There are actually 538 people whose votes really matter, and Bush got a majority of them.
DanielWithrow The Constitution says:
As I read this, giving comfort to the enemy is not treason unless one also “adheres to their Enemies.” and gives them aid. People who exaggerated our civil liberties flaws may have been encouraging al Qaeda, but they were not commiting treason, and Ashcroft did not accuse them of doing so.
If you’re scared of Ashcroft’s words, you ought to take a look at history. There are many wartime examples where dissenters (or suspected dissenters) were locked up. Ashcroft has made no move to punish people who exaggerate America’s flaws. He criticized some of them harshly. Boo hoo.
I do agree that his testimony was intended to discourage some of the more outrageous distortions, and that it did discourage them. I fully approve.
December, remind me. Are you the same guy who, on the strength of a woman wearing a pink boa, decided that a candidate was accusing his opponent of being gay?
Yet now you’re parsing an accusation of treason so tightly that Ashcroft’s failure to accuse civil libertarians of “adhering” to the enemy means that he wasn’t accusing them of treason? You’re reading it so tightly that “giving ammunition to America’s enemies” doesn’t qualify as “adhering” to America’s enemies?
Sheesh. And you said that Democrats were blinded by partisanship.
And this is relevant how? I would’ve been pissed if I’d lived in those other wartimes too, at the government’s repression of free speech.
At the time Ashcroft made these statements, it was unclear how civil libertarians were going to be treated – as you say, historically civil libertarians get treated pretty shittily during wartime. This is part and parcel of why his words were chilling, because he, attorney general, was suggesting that he saw some civil libertarians as traitors.
At the time, it was unclear whether he’d act on that expressed opinion.
Way to ignore my point, Sparky. What I meant was (and my post was pretty clear on this) is that I don’t seek to characterize every ranking Democrat as some kind of extreme caricature. That’s what you do regarding Republicans.
If you say something stupid, I will call it stupid. I’m direct that way. And because you usually seek the “Hail Mary” of extreme caricature, much of what you say is stupid.
Ashcroft has made some decisions you disagree with; fine. You don’t think Ashcroft is concerned enough with civil liberties; fine. But to paint Ashcroft as some kind of fire-breathing giant ogre who just hates civil liberties and boobies and wants to see both eradicated from the earth is just plain, well, stupid.
No, I don’t think there was a chilling effect. If anything, his remarks energized civil libertarians – they wouldn’t shut up about how terrible and horrible Ashcroft’s remarks were for days after he made them.**
Translation: Even though Ashcroft did clarify his remarks, I don’t believe the clarification, so I’m going to say he needs to clarify his remarks again.
Ashcroft clearly stated that honest debate was necessary, and the remainder of his comments were carefully directed at those who play fast and loose with the facts. You’re playing “see no evil” here.
December, I’m bringing it up now in response to the call for cites of members of the Triumvirate calling their enemies traitors – no more, no less. I think this satisfies that call for Ashcroft.
DCH, I don’t think Ashcroft’s comments of “I think reasoned debate is okay” are sufficient clarification for a comment that ends as, “but you unreasonable people are traitors.” Of course, I don’t think it’s okay for the AG to accuse anyone of being traitors because they vocally disagree with his policies – if I’m out there telling people that the AG is sticking needles into the eyes of innocent Afghani children, he still ought not be calling me a traitor. But he certainly shouldn’t be saying this in front of a panel that’s asking reasonable questions.
I think we’re going around in circles at this point: your claims that he was being reasonable sound totally unfounded to me, and likewise, I think my claims that he was being unreasonable sound totally unfounded to you. I’m not sure there’s more to say on this subject.
I see. So you are mostly “circumspect” in your debating habits, but since you are a straight-shootin’, right from the shoulder, Operation Candor sort of fellow, when we show our sheer inability to see the clarity of your arguments, you are compelled by your integrity to declare us “stupid”.
Boy, these ethical dilemmas can really tear at you sometimes, huh?
Well, ok, but I was kinda counting on that extra $100.
Well, strictly speaking, he said you were aiding terrorists by eroding our national unity and diminishing our resolve; by giving ammunition to America’s enemies, and pause to America’s friends; by encouraging people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.
And surely there’s someting to that, at some point. If you were saying that the AG was sticking needles into the eyes of innocent Afghani children, don’t you think that would erode national unity somewhat? Don’t you think that would diminish our resolve? After all, it would be hard for Americans to support their government if it was engaged in that kind of thing.
And can you seriously think that such an outlandish accusation wouldn’t give ammunition to our enemies and pause to our friends? Al-Quaeda partisans would be saying “say what you will about the Taliban, at least they weren’t shoving needles into the eyes of innocent kids.” And surely our allies would hesitate to assist us, given our needle-shoving predilections.
Outlandish, baseless accusations really do hurt our security efforts abroad and at home – and, I might add, they hurt the efforts of thoughtful civil libertarians to make their point.
PS: Why are you abbreviating my name DCH? Just curious.
Diogenes: Oh, that’s so clever. And original, to boot. :rolleyes:
Unless you’re making a serious charge of bribery against Bush 41. That would at least have the benefit of being original, if stupid.
