Reuters: US ambassador to Libya dead

[derspiess]

"It didn't come from me. It didn't come from Secretary Clinton. It came from folks on the ground who are potentially in danger. And my tendency is to cut those folks a little bit of slack when they're in that circumstance rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office."

Score!

A great response.

Then why did the administration disavow the embassy statement?

[Martinus]

On the other hand, I think it's perfectly legitimate for a government and it's representatives to acknowledge that a particular exercise of speech does not represent the view of the government or the nation, and that the particular example of speech is deliberately offensive and wrong - especially when that's true.

The problem is that such acknowledgement does not seem to be a part of any consistent policy.

Furthermore, I question whether it should be a job of foreign office/embassies of a secular state to issue statements targetted not at other nations but at religions. Had citizens or the government of a specific country been offended, I would perhaps see a merit in an embassy making a light statement, but I really fail to see how it is a foreign affairs matter, if the group offended by the action includes, potentially, also citizens of the US.

In short, this is a completely messy, haphazard, chaotic and non-transparent policy that appears to have no rhyme or reason, other than the fact that it is caused by violence or a threat of violence. And I think we can all agree that it is a very bad thing for a country to respond to intimidation in this manner.

[CountDeMoney]

Ok so you are essentially confirming that Obama has been bullied to issue that statement. Not very statesmanlike.

I'll defer to Jacob's previous response, as mine would simply be laced with profanity, you AIDS magnet.

You're really picking the wrong issue to wave your hysterical homo agenda.

[Martinus]

To suggest in any way that the act of speech should be curtailed in response to violence intended to suppress it is a terrible, terrible message to send to both those speaking and those who are deciding whether some more violence to curtail some more speech might be in order.

Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it.  Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite.  If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.

The thing is that governments (quite rightly, by the way, if only because it would take too much time) do not, as a rule, issue official statements whenever their citizens say something ignorant. There is no reason why this is being done in this case, other than fear of violence. If I was an American, I would think it is shitty for my government to conduct its policy in response to threats of violence, but would prefer it to be built on more solid principles.

[Martinus]

Ok so you are essentially confirming that Obama has been bullied to issue that statement. Not very statesmanlike.

I'll defer to Jacob's previous response, as mine would simply be laced with profanity, you AIDS magnet.

You're really picking the wrong issue to wave your hysterical homo agenda.

Not really. You are the one with "Obama can do no wrong" shtick here. I fully agree with Berkut - he is right, because unlike you, he is still capable of thinking in non-partisan terms.

[Martinus]

Too many eloquent people manage to propound the same immoral doctrine of blaming the victim for it just to be mental retardation. It's an insult to all retards.

What the fuck are you talking about?

He is saying that calling you a retard is an insult to all retards. You must be really retarded not to get that.

[The Minsky Moment]

In short, this is a completely messy, haphazard, chaotic and non-transparent policy

It's not a policy at all.  It's a statement issued from embassy personnel that wasn't cleared with State or the White House.

[CountDeMoney]

Not really. You are the one with "Obama can do no wrong" shtick here. I fully agree with Berkut - he is right, because unlike you, he is still capable of thinking in non-partisan terms.

Don't get bitchy and wave your car keys at me because I'm calling you out on using this incident as a soapbox for your usual anti-religious meta meme. 

[derspiess]

Supposedly the Marines in the Cairo embassy were not allowed by the ambassador to carry live ammo.

[Berkut]

To suggest in any way that the act of speech should be curtailed in response to violence intended to suppress it is a terrible, terrible message to send to both those speaking and those who are deciding whether some more violence to curtail some more speech might be in order.

Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it.  Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite.  If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.

No argument here, except to note that the government should be very careful about even criticizing speech - they have unique powers that make it problematic for them to criticize speech without at the same time curtailing it, even if unintentionally.

Had someone spoken out about this video PRIOR to a bunch of nutjobs killing people over it, I would have been right there calling the people making the video a bunch of assholes.

But to keep quiet UNTIL someone reacts violently suggests that in fact it is the violence that has triggered the criticism, rather than the content of the speech.

[Martinus]

In short, this is a completely messy, haphazard, chaotic and non-transparent policy

It's not a policy at all.  It's a statement issued from embassy personnel that wasn't cleared with State or the White House.

Which is fine. But many people in this thread seem to be arguing that it is alright for governments to issue such statements.

I don't blame the embassy personnel to say stupid crap to save their lives - I blame people who retroactively argue that such crap was objectively right and correct.

[crazy canuck]

To suggest in any way that the act of speech should be curtailed in response to violence intended to suppress it is a terrible, terrible message to send to both those speaking and those who are deciding whether some more violence to curtail some more speech might be in order.

Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it.  Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite.  If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.

The thing is that governments (quite rightly, by the way, if only because it would take too much time) do not, as a rule, issue official statements whenever their citizens say something ignorant. There is no reason why this is being done in this case, other than fear of violence. If I was an American, I would think it is shitty for my government to conduct its policy in response to threats of violence, but would prefer it to be built on more solid principles.

Ignoring the fact that many muslims around the world seem to blame the US government  - one of its embassadors was targeted  - would be pretty dumb.

I cannot think of a more solid principle than affirming a strong stance on tolerance and particularly tolerance of religious belief.  I dont actually understand your objection.

[CountDeMoney]

I cannot think of a more solid principle than affirming a strong stance on tolerance and particularly tolerance of religious belief.  I dont actually understand your objection.

It's the usual.

[derspiess]

Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it.  Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite.  If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.

Do you think that's something the government should get involved with?  If so, then why don't we set up a Department of Criticism of Ignorant Speech, just to make sure nothing slips through the cracks?

[crazy canuck]

To suggest in any way that the act of speech should be curtailed in response to violence intended to suppress it is a terrible, terrible message to send to both those speaking and those who are deciding whether some more violence to curtail some more speech might be in order.

Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it.  Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite.  If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.

No argument here, except to note that the government should be very careful about even criticizing speech - they have unique powers that make it problematic for them to criticize speech without at the same time curtailing it, even if unintentionally.

I agree.  But I think this is one of those times when it is appropriate.  Muslims around the world are venting their anger at the US government and its officials for something the US government had nothing to do with.  I think it is a rational response for the US government to say that not only did they have nothing to do with it but also to strongly affirm its commitment to tolerance of religious beliefs.