60 Minutes: Scott Pelley Blames Terrorism on the Internets

Okay - this story goes into the "You're Fucking Kidding Me" file.  Sorry for the profanity, but you'll have to live with it.

The lead story on 60 Minutes tonight filed by Scott Pelley is about how the internet is responsible for the attempt on Vice President Dick Cheney's life when he was in Afghanistan last week.

The story IGNORES the fact that the Bush Administration has completely ignored Al Qaeda since they invaded Iraq.  He is at this moment suggesting that - gasp - horrors - "posting videos" is contributing to terrorism.

Pelley claims that the immediacy of the internets is compromising national security.

I don't know quite what to say at this point.  I am still in the process of processing the "You're Fucking Kidding Me" information that Pelley is trying to float as if it was a truism beyond a shadow or a doubt.

Here we go on the next assault on free speech.  This one the media will heartily support so as to kill their competition - that would be "us" by the way.

My God.  This country is totally screwed up.  I thought we had a chance to bring it back, but I am not at all hopeful anymore.

UpdateWhen asked what set my antennae off here is what I replied to NPK and at the behest of joanneleon I am including my response in the diary for context:

The title for one thing: jihad.com...

Then the part where he started the story saying that the rise of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was being fueled by the internet.  Then the part where he said Cheney was a target only because of the rapid flow of information that was possible on the internet and then the part where he said that maybe Cheney wasn't the target.  But still essentially suggested that had it not been for the internet that attack might not have taken place.

That is what she - me - reacted to.

I reacted to the fact that this story is an obvious attempt at deflecting the real sources of failure and probably offers the added bonus of convincing Americans that internet freedoms should be limited to protect against terrorism.

Update 2

The video is now up on the internet.  Here is Scott Pelley'd open for the piece:

Recently the Bush Administration acknowledged that Al Qaeda is reorganizing and gaining strength. That's been possible since the fall of Afghanistan through the explosive growth of Al Qaeda on the internet.  Last week word spread on the web that Vice President Cheney was in Afghanistan and in hours the base where he was staying was bombed.  It is not clear that the bomber was targeting the Vice President, but intelligence noted that coincidence.  What is certain is that virtual reality is doing real dammage with intelligence, recruiting, fundraising and with the spread of Islamic extremism.

Link to Video

I would argue that Al Qaeda's resurgence could the attributed to many more factors than just the internet.  Please note that Pelley does not say possible "in part".

•  Tips for my move to another planet. n/t

  by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:14:00 PM PDT

  •  Tipped

    but you don't get to leave.  We are stop-lossing you to send you back into battle.

    by Grannus on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:08:27 PM PDT

    •  I love your quote

      I'm recommending this for your sense of humor.

      by Bill Glass on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:09:48 PM PDT

      •  Yes, me too. Love driving in Europe without

        the billboards.

        But oh, I forgot,  we are a capitalist society.

        by Pink Lady on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:11:37 PM PDT

      •  I can't take credit for the sig

        It was left at the site of several billboards that had somehow fallen down.  The chainsaw debris offered some clues, but the author of the direct action was never caught, if my memory serves.

        by Grannus on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:20:04 PM PDT

        •  It's an Ogden Nash quote.

          http://www.quoteworld.org/...

          ;)

          Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
            Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
          Tempest even in reason's seat.

          by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:26:05 PM PDT

          •  OMG

            Ogden Nash was chainsawing billboards? hehe

            I knew the original was from Nash, but I thought it was different in more ways.  I'll have to credit him.

            by Grannus on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 06:02:47 PM PDT

            •  Heh -- dunno 'bout the chainsawing, but wouldn't

              be too surprised.

              ;)

              Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
                Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
              Tempest even in reason's seat.

              by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:01:45 PM PDT

•  No, that wasn't the focus of the story

  How could you write a post before the story was even finished because it's still on now!

  The story is about the use of the Internet by jihadis to organize and plan terrorist attacks. It seems well-sourced and reported and I don't understand how anyone could have a rpoblem with it!

  by Shane Hensinger on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:15:36 PM PDT

  •  Because they are manipulating you.

    The idea is that you are to think that limitations on internet communications would solve the problems we face.

    Next you are going to think it reasonable that your internet post be delayed or reviewed so as to slow these terrorist communications when they offer up a bill.

    Manipulation.

