...not everyone who professes to love freedom likes the actual exercise of freedom. For instance, the American Legion has called for the end to anti-war protests and something that looks like the end of all questioning of policy through exercise of the right of assembly:
"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," Thomas Cadmus, national commander, told delegates at the group's national convention in Honolulu. The delegates voted to use whatever means necessary to "ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism.""Whatever mean necessary"? Maybe we'll get issued the same shirts under this scheme, too.
Interesting to note that the only way autonomous humans are to exercise their opinion is through the machinery of the Federal state. Nice touch. Founding Fathers would love that.
Comments
David Janes - August 29, 2005 8:05 AM
I was going to give it to you for second sourcing this one, but in fact the Legion's resolution is probably more scary than the article you quoted:
<blockquote>
Resolved, That the National Commander be and is hereby authorized to use whatever means at his disposal to disseminate accurate information about this war on terrorism, and to engage whatever means necessary to ensure the united support of the American people.
</blockquote>
That part after the comma is just nuts.
Alan - August 29, 2005 8:19 AM
What can that mean? Is there any other part of society that could use the phrase "whatever means necessary" and not be either investigated or laughed at?
David Janes - August 29, 2005 9:14 AM
There's probably lots of groups that use likewise phraseology, all equally worthy of contempt in my mind. Is it treason or sedition to suggest that the legally elected government should ignore the constitution? We should get Flea in on this :-)
The insertion of "legal and moral" into the statement would have made a whole lot of sense.
Alan - August 29, 2005 9:22 AM
...or why not "continue to speak out everywhere" or other robust yet non-martial-law-esque wording. We do need the Flea to guide us.
brian - August 30, 2005 12:21 AM
I can see it now... 80-year-old WW2 vets driving at 40 MPH down to Crawford TX... climbing out of their Lincolns, staggering over to the protesters and using "whatever means necessary" to stop the protests. Ironically, these are the very same guys who fought to preserve the right to free speech and free assembly.
As an American Soldier, I don't feel demoralized by the protestors. As Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." There is no more true application of that principle than in my organization. But aside from all that, the protesters aren't protesting against the troops themselves. There's only one guy I know of who would do that; he lives in Syracuse and nobody likes him.
Alan - August 30, 2005 8:18 AM
Well said, Brian and I would also point out that you just re-enlisted, too. And we don't like that guy in Syracuse either. He's a nut.