.
“His words bring pain to those who are serving and their families….his words also continue to show the rest of the world that free speech is alive and well in the United States.”
Sigh.
If all he was doing was bringing “pain” to our troops and their families, I could possibly agree with you.
But AAAAA, his words are doing more than that… his words are bringing death. His words result in the spilling of American blood. They don’t just bring pain; they bring an agony beyond description. Those who would destroy us; those who would kill you without a second thought… those who would kill our children with a smile on their faces are uplifted by these comments. They point to them… they use them as recruiting tools… they say, “See, even Americans in government think Bush is a murderer.”
And as a result, people will die because of his words as surely as if he pulled a .45 and put a bullet through their heads himself. And these things are ramping up, BBBBB. These words and these types of words are rippling through our society… and they play a role in the increasingly strident actions by leftists in this country, both individually (your article about the Marine’s burned flag) and as groups (Those Code Pink idiots and many school districts/colleges and so forth trashing military recruiters.) as they become emboldened by their leadership.
Who stands to pay the price? Who stands to bleed?
Our people, CCCCC…Yours and mine. These kinds of words may result in the deaths of our sons. And on that, I again defer to Oliver Wendell Holmes, who I believe cherished free speech as much as any man can, when he wrote:
"[w]hen a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
I guess the question is this: are we at war? Do we have “men fighting?” And if we do, then why do we have to “endure” these “utterances?” Is there to be no accountability or responsibility for those who provide aid and comfort to our enemies with their words? Or are we limited to only acting against those we give money, weapons, or intelligence to when it comes to that provision of treason? At a minimum, this is called Sedition; (which I recognize is, apparently, no longer illegal) at a maximum, it’s called treason.
Article III Section 3 says this:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The law:
the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Right now, for example, we have an American, Adam Gadahn, under indictment for treason… because he’s spoken supportively of al-qaida on videos.
Forgive me, but I honestly can’t ferret out the difference between what democrat leaders like Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Stark and Durbin say and anything Gadahn has said, except for one minimal detail: the impact of the words spoken by these people is geometrically greater and more harmful than those of a moron like Gadahn. Yet HE is indicted for treason… and THEY are not? What happened to HIS “absolute right?”
Imagine, if you will, where we would be had sentiments such as those uttered by these people had been said on the floor of the House or the Senate during World War 2?
In the end, we cannot base our policies or our actions on what, for example, Togo or Curacao may think about how we administer our own civil rights in THIS country. Is what the rest of the world “thinks” worth the lives of those Americans who WILL die unnecessarily because Stark and those like him indulge themselves by raping the concept of free speech as they engage in their efforts to destroy the morale and reduce the capabilities of the Armed Forces of the United States?
This is, I believe, a war for our survival. When, in our history, have Members of our government ever taken the floor of the House or the Senate during a time of war, to denounce our military or our President? Why hasn’t this happened before? Why is it happening now?
That Congressman Stark could proclaim to the world that our military has, as one of its missions, the task to “blow up innocent people;” or that our President finds the decapitation of our soldiers “amusing” is a classic definition of precisely what Justice Holmes was referring to in his opinion.
I again refer to my little scenario, where you, 1LT DDDDDDDD, have to send some kid out on patrol on a route Black. He’s scared (Who wouldn’t be?) and he’s hearing it. He wants to know why he should put his ass on the line when members of his own government have just issued a blanket indictment against him for “blowing up innocent people.”
What do you tell him, Lieutenant? You NEED this guy. You need him to cover your back. You need him to do the mission.
But a congressman has just accused him and 150,000 of his coworkers of slaughtering innocents. And the Speaker of the House thanked him for doing so.
What do you tell him PFC Smith? Threatening him isn’t enough. Putting him in the stockade isn’t enough… you ain’t got one or a hundred stockades big enough to lock up those who think these same things.
How do you keep this kid and thousands like him from just saying, “Ahhhh, fuck it.” and tossing down his M4 while he refuses to go out for a meaningless mission where he has a high probability of bleeding for people that not only don’t care, but who condemn him because he’s there?
