Are the architects of the War on Terror in trouble

[tvashtarkatena]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

Having one's religious ideals exempted from criticism or scrutiny is protected under the first amendment? Huh? I would wager that you are confusing the right the fact that it is not legal to deny someone their fundamental rights on account of their religion - such as with regards to employment, etc - but the nowhere does the first ammendment exempt any race, color, creed, etc from being satirized, mocked, offended, outraged, etc, etc, etc - and there's certainly no legal basis for the notion that engaging in any of the above entitles the state to fine or imprison you for doing so.

 

You've apparently never been in a management position. As I've clearly stated above, the Constitution does not offer carte blanc protection against criticism for any group. However, any employee of any corporation or public entity who openly engages in the kind of offense or mockery you speak of at work would first be counseled to stop, then fired. Otherwise, the corporation is open to a civil or civil rights suit because it is, in effect, condoning that discrimination.

 

What happens outside of work, of course, is a different matter.

The 'arts' also get a bye on this. Case law has consistently sided for free speech in these cases involving entertainers and artists, publications, and private persons acting on their own time.

 

I'm not going to waste my time fixing your naivete by doing your Googling for you. It's your misunderstanding of the Constitution, not mine.

 

Edited February 14, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Clavote]

We still have the war on drugs. Remember that one. I think we're winning the war on drusgs too.

[Clavote]

Cough, cough, cough......whoa!

[chucK]

To bring this back closer to the original topic:

 

Our war in Iraq was sold by stereotyping people of a certain religion. Bush got support to invade Iraq because it is populated by many Arabs and many Arabs are Muslim and it was fanatical Muslims that bombed the WTC (no matter that Iraq was a secular state). The sense that one may be able to choose their own religion is tangential to this discussion. The essence is that an entire religious group was negatively stereotyped in order to justify a war of conquest. I could understand how that would piss off a bunch of Muslims (not just a few, the whole group)

[tvashtarkatena]

"Flying while Muslim" is a play on the term "Driving while black," which is an effort to characterize any additional scrutiny that Muslims may feel that they are subjected to on account of their beliefs to those that the term "Driving while Black," suggests that black people are on subject to on the basis of their skin color alone, another trait that's inherited rather than chosen.

 

 

I'd say you're stretching this analogy a bit far. Let's take, for instance, the case where 3 Muslim clerics were on a flight (United?) and they prayed before getting on board. They passed all security measures in the airport and again at the gate. But passangers were "uncomfortable" with the way they looked, and some got quite vocal. The clerics were asked to leave the plane prior to take off. I'd say this was discrimination less related to their religion than that they were by culture and skin color lumped into the islamofacist category we've created.

 

 

The three largest airlines (United, Northwest, and American) lost a lawsuit for just such practices. Out of the lawsuit came an agreement between the TSA and airlines to train their screeners to look for specific behavioral profiles of terrorists, (appropriate) not religion or race(discriminatory). Bigots may find this abhorent, but it actually results in better, more focused security practices without degrading our basic American value of equal protection under the law.

 

Edited February 14, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

Expecting the resurgent Taliban to stage a spring offensive, the U.S. military is moving a brigade of troops into Afghanistan, instead of Iraq, Pentagon officials said Wednesday.

 

About 3,200 soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade base in Vicenza, Italy, will go this spring to the porous eastern Afghan border with Pakistan. The soldiers will replace the already extended 3rd Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division.

 

The 173rd already was training to deploy to Iraq, Pentagon officials said.

 

[JayB]

By the same measure, one could conclude that you never been to a university before, because you'd be laughed off of campus if you suggested that corporate speech codes, rather than the Constitution - either do or should govern the exchange of ideas amongst students attending the said university. The same goes for what people can say in public. Artists and entertainers are the only class of citizen that's entitled to these rights per case law? I would venture that you could Google yourself straight into oblivion looking for court cases that have come to any such conclusion, and the reason why you are not anxious to search for such examples is that there are none that haven't been overturned on appeal.

