This story from Editor & Publisher about the American Legion’s vow to stand against people Cindy Sheehan is being hyped by the likes of Markos Zuniga and Oliver Willis:
NEW YORK The American Legion, which has 2.7 million members, has declared war on antiwar protesters, and the media could be next. Speaking at its national convention in Honolulu, the group’s national commander called for an end to all “public protests” and “media events” against the war, even though they are protected by the Bill of Rights.
“The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples,” Thomas Cadmus, national commander, told delegates at the group’s national convention in Honolulu.
The delegates voted to use whatever means necessary to “ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism.”
Wow. From that article it certainly seems as though the American Legion will be actively trying to stop anti-war protests (which are protected by the Bill of Rights, the author of the story assures us), but as is usually case it seems as though the reporting of this initiative by the veteran’s group doesn’t really match what they’re actually saying.
Here’s the expanded comments made by Commander Cadmus:
]]>< 
OK guys, we have an interesting quandry here now. We’ve got a whole bunch of people saying “the American Legion people would never use violence to stop protests” and actually ridiculing the very notion, and one guy claiming to be a member of the Legion and saying he would. Either:
a) He’s not a real Legion member
or
b) You guys don’t know the American Legion as well as you thought
So the American Legion are just a harmless bunch of patriots? Anyone remember history? In 1919 the American Legion attacked an IWW office in Centralia. In the ’30’s they were involved in a plot to overthrow President Roosevelt. They really are a fascist organization.
RE: Jason’s post (August 25, 2005 12:23 PM)
Extrapolate away. To further LJD’s follow-up, words can be of the fightin’ kind and responding with physicality may or may not be justified despite the written law. The courts and a jury will decide. Odds are against the non-verbal retribution. Spittin’ in the face would be considered an assault – a jury might very well (perhaps likely) let the spittee payback the spitter with no consequence.
RE: mike’s post (August 25, 2005 12:32 PM)
So the American Legion are just a harmless bunch of patriots? …They really are a fascist organization.
I’ll trust your historical references but not your label. Are you saying that there has been no change in their structure or mission in 75 years? Isn’t your data a bit dated? I guess, by extension, I would be correct in saying that the Democrats used to be strong on defense back in WWII and that conclusion could be drawn today. Well, we know that not to be true, so it’s apparent that things change.
1.) Try reading the whole post and what was actually said vs. what you infer…
2.) My comments in no way represent that of the official position of the Legion or VFW. I’m just a member with MY OWN opinions.
3.) It is truly sickening that you commie-fucks can so easily paint a label on a Veterans organization that has secured the quality of life you have today. Absolutley shameful.
4.) Let me reiterate: Say what you want, how you want. Keep disrespecting those who actually have some values. (No one takes name-calling and hysteria seriously anyway, so you’re not really promoting your “Agenda” anyway) Cross the line, and sooner or later someone will give you a well-deserved smack. Free speech has consequences.
Just a matter of time before the Code Pink loonies are brought up on charges anyway.
Anonymous: I agree, spitting at people is definately crossing the line (and not just a little either, that’s flat out unacceptable in any situation). I’m not sure mentioning Halliburton fits in the category of “fightin words”.
But actually, it’s a good example to use, because according to the American Legion’s own website they consider any public opposition to the war completely unacceptable. Read the article off their site, they’re not just talking about assholes who go around harrassing vets in hospitals, they’re talking about anyone who makes their opinion known in a public manner.
LJD: If you’re a real prowar person, by all means, keep on talking… but only until your throat starts getting sore. If you’re an antiwar person just trying to make prowar people look like ignorant rednecks, it’s funny but not particularly helpful.
Everyone Else: Make a mental note of what this fellow says… ‘free speech has consequences’… in other words, say something someone doesn’t like and he’s fine with them assaulting you. Sound like free speech to you?
Here’s what we do: We squeeze the grease/oil out of every liberal protester’s head. Refine it, and stick it in my gas guzzling SUV.
I get free gas and there are less liberals runnin’ around…sounds like a win-win to me….
Jason:
Yes, it does sound quite like free speech.
Let’s review, shall we?
The First Amendment says that the government may not do anything to abridge one’s freedom of speech. In reality, as oft-noted, this is not an absolute freedom even in the government context, since you do not have a right to shout “Fire!” in the proverbial crowded theater.
But more to the point, the Constitution says that the government cannot abridge free speech, but that is as far as it goes. It does not say that no one can keep you from speaking—your boss, for example, can certainly keep you from speaking for any of a variety of reasons, not least of which is that your workplace may have rules prohibiting certain types of speech.
