Trashing the First Amendment & Human Rights
For decades, the US and Britain have mocked countries that have tried to block access to the BBC and Voice of America, highlighting such actions as proof of those countries suppression of freedom.
Now, the US has actually arrested a man for providing satellite programming carrying Hezbollah television station, Al Manar. Rebroadcasting information and nothing more has now been defined as providing "material support" to terrorism.
No doubt the programming is repugnant, but so was the BBC and the Voice of America to dictatorships that sought to block transmissions. Human rights and free speech are defended in universal terms on the assumption that bad content is protected as well as good, that deciding between the two is up to the people themselves, not various governments.
The ACLU argues the law creates an exemption from the terrorism law for those engaged in free speech activities, so the prosecution is illegal. But it's a mark of how much civil liberties have degraded in the last few years that this prosecution is not surprising-- and will no doubt have its effect of chilling anyone even thinking about giving an airing to views and broadcasts of suspect groups.
And US standing to talk about human rights and the suppression of free speech, especially in the Arab world, has pretty much been destroyed by this administration.
But!
But!
But!
Everything changed after 9/11!!
What are you Nathan, an appeaser or an outright treasonous, traitorous, Islamofascist, commie tool?!
The rules do not apply to brown people in our Dear Leaders' Glorious War To Resubjugate the Brown People! (apologies to patriotboy, I couldn't resist borrowing the phrase)
[/sarcasm] :-)
But seriously folks, if we are to be a nation of laws, then the laws have to be applied equally to everyone, no exceptions.
August 29, 2006 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
One should also mention the Armed Forces Network and other taxpayer financed media entities broadcast Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and other useless hate propaganda while arresting others re-transmitting programming, with private dollars, with which they disagree.
August 29, 2006 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can be pretty sure Mr. Iqbal will never be brought to trial, unless there is a shortage of cell space in federal detention centers, but if he is brought to trial the charges will have to be dropped. The First Amendment doesn't allow either the Congress or the President to overrule it. Meanwhile, Mr. Iqbal will be just one more of the many Americans held without charges in violation of the Constitution. At least his time in his cell can be brought to an end by electing a new President in 2008. (Assuming the courts haven't decided that Bush really is King George the Infernal.)
Hoppy in Sacramento
August 29, 2006 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
But here's the problem sayeth Rumsfeld (today):
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Monday he is deeply troubled by the success of terrorist groups in "manipulating the media" to influence Westerners.
"That's the thing that keeps me up at night," he said during a question-and-answer session with about 200 naval aviators and other Navy personnel at this flight training base for Navy and Marine pilots."
I think AP. I linked thru Huffington.
August 29, 2006 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I posted this previously, but perhaps it bears repeating. Following the uncovering of the latest airline terror plot, the Brits have made a number of arrests in recent weeks. One of the arrests was for:
"...possessing articles useful to a person preparing acts of terrorism."
I travel frequently between America and Britain, and I can imagine few scarier laws than this. Unless their/our airport security people tell us what might be regarded as "useful" (they won't, for obvious reasons), I will await in trepidation every time my carry-on is searched.
For me, the issue is this - this person charged with possessing boxcutters or something was either part of a conspiracy to commit mass murder, or he wasn't. Anything in between is an extraordinary departure from established principles of common law (as well as common sense).
And final random thought... if it is a crime to rebroadcast terrorist propaganda, I'd be interested to learn how the CEOs of ISPs have gotten comfortable with their potential legal liabilities.
August 29, 2006 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is frightening indeed. But what can we expect from an administration that keeps redefining concepts with already clear definitions (ie human rights) in order to pretty much do as they please (ie basic human rights as defined by the Geneva Conventions don't apply to "enemy combatants"-apparently they aren't human)
Ah yes, more fun from the Administration that believes
A-torture is OK sometimes, like if we need to do it
B-the rules apply to everyone else but us
August 29, 2006 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Constitution and Bill of Rights? Didn't AG Gonzales say they were "quaint" documents? There is no such thing as free speech anymore. El Presidente can't wage his war if we tie his hands with the silly concepts of the rule of law and the freedom of dissent.
August 29, 2006 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
By George, I think we're beginning to catch on! Freedom is -- like -- you know -- quaint.
August 29, 2006 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without knowing the content of the speech being defended here, I would just point out that freedom of speech has NEVER been absolute in this or any other country. Especially when it comes to incitement to violence, there are reasonable restrictions that most people will agree are necessary.
What bothers me in this situation - and again, I don't know anything about the content of the programming in question - is that once again, when forced to choose between a legitimate security concern vs. a legitimate civil liberties concern, liberals are again condemning those who choose security. It's an unavoidable and lamentable fact that security and civil liberties are in tension. It would be nice if once in a while liberals decided that security concerns were legitimate enough to take seriously. Instead, they almost reflexively assume that any diminution of liberties is always a bad thing, even if done for worthwhile reasons.
And then they wonder why security is still a weak spot politically.
August 29, 2006 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
" It's an unavoidable and lamentable fact that security and civil liberties are in tension. "
Sorry, but that isn't true. It is a statement that sounds like it just has to be true, but in fact, it is utter nonsense. Security and civil liberties are not even related. Security, until you define it, is just a charged word, good for gathering votes from unthinking people. And, if we had no civil liberties at all, we would still be only slightly more secure from attacks from non-citizens, if we were even that much more secure.
Now, if you mean by "security", the security of the Republicans from losing their control of the government, then perhaps they would gain a lot by limitiing who can vote and whose votes will be counted. I will be generous and assume that wasn't your meaning.
Hoppy in Sacramento
August 29, 2006 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer to view it as liberals are again defending those who choose liberty. And if not us, WHO? Certainly neither the Republican or Democratic Party. Call us the voice crying in the wilderness, the candle in the mine. Call us those who remember that Hitler didn't gain the power to mass murder because Americans were slow to fight but because Germans gave in to fascism.
