Are war critics helping the enemy?

[bob_kark]

Btw, I am not certain (I am not a military lawyer) if Jane Fonda's Viet Nam fiasco sank to the level of treason or not...but it was certainly ill advised and idiotic. It was also 35 years ago, so I have no clear idea what it is doing in this discussion...

Article Three, Section Three of the US Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The relevance to the current discussion is that there are limitations to free speech. If you were to travel to Iraq and rally up the "insurgents" by claiming that the war in Iraq was an illegal war, fraud, run by war criminals, taking pictures with kidnapped soldiers, claiming they were well treated when it was obvious they were under duress, etc... you may have committed treason. Criticizing the President and the war in Iraq, comes close to doing so in that it can also give aid and comfort to the enemy. I believe this is message Bush is trying to convey, though I doubt he is threatening anyone with charges of Treason. However, I believe that a greater good comes from criticizing the President, and the war, and justifies the aid and/or comfort the insurgency may gain as a result.

 

[punchdrunk]

Inconsistencies

From Bush's Q&A session yesterday:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060111-7.html

First of all, I expect there to be an honest debate about Iraq, and welcome it. People can help, however, by making sure the tone of this debate is respectful and is mindful about what messages out of the country can do to the morale of our troops. (Applause.)

I fully expect in a democracy -- I expect and, frankly, welcome the voices of people saying, you know, Mr. President, you shouldn't have made that decision, or, you know, you should have done it a better way. I understand that. What I don't like is when somebody said, he lied. Or, they're in there for oil. Or they're doing it because of Israel. That's the kind of debate that basically says the mission and the sacrifice were based on false premise. It's one thing to have a philosophical difference -- and I can understand people being abhorrent about war. War is terrible. But one way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections, is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way, and the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an enemy.

And now a portion of a speech by Cheney prior to Christmas:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051121-2.html

One might also argue that untruthful charges against the Commander-in-Chief have an insidious effect on the war effort itself. I'm unwilling to say that, only because I know the character of the United States Armed Forces -- men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts. They haven't wavered in the slightest, and their conduct should make all Americans proud. They are absolutely relentless in their duties, and they are carrying out their missions with all the skill and the honor we expect of them.

Note that the "untruthful charges" Cheney is speaking of is basically the charge that the Bush administration misled Congress and the nation to go to war, which is analogous to Bush's dislike for people who say "he lied." Yet Cheney says these - I will call them unproven in an attempt to take bias out of it - these unproven charges don't hurt moral, while Bush says they do.

From Cheney's speech:

To me, energetic debate on issues facing our country is more than just a sign of a healthy political system -- it's also something I enjoy. It's one of the reasons I've stayed in this business. And I believe the feeling is probably the same for most of us in public life.

For those of us who don't mind debating, there's plenty to keep us busy these days, and it's not likely to change any time soon. On the question of national security, feelings run especially strong, and there are deeply held differences of opinion on how best to protect the United States and our friends against the dangers of our time. Recently my friend and former colleague Jack Murtha called for a complete withdrawal of American forces now serving in Iraq, with a drawdown to begin at once. I disagree with Jack and believe his proposal would not serve the best interests of this nation. But he's a good man, a Marine, a patriot -- and he's taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion.

Nor is there any problem with debating whether the United States and our allies should have liberated Iraq in the first place. Here, as well, the differing views are very passionately and forcefully stated. But nobody is saying we should not be having this discussion, or that you cannot reexamine a decision made by the President and the Congress some years ago. To the contrary, I believe it is critical that we continue to remind ourselves why this nation took action, and why Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, and why we have a duty to persevere.

In this section of the speech he is outlining what he says is legitimate and acceptable criticism, Murtha being an example of such legitimacy. Bush also echoed these thoughts about Murtha's stance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/20/AR2005112001167.html

"Congressman Murtha is a fine man, a good man, who served our country with honor and distinction as a Marine in Vietnam and as a United States congressman," Bush said. "He is a strong supporter of the United States military. And I know the decision to call for an immediate withdrawal of our troops by Congressman Murtha was done in a careful and thoughtful way. I disagree with his position."