Violate the workplace rule, for example, and you can be fired—a classic example of speech having consequences.
Or, to take a different example, if you are at a university, and you say something racist or sexist, you might find yourself being counseled, or even expelled. What happened to freedom of speech? Apparently, it can be curtailed by university authorities.
Be offensive enough, and the reality is that at some point you’re likely to face a physical confrontation. Which may involve assault, or may involve being spat upon. You might ask some vets about the latter aspect.
Finally, something the Left needs to recognize is that the freedom of speech does not lead to a corollary of being right. In particular, dissent is neither more noble a form of speech, nor is it, in and of itself, any more accurate or correct.
You have a right to protest, but the fact that you are protesting neither makes you right, nor makes you noble, and most certainly does not insulate you from consequences of your protesting.
Judging by the latest statement out of the American Legion, no, I don’t think they’ve changed much. Tactics perhaps, but they still wrap themselves in the flag chanting “My country, right or wrong.” Disagree and you’re unpatriotic or worse, a subversive “commie.”
By the way, I am a veteran and I want nothing to do with an organization like them.
1. You can’t be expelled from a public university for being a racist.
2. Free speech isn’t about being right, it’s about the right to say what you believe. You don’t need a First Ammendment to write a cookbook.
3. Allowing a quasi-government organization (like, say, a large veterans’ organization) to go around assaulting people for saying things critical of the government runs dangerous close to the sort of thing that happens in a lot of dictatorships. I’m sure I’m not the only one here who notices that, even if a lot of you don’t want to admit it because you’re either scared of being beat up or cowed into thinking it’s somehow “necessary in these trying times”.
If Saddam Hussein had had his dissidents killed by non-government organizations, would it have been acceptable to you guys? After all, he’s not violating free speech then, right?
1.) You CAN be expelled from a university for being an idiot.
2.) Your definition of free speech is about expressing one’s beliefs. Where in that definition is there a provision for hysterical tantrums made in public?
3.) Who ever said the Legion was going around assaulting people? Really, stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Of course, add some Nazi/Fascist/Saddam comparisons for good measure. Because you have nothing relevant to say. Which is exactly why these pitiful fools are “protesting”. They are a failure of our public school system. They have no idea how to express themselves to facilitate change. They cannot write books or letters to their Congressman. They cannot write editorials, or organize events to educate the public about their platform. Only public tantrums. Maybe throwing salad dressing at some one will help?
Unlike them, I do not pick and choose the elements of the Bill of Rights which I support. Ironically enough, so many of these fools screaming about the Frist amendment, don’t give a damn about the second.
They find it so easy to stand in the shoes of the Iraqi insurgent, or the Palestinian, yet so difficult to have compassion for the Veteran’s family who grieves. It’s a simple hypocrisy of values.
I find it interesting that the grief of Cindy Sheehan is fair game for the right, and easily discounted. I guess the only grief that matters is that of the families who still support the invasion/occupation of Iraq.
Who’s the real hypocrite LJD? The pain and loss of Iraqis or Palestinians doesn’t matter? They aren’t Americans, so they don’t have real feelings…Don’t you get it? This war was unneccessary, illegal and people continue to die. For what?
Thanks for confirming again why I never joined the American Legion.
WRT LJD’s comments: you heard it here first folks… any time someone says something you don’t like you can declare it “not a real belief” (see his 2. comment) and then it’s not covered by the First Ammendment.
We’re making some legal history here.
I think the American Legion smeared itself by comming down against public protest.
The Constitution doesn’t just guarantee “free speech”; it guarantees a right to assembly.
It is intellectually immature to claim that anti war protester are helping the enemy. You guys on the right are still fighting the Peace movement of the Vietnam era. Think about this..when they find Al-Queada recruiting tapes, they find the words of Bush being used not Sheehan.
Jason wrote:
Sue: A poorly sourced opinion piece in National Review doesn’t prove a very dubious prospect…
Interesting. You decided to ignore all of the other links. You also decided to ignore the fact that the main source for the National Review piece was the New York Times.
From the National Review article:
Today, the Times concedes that the Defense Intelligence Agency is in possession of a document showing that, in the mid-1990s, the Iraqi Intelligence Service reached out to what the newspaper euphemistically calls “Mr. bin Laden’s organization” (more on that below) regarding the possibility of joint efforts against the Saudi regime, which was then hosting U.S. forces. To be clear, the document records that it was Iraq which initiated the contacts, and that bin Laden finally agreed to discuss cooperation only after having spurned previous overtures because he “had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative[.]”