 

The only place where your rules apply is in the workplace, so why you even interjected them into the discussion is quite beyond me. Unless this is an attempt to make an argument along the lines of "Well, corporate HR regulations *certainly* prohibit that sort of thing, so perhaps the rest of us should follow their lead on this one..."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I realize that much of what I say is quite beyond you, but I can't be responsible for that.

 

I didn't say artists, etc. were the ONLY persons granted a bye. Stick to my statements and you'll have a smoother ride. My list was not all inclusive, just representative. Yes, college students also have that right, as you pointed out. That wins you, ah, let's see here, zero points in this debate.

 

Rather, it was you who attempted to provide carte blanc free speech, including mockery, etc. to the entire country based on the 1st amendment. I provided appropriate examples where that was not the case.

 

Do you have a logical on/off switch in your brain that gets accidentally tripped in the downward direction at times?

Edited February 14, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

Actually, all of those forms of speech are protected by the first amendment. Your right to employment is not protected under the constitution, so you can be fired for what you say, but not imprisoned or subjected to any other punishment on the government's behalf for the same. The party that was the object of your comments may sue you for violating the rules that govern conduct in the workplace, but the prosecution would be limited to your behavior in that capacity, not for violating a set of laws that govern your conduct as a citizen outside of that setting. Laws that govern the workplace, laws that protect the rights of citizens outside of the workplace. Big difference.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

First of all, the Constitution does not proscribe any specific punishment for violations of the Bill of Rights. Private companies can, and have, been found liable numerous times for civil rights violations, with litigation being the mechanism by which complaints are addressed. This includes being tolerant of creating a hostile work environment for protected classes, such as women, for example. In this sense, such free speech (catcalls, for example) is NOT protected. Criminal penalties are not required to enforce this, nor need these penalties be levied against the actual individuals responsible. A corporation as a plaintiff is all that's required for enforcement. In fact, most civil rights cases take the form of litigation against organizations rather than individuals, not criminal cases. You're confused, but nice try.

 

 

Edited February 14, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

To bring this back closer to the original topic:

 

Our war in Iraq was sold by stereotyping people of a certain religion. Bush got support to invade Iraq because it is populated by many Arabs and many Arabs are Muslim and it was fanatical Muslims that bombed the WTC (no matter that Iraq was a secular state). The sense that one may be able to choose their own religion is tangential to this discussion. The essence is that an entire religious group was negatively stereotyped in order to justify a war of conquest. I could understand how that would piss off a bunch of Muslims (not just a few, the whole group)

 

So it was "negative stereotypes" that precipitated this whole thing? Which is the key variable here, Arab or Muslim? Iran is populated by Persians and Persians are not Arabs but many of them are Muslims so...?

[tvashtarkatena]

So it was "negative stereotypes" that precipitated this whole thing? Which is the key variable here, Arab or Muslim? Iran is populated by Persians and Persians are not Arabs but many of them are Muslims so...?

 

Yes, and many Persian muslims, and I've worked with many over the years, are very similar culturally to Americans and get along quite well us.

 

So?

[JayB]

First of all, the Constitution does not proscribe any specific punishment for violations of the Bill of Rights. Private companies can, and have, been found liable numerous times for civil rights violations, with litigation being the mechanism by which complaints are addressed. This includes being tolerant of creating a hostile work environment for protected classes, such as women, for example. In this sense, such free speech (catcalls, for example) is NOT protected. Criminal penalties are not required to enforce this, nor need these penalties be levied against the actual individuals responsible. A corporation as a plaintiff is all that's required for enforcement. In fact, most civil rights cases take the form of litigation against organizations rather than individuals, not criminal cases. You're confused, but nice try.

 

 

Thanks for restating the both the obvious, and what I said.

 

How does any of this advance the argument that speech is not protected under the First Amendment? If the government was prosecuting people for conduct that was inconsistent with the rights established under the constitution or subsequent case-law deriving therefrom for violating the tenets of a corporate speech code, then you'd have a point. As things stand, you don't.

