Posted on 02/22/2003 2:18:31 PM PST by political_chick
Subtleties of 21st Century Sedition
If hypothetically, an attack was perpetrated against America on American soil that killed thousands of Americans and the attack was by a foreign group that had previously declared a war of annihilation on the United States, few would argue that America was at war, a war not of her choosing but nevertheless, a war she had to fight.
Again hypothetically, if while engaged in her new war, America determined that an old adversary was developing weapons of mass destruction in spite of a global effort to prevent that adversary from developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, America would be viewed as not only being justified in using military action to stop the adversary from acquiring the WMD's, but fools not to. Moreover, that the President of the United States went to Congress and received overwhelming legal authority to use military means against that old enemy.
Now suppose that sedition was defined as the incitement of resistance to, or insurrection against lawful authority; or say, conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
Next, imagine we live in a country where we give celebrity status and sadly, the power to influence great masses of people, to people who pretend to be other people in front of a camera.
Suppose that a number of the celebrities begin a campaign, which on the surface has all the markings of constitutionally protected free speech and America's time honored call to all her citizens to protest injustice, to protest America's involvement in the war she finds herself in, and the possible expansion of that war to eliminate greater threats to the United States and her people. Then allow the first two hypotheticals above to become a reality. America is at war against an adversary that seeks her destruction and America is in fact threatened with weapons of mass destruction by a tyrannical dictator that has shown no compunction of using chemical and biological weapons in the past.
Finally, there is the United States Code. Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 115, Section 2388 states in pertinent part:
Sec. 2388 - Activities affecting armed forces during war
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States.. One could argue that the dissemination by celebrities of a campaign, which in part focuses on and promotes the "fact" of the truthfulness of America's enemies and the untruthfulness of America's foreign policy, may fall within Section 2388. However, it is more likely than not that the activities of the antiwar celebrities would far more fall into the spirit of that law, rather than the letter. America is in a war, and the celebrities in question are promoting an ideology that leads to the success of America's enemies.
We are not at war with a people or nation that just threatens their own neighbors or seeks the ethnic cleansing of a particular group; rather we are at war for our own survival. The war protestors of yesterday may or may not have had nefarious motives underlying their activities as they damned our country in its efforts to stem the tide of communism and subjugation of foreign lands. It is easy to dismiss today's protestors as holdovers from the 1960's and the "make love not war generation." However, that would be a mistake. Unlike the wars of the last half of the 20th century, this time we have no choice but to be involved, war was declared on us.
In the same vein, it might be easy to dismiss the celebrities in question, as not being very bright or "intellectually challenged," but that would also be a mistake. While it is more likely than not that Americans who protest against an America that takes actions to protect Americans from harm, do have a need for a reality check, the fact that they are, or have been unable to separate their own false perceptions and bias from what is in the best interest of America in time of war is odious.
Liberals, even Liberal members of congress are now calling for the resumption of the draft. Not to ensure that we are adequately protected from a foreign enemy that is bent on our destruction, rather to ensure just the opposite. The proposal is made to enlist those of draft age and their families to protest and thwart America's present abilities to wage war against her enemies. The ramifications of such an idea are astounding. America's Liberal leaders, unable to gain support for their loathing of the present administration seek to bring back the hate-America ideology of the anti Vietnam War era. In effect and intent, the Liberals seek to divide the country in its war against those who seek our destruction.
For the sake of argument and assuming the dissenter's motives are pure and free from any intention of harming America; that they only want what is best for America and see the threat of a rogue nation harming America as an impossibility. That still does not lessen the result to American vulnerability.
A number of pundits have determined that the number of American foes to the Administration's foreign policy are barely negligible and its only the media that brings any attention to their small voices or like the Fox News Channel's, Bill O'Reilly who simply referred to one such celebrity as a "moron."
However, the number of protesters at the present time is not the problem; rather it is their celebrity status, which amplifies not only their numbers, but their anti-American message as well.
Pundits, the media, and even conservative politicians spout the age-old phrase about the right of any American to protest and that is true, but it is not enough. Americans have the right to protest anything from the number of calories in fast food hamburgers and fries to corruption in government or corporate America. However, when Americans whose lives have been enabled to achieve wealth and power because they are Americans, protest America's right to protect America, America has the right to resort to another age-old custom and right and that is to shun them.
Paul can be reached at paul.walfield@cox.net
After the next terror attack (because I don't think it will happen before that), it's my hope that the American people will see fit to attack and destroy all of America's enemies.
I just hope there's someone to do it and something left worth doing it for at that time.
Wrong. If Congress, after such provocations, failed to formally declare war between us and our attackers, it could only be because it had decided that a state of war was undesirable for compelling reasons. The reasonable assumption would then be that we were not at war.
Reasons compelling, or seditious.
I think the framers fully intended that the people would rain down their wrath on their elected officials when skullguggery or cowardice became the norm.
It's a damn pity that we haven't had the cojones to hold these elected officials to task.
As I stood at a pump today filling my tank with $2.00 per gallon gas (38c of which is taxes) I asked myself: How is it that I (and the rest of America) pay 60% of my income in taxes and that largess has been squandered into a $6 TRILLION debt?
WTF is wrong with this picture?
That's funny because I ask myself why the United States spends BILLIONS on foreign aid and gets NOTHING in return.
Why is it my responsibility to feed starving North Koreans and Iraqis or to provide HIV/AIDS medicine for the entire continent of Africa only so they can spit in our faces?
I hope we do kick Iraq's butt and take their oil. It's called the spoils of war and it goes to the victors.
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.