PDA

View Full Version : The Media Aren't the Enemy in Iraq



SWJED
01-10-2007, 11:54 AM
10 January LA Times commentary - The Media Aren't the Enemy in Iraq (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot10jan10,0,2650141.column?coll=la-opinion-center) by Max Boot.


... Administration spokesmen and many soldiers have been saying for years that things aren't so bad in Iraq. "If you just watched what's happening every time there's a bomb going off in Baghdad, you'd think the whole country's aflame," Donald Rumsfeld declared for the umpteenth time just before leaving office. "But you fly over it, and that's just simply not the case." ....

James Q. Wilson, a longtime professor at Harvard, UCLA and Pepperdine, published a scathing essay in the autumn issue of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal in which he complained that "positive stories about progress in Iraq were just a small fraction of all the broadcasts." He went on to draw an analogy with the Tet offensive in 1968, which the press widely reported as an American failure even though it was a military defeat for North Vietnam...

Actually, it's not at all clear that the Vietnam War was lost in the media. Reporters were initially gung-ho about the war; they went into opposition only after it became clear that the military and the Johnson administration had no plan for victory.

In any case, the Tet analogy is dubious, because it is hard to find any signs of U.S. progress in the Iraq conflict comparable to the devastation the Viet Cong suffered in 1968...

Rob Thornton
01-10-2007, 06:06 PM
Funny thing happened the other day, a reporter came out with a GO. She was a nice enough sort - English working for a French news agency. She took notes as the GO talked to our team, then took more notes as the GO talked to the IA BDE CDR and IA BN CDR. On the way out she asked if we lived here with our counterparts. I told her we did and she lamented that more time could not have been spent discussing it. I gave her my email and invited her to send some questions we could look over.

In about 2 days I get an email that asks me questions about Baghdad and how I thought troops here would perform there. She even offered to quote me a US training officer from here. I wrote her a nice note back explaining that Baghdad was not my patch, but I'd be happy o tell her about how the IA perform here, and the risks they take, and what its like to live here. I also explained that I don't much care to be quoted as anything but my name - to me that seems more like somthing a politician or a journalist would do.

It was pretty clear to me that her interests were about selling her story. It had little to do with reporting the news. They may not be the enemy, but they're not on anybody's team but their own - there is no honor amongst thieves. If you have the chance to use the media/press as a tool toward an IO end, then bang away; but I'd be wary of them otherwise. They are 2nd on my not so favorite occupation list - followed closely by an ever increasing list of war profiteering contractors.

Steve Blair
01-10-2007, 06:38 PM
The media has always been interested in making a "splash," from the Spanish-American War on (and most likely before that). They may not be the enemy, but I'd sure as hell not list them as disinterested observers.

To his credit, Boot goes on to list a fair number of reputable correspondents, among them Ricks and Naylor. But I would tend to question how much their analysis is lost in the flurry of bandwagon reporting and "features" that dominate the MSM. And the blogsphere has its own agendas as well, but at least the majority of them make those agendas pretty clear. MSM still insists that it's "impartial," whatever that may mean these days.

Tom Odom
01-10-2007, 06:50 PM
As a spook on the ground I generally operated on the premise there was nothing positive that could come out of media contacts. i did, however, make certain exceptions when the reporter was willing to stick around for more than a 15 second sound bite. I actively promoted UNAMIR Radio access with my Rwandan military counterparts and the results were generally positive. I talked in depth with Philip Gourevitch as he did the research for his book as well as Reuters stringer who routinely worked the area.

My 15 seconds of unwanted fame came with a series of articles about me in the Wash Post over a dog; in that case, the media never talked to me. And a French friend also told me that I was on Belgian television as an "advisor and planner" for the Iwawa Island clreaing op in late 95.

All of that aside, I still contend that we have to treat the media as the battlefield as we do any other factor addressed in METT-T. We cannot change the hills but we do have to consider their effects on our operations, good and bad, You have to do the same with the media.

Best
Tom

120mm
01-11-2007, 06:40 AM
For the golfers among us:

The media is part of the course. Whining about them doesn't advance "the game" one iota.

While I detest them in my heart, I think I'd rather have them close then allow them to operate at a distance.

Culpeper
01-13-2007, 04:06 AM
This goes without stating but basic rule of thumb is that the media is a detriment in a democratic society fighting a counterinsurgency war. It comes with the playing field. Nevertheless, in other wars the U.S.A. has fought, such things as the Sedition Act of 1918 were very useful for censoring the press. This is where I think the Patriot Act doesn't go far enough. Under the radar sedition needs to stop and it should start within Washington D.C. Given enough rope, any politician, on any given day, in front of any given media, will hang himself or herself. The problem is is there isn't a rope to be found within The Beltway. Go figure. Nevertheless, Condoleezza Rice would have received great press had she simply told Barbara Boxer, "Why don't you just go piss on a rope?" Well, I guess she did in her own more professional way. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Wonderful thing; a free press.

Rice criticizes Boxer's comment (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/boxer_rice_1)


"In retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that, that the only question is are you making good decisions because you have kids," Rice said in an interview Friday on Fox News

Bill Moore
01-13-2007, 04:49 PM
Of course we're losing in Iraq because of the media, not because we had a bad strategy. Of course all the negative news they reported simply wasn't true, or if it was I would prefer as a free citizen to simply bury my head in the sand and not hold my government accountable. That's how a democracy is supposed to work right?

Of course if our media didn't discuss the gross misconduct at Abu Ghrab the enemy never would have been aware of it. Al Jazer (sp?) and the internet and rumors on the street don't exist. We should line up all reporters and execute them if they don't report what we tell them to report. How can we have a democracy with a free media telling the people that the government is flawed?

It was the media that made a big deal out of Clinton and Monica also. What right did they have to undermine our President? Nixon of course had the right to break the law, and the American people never should have heard about it.