[Jim]

While free speech is protected it is not unregulated. The oft noted Oliver Wendal Homes quote regarding yelling fire in a crowded theater is but one example. Under the First Amendment, government has some power to regulate speech, but may not favor one viewpoint over another. If the free speech crosses into intimidation and harrassment, then there's a bunch of case law to back up prohibition of that. Go out to a street corner and yell slurs to minorities, Jews, or women and see how far you can stretch that.

 

Your example of the public pool is a good one but it also applys to the school newspaper. If the paper had picked on all religious groups then it would have been in bad taste but not viewed as bigoted. And because the paper is using public money the public has a say in how it is used. If it can't stand up to the public criticism then the editors can pool their own money and start Paper X.

[JayB]

So it was "negative stereotypes" that precipitated this whole thing? Which is the key variable here, Arab or Muslim? Iran is populated by Persians and Persians are not Arabs but many of them are Muslims so...?

 

Yes, and many Persian muslims, and I've worked with many over the years, are very similar culturally to Americans and get along quite well us.

 

So?

 

Just waiting for Chuck to parse the Iranian situation - Did the Clinton Administration re-establish diplomatic ties with Iran because they were not in the thrall of these prejudices? Did Carter send the choppers into Iran on the basis of "negative stereotypes? - through the explanatory prism he's established to explain the Gulf war. How come we didn't send in troops to attack the Kuwaitis and the Saudis in '91? These states are both Arab, and Muslim - and have plenty of oil (the third key variable in Chuck's conspiro-troika). Make common cause with Saddam since he only had one of the variables-o-unfair-stereotyping working against him? There are in infinite number of conundrums to ponder under this explanatory scheme, and I do hope that Chuck will deign to resolve them in this forum.

[tvashtarkatena]

There it is - the deliberate conflation of two unlike things - hostility towards a group based on traits that they were born with and could not choose vs hostility towards a group on the basis of beliefs and practices which they voluntarily adhere to and engage in.

 

An irrelevant distinction constitutionally and/or by statute, as I've successfully argued.

but the nowhere does the first ammendment exempt any race, color, creed, etc from being satirized, mocked, offended, outraged, etc, etc, etc - and there's certainly no legal basis for the notion that engaging in any of the above

 

Uh...yes, there are many restrictions on this, with damages as penalties, as I've successfully argued.

 

Edited February 15, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

First of all, the Constitution does not proscribe any specific punishment for violations of the Bill of Rights. Private companies can, and have, been found liable numerous times for civil rights violations, with litigation being the mechanism by which complaints are addressed. This includes being tolerant of creating a hostile work environment for protected classes, such as women, for example. In this sense, such free speech (catcalls, for example) is NOT protected. Criminal penalties are not required to enforce this, nor need these penalties be levied against the actual individuals responsible. A corporation as a plaintiff is all that's required for enforcement. In fact, most civil rights cases take the form of litigation against organizations rather than individuals, not criminal cases. You're confused, but nice try.

 

 

Thanks for restating the both the obvious, and what I said.

 

 

Point out where you've already stated this. I can't seem to find it anywhere. Perhaps you forgot the type it in.

[JayB]

While free speech is protected it is not unregulated. The oft noted Oliver Wendal Homes quote regarding yelling fire in a crowded theater is but one example. Under the First Amendment, government has some power to regulate speech, but may not favor one viewpoint over another. If the free speech crosses into intimidation and harrassment, then there's a bunch of case law to back up prohibition of that. Go out to a street corner and yell slurs to minorities, Jews, or women and see how far you can stretch that.

 

Your example of the public pool is a good one but it also applys to the school newspaper. If the paper had picked on all religious groups then it would have been in bad taste but not viewed as bigoted. And because the paper is using public money the public has a say in how it is used. If it can't stand up to the public criticism then the editors can pool their own money and start Paper X.