    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:18:28 PM PDT

    •  Your diary is bunk

      Total bunk. The story explored the role of the Internet in the planning of terrorist attacks. You're falsely claiming it blamed the Internet for terrorism. That's an unsourced ad-hominem attack and is complete bullshit.

      I'd trust 60 Minutes before I'd trust you.

      by Shane Hensinger on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:20:55 PM PDT

      •  Okay.

        But millions of people across America have just been given the impression that if not for the internets this terrorism could be controlled.

        by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:22:25 PM PDT

        •  Nowhere in the story do they talk about

          "controlling" the internet.

          by bugscuffle on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:34:48 PM PDT

          •  The suggestion is implied, by my take.

            I saw the same story. The same alarm bells went off.

            Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
              Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
            Tempest even in reason's seat.

            by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:39:22 PM PDT

          •  What did they want then?

            Just to inform you?  FYI?  

            It's obvious, to the eye trained in modern media/government symbiosis, that this is the "shot across the bow", warning that unless we do something about this NOW, that the "jihadis" will spill over from the internet, across Afghanistan and Iraq, and straight to our shores.  There is nothing innocent about it.

            As they said in the final scene, "It's a different type of warfare.  It's a battle of perceptions, and al Queda understands it, and America needs to understand it."

            How do you win a battle of perceptions without controlling how those perceptions are formed and distributed?

            They want to control the internet like China and Iran, but they want us to believe that any controls they put in place are to "protect our freedoms".  There is nothing innocent about a story like this, it is just a way to familiarize you with the storyline that will be pushed in the near future, which is, "If you don't support controlling the internet, you're for the terrorists winning."

            And they DID blame the Afghan bombing during Cheney's trip on the internet, with no evidence other than the fact that "people were talking" about his trip on the internet.

            Pure BS.

            by Bcre8ve on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:57:43 PM PDT

      •  She's right. You're wrong. This is a typical

        example of the buildup toward undermining net neutrality and imposing more restrictions on the use of the internet while increasing the ongoing illegal wiretapping justifications.

        It's a story that needs to be watched and properly addressed with necessary precaution.

        Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
          Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
        Tempest even in reason's seat.

        by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:38:35 PM PDT

        •  Well ...

          ... I think there's two different things here.  Sure, there's folks who want to undermine net neutrality.  And I don't think it's any secret that terrorists use the internet just like everyone else does, and cellphones, and whatever other technology we all use.

          What I am not so sure about is that this specific story on 60 Minutes is part of an effort to undermine net neutrality.  And the diary is very scanty on saying what the story actually reported, and what led him/her to this conclusion.

          by Nightprowlkitty on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:47:27 PM PDT

          •  Well the title for one thing:

            jihad.com...

            Then the part where he started the story saying that the rise of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was being fueled by the internet.  Then the part where he said Cheney was a target only because of the rapid flow of information that was possible on the internet and then the part where he said that maybe Cheney wasn't the target.  But still essentially suggested that had it not been for the internet that attack might not have taken place.

            That is what she - me - reacted to.

            I reacted to the fact that this story is an obvious attempt at deflecting the real sources of failure and probably offers the added bonus of convincing Americans that internet freedoms should be limited to protect against terrorism.

            by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:55:07 PM PDT

            •  Well stated

              Why not add this to your diary?

              by joanneleon on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:57:54 PM PDT

              •  Because I am doing this in real time.

                I probably should.  Thanks.

                by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:00:29 PM PDT

            •  Well ...

              ... I'm glad you provided more information (I don't have a TV, so can't watch it).

              This is a difficult issue.  I have no doubt whatsoever that our media is being rigged by this Administration, no doubt at all.  But the facts of this story are not necessarily the result of government propaganda, even with your explanation.

              As far as the story being an "obvious attempt at deflecting the real sources of failure," I don't know if that was the intention of the story from what you've said.

              So although I don't entirely discount your theory, I don't think you've proved it, either.

              by Nightprowlkitty on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:59:22 PM PDT

              •  I can't prove it to you until the bill

                that is probably already written is offered on the floor of the House or the Senate.  These are the kinds of stories that contributed to an America who became passive about the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and the Illegal Warantless Wiretapping.  Someone came to my defense downthread by saying that they didn't see anyone doing stories about cell phones, but I did ages ago.  They were doing tons of them and then no one was upset when they found out that their phones were being tapped illegally.  This sort of story wouldn't bother me except for the fact that there is really so much more that needs to be dealt with in terms of terrorism and specifically Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and yet tonight they talk about the internet.

                by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:05:15 PM PDT

                •  Well ...

