Posted on 12/26/2001 6:59:33 AM PST by tberry
We’re With You, GW, Really!
by Brad Edmonds
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.
December 24, 2001
LEW ROCKWELL LIE ALERT (and it's a big one)
"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." "
‘‘(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 11 ‘‘(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’’.
Yeah your "truth" is scary, because using your "truth", you would lose a war, but of course you have your "truth" to make you feel good in the end, even though you totally ignored the strategic realities(the real truth) around you.
I didn't know there was more than one "truth" - is this the moral relativist version of truth? I thought truth was universal. If something is true, then it's true. Period.
Well let's look at the truth of the last couple of months, will we. OBL is on the run. The taliban has disintegrated and Bush did it, by not uttering one "incindiary" word about Islam. The results so far are the truth of the situation.
The few Freepers who buy into Lew Rockwell know very well how to get to it. To me, I view the Rockwell posts the same way I do "pop-up" ads. They get in the way, take up bandwidth and are often annoying. Now that everyone here knows who they are, where they are, and what they are all about, there's no need for them to advertise on this forum.
Oh I see, so it's okay to lie of it's in the U.S. national interest?
He might want to read the Old Testament, too. God felt the same way.
Bingo!
Like I stated before, I am glad you are an exmarine. I guess a victory to you is Bush calling Islam a gutter religion 24 hours a day, rather than OBL on the run, and the taliban being relegated to the history books.
Hasn't disinformation been used since the dawn of America if it was in the national interest?
Sorry Dane, but exmarine is correct here. Islam is not a peaceful religion. Read the Koran. Read the terrorist training manual posted on the FBI website. It says as much. I have researched Islam to write a college paper years ago. I have listened to my psychology professor who taught in the middle east. He also traveled to the far east. He related stories from many cultures, as unbiased as possible. His stories about the main two factions of Islam comport with my own studies of the religion. There are many muslims who do not subscribe to the radical views, but they are there and Mohammed was indeed a part of and instigator of violence against Christians, Jews, old men, amongst others.
And exuse me if I stick to the truth of results.
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.