August 29, 2006 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What bothers me in this situation - and again, I don't know anything about the content of the programming in question - is that once again, when forced to choose between a legitimate security concern vs. a legitimate civil liberties concern, liberals are again condemning those who choose security. "
Having made this comment without, as you say , knowing anything about the actual issue under discussion you nevertheless adduce it as yet another example that liberals "reflexively assume that any diminution of liberties is always a bad thing, even if done for worthwhile reasons." Wouldn't it be worth your time to spend 5 minutes learning about the actual issue being discussed and then maybe another one or two minutes thinking about the issue before rending yet another reflexive centrist verdict on the idiotic thoughtlessness of liberals?
August 29, 2006 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shall we remember Ben Franklin, who surely faced much graver security issues than anyone does now? (Do I need to quote him?)
If you are the slightest bit serious I am truly worried.
Security is a weak spot only with authoritarians (using the sociological term from John Dean's recent book). The rest of us know what matters.
August 29, 2006 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing.
The recent plot intercepted in the UK was broken following a tip from an informant. Not ECHELON, or the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" or Gitmo. Just a snitch.
On top of which, these guys were kind of scary but a long, long way from operational.
NYT article, now banned from UK markets, has details.
August 29, 2006 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Take a simple example. Why is there classified information? After all, in a perfectly liberal democratic society, the people ought to know exactly what the government knows, right? But we tolerate reasonable restrictions on the people's right to know because of security concerns. The question then becomes, "what is reasonable?" Clearly the Bushies have a different conception of what is reasonable than do most liberals, which is exactly the point. Different people draw the line in different places.
The point still stands. Liberals hardly ever think a further restriction is reasonable. I would argue that this is a contributing factor to the perception that they are weak on security.
August 30, 2006 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, we're talking about the security that comes from not seeing any Hezbollah propaganda on our satellite TV, versus First Amendment protections for unpopular speech.
You're right that this security-liberty tradeoff can be a tough question sometimes. This situation presents no tough questions.
August 30, 2006 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
And those who buy into this framing are guilty of advocating such perceptions. (I'm looking at you.)
I say those who advocate security above liberty are pee-stained, scared, shit-in-the-bed cowards.
How to defeat terrorism? Certainly not with giving up my rights to a wannabe dictator but simply by not being scared enough to pee my pants if a dark skinned person is around.
Utter nonsense fairly describes the statement you made in my opinion.
Weak on security? Huh.
To quote Dear Leader, "bring it on!" and I'll show them real security that doesn't rely on "daddy" government to protect me from the big baddies.
Manipulating fear for political gain is a damn poor excuse being "good on security" and those who accept that blather deserve the hell the rest of us will never accept, the giving up our rights and freedoms for a bit of feel good.
August 30, 2006 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly the Bushies have a different conception of what is reasonable than do most liberals, which is exactly the point. Different people draw the line in different places.
True...on the left we are not Kool Aid drinking, batshit crazy, death cultists. And we don't buy into the Orwellian pretzel logic of the only way to protect our freedom is to give up our freedom.
August 30, 2006 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad, if you're going to insist on making this a partisan issue, then kindly take notice of the fact that at no point during the Bush administrations were we as confident, secure, unattacked at home, respected abroad -- nor as hopeful and prosperous -- as during the previous two Clinton administrations.
The excessive classification, however, has been a problem for decades and is much less about national security than about the fears and amour propre of officials who screwed up and don't want history to know about it. And one of the very first things Bush did upon arriving in the White House (well, once they were through lying about the Clintons having trashed the place) was to extend the secrecy on his father's papers.
Security is about trusting one's leadership and having the confidence that, in the event of trouble, one has the means to count on oneself, and confidence that one's community and all levels of government are prepared for it. Can't say that about the current administration in spite of reclassifications of documents already in the public sphere, illegal wiretaps, snooping on vegans and Quakers, and having a Pinochet-wannabe running the Justice Department.
August 30, 2006 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom --- I haven't chased down the article you linked to because I think I remember it. The reason it would have been "banned" is because once there are indictments in Britain, it's against the law for the press to write about the details of the case. My imprecise memory of British law from when I lived there. But I think that's why...
August 30, 2006 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say that I find this discussion amazing. It's one thing to argue that the security measures the Bushies have given the nation are misguided. I'm all in agreement about that.
But my argument is about the politics. Liberals have an ongoing problem as being perceived as weak on national security. That's just a fact. Furthermore, it's a fact that is not fundamentally changed by the GOP's current political difficulties. The response to this seems to be to protest that liberals are in fact not weak. I'm not arguing they are. I agree that much of the so-called toughness of the Bush Administration has made us fundamentally less safe. But the political question will be with us long after the fools in the Administration are gone.
August 30, 2006 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Security is a weak spot only with authoritarians (using the sociological term from John Dean's recent book). The rest of us know what matters.
Only authoritarians? That's a lot larger portion of the population than you might think.
"You say I'm a dreamer. We're two of a kind. Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"
August 30, 2006 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Liberals have an ongoing problem as being perceived as weak on national security. That's just a fact."
Define "liberal." According to Bush & Company a "liberal" is the 60% of the population that disagrees with their incompetent policies in Iraq, That's unlikely to say the least.
If you are going to state that right wing propaganda is "fact," I'd suggest that you think about what it is you are actually saying here. "Facts" and the Bush administration are pretty much strangers to eachother.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
August 31, 2006 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there is also an article in the Guardian that explains that.
Main point was the details, not the restrictions.
August 31, 2006 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Around 25%, according to same sociologists.
August 31, 2006 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink