The Afghan government has decided that the next best thing to having a violence free election day is to have a day without any reported violence. The government has told the media not to carry reports of violence on election day — fearing that citizens may be reluctant to vote if they are informed that people are being killed in their areas. Some reporters have already refused the abusive order, here.
Afghan leaders may be learning from the Obama Administration’s approach to abuse pictures — if you do not allow people to see the abuse, they are less upset about it.
The Foreign Ministry threw the concept of a free press out the window by announcing that media organizations would be expected to avoid “broadcasting any incidence of violence” between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. on election day “to ensure the wide participation of the Afghan people.”
It is an absurd policy that, once again, shows the lack of appreciation for basic liberties in the country.
For the full story, click here.
So they want to count bodies or ballots? Or more of both?
Dear Afghan poppy lords … the free press is not the problem!
AY,
“I guess the people that are thudded can just be propped up to look like they are useful and not look dead.”
Yeah, like standing in line to vote.
I read yesterday that some lobbyists are paying senior citizens $15/hr to wait in lines for them in D.C. so they can maximize their graft, er, quality time with our elected officials. I wonder how long until the lobbyists figure out this cost saving alternative?
Way to put the public safety first. “Pay no attention to the bodies on the sidewalk, we just want your vote!”
So is everyone just issued silencers and alls you hear is a thud? I guess the people that are thudded can just be propped up to look like they are useful and not look dead. Makes sense to me.
it is all so despicable.
Those stupid Afghans are real easy to fool. Up until today they were afraid of violence but now their fears have been calmed. Oh and BTW, did I mention that we have several American stooges running in the election? Of course it couldn’t be that it would be easier to fix an election if no one is allowed to report on fraud.
This is a very interesting ariticle:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just released a statement on the Afghan elections, which will be held later this week. Key section:
“The United States of America remains impartial in this election. We do not support or oppose any particular candidate. Like the Afghan people we want to see credible, secure and inclusive elections that all will judge legitimate. We hope that, from top to bottom, every effort will be taken to make election day secure, to eliminate fraud, and to address any complaints fairly and quickly.”
Hmm. Well, let’s see. How is it not just a wee bit of interference to have James Carville, one of the Clintons’ top consiglieri, acting as a campaign advisor to one of the leading candidates? Carville, who says he is working as a “private citizen” for candidate Ashraf Ghani, a former World Bank official, was an advisor to Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election and has deep ties to Obama’s current Afghanistan/Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke. Ghani and former Unocal executive turned US-puppet, Hamid Karzai, would both be acceptable to Washington, but Carville’s involvement certainly raises some questions. Carville, according to NPR, “won’t say whether he’s being paid to advise Ghani.”
http://rebelreports.com/
On the other hand, maybe we can use Afghani concepts of freedom of the press to our advantage. Why not simply pull out all of the troops now (since nothing will be accomplished by their continued presence in any event) and instruct the press that they are not to report the withdrawal? We’ll have our folks home and the Afghanis can continue their civil war to their hearts’ content.