The only thing the media should be reporting in Iraq is the number of schools we build, wells we dig, and evil terrorists we killed. If they did we would win.

Come on guys, the media is part and parcel of a democracy. If it wasn't for the media we would be staying the course with a flawed policy. Maybe the media is actually having a positive effect?

Fortunately I am going TDY now, so I won't see your hard hitting counterattacks for a few days :-). I work on stiffening my spine while I'm gone.

Bill

Tom Odom
01-13-2007, 05:05 PM
Bill


Thank you. Got your back.

best

Tom

Tom Odom
01-13-2007, 05:27 PM
This goes without stating but basic rule of thumb is that the media is a detriment in a democratic society fighting a counterinsurgency war. It comes with the playing field. Nevertheless, in other wars the U.S.A. has fought, such things as the Sedition Act of 1918 were very useful for censoring the press. This is where I think the Patriot Act doesn't go far enough. Under the radar sedition needs to stop and it should start within Washington D.C. Given enough rope, any politician, on any given day, in front of any given media, will hang himself or herself. The problem is is there isn't a rope to be found within The Beltway. Go figure. Nevertheless, Condoleezza Rice would have received great press had she simply told Barbara Boxer, "Why don't you just go piss on a rope?" Well, I guess she did in her own more professional way. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Wonderful thing; a free press.

Rice criticizes Boxer's comment (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/boxer_rice_1)


To the contrary, I would thank Boxer. The question was in full:


Who pays the price?" Boxer asked Rice, who is unmarried and doesn't have children. "I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family.

"So who pays the price? The American military and their families."


I believe that question needs to be asked repeatedly and in a loud voice; certainly it is one I would put in front of every neo-conservative and I would keep asking it until each one finally answered, "Someone besides me."

Best

Tom

Culpeper
01-13-2007, 07:08 PM
Aw, come on, Tom. The questioning was tacky and unprofessional. It was hype and made Boxer look like an idiot. We all know who is paying the ultimate price in this war. Using herself and the Secretary of State as examples takes us back to the America First crowd before WWII when Charles Lindbergh came back from Nazi Germany and stated the rivers flowed with chocolate and women were stay at home moms. The Secretary of State herself has sacrificed more of her life than Boxer has where this war is concerned. Boxer is a pimple on an elephant's ass. She has absolutely nothing to offer in the way of solutions. Just plays the "sedition is patriotic" game by labeling it as dissent. It's pandering and provides aid and comfort to the bad guys. Boxer wants to save the lives of those that are making the ultimate sacrifice? She should bring up such rhetoric in the right time and place. What we need is another George Creel. Some of you guys act like any good news is suspicious and soak up "unidentified sources" and "requested to remain anonymous because the person is not required to speak to the press" as gospel and just. The media is the last place I'm going to look for any facts. And I'm certainly not going to compliment any politician, of any stripe, that is pandering to the press no matter what their position may be. Let's not forget that this is an all volunteer military that is meeting enlistment goals. There is no draft. Boxer needs to ask the volunteers why they are enlisting in the military knowing we are at war. Why are some of these men and women, adults, joining to make the sacrifice? You can't blame the economy or lack of educational opportunities. It is easier to get an equally paying governmental civil job or go to college than it is to enter into today's military. So, the question is, why are these people joining the military during this time of armed conflict? Not whether the Secretary of State, a woman, can make good decisions concerning war because she doesn't have any children. I'm surprised that you seem to condone this sort of political showboating.

Uboat509
01-14-2007, 03:23 AM
This was nothing more than political grandstanding as per SOP. The real question that we should be asking is "Who pays the price if we fail in Iraq?" The answer is simple. We all do. The so called neocons have gotten a lot of flack, some of it deserved. They did not understand how to fight this enemy but I give them credit for recognizing that it is an enemy that needs to be fought, and not just with a few cruise missiles. In any case, whether or not we SHOULD have gone to war in Iraq, the fact is we DID. We do not have the luxury of engaging in endless defeatist hand wringing. Yes, the war was initially mishandled by people who alternately thought we would be welcomed as heroes or that we could just intimidate the enemy into submission with our technology and firepower. It took entirely too long but the administration finally took action to correct the mistakes. Everything that I have heard and/read about LTG Petraeus suggests that he is the right man for the job. This is not the time to throw in the towel and run. The price of victory will be great but the price of failure will be far greater.

SFC W

Tom Odom
01-14-2007, 02:58 PM
I support a political debate as envisioned under the Constitution. Debate and dissent is not sedition.

The grandstanding has gone on on both sides. This was a snap shot taken from one side of the field.

As for neo-cons recognizing "that it is an enemy that needs to be fought," the problem is a failure to define that enemy and what defeating him requires, what it will cost, and what the results may bring.

Best

Tom

slapout9
01-14-2007, 03:10 PM
Tom, you said a lot in this statement!

As for neo-cons recognizing "that it is an enemy that needs to be fought," the problem is a failure to define that enemy and what defeating him requires, what it will cost, and what the results may bring.

Very well said.

Culpeper
01-14-2007, 06:01 PM
I support a political debate as envisioned under the Constitution. Debate and dissent is not sedition.

The grandstanding has gone on on both sides. This was a snap shot taken from one side of the field.

As for neo-cons recognizing "that it is an enemy that needs to be fought," the problem is a failure to define that enemy and what defeating him requires, what it will cost, and what the results may bring.

Best

Tom

Debate and dissent is loyal opposition. Sedition is making comments that may disrupt the recruitment of the armed forces, among other things.

marct
01-15-2007, 01:14 AM
Debate and dissent is loyal opposition. Sedition is making comments that may disrupt the recruitment of the armed forces, among other things.

