vision2020
Re: Unalienable Rights...
Melynda:
You can't be talking to me. Hell, I am a critic of "military policy".
And I marched on Washington in 1967 to protest the Vietnam War (AFTER I
fought in it... I actually knew what I was talking about.) And what
the Bush Attorney General's Office is doing to individual rights in
this country is appalling to me, War on Terrorism notwithstanding.
I don't recall attacking you personally, and if you got that
perception, I apologize. Dissent is essential in our society. I
encourage it. I defend it. So do the people in uniform. Henry David
Thoreau once said, "In a country with unjust laws, the only place for
an honest man is in prison." Protest, go to jail. Change laws. It
is your right.
But don't equate what the government does with the honor and commitment
of the folks in our armed forces, just because you don't agree with
current government policies. We live in a representative democracy,
and that means we have majority rule, with constitutional protection of
minority rights. If you are not in the majority, that just means you
don't get to decide national policy, not that you can't express your
opinion as loudly as you want, and try to change other people's
opinions.
The people in uniform don't get a choice---they swore an oath not only
to support and defend the Constitution, but to obey the legal orders of
their Commander in Chief and those officers appointed by him to be in
authority over them.
Regards,
Don Kaag
On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 10:33 AM, Melynda Huskey wrote:
> Dear Don and Tom,
>
> Help me understand why you're attacking me personally--name calling,
> for example--for holding an idea that you don't agree with. I don't
> think a reasoned discussion about war and peace is possible if we
> start from the assumption that any critique of military policy is
> unacceptable or unpatriotic. Can we agree that each of us holds our
> convictions for reasons which seem good and sufficient to ourselves,
> and that we can try to talk about them without making assumptions
> about each other?
>
> I believe that peacemakers put their lives on the line every day, that
> they make enormous sacrifices, and that they do so with a clear vision
> that war can never resolve conflict. Peacemaking is not parasitic--it
> isn't the hobby of comfortable cowards making cynical use of other
> people's arms. It calls for as much training, as much courage, as
> much self-sacrifice as any soldier uses.
>
> It seems to me that when we define protests against war or potential
> war as something that is "permitted" by the existence of the military,
> we are asserting that peace is simply an interval between wars. I'd
> like to advocate for a more dynamic view of peace and peacemaking. It
> is possible to find non-violent resolutions to conflict, but more
> importantly, it is possible to conduct oneself, and one's nation, in a
> way that limits violence to begin with.
>
> Celebrating Human Rights Day,
>
> Melynda Huskey
>
>
>
>
>
> "The things that make us happy make us wise." John Crowley
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen@moscow.com>
>> Reply-To: <thansen@moscow.com>
>> To: "Don Kaag" <dkaag@turbonet.com>, "Vision 2020"
>> <vision2020@moscow.com>
>> Subject: RE: Unalienable Rights...
>> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:20:30 -0800
>>
>> Greetings Visionaires -
>>
>> I support Mr. Kaag's comments 100%. As a retired Army NCO with
>> almost 21
>> years of service, I find Ms. Huskey's comments to be absolutely
>> appalling.
>> To blame the soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors who are willing
>> to fight
>> and die to preserve Ms. Huskey's freedoms for restrictions placed on
>> those
>> same freedoms is unconscionable.
>>
>> Ms Huskey, what gives you the self-righteous gall to make such an
>> allegation? It is easy for those in ivory towers to make vague
>> inflamatory
>> comments about those whose sworn duty it is to protect and defend the
>> castle
>> against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Just remember that
>> without those
>> brave protectors, the ivory towers turn to dust.
>>
>> Take care,
>>
>> Tom Hansen
>> SFC, U.S. Army (Retired)
>>
>> ***********************************
>> Work like you don't need the money.
>> Love like you've never been hurt.
>> Dance like nobody's watching.
>>
>> - Author Unknown
>> ***********************************
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Don Kaag [mailto:dkaag@turbonet.com]
>> > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 8:30 PM
>> > To: Vision 2020
>> > Subject: Unalienable Rights...
