Dissent in Time of War

[Leif]

gc70, what you said is sort of my point, so I thank you for saying it. The law sets one standard, and a high one at that, yet people set a different standard, a decidely lower one.

Part of the motivation behind my initiation of this topic (not the only motivation, but part) was that I simply was tired of being labelled as a traitor because of my public opposition to the current administration's activities in Iraq.

So, if someone labels somebody else a traitor, then that person needs to present a factually-based defense of their statement with a clear understanding of what constitutes treason according to the laws of this country.

Rant off ...

 

[Rob P.]

I'll admit that I skipped this thread at first because it appeared to be boring.

It has not turned out to be so.

I believe that dissention is a duty. It goes beyond free speech and protesting and even patriotism. If we do not express our differences through our dissent then we express our sanction through our silence.

Thus, general dissent cannot be treasonous. Even if the enemy uses our divisions to bolster it's own efforts, OUR voice is not for them. We speak to ourselves, for ourselves. If the enemy uses that, then they have merely created propaganda from world events. If that aids their cause, then so be it. But the aid did not come directly to them from us because we did not aim it in their direction.

Hanoi Jane is a different matter. Her dissention in fact did aid/comfort the enemy. It showed that there were people of the US who would assist them in their cause against us. Even if it wasn't the belief of all the people, it indicated that there may be enough to make a difference. And there was. That was treason IMO.

As such it should have been punishable to the same degree as providing arms or direct aid. Soldiers lost their lives, resources were expended, and lots of civilians were harmed because of that "dissent". Had she not dissented in such a fashion, the war may have had a different outcome or not lasted as long. Her efforts bolstered the will of the enemy to keep fighting. That's direct aid and comfort.

OTOH, contributing money to "Shin Fain" (sp?) could be a different thing. As of today, we are "at war" with terrorists. Giving them money could be a direct link to a treasonous act. Or it could be protected speech of a political nature.

 

[gc70]

As Paul Harvey said "And now the rest of the story."

by Lief:
I simply was tired of being labelled as a traitor because of my public opposition to the current administration's activities in Iraq

You are certainly not a traitor under the legal definition of treason in the Constitution.

In some people's eyes, you are undoubtedly a traitor (in the broader social rather than legal sense of the word) because you don't adhere to the 'party line.'
That's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Scope]

Premature and defeatist ... maybe; like I said at one point, I hope that I'm wrong. However, any and all dissent can be dismissed by those who don't like it as premature and defeatist, ...

I agree. The label of defeatist can be misused. Whether or not a dissenter is putting forth a solid argument or just being defeatist has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. In this case I think the situation requires more time and effort before anyone can justify writing it off as a loss.

... which is part of the problem with the manner in which the current administration handles its opponents. It started the war in a dishonest fashion, then holds to a knee-jerk "stay the course" attitude the minute somebody down the line questions how it goes about its business. If you want people to trust you and the decisions that you make, that is not a good way to go about it. (Leif)

I agree that Bush'es response to dissent had been poor, but I also agree with his stance that we must "stay the course". It is important to look critically at everyone in power, not just those in the White House. I think most of the dissent in Washington aimed at how the Bush administration has handled the war has more to do with short term political gain than honest criticism of his ideas and procedures. After all, I haven't heard much criticism in favor of using more troops to enhance our policing activities, but only that dissent which puts the Democrats in the spotlight.

 

[GoSlash27]

Leif,
It is my contention that dissent in our country not only does not provide aid and comfort to the terrorists, it's actually hurting them.
I am also curious to hear the cause and effect behind this.

And also for gc,
That's the big unpardonable sin committed by the Dems, and one that the Right will never be able to use against them. It was their job to actually pay attention to what they were voting for. They did not stand up when we needed them to. They did not research the subject beyond the cherry-picked intel they were handed. They were asleep at the switch.
As I said earlier (and got flamed for) *I* knew that Iraq didn't have WMDs. How is it that I can hold down a full-time job and know that when they didn't?
For me, it is inexcusable on their part.

Long short....well put.

 

[GoSlash27]

Scope,

After all, I haven't heard much criticism in favor of using more troops to enhance our policing activities

I'll throw my oar in. I believe we should have at least twice the troop strength we currently have on the ground as well as a completely different mission.
But time's running out. If we allow Iraq to stabilize into the mold it seems to be taking in the December elections I believe the war will become unwinnable at that point.

 

[BIGJACK]

"The Democrates voted to go to war" Several places in this thread, WRONG , the vote was to give the president the privelege to "use force" and it was based on information, not that was available to the administration but was analysed and priveleged to them by the administarion. Colin Powel recently said to Barbara Walters that some of the information that he was given was not correct and sources that gave it to him knew it.

 

[Leif]

Earlier, I made the following comment:

progunner1957, I'm still interested in hearing your opinion, I'm simply not interested in hearing hollow, unsubstantiated rhetoric and namecalling. So if you contend that Democrats, Clinton, and dissenters generally view American soldiers as an "expendable commodity," then you need to back your argument with some facts, because that is a very serious accusation.

progunner1957, you have not yet responded to this, yet I notice that you continue to post in other threads and start new ones.

So, I can only assume that one of the following is true:

1) You cannot substantiate your claim.

2) You can substantiate your claim, but choose not to for some unknown reason.

So which is it? You should answer in detail or retract your statement if you want to retain any shred of credibility.

 

[Leif]

Scope, your point is well taken. Certainly, media coverage of dissent and antiwar sentiments tends to focus on certain aspects and neglect others, and certainly some, if not many, politicians of all flavors exploit feelings about the conflict, both for and against, for political gain.

Nevertheless, however misguided the intentions that motivate dissent may be, those intentions should not negate the idea that criticism is allowable and in many - but not all - cases beneficial. It seems that only when that dissent crosses the line from commentary and criticism to active support for the enemy's cause should it become problematic and potentially treasonous.

The problem is, what is that line?