We have a war going on between two parts of the Constitution. The President and Treasury Department represent Article Two, and The New York Times represents the First Amendment. By all rights, there shouldn't be a fight, but when has the NYT ever supported anything the Bush Administration does?
I want to pose a theory for all the defenders of the NYT like the Kossites and James Wolcott. These haters all believe something must be done for the Global War on Terror [GWOT]. OK, let's go over what they have stopped:
- No listening devices for international calls.
- No protecting the Border
- No "watchlist" of the people who plan to attack us (Have you ever seen a Jewish terrorist attack American cities? No. Then why can't we check for Arab terrorists. Leon Klinghoffer must be turning in his grave.).
- And now, we cannot track the monetary transactions.
What Keller, Wolcott, and the Kossites believe is: If Bush does it, it must be evil. The President have the right and the power to protect us from another attack, how many troops do the Kossites have?
What bothers me that this war between the Amendment and the Article is that both sides are Americans and the Amendment people are willing to sacrifice Americans on that alter. Will James Wolcott defend an American from Alabama to defend his Amendment Two rights? The answer is no, he doesn't care about the person if they support Bush.
We are now blind and defenseless against the next terrorist attack in the United States or in Iraq. I lay the blood of the next attack at the feet of Bill Keller, the Kossites and James Wolcott. I hope they can sleep at night knowing they turned America into 1990 Tel Aviv.
Well you know things are always destroyed. This is the opposite of my theory that conservatives destroyed intelligence however.ReplyDelete
I'm mystified by your point about the war. If there's a war, the First Amendment wins. That's what it means to say that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press, which is what the First Amendment says. It means the free press wins. You may not like this, but that's the system we've lived under for more than 200 years now, and so far it seems to be working pretty well. Is it more dangerous to live in a country with a free press than in one where the government controls everything? Sure. Just like it's more dangerous to live in a country where individuals have rights than in a police state. You're a lot safer on the street in Singapore -- or Beijing for that matter -- than in New York. That doesn't mean living in Singapore is better. Freedom is riskier than slavish obedience to the state. If you don't like it, and you're too afraid to live here, move.ReplyDelete
Anonymous the freedom of the press is not guaranteed by the First Amendment is not absolute espeecially in times of war. There is a long line of precedents stating that Congress has the power to regulate the press during times of crisisReplyDelete
Dating back to Justice Holmes unanimous decision in
Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247 (U.S. 1919)
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 439, 31 Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.