The Media Aren't the Enemy in Iraq

[Culpeper]

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 Sedition acts of the past have been used and later repealed after the need no longer existed.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]

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

[AFlynn]

"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]

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

Marc

[Culpeper]

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]

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]

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,

1. 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.
2. 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".
3. 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:
   
   

   1. 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?
   2. 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?
4. 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.
5. 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".
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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".
9. 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.
10. 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 , 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]

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]

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.

[Eddie Beaver]

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]

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."