We need to be careful before we begin to loose the resource necessary to decide for ourselves. Information.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman recently endorse a measure requiring YouTube to remove all videos relating to Al-Queda training. I wanted to watch one - not to build a bomb, or to hijack an airplane, but to clearly see for myself that which I have been deemed as being unable, unqualified and incapable of reaching a sane, safe conclusion after having viewed, discussed or shared the material with others.

If I'm not mistaken, the process outlined above, review, discussing, and sharing is in fact the process on which our democracy was built.

I was struck not with a curiosity to see within the minds of those using such material to strike our forces or to defend themselves as seen from their perspective, but struck with alarm as this approach - of removing information, rendering it inaccessible, illegal, setting the precedent that a government can decide for its citizens what material can and can not be viewed by adults - carries us irrevocably closer to cloaked censorship.

Unless a person travels, with extended visits, benefit from fluency of that country's language, the notion of censorship within the United States remains ludicrous. Yet, were you to travel and stay within another country, not only would the idea of free press and speech rise as a worthy topic of discussion, examples of limited press and speech would be all the clearer. I'll share a poignant moment, one involving Mr. Yassar Arafat.

In retrospect we'll centennially hold him in higher regard than a mere terrorist, however the incident I'm recalling clearly insisted on portraying him as a terrorist and had done so very efficiently through the omission of six words, 34 characters. What prefaced the sentence was a democratic process initiated by President Jimmy Carter, the perseverance of several Israeli prime ministers, and sadly the death of Egyptian President Mr. Anwar Sadat. Mr. Arafat had just been asked what his position was on a reported attacked of the PLO against Israel. The question was posed after a time which both the PLO and Israel had signed a peace accord, after a period of no violence, and after Israel had begun to violate that peace accord by encouraging settlers to continue the practice of infringing upon their promised rights to Palestinians. Mr. Arafat began, as a reported posed the final question, "When will the Infadad end?"

"The infadad will never end, until they leave the Golan Heights."

Sadly the omissions took place on more than one American Channel. It was repeated on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox. I personally watched the questioning end with his respond "It will never end." over and over and over again. The omission was so significant it deformed fact. In Spain and France and not the United Kingdom - at least on the one channel I watched, the complete sentence was recounted. Word for word.

Mr. Arafat, was clearly voicing the anguish of Palestinians. Cold as it may have been delivered, as it must have also included his personal sentiment and motives, the exclusion had a profound and significant effect in swaying public opinion. That said, omission is the covert agent of deceit. Herein lies the power of censorship.

It leave, at best, a gapping hole of ambiguity. were we to not have the resources to investigate the matter ourselves, this hole is cements a perspective less than complete. These last eight years of war clearly show the effects such losses have on our freedom. It creates fear, tension, and distance as we retreat into a limited vision of the world.

It is coming to light that this administrations does in fact posses a queer and keen ability to spin information as they distribute perspective and votes throughout the United States. Republicans are particularly adept at doing this, although Democrats are no less willing to employ the same tools. Dissuasion being the motive the debates, and techniques which skew facts are clear examples to the extent censorship has precipitated within the United States. You can call it counter intelligence.

Censoring avenues of information however, are far worse by setting precedents whereby governments can arbitrarily decide for us what can and can not be consumed. This is extremely dangerous. We should pay close attention to protecting our rights to decide for ourselves, to think for ourselves and to have any and all materials available and accessible inclusive of the effort to acquire said information. It behooves us as a nation to take the time to review material, however offensive to ensure a clear understanding of the topic. Personal perspective is not an inherent threat to this country, in fact it fuels debate and criticism which has always proven the peaceful course of any democratic society.

Not one to offer criticism without a potential solution, the concern Mr. Liberman addressed may have been better addressed by requiring users to register their an email address prior to viewing. This would have placed justification for viewing on us while providing valuable decision-making tools for when the appropriate time arrives to enter into a discourse - on the subject or more importantly one addressing our fundamental rights.

Had we been given the truth several years ago, we would have been able to avoid the catastrophic mistakes of this administration, we would have been more accountable to this country at the polls and to our administration by not allowing them to retreat into the practice of "business as usual". We would have been in a better position to avoid the toll of human casualties, now numbering in the 10's of thousands.

Information is a commodity, though the efforts of aggregation may render it so. It is an unmitigated right of freedom.