                  ... if you really wanna get jiggy wit it ... I did a diary last year on Information Operations Roadmap, a lovely little toy for the Pentagon dreamed up by Rumsfeld, among others.  Maybe they want to use that toy:

                  This is the age of information warfare, and details of how this new military doctrine will affect everyone on the planet are contained in a report, entitled The Information Operations Roadmap, commissioned and approved by US secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld and seen by the Sunday Herald.

                  The Pentagon has already signed off $383 million to force through the document's recommendations by 2009. Military and intelligence sources in the US talk of "a revolution in the concept of warfare".

                  .....

                  Firstly, the Pentagon says it will wage war against the internet in order to dominate the realm of communications, prevent digital attacks on the US and its allies, and to have the upper hand when launching cyber-attacks against enemies.

                  Secondly, psychological military operations, known as psyops, will be at the heart of future military action. Psyops involve using any media - from newspapers, books and posters to the internet, music, Blackberrys and personal digital assistants (PDAs) - to put out black propaganda to assist government and military strategy. Psyops involve the dissemination of lies and fake stories and releasing information to wrong-foot the enemy.

                  Thirdly, the US wants to take control of the Earth's electromagnetic spectrum, allowing US war planners to dominate mobile phones, PDAs, the web, radio, TV and other forms of modern communication. That could see entire countries denied access to telecommunications at the flick of a switch by America.

                  Now given this Administration's bumbling on everything from Katrina to Iraq, it's quite possible that when they turn the "on" switch of this project they'll just get an electric shock.

                  But for sure they would love to take over all the flow of information.

                  by Nightprowlkitty on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:33:35 PM PDT

                  •  Man this is quite something:

                    Thirdly, the US wants to take control of the Earth's electromagnetic spectrum, allowing US war planners to dominate mobile phones, PDAs, the web, radio, TV and other forms of modern communication. That could see entire countries denied access to telecommunications at the flick of a switch by America.

                    Did these people take James Bond seriously!!??  I mean "take control of the Earth's electromagnetic spectrum" - WTF and here I was thinking about the silly old internet.

                    Shaking head.

                    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:37:02 PM PDT

                    •  Heh.

                      Oh and of course this was put forth in the PNAC manifesto before any money was ever allocated to this plan.

                      This is a group of very paranoid and nasty people who have lost whatever little moral compass they ever had.

                      by Nightprowlkitty on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:40:28 PM PDT

                      •  The only compass they ever had came from

                        a Cracker-Jack box.

                        They turned it into a neighborhood cruise missile to achieve Total Neighborhood Domination of the playground resources.

                        (And that was just ten years ago. What they were doing on the playground at their age is anybody's guess.)

                        Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
                          Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
                        Tempest even in reason's seat.

                        by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:45:23 PM PDT

                  •  Wonderful piece -- thanks for sharing it again.

                    It also helps underscore the reasons that the 60 Minutes piece bothered me.

                    Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
                      Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
                    Tempest even in reason's seat.

                    by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:43:45 PM PDT

                  •  I had thought this diary paranoa until this.

                    I doubt that many countries would allow this to happen.  They might just get together and plot our demise before allowing this to sail.  James Bond, indeed, inclusiveheart.  Only, in this story, we would be Sigmund Stromberg.
                    It's no doubt important for us to monitor the internet (internets, for those from Crawford, Tx.) and use it with, uhm, political alertness.  But site's like Kos shouldn't be in danger of being compromised.  There is little way of knowing if that is happening, short of a leak and documentation, in any greater degree than I suspect it is, now.
                    The question of First Amendment abuse is valid, however.  If it's all being done in background (as good sypwork would be done) then I don't see how that's stoppable.  If it's being done up front (in the guise of laws which restrict what can be spoken about, or how) then I don't see it as plausable. Few would allow such laws to take effect and the SCOTUS would likely strike them down.  If it's just in the form of dialogue, from POTUS or other powerful figures, then it's non-binding.  We all know how usefull that kind of talk is.        

                    by rainmanjr on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 06:55:31 PM PDT

                    •  It is not that they are monitoring the sites.

                      That story has been done - well done - it is that the story suggested that if not for the internet terrorists would not be enjoyin a resurgence.  That premise is bull.  The reasons why Al Qaeda are enjoying a resurgence is that we have failed to fight them.  The only reason that this administration would call attention to that failure is if they thought they could get something out of it.  Like say MORE control over information flow.

