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
You call the Rockwell post a big lie, and then go on to post the precise passage from the "Patriot Act" that substantiates the truth of it.
Strange indeed.
You are exactly right, but I guess there will always be naysayers, who will nitpick. I guess it makes them feel important.
Read it carefully, conditions A, B, and C are all neccessary.
This is a deliberate lie, as the author quotes from the act selectively.
This is not true. I posted this article and I do not work for Lew Rockwell. I post from a number of sources I find on the net.
Your attempt to portray Lew Rockwell or any other source as a planted threat and therefore worthy of exclusion is nothing more than censorship.
And thus FR conservatism is becoming fascism.
No, I don't think so.
These people are what I lovingly call "Agenda Leeches."
They can't attract enough attention on their own websites, so they latch on to a wildly popular CONSERVATIVE website to do their mischief.
Its because of posts like these that I've stopped handing out Free Republic business cards.
I'd like to see warnings a la "Barf Alerts" for this stuff
And thus FR conservatism is becoming fascism.
The decision by some on FR to intimidate political and religious dissent is very like the Taliban that ruled with fear.Instead of a knife to cut off hands and feet they choose slander and name calling..
That is the the true Taliban mentality.
No, I'm not accepting a stupidity defense for the author.
The construction is too obvious.
It seems only to be obvious to you.
I happen to think you are absolutely wrong.
The author's reading (not yours) is the correct one.
What is it (other than your personal bias) that makes you think your interpretation is correct?
What a joke. So criticism of Lew Rockwell posts on FR is censorship?
And thus FR conservatism is becoming fascism.
A "thus" coming from a flawed premise is thusly thusless...
And someone who implies that someone is not a true Christian, because he as President of the United States must represent all people, is just as bad.
You can nitpick and moan all you want and scream that the sky is falling, that is your right, but I will look at the results so far(OBL on the run, the taliban relegated to the history books).
Every American is responsible for remaining vigilant, and in reality we should be the final arbiters of truth. The device by which we'd make our views known is pretty obvious: dissenting (or supporting) speech along with elections. The amount of influence wielded by the media and special interests, coupled with public apathy, may have changed that equation, but that's for another thread. You'll notice that I've refrained from calling you the Taliban, precisely because I respect your right (duty?) to speak up when you disagree. Instead, I've taken issue with your premise:
That is, I've seldom seen disinformation during wartime (or diplomacy, if you prefer) classified as an unacceptable lie. I take a relatively cynical view of government (as Dane could probably tell you from prior posts), but even I don't see this as Bush breaking trust with America.
So then you would silence that as a discussion topic..is there anything else you would like to silence?
Huh? I didn't "silence" anything. Anyway you shouldn't try to play victim all of the sudden, it is very unbecoming, IMHO.
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.