Every time, EEEEE. Every time these people make these attacks, they’re attacking HIM. Every time they get up there, like Stark got up there yesterday, they’re jamming a shiv into his ribs and twisting it. Every time they say these things, they bring agony down on the troops and their families. Every time they say these things, they’re increasing the likelihood that this kid, and others like him, are going to die. Every time they say these things, they strengthen our enemies… while they weaken us.
You indicate: If we are going to have free speech, we need to have it be absolute.
I would submit to you that there is not, and never has been anything approaching “absolute” freedom of speech in this country. Don’t believe me? Knock out a quick email to the White House threatening to kill the President. See what that gets you. See if, in fact, such a thing as “absolute” freedom of speech does exist.
Is such an absurd example to illustrate a point beyond the pale? I don’t know. But it is a fact.
As a society, we cannot have absolute freedoms. To have such a thing absolves us from individual responsibility. Absolved of that responsibility, as our government leaders seem to be, they’re encouraged to go farther and farther and farther in their allegations. And in so doing, they’re whipping up an element that is easily led, and that has a nefarious motive… an element who does not wish this country well.
If we are not at war, then none of this really matters. If we are, then feel free to point out where our freedoms have not been temporarily subjugated for the duration of that war in a dozen different ways… everything from the draft, where millions of men have been FORCED to serve in the military, many against their will, at risk of life and limb… perhaps the ultimate suspension of freedom possible in the last century, to the suspension of habeas corpus, to the internment of tens of thousands based on their race (an all too likely possibility to happen again if this country sustains yet another massive attack… with those of the Muslim persuasion being forced beyond barbed wire.) and a host of other forms of censorship.
Do these people have an absolute right to release classified information? Is there ANY line that cannot be crossed here? And if there is, then why don’t those lines include the treasonous and or seditious utterances of political opportunists who could care less what damage they do… damage that you ADMIT they do, but damage you would allow them to do… encourage them to do.
As I write this, it’s about 0100. It’s raining. Before I call it a night, I’m going out to my 24 foot tall flag pole. The Flag of the United States is flying there, fluttering in a breeze from the south, I think.
I keep the flag up around the clock, FFFFF. I have it lit up at night by a rather unsophisticated system of a photo cell, a small battery charger and a 55 watt fog lamp from Schucks Auto Supply. It comes on when the sun goes down, and it goes off when the sun comes up.
I will look up at the flag, as I frequently do… the flag that I, my brothers… and even-my-waste-of-skin, no-redeeming-value step-father served under in countries around the world… sometimes with people wanting us really, really dead.
But in all the years and places I served, no one ever compared me or my brothers or step father (A Pearl Harbor survivor, come to think of it) with the Nazi’s, or claimed our mission was to kill innocents, or stated that the President found the deaths of American troops “amusing.”
I will look up at the flag this morning and I will fear for my country, KKKKK. (as a brief aside, I will also pray that the almost 4,000 Americans killed over there will not have died in vain, and that the 30,000 or so wounded will not have bled for nothing… outcomes that these scum want with a passion.)
And up until the past couple of years, I never used to fear. But I feel that way now because far too many people are willing to chant “principle” while the house burns down around them.
That is why, in part, I disagree with GGGGG on his appeal. I disagree with him because of the relative outcomes.
If GGGGG is right, and the appeal overturns the decision, then negative impacts will be the order of the day, but GGGGGs principles will be shiningly intact. People will suffer mightily because of it, but man, his PRINCIPLES will be intact… and he will have been right.
OTOH, if he’s wrong (and as I’ve pointed out, I believe he IS wrong) then it will be very, very difficult for this to happen, which is the best outcome for several people but GGGGG’s principles will be shattered.
So, HHHHH… which way should we go on this? GGGGG certainly has the right to appeal.
Precisely like every American alive has the right, a right I devoted over 14 years of my life to protect, to oppose the War in Iraq.
