# Rumsfeld's definition of freedom... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 12, 2003, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226 "2003-04-12T07:41:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226/61 "2003-04-14T06:03:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Corbomite \* > **The Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (well known as the residence of international press) was fired on by a tank shell that killed two people. It was a valid question to ask if a firing a tank shell was a reasonable response to “sniper fire”. The Pentagon responded with “rules of engagement” babble - as if that applies in this war. Most believe it was a battlefield decision - perhaps wrong, obviously regretful, of a tank commander.** Eesh. I didn’t really think my sig would ever be quite so appropriate… ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226/62 "2003-04-14T14:58:54Z")
**mhendo** , that was an oustanding post. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2003, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226/63 "2003-04-15T00:52:50Z")
So, still no evidence that American citizens’ rights have been violated since 9/11. What have you given us is a whole bunch of _opinions_ that they have been. Doesn’t make it so, regardless of your sources. Has a court ruled that the detentions of Padilla and Hamdi are unconstitutional violations of their rights? No? Then they are not. QED. ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2003, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226/64 "2003-04-15T01:01:18Z")
So until a court find someone guilty of murder, the person killed isn’t dead? ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2003, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226/65 "2003-04-15T01:23:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Raygun99 \* > \*\*So until a court find someone guilty of murder, the person killed isn’t dead? \*\* No, but just like a killer isn’t guilty of murder until he is convicted, the government is not automatically guilty of violating citizens’ rights until the particulars are adjudicated. It simply does not matter what the Cato Institute, High Times, or the collective wisdom of the SDMB opines about. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2003, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226/66 "2003-04-15T02:06:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mhendo \* > \*\* As i’ve said before, i was not really seeking to score political points or to make a comment on the war; i was just trying to air my opinion about what i considered to be a pretty asinine comment made by Rumsfeld. I thought this was pretty clear in the OP, but in case it wasn’t, i made the point more clearly in response to **manhattan** and **brutus** , who were happy to use the thread as an excuse to further bash the anti-war crowd. By their deafening silence since then, these two morons have made their most intelligent contribution to this thread; would that they continue in permanent reticence. \*\* Oh, spread it on a field, **mhendo** – maybe it’ll help something to grow. The only point I intended to make, indeed, the only one I _did_ make prior to you setting off with the personal attacks, is that your OP and the article it was based on were and are stupid. The _Times_, intentionally or not, printed a wisecrack as something more than that, and you went after the bait. It was stupid to do so. That is fact, not opinion. It was stupid not to check the transcript for yourself – that is also fact, not opinion. Further, I did not bash the “anti-war crowd.” In my first post, I didn’t even bash you – just your statement. Go ahead, check. Then I bashed you. Not the “anti-war crowd” – you specifically. So you will stop lying about what I said. The _only_ other possible interpretation of your Original Post is that you _intentionally_ misrepresented a wisecrack as a policy statement, making you a coward and a lying sack of shit _and_ stupid to boot. The weight given to that possible interpretation I leave as an exercise for the reader. Personally, I started off going with the more generous interpretation. But since you lied about me, I’m no longer as confident. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2003, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226/67 "2003-04-15T10:40:59Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by The Ostrich_ > **So, still no evidence that American citizens’ rights have been violated since 9/11. What have you given us is a whole bunch of opinions that they have been. Doesn’t make it so, regardless of your sources. Has a court ruled that the detentions of Padilla and Hamdi are unconstitutional violations of their rights? No? Then they are not. QED.** > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Raygun99_ > **So until a court find someone guilty of murder, the person killed isn’t dead?** > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by The Ostrich_ > \*\*No, but just like a killer isn’t guilty of murder until he is convicted, the government is not automatically guilty of violating citizens’ rights until the particulars are adjudicated. It simply does not matter what the Cato Institute, High Times, or the collective wisdom of the SDMB opines about. \*\* Damn, birdman, by your logic, the Supreme Court could rule that death camps aren’t a violation of rights, and all of the people who protest differently, before they’re executed, are simply of the “opinion” that their rights are being violated. And it was such a beautiful post from **mhendo**. Too bad it was directed at someone unable to appreciate it. ---
