Unfree Republic: Thread II

Lewrockwell.com ^ | September 24, 2001 | Jeff Elkins

[Rebeckie]

Unfree Republic

by Jeff Elkins

Let the stench of Middle East flesh reach Paradise reassuring them that these filth have gone to hell permanently."

The quote above is representative of many posted on the FreeRepublic.com site in the wake of the WTC attack, and unfortunately its like is not uncommon elsewhere. Americans are angry, predictably and rightly so, but just as predictable are the side effects. As always, that righteous anger will be accepted as a beloved gift by the state and molded into tools of oppression.

It’s funny how that works. Every single state-sponsored war the US has become embroiled in has resulted in an inexorable increase in the power of the state.

It’s also funny that it’s always assumed that human behavior in the past has no relation to how we behave today. Why those people were old-fashioned, we’re modern, educated, etc.

The beginning of this repeating pattern has already become public with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. It has an ominous sound, that name, almost Germanic. (I can’t wait to see the uniforms.)

On April 13, 1917, days after our entry into World War One, President Wilson created the Committee on Public Information to promote the war domestically while publicizing American war aims abroad. Bush has replicated that step, with this new cabinet-level department.

Under the leadership of journalistic muckraker George Creel, the CPI was a propaganda apparatus unparalleled at that point in world history. The CPI functioned as a de facto public censor, vetting nearly all published material about the war and helping to draft legislation such as the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. In the months prior to our entry into the war and especially after our entry when they were nearly criminal, antiwar viewpoints were rarely heard.

The same pattern emerges now: Penn. Gov. Tom Ridge will be President Bush’s George Creel, and just as in those dim days of yesteryear, he’ll have plenty of willing civilian accomplices. And after all, there’s so much more to censor -- Ridge will need all the help he can get. In seeking warriors for the front line of Internet censorship, Ridge needs look no farther than FreeRepublic.com. The atmosphere there is now poisonous.

Again, look back to Wilson's CPI. It encouraged businesses to spy on their employees, parents to spy on their children, children to spy on their parents, neighbors to spy on neighbors, and above all to report "disloyal," pro-German sentiments. State authorities banned the teaching of German in schools and changed German street names. As the madness mounted, those regarded as pro-German were hounded from their jobs, pressured to change their German names, beaten, and in a few cases lynched. Almost all cases of violence, while incited by the state, were carried out by "civilians" in the grip of war hysteria.

Along with this anti-German hysteria, Congress passed several measures designed to rigidly suppress criticism of the war. In particular, the Espionage Act, passed in June 1917, specified a fine of $10,000 or twenty years in prison for "whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag."

The Espionage Act was very popular in its day. It was cheered on by mindless lemmings under the influence of state propaganda. Their great grandchildren now inhabit FreeRepublic.com, viciously attacking anyone who questions the wisdom of the state.

Our Congress is considering similar measures under the rubric of "anti-terrorism," and as it was at the beginning of the 20th Century, the FreeRepublic lemmings of the 21st are cheering the morally corrupt politicians along.

It’s not just message posters on the site. The management of FreeRepublic has instituted a "loose lips sink ships" campaign, with new moderators patrolling the forum to delete posts that in their opinion are detrimental to the "war effort."

The FreeRepublic mission statement claims "We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America."

Sanctimonious hogwash. Everything old is new again – the keyboard warriors of FreeRepublic would be right at home in 1917 shilling for Wilson.

September 24, 2001

[x]

... it is the place of Rockwell's site to provide that balance, and to take less than an extreme opposite view would hardly serve the purpose. It has always been my practice, when prevalant views seem to me to be excessively one-sided, to take the extreme opposite view, rather than to try, rather than to try at all cost to take some moderate intermediate position. Too many of the people whom I know that do the latter do it more to play the role of the sweet reasonable condescending moderate, than out of genuine principle, and I find that repugnant. That is why I like the Rockwell site. I agree with most of the usual contributors most of the time. Most of the views expressed there are opposite to the unexamined majority view. That makes the site valuable. Particularly now, when people are being stampeded and we keep hearing that now is not the time to reflect or examine our opinions, but we should simply unite behind our leaders and except what they tell us we need to except if we are to be considered loyal citizens. I think LewRockwell.com offers a necessary antidote to that and for that reason it is valuable.

You could say much the same for taliban.com or revolutionarycommunistparty.org, if those sites existed.

Actually, I do see your point and agree that we shouldn't censor dissident opinions or be stampeded.

From a free speech point of view there's something to be said for lewrockwell.com. From a policy point of view, there's much less.

I had a taste for strong opinions and that attracted me to the site originally, but over a year or two, my opinion has changed.

First of all, each successive article is basically a repetition of what came before and doesn't add anything to what came before. That may be good for propaganda purposes, but it doesn't educate, illuminate or convince.

