Free Speech is Not a Monopoly of the Antiwar Left

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | April 3, 2003 | Erika Holzer

[PhilDragoo]

Free Speech is Not a Monopoly of the Antiwar Left
By Erika Holzer
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 3, 2003

Starting with the first tense days of the war against Iraq, I made it a point to watch American servicemen being interviewed on cable television. Every one of them, when asked why they were eager to fight in Iraq, in essence gave this unhesitating reply: "First, to destroy a murderous regime before it acquires the capability to attack our country and the rest of the free world with weapons of mass destruction." [It’s called "self-defense."] "Second, to liberate the people of Iraq from decades of oppression." [It’s called "compassion."]

But there was no avoiding another more troubling question. When embedded reporters pressed the troops on what they thought about large numbers of strident American antiwar activists carrying signs like "Saddam, Yes! U.S.A. No!" and labeling President Bush -- their Commander-in-Chief -- a Nazi and a mass murderer, every one of those servicemen gave virtually the same answer: They respected the First Amendment right of the antiwar protesters to hurl their insults and invective with abandon; to speak freely.

The answers were a little too pat, sounding more pained than convincing. They also sounded coached. I remember wondering if their commanding officers had strongly "suggested" they respond to questions about the protesters with impersonal politeness.

Regardless of whether the troops had orders from on high, or whether, on some level, they really believed what they were saying, their tone was conspicuously dutiful. I saw this discernible pattern disintegrate only once. It was shortly after news broke about the capture of members of the Army’s 507th Maintenance Company, and some grotesque photographs surfaced of an execution, Iraqi-style. A young officer, asked the same pat question about antiwar protesters maligning the President and the war effort, started to give the usual pat answer with tightlipped determination. His face crumpled in midsentence, his voice turning anguished. " . . . but it’s wrong!"

Let’s be clear about what’s "wrong" with this picture. It is not that the antiwar Left has a constitutional right, as it should, to proclaim its support of a brutal dictator. It is that men and women who are laying their lives on the line seem reluctant, for whatever reason, to express their honest convictions about the most virulent of these protesters and what they represent.

So why, when questioned about antiwar protesters, do the troops invariably fall back on the free-speech mantra?

One possibility is that the leadership in the field, the commanders and the NCOs, may not want the troops sounding off about antiwar rhetoric, fearing that it might prove provocative. So they condition their people to stick to the free-speech platitude about protesters -- no harm done – and everybody gets on with the business of war.

I submit that, potentially, the harm to the men and women at the Front is considerable.

Let’s say you’re a combat infantryman, you hail from Los Angeles, and a close friend was part of that 507th convoy that went astray. Mail call. Along with the homemade cookies, your mother includes an article from the Los Angeles Times (3/25/03) by University of Southern California Law School Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who blithely asserts that since Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld continues to violate "international law" [the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals flatly disagreed] by the Guantanamo incarceration of "war captives" [read "enemy combatants", some of them proven terrorists], "the United States cannot expect other nations [read "Iraqi Death Squads"] . . .to live by the rule of law . . . ." [Read: "You can’t blame Saddam’s thugs for executing American POWs."]

Or maybe a Marine reservist left Columbia University to answer his President’s call to arms. His girl friend, a fellow student, keeps him apprised of college events. He’s just returned from a fierce firefight. His platoon lost four good men, and everyone is on edge about the possible capture and subsequent treatment of two buddies who went missing. During a brief respite, he opens a letter he’s had no time to read . . . and learns about Columbia assistant professor of anthropology, Nicholas De Genova, who distinguished himself at a six-hour antiwar teach-in by hoping for "a million Mogadishus" [read "a million of our troops tortured and mutilated, paraded through Baghdad, and executed"].

Along comes a reporter, understandably eager for a reaction to the "hot" Chemerinsky and De Genova stories. If the infantryman from L.A., outraged by the law professor’s ugly and inappropriate comparisons, feels constrained – for whatever reason – to come to the defense of Chemerinsky’s First Amendment rights, the harm he’s more than likely to suffer will be an inchoate sense of betrayal that, in turn, could spiral into a serious loss of morale. The harm to the Marine reservist could take the form of agonizing over mental images of his missing buddies: their torture . . . mutilation . . . execution . . . their burial in a shallow grave, the remains identifiable only by DNA – courtesy of the vicious mutterings of a previously obscure instructor of anthropology.

This is the inherent risk when men and women in harm’s way are conflicted about giving an honest assessment of the more virulent antiwar rhetoric.

