Freedoms Curtailed In Defense Of Liberty.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

10 October 2001

WASHINGTON, DC—Responding to the threats facing America's free democratic system, White House officials called upon Americans to stop exercising their democratic freedoms Monday.

Above: Ari Fleischer urges Americans to keep their mouths shut. "In this time of national crisis, a time when our most cherished freedoms are threatened, all Americans—not just outspoken talk-show hosts like Bill Maher—must watch what they say," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters. "Now more than ever, if we want to protect democracy for future generations, it is vital that nobody speak out about the issues of the day."

"We must all do our patriotic duty to protect our country's great ideals," Fleischer continued, "and we have to be careful about what opinions we express if we are to defend our Constitution, a sacred document behind which all Americans must stand united as one."

Fleischer's sentiments echoed those of many executive-branch officials, who, in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have called for broad-based limitations on civil liberties—and urged all patriotic, freedom-loving citizens to support those restrictions—in defense of the American way of life.

"We live in a land governed by plurality of opinion in an open electorate, but we are now under siege by adherents of a fundamentalist, totalitarian belief system that tolerates no dissent," Attorney General John Ashcroft said. "Our most basic American values are threatened by an enemy opposed to everything for which our flag stands. That is why I call upon all Americans to submit to wiretaps, e-mail monitoring, and racial profiling. Now is not the time to allow simplistic, romantic notions of 'civil liberties' and 'equal protection under the law' to get in the way of our battle with the enemies of freedom."

In the past, Ashcroft said, efforts by federal agencies to restrict personal freedoms were "severely hampered" by such factors as the judicial system, the Bill Of Rights, and "government by the people." Since the attacks, however, some such limitations have been waived, finally giving the CIA, FBI, Pentagon, and White House the greater powers they need to defend freedom.

U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who advocated permitting the CIA to engage in various illegal activities during a recent Tonight Show With Jay Leno appearance, stressed the importance of not merely submitting to freedom-curtailment policies, but also blindly agreeing with them.

"Now is not the time for such divisive, destructive things as dialogue and debate," McCain said. "Now is not the time for, 'My opinion is just as valid as yours,' and 'What are my country's leaders doing and why?' and 'I have a question, Mr. President.' Now is the time for one thing and one thing only: The defense of the American democratic ideal. Any and all who disagree with this directive, or who have different ideas about how it should be accomplished, should learn to shut their mouths."

As the U.S. prepares to mobilize forces against Afghanistan, the military is seeking strong limitations on the press. According to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, such a Constitution-flouting move would not be unprecedented, citing the suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War and the order to round up 110,000 Japanese-Americans in detention camps after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

"Remember, under the oppressive Taliban regime, people live in constant fear of an oppressive order to which all must submit," Rumsfeld said. "Under their system, it is illegal to practice a different religion or support a different political system. It is against the law for women to work or leave their homes without their faces covered. There is no freedom of speech, press, or assembly, as dissent of any kind is not tolerated. It is even forbidden to smile or laugh in public, and all who fail to unquestioningly obey are punished with reprisals of brutal violence. We must not allow such a regime to threaten our great democracy. We must stand for something better than that."

"It is therefore urgent," Rumsfeld continued, "that all Americans be quiet, stop asking questions, accept the orders of authorities, and let us get on with the important work of defending liberty, so that America can continue to be a beacon of freedom to all the world."

© Copyright 2001 Onion, Inc., All rights reserved. The Source



-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 11, 2001

Answers

As the U.S. stifles dissenting opinions, will it ALSO stifle questions regarding why U.S. conglomerates and politicians have secret foreign accounts revealed during the terrorist investigations?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 11, 2001.

Um, you followed up and "The Onion" piece with a serious question?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 11, 2001.

delete and, replace with a

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 11, 2001.

Hi, Buddy.

The Onion piece wasn't off-base. Had I not known it to be from the Onion, I might have considered it quite a serious piece. Have you not seen/heard the comments both on this forum and in the media regarding one being "unpatriotic" if one dissents in ANY way? I surely have. While I can understand Dr. Rice suggesting that videos of folks like Osama bin Laden be censored in order to not exacerbate the situation or even provide coded messages to terrorists worldwide, I don't understand why the American people should be asked to march in lock-step. Is this how YOU see a Democratic Republic? It sure as hell isn't how *I* see it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 11, 2001.


Have you not seen/heard the comments both on this forum and in the media regarding one being "unpatriotic" if one dissents in ANY way?

