Should we prosecute sedition?

[Rush Limbaugh]

Should we prosecute sedition?
Feb 15, 2006
by Ben Shapiro

Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A Last Sunday, former Vice President Al Gore spoke before the Jiddah Economic Forum. He told the mostly Saudi audience that the United States had committed "terrible atrocities" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He stated that Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and detained in "unforgivable conditions." He criticized America's new immigration policy, which more carefully scrutinizes Saudi visas, explaining, "The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake." Finally, he concluded, "There have been terrible abuses, and it's wrong. … I want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

These are outrageous statements. And the silence from the left is deafening. The Democratic National Committee told me that they had not released a statement regarding Gore's speech and had no plans to do so. The New York Times editorial board, the official outlet of the American left, wrote nary a word about the speech.

It is now considered bad form to criticize those who commit seditious acts against the United States. Challenging the patriotism of a traitor draws more ire than engaging in treasonable activities. Calling out those who undermine our nation creates more of a backlash than actually undermining our nation.


Let us consider, however, the probable consequences of Gore's mea culpa on behalf of the "majority" of his countrymen. No doubt his words will fuel the massive tide of propaganda spewing forth from Muslim dictatorships around the globe. No doubt his words will be used to bolster the credibility of horrific disinformation like the Turkish-made, Gary-Busey-and-Billy Zane-starring monstrosity "Valley of the Wolves: Iraq," which accuses American troops of war atrocities and depicts a Jewish-American doctor (Busey) slicing organs out of Arab victims and shipping the body parts off to New York, London and Israel. No doubt Gore's speech will precipitate additional violence against Americans in Iraq and around the globe.

And Gore is not alone. Much of the language of the "loyal opposition" has been anything but loyal. In September 2002, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) called President Bush a liar on Saddam Hussein's turf, then added that Hussein's regime was worthy of American trust. On "Face the Nation" back in December, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) stated that American troops were "going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of, of, of historical customs, religious customs …" Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, averred in December that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

At some point, opposition must be considered disloyal. At some point, the American people must say "enough." At some point, Republicans in Congress must stop delicately tiptoeing with regard to sedition and must pass legislation to prosecute such sedition.

"Freedom of speech!" the American Civil Liberties Union will protest. Before we buy into the slogan, we must remember our history. President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and allowed governmental officials to arrest Rep. Clement Vallandigham after Vallandigham called the Civil War "cruel" and "wicked," shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers, and had members of the Maryland legislature placed in prison to prevent Maryland's secession. The Union won the Civil War.

Under the Espionage Act of 1917, opponents of World War I were routinely prosecuted, and the Supreme Court routinely upheld their convictions. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes rightly wrote, "When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." The Allies won World War I.

During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans, as well as allowing the prosecution and/or deportation of those who opposed the war. The Allies won World War II.

During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld the free speech rights of war opponents, whether those opponents distributed leaflets depicting the rape of the Statue of Liberty or wore jackets emblazoned with the slogan "F--- the Draft." America lost the Vietnam War.

This is not to argue that every measure taken by the government to prosecute opponents of American wars is just or right or Constitutional. Some restrictions, however, are just and right and Constitutional -- and necessary. No war can be won when members of a disloyal opposition are given free reign to undermine it.

Where does protest stop and treason begin?

LINK

[Guderian]

So now the truth is treason? A man's opinion is treason? Why even fight the Islamic fundamentalists?

[O'brien the Protector]

the problem with being a democarcy founded on liberal ideals is that to keep that democracy and those liberal ideals youll always have to find more creative adn more ingenous ways to fight the same problems. In a totalatarian state, this would have been setteled very simply, anywhere from turture to public execution. In a liberal democracy, you have to protect the county and the liberal ideals, which means to deal with this type of stuff you have to find "legal" ways of stopping it ( such as oiling up ( giving favors to) the media for them to screw gore's media until he caves and recants or something of the like).

[Ahiga]

Well, I want to address the last bit in particular.

During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld the free speech rights of war opponents, whether those opponents distributed leaflets depicting the rape of the Statue of Liberty or wore jackets emblazoned with the slogan "F--- the Draft." America lost the Vietnam War.

Would we have punished those opponents for such freedom of speech, I'd worry we were little different than the communists we fought. The way it's phrased makes it sound as if the people in the country whom opposed the war have the failure of the war on the protestor's hands (And if you want to read into it, the blood of those who died in vain too). Which is utter :wub:.

Treason begins when you start to knowingly assist your enemy. If your political opinion and statements happen to aid them coincidentaly, then it's difficult to really say that's treason. The terrorists would be likely to take any sort of criticism against the administration for their benefit, and I would rather have them gain one more bullet of pompous propaganda, than have one of the very qualities we are fighting them for be nullifed and have protest become suspected of treason, which had been much of the times in the past.

