Article

2005-08-26 Home Front: Culture Wars

American Legion declares war on protestors

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Jackal 2005-08-26 09:56|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 He made the proper distinction: "...that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples."

This is to paraphrase giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

It is NOT legal to:

1) Call for the violent overthrow of the US or the assassination of US officers, elected or appointed. Armed resistance against the United States or its military or other officers.

2) Attempt to undermine the military by interfering with its mission or morale, to include encouraging desertion, mutiny, and disobedience; physically interfering with shipments of military supplies and personnel on active duty; or to provide material or morale support to the enemy. Interference with a legal draft.

3) Assisting the enemy by acts of sabotage, espionage, the spreading of enemy propaganda, and other threats to the public trust and confidence of the US government.

4) Unauthorized travel to hostile or forbidden nations; doing so with intent to interfere in US foreign policy or lend aid and support to the enemy; meeting with enemy representatives or agents in any country in an effort to do either. Falsifying or promulgating falsified documents in an attempt to discredit the government of the United States or undermine the US military or foreign policy. Possession, transfer and release of any classified documents or equipment, copies, reproductions, in full or in part.

5) Acting as unregistered agents of a foreign government; encouraging others to acts of violence, civil disobedience, or other violations. Acts of physical destruction against federal property. Acts of riot, sedition and treason not othewise mentioned.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-08-26 11:09|| 2005-08-26 11:09|| Front Page Top

#2 I also can't agree with the call for "an end to all" public protests. That is free speech, and that's what our fighting men and women are protecting, while simultaneously granting it to the oppressed peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The better solution, IMO, is to counter these demonstrations with our own and demonstrate that there are many more people, and people of higher character and intelligence, that support our troops and support their mission.

The unfortunate part of that is that most of those people have jobs, families, and other responsibilities that don't allow them to counter-protest on a whim. C'est la vie...

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-08-26 11:12|| 2005-08-26 11:12|| Front Page Top

#3 I just joined. I've been getting their pamplets on joining mailed to me, but have basically ignored them. Seeing this made me want to join.

Posted by JackAssFestival 2005-08-26 12:32|| 2005-08-26 12:32|| Front Page Top

#4 No way Dar I am with Anonymous Protesting is for things like civil rights maybe the patriot act or this or that political idea. War is WAR and when your nation is at war you support that war or at the minimum dont get in the way of such. Sedition is illegal and should be enforced if not with jail then fines and deportation. You dont give moral aid to our enemy you dont harm the moral of US soldgiers you just dont do that. Thier is no excuse we have freedom of speech but we dont have the right to undermine a active war effort at the cost of US soldgiers lives. that is Sedition and illegal. The pres and the leadership should quit this defensive crap and go offensive call the protesters out for what they are hell they are out front of Walter Ried Medical with f*cking "maimed for life" signs. Is that free speech DAR????? The US military fights for freedom not for our enemies to be allowed to spread thier propoganda within our nation amongst our own population that is BS. In WW1 and WW2 we enforced the Sedition laws rounded people up imprisoned them deported some did what was nessecary. US citizenship is a privalage not a natural born right. If you dont respect that and honor the good and bad that comes with that you dont deserve it and should lose it so someone who does and will can take your place. Our nation is dying from within because of the distortion of our laws. Freedom of speech was never meant to allow internal undermining of a war effort or our nation. That is not what our forefathers meant our more receant forefathers understood this in WW1 WW2 and acted properly during the 60's somehow we lost that understanding and today it is still costing us.

I do agree thou that the military needs a informational division. Our leadership wont do it the media and hollywood cannnot be trusted to do it. The military needs to hire some advertising people and have public service announcments to tell the good news. Military reps should be sent out to all news stations to be in the know experts in full dress expaining what is good and bad and debating the consiquences if we fail and the benifits if we can stay solid and win. I want to see commercials with pictures of US troops have tea or a meal with X Iraqi civilians, showing the atrocities of terrorist then the caption this is what we fight, shorts of fake news stories of "what if we lose" showing senerios of the consiquences that would follow, shorts of germans before WW2 hating america and after building allies is hard expensive and time consuming, Iraqi soldgiers fighting asking for our continues support to help them beat our "common enemy" the terrorist. I have seen thousands of anti-smoking, anti-drugs, freekin save energy public service announcements why do I not see announcements on this and all Military efforts of importance, if the US smokes big deal some die early of cancer if we lose to the terrorist the consiquences is overwhelming.

