The New York Times has an article about the disorder currently prevailing in Baghdad, in which we are treated to some incredibly astute observations about the nature of freedom by the Defense Secretary:
Interesting concept. I was under the impression that, even in a free society like the United States, committing crimes was one of the things you are not “free” to do.
That would have to be the most stupid thing I’ve heard from Rumsfeld ever.
But it’s not surprising. In Rumsfeld’s head, power rules, not law.
Months later, when an Iraqi citizen is put on trial for stealing something from someone else:
Iraqi citizen: “But Mr. Rumsfeld, he said it was okay to steal! He say ‘free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes.’ I was a free man, so I was free to steal!”
I saw Rummy do his latest Henny Penny routine today. I thought maybe if I could find it Desmostylus might think it the most stupid thing.
Googol inundated me with “Rumsfeld Henny Penny” and he apparently has been featuring that character in ahem Pentagon briefiings. Today’s was really weird.
He really did scare me with his “Oh my, the sky is falling!” impression of Henny Penny in April 11-2003 conference. I don’t want to see that again.
It really burns your asses that this war is going, and has gone, so well, huh?
He’s right.
::GASP!:: says the audience.
Yup. You’re perfectly free to go out and murder a thousand people if you want, this very second.
You’re also equally free to suffer the consequences.
SPOOFE, the fact that all free and sovereign nations of the world have laws in place that forbid crimes like theft and murder tells me that the respective societies inhabiting those countries have agreed that a citizen is NOT free to do those things. And if a citizen chooses to break that agreement, he will suffer the legal consequences.
C’mon, SPOOFE. It’s OK to be a conservative in favour of the war, and still admit that Rumsfeld made a dumbass comment there.
The Greatest Army Ever has chased a bunch of low-life thugs away.
The supply lines were not adequately protected. Supply-line folks (lightly armed like 507th) were killed or captured, Marines sent in to help them were killed or captured.
Expediting the armor units up towards Baghdad was a sound plan - yet it falls far short of being a brilliant plan.
If you want to tout a Great General, look to General Thomas Franks or General William Wallace - not to Donald Rumsfeld.
When i posted the OP, i knew that some tosser would make exactly this argument. Dealing with asinine comments like this is like shooting fish in a barrel.
By your logic, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was also a free country. His people were perfectly free to speak their minds and to organize opposition parties, and were equally free to suffer the consequences.
Tell me how, using your (and Rumsfeld’s) brilliant reasoning, we distinguish between free and unfree societies.
Unfree: The US supports a puppet like Chalab who has no concept of Iraqi’s plight in the 40+ years since he fled the country - nor does he have any concept of Islamic folk who cannot concieve of a government where seperation of ‘Church and State’ is a tenet. Just call him “Shah II”
Free: The Iraqis actually vote in percentage numbers greater than most democracies - yet they choose a radical type who has decidedly unfriendly attitudes towards infidel occupiers.
A free society is one in which EVERYONE is bound by the rule of consequences.
An unfree society is one in which a tyrannical ruling class is exempt.
So, since you say the difference between a free and an unfree society is how it treats its leaders, I assume you agree that the general public is free to commit crimes in neither?
But how does this support the point that you (and Rumsfeld) made earlier? You were making the argument that, in a free society, one has the freedom to commit crimes as long as one is willing to live with the consequences. Well, that is true for any society.
Do you really believe that, in a free society like the United States, the citizen is “free” to commit crimes, as Rumsfeld suggested? Surely if the consequences of an action are the loss of one’s freedom, it’s a little hard to make the argument that one is free to carry out that action?
I didn’t start this thread in order to score political points off the Republicans, or to make a point about the war (as suggested by one-trick-pony Brutus). I just think that Rumsfeld’s comment was stupid, and i would have thought so no matter who said it. I never really expected to make a dent in the armour of your intransigent conservatism; i just thought you might be able to take the blinders off long enough to recognize when a politician says something dumb.
SPOOFE, Rumsfeld said something stupid, not for the first time. Is it that difficult for you to admit it??
So an example of an unfree society would be a place where sons of Congressmen can go AWOL from National Guard units for over a year, and not only not be reprimanded for it, but actually get an honorable discharge?
This comment was not stupid at all. It is the people who misinterpret freedom who think it is stupid.
In a free society, people are indeed free to break the law. Those people are then punished once they are caught.
In an unfree (pre-emptive) society, the government puts people in prison (or kills them) before they have a chance to commit a crime.
In which society would you rather live? I’ll pick the first.
That statement made by Rumsfield happens to be one of the most intelligent republican comments I have heard in a long time. I actually kinda like Rumsfield, though I don’t agree with everything he says.
Riiiiiiiiiiight… and free will does not exist in Iraq.
So, by your definition, a society that allows only a single religion, outlaws all others, and imprisons those who practice any religion except the approved one, must be a free society.
Or say a society has a law prohibiting any speech that criticizes the government or rulers. People then break that law and are punished. This also, by your definition, must be a free society, as long as the population is aware that such speech is illegal.
A society whose laws require all women to cover themselves completely when in public, on pain of imprisonment or flogging, is also a free society. I mean, the society has a law, and the women who break it are just “punished once they are caught,” as you say.
Essentially, your legalistic definition means that, as long as something is made officially illegal, and people are only punished for breaking the law rather than simply carted away for no reason, then a society is free.
Yet, despite the apparent breadth of your definition, the United States does not qualify as a free society under your schema, because it also has the characteristic that you attribute to an unfree society. There are a number of people currently being held by the government who have committed no crime. The security round-ups since the 2001 terrorist attacks, which have included US citizens and legal visitors, held (and are holding) considerable numbers of people without charges, without access to a lawyer, without any proof of wrongdoing, and, in the opinion of many lawmakers, in violation of the constituion.
All this sounds a lot like your definition of an unfree society. And, if that’s what you’re saying about the US, i’m afraid that i have to agree with you right now, because the post-9/11 decline in liberty in this country has been rather depressing to watch.
Exactly which of your liberties have been curtailed since 9/11? Cite, please, with all due respect.
I’d say apparently it is.