I’ll have to ask you for a cite on this, because it does not comport with the facts as I understand them. It appears that you’re making the common mistake of conflating McCarty’s activities, which was in the Senate, with the HUAC activities, which occurred in the House of Representatives, the most notorious of which greatly preceded McCarthy.
But I’ll wait for your cite, since you may have some information I’m unaware of.
And how, pray tell, might one determine IF they are spies? Wouldn’t it be a good idea to investigate someone before you classified them as a spy?
Cite? Or at least, what specifically are you referring to?
The wiki “Ultimately, McCarthy’s tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate.” Futher content on the page, which seems reasonably factualy and well-cited, bolsters the position that McCarthy is not merely the subject of a sustained smear campaign, but was in fact the shitstain on american history that his name has come to be associated with.
Well played sir.
My irony meter not only pegged, it warped into another dimension. magellan01 requested cites?
Same way you do any other criminal investigation: circumspectly, and/or with a warrant and suspicion you can articulate in front of a judge.
“He’s a Communist/Muslim” is not and should not be considered reasonable suspicion.
You chose Wiki over the article that has an interview with the man who knows more about this than anyone? The man who, during the writing of his book, had more documents to look at than were available previously. You choose Wiki over that. :rolleyes:
Look, I know what the book on McCarthy has been. And I was there with you. I, like many, many people, conflated him with the HUAC. He had nothing to do with that. So I ask, what SPECIFICALLY did he do that deserved him this reputation. And that means looking into the new information that has come to light through Evans’s book. It seems the least you should do if you care enough to post about this is read the link I put forth.
He had information that there were not just Communists high-up in the government, but actual spies. Preliminary FBI reports with that information were bring ignored. He wanted the investigations you claim are reasonable to take place against Soviet spies. THAT"S what he was doing. If you think he did what you seem to think he did, please provide cites of him doing so.
And yes, some Communists were suspicious, as well. But he wasn’t just throwing out names of people who went to Communist party meetings, like HUAC had done years earlier, Soviet Spies were working in tandem with some communists in China. some of them were rooming together.
Again, I’d ask you to at least read the link I provided. The fact is, history has treated McCarthy very unfairly. This was a very good man. The youngest man to have attained a judgeship in the state of Wisconsin. A man who then gave up his career to serve in the military in combat. and most of the flak he gets is for things that were done by other people, in another branch of government, years and decades before.
Sounds like somewhat else needs to, at a minimum, read the kink I provided. Fighting ignorance and all that.
Look, what you do in the bedroom is your business, not mine.
I read it. I have drawn my conclusions that McCarthy’s tactics were wrong-headed, foolish, and ultimately unnecessary. These judgements stand regardless of how many of the people he suspected were actual spies, because he chose the route of public shaming rather than actual judicial proceedings in accordance with both law and the rights of freedom of conscience.
“The State Department is infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.” As I understand it, McCarthy was unable to provide any substantial evidence to support his contentions during the following Senate hearings.
Yes, the HUAC was also evil and, ironically, unAmerican (the most un-American of activities being the suppression of political dissent, IMHO), but McCarthy gets no pass for committing the same sin that many dictators and would-be dictators have committed, that being the sin of accusation without evidence sufficient to convict in a fair court. The ultimate truth or falsehood of those accusations has no bearing on whether or not he was in the wrong with the way he chose to pursue them.
Joseph McCarthy has certainly been unfairly maligned by history. All he did was suggest that people should be wary of Communists in their midsts. The fact that so many innocent people were hurt by subsequent anti-Communist witch hunts could not possibly be considered to be his fault.
Eternal hounding of people who have some loosely-defined connection to other people who may or may not want to hurt you in some way is the price of freedom, as the saying goes.
Was it illegal at that time to be a Communist? (I know there are people now who openly run for office as members of the Communist Party. The paranoia that resulted from McCarthy’s claims had people thinking that anything that was a little different was a Communist plot (flouride in the water) or anyone who challenged McCarthy might be a Communist.
There are a billion Muslims in the world and if someone is cowardly enough to live in fear of all of them just because a fraction of them are terrorists, then go ahead and shake in your little boots and pull the covers over your head. But if you stay informed from many sources instead of just one book and some emails or, better still, get to know some Muslims, you might find that they are like you and me and you won’t be so afraid.
It’s easier to be American when you are not afraid, afraid, afraid, afraid, afraid.
“The American Way” is about religious freedom.
I love the smell of uninformed xenophobia in the morning.
You drop a 500lb bomb on a house or restaurant you think Saddam or another target might be in you fully intend to kill, maim and disfigure everyone in the blast radius.
No, silly Englishman, that’s not bits of human meat.
That’s collateral damage…
Yes, collateral damage is unfortunate, but sometimes a justifiable necessary evil, as it will save more lives by cutting off the head of a snake. The main difference is that while civilized people may at times reluctantly decide to accept collateral damage, they seek to minimize it. The murderous radical Muslims strive to kill as many innocent people as possible. TThat is their GOAL. A goal that is the opposite of ours. To try to place collateral damage in the same post as terrorism shows and complete misunderstanding of at least one of them.
Or it shows a value system that treats intentional civilian damage and “unintentional” civilian damage resulting from military actions in built-up areas as closer to equivalent than you’re comfortable with.
Those kids are just as dead whether it was a suicide bomber gunning for civvies or fragments from a 500lb-bomb dropped on a guerrilla cell hideout next door.
“Justifiable” is not an absolute.