Sure I have, but those are opinions. There have been peace marches in New York, Washington, and other places. Nobody has tried to stop them. Yes, there have been counter-protests, but those are people expressing their opinions too. The government isn't stopping them. For that matter, none of the talking-heads on Cable-TV are keeping quiet, nor should they.

This piece from "The Onion" struck me as pointing out the hyperbole surrounding this issue.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 11, 2001.



Buddy: I'm not talking about peace movements or even "talking heads." Even the WRITTEN press has been instructed by the administration to not write articles that don't support the administration's goals.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 11, 2001.

"instructed"? Reference please.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), October 11, 2001.

zip a lip=========save a ship!!!!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), October 11, 2001.

Anita,

I guess you woulda really freaked during WWII when they censored mail, news, and most all public communications.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 11, 2001.




-- (Please@don't use a fake email .address. It creates a lot of technical probelms), October 11, 2001.


Hi, Gary. Since you responded to the thread Maria started and mentioned the Onion article, I assume you wanted to ask your question here. I've seen MANY articles on this subject, of which I only offer you some:

Whose Side Are We On?

We need an Independent News Service

Networks agree to edit Bin Laden tapes

On Foreign News

Wartime Secrecy

Bin Laden editing

Lies during wartime

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 12, 2001.


Dear Anita, What is your opinion on vaccinations?

-- (just@wondering.now), October 12, 2001.

Hi Anita,

I hope you also realize that it was not you I was referring to as the dip shit, but the no name above my post who could never provide nor back up his/her claim. And thank you for providing the sources that back up your concerns!

We are no where near the level of government intrusion that we had during WWII. And today, the enemies we face have much more sofisticated means to gather information on us. Why make that so easy for them? Why place our troops in danger? Why drag out a conflict because an enemy knows what our military is doing even before the soldiers on the front line know? This isn't a sporting event, I don't have the right to a play by play of any war.

Does any Western leader have the access to the Arab world as Bin Laden has to ours?? I really don't give a shit what this murderer/terrorist has to say! The only time I want to see his face on TV is when we catch him and he is put to death for the murders he claims in the name of his god. He has nothing of value to say, nothing is gained by having CNN, or any other network constantly giving him a platform for his hate... He ( Bin Laden) has no rights in this country and I'd dare to say he gave up all his human rights when he became a terrorist. IF our networks don't have the common sense to stop this propaganda ploy, let alone possible hidden messages to sleeper cells ( do you have any doubts they are here alredy and have been so for years? ), then they should be "leaned" on by the government! Good grief, has the chase of money made them so blind?

I liked the articles on how well read Americans are on world news... Maybe we all wouldn't be so shocked at the past month's events, if we indeed did cover the world. I check the India TImes, the BBC, The Sydney Herald, The CBC, and El Mercurio (Santiago, Chile) to keep a breast of what is going on in the world. It is a national embarrassment (sp?) to have our news networks going on and on and on and on and on and onandonandonandon, about Gary Condit and Chandra Levy (to name one of many sorry news stories). I stopped watching the Fox Network News all together as they had turned a promising organization into the 24 hour Chandra Levy/GaryCondit soap opera. If you'd have watched them, you'd've thought that nothing else in the world was going on. There are some excellent alternative news sourses out there, whether on the local level or national level. These should be fostered and contiue to flourish as I have found them a good check and balance, at least here on a local level. Everyone brings their own baises to anything they do, including reporting. The alternative press in my hometown does a great job reporting stories ignored and overlooked by the mainstream press. I like the very last sentence in the "Lies during Wartime" article in which Paul Bass states, "Read and listen to the alternative press! But don't necessarily just believe us, either." good advice period!

-- Gary (gcphelps@yahoo.com), October 13, 2001.


Hello again, Gary. Yes, I liked that last line, myself. Very true.

As I've said so often, we can't compare THIS "war" to WWII. There were no TV sets. There was no internet. As you said, folks CAN go to news sources from other countries and obtain more information than the US press currently offers on world events, and MANY do. So, what is to be gained by hushing the American Press while other countries are under no such constraints, with the US the country that CLAIMS to have a free press? Here's another article on this.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 13, 2001.


Here's another article on the subject. I just hope it never gets to the point where folks say, "What al-Jazerra video? *I* never saw any video." I just hope it never gets to the point where we must tune in our short-wave radios to "Radio-free Canada" or "Radio-free Australia" to get the news that someone decided we shouldn't hear.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 13, 2001.


I'll make this my last on this one, lest someone accuse me of talking to myself. I just think that a free press is pretty damn important.

Al-Jazeera

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 13, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