Controvery redux - what is the line between free speech and treason?

A debate that was sparked during my most recent blog inspired me to write this one. Some people are of the opinion that dissent against the war is allowed, even after Congress has voted to authorize it. Some of are the opinion that once the die has been cast, that is it, and there is no more room for debate about the war (at least, until it is over). Let's face it, at least as far as the polarization of our country goes, Vietnam and Iraq hold many similarities. They have stirred the hearts of the people who do not believe in war, and those who support it wholeheartedly. Let's get one thing straight, and then I will get into the blog. Baron de Montesquieu once said that, "With all freedom comes the responsibility not to abuse that freedom." I believe that dissent against the war and the administration's policy falls under the First Amendment protection of free speech. I also believe, however, that there are a good number of people who have crossed that line. See below for my list.

John Kerry. Jane Fonda. Cindy Sheehan. Sydney Poitier. Danny Glover. Nancy Pelosi. Jack Murtha.

Above you will see a list of people whose anti-war stance crossed the line, in my opinion. Do not worry, I will provide facts for you, and let you decide if I am right or wrong. Ultimately, this is my opinion and nothing more, as none on this list have ever been charged with or convicted of treason. My personal stance is that treason is something that should not be tolerated, but in the interests of political correctness and giving both sides of the issue a voice, we let that go by the wayside, and it all started during Vietnam.

John Kerry – He was a decorated Navy officer who chose to get out when he got home, based on the immorality of the war. Fine. That is certainly his prerogative. But when he spoke of troops committing atrocities that simply did NOT happen, which makes him an outright liar. In 1971, John Kerry took his group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, to Paris to meet with the Viet Cong – as a private citizen, not as a representative of the Executive Branch of the government. He met with representatives of a government with whom we were in conflict. And later, there was a document, captured by the U.S. from Vietnamese communists in 1971 and later translated, indicates the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese delegations to the Paris peace talks that year were used as the communications link to direct the activities of Kerry and other antiwar activists who attended. That, my friends, is treason in the highest degree. He met with and took direction from a government in conflict with the United States during a time of war. If that isn't treason, I don't know what is.

Jane Fonda – In 1972, she traveled to North Vietnam, again while we were still in conflict. She openly laughed and fraternized with the Viet Cong. When she visited the infamous "Hanoi Hilton" where a good number of US Service Members were being held, she turned over letters to the soldiers' captors that they had entrusted her to take home. She was, after all, an American. They thought they could trust her; in the end, all they received was more pain and torture because of her callous, insensitive actions. Some probably even died because of it. I wonder if Jane even cares. Here is an excerpt from a radio address she made upon her return (read the entire thing at Hanoi Jane):

"One thing that I have learned beyond a shadow of a doubt since I've been in this country is that Nixon will never be able to break the spirit of these people; he'll never be able to turn Vietnam, north and south, into a neo-colony of the United States by bombing, by invading, by attacking in any way. One has only to go into the countryside and listen to the peasants describe the lives they led before the revolution to understand why every bomb that is dropped only strengthens their determination to resist. I've spoken to many peasants who talked about the days when their parents had to sell themselves to landlords as virtually slaves, when there were very few schools and much illiteracy, inadequate medical care, when they were not masters of their own lives.

But now, despite the bombs, despite the crimes being created- being committed against them by Richard Nixon, these people own their own land, build their own schools- the children learning, literacy- illiteracy is being wiped out, there is no more prostitution as there was during the time when this was a French colony. In other words, the people have taken power into their own hands, and they are controlling their own lives."

Cindy Sheehan, Sydney Poitier, Danny Glover – These are a little more ambiguous and really stir up my ire. They have met with Hugo Chavez and espoused anti-American rhetoric while on his soil. Chavez is a noted ally of current US enemy Iran. The anti-American rhetoric is fine well and good, when delivered on our own soil, in my opinion. When it is delivered to a rabidly anti-American crowd, it fuels the fire and is grossly irresponsible. Frankly, I think if people like Poitier and Glover want to scream about how great Venezuela and Chavez are, and denounce our President as much as they do, then maybe they should stay in Venezuela. I really don't want people around who hate their country that much.

Nancy Pelosi – This is a member of the legislative branch, NOT the executive branch, who took the time to meet with Syrian leaders. She said it was to foster peace between Syria and Israel. Pelosi and her delegation were criticized by the administration – and rightfully so – because their trip sent mixed signals to the Syrian government. I don't think Pelosi was deliberately undermining the President and his foreign policy, or even trying to subvert it, because I don't even think someone as politically savvy as Pelosi is that short-sighted. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that the legislative branch doesn't set foreign policy. The executive branch does. At least, that was what I learned in civics class. If you don't like what the President is doing, meet with him and try to get him to change course (granted, an unlikely possibility, given President Bush's bullheadedness on so many issues). You don't take matters into your own hands. Once again, this is a grossly irresponsible abuse of freedom.

