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
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.
The truth is we could win THIS battle and lose the war.Because the president's decision to mainstream Islam and not stop issuing visas to the moon god folks, we could win the military battle and lose the religious and cultural war. In a few generations we could be a muslim nation.
It is already not PC to name Christ in public ,or acknowlege you believe in Him. We are moving slowly but surely away from the Judo/Christian European roots of this nation. "Islam means Peace" and "allah is forgiving" does not help to stem that tide..
That doesn't make it right...especially coming from Bush who is supposed to be a Christian, therefore a lover of the Truth. Yet, he seems to put Islam on the same pedestal with Jesus Christ. Not only is it a lie, it's blasphemy.
However, his position is fully in line with the "diversity" people - that is, all truth claims and beliefs must be equally valid. Not only is it a lie, it's a lie that militates against the laws of logic.
So in your opinion, the US should have told Germany of an impending invasion on D-Day?
This is a false comparison. We were at war with Germany and were trying to obtain the element of surprise in the fight against EVIL. In this case, the American people are being lied to about the true nature of our enemy (Islam) and we are allying or trying to ally ourselves with our enemies (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.).
I see, so anyone who disagrees with Bush's propaganda campaign is a taliban? You sound like an anti-christian bigot. Well then, maybe Bush should round up all the American Christians and put them in jail for DISAGREEING with his lies? Believe me, there are many Americans who see through this propaganda about Islam.
No actually those of you that wish to silence debate of government actions or stiffle religious debate are the Taliban. Censorship is not necessary when you have the truth!
And we are presently at war and are trying to obtain an advantage by systematically attacking terrorists. In order to do so, we must (at a minimum) keep the rest of the Muslim world placated, so that we can direct the full brunt of our effort toward the battle. IMHO, lying in order to do so is the proper course of action.
This is what Free Republic is for. It sez nothing about Republican nor Libertarian, nor even demoncrap.
So who decides when a lie is "good" and "necessary" Who is the final arbitor of truth?.
Huh? I am just making an opinion. I am a Christian(Catholic), but I am just making a judgement about RnMomof7's views and I do think she is intolerant of anybody who doesn't follow her brand of Christianity. Kind of like a now defunct government in Afghanistan, except the religion was Islam.
God, I suppose.
Well said. Goes for you, too, exmarine :)
The bible gives me the authority:
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. (2 Cor 2:15)
and...
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Jn 14:6
The question should be: What authority does Bush use to put Islam on equal footing with Jesus Christ?
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.