In point of fact, commanding officers and NCOs may maintain a completely hands-off policy on how their troops respond to questions about the antiwar protesters. If so, an entirely different scenario may account for why the soldiers I saw being interviewed felt obliged to make a statement – albeit, unconvincingly – about the First Amendment rights of people they have every reason to despise. Our troops may have absorbed the free-speech mantra from the culture at large. (It is, after all, pervasive in the land.) Ironically, you hear it most often among well-meaning people who support the war, including the wives, husbands and parents of men and women at the Front. "Our troops," they intone – with a notable lack of enthusiasm – "are fighting to preserve the right of these protesters to speak out."

With all due respect, it’s the wrong message to be sending. Try this one: "We know why you’re really fighting, bro. To help eradicate a murderous regime. To make the world a safer place." Or this: "Antiwar protesters? You mean, a bunch of your fellow Americans whose hide you’re busy saving who deliberately or petulantly or irresponsibly twist out of all proportion what you and your embattled Commander-in-Chief are doing in Iraq and why?" Or, better yet, this: "Protecting the antiwar crowd’s right to protest is not your mandate, son. It is not the reason you’ve put your life on the line. And, by God, point the finger at these people, if you’ve a mind to. You got a right to free speech same as them ingrates."

Scurrilous attacks wielded by the America-hating Chemerinskys and De Genovas will continue unabated in this country. Their calumnies will continue to be mounted from prestigious, even supportive, platforms like The Los Angeles Times and Columbia University. And, depending on the makeup of the audience, there will be too many occasions when no one will rise up in defense of our defenders. (Out of De Genova’s hardly captive audience of 3,000 people, no timely objection was made.) Those of us who support our troops can help defuse such situations by taking a moral stand against the uncivilized rant of people with their own ugly agendas.

More importantly, we should take it upon ourselves to encourage the brave warriors at the Front to speak freely. By doing so, we can help boost troop morale – and in the conduct of this or any war, that’s crucial. Indeed, as to the toll Hanoi Jane Fonda’s conduct took during the Vietnam War, novelist Nelson DeMille has written: "As a combat infantry officer in Vietnam, I can attest to the fact that Jane Fonda, and people like her, succeeded very well in lowering troop morale, and as any combat vet will tell you, low morale leads to lowered effectiveness, and that leads to battlefield deaths."

Erika Holzer is a lawyer turned novelist whose last novel, Eye for an Eye, a Paramount feature film of the same name, was directed by John Schlesinger and starred Sally Field and Kiefer Sutherland. She is co-author with Henry Mark Holzer of the forthcoming Fake Warriors: Identifying, Exposing and Punishing Those Who Falsify Their Military Service. More about Ms. Holzer’s writing can be found at www.erikaholzer.com. She can be reached at erika@erikaholzer.com.

[PhilDragoo]

Erika Holzer and Henry Mark Holzer co-authored AID AND COMFORT: Jane Fonda in North Vietnam, showing a treason charge would have convicted Fonda and been upheld on appeal.

On a Free Republic thread posted last night, de Genova was quoted saying "the heritage of the Holocaust is the plight of the Palestinian people."

The so-called anti-war left is sick and sickening.

It has adopted the Big Lie of Goebbels to give aid and comfort to the worst tyrants on earth.

[NavyCaptain]

The difference is these young warriors have class and discipline. They leave it to us to know how dispicable they really think these anti-americans are!

[stands2reason]

bttt

[PhilDragoo]

taking a moral stand against the uncivilized rant of people with their own ugly agendas.

An indictment of and call to arms against the de Genovas.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for posting this great article and the ping!

[EdReform]

Bump & Ping

[PhilDragoo]

You've got that right about class.

The quintessential distillation of that class is demonstrated in the email currently circulating regarding the Martin Savidge offer of use of his videophone to four Marines.

I have written emails to the president of Columbia demanding de Genova's removal on behalf of all who serve.

And I think that notion just crossed my mind.

bollinger@columbia.edu

[NavyCaptain]

Right on buddy! I sent my daughter that e-mail last evening. Her response was that "they find people like that from families like ours." Finally realized I was a success at being a father, despite the fact I spent most of my life deployed and missing soccer games, birthdays and graduations. It was well worth it to see these young people teach the world freedom's value!

[SAMWolf]

Thanks for the ping PhilDragoo.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[chainsaw]

I am still completely against this mantra that these anti-war demonstrators are against the war but support our troops. That is a moronic statement. How can you be against the war, but support them in conducting the war.

