Are war critics helping the enemy?

[Mark]

You have GOT to be kidding me. Are you seriously taking the position that it is not possible to aid the enemy with speech?

Sweet Jesus in a chicken basket. I am taking the position that nothing is more important than maintaining our liberties. Are you seriously taking the position that Freedom of Speech should be eliminated to protect Bush's war policy?

Now, if you are referring to giving away troop positions or such to the enemy, then, obviously that would be wrong. But that certainly was not the context of this thread, which was about criticizing the war.

headscratcher4

Mark, as you know, we often agree on this topic. So, the question to you is: is there any limit to criticism?

Apart from giving away military secrets---such as troop positions/strength--- that would endanger our troops, no. Not that I can think of, anyway.

 

[shecky]

Why do you hate America?

 

[Mark]

Why do you hate America?

It's too close to Canada?




(Joke! It was just a joke!)

 

[Ziggurat]

Bush isn't advocating censorship. He's playing politics. He is not so gently insinuating that criticizing his policies hurts America. He is laying the ground work for TV and Radio ad's in future elections. He is preaching to his choir (political base). He is demonizing his opponents by turning free exercise of constitutionally guaranteed free speech into an attack on America. He is trying to stifle debate of his policies using soldiers as pawns.

What I asked for earlier in the thread, and still haven't gotten, is any argument about why Bush has drawn the line in the wrong place. You say he's just playing politics: I don't care. That's what politicians do. The only relevent question, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not Bush is actually correct about where he draws the line. Because he does draw a line: Bush is rather explicit that his criticism is not directed against all critics of the war, but only a subset of it. So you tell me: what criticism out there falls under Bush's attack but yet doesn't deserve to? THAT is what the argument should be about, and THAT is what nobody attacking Bush here is actually addressing.

He seems to have your full support.

No. Rather, you fail to understand what exactly I'm saying. And what I'm saying is that the case against Bush hasn't been made yet in this thread. Instead, all I see is hyperventilating. You want to misinterpret that as full support for Bush? Be my guest. But that's not the truth.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sweet Jesus in a chicken basket. I am taking the position that nothing is more important than maintaining our liberties. Are you seriously taking the position that Freedom of Speech should be eliminated to protect Bush's war policy?

No. But that was never the issue. Bush hasn't called for censorship, has he? Absent that, the question of eliminating freedom of speech simply DOESN'T EXIST here. Jeeze, Mark, I would have thought that someone so adamant about protecting that right would understand the most basic aspects of what that right actually is.

 

[Mark]

No. But that was never the issue. Bush hasn't called for censorship, has he? Absent that, the question of eliminating freedom of speech simply DOESN'T EXIST here. Jeeze, Mark, I would have thought that someone so adamant about protecting that right would understand the most basic aspects of what that right actually is.

OK...

George W. Bush has shown an outright hostility to freedom of speech. In the name of combating "indecency," the FCC under Bush has raised its punitive fines to outrageous new levels, wasted money on an "investigation" of Janet Jackson’s breast, and pressured Clear Channel to drop the Howard Stern Show. Bush has applied and maintained draconian restrictions on the press in Iraq, even forbidding the photography of flag-draped caskets returning home.

Attacking the fundamental right of free political speech, he signed the horrendous Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform bill, which severely restricts dissent. The law makes it a crime for non-profit advocacy groups simply to mutter the name of a national candidate within the last sixty days before a general election. There is no excuse for Congress making a law abridging the freedom of speech when the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech." Some thought that the Supreme Court would gut the law’s worst provisions, which it did not. If Congress relied on another branch of the government to intervene and protect the public from its excesses, it is guilty of a major dereliction of duty.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory10.html

”Looking back over the period since the Sept. 11 attacks, the impact of the Bush administration has been threefold. It has sought to influence the media in order to win the propaganda battle over its war in Afghanistan; it has encouraged a censorious and self-censorious environment in the United States, which has allowed it to alter the fine balance between security and liberty virtually unchallenged; and, owing to the wider war on terrorism, it has deeply harmed the cause of press freedom around the world.”

All three of these claims are extremely well supported through the recounting of incident upon incident in which the American government acted in a manner which may have seemed appropriate at the time and through the narrow lenses of combatting terror, but which Dadge demonstrates undermined American goals and needs.

http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/CasualtyWar.htm

 

[Mephisto]

One thing's for sure; "War is not the answer" bumper stickers and people that claim that Bush lied about WMD's sure aren't helping either way.

