The First Ammendment’s Last Stand?
Growing up, I (among many I know) had only a few phrases that you just didn’t say. Schoolyard spats could be waged every day, and just about anything was kosher to use in the struggle. My sixth grade class was no exception. We were pre-pubescent and steaming full speed ahead, and our teacher, Mr. Tays offered a way of delivering teacher-induced, mutually-assured destruction.
Tell someone to “shut up.”
We often wondered why he had that rule. As the year progressed it became quite clear. When in disagreement with someone you have the alternative to engage or disengage, both being true, viable options. What our fearless leader taught us by example through that rule was a real life lesson. It was simple, really.
If you only seek to silence your opposition, you have already lost.
Pat Buchanan writes for RealClearPolitics.com about a recent trial where freedom of speech is on trial in Canada. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (shiver) is prosecuting author Mark Steyn for stating, in his opinion, that fundamentalist Islam threatens western values. Here in America, as bad as things seem now I do believe a court would still throw this case out. Outside the walls of our Bill of Rights, is another story altogether. Consider the following:
Questioning the Holocaust is a crime in Canada and Europe, as British historian David Irving discovered when he was sentenced to prison in Austria. To say the Armenian massacres of 1915-1924 were an attempt at genocide is a crime in Turkey.
In France, animal rights champion Brigitte Bardot has been fined $23,000 for provoking discrimination and racial hatred by denouncing Muslims who slaughtered a sheep in a religious ceremony. Bardot had been punished five previous times for her statements.
All the while, fundamentalism (from both Islam and some brands of Christianity) seeks to silence their opposition as well. Driven by either righteous indignation or sheer hatred, sometimes a combination of both, theocracy sits in the wings awaiting a crack in the dam that the founders built over two centuries ago.
I am a Christian. I am unswerving in my faith. That’s why I have no need to tell you to simply “shut up.” There is no need to censor you. I’m ok with us disagreeing, because ultimately we’ll find out who was right in the end one way or another won’t we?
Modern Liberalism’s insecurities and disbelief in my (and your) own ability to sustain ourselves is coming upon us only slightly veiled in its mantra of “enlightenment” and “tolerance.” How ironic that the supposed champions of tolerance seek so desperately just to make those who dissent to shut up.
It might not seem like it’s at your doorstep. However, while you might not be living with terrorists at your door, perhaps the enemy might be in your neighborhood attacking property rights, or the right to defend your families?
So here we are in George Orwell’s world. Only in this world can the Islamic extremist and the pseudo-liberal intellectual lie in bed together. They spoon under the covers simply because they are shivering afraid of one thing:
Liberty…right here in America.
Great post Nathan. You know I read it earlier this morning and intended on linking to it when I got back from running errands. Glad you posted it here instead.
I’m here to serve.
Heres a clue: it ain’t “modern liberalism” that’s trying to turn the U.S. into a fascist police state.
If putting up with a little “modern liberalism” is the price for making sure habeus corpus continues to be a part of the law of the land I suggest you deal with it.
Fascism from the extreme right or socialism from the extreme left…you may pick your poison HB. Apparently yours came in Obama flavored kool-aid.
Uh… “Amendment.”
.
Obama wasn’t the one that told me that Alberto Gonzales testified before Congress on behalf of the current executive branch that the writ of habeas corpus is not part of the law of the land.
But out of the two “poisons” you referenced, it doesn’t take tainted Kool-Aid to figure which one is the greatest immediate threat.
Ahh…a moral judgement perhaps, coming from where? I’m sorry, I don’t see the obvious immediate “worst-ness” of fascism over socialism.
If not wanting to grant habeas corpus to foreign enemy combatants is fascist, then the United States has been fascist for 220 years.
Bill Sammon asked Kerry if Osama Bin Laden should be presumed innocent if caught. His answer was yes. Unbelievable. So we are out there trying to kill somebody who is presumed innocent if caught. Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Idiots!
Nathan,
Fortunately, after nearly 8 years under a blatantly criminal regime, over 70% of Americans do.
Glen, the concept of “enemy combatant” did not exist until the Bush regime. Either you are stupid or dishonest; sometimes it’s hard to tell.
The difference is that the term “enemy combatant” was conceived in a large scale blatant disregard for the rule of law.
There does have to be some sort of due process in place in order to determine which “enemy combatants” are actually perpetrators, and which are innocent people kidnapped for cash by CIA asset factions in Iraq.
But you and your ilk in your mad lust have sold your “souls” to the Bush administration, and in so doing are complicit in the complete erosion of America’s moral standing. Thanks a lot.
Kidnapped in Iraq and Afghanistan that is, mainly.
grant habeas corpus to foreign enemy combatants
“Foreign enemy combatants.” When, exactly, was this class of persons defined and codified into law?
.
HBK, thats what the military tribunals were for. When German terrorists landed on an American beach, what did FDR have done to them? Did he grant them habeas corpus rights? What about all of the German POWs that were kept in America? Did they get to challenge their cases in the American courts?
If you want to talk about what is moral and what is not, then fine. But as for rule of law, the Supreme Court pretty much violated that. Now we’ll probably have to read Miranda rights to every stinking vermin we catch from here on out.
By the way, those German terrorists that landed on the beaches of Florida and New York were given a quick military trial and executed a month later. FDR must have been a fascist.
If you really cared about these poor pitiful souls that were living down there in Gitmo, receiving the best medical care in the world, fed well, and allowed to practice their religion, then you would oppose that stupid decision. Now we’ll probably just send them all to Egypt, where they aren’t treated so well.
The Supreme Court just wrote death sentences for the ‘military combatants’ who won’t be captured alive anymore.
Somehow, the statistics for battlefield deaths will markedly rise in future conflicts.
And not only because we are moving away from the 5.56 X 45 (M855) ammo to something a bit more striking; but that move is just in time…
Do they still use the M16?
The old ammo was designed to maim as it took two soldiers to remove a wounded enemy and 0 to remove a dead one from a battlefield.
Now it looks like there’s going to be a shift to something more deadly.. perhaps hollowpoints?