Last things first – my apologies, DCU. I was abbreviating it according to how I said it in my head, how the phrase’s rhythms work out (Do we Cheat 'em and How), not according to the spelling. I’ll fix that from here on out.
In answer to your question: no, I don’t think that claims about needles-in-the-eyes gives aid to terrorists, because I think that such claims would discredit the folks making them, unless they had real evidence of the needles.
I do think that accusations of real infringements on civil liberties provides indirect aid to our nation’s enemies, by demonstrating that we’re not so all-fired free as we claim to be.
But that aid is indirect: the real fault in such cases is with the government whose policies infringe on liberties. In this respect, if the AG makes a statement that implies an equation of political debate and treason, it is the AG who is giving ammunition to our enemies.
Sure, that kind of implies that Ashcroft is a traitor, in the same way he implied that I’m a traitor. Difference is, I’m not the attorney general: my statement isn’t going to give him reason for fear.
Well, I am happy to note that none of this has done any injury to your self-esteem. If I am mistaken, please advise soonest so that I might recommend a good aromatherapist.
Actually, as a technical matter, I think both accusations, real and false, give some aid to our enemies (for the sake of argument, let’s drop the obviously over-the-top needle example in favor of a real-life false accusation – that prisoners at Camp X-Ray were being treated like animals).
However, there is a countervailing interest in putting our own house in order that is served by legitimate civil liberty-based criticisms. Thus, a call for reasoned debate: the good of improving our own handling of the liberty vs. security question outweighs the bad of giving an argument to our enemies.
That countervailing interest is clearly not present when the accusations made are baseless, without the slightest inquiry into the actual facts.
There is a difference between raising serious issues for debate and baseless fearmongering, a difference that the AG recognized in his remarks.
Another, entirely legitimate, view is that the AG’s remarks were themselves “baseless fearmongering”. It is all well and good to parse his remarks in the most favorable possible light, nonetheless they admit of another interpretation: that the Administration is hounded and hampered by a less-than-patriotic element of the American public. Even if one grants (and I don’t) that these implications can be explained away, they should never have been there in the first place!
The crucial issue of the Guatanamo detainees lies in thier legal status and our obligation to strictly adhere to the treaties and agreements we demand others strictly adhere to. If they are poorly treated, so much the worse. Even if they were detained on a cruise ship with all amenities, a sprinkling of pixie dust like naming them “illegal combatants” does nothing to change the essential facts.
But this pales in comparison to abrogating the Constitution in matters pertaining to persons who are, unquestionably, American citizens. The Constitution has not been modified to suit the needs of Mr. Ashcroft or Mr. Bush. If they feel the need to do so, let them state thier case in the proper and correct fashion, until such time, they are bound by thier oaths to “protect, defend and preserve”.
Patriotism is not, as often stated, the last refuge of the scoundrel. It is often the first.
Baseless? Do you deny the hysterics the extreme left went into over the treatment of Gitmo prisoners? The fact is there WERE false stories being bandied about. There most certainly was a basis for Ashcroft’s accusation.**
All well and good, but making up stories about the prisoner’s treatment is still beyond the pale, and hampers legitimate security efforts.
I mean really – do you seriously believe that no falsehood, no misrepresentation, no gross distortion of the facts by administration critics is out of bounds? Do you seriously believe that that kind of thing doesn’t harm our security interests?
PS – will be away from the PC for a couple of days starting this afternoon due to business travel.
If people are lying about government, bring them up on slander or libel charges. Frankly, I don’t think any level of lying about government rises to the level of treason.
In terms of harming our security interests, I think making vague implied accusations of treason against a government’s critics does much more harm to our worldwide reputation, plays much more into the hands of terrorists, than can any charge made against the government by an outside body.
I think we’ve got several debates in the air, which is confusing the issue:
Did Ashcroft call some of his political opponents traitors? Other than December with his bizarrely strict construction of Ashcroft’s remarks (Ashcroft didn’t use the word “adhere”), I think everyone is agreeing that he did. Lemme know if I’m wrong here.
Did Ashcroft imply that some folks who were exaggerating or making up stories about mistreatments of prisoners were traitors? I think everyone who agrees on point #1 agrees on point #2.
Did Ashcroft imply that mainstream civil libertarians are traitors? This is a point of debate.
Was it okay for Ashcroft to imply point #2? This is a point of debate.
Was it okay for Ashcroft to imply point #3? I think everyone agrees that this wouldn’t be okay; whether he actually did so is what’s being debated.
Does this summary sound right? If so, maybe we should proceed from here with these points; I think we’re getting points #2-5 mixed up with one another.
I think that’s a good summary. I’m running to a plane in the next couple of minutes, so it’ll be a few days before I respond.
BTW, I really don’t think you can libel or slander the government as an institution – IIRC, there has to be damage to the reputation of a specific individual, so saying “the US is treating the prisoners like animals” is not libelous. That’s off the cuff, though – if anyone with more time to give the matter some thought would like to clarify/correct me, feel free.