Culpepper, by analogy, then, it would have been sedition for anyone to say anything against Hitler in Germany. It appears to me that you are advocating a really dangerous precedent, here. "Democracy", at its root, is rule by the people (actually, tribe - "demos" - but that's nitpicking on my part :)).

At the core of any working democratic system, republican, constitutional monarchy or insane kludge (yeah, I'm thinking of France now), is the idea that everyone should have the ability to say what they think no matter how stupid, pig headed or opposed to entrenched interest groups (like politicians) that may be.

Nobody with two neurons to rub together and a knowledge of human history would say that "democracy", in any of its forms, is "perfect". In the West, we trace "democracy" back to Athens - such a wonderful "democratic" state where maybe 10% of the population could vote. I should also point out that Athens lost their big war because of demagogues, politicians such as we see today (Alcibiades comes to mind). If Athens had had a free press, then that might not have happened.

Sedition should, to my mind, be restricted to acts that material damage the social contract of the democracy in which they operate, not to speach acts that oppose what many people disagree with. Once "sedition" is applied to any who disgree with the rulers of the society, then you no longer live in a democracy.

Marc

Culpeper
01-15-2007, 02:06 AM
Marct

I couldn't agree with your more but America has used sedition acts to enforce the flow of information or conduct that could be counterproductive to a war effort, national security, or in the best interest of the government to prevent people from weakening the government depending on the circumstance. The bottom line is that national security trumps any Constitutional rights. Sedition acts of the past have been used and later repealed after the need no longer existed. I consider politicians such as Barbara Boxer as being very seditionist and counterproductive to the war effort. It has nothing to do with political debate, dissent, or rights under the First Amendment. In fact, her actions are an abuse of such freedom.

marct
01-15-2007, 02:59 AM
Hi Culpeper,


I couldn't agree with your more but America has used sedition acts to enforce the flow of information or conduct that could be counterproductive to a war effort, national security, or in the best interest of the government to prevent people from weakening the government depending on the circumstance.

I certainly agree with you that it has been done in the past. This doesn't, to mind, necessarily make it right. After all, the original Continental Congress was sedition as were many of the acts of your founding fathers. It strikes me that there is a balanceing line that floats somewhere between sedition, defined as destroying the social contract, and sedition defined as opposing the government.

Generally, I find myself opposed to the first, except in extreme circumstances (hey, I'm descended from United Empire Loyalists :)). The second, however, I find myself supporting. I don't think that any group of people, and that's all a "government" is, has a monopoly on "truth" <shrug>. Honestly, I do think that a large part of this stems from the US having a de facto two party system where your head of state has to be a member of one of the parties.


The bottom line is that national security trumps any Constitutional rights.

Honestly, I can't agree with that. Your constitution is your social contract, and one of the few in the world's history that has ever been openly stated and debated. If it guarentees something as a right, then that must hold until your constitution is changed, otherwise you are destroying all of it.

"National security" means more than just a surface veneer of stability and "business as usual" - it means a security of the soul of the nation and, for the US, the soul of you nation is the constitution as it is held in the hearts and minds of your citizens. Changing your constitution from time to time is a necessary adaptation. Abrogating it is an abomination; it is literally selling your soul for short term "gains".

We learned this, or at least some of us did, when we interned Japanesse-Canadians. In 1939, Tommy Douglas, then leader of the CCF, tried to warn us of the cost it would have for our national soul, and the government of the time didn't listen. Our "national soul" wasn't built around a constitution but, rather, around a long and often painful history of developing toleration (it goes back to the documents of surrender of Quebec in 1760). We forgot that, and we are still paying the price for it. I would strongly urge you to learn from our mistake, and not make the same one.

Marc

Eddie Beaver
01-15-2007, 03:15 AM
Marct

I couldn't agree with your more but America has used sedition acts to enforce the flow of information or conduct that could be counterproductive to a war effort, national security, or in the best interest of the government to prevent people from weakening the government depending on the circumstance. The bottom line is that national security trumps any Constitutional rights. Sedition acts of the past have been used and later repealed after the need no longer existed. I consider politicians such as Barbara Boxer as being very seditionist and counterproductive to the war effort. It has nothing to do with political debate, dissent, or rights under the First Amendment. In fact, her actions are an abuse of such freedom.

And that's where you lose me if you believe such acts are relevant today in the post-Vietnam era (i.e. where the government flat-out lied to the American people and itself for a decade).

By the definition you're using here, I would consider the great majority of the leadership of the USG to be guilty of conduct that has been counterproductive to the war effort, to national security and to the strength of the government and of the national health.

Barbara Boxer employs stupid catch-phrases and political spin, these people employ bad actions and utterly bone-headed decision making.

We're at war, and thus far these people, as well as the Congress and the courts, have acted like a bunch of rank amateurs, like some sort of sickness that has debilitated leading Americans on all sides of the political spectrum.

Abuses of freedom is a category Boxer could not dream of being in; unlike the Bush Administration abusing the understandable degree of flexibility and freedom authorized them to protect the nation from terrorists by imprisoning an admitted knucklehead US citizen like Jose Padilla and turning him into a vegetable, all while playing footsie with the court system trying to do everything to keep their baseless case against him away from the Supreme Court.

Or better yet, the abuse of freedom to be secretive and shroud identities, procedures and evidence in the cloak of national security shown by the CIA leakers who have waged a relentless war against the administration for years now.

If you're this concerned with Sen. Boxer and others like her, you're staring at a feces-stained wall of the politically stupid while the tsunami of bitter realities and harsh truths prepares to sweep you from behind.

AFlynn
01-15-2007, 03:49 AM
What we need is another George Creel.