                      SCOTUS doesn't apply if they broker an international deal where the entire world has its internet service limited, delayed or interrupted.  See the SWIFT contraversy if you need a precedent.  Our country no longer acknowledges international laws.

                      But okay  - its all cool and I'm just paranoid.

                      by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:54:20 PM PDT

            •  The article was posted below...

              http://www.cbsnews.com/...

              here are some more choice bits from this tripe:

              "Now, they are able to distribute, touch of a button, anything they want anywhere they want. This is unheard of in history. We're witnessing this war, we're witnessing this ideological war on our own desktops," says Stephen Ulph.

              General Custer sees this as one of those moments in history when innovation changes warfare, like tanks in the First World War and atom bombs in the second.

              This article sounds like it was written by a College Republican. You don't have to go to Iraq to defend freedom! Do it from your keyboard! Protect America from the comfort of your bedroom! The War of Ideas Won't Fight Itself!!!

              by Diaries on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:00:52 PM PDT

              •  Think "blogswarm, jihadist-style." n/t

                Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
                  Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
                Tempest even in reason's seat.

                by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:16:20 PM PDT

            •  what would limiting Americans access

              do to stop jihad.com ???

              it seams to me that more people should hack the site.
              more people should help track down the sites terrorist are using.

              I thought the story on GOA was more important my self

              by eeff on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:21:20 PM PDT

              •  Limiting Americans wouldn't do anything

                but possibly hurt their efforts since a lot of these initiatives are driven by private citizens actually, but that doesn't change the thrust of the story which suggested that it was "communication out of control"...  therefore likely to lead many Americans to believe that it should be limited or shut down.

                by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:28:07 PM PDT

              •  The same thing invading Iraq did

                for United States security.

                Reduce security, increase Executive emergency powers.

                by macdust on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:15:38 PM PDT

            •  Yes - Exactly

              Everything the administration does is to deflect responsibility and blame others.

              by Bill Glass on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:21:36 PM PDT

          •  Now ~that~ is an excellent critique.

            Thanks, NPK.

            The gist of the diary was that the particular emphasis was presented in a way that suggests the internets need to be better regulated to combat online recruiting (that's a simplified nutshell).

            More detail, perhaps excerpts from the transcript when available, will help.

            I personally believe that this helps and may fall under the bias of things colored by the propaganda efforts, tho not necessarily with knowing complicity by the folks on 60 minutes. I think several unchallenged statements left unsaid some significant points and that this could be worth keeping an eye on.

            ...thanks for the substantive comment. :)

            Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
              Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
            Tempest even in reason's seat.

            by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:59:21 PM PDT

            •  I agree

              ... with this:

              I personally believe that this helps and may fall under the bias of things colored by the propaganda efforts, tho not necessarily with knowing complicity by the folks on 60 minutes. I think several unchallenged statements left unsaid some significant points and that this could be worth keeping an eye on.

              Sometimes the feds censor or otherwise rig the news; other times, the traditional media is just a pack of fools.  I would like to know more about which is the case here.

              by Nightprowlkitty on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:02:15 PM PDT

              •  "I would like to know more..." -- exactly.

                And that's the crux of the issue; not only should we dig to see which is more evident -- chicanery or incomplete reporting -- but we should also simply stay alert for possible examples of either, on this as well as other issues.

                It's what bloggers do best: identify, classify, expose and explain the problems, then (hopefully) suggest ways to resolve them.

                Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
                  Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
                Tempest even in reason's seat.

                by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:07:06 PM PDT

      •  Just so you know

        The person you are accusing is a very credible, respected, long time member of dkos.  She has that reputation because she earned it.

        by joanneleon on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:00:25 PM PDT

      •  You're right.

        They didn't blame the internet for all of the terrorism, just some of it.

        That's not bunk, it's just what they said.  It's not a matter of trusting one or the other, inclusiveheart didn't say "Trust me, there are no jihadis on the internet", just that a story like this one, as my husband and I noticed also, seems geared towards spreading fear and distust.  Period.

        It would be easy to pull a website or two to support your conclusions, no matter what those conclusions may be, no matter what the subject, but that does not mean that it representative of society as a whole, or of any group in particular other than the person writing the content.

        60 minutes did not prove that these web sites had any sort of major impact, just that they existed.

