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
Certain of these new laws are only in effect for the next several years--at which time they will be repealed. Certain of these laws apply to foreigners, not U.S. citizens. He's misrepresenting the facts.
Because he didn't want to fall into OBL's trap as you and exmarine did and that is to make this a war against Islam. It's a war against terrorism, thank God exmarine is not running the show and is an exmarine, or you would have united the billion people in the Islamic world.
You two wouldn't know "strategery" if it bit you on your backside.
I think you have to misrepresent the facts to write for LRC.
Let those who want to read their stuff go to their site and enjoy... save the bandwidth here where we need it. I've read their stuff and after reading two or three of their articles, you've read them all. They just keep coming up with new melodies for their worn-out lyrics.
They are blatantly plugging themselves and using our bandwidth to do it.
Did I miss something, was there something in the article or comment by the poster that led you to ask this question?
Like I stated before, I am glad you are not prosecuting this war. You would have fallen for every trap set up by OBL.
The truth is the truth. Islam is not a peaceful religion. Who were all of those tens of thousands of people chanting death to America from Egypt to Pakistan to Indonesia? hmm? Where those the "peaceful islamicists"? You also might try checking the history of islam - it is a history of violence and war. Mohammed himself robbed caravans and killed in the name of Allah.
If you want to blindly follow Bush on everything he says, you are free to do so, but don't call me Anti-American if I simply argue for TRUTH. Truth is against Bush - who died and made him an expert on Islam? Does Bush have a degree in Islamic studies? Nope. He is listening to his political advisors - it's a political mantra.
And the truth is that we can't fight a war against 1 billion people at this time.
I've seen this comment a few times now, and I keep wondering how this is any different from posting an OpEd piece from a newspaper or magazine? That's done all the time. This is simply a different viewpoint, (even if the majority of folks here do not agree with it) and as such should enrich the forum and stimulate debate. Am I wrong?
From the Free Republic home page:
We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption,
You would have to check with management about the "official" position of this website, but clearly the policies and activities of much of the Republican party, and in particular the present administration do not comport with the mission statement above.
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.