Watch carefully. If a journalist breaks the law in pursuit of a story, he'll be convicted & punished for that crime, not for the report.

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:45 pm

Today an update with good news for a change:

N. Korea to free 2 U.S. journalists - North Korea- msnbc.com

Post by **spot** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:27 pm

along-for-the-ride;1225323 wrote: Today an update with good news for a change:

N. Korea to free 2 U.S. journalists - North Korea- msnbc.com

A presidential pardon, no less. Kim Jong Il looks in pretty good health in the photo too, don't you think. Do you remember all that rabid tosh on FG last year, echoed from US propaganda outlets like Fox, speculating on whether he was dead?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:38 pm

I just heard one of the journos home coming speech . she sounds like she's been through the ringer . Then she thanked the North Korean government for granting them amnesty

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 12:43 am

I really thought it was a politico for my NM Gov. Richardson and for Gore and for Clinton, Sorry - These people were held hostage and all I saw were politicos giving them hugs.

Post by **spot** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:59 am

fuzzywuzzy;1225857 wrote: I just heard one of the journos home coming speech . she sounds like she's been through the ringer . Then she thanked the North Korean government for granting them amnestyI'm never quite sure about expressions like through the wringer - are you suggesting they were tortured? I suspect you're not but it does on the surface sound that way. Would you like to clarify?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 6:44 am

nvalleyvee;1226065 wrote: I really thought it was a politico for my NM Gov. Richardson and for Gore and for Clinton, Sorry - These people were held hostage and all I saw were politicos giving them hugs.
Of course they were, but so what? Kim Jung Mentally Ill is less relevant than 2 American civilians.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:19 am

Accountable;1226109 wrote: Of course they were, but so what? Kim Jung Mentally Ill is less relevant than 2 American civilians.

Thats almost as good as So Damn Insane (Sadaam Hussein)

Im giving it 3 *** and a !

Post by **spot** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:29 am

Accountable;1226109 wrote: Of course they were, but so what? Kim Jung Mentally Ill is less relevant than 2 American civilians.There's no chance, I suppose, that you could discuss issues rather than trivialize them with playground humor? It would be less distressing if it were just you but it's the predominant line of US media outlets too. The lack of serious discussion is breathtaking.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:46 am

spot;1226122 wrote: There's no chance, I suppose, that you could discuss issues rather than trivialize them with playground humor? It would be less distressing if it were just you but it's the predominant line of US media outlets too. The lack of serious discussion is breathtaking.

I can't.

I've tried.

The ADD is a huge obstacle.

Post by **spot** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:33 am

Nomad;1226131 wrote: I can't.

I've tried.

The ADD is a huge obstacle.

I was, I thought, commenting on Accountable's puerile "Kim Jung Mentally Ill" gibe. Pay better attention.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:10 am

spot;1226194 wrote: I was, I thought, commenting on Accountable's puerile "Kim Jung Mentally Ill" gibe. Pay better attention.
You don't think he's mentally ill? Is there something I've written that's inaccurate?

Post by **spot** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:24 am

Accountable;1226223 wrote: You don't think he's mentally ill? Is there something I've written that's inaccurate?

It's surely a matter of evidence, isn't it. Do you default to saying X is mentally ill when you have no evidence either way, or do you assume sanity until you have more information?

The chap's a Head of State, you'd think mental illness would preclude his staying in power if it was a genuine diagnosis.

What I do observe is that commentators in the US ascribe mental illness to Heads of State they dislike. Muammar al-Gaddafi, for example, or (archetypally) Adolf Hitler, or Fidel Castro. By any objective measure none of them are, it's a juvenile attempt at expressing disapproval.

I have no reason at all to think Kim Jung Ill's mentally ill. More to the point, neither do you. It's a label you hang on him to avoid any more serious analysis. It's all part of demonising the "enemy".

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:42 am

:yh_youkidYou're crazy.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:45 am

I'm not entirely certain what sanity or normality are, but I'm inclined to believe that a few years or raw, total power moves you away from both.

That said, my current opinion is that Gaddaffi and Castro are less tonto than most dictators; on the other hand Hitler was barking mad by almost any definition and I'd class Stalin as a sociopath and/or totally evil. Interesting to note that both Hitler and Stalin had abusive fathers. (Kim Jong Ill I know nothing about.)