"I did not deny the need of a large measure of secrecy in connection with the war effort, but insisted that the desired results could be obtained without paying the heavy price of a censorship law. With America's youth sailing to fight in foreign lands, leaving families three thousand miles behind them, nothing was more vital than that the people's confidence in the news should not be impaired. Suspicious enough by reason of natural anxieties, a straight-out censorship would inevitably stir demoralizing fears in the heart of every father and mother and open the door to every variety of rumor."
...
"What the Government asks of the Press: Observe secrecy respect to troop movements, ship sailings, convoys, the number of expeditionary forces abroad, the location of bases, the laying of mine fields, information relating to antiaircraft defenses, shipbuilding, and government experiements in war materiel...their enforcement is a matter for the press itself"
...
"After the rules for voluntary censorship, the nexst step, obviously, was the fight for national unity. Here I proceeded on the theory that before a sound steadfast public opinion could be formed, it had to be informed. Not manipulated, not tricked, and not wheedled, but given every fact in the case. A free people were not children to be humored, cajoled, or lollipopped with half-truths for fear that the whole truth might frighten them. The war was not the war of the administration or the private enterprise of the General Staff, but the grim business of a whole people, and every man, woman, and child had to be given a feeling of partnership. What we did, therefore, was to put trained reporters in the War Department, the Navy, and every other agency connected with the war machine, and every day saw an honest, unvarnished report of progress to the people."

From Rebel At Large, Recollections of Fifty Crowded Years pgs 156-165

As for who volunteers for the Army, I don't think you can hand-wave away economics. Plenty of kids I knew in high school are in the armed forces for plenty of different reasons, including "I want language training and money for college." It's not mercenary, but there are definitely people for whom it is not "easier to get an equally paying governmental civil job or go to college."

AFlynn
01-15-2007, 03:54 AM
"National security" means more than just a surface veneer of stability and "business as usual" - it means a security of the soul of the nation and, for the US, the soul of you nation is the constitution as it is held in the hearts and minds of your citizens. Changing your constitution from time to time is a necessary adaptation. Abrogating it is an abomination; it is literally selling your soul for short term "gains".

We learned this, or at least some of us did, when we interned Japanesse-Canadians. In 1939, Tommy Douglas, then leader of the CCF, tried to warn us of the cost it would have for our national soul, and the government of the time didn't listen. Our "national soul" wasn't built around a constitution but, rather, around a long and often painful history of developing toleration (it goes back to the documents of surrender of Quebec in 1760). We forgot that, and we are still paying the price for it. I would strongly urge you to learn from our mistake, and not make the same one.
Marc

Earl Warren makes an interesting case study here, as he was all for japanese internment, but deeply regretted it afterward.



"Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those values and ideals which set this Nation apart. For almost two centuries, our country has taken singular pride in the democratic ideals enshrined in its Constitution, and the most cherished of those ideals have found expression in the First Amendment. It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties - the freedom of association - which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.

US v. Robel (1967)

marct
01-15-2007, 04:13 AM
Earl Warren makes an interesting case study here, as he was all for japanese internment, but deeply regretted it afterward.

Thanks for the reference, I'll try and look it up :). In the Tommy Douglas case (it was a speach to Parliament), part of his objections were based on the differential status applied to "enemy aliens" - German-Canadians had about 500 or so interned and there were about 1000 Italian-Canadians interned. This is compared with about 90% of Japanese-Canadians.

Part of the point I was trying to make, and apologies to Culpepper because it probably didn't come through now that I reread my post, is that a two-party system that elects its head of state will be inevitably polarized. IMO, one of the main strengths of a constitutional monarchy is the ability to seperate the head of government from the head of state, so attacking the policies of the head of government is unlikely ever to be commonly viewed as "sedition". Since the Crown has almost no de facto power, although it has a lot of de jure power that is only used in extreme situations, this tends to mean that you actually get a more "democratic" government than you do in a republican system. Then again, I am a member of the Monarchist League :D

Marc

Culpeper
01-15-2007, 01:49 PM
Sedition Act of 1918. Repealed after WWI:

My definition of sedition.


Section 3

Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States, and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both: Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service...

slapout9
01-15-2007, 02:35 PM
Culpepper, this goes back to one of my original points on other threads about declared vs. undeclared war. I think The Sedition Act would only have legal standing during a declared war. Evidently this was the thinking of the original authors to, because it was repealed after WW1.

marct
01-15-2007, 02:58 PM
Sedition Act of 1918. Repealed after WWI:
My definition of sedition.

Hi Culpeper,

Thanks for posting this - now we have an exact definition to talk about :).... long winded, too <wry grin>.

Let's look at the sections of it:

Whoever, when the United States is at war,

shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies,


This section appears to concentrate on the idea of falseness with an intention to help the enemy. Personally, I would agree that someone purposely working for an enemy power, and not necessarily a nation-state actor, who consciously falsifies a report with the intent of interference is commiting sedition under certain specific conditions. First, they would have to be a US citizen or Legal Resident and, these days, a recognized Illegal Alien <wry grin>.

If they are not a US citizen or Legal Resident (resident alien I think you call them? - always sounded like my favorite Martian to me :)), and they are not physically within the jurisdictional bounds of the United States, then they cannot be commiting sedition.

Obviously, this is dealing with attempts to a) interfere with the military prosecution of a war through disinformation and/or propaganda for the enemy.

or shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States,


Okay, interference with the State getting the money it needs to fight a war. I note, with interest, the clause about "bona fide and not disloyal advice" which I find really interesting. I would also point out that this section refers to selling bonds and raising loans, but not to the imposition of new taxes.

One point that I disagree with (again, purely on philosophical grounds), is the "the making of loans by or to the United States". In effect, this definition would not allow any dissent for any loans given by the State to anyone. If this definition were currently in use, then many memebrs of this council would be guilty of sedition for comments about wasted money on contractors, levels of corruption in the Iraqi military and government, etc. That incident with plywood sales in the Balkans would also classify as "sedition".