Yet the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff feels otherwise:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48222

At a Pentagon news conference, Gen. Peter Pace was asked to comment on Murtha's remarks, the Associated Press reported. Last year, Murtha advocated an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and told ABC News this week that if he were eligible to join the military he would not, nor would he expect others to do so. The congressman also has called the war "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."

"That's damaging to recruiting," Pace told reporters. "It's damaging to morale of the troops who are deployed, and it's damaging to the morale of their families who believe in what they are doing to serve this country."

So more mixed signals from top officials. If I were to try to gauge criticism as legitimate or otherwise by the words of this administration, I would be lost.

 

[Manny]

Note: By "allowed" I'm not saying anyone is preventing it, but by framing dissent as aligning with or providing comfort to, the enemy, is undemocratic and un-American.

At what level? It wasn't un-American when you said it -- it was a simple statement of fact. But you clearly think it's un-American if the President says it. What if a party chair had said it instead? Or a pro-war commentator on MSNBC? Or a military official? How about a pro-liberation representative of the new Iraqi government? Or is it only OK to make that statement of fact when it comes from someone who is in the opposition?

 

[DavidJames]

At what level? It wasn't un-American when you said it -- it was a simple statement of fact. But you clearly think it's un-American if the President says it. What if a party chair had said it instead? Or a pro-war commentator on MSNBC? Or a military official? How about a pro-liberation representative of the new Iraqi government? Or is it only OK to make that statement of fact when it comes from someone who is in the opposition?

I don't know what you're asking. I stand my words as you quoted them. I believe it to be true regardless of who is doing the framing, but I believe it's worse if it's done in support of a president (any president, of any political persuasion).

I'm not saying any laws are being broken, but I believe it's subverting what democracy stands for.

 

[DavidJames]

dang duplicates

 

[Mycroft]

Can I stop short of Godwin's law if I point out that one sign that the men with guns may eventually emerge, is attempting to rally public opinion to the idea that criticizing the leader is treason?

I don't know about you, but it scares the hell out of me.

Which puts you in the position of being fearful of how someone (the POTUS) uses their freedom of speech.

Speaking against the government could inspire people to treason or revolution, but we allow them to speak anyway. Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword.

 

[gnome]

Which puts you in the position of being fearful of how someone (the POTUS) uses their freedom of speech.

Speaking against the government could inspire people to treason or revolution, but we allow them to speak anyway. Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword.

I agree completely. Nobody has tried to stop anyone from talking. Maybe you can clarify here... is your position that:

1) Bush has not tried to equate criticism of his policy as harmful to the war effort?
or is it
2) He has, and may be correct?

Two very different points... let's argue over the one you really mean.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Which puts you in the position of being fearful of how someone (the POTUS) uses their freedom of speech.

And its true that he has the same freedom of speech as any average citizen. However, his words should always be scrutinized more closely than anyone elses, simply becaus eof his power. If you or I or Anne Coulter or any private citizen you care to name choose to equate certain forms of criticism to treason, we are just one more person trying to influence public opinion to match their own. If the POTUS says the same thing, well, he actually has the pwer to do something about it. So yes, the POTUS' freedom of speech should always be regarded with a healthy level of fear and caution. It is foolish to do otherwise.

 

[Mark]

Article Three, Section Three of the US Constitution:



The relevance to the current discussion is that there are limitations to free speech. If you were to travel to Iraq and rally up the "insurgents" by claiming that the war in Iraq was an illegal war, fraud, run by war criminals, taking pictures with kidnapped soldiers, claiming they were well treated when it was obvious they were under duress, etc... you may have committed treason. Criticizing the President and the war in Iraq, comes close to doing so in that it can also give aid and comfort to the enemy. I believe this is message Bush is trying to convey, though I doubt he is threatening anyone with charges of Treason. However, I believe that a greater good comes from criticizing the President, and the war, and justifies the aid and/or comfort the insurgency may gain as a result.