Jack Murtha – I saved my personal favorite for last. He has smeared the names of the Marines who were responding to an attack in Haditha, calling them "cold-blooded killers." Never mind the fact that he made these comments before the investigation was completed. If he had waited, he would have looked like an even bigger ass than he does now. There were 8 Marines formally charged in the incident. All but one have been cleared of the murder charge, leading one to believe that Murtha's comment was politically motivated and had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the facts. He was attempting to undermine the administration's war policy and promote his own anti-war agenda. Never mind that what he said was a complete lie. And to compound things, Murtha has not yet issued an apology to the Marines whose character he so blatantly and callously defamed.

And there you have my case for treason against these people. Take it as you will. I am curious to know what you all think of my opinion. As I said, I am not a lawyer, so what I say has no legal standing whatsoever. If it were up to me, however, I would kick out each and every single person I listed above and never allow them back into this country again. But that's just me.

I’m not afraid of a little controversy after all

It seems like recently that my blogs have become tame, almost predictable. I've never been one to embrace controversy, and as you can tell by my blogs, it shows. I preach how partisanship is tearing our country, about how the media is helping big government control what we think, say, and do. I talk about how we need to embrace our differences and just agree to disagree. That is how I feel, but deep down, something has been gnawing at me.

It's the concept of "we support the troops" but not the war. Everyone wants to be the first to say, "We support the troops." The left doesn't want to appear like traitors when they call for withdrawal, so they caveat their support of the troops by insisting that the only way to support them is to bring them home from an unjust and illegal war. Never mind the fact that the UN approved military action back in the 90s if Saddam failed to comply with sanctions – which he did – and that Congress authorized President Bush to use military force against Iraq. The right is just as guilty, parading the wounded out as the heroes they truly are, but using them as political tools. "We cannot let their sacrifices be in vain. We need to finish what we started."

Truth be told, I am part of that latter group, to an extent. I have been there. I have seen the looks on people's faces. They lived in pure, unadulterated fear under Saddam Hussein, not this idyllic kids playing in the park tableau that Michael Moore showed in "Fahrenheit 9/11" right before the first bombs fell. Yes, Saddam kept the different factions in check. Yes, he was an ally of convenience against the radical Islam of Iran the forced the Shah out of power in the 1970s. But that does not, and cannot ever, justify what he did. He gassed and tortured and executed tens of thousands of his own people. No man like that deserves to be in a position of power. What we did by removing him was absolutely right, and absolutely necessary. I am part of the right who supports both the war and the troops, but being a troop myself, I refuse to let myself or any of my friends or brothers and sisters in arms be used as a political pawn – by EITHER side. That is where I draw the line.

What I have disagreed with in regards to this war, since the very beginning, was the timing of it. I have never questioned the necessity of it. To a person, Sunnis and Shi'ites alike were glad to see the bloodthirsty tyrant out of power. We did what was absolutely necessary for the good of everyone. But, as I said, I have a problem with the timing of it. We should have finished in Afghanistan and cleaned up there before even setting our sights on Iran. Then our efforts would not have been nearly as divided (as we would probably still be devoting our entire attention to Afghanistan at this stage of the game). Then, maybe then, our country would stand more united than it does today.

I have heard civilians at the agency for which I work who have compared George W. Bush to Stalin and Hitler. I want to know what sort of drug-induced hallucination those people are living in by comparing our President to two of the most evil men of the 20th century. Pol Pot and others come to mind, but let's stick with the Stalin/Hitler/Bush reference for now.

Has President Bush interned and executed more than 7 million of his own people, or even others? I am not even going to get into arguing the semantics of body counts, and the deaths of innocent Iraqis. Those hundreds of thousands were not killed at the hands of American troops or even Blackwater. Don't you DARE lay the blame for their deaths at the feet of President Bush. Dislike a lot of his economic policies I may, each and every individual walking the face of this earth is responsible for his or her own actions. President Bush is NOT, nor will he ever be, responsible for the actions of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and their ilk.

Has President Bush instigated a World War and suppressed free speech across the length and breadth of his great country? Once again, I am not going to get into semantics. We have the Patriot Act. I have my concerns with it, as every American does. But look at the news media. Look at the blogosphere. Anti-war and anti-Bush and anti-Republican sentiment abound. Don't you think for one minute that if he were truly trying to suppress our nation's free speech that he would allow all of that rhetoric to remain on the internet or on the airways? To even think such a thing is the most profoundly absurd idea I have heard in my life.

There are other issues and other questions to be asked that are bound to stir up more controversy, particularly those of religion, but I will leave those for another day. I have two points to make with this blog. First, Saddam is a much better figure to compare with Stalin and Hitler, given both how he dealt with foreign powers and how he ruled domestically. Second, if you do not support the troops' mission, you are saying they are wasting their time – hence, you do not support them. There, I said it. This isn't President Bush's war, no matter how many people on both sides of the aisle want it to be. This is America's war, and the sooner our spoiled rotten, ungrateful, self-centered country realizes that, the better off we'll be.

It's a good thing we didn't have the mindset in 1944 that we do today. If we did, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese right now instead of English. Think about THAT one for a while.


Donate to Paralyzed Veterans of America and help PVA to provide Services, Support and Advocacy for America's disabled veterans.