[Egregious Philbin]

Leave it to FrontPage to publish an article with junk like this:

Every one of them, when asked why they were eager to fight in Iraq, in essence gave this unhesitating reply: "First, to destroy a murderous regime before it acquires the capability to attack our country and the rest of the free world with weapons of mass destruction." [It’s called "self-defense."] "Second, to liberate the people of Iraq from decades of oppression." [It’s called "compassion."]

"in essence gave this unhesitating reply" So you're paraphrasing then? Why, then, do you feel the need to clarify the statement for us? "[It’s called "self-defense."]" I'll draw my own conclusions, thank you. [READ: at least before you start sounding out the letters.]

[RaceBannon]

We did NOT take an oath to defend the right to call on the President's Death.

We did NOT take an oath to defend their right to call on military men and women to kill their officers

We did NOT take an oath to defend their right to call on troops to rebel against their officers.

Those people who have done so are traitors, and should be tried and punished.

[jimt]

Let’s say you’re a combat infantryman, you hail from Los Angeles, and a close friend was part of that 507th convoy that went astray. Mail call. Along with the homemade cookies, your mother includes an article from the Los Angeles Times (3/25/03) by University of Southern California Law School Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who blithely asserts that since Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld continues to violate "international law" [the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals flatly disagreed] by the Guantanamo incarceration of "war captives" [read "enemy combatants", some of them proven terrorists], "the United States cannot expect other nations [read "Iraqi Death Squads"] . . .to live by the rule of law . . . ." [Read: "You can’t blame Saddam’s thugs for executing American POWs."]

You consider the source, use it for toilet paper, and move on.

[PhilDragoo]

Indeed this is quite a generation.

A Fox embed asked a soldier last night (morning in Iraq) for his response to those asking for a time frame.

The young soldier smiled and replied, "We're doing the best we can, and it'll be over when it's over and we'll come home and you can buy us a beer."

I thought, ye gods and little fishes, he's in front of that armor having made the greatest advance in the history of warfare and all he asks is for a beer.

These people are so happy to have a chance to show their magnificent stuff before a leader and people who appreciate it.

And these are the ones Democrats tried to disenfranchise in Florida in 2000.

When Clinton addressed the Commencement of the Class of 1994 of the USNA in Marine Stadium with the epic battles on its walls it was dark days.

Your service is vindicated a thousand times over as America throws off the yoke of the leftist propaganda machine to reveal the depth of character which has been there all the time.

[PhilDragoo]

I am still completely against this mantra that these anti-war demonstrators are against the war but support our troops.

The hatred of Bush and of America is apparent in the protesters.

I don't see anything to indicate they are "anti-war"--they're funded by Marxist revolutionaries.

The mouthings of Arnett, Ritter, de Genova, McDermott, Rangel, Pelosi, and others is more Tokyo Rose than Mahatma Ghandi.

The epitome of the "anti-war" lie is in the banner "We support our troops when they shoot their officers".

These one-percenters are that evil.

[Tribune7]

Something occurred to me about Prof. de Genova -- why can't he be charged with making a terroristic threat? He's advocating the violent, illegal deaths against specific people.

How about a hate crime?

[PhilDragoo]

Those people who have done so are traitors, and should be tried and punished.

I couldn't agree more.

And these calls to murder come from the "hate-speech" breast-beaters.

Albuquerque now requires a permit for demonstrations and that the permitee pay the police overtime.

Albuquerque's mayor and city council then held a rally in civic plaza in support of the troops.

[PhilDragoo]

How about a hate crime?

Exactly. The de Genovas of the university are the ones instituting speech codes.

The de Genovas are pigs on Animal Farm for whom some animals are more equal than others.

In a crowd of 3,000 there was not one objection to de Genova's invocation of 18,000,000 deaths on America.

And Columbia's president has not fired de Genova.

[MeekOneGOP]

We did NOT take an oath to defend their right to call on military men and women to kill their officers

We did NOT take an oath to defend their right to call on troops to rebel against their officers.

Yep !

Here is a link to the SF-IMC site where these FAR LEFT LIBERALS posted an actual pic (below) of one of their Support Saddam/Terrorists events recently and changed the image when I posted/linked it to an FR thread. The pic at the top of that link (of 2 Allied Soldiers TORTURING someone) was what they changed it to . . .

These folks at San Francisco Indy-Media are terrorist supporters . . .

Oh, the lurkers on FR from SF-IMC CANNOT change that picture (above) now since it is hosted by FR friendly sources ! Take that, FOOLS !! . . .