As I said, since I am not a lawyer, I don't know whether she committed treason or not. Given that she was never charged with a crime, and that our judicial system works on the premise "innocent until proven guilty" I have no choice but to assume she is innocent of treason.

I note that you have not defined "aid and comfort." So the truth is, you don't know if she could have been charged, either.

Much the same with the Bush Administration outing a CIA operative during war time. If no charges are ever filed, and they are not convicted of a crime, then I will be forced to assume they are not guilty, whatever my personal views on the matter.

My questioning the relevance of Jane Finda had to do with the fact that whatever the laws in 1970 (or so), they have almost certainly been re-written since then. Your comment that criticizing Bush's war comes close to treason is nothing short of frightening and appalling...I am glad you qualified it at the end!

 

[rikzilla]

And its true that he has the same freedom of speech as any average citizen. However, his words should always be scrutinized more closely than anyone elses, simply becaus eof his power. If you or I or Anne Coulter or any private citizen you care to name choose to equate certain forms of criticism to treason, we are just one more person trying to influence public opinion to match their own. If the POTUS says the same thing, well, he actually has the pwer to do something about it. So yes, the POTUS' freedom of speech should always be regarded with a healthy level of fear and caution. It is foolish to do otherwise.

But the point is that you are free to greet anything the POTUS utters with fear and loathing. Someone else may greet the same utterances with amusement, hate, love, disdain, indifference, nausea, or even a gift of flowers. The POTUS is not above the law...nor is he below it. His speech does not trump your own rights.

There is no universal should to it. Free speech means he's free to say it; you're free to call it BS. There is no "should" or "ought" implied in freedom. After all the inscription on the Statue of Liberty doesn't say :

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to do as they "should",
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

-z

 

[Mycroft]

I agree completely. Nobody has tried to stop anyone from talking. Maybe you can clarify here... is your position that:

1) Bush has not tried to equate criticism of his policy as harmful to the war effort?
or is it
2) He has, and may be correct?

Two very different points... let's argue over the one you really mean.

The second one. Let’s look at what Bush said in the article:

"It's one thing to have a philosophical difference — and I can understand people being abhorrent about war. War is terrible," Bush said. "But one way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way, and the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an enemy."

He identifies two ways in which criticism can harm the war effort: 1) by emboldening the enemy and 2) by demoralizing our own troops.

Is there any doubt as to the truth of those words? In my opinion it’s self evident that criticism on the home front can both embolden the enemy and demoralize our troops.

In my opinion, the only issues are where to draw the line and what methods of enforcement are allowable in enforcing that line.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

He identifies two ways in which criticism can harm the war effort: 1) by emboldening the enemy and 2) by demoralizing our own troops.

Is there any doubt as to the truth of those words? In my opinion it’s self evident that criticism on the home front can both embolden the enemy and demoralize our troops.

How does questioning the purpose of the war embolden our enemies?

We live in a republic, the last time I checked, and the public has a right to seek redress for grievances from their government. That's a right our enemies would rather destroy.

Just because our enemies may approve of X, that does not make X treason.

How does keeping democracy alive by engaging in public debate demoralize troops?

If they're not fighting to preserve democracy, what are they fighting for?

 

[Mark]

The second one. Let’s look at what Bush said in the article:

"It's one thing to have a philosophical difference — and I can understand people being abhorrent about war. War is terrible," Bush said. "But one way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way, and the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an enemy."

He identifies two ways in which criticism can harm the war effort: 1) by emboldening the enemy and 2) by demoralizing our own troops.

Is there any doubt as to the truth of those words? In my opinion it’s self evident that criticism on the home front can both embolden the enemy and demoralize our troops.

In my opinion, the only issues are where to draw the line and what methods of enforcement are allowable in enforcing that line.