 

I'm well aware of the precedents, but thanks. Your point about the street conflates more than one issue by interjecting the term "shout," which some might argue constitutes harassment, disturbing the peace, etc. Change the context a bit, and make the example a mild mannered man with a beard, sporting a some John Lennonesque glasses and a tweed jacket, using a normal speaking voice to express just how much he despises group X, and liberally salting his speech with as many epithets as he can conjure up in his crisp Mid-Atlantic diction. Should the guy be exempt from disdain, criticism, having counter-epithets shouted back at him, etc? No. Should he expect that anyone who physically assaults him will be prosecuted by the state? Yes. Should he himself expect to by prosecuted by the State? No.

 

What's more interesting to me than the "Is" question at play here is the ought question. If we did in fact live in a state where merely saying particular words - no matter how offensive or hurtful others may find them - could lead to prosecution by the state, would you all be comfortable with this state of affairs? I wonder.

[chucK]

No, I didn't write anything close to indicating that negative stereotypes were the reason we needed to invade Iraq (we didn't need to invade). The reasons Bushco invaded Iraq are (??? does anybody yet know?), but it was not because of 9/11. It was facilitated by 9/11.

 

There was much hatred for Al Qaeda. Bushco parleyed that into fear of Islam, then made the brownskin connection to Iraq to SELL his game. He wanted to invade Iraq. Slurring Islam was a way to sell his project. Now Muslims are pissed at us.

 

Whatever. I guess there's not really much of connection between this and Muslim pool parties anymore. oops sorry

 

 

[JayB]

There it is - the deliberate conflation of two unlike things - hostility towards a group based on traits that they were born with and could not choose vs hostility towards a group on the basis of beliefs and practices which they voluntarily adhere to and engage in.

 

An irrelevant distinction constitutionally and/or by statute, as I've successfully argued.

but the nowhere does the first ammendment exempt any race, color, creed, etc from being satirized, mocked, offended, outraged, etc, etc, etc - and there's certainly no legal basis for the notion that engaging in any of the above

 

Uh...yes, there are many restrictions on this, with damages as penalties, as I've successfully argued.

 

Jesus dude, now you're resorting to cutting and pasting text from two entirely different statements. Neat.

 

You're right. I give up. Mutter the epithet of your choosing at the water cooler and under the constitution the government has every right to throw you in jail. If it's not permitted under workplace law, it must not be permitted under the constitution either - and society is that much the better for it.

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

Several points:

The entire issue of the paper was a satire on religion. The paper was renamed”Crucifiction” from “Clareification”

 

The paper described its own content a including a “racist cartoon and other vile material”

 

I remind you of this comment from our self proclaim “successful” debater:

 

If the college paper had taken a pot shot at Christianity, I assure you the reaction would have been even greater

 

 

[JayB]

No, I didn't write anything close to indicating that negative stereotypes were the reason we needed to invade Iraq (we didn't need to invade). The reasons Bushco invaded Iraq are (??? does anybody yet know?), but it was not because of 9/11. It was facilitated by 9/11.

 

There was much hatred for Al Qaeda. Bushco parleyed that into fear of Islam, then made the brownskin connection to Iraq to SELL his game. He wanted to invade Iraq. Slurring Islam was a way to sell his project. Now Muslims are pissed at us.

 

Whatever. I guess there's not really much of connection between this and Muslim pool parties anymore. oops sorry

 

 

Substitute "need" for "decided" too. I didn't use the term need, but that semantic distinction seems important to you so feel free to roll with it.

 

Per this iteration of the theory, this is why the guy visited mosques immediately after 9/11? Why he implored the public not to mistreat Muslims in the wake of the attack? Can you find a single statement in which he slanders the entire Islamic faith? Why he called Islam a "religion of peace?" How does this fit into your Michael Moore inspired conspiranoia about the malevolent connections between GWB and the House of Saud. Is there a special asterisk and a footnote in your earlier statement that I missed that would explain this discrepancy "All Arab Muslims except those hailing from countries with names that start with S and have U as the third letter..."

