In an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, writes Real Clear Politics, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that on Monday, the FBI would release edited transcripts of the 911 calls made by the Orlando nightclub shooter to the police during his rampage, but they will be censored for political correctness. She did not use those exact words, but that’s the truth.
“What we’re not going to do,” she said, “is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda. We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State].” When the data was released this morning the information was marked “(omitted).”
Really? People are arguing about the shooter’s motivation and the AG thinks the nation is not mature enough hear it in his own voice or is it just another attempt to make the term Radical Islam disappear or merely to influence the upcoming election? That’s the problem with unnecessary censorship, we can never know. In this case we can make a pretty good guess.
Who did not see this coming? He or she who controls the information controls the story. Yes, allowing statements from a radical has an element of risk, but it comes nowhere near the risk of failing to allow the public, using their good judgment, to understand and confront the dangers the terrorists represent. “This is the most transparent administration in history,” President Obama said and immediately attempted to stifle all dissent; truth is that is has been one of the most secretive.
During the early 1930s more than a few Americans reported on Germany’s swing to Nazism using detailed descriptions of Nazi ideology and inflammatory quotes to substantiate the stories. They were not always heeded, but enough people and institutions took them seriously to understand the threat and prepare for the future. How would the Obama administration have treated those reports? Here is my best guess.
(Omitted), 1933, – Official Speech on the (omitted) Act to the (omitted).
Ladies and Gentlemen of the (omitted)! By agreement with the (omitted) Government, today the (omitted) Party have presented to you for resolution a notice of motion concerning a “Law for (omitted).” The reasons for this extraordinary measure are as follows: (omitted)…
The burning of the (omitted), one unsuccessful attempt within a (omitted) operation, is only a taste of what (omitted) would have to expect from a triumph of this (omitted). When a (omitted) press, particularly outside (omitted), today attempts, true to the political lie advanced to a principle by (omitted), to link (omitted) national uprising to this disgraceful act, this can only serve to strengthen my resolve to leave no stone unturned in order to (omitted) this (omitted) as quickly as possible by having the (omitted) and his (omitted) publicly (omitted)!
The words of the shooter in his own voice are not being withheld because they are classified, they are being withheld as a political ploy and the citizens should be outraged. If there is nothing to hide, why are they hiding it? The only answer is election tampering – this attack will certainly be an issue in the upcoming election and this crude attempt at political correctness should be too.
[Update: Only hours after releasing a redacted copy of the call transcript, the administration bowed to a firestorm of public criticism and released the un-redacted version claiming, among other things, that they withheld the part where the gunman pledged allegiance to the Islamic State to “be sensitive to the victim’s families.” How omitting the statements regarding allegiance to the Islamic State shows sensitivity to the victim’s families was not explained.]