Let’s see now, what options remain in the leftist debate handbook here?
If you choose “impugn the source” again, you’d be slagging the New York Times.
Looks like the only options left are… let me read here… wow, this handbook is almost too old to make out the words… “move the goalposts”… “ignore and change subject (see also non-sequiter and false dichotomy)”… “triangulate”… oh, and the last one… “ad hominem.”
I need to replace this old dusty thing with one of those new decoder spinwheel jobbies.
Think about this..when they find Al-Queada recruiting tapes, they find the words of Bush being used not Sheehan.
That’s not what your more intelligent friends have said.
Mike:
I’ve never heard of this before, but the 1930’s would be about the same time Sen. Robert Byrd (the Democrat’s “conscience” in the Senate) was a Grand Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan…wouldn’t it?
O.K., having read the thread, it’s clear that there are a few here who associate (and wrongly define) a “right of [sic] free speech” with a willful act, a privilege or lack of social restriction to acting whatever about whomever whenever, on a “just because” basis (which is why I describe “a willful act”).
The Right To Free Speech is very well elaborated upon here by Lurking Observer just a few comments up (^^). That “Right” provides that a citizen can opine about the (U.S.) government without the (U.S.) government editing that criticism.
However, that “Right” begins and ends there. It does not extend to and throughout society as providing citizens a sanction to express whatever is possible, to act however based upon whatever is possible, it just means that you can express an opinion about the government without being arrested for the opinion (or otherwise ‘edited’ by the government).
But it does not mean that there is to be a lack of culpability for actions taken or the behaviors used in those expressions — but is limited to the opinions themselves, as I understand it, in your relationship via those opinions with the government. You CAN express yourself but it does not mean that you are not responsible for the consequences of your expressions upon others. It does means that you can opine about the government, but it does not mean that you can assault others in the process or vandalise property or otherwise extend your expressions to include behaviors in the process that pose harms to others and not be held accountable for the consequences on various levels for your behavior/s (by others, by society, by anyone else).
Moreover, that “Right” doesn’t extend to other relationships that a citizen has, and if that citizen is under oath or otherwise ethically obligated to refrain from expressing personal opinions about the government, they aren’t protected by that Right from being sanctioned, losing a job, being demoted or many other efforts to penalize a violation of whatever standars one has an obligation to uphold and to observe — at least, to what extent their expressions are within that “Right” is arguable.
And, excellent comments, Lurking Observer, the assumption all too often that “free speech” implies correct or superior or instructional or any accuracy even, is false. Speech is speech, a protest — behavioral display relying on social theatrics — is simply an act. In and of itself (or, themselves as to protest and speech), there is no inherent quality or assigned worth as to content.
The Right To Free Speech does not mean that citizens can do whatever they want to do, as aspects of “speech” or in communicating “speech” about anything, anyone, it just means you can express your opinion about your government and not be penalized for the opinions themselves by the government.
Least of all, The Right To Free Speech doesn’t mean anyone can act irresponsibly and not be held accountable by others for the actions, or by the government. Some attempt to define “speech” as including a variety of behaviors and some have been successful in doing so but the intent of the Right as written is very straightforward and it is limited to speech in relationship to individual citizen opinion about the government. Not about other citizens, or causes, or whatever. And not an excuse or rationalization to riot, inflict harms, damage or defame (or any other extension of “speech” as it impacts others).
So you guys kind of follow the 1950’s Soviet definition of free speech… say what you want, but be prepared for violent retributions once you do.
My last post in this thread. You guys disappoint me… you really do.
For future reference, I’m neither a liberal, a leftist, or a “commie-fuck”. I was a Young Republican for Christsakes. Hopefully in time you’ll realize what assholes you’re being, and ideally the people you choose to assault until that day will be a lot more forgiving than you are. I wouldn’t count on it though.
“That’s not what your more intelligent friends have said.”
Nice try but I have to give you an F. First of all I was talking about recruitment tapes not Bin Laden PR fluff. Remember Bin Laden was speaking to us and not to his recruits.
And while Bin Laden used some of Moore’s themes..the tapes I was referring to use actual quotes from Bush’s speeches.
America today is no better then the Nazis of yesterday…
It’s all a bunch of self centered self serving right wing me myself and I god and guns garbage. Hopefully for you, your precious expandable soldiers will always be ready to die for any “noble” because your retard, thick as a brick president asks for… because most of the rest of you Americans are a bunch of lazy obese drug addicts. Not exactly an example for any self respecting civilized society to follow. The world would indeed be a much better place without you…