Secondly, the writers don't seriously consider opposing opinions. Again, this may be desirable from the point of view of ideological combat, but over time it makes the site dispensible if you want something more or different than that. I don't get a feeling that a conversation is going on in which conflicting facts are being sorted out and people could change their minds based on the evidence.

Strong views and convictions are necessary to change things, but the people I really trust are those who take conflicting opinions and stubborn, unavoidable facts into account. Otherwise, there could be problems when you try to apply your ideas directly to reality, if you assume that reality is simpler than it really is.

I've yet to see the Rockewellites deal with the question of what they would seriously do, if they were President in 1861, 1941 or 2001, coming into a situation not of their own making with limited options and with real committments to the people who elected them, the Constitution, the country and future generations. They never see the hard questions for what they really are, but retreat into critical sniping, "I told you so," and easy, superficial formulas.

I don't think either one of us will convince the other. What looks like staunch adherence to principle from the inside looks like blind rigidity from outside and vice versa. I do notice from some of the comments here, that, like me, a lot of people liked, enjoyed and agreed with lewrockwell.com when it first started and have grown disillusioned with it over time.

[DB]

I don't advocate killing civilians. My point is the population of Afghanistan is more responsible for their own government than anyone else. This mess is partly of their own making. If they hate their government it is their duty first to do something about it. Just like the people of Iraq are responsible for theirs… Instead our people are going to die to take their government out. Why do you think they should risk any less? You seem to think the people of Afghanistan bear no responsibility for their government. They do. Just as we bear the responsibility of Clinton's actions that many of us strongly disagreed with. Like it or lump it, he was ours…

You obviously think dropping the bombs on Japan to end the war was wrong. Those were cities after all… It very likely saved 100,000+ American lives. If you want to be "disgusted" because I value our lives more than theirs so be it. This is war, our survival is at stake. There's no reward for 2nd place.

[DB]

Very well said.

I totally agree.

[RightWinger]

Who is this moron, I've never heard of him.
Oh yeah, I guess he's nobody!
It figures.

[DB]

I should add that it likely saved 100,000+ Japanese lives as well...

[getoffmylawn]

OUch oUch ouCh!! OMG!! my side is killing me!! cut it out! That's the funniest poop I've ever seen in my life.. whoooooo... oh man... whooooo.. breathe boy, breathe...

Thanks for being with me Scholastic. I've been feelin' mighty loanly at this site lately.

Thanks for the Intense giggle, Pay now. I really needed it.

[Rebeckie]

"You obviously think dropping the bombs on Japan to end the war was wrong. Those were cities after all?It very likely saved 100,000+ American lives. If you want to be "disgusted" because I value our lives more than theirs so be it."

I don't like it when people put words or opinions in my mouth that I have never stated. Dropping the atomic bomb on those Japanese cities was the best thing that we could have done at that time. But I am not talking about that instance, the debate is here and what is happening now. I fully support going to war with Afganastan, but I just feel as if I need to stress that we need to do this as ethically as possible in regards to the civilians there, regardless of who you think is to blame. I have never said that I am not placing any blame on those civilians in Afganastan, what I was saying however, is that those people's children in this situation are not to blame for anything that is happening over there and because of them, we should try to fight this war as ethically as possible.

[Aurelius]

It is by no means clear that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to persuade the Japanese to surrender. Remember that there was in place a demand for "unconditional surrender", put there by Roosevelt, and the Japanese had been told the terms would include their giving up their Imperial system. The latter condition was understood to have provided them with their primary motive to hold out in spite of recognizing their loss as inevitable. Once they had been bombed, they were allowed to keep their Emporer.

[sendtoscott]

The "big three" had discussed demanding unconditional surrender and decided against it at a conference (which conference escapes me now, sorry, its the wine again). FDR used the phrase "unconditional surrender" after that conference anyway, and out of 'unity', Churchill and Stalin decided to go along with it. THAT is why we made that demand - it was not a thought out government decision.

[Aurelius]

Thank you. I was not aware of that important detail. It is my impression that much of what originated with Roosevelt was not "thought out". The same was true of the so-called Morganthau (Treasury Secretary) plan to strip Germany of its heavy industry after the war and leave it basically an entirely agricultural economy. Roosevelt, when presented with a description of the plan is said to have quickly glanced through it and then signed O.K., F.D.R.This along with the general "unconditional surrender" policy is credited with prolonging the European war. The reasoning - had they expectation of more reasonable terms, anti-Nazi elements in the Army might have continued their efforts to kill Hitler and/or overthrow the Nazi leadership and surrender. After the war the destruction of heavy industry was actually begun in accordance with the Morganthau plan, but wiser heads prevailed and terminated it.