It is in cases like this that the question of "bona fide and not disloyal" becomes crucial. For example, is it "disloyal" to point out that the troops on the ground don't have the armour they need while Halliburton is making billions on inflated prices? Personally, I wouldn't call that "sedition".


and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States,


On the surface, this looks like a perfectly reasonable clause. Certainly the inclusion of "willfully" does appear to be a safeguard. Let me lay out two extreme cases that, I believe, would fall under this definition of sedition, but that I would not consider sedition:


Religious objections: You folks have had a clause ever since your civil war (if not longer) that allows for conscientious objections based on religious conviction. Would you consider the religious leaders of any group that preached either pacificism or that a given war was illegal and / or wrong, as having commited sedition?
Betrayal of the constitution: If I remember correctly, your officers and enlisted swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Would it be sedition to refuse unconstitutional orders or to advocate "mutiny" against someone who is abrogating the constitution and yet in the chain of command?



or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States,


I think my comments above are also applicable here, especially the conscientious objectors one.

and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute,


Okay, note that we have now moved away from the concept of "intentional falseness" and into the realm of general objections. Under this clause, no citizen could even say that there was something wrong with any part of the State! Technically, under this definition, no reporter would be able to talk about government corruption, nobody could even mutter "Damn IRS people don't listen!"!

I can certainly agree with the part about the Constitution, it is, after all, the core of your society, but the rest is, to my mind, a clear abrogation of several parts of your Bill of Rights. Let me give you one other example of why I think this definition is dangerous: technically, it would be sedition for a newly posted soldier in Iraq to email home and say he didn't have the armour he needed and ask his or her spouse to get some - that could be construed as beng "against the uniform".

or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy,


No problems with this part, given the caveat about it being solely within the jurisdiction of the US and by a citizen or resident alien.

or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war,


Slightly trickier, here, especially given the nature of global production. On the whole, I would agree with it, but, at the same time, I want to point out that this standard should also be applicable to politicians who urge restrictive legislation.

and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated,


Got to disagree with this one given all of ,my previous objections :). Actually, I do agree with it, mostly and with the caveats I listed earlier, but the reason I say I have to disagree is that it does not allow for any forum for discussion or disagreement that may be construed as being "seditious".

and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war


I think that this clause might work, although I have some misgivings about it. Could "I really hope that this becomes a stalemate so they have to negotiate" be interpreted as sedition? Still, on the whole and dealing with a rational legal system, it's probably workable. Where I find this clause fails is in two areas: dealing with non-state actors, and flip-flops in Government policy.

or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both: Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service...


No problems here, although I would like to see politicians specifically included in this list!


Thanks for posting the definition, I appreciate it! I know I may be sounding a bit like a ranting ACLU leftie at times:D , but I honestly feel that there are too many historical examples of where societies have done what is "expedient" rather than what is "right", and this choice has left the society damaged badly. Let me finish by asking one, very old but still pertinent, question "Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?"

Marc

marct
01-15-2007, 04:07 PM
Outside of any differences in opinion on what "sedition" means, and I think it's been a really good conversation on that (thanks, Culpepper!), I think it is also important to look at the control of the media. This link appeared on CBC.ca today and details who owns what in the Canadian media. BTW, it is 15 families/companies/groups that control our broadcast media. How about the US?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/map-canada-media/

Marc

Culpeper
01-15-2007, 04:25 PM
marct

No, you're not sounding like a leftie. Sedition as described in the Sedition Act of 1918 is not illegal today. But in my mind, it is a distinction or a line in the sand where dissent should end and something else should begin. This something else is not healthy for any democracy fighting any sort of armed conflict whether it is a declared war or not. It is an opportunity cost of a democracy. I don't advocate sending people to prison because they continually cross this invisible line of dissent. But it should be labeled accordingly. Sedition today and starting back about the time of the escalation of the Vietnam Conflict has always been labeled as simple dissension. As for counterinsurgency warfare, the free press and others unknowingly aid the opposition by exploiting our freedoms while at the same time the opposition controls their own media. Freedom of expression is a double edged sword for a democracy at war. Poor Abraham Lincoln got blistered by the press during one of the worst periods of America's history. There were times where the Union's chances of victory literally laid in the balance largely due to a press that was unwittingly buying time for the Confederacy. The opportunity cost being a prolonged conflict with unnecessary casualties, illness, and so forth in the field.

As for the Sedition Act of 1918. My grandfather served as an infantryman with the 44th Infantry Division in France during 1918. He was gassed and suffered pulmonary disease for the rest of his life. But he never had a bad word to say about Woodrow Wilson or America. He was grateful that Wilson was able to get America into the fight and back home as soon as possible with a victory. He never had a good thing to say about war. Something he rarely spoke about. The Sedition Act of 1918 was a tool that allowed the President to get the job done as soon as possible. The war may have been prolonged had dissent not been curtailed during that war and there is a good possibility that I would have never been born.

Please excuse my poor grammar. I'm waiting to hear from the vet. I may have to put down my best friend today and I'm trying to stay busy. The ol' girl appears to have suffered cardiac failure yesterday while protecting her yard from a squirrel. It doesn't look good.

marct
01-15-2007, 05:29 PM
Hi Culpeper,


No, you're not sounding like a leftie. Sedition as described in the Sedition Act of 1918 is not illegal today. But in my mind, it is a distinction or a line in the sand where dissent should end and something else should begin. This something else is not healthy for any democracy fighting any sort of armed conflict whether it is a declared war or not. It is an opportunity cost of a democracy. I don't advocate sending people to prison because they continually cross this invisible line of dissent. But it should be labeled accordingly.

