Posted on 12/08/2001 1:47:23 PM PST by snopercod
Mr. President: I rise to a question of personal privilege. I have no intention of taking the time of the Senate with a review of the events which led to our entrance into the war except in so far as they bear upon the question of personal privilege to which I am addressing myself. Six Members of the Senate and fifty Members of the House voted against the declaration of war. Immediately there was let lose upon those Senators and Representatives a flood of invective and abuse from newspapers and individuals who had been clamoring for war, unequaled, I believe in the history of civilized society. Prior to the declaration of war every man who had ventured to oppose our entrance into it had been condemned as a coward or worse, and even the President had by no means been immune from these attacks. Since the declaration of war the triumphant war press has pursued those Senators and Representatives who voted against war with malicious falsehood and recklessly libelous attacks, going to the extreme limit of charging them with treason against their country. This campaign of libel and character assassination directed against the Members of Congress who opposed our entrance into the war has been continued down to the present hour, and I have upon my desk newspaper clippings, some of them libels upon me alone, some directed as well against other Senators who voted in opposition to the declaration of war. One of these newspaper reports most widely circulated represents a Federal judge in the state of Texas as saying, in a charge to a grand jury--I read the article as it appeared in the newspaper and the headline with which it is introduced: [LaFollette picks up newspaper and reads aloud.] If this newspaper clipping were a single or exceptional instance of lawless defamation, I should not trouble the Senate with a reference to it. But, Mr. President, it is not. In this mass of newspaper clippings which I have here upon my desk, and which I shall not trouble the Senate to read unless it is desired. I find other Senators, as well as myself, accused of the highest crimes of which any man can be guilty--treason and disloyalty--and, sir, accused not only with no evidence to support the accusation, but without the suggestion that such evidence anywhere exists. It is not claimed that Senators who opposed the declaration of war have since that time acted with any concerted purpose either regarding war measures or any others. They have voted according to their individual opinions, have often been opposed to each other on bills which have come before the Senate since the declaration of war, and, according to my recollection, have never all voted together since that time upon any single proposition upon which the Senate has been divided. I am aware, Mr. President, that in pursuance of this campaign of vilification and attempted intimidation, requests from various individuals and certain organizations have been submitted to the Senate for my expulsion from this body, and that such requests have been referred to and considered by one of the committees of the Senate. If I alone had been made the victim of these attacks, I should not take one moment of the Senate's time for their consideration, and I believe that other Senators who have been unjustly and unfairly assailed, as I have been, hold the same attitude upon this that I do. Neither the clamor of the mob nor the voice of power will ever turn me by the breadth of a hair from the course I mark out for myself, guided by such knowledge as I can obtain and controlled and directed by a solemn conviction of right and duty.
But, sir, it is not alone Members of Congress that the war party in this country has sought to intimidate. The mandate seems to have gone forth to the sovereign people of this country that they must be silent while those things are being done by their Government which most vitally concern their well-being, their happiness, and their lives. Today and for weeks past honest and law-abiding citizens of this country are being terrorized and outraged in their rights by those sworn to uphold the laws and protect the rights of the people. I have in my possession numerous affidavits establishing the fact that people are being unlawfully arrested, thrown into jail, held incommunicado for days, only to be eventually discharged without ever having been taken into court, because they have committed no crime. Private residences are being invaded, loyal citizens of undoubted integrity and probity arrested, cross-examined, and the most sacred constitutional rights guaranteed to every American citizen are being violated. It appears to be the purpose of those conducting this campaign to throw the country into a state of terror, to coerce public opinion, to stifle criticism, and suppress discussion of the great issues involved in this war. I think all men recognize that in time of war the citizen must surrender some rights for the common good which he is entitled to enjoy in time of peace. But sir, the right to control their own Government according to constitutional forms is not one of the rights that the citizens of this country are called upon to surrender in time of war. Rather in time of war the citizen must be more alert to the preservation of his right to control his Government. He must be most watchful of the encroachment of the military upon the civil power. He must beware of those precedents in support of arbitrary action by administration officials which, excused on the plea of necessity in war time, become the fixed rule when the necessity has passed and normal conditions have been restored. More than all, the citizen and his representative in Congress in time of war must maintain his right of free speech. More than in times of peace it is necessary that the channels for free public discussion of governmental policies shall be open and unclogged. I believe, Mr. President, that I am now touching upon the most important question in this country today--and that is the right of the citizens of this country and their representatives in Congress to discuss in an orderly way frankly and publicly and without fear, from the platform and through the press, every important phase of this war; its causes, and manner in which it should be conducted, and the terms upon which peace should be made. The belief which is becoming widespread in this land that this most fundamental right is being denied to the citizens of this country is a fact, the tremendous significance of which those in authority have not yet begun to appreciate. I am contending, Mr. President, for the great fundamental right of the sovereign people of this country to make their voice heard and have that voice heeded upon the great questions arising out of this war, including not only how the war shall be prosecuted but the conditions upon which it may be terminated with a due regard for the rights and the honor of this Nation and the interests of humanity. I am contending for this right because the exercise of it is necessary to the welfare, to the existence, of this Government, to the successful conduct of this war, and to a peace which shall be enduring for the best interest of this country. Suppose success attends the attempt to stifle all discussion of the issues of this war, all discussions of the terms upon which it should be concluded, all discussion of the objects and purposes to be accomplished by it, and concede the demand of the war-mad press and war extremists that they monopolize the right of public utterance upon these questions