        By that standard, I could "prove" just about anything.

        by Bcre8ve on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:07:17 PM PDT

    •  bunk

      they said nothing about "limitations on internet communications"

      by TurkeyCreek on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:43:20 PM PDT

      •  Double Plus Bunk

        Using the rationale for this diary we'd be assuming that anytime the press reports on any issue that means the sinister arm of the government is not far behind behind, waiting to restrict it. That must mean the government is hot on the heels of Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan - someone's finally gonna bring those girls under control with some "limitations."

        by Shane Hensinger on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:46:06 PM PDT

      •  No, they left that for the blind koolaid drinkers

        to suggest in order to be safer.

        Please pay attention.

        Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
          Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
        Tempest even in reason's seat.

        by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:17:45 PM PDT

        •  I have no desire

          to trade insults.  You seem to see bogeyman everywhere.  That is fine, but I can "pay attention" and come to a different conclusion.

          Are you saying that all stories that mention dangers on the internet are a threat to the internet?  I for one have no need to defend all actions on the internet.  Also, I doubt the internet will be censored or controlled by some big brother any time soon.  

          by TurkeyCreek on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:44:19 PM PDT

          •  No, I'm not saying that.

            And I'm not looking for insult-trading either; I do think you underestimate the potential for the piece to leave the viewers with the idea that the internet needs more control and monitoring, but that's ok.

            I'd like to claim that I don't see bogeymen everywhere, but -- in light of this administration and the former GOP majority control -- I seem to be seeing a lot. Only difference between what I've been seeing, however, and real "false terrors" is that so far I've been right on every one.

            I don't want that trend to continue. I've much better things to do.

            Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
              Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
            Tempest even in reason's seat.

            by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:49:44 PM PDT

    •  They have been using child predators

      as a reason to "watch" the internet quite successfully. Hell, even Schumer is co-sponsoring a bill to keep databases of internet traffic! If they can get a terrorist meme going to frighten the American people, I can see so many restrictions placed on us that they may as well shut us down.

      by madgranny on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:57:35 PM PDT

      •  Oh, good grief!

        Do you really believe this?  The idea that bad things happen on the Internet and that law enforcement agencies monitor those things has no implications whatsoever for control of the Internet.  I somehow doubt that monitoring sites that post child pornography or disseminate terrorist propaganda is going to undermine freedom of expression on blogs that do not support or engage in illegal activity.

        by JRG on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 09:06:10 PM PDT

        •  You missed the madgranny's point.

          Much of the justification for warrantless wiretapping and expanded surveillance and control has been "justified" under the pornography claim, particularly "child pornography" claims.

          However, the potential for misuse of these expanded powers outside of that realm has been heavily documented.

          As for the "monitoring" -- it's not simply "monitoring" sites, it's the other record keeping and surveillance activities that the BushCo DOJ and BushCo Govt seek to impose that have many people up in arms.

          Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
            Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
          Tempest even in reason's seat.

          by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 09:12:40 PM PDT

•  I thought members of the reality-based community

  confirmed on, like, the same day, that it wasn't an "assassination attempt".

  by Diaries on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:16:15 PM PDT

  •  Pelley suggested that the "terrorists"

    heard that Cheney was in town and then attacked - then said it may or may not have been an "assasination attack".  I went with his narrative which suggests that it was and that it was due to the internet that it was possible to launch the attack in my description.

    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:20:03 PM PDT

  •  Online folks did debunk the claim; the story,

    however, leaves the implication that "it appears to be a significant coincidence" without any true rebuttal.

    Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
      Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
    Tempest even in reason's seat.

    by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:40:42 PM PDT

•  There was no assassination attempt against Cheney

  see my diary on the topic
  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by pontechango on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:20:27 PM PDT

  •  Send it to Pelley and tell him to retract

    his entire story because he claimed that his sources told him that the attack was triggered by the news that Cheney was in country.  And then... he claimed it was possible the attack wasn't directed at Dick.

    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:32:12 PM PDT

    •  2 major problems with this story

      1. There was no assassination attempt against Cheney

      2. Not one mention of the languages on these jihadist sites.  How is it possible to have a story like this without discussing language?  It doesn't make sense.

      Therefore, I agree with the diarist that this is a propaganda piece.

      by pontechango on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:10:18 PM PDT

      •  Pay attention. The STORY on 60 Minutes

        left the explicit suggestion that the bombing was an assassination attempt; the interviewee said it was "a significant coincidence" or words to that effect.