Now, in pressing his point, is it OK for GGGGG to hide behind HIS “absolute” freedom of speech to achieve HIS goal? Is it OK for HIM to lie, distort, exaggerate, accuse the judges and the courts of slaughtering innocents while claiming that opponents to his position are “amused” by the deaths of Americans generally, and the deaths suffered by the Tribe in the past specifically?
Is it?
And if it isn’t… then please explain why it IS OK for those people in Congress to do that very thing to achieve THEIR political goal. Good God, IIIII… if you sell a product in this country and lie about it, you can go to prison and be heavily fined. But if you get up on the floor of the Senate and say things designed to strengthen our enemies, things that will get our people KILLED… well, nothing happens, because, after all, you have freedom of speech.
At least with GGGGG, very few people would die if he were to engage in those tactics. But people are dying in Iraq every day, in part because a political decision has been made to divide us in the name of power. People… not just us… are dying over there because our tea leaves are easily read by an intractable enemy... an enemy that becomes convinced with every fringe leftist speech that if they can… just… hang on a little longer…. The great satan will be defeated and a slaughter of Biblical proportions will commence.
In the military, on at least 5 separate occasions, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. I would like to think that I have and do. But if, as I believe, we are at war, then the right to attack and denigrate those we send out to do the fighting and dying is not absolute. There are a wide variety of ways to express opposition to the War or any other policy of our government at every level.
But none of them should cause injury to our soldiers. None of them should strengthen our enemies and increase their resolve.
To my mind, statements like Mr. Starks do precisely both.
Imagine, if you will, that our sons go to fight in this war. Imagine that they are called upon to spill their blood.
And then, having made that sacrifice, imagine one of this country’s leaders standing on the floor of the House, in front of a microphone, looking up with so much sincerity. He looks up at the camera, and in effect, he says: “Hey, LLLLL. I just heard your son got blown to pieces by an IED yesterday. What’s the matter? Why wasn’t he out killing women and children? After all, that IS their mission, isn’t it? Gee, that’s really too bad, but who cares… and those guys have every right to kill our kids that WE SENT OVER THERE TO FIGHT FOR US.”
While no member of congress has yet to say such a thing (yet)… the impact, the meaning of Mr. Stark’s words were precisely that.
That wouldn’t bother you just the tiniest bit? Or would you just shine it on, because, after all, the speaker in question has the RIGHT to say what he or she wanted because of an absolute freedom of speech?
How far does that apply, MMMMM? You wouldn’t have a problem with one of your kids getting in your face and calling you every name in the book, due to their “absolute right of free speech?”
Or is that “different” somehow?
As far as that goes, what if JJJJJ doubted YOU? What if they began to say, so others could pick it up, that you were incompetent; that this is a done deal and there’s nothing you can do it about it; that you’re a moron, constantly beating up people who disagree with you and so forth? Theoretically, as long as the checks keep coming in, they have the right to say anything they want, right? Never mind that such pronouncements would cripple your ability to get the job done; after all, they’re just exercising their rights, aren’t they?
What would you reaction to that be? I mean, when you go into a meeting with a business, there’s very little chance you’d be coming out dead, right? How long would it take for you to them to jam it, and quit?
What’s the difference, NNNNN? Why shouldn’t OUR troops just say Screw You and walk away?
As our leaders continue to devalue our young men and women, it’s a matter of time until these more fringe elements begin to put those words into action. At some point, is it much of a stretch to imagine these sheep getting back into the spitting, “baby killer” screaming episodes and the like at our troops?
I, personally, didn’t have to go thru that kind of thing, but maybe it’s because I was sending out a vibe that said “I’ll break your jaw if you whip that kind of bullshit out on me.”
As I stated before, there is no freedom without responsibility. And that our country does not hold these people accountable for their words is not something to be proud of, as their efforts weaken our military, strengthen the resolve of nutburgers around the world, and heap insult on some of the finest men and women this country has to offer.
Oppose and be damned. But do it in such a way that the end result is not the death and maiming of a bunch of people who serve this country because they were stupid enough, and mislead enough, to actually believe it wasn’t meaningless; that their sacrifice and that of their family wasn’t a joke; a waste of time, money and effort.
No comments:
Post a Comment