>> >
>> >
>> > Visionaries:
>> >
>> > Melynda says, ..." And†our First Amendment rights, not the paternal
>> > good nature of the folks with the guns,†protect the expression of
>> our
>> > dissent...."
>> >
>> > It is to secure those rights that soldiers bled in the snow at
>> Valley
>> > Forge, and fought a revolution. Without those soldiers, ragged and
>> > poorly-armed as they were, standing up to one of the best armies in
>> the
>> > world, and their Hessian mercenaries, we would have no Constitution
>> and
>> > no Bill of Rights.
>> >
>> > Again in 1812 we fought the British to keep our liberty, and it was
>> > soldiers and sailors and armed militia who put their lives on the
>> line
>> > at Lake Erie and Bladensburg and New Orleans. Meanwhile, American
>> > civilians in New England were making a nice living selling supplies
>> to
>> > the British and the Canadians.
>> >
>> > We intervened militarily in 1917 to secure the victory of democracy
>> > over despotism in Europe in WWI. It was U.S. soldiers and Marines
>> who
>> > fought at St. Mihiel, Belleau Wood, Blanc Mont and the Second
>> Battle of
>> > the Marne that saved England, France and Belgium, and American
>> sailors
>> > who got them and their suppies there, across an Atlantic filled with
>> > U-boats. One hundred seventy thousand died doing it.
>> >
>> > The generation that survived the Great Depression also fought WWII,
>> and
>> > saved the western world yet again from fascists and imperialistic
>> > empires, and preserved yet again Americans' rights. Do you think
>> that
>> > without American men in uniform with guns that the Nazis and the
>> > Japanese would have spared the United States? And where would your
>> > First Amendment Rights have been, then?
>> >
>> > After 50 years we won the Cold War, and now democracy and freedom
>> are
>> > spreading to countries and peoples long held in bondage. "The folks
>> > with the guns", did that, too. (And yes, Vietnam was a part of that
>> > war, and 58 thousand American men and women sacrificed their lives
>> > there, too. Which is not nearly the number of Vietnamese who have
>> > perished trying to escape the communist paradise of the People's
>> > Republic of Vietnam, or who perished in post-war "reeducation
>> camps". )
>> >
>> > If it weren't for "the folks with the guns", no American would have
>> > First Amendment rights. The right to dissent is an essential one of
>> > those rights, and men and women with guns ensure that all Americans
>> > keep it. We don't have to agree to what you are dissenting about to
>> > defend your right to do so. That is immaterial. Our military
>> forces
>> > are not "paternalistic", just essential to the preservation of
>> liberty.
>> >
>> > Your view of the United States Military is pathetic. We are not
>> > thuggish automatons. We took an oath to "Support and defend the
>> > Constitution of the United States of America". We took it
>> seriously.
>> > We don't do coups in this country. Our military is apolitical.
>> They
>> > serve the people of the United States and their Constitution. No
>> one
>> > values First Amendment rights as much as military men and women. We
>> > are willing to fight and die for them... and not out of "paternal
>> good
>> > nature", either... it is our calling and our privilege.
>> >
>> > And as for the military causing constraints on liberties, let me
>> remind
>> > you that it was Abraham Lincoln who suspended habeus corpus during
>> the
>> > Civil War, not the military. It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who
>> > signed the executive order putting Nisei into detention camps for
>> the
>> > duration of WWII, and Earl Warren of California who recommended he
>> do
>> > so. Hugo Black wrote the Supreme Court decision that approved the
>> > camps ex post facto. None of them ever wore a uniform, and all of
>> them
>> > stand in the ranks of liberal statesmen in this country. They were
>> > wrong. But they were representatives of the elected civilian
>> > government, not the military.
>> >
>> > In another century, and another country, the great poet Rudyard
>> Kipling
>> > said, "Makin' fun o' uniforms/That guard you while you sleep/Is
>> cheaper
>> > than those uniforms/And they're starvation cheap".
>> >
>> > Make fun of uniforms. Go ahead, it's your right under the First
>> > Amendment. It is tacky, but it is your right. And we will defend
>> it.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Don Kaag
>> >
>> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
Back to TOC