[Imperial Warrior]

I'm using experience, common sense, rationality, and logical extrapolation, not lingusitic legerdemain or improper legal semantic terms of criminal or civil jurisprudence. This is not a court trial, it's a war. Since these are sovereign states and entities, they do not fall under the province of our domestic court jurisdiction. For that, they would have to be either within our sphere of legal control or operating under a provincial government established and maintained by us and/or our allies. Of course that would only occur after a military defeat in which we assumed such a role as in postwar Germany to conduct war crimes trials. In that case, legal court jurisdiction would be a proper venue, but not until then.

[getoffmylawn]

41 calls 43

[IronJack]

I've seen this theme a hundred times since the attack. It's always some variation of "Those who would yield freedom for safety deserve neither." While I believe that completely, just what rights have we been asked to give up? It's true, the "Office of Homeland Security" has an ominous, Teutonic ring to it. And with a McCain conservative like Tom Ridge running it, I'm even more nervous. But to date, there have been no incursions into private rights, no additional layers of bureaucracy to drill through, no black-clad Gestapo agents kicking in doors in the middle of the night.

"Homeland Security" has taken a lot of forms over the years. From the National Guard to the FBI, it's nothing new. This federalizes that function, to be sure, and it is rife with potential for abuse. But so far, I've seen nothing but paranoid ravings about what "could" happen. Nothing HAS.

[sendtoscott]

But so far, I've seen nothing but paranoid ravings about what "could" happen. Nothing HAS.

Should we wait until it does or try to stop abuses of power before then? Can we un-kill Vicky Weaver? Can we un-incinerate the kids at Waco?

[IronJack]

Should we wait until it does or try to stop abuses of power before then?

Should we be willing to kill the idea stillborn, out of fear that it may grow into a monster? This is anticipatory justice, pre-emptive prevention. Nothing has happened. But it COULD, so let's nip it in the bud. There is nothing that can't be abused. If this office falls victim to that trap, then let's shut it down. Better yet, let's limit its powers from the outset so that it fulfills its constitutional function and no more.

The FBI and the BATF were the perpetrators at Waco. Not because of design, but because of execution. Then, a second-rate president and his Justice Department lackeys refused to hold the blundering organizations accountable. THAT should never happen again, with this office or any other. But if they can help break up these clusters of madmen, let's give them a chance.

[Rebeckie]

Open your eyes, our freedoms have been eroded many times recently by the Federal Government and not even noticed by the people that typically look for these types of things.

1. Picture recognition software placed on the streets of America. 2. Wiretaps have become easier and more readily used in the last few decades. 3. Does Carnivore ring a bell at all? 4. Waco, Ruby Ridge, and do you think that those people's rights were not infringed at all? Typically, there is usually a trial before anything such as a death penalty can be given. Look, this thread was put up as a warning and to encourage people to give extra thought to the idea of personal security. I believe everything in moderation even in regards to this subject and the Federal Government has not had a successful interpretation of the meaning of this value.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." --William Pitt

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." --James Madison

[IronJack]

Are all these warning signs? Yes. Are these inherently restrictions on civil liberty? No. With the exception of the exectuions at Ruby Ridge and Waco, these are simply the latest generation of crime-fighting tools, being used by the same league that has used such tools for centuries. Even the executions aren't completely novel; I remember Melvin Purvis executing John Dillinger in a hail of bullets on a Chicago street. And if Pinkerton had had GPS surveillance, the James Bros. probably wouldn't have robbed so many trains.

My whole point was that the mere existence of a "Homeland Security" department is ominous, but not necessarily a priori evidence that the govt. is out to "get us."

Maybe you've got YOUR eyes open wide enough to see things that aren't even there.

[Rebeckie]

I believe that the things I have listed above are restrictions on our civil liberty--our right to privacy. Although this is not in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has made this into a legal precedent. You give the government an inch in regards to the things listed above and they will take a mile.

[IronJack]

Although this is not in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has made this into a legal precedent.

If it is not in the Constitution, then it is a created right. In this case, it is a right invented by the Supreme Court. The Government giveth and the Government taketh away. If you believe the right to privacy originated in the government, then it can at least be qualified, if not eliminated entirely, by them.

You're not "giving them an inch." They're giving YOU one. At least, according to your theory.

Either you're a visionary or a paranoid shadow-chaser. I guess time will tell which. It will also tell whether I am a patriot or a dupe.

[Rebeckie]

Although what I have said above is true. I perhaps should have been more specific in saying that the right to privacy is an implied and not an express power mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Although, technically, according to your theory, not even the Declaration of Independence is a legally binding document like the Constitution is--but we as American citizens still use this to defend our God-given rights. You are correct in saying that if the government gives people their rights, they can take them away. Like many other people, I just think that many Americans are too quick to throw them away.