**Author:** ![Who\_me\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@Who\_me\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Who_me_1)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2003, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226/68 "2003-04-15T14:25:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by milroyj \* > \*\*No, but just like a killer isn’t guilty of murder until he is convicted, the government is not automatically guilty of violating citizens’ rights until the particulars are adjudicated. It simply does not matter what the Cato Institute, High Times, or the collective wisdom of the SDMB opines about. \*\* So, Saddam Hussein’s government wasn’t guilty of violating the Iraqi citizen’s rights? I just want to make sure I read that correctly… ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2003, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226/69 "2003-04-15T15:32:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by manhattan \* > **Oh, spread it on a field, mhendo – maybe it’ll help something to grow.** Well, if that something were your intelligence, i’d give it a go. > [@](#): > > **The only point I intended to make, indeed, the only one I _did_ make prior to you setting off with the personal attacks, is that your OP and the article it was based on were and are stupid. The _Times_, intentionally or not, printed a wisecrack as something more than that, and you went after the bait. It was stupid to do so. That is fact, not opinion. It was stupid not to check the transcript for yourself – that is also fact, not opinion.** Well, your first post said that my OP was “stupid,” based on your _belief_ that i had taken the quote out of context and had mistaken it for a “definition of freedom.” Instead of politely offering that Rumsfeld’s quote might have been simply an ironic quip (there’s no evidence for that), or demonstrating exactly _how_ placing it in context would change anything, you wade in with the jackboots (as usual), make final pronouncement, without offering anything of substance. I conceded that the title of the thread was “ill-considered” but, as i went on to explain in my following post: > [@](#): > > And, actually, i take the exact opposite position to the one you ascribe to me. **I don’t think this statement is representative of general policy (Rumsfeld’s or the Administration’s), nor was i trying to extrapolate it in such a way.** I was simply addressing the statement itself, and asserting that it was a pretty poor way to define freedom. Because, while it didn’t claim to be an all-encompassing definition of the term, it did offer at least one criterion for judging a free society. My argument is that this criterion is a very poor one, because it could apply to just about any country on the planet, “free” or otherwise. This statement still stands. You can whine all you like about poor old Rummy being a guy who likes to make “off-hand comments,” but the fact is that he made such comments at a very important press conference, and that he did so in his capacity as Secretary of Defense. And those comments contained a statement about the nature of feedom, or at least one aspect of it, that i (and many others on this Board) found to be stupid. There is still absolutely no evidence that it was a wisecrack. As for the source i used for the quote, it was the only one i had at the time of posting the OP. A friend sent me the quote, absent all context, by email, so i did a google search as well as a check of the White House website, and all i found was the _New York Times_ article. I forgot to check the DoD website at the time - for which you have a thousand of my most humble apologies. But, because you’re such an awesome researcher, you managed to get the text of the whole press conference so that we lesser beings could see the quote “in context.” And guess what? It didn’t change a thing. I stand by my assertion that it was a stupid comment, and that no amount of context makes it otherwise. **Coldfire** pointed out: > [@](#): > > manhattan, sure the quote was out of context, but that doesn’t make it any less faulty. Certainly we shouldn’t give this any more weight than it deserves (a policy point it ain’t), but it would have been interesting if a journalist had asked about elaboration on this particular quote, then and there. Now, it just sort of lingers there for all to nitpick at. This is exactly my feeling on the subject. I’m not interested in turning it into a general policy point, either of Rumsfeld or the Administration in general (as i’ve now made quite clear on several occasions); i was simply criticizing the content of the statement itself. In response to **Coldfire** ’s post, all you did was post a long quote from the press conference (i assumed that **Coldfire** had read the whole link before posting, so i don’t know what purpose this served, except perhaps to suggest that he hadn’t), and your only contribution