We’re With You, GW, Really!

President George W. Bush said, many weeks ago, "You’re either with us or against us" in the US government war against terrorism. The implication was that you are either supportive of all of our government’s measures since 9/11, or else you are a supporter of, or at least sympathize with, the terrorists. This deliberately intimidating statement, which keeps reappearing on television news programs, needs to be examined (and refuted) in light of some of our government’s post-9/11 initiatives.

Among the new arrogations of our government are The Patriot Act and Bush’s executive order condemning terrorists to military tribunals – the latter providing the possibility of the death penalty for anyone Bush claims is a terrorist, and for whom appeals to higher courts, and public scrutiny of the tribunals’ actions, are not possibilities. Thus, by his accusatory rhetoric, Bush has identified anyone abroad who does not support US actions in Afghanistan as being "with" the terrorists.

The Patriot Act, for its part, identifies as a domestic terrorist anyone who expresses disagreement with the government’s actions in a manner "that appear[s] to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation." On the bright side, if an American citizen dares to express disagreement in a manner that appears to be intended to intimidate, at least his trial will be public, and subject to scrutiny by higher courts.

So, those of us who have been criticizing relentlessly our government’s military campaigns, foreign policy, and domestic policy technically fit Bush’s and Congress’s definitions of "terrorist." But that’s the shallow, government-mandated view. Going only a step further in analysis, it’s obvious we all have the same goals.

What are the ostensible goals of our government’s actions since 9/11? Clearly, security for Americans and an end to terrorism generally. These goals we (paleolibertarians) share with our government. In criticizing American foreign policy in the Middle East, our objective – pipe dream – is to bring about a change in policies so that our government ceases making Arabs and Muslims the world over hate us. In urging restraint in the bombing of Afghanistan (which bombing has displaced the Taliban and weakened Al-Qaeda but hasn’t eliminated bin Laden or affected any other terrorist groups), our objective is to prevent civilian casualties, which are not only a moral wrong but will perpetuate and deepen international hatred of America and Americans.

In criticizing Bush’s executive order, our objective is to assure the people outside the United States that they are safe from secret, incontestable trials following hasty accusations, all at the hands of a government that is not their own. Such trials, if they become numerous, will give the rest of the world yet more reasons to hate, and target, us.

In opposing new legislation that increases the power of our government over us, and in opposing new powers granted to the President, our objective is to return to a US government that is more accountable for its actions, and which finds it more difficult to act (and expand) in haste. It is not trivial that opposing government expansion helps preserve liberty, a moral good and worth pursuing in itself.

And in opposing government takeover of airport, railroad, electric plant, and other security, our objective is to increase our own security. A people is secure in large part according to the extent to which ordinary, decent civilians are armed as much as they desire to be. It has been shown domestically and internationally over the past century: When ordinary citizens are armed, crime drops, and foreign invasion becomes too costly for invaders. The hijackings of 9/11 likely would never have been conceived if our government hadn’t first guaranteed the terrorists that airline passengers and crew would be unarmed and ripe for takeover by determined criminals with minimal weapons.

On balance, the libertarian position has all the same goals our government claims to have, including the most fundamental one – the preservation of liberty. Whether the government’s solutions at every other point will succeed is yet to be seen; signs remain mixed. However, prediction may be easier if you consider that our politicians are claiming liberty is preserved through the passing of new laws; specifically, laws that empower the government to scrutinize civilian behavior with fewer restrictions than before, laws that provide new penalties for crimes defined so vaguely that the appearance of intent is enough to convict. Anyone who can claim that up is down while keeping a straight face, and who has the power to put you in jail for purely imagined offenses, is never to be trusted.

We’re with you, GW, in regard to the problems we face; we just disagree that your efforts have much hope of solving them.

From the article: "The Patriot Act, for its part, identifies as a domestic terrorist anyone who expresses disagreement with the government’s actions in a manner "that appear[s] to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation." "

From the law: ‘‘(5) the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activi- ties that—
‘‘(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
‘‘(B) appear to be intended— ‘‘(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; ‘‘(ii) to influence the policy of a gov- ernment by intimidation or coercion; or ‘‘(iii) to affect the conduct of a gov- ernment by mass destruction, assassina- tion, or kidnapping;
and ‘‘(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’’. ,

To summarize, the construction is "A...; B...; and C...."
That each element is neccessary is obvious.

For those who've never thought about logic, or have an IQ barely sufficient for everyday activities, an example of this construction would be an order at a fast-food emporium for "regular fries, regular coke, and a Big Mac".
Of course the order would not be fulfilled by supplying only one of it's elements.

(For those, unlike Lew Rockwell readers, who appreciate logic, there is an example in clause B of an "or" construction- in which, unlike an "and" construction, any one element is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the clause.)

Now, are we to believe that an author is too stupid to understand this- even a Lew Rockwell author? Possible, but very unlikely.
The conclusion is that the Lew Rockwell readers are assumed too stupid to understand this, and that the Lew Rockwell author is consciously taking advantage of their assumed clinical idiocy to decieve them.

OWK: "Satisfaction of ANY (not all) of the specified conditions, satisfies the law. "
In a conjunction (as in the A; B; AND C; statement) all conditions must be met
In a disjunction ( as in the i; ii; OR iii statement of B) any condition can be met.

Anyone confused by the use of both "and" and "or" ( or by the use of either "and" or "or) should check out a site like "The Logical Fallacies".
In fact, in a representative government it is the responsibility of a citizen to be able to understand simple logical operations, and it is useless to try to convince me that we are already at the point that most Americans aren't.

I hope that you realize that if the Patriot Act truly "identifies as a domestic terrorist anyone who expresses disagreement with the government’s actions in a manner "that appear[s] to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation." "

Then my anger would be at least as great as yours.

But it does not, and I am very angry that someone, ie: Lew Rockwell, would interject falsehoods into the debate over such a dangerous law.
The actual law is worrisome enough.

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.