unchallenged, what think you would be the consequences to this country not only during the war but after the war? It is no answer to say that when the war is over the citizen may once more resume his rights and feel some security in his liberty and his person. As I have already tried to point out, now is precisely the time when the country needs the counsel of all its citizens. In time of war even more than in time of peace, whether citizens happen to agree with the ruling administration or not, these precious fundamental personal rights--free speech, free press, and right of assemblage so explicitly and emphatically guaranteed by the Constitution should be maintained inviolable. There is no rebellion in the land, no martial law, no courts are closed, no legal processes suspended, and there is no threat even of invasion. But more than this, if every preparation for war can be made the excuse for destroying free speech and a free press and the right of the people to assemble together for peaceful discussion, then we may well despair of ever again finding ourselves for a long period in a state of peace. ... The destruction of rights now occurring will be pointed to then as precedents for a still further invasion of the rights of the citizen. ... Mr. President, our Government, above all others, is founded on the right of the people freely to discuss all matters pertaining to their Government, in war not less than in peace. It is true, sir, that Members of the House of Representatives are elected for two years, the President for four years, and the Members of the Senate for six years, and during their temporary official terms these officers constitute what is called the Government. But back of them always is the controlling sovereign power of the people, and when the people can make their will known, the faithful officer will obey that will. Though the right of the people to express their will by ballot is suspended during the term of office of the elected official, nevertheless the duty of the official to obey the popular will continue throughout his entire term of office. How can that popular will express itself between elections except by meetings, by speeches, by publications, by petitions, and by addresses to the representatives of the people? Any man who seeks to set a limit upon those rights, whether in war or peace, aims a blow at the most vital part of our Government. And then as the time for election approaches and the official is called to account for his stewardship--not a day, not a week, not a month, before the election, but a year or more before it, if the people choose--they must have the right to the freest possible discussion of every question upon which their representative has acted, of the merits of every measure he has supported or opposed, of every vote he has cast and every speech that he has made. And before this great fundamental right every other must, if necessary, give way, for in no other manner can representative government be preserved.DISTRICT JUDGE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SHOT AT TRAITORS IN CONGRESS
(A.P.) HOUSTON, TEXAS, OCT. 1, Judge Waller T. Burns, of the United States district court, in charging a Federal grand jury at the beginning of the October term today, after calling by name Senators Stone of Missouri, Hardwick of Georgia, Vardaman of Mississippi, Gronna of North Dakota, Gore of Oklahoma, and LaFollette of Wisconsin, said: "If I had a wish, I would wish that you men had jurisdiction to return bills of indictment against these men. They ought to be tried promptly and fairly, and I believe this court could administer the law fairly; but I have a conviction, as strong as life, that this country should stand them up against an adobe wall tomorrow and give them what they deserve. If any man deserves death, it is a traitor. I wish that I could pay for the ammunition. I would like to attend the execution, and if I were in the firing squad I would not want to be the marksman who had the blank shell." . . .
The purpose of this campaign [is]
to throw the country into a state of terror,
to coerce public opinion, to stifle criticism,
and suppress discussion.
_______________
Sounds like some of the FReepers here.
FWIW, I have no problem with people objecting to war on philosophical grounds, but mostly what I hear is SOPHISTRY.
Before the entry of the U.S. into World War I, there was the incident of the RMS Lusitania. In that case a British steamship sailing from New York was sunk by a German U-Boat after the British had announced plans to requistion the Lusitania and her sister ships Mauretania and Aquitania for use as troop ships. It was thus a legitimate target of war, at least in the minds of the Germans. But in the process more than one hundred American lives were lost.
Even then, the U.S. tried to steer a course to avoid entry into that war. The Wilson administration sent several strongly-worded messages to Germany expressing outrage, but a willingness to come to an understanding. For awhile it worked but as the tide of war began to turn against Germany, she began to implement desperate measures.
Among those was the announcement in February 1917 that Germany would resume "unrestricted submarine warfare." Despite the best efforts of the U.S. it appeared that the threat of more American lives lost to German predations was again very real, and Wilson finally felt that nothing less than a declaration of war would suffice.
Again, it was all done legally and in conformance with explicit Constitutional dictates.
The difference with that conflict and what we have today is that (1) American targets have DELIBERATELY been attacked, not just once but over a period of some years with no possible solution since we're dealing with madmen who care little about their own lives (or rather the lives of the dupes they get to strap bombs to their chests or fly planes into buildings) and not with a government; (2) all attacks have been surreptitious, with no prior warning or reasonable explanation; (3) Some of the attacks have been on American soil, or against American military targets.
The provocations have been such that, were we the same country with the same degree of Iron Will as the United States of 1915, we would have already BEEN at war and been done with it--saving countless thousands of lives in the process.
So, please go ahead and continue to spout whatever nonsense you wish. But if the United States has no right to defend itself in this instance, then no nation anywhere EVER has the right to defend itself at all.
The Ukian people had total control of the cable communications from Europe, and they made sure the German government's position, as well as that of folks living in Germany, didn't get widespread dissemination.
If we had listened to Bob Lafollette and others, we'd worked to end that war on an equitable basis. This would have eliminated the possibility of WWII starting, and the type of anti-semitism peddled by the SA and SS simply wouldn't have gotten a start.
In the present case, I am afraid that a direct attack really has been made against the people of the USA and the news media are not being misled by the Ukians. This one is real. A guy like Woodrow Wilson, whose mind only worked in the most ethereal of senses, would have decided to "take our lumps" and we would not be eradicating the Taliban and AlQeada.
By this time certainly no one continues to believe we entered WWI on the side of victims!
I guess I'm attracted on some fundamental level to these apostates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.