From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 21:07:34 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote,
> > I disagree. There is no tiny kernel of truth. None of these
> > people have ever given any indication of supporting the enemy.
>
> Well, of course by "the enemy" you mean Saddam Hussein.
Or the communists, the terrorists, al Quaeda, bin Ladin, the North
Vietnamese, the 911 hijackers, and the Saudis. We have been accused of
supporting all of these in the past week. All without evidence. It is
pretty extensive, wide-spread, and really bizarre!
> But doesn't it all depend on how you conceive of what your
> proper duties are as a citizen? Is it not also highly parameterized
> by circumstances? I'm sure that you can think of many historical
> situations (or simulations) in which sufficient danger would exist,
> or in which sufficient fealty would be the norm, that it would be
> true that "if you are not with us, then you are against us"?
NO, NO, NO, NO! We cannot require people to express the government's
official line or be accused of treason for merely failing to express an
opinion. This is so wrong, I can't imagine people buying into these loyalty
oaths. Not expressing an opinion is not evidence of guilt. People cannot
be accused of crimes for NOT doing anything. People are innocent until
proven guilty. We cannot allow the government to change this to being
guilty until proven innocent. A lack of evidence is not proof of guilt. (I
never thought I would have to explain this on the the Extropians list....)
> I readily understand that you cannot take insults lying down,
> and that you need to defend what "anti-American" would mean to
> you (not that you and others have neglected this). I myself
> doubt the utility or the wisdom of such provocations---yet if
> you could (and I don't know---perhaps you've tried) get those
> people to explain more concretely what they mean when they use
> such terms, perhaps the disagreements would be loftier.
You haven't followed the debate. The terms are not unclear. People are
being accused of specific terms with no evidence. There is no failure on my
part to understand the slander being bandied about here.
> What is going on is differing conceptions of what a country
> or a nation should be, and the proper amount of allegiance
> that is due. ;-) Your cries of "slander" are just as much an
> overreaction as theirs of "war-criminal", or "traitor", though
> perhaps they did start it.
Wrong. When someone is accused of being supporting communism, terrorism, or
the enemy without any evidence, that is slander. My complaints are not an
overreaction. Accusations of crimes against the state with no evidence is a
much larger overreaction than merely defending against those accusations.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISM, CISSP, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC Certified InfoSec Manager, Certified IS Security Pro, NSA-certified InfoSec Assessor, IBM-certified Security Consultant, SANS-cert GSEC <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 21:17:57 MDT