Just catching up on CFP-week email now... Previous Politech message: "Free Congress' Lisa Dean: Anti-war protester committed treason" http://www.politechbot.com/p-04603.html -Declan --- From: "Lisa S. Dean" <LSDeanat_private> To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private> Subject: FW: FC: Free Congress' Lisa Dean: Anti-war protester committed tr eason Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:52:55 -0500 Declan, I wrote this editorial after having just seen the photograph of those protestors in SF. It was written passionately because I was outraged that those protesters were as irresponsible as they were and yes, I used the word "treason" loosely, which I retract. You implied to your readers that I wanted these people charged with treason. That is blowing it up a bit. Never did I suggest such a thing. I merely overstated their behavior. These protestors were highly irresponsible and terribly insensitive to our men and women risking their lives overseas as well as to their families and friends here at home. That was the point. As far as FCF is concerned, you have known us for years and know that our views on privacy and First Amendment issues have been consistent with yours. By the way, FCF supported Ashcroft for AG because the choice was between him and Gov. Keating, who, as you probably remember, had an abysmal record on privacy. At the time Ashcroft was the better choice of the likely candidates. While FCF was one of the first to show support for Ashcroft, we were also the first to slam him after 9/11 and have consistently done so since. Regards, Lisa Reply-To: <byoderat_private> From: "Brian K. Yoder" <byoderat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: RE: Free Congress' Lisa Dean: Anti-war protester committed treason Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:25:55 -0800 Message-ID: <CJEGJJDLKIGIKEEMLKBGEEACDDAA.byoderat_private> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C2F6C8.461EA220" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030330002942.01ea8268at_private> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=4.0 tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12,IN_REP_TO,MAILTO_LINK, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_02_03,USER_AGENT_OUTLOOK version=2.44-the_well_m X-Spam-Level: X-UIDL: 1bfa0aa67504ab7850a9b82d51e10afe I don't think that this is a "loose" definition of treason. It is treason and the folks who published this call for desertion thing admit it themselves. These jokers are not "not supporting the troops" (and they have every right to do that, no matter how stupid that is). They are actively trying to hurt the military's ability to act. Folks who invade government offices and spread blood around are making (small and weak) physical attacks against the government too. Where would you draw the line on such things? Regarding Ashcroft's comments, I didn't notice him using the world treason at all. He just said that they were "aiding terrorists" by making unfair charges (and I think he's right about that). I don't think the FCF guys used the "T" word either. I don't think that this kind of "aid" should be legally considered to be treason, but it's nasty and in my humble opinion generally not a sincere criticism either. There are all kinds of legitimate questions and criticisms of the things that the administration has proposed and I have my own set of them on a number of different grounds, but there's a difference between that kind of thing and intentional muddying of the waters and obstruction of the government's activities for political advantage or because of paranoia. I don't think even that stuff is treason (and in the stuff I read Ashcroft didn't use that term either) but it's stupid, dangerous, and worth being denounced by anybody with a brain. It is really a good idea to get as close as you possibly can to the edge of treason but without going over the edge to the point that even your friends will denounce you? I don't think it is any smarter than going right up to the edge of the legal definitions of theft, kidnapping, assault, or murder. Fortunately these idiots discredit themselves fairly well without any help from other people anyway. Lately I have noticed a common "excuse" being used by people with absurd and dangerous ideas that goes something like this: Nutball: Crazy idea X is true! Regular Guy: Hey, you are nuts! That's not true! Here's why... And besides, you probably believe that because you are a nutball! Nutball: But I have a constitutional right to say X is true! You are trampling on my rights by denouncing me and my idea! Regular Guy: Of course you have a right to say X. I never said that you don't have a legal right to say X. I just said that anyone who believes X is a nutball.. Nutball: Help! Help! I'm being repressed! This changes the subject from whether X is a nutty idea to the (fake) issue of whether the "Regular Guy" is a political tyrant who doesn't respect the rights of others. --Brian --- Brian Yoder --- byoderat_private --- Cell Phone: 626-255-3338 Pager: byodermobileat_private ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 19:47:01 PDT