to the debate was: > [@](#): > > Coldfire, it was a wisecrack in the middle of hostile questioning. Rummy does that. Way to address the issue there. You sure you haven’t been taking lessons from The Ostrich? At no stage was i expecting anyone in this thread to say “Wow, that quote changes my whole opinion of Rumsfeld and the Administration. He is obviously a total moron whose policies are indefensible.” As i’ve stated (numerous times now, in case you missed it), i don’t attribute a whole lot of importance to the quotation, but that doesn’t make it any less stupid. You, however, couldn’t even bring yourself to admit that, even if it was just a wisecrack or a throw-away line, it was a pretty illogical and stupid one. And it’s funny that you refused to give my OP the same consideration that you showed Rumsfeld. Did it ever occur to you that a short post like that, in the flaming section of an internet message board, might be designed simply as a wisecrack rather than a deep and portentous statement about Administration policy? But hey, don’t let consistency get in the way of your belligerence. > [@](#): > > _manhattan_ > **Further, I did not bash the “anti-war crowd.” In my first post, I didn’t even bash you – just your statement. Go ahead, check. Then I bashed you. Not the “anti-war crowd” – you specifically. So you will stop lying about what I said.** Well, it seemed to me that a more general critique was implicit in your post, but i’ll concede your point on this; i conflated your post and **brutus** ’s. What you did do, however, was make my opinion of the war and of the civil unrest the issue of the thread, while completely avoiding what was the real issue - the content of Rumsfeld’s statement. The only reason that i raised the issue of the civil unrest at all in the OP was so that those reading the quotation would have some idea of what the _NYT_ article was about. Yet you essentially accuse me of starting the whole thread simply to whine about the war: > [@](#): > > Fascinating, asshole. You’re still just posting shit looking for some cover for your embarrassment over how happy the Iraqis are to see the coalition forces. > > Tell you what – If the military doesn’t take steps in the next week or so to restore civil order, revisit this thread and make your point. I never made a single statement questioning the validity of the war, assessing the happiness (or otherwise) of the Iraqi people, criticising the US military, or assigning blame for the civil unrest. Your post is a big fat red herring. To borrow your words: You’re still just posting shit looking for some cover for your embarrassment over the idiotic content of Rumsfeld’s statement, and your refusal to address that issue in any way except by denial. > [@](#): > > \*\*_manhattan_ > The _only_ other possible interpretation of your Original Post is that you _intentionally_ misrepresented a wisecrack as a policy statement, making you a coward and a lying sack of shit _and_ stupid to boot. The weight given to that possible interpretation I leave as an exercise for the reader. Personally, I started off going with the more generous interpretation. But since you lied about me, I’m no longer as confident. \*\* Believe what you want, including that you started with a “generous interpretation.” Doesn’t make it true. Nor does your constant repetition of the “wisecrack misinterpreted as policy statement” accusation make that true. I’ve denied any such intention on multiple occasions, yet you persist in ascribing to me a position that i do not hold, and never held. Again, to borrow your words, the _only_ possible interpretation of your posts is that you are _intentionally_ misrepresenting my argument, making you a coward and a lying sack of shit _and_ stupid to boot. The weight given to that possible interpretation i leave as an exercise for the reader. ---
**Author:** ![bjohn13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@bjohn13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bjohn13)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2003, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226/70 "2003-04-16T01:36:29Z")
Wow…I thought I could get a good argument in here…I guess not. I apologize for getting on your goat, mhendo, about a zillion posts back (remember? I think it had something to do with my rare support of Rumsfeld.). You have obviously put a lot of work into this thread. And I agree to an extent with the point you are trying to argue. Alas, the horse is dead. You have made your point with no real rebuttal. Let it rest. You could cite every single publication and news program in the nation. I can guarantee that there is someone out there who would find fault in every one. You are citing your opinion as to coincide with some expert opinions. No one can really refute that without a cite for the other side, no? Or at least offer some explanation as to what has happened to these individuals and the restrictions of their freedoms. All I’ve seen is attacks. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226/71 "2003-04-17T02:00:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bjohn13 \* > \*\*Wow…I thought I could get a good argument in here…I guess not. > > I apologize for getting on your goat, mhendo, about a zillion posts back (remember? I think it had something to do with my rare support of Rumsfeld.). You have obviously put a lot of work into this thread. > > And I agree to an extent with the point you are trying to argue. Alas, the horse is dead. You have made your point with no real rebuttal. Let it rest. You could cite every single publication and news program in the nation. I can guarantee that there is someone out there who would find fault in every one. > > You are citing your opinion as to coincide with some expert opinions. No one can really refute that without a cite for the other side, no? Or at least offer some explanation as to what has happened to these individuals and the restrictions of their freedoms. > > All I’ve seen is attacks. \*\* Yeah, i guess i should just give it up. And i fully concede your point that my take on the decline in liberty in the US represents my own opinion. I just happen to believe that it’s a reasonably well-informed opinion basd on close citical reading of valid sources. In the end, my real irritation with The Ostrich stemmed not from the fact that he disagreed with me, but from the fact that he didn’t have the intestinal fortitude or intellectual wherewithall to actually conduct a debate on the issue. I also allowed him to turn it into an issue of legal rights, which is not the whole story. I fully believe that a society can undergo a reduction in liberty without anyone ever being deprived of their legal rights. Laws can be passed which reduce liberty, and when people are arrested for breaking such laws then their legal rights are not being violated. But it doesn’t mean that there has not been a decline in liberty. Similarly, with the points i made about government surveillance and intrusion - much of it might be legal, but its use as described in those stories still seems, to me at least, to contribute to a decline in liberty. ---
**Author:** ![Coriolanus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coriolanus/32/18769_2.png) [@Coriolanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coriolanus)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226/72 "2003-04-17T07:02:21Z")
I chortled out loud when I read **manhattan** ’s tort “spread it on a field, **mhendro** – maybe it’ll help something to grow”. That’s funny stuff - yet wasted on an thread accurately and deservingly pitting Rummy. **mhendo** stated his theme and it won the majority in spite of not being sanctioned. Fair Dinkum! ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226/73 "2003-04-17T10:57:33Z")
Put me down on the side of those who believe Rumsfeld is a dangerous asshole who has done a lot of damage to the USA. Every time he speaks people around the world cringe and the administration would have done well to keep him quiet and let Colin Powell do the talking. One of the problems of thes administration is that president bush totally lacks the understanding of foreign affairs his father had. Join him with a simplistic fool like Rumsfeld and you have a terribly dangerous mix. Gotta go now, someone’s knocking at the door. ---
**Author:** ![bjohn13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@bjohn13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bjohn13)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2003, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226/74 "2003-04-18T01:21:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*Put me down on the side of those who believe Rumsfeld is a dangerous asshole who has done a lot of damage to the USA. Every time he speaks people around the world cringe and the administration would have done well to keep him quiet and let Colin Powell do the talking. One of the problems of thes administration is that president bush totally lacks the understanding of foreign affairs his father had. Join him with a simplistic fool like Rumsfeld and you have a terribly dangerous mix. > > Gotta go now, someone’s knocking at the door. \*\* This is a great point. When rating presidents, I have traditionally graded on three different agenda: 1) Internal affairs. 2) Foreign affairs. 3) Leadership abilities. Only two presidents, IMHO, get A’s or better in all three categories (Lincoln and Washington). The first Bush saved himself a bit with his A- in foreign policy. He made one mistake…he didn’t remove Saddam Hussein from office. I’m generous enough to give him a D in internal affairs, but he gets an F in leadership. The second Bush can’t even save himself from himself. I give him an F- in foreign affairs. Most people will disagree, but I don’t think we will see the true ramifications of what Bush started for at least another ten years. I simply cannot think of a President who I would rate lower. In internal affairs, I give him another F. The economy sucks right now. The midwest is mired in a drought and an economic slump of which I haven’t seen the likes in my lifetime. Not even the drought of the late '80’s was as bad as the economy is right now. Leadership? On September 12, 2001, I would have given him an A. Today, he has sunk to a D. Again, I have not seen a President so hated in my lifetime by people who oppose him (perhaps a bit too young to remember Nixon?). Bush has made no effort at compromise during his tenure. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-definition-of-freedom/168226.md?page=3)