Question: did you hold this view when Clinton sent troops to Kosovo? Or were you one of the people screaming "Wag the dog! Wag the dog!"?

It's interesting: at the time I heard conservatives all over doing just that...but now that their guy is in the White House, I can't find a single one who will admit ever having said it. Funny old thing, life.

 

[Mycroft]

And its true that he has the same freedom of speech as any average citizen. However, his words should always be scrutinized more closely than anyone elses, simply becaus eof his power.

Agreed. He is the POTUS, so we pay a lot more attention to what he says.

If you or I or Anne Coulter or any private citizen you care to name choose to equate certain forms of criticism to treason, we are just one more person trying to influence public opinion to match their own. If the POTUS says the same thing...

Right, but if the POTUS says nothing of the kind, it's no use talking about it as though he did. People might think you have a touch of BDS.

"It's one thing to have a philosophical difference — and I can understand people being abhorrent about war. War is terrible," Bush said. "But one way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way, and the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an enemy."

See? He doesn't call disagreement treason.

 

[Mycroft]

Question: did you hold this view when Clinton sent troops to Kosovo? Or were you one of the people screaming "Wag the dog! Wag the dog!"?

It's interesting: at the time I heard conservatives all over doing just that...but now that their guy is in the White House, I can't find a single one who will admit ever having said it. Funny old thing, life.

In the Clinton days I spent a lot of time defending Clinton to the rabid right-wing nutcases.

I think Clinton was a much better president than Bush Jr. is, but the derranged bashing of both is very similar to each other.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

See? He doesn't call disagreement treason.

No, he said tht certain forms of criticism "provide comfort to our adversaries" which is pretty darn close to the Constitutional defintion of treason. If that is what he meant to imply, then that is worrying in and of itself. If that is NOT what he meant to imply then, considering that the constitution prescribes the death penalty for treason, it was a stupid and irresponsible choice of words on his part.

 

[Mark]

In the Clinton days I spent a lot of time defending Clinton to the rabid right-wing nutcases.

I think Clinton was a much better president than Bush Jr. is, but the derranged bashing of both is very similar to each other.

I don't doubt your word---I really don't---but it is very strange that now conservatives are making the claim that any criticism of Bush's war is aiding and comforting the enemy, and is (at least) close to treason. They sure didn't feel that way under Clinton! And, as I said, I can't find a single one who will even admit they ever criticized Clinton's invasion. Not one.

Don't you find that strange? I sure do.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

But the point is that you are free to greet anything the POTUS utters with fear and loathing. Someone else may greet the same utterances with amusement, hate, love, disdain, indifference, nausea, or even a gift of flowers. The POTUS is not above the law...nor is he below it. His speech does not trump your own rights.

There is no universal should to it. Free speech means he's free to say it; you're free to call it BS. There is no "should" or "ought" implied in freedom. After all the inscription on the Statue of Liberty doesn't say :


-z

No his speech, by itself, doesn't trump anyone's rights, dor did I claim it does. However, the fact that he says something like that might indicate an intention to do something about all of this providing "Comfort to our adversaries", which (depending on what he decides to do) COULD trump our rights. His choice of words makes me very leery of his intentions.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Let me turn this situation around. If Osama put out a video tape urging all al Qeada fighters to discuss the war, but said that anyone who expressed the opinion that the war is wrong, bombing the World Trade Center was wrong, Osama is a liar, or that the reason al qeada fighters are fighting is just so Osama's friends and family can control oil in the region are "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" would we construe this as an honest invitiation to debate, and a democratic statement?

 

[Mark]

Let me turn this situation around. If Osama put out a video tape urging all al Qeada fighters to discuss the war, but said that anyone who expressed the opinion that the war is wrong, bombing the World Trade Center was wrong, Osama is a liar, or that the reason al qeada fighters are fighting is just so Osama's friends and family can control oil in the region are "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" would we construe this as an honest invitiation to debate, and a democratic statement?

Stop that. Bush is to be held to a different standard, or no standard at all.

Why do you hate America?