You mean, as opposed to intelligent quotes like, "there won't be any casualties," or "I believe the insurgency is in its final throes?" Maybe you mean huge signs like, "Mission Accomplished?"

 

[shecky]

Are there many examples of critics actually helping the enemy?

 

[Ziggurat]

OK...

Indecency laws, however absurd, have nothing to do with criticism of the Iraq war. The campaign finance laws are bad too, but they weren't Bush's idea. And the objection stated here is that non-profits are restricted in their activity. Well, guess what: that's not a restriction of free speech. That's a TAX issue. Being a non-profit gives you tax advantages, and there is no obligation of the state to provide such privileged status to any organization. The government chooses to do so with conditions. Don't like the conditions? Then don't accept the special tax status. But that is NOT a free speech issue, because you're ALWAYS free to play by the tax rules everyone else plays by if you don't like the restrictions.

As for your second link, I don't have time to go through that. But I will note that the quoted part doesn't even deal with "censorship", but only a "censorious environment", whatever the hell that is. Show me some real, honest-to-goodness censorship that has to do with criticism of the war. Can you do that?

 

[bob_kark]

Are there many examples of critics actually helping the enemy?

I can think of a pretty big one. Jane Fonda during Vietnam:

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

 

[Rocky]

Sorry, I'm coming in late here...

In my inarticulate way, I am/was trying to get to a broader issue of free speech and if/when it should be limited.

QUOTE]

When innocent lives are jeopardized is one time I feel it could be limited. By "Innocent" I include our troops that are stationed in a hostile area when they would rather be home. If a newspaper reveals information that might result in some kid (Our GIs) getting killed they went too far.

I spent time in the Navy. My job might not have been the most popular with certain people but it was necessary and legal. If someone leaked information to the news that jeopardized our lives, I would have taken a very dim view.

-R

 

[shecky]

I can think of a pretty big one. Jane Fonda during Vietnam:

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

How much did Fonda actually help the enemy?

 

[billydkid]

I can think of a pretty big one. Jane Fonda during Vietnam:

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

Clearly, Fonda was more than a critic. Your suggestion is that there is something analogous between Jane Fonda visiting and giving comfort to the VietCong and criticizing American foreign policy. There is not.

 

[Mark]

Indecency laws, however absurd, have nothing to do with criticism of the Iraq war. The campaign finance laws are bad too, but they weren't Bush's idea. And the objection stated here is that non-profits are restricted in their activity. Well, guess what: that's not a restriction of free speech. That's a TAX issue. Being a non-profit gives you tax advantages, and there is no obligation of the state to provide such privileged status to any organization. The government chooses to do so with conditions. Don't like the conditions? Then don't accept the special tax status. But that is NOT a free speech issue, because you're ALWAYS free to play by the tax rules everyone else plays by if you don't like the restrictions.

As for your second link, I don't have time to go through that. But I will note that the quoted part doesn't even deal with "censorship", but only a "censorious environment", whatever the hell that is. Show me some real, honest-to-goodness censorship that has to do with criticism of the war. Can you do that?

One example was given right in my post. Since you chose to ignore that one, what point is there in me doing your research for you? You'll just reject those, too. And your tacit approval of all his other attempts at censorship is troubling, to say the least.

But here you go anyway:

"The Bush administration has imposed heavy secrecy and censorship measures on the testimony of retired Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, when he takes the stand later this month at the war crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic.

The administration's action will blunt the drama of what many expected to be crucial moment in Milosevic's lengthy trial and perhaps one of the defining moments in the presidential campaign of Clark, who defeated the Yugoslav leader in the Kosovo campaign.

At the insistence of State Department's legal office, the courtroom's public gallery will be cleared when Clark is called to testify Dec. 15 and 16 in The Hague. Cameras that normally broadcast the proceedings on closed circuit television and the Internet will be blacked out."

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i16censorship.htm

On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty … your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.” Some commentators feared that Ashcroft’s statement, which was vetted beforehand by top lawyers at the Justice Department, signaled that this White House would take a far more hostile view towards opponents than did recent presidents. And indeed, some Bush administration policies indicate that Ashcroft’s comment was not a mere throwaway line.

http://liesofbush.com/censorship.shtml

The New York Times reported in November 2003 that the Federal Bureau of Investigation "has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squad. ... But some civil rights advocates and legal scholars said the monitoring program could signal a return to the abuses of the 1960's and 1970's, when J. Edgar Hoover was the F.B.I. director and agents routinely spied on political protesters like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King,

Capitol Hill Blue, a political journalism web site based in Washington, DC, reported in January 2003 that President Bush was angry at opposition within the Pentagon to his push for war with Iraq. According to an unnamed White House spokesman quoted in the article, "The President considers this nation to be at war, and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason."