        The DIARIST did not make that claim.

        ...you really need to read a bit more before jumping in blind.

        Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
          Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
        Tempest even in reason's seat.

        by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:19:38 PM PDT

        •  Take a deep breath

          OK, ready?

          I was talking about the story on 60 minutes.  I concurred with the diarist.

          by pontechango on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:35:45 PM PDT

          •  My apologies; I just realized the mistake and

            caught your comment.

            Mea culpa, mea culpa...

            :/

            Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
              Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
            Tempest even in reason's seat.

            by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:38:59 PM PDT

            •  Deep breath?

              Haven't taken one of those since 2000.  :)

              by Nightprowlkitty on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:44:58 PM PDT

              •  You take several. Good for your health. n/t

                by pontechango on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 06:03:16 PM PDT

      •  Why is it necessary to mention language?

        I fail to see why not mentioning the languages in which terrorist web sites are "published" means that the 60 Minutes piece was U.S. propaganda.  Would it really make a difference if Pelley had said, "These sites, most of which are written in Arabic, . . . ."  How about if he had said, "Some of these sites are written in Arabic; others are in Urdu and Pashto."

        Would that really change the message?

        by JRG on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 09:14:15 PM PDT

•  He is not blaming the internets

  He is simply saying that the internet is a vehicle for the 'terrorists'

  by wuod kwatch on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:21:12 PM PDT

  •  It's a process

    This is just the start; it evenually will go beyond "the internet is a vehicle for the terrorists" to launch a wider net.  

    by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:26:47 PM PDT

    •  Porn wasn't cutting it anymore. n/t

      by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:30:16 PM PDT

    •  Oh, please.

      This is a dumb diary with a dumber title.  The Pelley story is about Jihadi recruitment on the internet.  I just watched the thing and if Cheney was even mentioned, it was just barely.  Probably in a promotional "hook."  This story was probably 99% completed by the time Cheney went to Afghanistan
         Geez.

      by bugscuffle on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:32:03 PM PDT

      •  I haven't seen it yet

        I'm on the west coast where it won't be airing for several hours.  I was merely replying to a comment and will reserve my judgment as to whether the diary is "dumb" until after I have viewed the report myself.  

        by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:40:13 PM PDT

        •  Hopefully, you'll jump back here and share.

          Your take -- esp. in light of all the comments here on differing perspectives -- will be valuable, and valued.

          Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
            Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
          Tempest even in reason's seat.

          by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:20:42 PM PDT

          •  I will be back

            but let me emphasize that I have come to trust and value Inclusive Heart's take on things, and have absolutely no reason to think her take on this was off the mark.  That said, I will watch and comment later.

            by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:28:34 PM PDT

            •  I will look forward to your take on it.

              Honestly, I'd rather be wrong, but this one was one of the ones that went to my gut and told me that next thing I knew, I'd be watching some "bipartisan" pair of congresscritters talking about their legislation to "delay" terrorist communications with exceptions built in for corporate communications of course...

              by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:45:03 PM PDT

              •  Okay, I'm watching it right now

                It's triggering some serious alarms here.  The association of the internet with terrorists is powerful.  It subliminally plants the idea that the internet is dangerous, and lay the groundwork for eventual regulation and censorship.

                by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:15:05 PM PDT

                •  Cool - didn't think I was imagining it, but

                  if it was a group hallucination, at least I knew I was in good company.

                  Thanks!

                  ;)

                  Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
                    Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
                  Tempest even in reason's seat.

                  by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:42:39 PM PDT

                •  Thanks for reporting back.

                  Maybe someone will remove the "bunk" tag from the diary.  Ha.  This whole era is so weird.  You have people getting away with saying things that are totally unproven and the rest of us spending most of our time disproving what the liars are saying, but by the time we are done proving that they are lying the dammage is already done.

                  In a year this diary will be forgotten and someone will write a well-documented diary about how and why the internets came to be regulated which will be recommended and praised for its scholarship and eloquence (and for the record I commend that person's work in advance and hold no resentment), but we still will have had to lost something so that it could be proved.  There is something wrong with that equation.

                  by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 08:20:11 PM PDT

                  •  I pulled it, and added two:

                    net neutrality, propaganda

                    Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
                      Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
                    Tempest even in reason's seat.

                    by GreyHawk on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 08:28:58 PM PDT

      •  If you think the diary is dumb,

        maybe you should find another one.  I had the same reaction as the diarist.

        by Boston Boomer on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:22:40 PM PDT

        •  As did I

          I actually failed to see the point of the story. BREAKING NEWS: TERRORISTS USE THE INTERNETS!!!!!!