Posted by C-Low 2005-08-26 12:42|| 2005-08-26 12:42|| Front Page Top

#5 Nope. No media bias here.

Not only is it bias, it's 1) editorializing, and 2) not even a logical conclusion of the quoted remarks. I don't know why you didn't use the full title: American Legion Declares War on Protestors -- Media Next?

... the group's national commander called for an end to all âpublic protestsâ and âmedia eventsâ against the war.

But he did no such thing, at least not in the remarks quoted. I agree, though, that rather than disparaging war protests, he'd have been a lot better off encouraging counter-protests.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2005-08-26 12:46|| http://darkblogules.blogspot.com]">[http://darkblogules.blogspot.com] 2005-08-26 12:46|| Front Page Top

#6 C-Low--My contention is with the word "all", as in "end all protests". Providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treason, and I think we've seen plenty of examples of it that should be prosecuted. However, people still have a right to disagree and make their opinions known. There is a line to be drawn there between voicing dissent and voicing treason.

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-08-26 13:03|| 2005-08-26 13:03|| Front Page Top

#7 In grudgingly agree that freedom of speech should not be curtailed - even for the ass-wipes. Otherwise, the last part of the famous lines would have to be dropped:

""It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."

-- Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, Sergeant, USMC

Posted by Lone Ranger 2005-08-26 13:12|| 2005-08-26 13:12|| Front Page Top

#8 Hear, hear, Lone Ranger! I agree. But, I see C-Low's point too. We've lost our way in how to TRULY fight a war after WWII. You fight for victory, not to settle for some 'peace accord, ceasefire, etc.' That's a big reason why we're in Iraq now...we didn't finish the job in 1991 (although, I don't blame Bush Sr. for that).

Posted by BA 2005-08-26 14:17|| 2005-08-26 14:17|| Front Page Top

#9 I meant to add a blurb about Daniel Pipes' recent article about this. He states (and I agree) that many know we won't enforce the treason/sedition laws, so they go forth and act ways harmful to this country. His prime example was the "American Taliban" (John Walker Lindh) from Calif. He was caught RED-HANDED in Afghanistan right after 9/11 fighting our troops. After being rounded up, he led the prison outbreak that led to the death of Mike Spann (CIA Op and from what I remember, our first death in the WoT, plus an Auburn Tiger alum to boot)! Now, THAT is treason, clear cut, and he should've been tried and shot on sight! Made into Example #1!

Posted by BA 2005-08-26 14:21|| 2005-08-26 14:21|| Front Page Top

#10 This is not a news item but a Goebbels style editorial.
When did Cadmus call for a ban on "all 'public protests' or 'media events'" against the war" as this piece claims in the first sentence?
This is an agenda driven interpretation and the absence of an exact quote to support it is a red flag.

His actual words, as quoted, include a number of qualifications.

"The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples,"

This does not equal all protests against the war, by any means. It certainly doesn't if we accept the Left's claims of patriotism and support for the troops.

Apparently, the author also wants to conflate demoralizing troops, endangering lives, and encouraging terrorists with "American freedoms."

The author has essentially confessed to seditious intent by asserting this equivalence.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-08-26 18:58|| 2005-08-26 18:58|| Front Page Top

#11 The knockout punch:
Where does Cadmus call for a ban on anything, including even seditious behavior?
Does a call for the American Legion to "stand against" various Moonbats really equal a call for a legal ban.
Opposition is not automatically oppression. There is no Constitutional right to freedom from disagreement, ridicule, and opposition; just as there is no Constitutional right to be taken seriously or to have the unfettered use of the forum of one's choice.

Editor and Publisher is, of course, an internal publication of the Media-Industrial Complex and its pronouncements should be treated with the utmost skepticism.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-08-26 19:05|| 2005-08-26 19:05|| Front Page Top

00:03 Dave
23:55 .com
23:44 Sobiesky
23:39 Oldspook
23:36 DMFD
23:35 Barbara Skolaut
23:22 Frank G
23:21 Alaska Paul
23:20 11A5S
23:19 Alaska Paul
23:17 Frank G
23:13 Frank G
23:12 Alaska Paul
23:12 Poison Reverse
23:09 Frank G
23:05 49 pan
23:05 GK
23:05 Bomb-a-rama
23:00 49 pan
22:55 Frank G
22:54 49 pan
22:51 49 pan
22:48 49 pan
22:44 49 pan