[chucK]

I guess his use of the term "Islamofacist" is one instance where I think he is defaming Islam. Though that is more recent than the run up to war. You're right in that I can't think of a time when he specifically stated that Muslims in general are bad, and perhaps I am wrong. I do remember the case of the lawyer in Oregon who was locked up without trial for the Madrid train bombing mostly due to the fact that he had converted to Islam, but we can't really blame Bush for that any more than we can blame them for Abu Gahraib can we?

 

I suppose the implication that Bush used the scary muslim bogeyman to sell his war may have been completely inside my own pointy head. I probably feel this way from the fact that they (Bushco) repeatedly tried to tie Al Qaeda to Saddam, when the closest link they had was the color of their skin.

 

Where do you get this Michael Moore GWB and House of Saud thing? That's not my schtick, nor is the belief that the war was primarily about oil. I have never believed that and posted only once (in jest) about "blood for oil" after Bush cited oil as a reason for us to stay in Iraq. You are surely confusing me with someone else you disdain.

 

Oh and I don't sip latte's or wear birkenstocks either.

[mattp]

There is no one path toward radicalism, and you won’t find the same brand of anti-Americanism or any other sentiment on the American college campus as you will in a Parisian slum or a middle eastern training camp. You probably won’t find the same brand from one College campus to the next. However, we can still consider the obvious in considering the affect our actions abroad may have on radicalizing certain segments. Invading countries under false pretenses, being responsible for the killing of several hundred thousand civilians who never attacked us, and publicly stating to the world that we are no longer bound by the rules of international law and we are going to “take the gloves off” and torture people, and you are “with us or against us,” and this is a “crusade” is obviously going to produce some backlash. These actions threaten our society from within as much as without. What thinking American can really believe and trust that America is truly stands for good? All of this fuels a national cynicism that gives rise to the general idea that there is no morality in any of it so why even pay attention.

 

JayB apparently believes that none of this has any effect because these hateful malcontents around the world are simply looking for an excuse to hate America and they are going to hate us no matter what we do so we may as well feel free to invade countries under false pretenses, blithely set of the killing of hundreds of thousands when it suits our purposes, and while we’re at it lets call everybody names including those liberals who might prefer to sip a latte while he drinks his Folgers. And this includes those who think America should be a force for freedom or who want to talk about pursuing peaceful means to solve world problems. They obviously hate what America stands for. JayB is not alone in this sentiment. We see it from several of our friends here at cc.com.

 

Our national debate now is about fighting a war against terror, and the discussion here just as in Washington seems to contain the idea that there is or should be a choice between aggressively protecting America in a hostile world and some kind of isolationist or passive role in world affairs. With us or against us, and we must take the gloves off while nobody else better violate a treaty or support some faction fighting a battle outside their border or we should drop a nuke. Sad.

 

(And, ChucK, he didn't specifically state Muslims are bad, but it has certainly been the general theme and sales plan in much the same fashion as he didn't specifically state that Saddam attacked us on 911, but they've tried to create that image every chance they had.)

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Bush isn't publicly anti-muslim. That is true. However...

 

I've debated several law enforcement officials who've been through federal anti terrorism training (so they can participate in JTTFs). I've also debated a former deputy director of the CIA (under Reagan) who keeps up with current policies in that agency as an ongoing advisory board member. All debates were in front of a live audience, not online forums.

 

All had the same schtick: radical Islam is to blame for our terrorism woes. Not specific political agendas, but literally a cultural war to overthrow western civilization and impose strict sharia upon us. I shit you not, I couldn't believe the hyberbole I was hearing, but that is what these agencies are preaching.

 

Say what you will about Bush's speeches (since he never tells the truth, I would argue that they are essentially irrelavent to the actual workings of government); this federal government has a strong anti-muslim bent that is heard loud and clear across the Arab world.

Edited February 15, 2007 by tvashtarkatena