          Who knew?

          by matadorph on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:39:00 PM PDT

          •  Excellent point

            by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:44:49 PM PDT

    •  Do you have a crystal ball?

      This is just the start; it evenually will go beyond "the internet is a vehicle for the terrorists" to launch a wider net.

      This is wild speculation.  You have no idea what the consequence of stories such as this might be.

      by JRG on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 09:18:03 PM PDT

      •  It's not "wild speculation" at all.

        The push for wider surveillance techniques, more invasive information sweeps, and control of the internet has already begun.

        Check the information from this comment by Nightprowlkitty, above, for more information.

        Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
          Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
        Tempest even in reason's seat.

        by GreyHawk on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 05:34:18 AM PDT

  •  Facts are consistent with internet recruitment

    by damn near every extremist or religious or political operation on the planet.

    al-Q qualifies.

    I'm sure you could find a Buddhist site or a Quaker site or anything else.

    What's different ???

    Those bastards are using the internet to trick dumb teenagers into commiting suicide and murder.

    Freedom ==>> responsibility.

    BTW: my first thought about this was the questoin of how far the government is involved attacking the pro-murder web sites.

    60 Minutes showed civilians. Let's assume there are first-rate professionals in there, too. Defending the country from suicide bombers is AOK with me.

    by vets74 on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:28:46 PM PDT

    •  The implication was that monitoring was

      not enough.  See because here is what I would do if I was a law enforcement agent - I'd be thanking God everyday that these people are communicating in a medium that I could track.  The suggestion was that their communication had to be stopped in order to stop them.  Which is the reverse of being able to track them.  Also please note that our government could easily impede their traffic "with the hit of a button" as easily as they track them.

      I wouldn't have even bothered to make a comment much less write one of my fairly rare diaries if it was just about tracking and monitoring.

      by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:25:47 PM PDT

      •  More to the point is HONEY POT sites....

        to lure in the most willing studges.

        Take the best/worst pages off real sites, knock down the real sites, then run meat grinders.

        Killing one's enemies has a long history. Many many centuries of war and deception. Sun Tzu approves.

        This Internet thingie is a weapon.

        More effective than the usual battle axe. Cleans up the political climate in several Sunni Arab countries at the same time.

        Honey pot from hell....

        by vets74 on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:42:36 PM PDT

        •  I'm all for virtual war if we can avoid the real

          and deadly kind.

          by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:46:18 PM PDT

          •  Virtual War

            a.k.a. deliberative politics.

            by macdust on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:19:02 PM PDT

  •  Why?

    Of all of the stories they could have chosen to tell about the resurection of Al Qaeda did Pelley choose the internet angle?

    The fact that we have completely ignored Afghanistan and finding Osama Bin Laden is ignored.  The fact that we have allowed Pakistan to make treaties with the Taliban is ignored.  Instead, Pelley goes with a story about how communications are the problem.

    Sorry, but that's dog wistle for the argument for regulating the internet is not just that it is a haven for porn anymore - now it is terrorist territory.  We all know that if the government wanted to destroy the terrorist websites at any given moment they could.  So why complain publicly?  So that they can make a compelling case for regulating speech on the internet is the answer.

    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:29:55 PM PDT

    •  that's weird angle

      and I think your concern is well-placed.  

      by Compound F on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:34:37 PM PDT

      •  Bush & Co sees the Internet as a threat

        Sites like Daily Kos can get the truth out.

        BushCo just wants network news going out...news they can control by the Repugs who own the networks.

        The assaults on net neutrality have just begun.  The free internet issues are already being framed and linked with fear.  

        The Net is the one place that Progressives can still get out Truth.

        Reminds me of book/media bans in the olde USSR.
        Propaganda has to reign is a fascist nation.  King George is treatened by net neutrality.

        by Pink Lady on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:08:54 PM PDT

  •  So?

    cell phones, lap tops and SUV's are vehicles for the 'terrorists' and I don't see anyone doing some story about them.  

    by BDA in VA on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:38:18 PM PDT

    •  Yes, and the terrorists

      probably use airplanes, hotels, restaurants, grocery stores, too.  