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Treating_dissent_as_treason

 

[shecky]

Clearly, Fonda was more than a critic. Your suggestion is that there is something analogous between Jane Fonda visiting and giving comfort to the VietCong and criticizing American foreign policy. There is not.

So, how much did she actually help the enemy?

Keep in mind, I'm not the one who brought up Fonda. I ask if there many examples of critics actually helping the enemy?

 

[Mark]

So, how much did she actually help the enemy?

Keep in mind, I'm not the one who brought up Fonda. I ask if there many examples of critics actually helping the enemy?

I doubt she did in any measurable way. Maybe she improved their morale some tiny bit. As far as the American war effort, she seemed to galvanize the pro-war people by pissing them off...thereby possibly delaying our withdrawl by some tiny, but again unmeasurable amount.

 

[Ziggurat]

One example was given right in my post. Since you chose to ignore that one, what point is there in me doing your research for you? You'll just reject those, too.

The only "example" in your post was the non-profit organization. But as I pointed out, that's a TAX issue, not a free speech issue. I will indeed reject examples which are not free speech issues.

But here you go anyway:

Let's see: your first quote has to do with the government deciding what information a government employee, bound by secrecy laws, can talk about possibly secret information gained during the course of his work for the government. Is it the right choice? I don't know. But I do know that while this is a transparency issue (and I actually agree that generally the Bush administration is not sufficiently transparent), it is NOT a free speech issue. Just like leaking classified information is not a free speech right.

Your second quote is mere bloviating. Somebody didn't like what Ashcroft said, and got scared that the administration might be too aggressive at - what, exactly? Oh yeah: criticising their opponents. No other actions are mentioned. And you expect me to take that as an example of censorship?

Your third quote is about spying, not censorship. Why you thought it answered my question is quite beyond me.

And lastly, we have an unnamed single source quote of someone's OPINION of what Bush thinks. Sorry if I don't place quite the same weight on that as you do.

Try again.

 

[DavidJames]

No. Rather, you fail to understand what exactly I'm saying. And what I'm saying is that the case against Bush hasn't been made yet in this thread. Instead, all I see is hyperventilating. You want to misinterpret that as full support for Bush? Be my guest. But that's not the truth.

I was alive during the last election. I saw the attack dogs (including Cheney) who did everything they could to obfuscate the truth, demonize the other party, smear their patriotism, the swifties, the helpless lady ad's who were afraid Kerry couldn't protect her. Bush only smiled, waved and shook hands with the sanitized, chosen ones.

You are welcome to give Bush a free pass, allow him to define the meaning of "is" to the power of absurdity. Keep looking for the blue stained dress, but the level of sophistication has moved over your head, you'll never find it. Seeing the truth requires removing the red glasses (the ones you think are blue), and doing simple math.

Take care...

 

[Giz]

Not at all, the piece of land called Normandy was given to the Viking chief Rollo if he promised to stop raiding them. From Rollo came the Norman Dynasty.

Given as ransom in battle, yes. Invasion and taking over the country, no.

OTOH Norman England...

 

[Ziggurat]

I was alive during the last election. I saw the attack dogs (including Cheney) who did everything they could to obfuscate the truth, demonize the other party, smear their patriotism, the swifties, the helpless lady ad's who were afraid Kerry couldn't protect her. Bush only smiled, waved and shook hands with the sanitized, chosen ones.

I've read that twice now, and I still can't find any instances of criticism that fits Bush's characterization of aiding the enemy but shouldn't, which is what I asked for. Instead, all I find is an attempt to change the subject from what Bush said recently to what he said over a year ago now. Color me impressed.

You are welcome to give Bush a free pass, allow him to define the meaning of "is" to the power of absurdity. Keep looking for the blue stained dress, but the level of sophistication has moved over your head, you'll never find it. Seeing the truth requires removing the red glasses (the ones you think are blue), and doing simple math.

But somehow, because I wanted an actual ARGUMENT made to support the original post (you know, something consisting of logical reasoning and evidence), you've assumed I must have particular views about a political event that happend during the Clinton presidency. Not only does it not have any bearing on this thread, you're not even close to the mark about what my opinions on the matter were. I suggest you ask yourself why you felt it necessary to include those remarks. The blind partisanship here isn't coming from me, it's coming from you.