It would worry me that starting to crack down upon such statements of protest would lead to the kind of situation where merely opposing the war makes you unpatriotic and supportive of the terrorists. Much like the spying, I think the problem is not current, but moving towards it [Punishing statements like Gore's] would lead us down a perilously slippery slope.

I do not think the World does put much credit into these individuals, so much as they do their local powers (A regular muslim in the middle east is more likely to take the word of a fellow muslim over some White American, no?)



And the writer of the article just reeks of being Right wing.

"Freedom of speech!" the American Civil Liberties Union will protest. Before we buy into the slogan, we must remember our history. President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and allowed governmental officials to arrest Rep. Clement Vallandigham after Vallandigham called the Civil War "cruel" and "wicked," shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers, and had members of the Maryland legislature placed in prison to prevent Maryland's secession. The Union won the Civil War.

Under the Espionage Act of 1917, opponents of World War I were routinely prosecuted, and the Supreme Court routinely upheld their convictions. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes rightly wrote, "When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." The Allies won World War I.

During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans, as well as allowing the prosecution and/or deportation of those who opposed the war. The Allies won World War II.

During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld the free speech rights of war opponents, whether those opponents distributed leaflets depicting the rape of the Statue of Liberty or wore jackets emblazoned with the slogan "F--- the Draft." America lost the Vietnam War.

Really pisses me off. It makes it sound as if the American public must lock themselves into a Totalatiarian regime whenever a war comes around and if we fail to, then we will end up losing. We do not have the right to prance about declaring how we are bringing democracy and freedom to the world, and then snap around and begin to dissasemble those very qualities that set us apart from our foes. Chilvary isn't something to adopt when it's convienent for you. Democracy does not work on a large scale, that is certain. Nothing can be solved or completed with every citizen having a say, but I do believe that we need to have the perpetual right to protest and argue against our Government, otherwise we will be living a sham of an existance in believing we are a land of the 'free'. Freedom is also not something that is fleeting and easy to switch on and off as the Government sees fit.

I Would assume any who have studied WWII Will tell you that the war was won for reasons that did not hinge upon solely putting Japanese citizens, or those who protested it. Nor WWI. Vietnam, yes, the public's reaction to it had a large part to play, but I am glad it did. Would a Government deserve the sole power in citing when it is time to go to war and what war to go to? That my rights as a citizen of that Government is to shut up, grab a gun, and go fight for them like some conscript of Soviet Russia? It's my assumption that unless proven otherwise, Vietnam had a lot more protesting than WWII did. The public may not be entirely experienced, but they are not stupid. They know when to put up and shut up, and just because the current administration and those of the right wing who agree with them believe this is a Just Cause doesn't mean the rest of us must sit idly by and be silent. Surely if this were something committed by a Liberal Government and the Right wing opposed it, there would be No such talk of 'shutting up for the good of the nation' or punishing dissident and opposition. Odds are there wouldn't have been the fraternizing that Gore has effectively done, but the point remains. Just because your viewpoint is in office does not mean that it deserves to sit there unopposed.

This is Right Wing Crap. Just like Gore's speech and those similiar is the whiny prattle of Liberals who do anything to whittle away instead of trying to set us straight. It's not constructive to state that, and it will just fan flames, but I just felt the need to say that for my own venting.

[IronBrig4]

I fail to see how criticism of the war, despite its crassness, is treason. If the government starts prosecuting people for "sedition", I'm bugging out to a country that actually respects the right to free speech. Such prosecution will issue in a new era of McCarthyism, made darker and more virulent with improved communications and intense partisanship.

He mentions World War 2 and the Japanese internment, and I must say that it was one of the most shameful periods in American history. Over one hundred thousand AMERICAN CITIZENS, who had earned their livelihood and were attempting to live the American dream, were treated as criminals simply because of their national origin. Furthermore, thousands of Nisei fought and died for the country which had stabbed them in the back, and were rewarded by being called "dirty Nips" by white Americans once they got back Stateside. There is no way that such a heinous act by the American government can be justified, nor forgotten.

Shapiro is full of ****.


I'm looking at Shapiro's other articles. I sneezed when I read 9 out of 10 of them. I'm allergic to :wub:, you see.

edit - please don't double post - use the edit button, Tac

[Dromikaites]

I was also surprised hearing quotes from Al Gore's speach. Is the full transcription available anywhere? The quotes themselves are likely to fuel another wave of anti-Americanism. On the other hand US' reputation among the population of the Muslim states was not exactly high anywhere except probably in Turkey which is the only Muslim state in the Middle East to have a military alliance with Israel (!!!)

Irrespectively of how the full speach looks like a smart politician should be always aware that his/her words can be used out of context.