Posted on 12/27/2005 9:09:14 AM PST by Renderofveils
As those thinking of becoming soldiers arrive on the slushy doorstep of the U.S. Army recruiting station here, they cannot miss the message posted in bold black letters on the storefront right next door.
"Remember the Fallen Heroes," the sign reads, and then it ticks off numbers: the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, the number wounded, the number of days gone by since the war began.
The sign, put up by Scott Cameron, a former soldier, has stirred intense debate, though always polite, in this city along the western edge of Lake Superior. In a way, many of the nation's vast and complicated arguments about war are playing out on a single block here, around a simple piece of wood.
Cameron, who was shot in Vietnam in 1969 and says he has since undergone 46 operations to repair the damage, said he felt compelled to post his message to remind people of the soldiers now lost. The sign stands alongside campaign posters in the window of Kelley's office on Superior Street, a main thoroughfare in central Duluth.
Cameron did not speak his mind about Vietnam decades ago because he feared he might harm support for the troops, he said, but he has since decided that he is not "going to be silent again."
Although Cameron, 55, acknowledged that he opposes the war in Iraq, he said his sign was not about that at all. Its intent, he said, is simple and apolitical: to remember the troops, to care for veterans, to recognize what is being lost each day.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
Thank you for your service, and welcome aboard!
Sorry - I guess the "slippery slope" argument is yours. Bottom line: it's a logical fallacy - we can always impeach the President who takes any power too far.
I could not agree more - did you see that Gary Capan, the Army recruiter who asked them to take down the sign, posted above?
What? He's running for office and put up a sign? How can our Republic stand against this?!
Did you see your thread got the Army recruiter on board?
Did you even read the post above about WHY they asked the sign be removed?
Yes.
The guy who put it up is an inconsiderate fool. In this country, you are free to be an inconsiderate fool. Which is lucky for you, because in this country you can even be the kind of fool who calls for spying on those that you disagree with.
I agree (obviously) that even in wartime, in this great country, you and I are free to be an inconsiderate fools. What this guy did went way beyond that - see his suspicious activity above re: lingering problems from Vietnam and what the NYT is doing to exploit them - I would doubt the Secret Service wants anyone unbalanced like him close to the President, for instance. I'm not calling for him to be spied on because of this sign - it's his behavior since then that raises red flags.
It is not always a logical fallacy.
The more steps between action A and bad end result Z makes it more a fallacy. Here there are no steps -- he has the ability, and it can be abused. Also, how far-fetched the slope is applies. Here plentiful historical evidence of past abuse exists to show that such powers will likely be abused in the future if allowed.
No slippery slope fallacy here.
we can always impeach the President who takes any power too far.
After the damage has been done, if the abuse is discovered despite the secrecy. Remember, it took a burglary to uncover the fact that COINTELPRO even existed, 15 years after its inception (and it was just a formalization of decades of previous abuses). Can't impeach a dead ex-president.
Thank you for your service, and for "the rest of the story".
I have a question for Mr. Cameron. Where's his sign honoring the fallen and wounded soldiers who have served in Afghanistan? Or is he only interested in keeping a list on Iraq?
What is violent or criminal about what this guy is doing?
If they are protesting to help the enemies of the American people they should be monitored 24/7 period.
And how do you prove that? He'll deny that that is his intent, of course. And he no doubt believes it. Do you say that all protest helps the enemy, as many on this forum seem to believe? Then you've done away with all forms of protest completely, and trashed a good part of the Constitution.
And how is this 'adhereing to the enemy'? By your definition any protest could be treasonous if somebody believes that the protestor is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. How do you prove it?
It doesn't matter what I believe - it is up to a prosecutor to prove those elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (and for treason itself, that includes 2 eyewitnesses or confession in open court).
Which is no doubt why we don't see any prosecutors jumping up ready to indict someone for peacefully protesting a war that is unpopular in some camps.
Even if you could prove a connection between this protest and a drop in military recruiting I still don't see a crime. I may not agree with them on this but I spent most of my adult life defending their right to disagree with the administration on this issue or any other.
Like I said, it is up to the prosecutor to prove the elements of any crime charged (I gave just 2 examples above). I really don't know what use it is to keep going over and over the same stuff.
A lot of our troops are using ArmyEU even during deployment.
"Probably the first thing is to authenticate his story....then to from there....."
Found this on a thread from 2004. Think this could be the one and same Scott Cameron?
Quote:
Thanks for posting, welcome to Freep!
Here is another thread that was posted earlier.
You may remember a fella or two as they called you.
Take a look.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1537049/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.