[CLUE-Talk] [Fwd: MRC Alert Special: ABC's War News Touts Doubt and Dissent]

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 23:04, Randy Arabie wrote:

*snip*

> There is, but then in a country where hospitals and schools are also the
> headquarters for the local militia, how could a human shield be so
> foolish to think they were protecting the people?  

I think this boils down to intent. The fact that the Iraqi government
puts weapons in schools doesn't change the motivation of the people who
are acting as human shields.

I don't see the human shield thing as an endorsement of the Iraqi
government -- I see it as an attempt to protect the innocent people in
Iraq who are in the middle of the conflict between our government and
the Iraqi government. Last time I checked, no one was in favor of
innocent Iraqis being killed -- even the Bush administration. The
difference here is that the administration considers it acceptible to
kill some Iraqis in the name of removing Saddam Hussein while the people
who are acting as human shields do not. 

> Good intentions? Maybe.  Smart move? Definately not.

Hey, I NEVER said it was smart. I'm right there with ya on that one. As
dumb as it may be, though, I still have some respect for someone willing
to risk their lives for their beliefs. 

*snip*

> That said, I think both are getting pretty close to the treason line but
> neither have crossed it.

I don't even see it as close. I see treason as supporting a foreign
power and taking action against your own government. Spying, joining the
taliban, that kind of thing. Being a protester against the actions of
your own government doesn't qualify. 

> Getting back to the whole point....I don't find it outrageous that some
> "right-wingers" have called Sean Penn and/or the human shield traitors.
> They are dancing pretty close to the fire.

I do. If it's treason for me to go to Iraq to be a human shield, it
ought to be treasonous for Cheney to have been involved with a company
(Halliburton) that had dealings with Iraq between the first Gulf War and
now. 

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/932

But I suppose the right-wingers don't qualify it as treason if it's
money at stake -- only if it's politics. 

> <--snip--->
> 
> > Since we, as Americans, enjoy almost total protection under the First
> > Amendment for political speech, I don't agree with your assessment that
> > being a mouthpiece is "aiding the enemy." You can shout the Iraqi
> > government party line from the rooftops, it doesn't help Iraq at all
> > unless by "help" you mean "changing public sentiment through normal
> > channels of participatory democracy." 
> >
> > It might make him an asshole, but it doesn't make him a traitor. 
> 
> Well, I didn't say he was a traitor, and I didn't say being a propaganda
> mouthpiece for Saddam Hussein is "aiding the enemy".  I did say it could
> be construed as such.  I didn't say that was my interpretation.
> 
> Also, I don't think a state of war must exist for one to commit an act
> of treason.  That's my interpretation, but I'm no Constitutional
> scholar.

No, you're right - a condition of war doesn't have to exist for
something to be treason if you sell secrets to another country or
something like that. 

> > Okay, so they're organized by ANSWER or the Worker's World Party. So?
> > The fact is that most of the people at the rallies don't know and don't
> > care who is funding it -- they're not being paid to be there, they're
> > just gathering to put out a message that they believe in. 
> 
> Is that a FACT, or is that just what you THINK?  I THINK you might be
> WRONG. I think many of them do care about who is funding them, and might
> not participate if they new it was ANSWER and the Worker's World Party.
> But that's just what I think...I won't try to pass it off as fact.

If they cared, they would have looked into it. If I see someone
advertising a political rally for a particular cause, I'll plan to
attend based on the cause and not the sponsor. 

Some people might not have participated, but the point is that it
doesn't disqualify the intent of the rally because it may have been
funded by WWP. 

Again, bringing up the funding issue is a way of trying to skirt the
issue: There are quite a few people opposed to the war. Not a majority,
but a fair number of people who are against it. 

> > Oh yes, let's nitpick...since he didn't specifically say "traitors" I
> > suppose all of his comments were fair and even-handed. Please. 
> 
> I didn't suggest that all of his comments were fair and even-handed.
> But that wasn't the issue, now was it?

The issue, as I see it, is the attempt by a number of commentators to
dismiss anti-war protesters by labeling them traitor or anti-American or
communist or whatever. To distract from what those people are saying by
calling them names and trying to attack their character and not their
statements. 

> So, I can't call the Marxists Marxists because it may undermine their
> message?  That's stupid.  What shall I call them?

If they're actually Marxists, that's one thing -- but labeling all
anti-war protesters "Marxists" is another. Yeah, If I hold a a
pro-Marxism rally then it's pretty appropriate to call me a Marxist. If
I hold or attend an anti-war protest, I'm anti-war. (And possibly
Marxist, but that needs to be verified separately.) 

> They are what they are.  Same goes for conservatives, liberals, gays,
> socialists, Muslims, Jews, and Christians.  Labels are good, they help
> us identify things and distinguish them from other things.

I disagree... labels can be useful, sometimes, but I think they tend to
be more harmful than not. 

As we've seen many times on this list, there are many stripes of
conservatives and liberals, for example. Your brand of conservatism
differs from Rush's, for example, so it's not very useful to lump both
of you into the same statement. I believe you've been taking exception
to that practice. 

It's handy to be able to say "conservatives" when you're talking about a
group -- but I'm finding that's too blunt an instrument to cut with
properly. Time for a new tool. 

Also, it's one-dimensional. You might be conservative, but that doesn't
sum up a person entirely. (Maybe some, but not most...) 

> Of course I'm not advocating derogatory labels, like racial slurs.  But I
> don't think being called a Marxist is derogatory.

That label carries a lot of negative baggage for a lot of people. There
are quite a few who don't want to be tarred with that brush if they
don't fit the profile. If you're a Marxist, then I would hope you'd be
proud of it... if you're a soccer mom who is dead-set opposed to the
war, but a proud American, devout Christian and capitalist, I think
you'd object to being tagged a Marxist rather strongly.

Further, the threat of being tagged Marxist by right-wing pundits and
some of your Limbaugh-loving friends might be a big disincentive to
protesting the war despite your personal beliefs. 

I think a lot of people are keeping quiet about their feelings on the
war due to consensus terrorism. They don't agree, but they're afraid to
be singled out. 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Aim: zonkerjoe
http://www.dissociatedpress.net