Hmmm, I think I like that phrase - "and opportunity cost of democracy". Actually, I suspect that we agree more than we disagree. Dissent against a government policy should always have some cost attached to it if it is to be taken as "real" rather than soi disant posturing. The Tommy Douglas speach I mentioned earlier, and his entire position, basically ment that the CCF would never be the government but, rather, the consciounces of the nation. They forgot that later on after they became the NDP, but I remember talks I had with Tommy Douglas in the parliamentary cafeteria years ago. He paid the price for a politician dissenting from what was "popular" and never became Prime Minister. He was, however, the only man ever granted a permanent seat in the commons with the right of Voice outside of membership.

I think we run up against a wall in many democratic systems where the very nature of democracy, "rule of the people" as it were, operates against the "best interests" of the nation as a whole; an "opportunity cost" as you say. I also think that we do need some way of punishing those who disagree with the state, but I hesitate to use the term "sedition". Maybe this is because I tend to think of this in terms of noblesse oblige, whether it is by an aristocrat or by a rural preacher. Taking a stand that has no penalties is not risk or test of a person and their commitment to their principles.


Sedition today and starting back about the time of the escalation of the Vietnam Conflict has always been labeled as simple dissension. As for counterinsurgency warfare, the free press and others unknowingly aid the opposition by exploiting our freedoms while at the same time the opposition controls their own media.

Quite true but, as you said, an opporunity cost of democracy. I don't like the idea of their being no cost to attacking a government position (hey, I'm a monarchist :D ). There is, to my mind, another line in the sand - "how much are you willing to pay to achieve your goals?" One of the reasons I admire the American Republic is that you were ready to stand up against what you perceived as the Tyranny of the Crown. I don't necessarly agree with the actions of those colonial leaders, and I know my ancestors didn't, but I certainly respect that position. And you paid the price for it. As one of your founding fathers said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Thos. Hefferson).

To my mind, that was a recognition that rights and responsabilities are complementary and equal in any sane and reasonable system, regardless of its form. In many ways, a "right" that is won without blood spilt and without struggle and an acceptance of the concommitant responsability is not a rght.


Freedom of expression is a double edged sword for a democracy at war. Poor Abraham Lincoln got blistered by the press during one of the worst periods of America's history. There were times where the Union's chances of victory literally laid in the balance largely due to a press that was unwittingly buying time for the Confederacy. The opportunity cost being a prolonged conflict with unnecessary casualties, illness, and so forth in the field.

Yup. I must say hat I have always found the current version of PC history on your civil war to be both humorous and ridiculous. Probably more than half of the people who went to war for the South believed in the principle of Staes Rights, something that Lincoln trammeled into the ground. On a purely personal level, I find the current justfication of the war as a war to end slavery (that's what is taught at most universities) as BS. Most of the Southern troops didn't own slaves. Even Lincoln Emancipation Proclamation kept slavery alive in the Union (e.g. Maryland). This was, to my mind, a war between Federalists and Republicans in the early 19th century meaning of those terms (Steve, feel free to step in and tell me I am full of it :D).

The fact that the press prolonged the conflict is, to my mind, a good thing since at least some of the press were talking about the political issue - "shall this be a United States of America or the United States of America?" I would also like to point to the role of the press in starting he war and in recasting it as a fight against slavery (cf. Frederick Douglass).


As for the Sedition Act of 1918. My grandfather served as an infantryman with the 44th Infantry Division in France during 1918. He was gassed and suffered pulmonary disease for the rest of his life. But he never had a bad word to say about Woodrow Wilson or America. He was grateful that Wilson was able to get America into the fight and back home as soon as possible with a victory. He never had a good thing to say about war. Something he rarely spoke about. The Sedition Act of 1918 was a tool that allowed the President to get the job done as soon as possible. The war may have been prolonged had dissent not been curtailed during that war and there is good possibility that I would have never been born.

Well, I wouldn't have wanted that - otherwise how could we engage in this debate :D . My Great-Uncle faught in that war as well (2nd BTN, RCHA). He started in 1914, and faught in pretty much every major engagement on the Western Front. He was gassed 3 times and, by the time I ken him, was down to one lung sack. As with your grandfather, he never had a bad word to say about the Americans, although he was the person who told me why your troops were called "Dough Boys".

I remember talking with him and a few of his cronies from the first world war in the '60's. We all had relatives in the German forces, and they were trading tales of the stupidity of family fights. You said that "The war may have been prolonged had dissent not been curtailed during that war" and I really have to disagree. That war ended because of dissent. It wasn't a miltary victory that "won" that war, it was the troops mutinying against an unjust war. I will certainly give Wilson kudos for his (very unpopular) stance at Versailles - he was right, there should have been no reparations.

Let me make an upopular couple of statement - your 1918 sedition act had little influence on WWI for the simple reason that the US played little role in the first world war. [Sorry, but I am about to rant] We, Canada, had almost 500,000 troops in that war out of a population of 8 million total. WE were the ones who broke the Germans at 2nd Vimy Ridge; not the Brits, not the Yanks, and not the French. The US had a total of 165,000 troops, of which less than 100,000 ever saw Europe. You (the US) came in at the end of the war - the "Dough Boys" so-called, because you were needed in 1914 but didn't rise until 1917. Let me remind you that Wilson was elected in 1916 on a promoise not to enter the war!

[end of ramt] Sorry about that, but I get really pissed by Americans claiming that they won World War I.


Please excuse my poor grammar. I'm waiting to hear from the vet. I may have to put down my best friend today and I'm trying to stay busy. The ol' girl appears to have suffered cardiac failure yesterday while protecting her yard from a squirrel. It doesn't look good.

Always! Blessing on you and her. I know how bad that can be - I have a cat who suffered a stroke a year ago. I really hope she gets better. Please don't take my rants as anything personal <wry grin>. If she makes it, please let me know and I will drink a toast to her health. If she doesn't make it. I will drink a toast to her memory. Friends, of any species, are too important.

Marc

Steve Blair
01-15-2007, 06:15 PM
Culpepr: Sorry to hear about your friend. Some of my best friends have fur and four legs, and my very best wishes go with you in this case.

Marc: You're correct in a way about the Civil War. I really hate to see the PC police going after this, because (like most historical things) it is really difficult to pare it down to "one right answer."

Lincoln was a Union man in the sense that he wanted to see the Union preserved no matter the cost. In this he was a product of his section of the country (the West, at the time). If you want an interesting look at how people from that part of the country viewed the war, get ahold of "Nothing but Victory," by Woodworth. It's a study of the Army of Tennessee, which was composed mostly of men from what would now be considered the Midwest. He shows quite well the changing attitudes of these men toward the motivation for the war, including their changing attitudes about slavery. As they were exposed more and more to the reality of slavery, and the attitudes of the Southern people they came into contact with (including non-slave holders), their attitudes changed and became more what we would call hard line today.

That said, the background of the Civil War was very much a "balance of power" issue within Congressional blocks, fed by a very vocal minority of Abolitionists who wanted to recast the political debate into their terms. Lincoln later grabbed onto that, both to create a level of motivation on the home front and (this is often missed) to isolate the Southern states from their European supporters. It would be (he assumed) much harder for the British to support the South if the war could be recast into one to bring an end to slavery. This does not mean that Lincoln supported slavery (as some might claim), but rather that ending (or preserving) it was not his primary goal. Saving the Union was his primary goal, and he would go to extraordinary lengths to do that.

Lincoln could also flex a great deal in terms of states' rights (and did so many times with Maryland, Pennsylvania, and others), but he was also capable of being very ruthless in the pursuit of his goal. Both he and Grant are, I feel, misunderstood and manipulated by would-be historians (and social scientists) with agendas. Too often we look at individuals without having an understanding of the times and places that created them and their attitudes.

And Marc, I'm aware of the contributions Canada made on the Western Front. I've always felt that Dominion troops were grossly misused by the British. Rule Britannia at its finest. And Wilson...for someone who has gone down as a "peace president" he sure made wide use of the military. His record in Central America is riddled with interventions and "gunboat diplomacy." But he tends to get a pass because he was a Democrat (IMO, anyhow).

Steve Blair
01-15-2007, 06:27 PM
My particular rant about Boxer and her ilk is that none of them give a spotted's rat's backside about the military and their families UNLESS there is political gain to be made from it. Same goes for the MSM. CBS has been running stories about military families and the like for the past week or so. I submit that they didn't care about them before, and will stop caring as soon as there's no ratings gain to be made from it.

When I was in high school, I went to a school in Germany (West Germany at the time) that had a fair number of Army kids in it. They moved every year to year and a half. I never saw anyone showing any concern about that then, and still do not now. When I worked at Fort Riley I saw guys coming back from TDYs to Kosovo only to be shipped off to Korea within a week or two. No prime-time coverage of that one. People would be killed in training accidents, and you never saw a "they give all" blurb or someone in Congress burbling about the price their families paid.

Sorry for the rant, but anytime someone like Boxer or Ted Kennedy or the neo-cons get on a high horse and starts "feeling" for the military I just want to scream. If there was no gain to be had they'd be calling for budget cuts, ignoring servicemembers and their families, and voting to raise their own obscene pay and benefits. Two party nepotism at its finest.

And now I'll return to my reclusive historical self...:o

marct
01-15-2007, 07:21 PM
Marc: You're correct in a way about the Civil War. I really hate to see the PC police going after this, because (like most historical things) it is really difficult to pare it down to "one right answer."

2nd time posting this - my computer seems to be post-modern <wry grin>.

Totally agree, Lincoln was a "Union Man" to he core - regardless of the price.


Lincoln could also flex a great deal in terms of states' rights (and did so many times with Maryland, Pennsylvania, and others), but he was also capable of being very ruthless in the pursuit of his goal. Both he and Grant are, I feel, misunderstood and manipulated by would-be historians (and social scientists) with agendas. Too often we look at individuals without having an understanding of the times and places that created them and their attitudes.

Totally, true, Steve!


And Marc, I'm aware of the contributions Canada made on the Western Front. I've always felt that Dominion troops were grossly misused by the British. Rule Britannia at its finest. And Wilson...for someone who has gone down as a "peace president" he sure made wide use of the military. His record in Central America is riddled with interventions and "gunboat diplomacy." But he tends to get a pass because he was a Democrat (IMO, anyhow).

"Rule Britannia at its finest". Yeah <sigh>. We - the Canadians, the ANZAC troops, the Indians paid the price of that. I remember before he died, my Grand-Uncle gave me his first editions of Seigfried Sasson and Rupert Brook. I read them to my intro classes. Several years after he gave them to me, I was singing Brittain's War Requiem. I remember falling apart during the solo interludes which used Sasoon's poetry.

Two years ago, I had the opportunity to go over to Caen with the Carleton choir as part of the 60th anniversary celebration of the D-Day invasions. DND refused us permission to sing at one of the Canadian graveyards. Our conductor, who is from New Orleans, said nothing and arranged for us to show up there to sing anyway. There was a DND photo op group there - 15 bureacrats and 60 vets. The bureacrats didn't realize we were singing until the second song. The vets appreciated it (I still have the Legion pin one of them gave me), and the bureacrats hated it. As a side note, the Gott verdamnt bureacrats wanted to take a photo op, but had forgotten to bring a flag - guess who provided it?

Canadians have always been misunderstood by most people. We tend to be quite, polite and pretty nice - until we get pissed: then watch out! The Brits pissed us off in WWI and the Americans did so in WWII (witness the little "off-duty trip" taken by the Cameron Highlanders after D-Day). I always try and define Canadians, to Europeans, as the Anglicans of North America "we are Americans who don't accept the suzerainity of Washington."


