treason and free speech?

But the bottom line I'm asking about here is: Do you think that people who speak out against a war that they feel is unjust should be... what? Jailed, or silenced in some way? Lose their ability to express their opinion freely?

What I'm hearing from you is that people who disagree with you should be forced into silence. That is exactly what I am hearing from you. -you- feel it is a just war. Many of us don't. That's what democracy is all about. What about civil disobediance?

You rebel against relativism, but I think in rebeling so vehemently, you come off as tyrannical yourself.
The weakness of relativism is that it is a contradiction directly, when viewed from the perspective of seeking the truth.
That is really too bad, and often stupid, but when the Absolutist starts talking about not tolerating dissenting opinion, well, that's when I want to pack up and move out of town.

reply

To publically dissent against the war i don't think is treason. To support the enemy, even if one doesn't think we should be fighting them would be. If americans were found to be "cheering-on" muslim extremists, "celebrating" deaths of american soldiers or civilians, or financially supporting the opposition, i would have to question their loyalty (France, Iraq).
I think the freedom of dissent follows from the freedom of speech, but to ACT in a way contrary to the values of our nation. Insighting people, or encouraging people to fight our country is not freedom of speech, but treason. I remember media shots of europeans, middle easterners, and americans cheering on 9/11. I don't celebrate the fact that war yields innocent casulties, but i don't find it necessary to subvert the government in word or action.

Re: reply

I would question their loyalty also. But that isn't the point, the point is: What do you do? Gag orders? You are very fond of the slippery slope argument, are you not? What sort of a precedent does that set up?
In a practical sense, what this is suggesting is letting the current legistlature, which is absolutely partisan, set up a list of things that are OK and NOT ok to say.
But what do you mean by support the enemy? You mean financially? Absolutely if someone is funding attacks on america and its allies, they should be stopped. If they're cheering on the muslim extremists, who am I to stop them? As long as they aren't supporting muslim extremists directly in any way, that's what democracy is all about.
I think your opinion on this issue has a lot to do with the fact that you support the administration, to be perfectly honest.

Re: reply

The values reflected in the constitution are ones that I can agree with. The manipulation of these values over the years in many different directions has formed something new. A new constitutional spirit, if you will. You speak out against greed and consumerism, the two forces driving American capitalism. I tend to agree that these are not things we should value in our lives. What you may not understand is that all American foriegn policy since the end of WWII has had a continuous theme, which is to make the world safe for American business. The ideal of Globalization propagating a 'McWorld', to quote Benjimain Barber, is very real and about half a century old. The modern American political system exists to protect the interests of greed and consumerism, domesticly and worldwide.

This is not a partisan issue, either, it is the reality of American government. To some extent, in fairness, the increased wealth of American business does improve the quality of life for the nation's people. However, the policies of expanding global profit are often not policies of expanding global equity among people.

In the past, the European colonial system made Africa what it is today through exploitation for short-tern economic gains at the sacrifice of the long-term economic stability of the colonized nations. Now, reguardless of initial intention, the United States has effectively turned Iraq and Afghanistan into occupied colonies. This is undeniable considering we are constructing 17 permanent bases in Iraq (after dismantling just as many on American soil.) We have given Iraq democracy because of the strategic military and economic benefits we can exploit from that democracy. We rule indirectly, as many of the European colonial governments did, through coercion of an established provincial government which is favorable to our policies. I fear that we will bring the kind of long-term economic despairity to these nations that is currently a crisis in Africa through repeating the mistakes of our European allies in order to obtain short-term economic benefits.

In reguards to hateful Muslim extremists who would lead attacks on our country, it is the governments primary objective to provide for the safety and security of the people. It is in fact the policy of some nations in the world to harbor and support financially anti-American terrorist organizations. Opposing 'enemy' nations has been a truth of every nation-state in history. Terrorism is the only way these nations can make war on America and its allies because of our military dominance. Suicide bombers are the cruise missiles and jet fighters of economicly and militarily inferior states. I cannot assume that either side is 'right' or 'justified' because of my lack of access to universal truth. I can, however, agree with the right of my nation to protect itself. At the same time, should I agree with the policies of my nation when they support inequity for humanity as a whole? Is my first loyalty to my country or to my species? In these questions we find the need for freedom of expression. I believe nations are arbitrary constructs created by man, illusions in reality, whereas humanity as a whole is bigger than that. Given that evidence I have to believe that my loyalty is first to my species, which may put me in opposition to the policies of my nation. If there can be said that there are laws that govern all of mankind (as Christian belief clearly supports), then is it more treasonous to act against my nation or to support my country which is often acting treasonously to humanity?

An exceptionally lucid post

I agree with you 100%.

I get very emotional about politics, and tend to speak emotionally--but your rational post expresses the exact logic behind my emotion.

Well done.

I also believe my first loyalty is to humanity. When my nation behaves in an inhumane manner, it is my Duty to speak out, loudly, against its behavior.

I love my country.

I fear (and often despise) my government.