Terrorist
Terrorist
Posted 00:55am (Mla time) Mar 08, 2005
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the March 8, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
BARELY had I written about the dangers of the anti-smut bills, saying among other things that it posed a menace to democracy, being all of a piece with moves toward abridging various freedoms, when Armed Forces Deputy Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Edilberto Adan went out of his way to prove me right. From another front, he wants stiff sanctions imposed on reporters who interview terrorists.
"[The terrorists] kill and bomb, and then the media give them the opportunity to talk. It's stupidity on the part of some media to allow these terrorists or people identified with terrorist groups to air their complaints. [Interviewing terrorists] is an abuse of press freedom. They [the terrorists] are using the so-called press freedom to advance themselves. So they are the ones abusing us."
Now, what is so frightening about that proposal?
To begin with, its premise is best confined only to action movies. In action movies (which are called that because they have more action than thought), you know who the terrorists are. You are left in little doubt of it, as they are introduced from the start committing sadistic acts: slitting men's throats, raping women and blowing toddlers in walkers to bits in outdoor cafés. And action movies have become more and more inventive in depicting villains wreaking atrocious mayhem, some with fiendish humor, aware of the caricature they are making, others completely mean-spiritedly, taking themselves seriously and their audiences for a ride.
You are left in no doubt about who the terrorists are moreover because in the past they were slit-eyed or spoke with guttural accents, being Vietnamese or Russians (Rambo's foes), while today they are bearded and speak with Middle Eastern accents, being Arabs or Muslims (typically airplane hijackers). Of course, you root for the hero(es) and want nothing more than the terrorists to get their just desserts.
Unfortunately, life is more complicated than that, as more serious movies like Oliver Stone's "Platoon" and Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" showed in the past, and as movies from the Arab countries themselves, not least of them Iran, which has been making waves in film, show today. Easy to see which version of life is more in keeping with reality.
To accept Adan's proposal is to embrace a Steven Seagal view of the world, and obliterate dark, shadowy and faceless villains. Well, in real life, those faceless villains do have faces and live lives not unlike ours, and see the people who wreak mayhem upon them and their children as terrorists.
That brings me to the heart of the matter. What is frightening about Adan's open proposal is the same thing that was frightening about Alfredo Lim's et al.'s veiled proposal in the past to send drug-pushers and other dregs of the earth to their Maker, preferably inside steel drums rolled on to the Pasig River. It reposes all power of judgment about who the dregs of the earth are upon them. They are judge, jury and, completely literally, executioner.
At the very least, it reposes that power in those whose interest, or justification, or survival rests on the exaggeration of the threat. We do not need to hypothesize on what will happen if we just took the Armed Forces of the Philippines' word on who our friends and enemies are. That actually happened several years ago, in the aftermath of 9/11, when Gloria Macaoagal-Arroyo took on George Bush's fascistic airs and imposed a blackout in Basilan and neighboring places. The media were prevented from covering the military campaign against the Abu Sayyaf. All we had to go by were self-serving statements about how they were winning the war. If Fr. Cirilo Nacorda were not a priest, he would have been severely sanctioned for charging that the military was actually coddling the Abu Sayyaf rather than fighting it. That would have constituted abetting terrorism.
At the very most, it reposes the power of judging who the terrorists are upon those whose actions in the past and present, if Amnesty International and other human rights bodies are to be believed, fall squarely under the category of "terrorism." That is not unlike asking a philandering judge to sit over a case involving infidelity. I do not recall that the military called for sanctions to be imposed on those who interviewed the Oakwood mutineers, who threatened to blow up their hostage tower if attacked. I do recall that Ms Arroyo got very, very pissed off and wanted those sanctions imposed on a reporter from GMA Network Inc. for doing exactly that. But she backed off when she got flak from the media for the obvious attempt at censorship. All of which merely shows how capriciously government can use the label "terrorist."
There is always another side to the story, as Al Jazeera, the news organization Bush tried to suppress in the US after 9/11, has shown. Indeed, as it has shown even more clearly, the other side of the story is probably closer to the truth. Certainly, Al Jazeera's stories about the US invasion of Iraq are more believable than Fox Network's stories about the US liberation of that country. Except in this country, of course.
The business of journalists, much like those of artists and other writers, is to keep an open mind, to probe as deeply as resources and deadline permit, to challenge accepted truths, especially official ones. That was what Edgar Snow did for China (he wrote "Red Star Over China," now a classic journalism textbook) and that was what John Pilger did for Vietnam at a time when both countries were reviled as constituting the Yellow Peril. "Terrorism" is a terrifying word: You are bound to find it practiced most by the fanatics who vow to fight it.
Adan should think again. He insists on imposing severe penalties on journalists who interview terrorists, no one may want to interview him.
Posted 00:55am (Mla time) Mar 08, 2005
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the March 8, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
BARELY had I written about the dangers of the anti-smut bills, saying among other things that it posed a menace to democracy, being all of a piece with moves toward abridging various freedoms, when Armed Forces Deputy Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Edilberto Adan went out of his way to prove me right. From another front, he wants stiff sanctions imposed on reporters who interview terrorists.
"[The terrorists] kill and bomb, and then the media give them the opportunity to talk. It's stupidity on the part of some media to allow these terrorists or people identified with terrorist groups to air their complaints. [Interviewing terrorists] is an abuse of press freedom. They [the terrorists] are using the so-called press freedom to advance themselves. So they are the ones abusing us."
Now, what is so frightening about that proposal?
To begin with, its premise is best confined only to action movies. In action movies (which are called that because they have more action than thought), you know who the terrorists are. You are left in little doubt of it, as they are introduced from the start committing sadistic acts: slitting men's throats, raping women and blowing toddlers in walkers to bits in outdoor cafés. And action movies have become more and more inventive in depicting villains wreaking atrocious mayhem, some with fiendish humor, aware of the caricature they are making, others completely mean-spiritedly, taking themselves seriously and their audiences for a ride.
You are left in no doubt about who the terrorists are moreover because in the past they were slit-eyed or spoke with guttural accents, being Vietnamese or Russians (Rambo's foes), while today they are bearded and speak with Middle Eastern accents, being Arabs or Muslims (typically airplane hijackers). Of course, you root for the hero(es) and want nothing more than the terrorists to get their just desserts.
Unfortunately, life is more complicated than that, as more serious movies like Oliver Stone's "Platoon" and Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" showed in the past, and as movies from the Arab countries themselves, not least of them Iran, which has been making waves in film, show today. Easy to see which version of life is more in keeping with reality.
To accept Adan's proposal is to embrace a Steven Seagal view of the world, and obliterate dark, shadowy and faceless villains. Well, in real life, those faceless villains do have faces and live lives not unlike ours, and see the people who wreak mayhem upon them and their children as terrorists.
That brings me to the heart of the matter. What is frightening about Adan's open proposal is the same thing that was frightening about Alfredo Lim's et al.'s veiled proposal in the past to send drug-pushers and other dregs of the earth to their Maker, preferably inside steel drums rolled on to the Pasig River. It reposes all power of judgment about who the dregs of the earth are upon them. They are judge, jury and, completely literally, executioner.
At the very least, it reposes that power in those whose interest, or justification, or survival rests on the exaggeration of the threat. We do not need to hypothesize on what will happen if we just took the Armed Forces of the Philippines' word on who our friends and enemies are. That actually happened several years ago, in the aftermath of 9/11, when Gloria Macaoagal-Arroyo took on George Bush's fascistic airs and imposed a blackout in Basilan and neighboring places. The media were prevented from covering the military campaign against the Abu Sayyaf. All we had to go by were self-serving statements about how they were winning the war. If Fr. Cirilo Nacorda were not a priest, he would have been severely sanctioned for charging that the military was actually coddling the Abu Sayyaf rather than fighting it. That would have constituted abetting terrorism.
At the very most, it reposes the power of judging who the terrorists are upon those whose actions in the past and present, if Amnesty International and other human rights bodies are to be believed, fall squarely under the category of "terrorism." That is not unlike asking a philandering judge to sit over a case involving infidelity. I do not recall that the military called for sanctions to be imposed on those who interviewed the Oakwood mutineers, who threatened to blow up their hostage tower if attacked. I do recall that Ms Arroyo got very, very pissed off and wanted those sanctions imposed on a reporter from GMA Network Inc. for doing exactly that. But she backed off when she got flak from the media for the obvious attempt at censorship. All of which merely shows how capriciously government can use the label "terrorist."
There is always another side to the story, as Al Jazeera, the news organization Bush tried to suppress in the US after 9/11, has shown. Indeed, as it has shown even more clearly, the other side of the story is probably closer to the truth. Certainly, Al Jazeera's stories about the US invasion of Iraq are more believable than Fox Network's stories about the US liberation of that country. Except in this country, of course.
The business of journalists, much like those of artists and other writers, is to keep an open mind, to probe as deeply as resources and deadline permit, to challenge accepted truths, especially official ones. That was what Edgar Snow did for China (he wrote "Red Star Over China," now a classic journalism textbook) and that was what John Pilger did for Vietnam at a time when both countries were reviled as constituting the Yellow Peril. "Terrorism" is a terrifying word: You are bound to find it practiced most by the fanatics who vow to fight it.
Adan should think again. He insists on imposing severe penalties on journalists who interview terrorists, no one may want to interview him.
posted by Dante at 12:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home