      IMO, the diarist's concerns are not completely unfounded just because the reporter did not come out and say, "we now must shut down the internet because of terrorist traffic."

      Good grief, this is an administration that attempts to exercise complete control over information and typically acts under a veil of secrecy.  It has used terrorism as an excuse for shredding the Constitution, starting wars, etc. And it tries to link any and all political opposition to terrorism.  And we know how much this administration tries to control and manipulate news stories.

      Is it much of a leap to think that it would love to stop all opposition internet activity?  Is it much of a leap to think that it would link the internet to terrorist activity in order to manipulate people's fears, resulting in pressure on Congress to "do something about the internet," and ultimately gain complete control of the information on the internet?    

      [well, come to think of it, the repubs have already "terrorized" the issue of immigration--linking terrorism to immigration in order to manipulate people's fears....and the repubs have done a good job of forcing immigration to the front burner]

      Well, the arguments in the comments of this diary will be easily resolved.  We'll just see what happens in a few months.

      by dfarrah on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:15:20 PM PDT

      •  I am hoping that if people become

        attuned to this dog whistle they will stop it before it gets any traction.  I haven't processed how to combat it yet.  I have just identified it.  I have to think more about the issue in order to come up with a coherent and effective response.  But off of the top of my head, I can think of several reasons why having them communicate on the internets is better than them passing notes in a market - not the least of which is our greater ability to intercept their communications.  But the way the story was slanted, the implication was that we'd rather they pass notes.  If you've ever been to a Middle Eastern market, you'd wouldn't agree with that tactic because it is near impossible to follow the action compared to having the advantage of computer analysis.

        by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:58:05 PM PDT

  •  OK

    So its not the internet's fault, the internet just made it possible?

    That's some mighty fine hair-splitting that will probably be interpreted as "it's the internet's fault" by most viewers.

    What would the courts do if someone was found not guilty of the murder, but that they made the murder possible?

    by Bcre8ve on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:26:21 PM PDT

•  I blame our lack of civility

  They are having a very civil war in Iraq, yet we foul things up with our potty mouths on the internets tubes.

  by trifecta on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:29:27 PM PDT

•  This diary is ridiculous.

  Did you even watch the damn story?

  There was no blaming of the internet. If you think that nobody should ever TALK about what terrorists are doing with the internet then we are in big trouble. The piece did not advocate any particular solution and shutting down the internet or tracking the movements of every single individual using the internet was not even mentioned. This diary is complete bullshit.

  by michael1104 on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:34:13 PM PDT

  •  amen

    by bugscuffle on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:35:23 PM PDT

    •  Good, lets talk about all of it!

      Doesn't this fall under informing the enemy about our "methods"?

      The administration has a virtual lock-down on the military talking to reporters about how we battle terrorism, and will not let them talk about the secret jails, the torture, the surveillance, etc. because it would "allow" the enemy to fight us more effectively, and have said so repeatedly.

      But here is Brig. Gen. Custer, head of intelligence at CentCom, telling us, "Without a doubt the internet is the single most important venue for the radicalization of Islamic youth", and that he knows where the enemy finds it inexhaustible supply of "suicide warriors"

      So, the internet radicalizes and recruits the "enemy", but we'll let you know that we've figured it out, we don't want to do anything to "secure" the internet, and our best line of defense is an unemployed programmer sitting at home and hacking the jihadis.  And, oh yeah, we don't want to reveal our methods, but, what the hell, they'll never know we told you, right?

      Maybe I'm just cynical, but it doesn't add up.  If for no other reason than they've trotted out their General du jour with his updated vial of anthrax at the ready.  

      Fool me once.......

      by Bcre8ve on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:45:29 PM PDT

  •  I clearly disagree given that I wrote it.

    But tell me what you think you heard about the remedies to this problem because I'd be interested to hear what solving this problem would take.  If you don't think the solutions will not involve more than just monitoring the internet, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

    There is a pattern in how the government manipulates public opinion.

    1. Estabilsh a problem within a narrow scope.

    2. Prove that that problem is unsolveable without dramatic responses.

    3. Knock another amendment off of the Constitution.

    And it is always terrorism or children that they use as their hook these days.

    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:40:45 PM PDT

    •  This was 60 minutes

      not the government

      by bugscuffle on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:42:50 PM PDT

      •  There's not that much of a difference anymore.

        by Diaries on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:46:14 PM PDT

      •  The sources were government sources.