My particular rant about Boxer and her ilk is that none of them give a spotted's rat's backside about the military and their families UNLESS there is political gain to be made from it. Same goes for the MSM. CBS has been running stories about military families and the like for the past week or so. I submit that they didn't care about them before, and will stop caring as soon as there's no ratings gain to be made from it.

Too freakin' true! Personally, I always appreciated the Britsh gentry and the Colonial aristicracies that actually led their troops. I would love to see Boxer on the front lines, along with a bunch of others (Jack Layton comes to mind).


Sorry for the rant, but anytime someone like Boxer or Ted Kennedy or the neo-cons get on a high horse and starts "feeling" for the military I just want to scream. If there was no gain to be had they'd be calling for budget cuts, ignoring servicemembers and their families, and voting to raise their own obscene pay and benefits. Two party nepotism at its finest.

And now I'll return to my reclusive historical self...:o

<grin>. "Some of my best friends are in the military..." Need we say more?

Marc

Culpeper
01-16-2007, 01:20 AM
Hmmm, I think I like that phrase - "and opportunity cost of democracy". Actually, I suspect that we agree more than we disagree. Dissent against a government policy should always have some cost attached to it if it is to be taken as "real" rather than soi disant posturing.

Exactly! If we must define our "enemy" than we must define the limitation of loyal opposition at home. To draw this line would result in those abusing such right of opposition to yell, " dissent is patriotic", or "McCarthyism!". But this cost must and should be on a peer-to-peer platform rather than the government having to enact a sedition act once again. Nevertheless, I was a little surprised at the opposition to the Patriot Act without even a compliment that it didn't contain the spirit of typical sedition act. A person should be called on the platform using the very same right said person is abusing by his or her peers. It is called freedom of expression and it is an absolute two-way street. When it comes to dissent there should always be an opposite and equal reaction. I'm not one to let a person get a free ride on the back of the First Amendment if I feel it is counterproductive for the nation. One thing I notice is that when people are harping about their right to dissent and you bring up sedition all of sudden the room gets quite. That is because most complainers don't even know the definitions of the word. They only know it must be a bad word. And it is in America. True sedition is a threat to our democracy and not a right and should be recognized and dealt with on a popular basis. Cindy Sheehan referring to the President as Hitler in a public place is not only showing off her complete idiotic concept and lack of respect for history but is an act of sedition because there is actually no comparison between Hitler and the President and is an attempt to incite rebellion through propaganda. Cindy should go back in time and try to exercise her freedoms as a Jew or a Gypsy under Hitler and see how far she would get. She should be told this in the loudest of voices every time she speaks by her fellow citizens. It doesn't matter that outside of her little cocoon of supporters no one really cares what she states. It doesn't matter that some West Texas beer drinking roustabout hasn't run over her yet with his 1989 customized Ford 4x4. She should be made to pay for her remarks by her peers using the same rights that she is abusing. And in the same respect, the media should be held accountable for covering her stories as if it is meaningful.

AFlynn
01-16-2007, 01:49 AM
What really gets me is all the grandstanding about "supporting the troops" while simultaneously slashing the holy hell out of the Veterans department.

I don't know if I'd go so far to say that she's trying to incite rebellion; it's not as if she's calling on the members of MoveOn.org to go into the hills and form paramilitary groups. I do see what you're saying, however.

Culpeper
01-16-2007, 02:00 AM
We, Canada, had almost 500,000 troops in that war out of a population of 8 million total. WE were the ones who broke the Germans at 2nd Vimy Ridge; not the Brits, not the Yanks, and not the French.

I am one of the few Americans that actually can brag about the fact that Armistice Day is an international day of remembrance and not an American holiday. From an American point-of-view the actual decision to go to war and and military infrastructure and build up afterwards is the precursor of how America goes to war to this day. You have to remember that our army had only about 200,000 troops at the start of the war. We ended up creating enough divisions to accommodate nearly 4 million men in a very short amount of time. This during a time of the great flu pandemic. In fact, many believe that the pandemic can be indexed to this military build up. My grandfather had no illusions of the Yanks saving the day. Just a few words on a few occasions about the reality of that war. He did once describe what happened on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month to my mother. In his sector the guns on both sides went silent and everyone climbed out and simply started trading stuff with each other. For a good American perspective on the war I recommend "Yanks" by John S.D. Eisenhower.

Culpeper
01-16-2007, 02:05 AM
What really gets me is all the grandstanding about "supporting the troops" while simultaneously slashing the holy hell out of the Veterans department.

I don't know if I'd go so far to say that she's trying to incite rebellion; it's not as if she's calling on the members of MoveOn.org to go into the hills and form paramilitary groups. I do see what you're saying, however.

I agree. It's not like her image is going to end up on T-Shirts with her wearing a beret:o

Culpeper
01-29-2007, 04:01 AM
Call this guy a seditionist, agitator, patriotic dissenter, and Abraham Lincoln would have still had him shot. Lincoln was one to punish the young soldier for shucking his duties because he listened to the likes of John Kerry but he blamed the likes of John Kerry as "grown up" agitators and didn't have a problem putting them out of commission. It's political crap like that that is going to bring this situation to a head.

John Kerry Slams His Own Country At Davos (http://www.kxmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=89952)



Here’s John Kerry speaking while sitting just a few feet away from Mohammad Khatami, the former President of the Iranian terror state.

“So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East — in the world, really. I’ve never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today.”…

The Honorable John Kerry, United States Senate


Now, doesn't anyone see the problem with this? Are certain freedoms running amuck? Everything has a limit. Even our freedoms. This guy is probably going to emboldened some jihadist to kill someone and we treat hungry shoplifters in America by writing them a citation or throwing them in jail. John Kerry gets to say and do whatever he pleases. He always has. Always will. Go figure.