"Swingman" wrote in
:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message

There is also a point when "free" speech provides aid to the enemy.
Couple that fact with today's press, that can be bought by either
side, and you end up in a dangerous haze that forces the path taken
to be based passion and politics, instead of reason.

Nonsense. American ideals are the only thing worth fighting for.

That is a damn provincial attitude to the rest of the world, and a
perfect example of head-in-the-sand when it comes to global terrorism.

No, this idea that somehow we have to give up our freedoms in order to
more effectively fight terrorism is wrong. The idea that somehow our
democratic process of free speech, free press, and political opposition
somehow provides aid to the enemy is wrong, too. It's entirely possible
to fight a smart war on terrorism and still protect our ideals. We are
not fighting a smart war on terrorism.

There are some people that say we need to permit torture, indefinite
imprisonment of American citizens without charge or legal counsel,
suspension of habeas corpus, supression of free speech, censorship of
news reports from the battlefield -- those people scare me as much as
Bin Laden. Countries that allow this wake up one day and find they live
in a dictatorship.

Sometimes fighting while upholding those ideals is harder, but in the
long run worth it. When you start censoring free press and free
speech in the name of supporting the war, then you are already
operating in a dangerous haze based on passion and politics.

Whoa .. bucko!. Not old enough to remember WWII, or much American
history are we?

Right, I'm not old enough to remember WWII (I'm only in my early-mid
40's). I do remember a fair amount of American history. America's not
perfect, but generally it has valued democratic ideals and in the
periods of history where that's not been done it's usually viewed
negatively later (e.g., Joe McCarthy, Nisei camps, etc).

There is nothing "nonsense" about limits on free speech. AAMOF, it is
a historical fact in this country since day 1 (remember the principle
of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), particularly in times of war
or national danger ... and if we lose this one, WWII will look like a
walk in the park.

Solution: get your head out of the sand and start listening to what is
going on around you when it comes to a "free press" also ... Dan
Rather and CBS, and the paying of "journalists" by the present
administration, sound familiar?

Yes, there are limits on free speech, especially involving public safety
and libel. Of course that's not what we are talking about. We are
talking about whether or not the political opposition has the right (or
duty) to point out the failings of the current leadership. I believe
they do. We are talking about whether the process of democratic dissent
provides aid to the enemy. I believe it does not.

I agree that the press is not doing as good a job as it ought to. It's
not asking the critical questions, it's sloppy, it's partisan. It
accepts dodges and nonanswers from our politicians. It's even being
bribed by our politicians. But for all its many faults, it's still part
of the system of (what used to be and ought to be) essential checks and
balances.