FYI, Maurice I *am* a manager. What I manage *is* information. I withhold information, shield information, and protect information on a daily basis. I am obligated by law and by common decency to do so. Additionally, it is one of my roles as a manager to prudently and selectively withhold certain specific information at certain specific times even from my employees, for a wide variety of reasons, until it is appropriate and proper that they finally be apprised of it. Often, simply due to the passage of time and changing events, much of it simply becomes a non-issue anyway.
So I don’t have a problem with sensible management of potentially sensitive information at all. That hardly qualifies me as a “supporter of totalitarianism” except in the minds of people with the brains of a soft-boiled egg.
If certain portions of bin Laden’s post-attack broadcast were censored [I can only assume this was what you were referring to in your original post, feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken] because the US military and the US government felt that some of the footage may have contained “coded instructions” to terrorist cells within the United States or other countries that potentially increases the risk of further attacks, I’m absolutely all for it being censored. I can’t imagine what useful or instructive information any of the censored footage may have contained for those still wavering on what side of the conflict they may fall on. As long as America and Americans, individually and en masse, are the target, the safety and security of my fellow citizens from further attacks on our soil is infinitely more important to me than satisfying the idle, self-important curiosity of droning onlookers who are not directly in harm’s way. |
