Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (115489)	9/22/2003 4:49:12 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

He certainly does peg the situation correctly! If any one of us decide to break the laws of the land, we also know the consequences of that decision. >>>>>>>>>But if she recognizes that Saddam's regime was worse, why was she willing to do what she did in order to try to preserve it? If she and the other "human shields" had actually been successful in their stated goal, that would have been the result. And the people of Iraq would still be dying in Saddam's torture chambers.<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>There is therefore a level at which patriotism requires us to accept the idea, "My country, right or wrong." That phrase does not require us to blindly support the current administration. But if we disagree with the majority, and fail despite our best efforts to persuade them, then we have a patriotic duty to accept our failure and accept that our government will follow policies that we think are deeply unwise. And in that case, we have a duty as citizens to stay within the system and to continue to work within it to improve it, even if we don't prevail for years or decades, or ever. To make that possible, the First Amendment recognizes extremely broad rights to express ourselves politically and to "peaceably assemble" with others of like mind. Though there were many philosophical reasons behind the the First Amendment, the most important was to make it possible for citizens to work to make the nation better by actively working to change government policy. But that does not cover sedition, and never has. And it doesn't cover treason. Those who give aid and comfort to enemies have ceased to work through the system itself. They are engaged in efforts not merely to disagree with current policy, but to actively work to prevent the system from operating. By so doing, they may or may not be traitors legally, but they are surely traitors philosophically.<<<<<<<