Saluting with misty eyes
Once again, I completely agree with the fact that you are allowed to have your opinions on any matter you choose, and that you hvea the absolute, militarily-given right to not have MY opinions on any particular subject... HOWEVER... I am going to invoke my right to respectfully tell you I feel you are not seeing things properly.
In the end, the 4,000 American Legion delegates unanimously approved Resolution 3, pledging to unite in support of the war on terrorism and against anti-war activists, fearing that protests could motivate insurgents in their battle against U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Please explain to me where this puts the Legion saying ANYTHING about deporting the deportation of liberals/protesters??? What it says is that they rose as one voice in support of the troops who are the ones putting themselves in harms way, and giving NO support to those who are not supporting the troops who are in harms way. The deligates of the American Legion (of which I happen to be a member) plainly stated that they feel public dissent hurts the troops effort to win the war, and that they choose to believe that anti-war protesting gives the enemy power (although only in their mind) over the troops and makes them fight against our troops a little more fiercely.
The American Legion is being maligned, my friend, for having an OPINION that doesn't match what the liberal.protesters feel everyone should have.
The Legion did not say it was illegal for the dissenters to have their view. The Legion did not vote to agree that those who oppose the war were to be denied their constitutional rights. The American Legion very simply voted to oppose those who dissent because many have felt (in their own minds and histories) the backlash from an enemy strengthened by said dissent.
There are many great, mindful and flexible veterans in the American Legion who I'm certain their views do not agree with the minds of their delegates or commanders
However the ones at the convention are NOT great, mindful, and flexible? Why would they not be great because they chose to have this opinion? Why would they not be mindful because they chose to have this opinion? I can almost guarantee that there were some who did not like the wording, however went with it because they felt very similar to what was actually voted on. Would that not make them flexible because they were willing to give a little on the wording when the sentiment was what they felt?
Some have already publicly expressed their resignation from the Legion in editorials because of their outcry on dissent.
I invite you to look up these veterans right now, and then again in a year... I will put my last ounce of breath on the fact that the majority of these same vets who "resigned" are STILL sitting at the bar of their post tonight drinking with their fellow vets. I also invite you to look them up one year from now, and I will bet you my last 50 cents that- with the VERY RARE exception- the ones that actually DID resign are there at the bar drinking with their vet friends. The majority of protesters yell their message, get their 15 seconds and then quietly go back to what they were doing.
A vast, strong majority of Americans support dissent. A brand new AP/Ipsos poll released today reveals 7 in 8 Americans believe it OK for Americans to publicly express their dissent.
Actually, THIS I agree with. I comletely support your right to PEACEFULLY and RESPECTFULLY protest the fuzz on a peach, if that is what gets you hot... right to the point where you stop supporting my right to PEACEFULLY and RESPECTFULLY call you an idiot for doing so. It is only when people decide that the ones that share those rights with you do not have the same rights for themselves.
...their right to protest, as well as those in support of the war to counter-protest, is guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution
I am going to guess that the portion of the 14th Amendment that you are quoting is: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
WHO IN THE NAME OF THOR'S HOLY HAMMER IS DENYING THEM DUE-FRIGGIN'-PROCESS???? OR EQUAL PROTECTION?????? The US Government would quite simply prefer that the liberals and the protesters would keep their collective mouths shut, however have done nothing to deny them the right to spread their propoganda at the same rate (or faster) than the government is spreading theirs. ANd the Vets of the Legion have absolutely no power to deny anyone anything. Noah, you are simply to intelligent to actually believe this argument.
Again, shame on the American Legion for heading down this direction, for taking a stand against our Constitution, against our Bill of Rights, against the rights that our veterans have fought to preserve for over 225 years
So, in effect, you are saying, "thank you for defending our rights, yet shame on you for actually USING those rights?"
Again, Noah, the ONLY thing the American Legion delegates did was to tell the protesters that the legion did not support their cause and would they please shut their mouths for once.
Apparently, the staff of the Editor and Publisher are mind readers as well as protesters... Here is what was said according to the American Legion. You will notice that it is the exact same thing... minus the editorializing. In their version of the story, the E&P, in their wisdom, has chosen to use inflammatory rhetoric, and- in my viewpoint- chosen to inform the American poeple that they are so stupid that they cannot read the remarks as they were stated, and not make up their own minds as to what was meant.
A quote that the E&P staff apparently understood better than we could when they read the Legion's release was: "“No one respects the right to protest more than one who has fought for it, but we hope that Americans will present their views in correspondence to their elected officials rather than by public media events guaranteed to be picked up and used as tools of encouragement by our enemies,“
Apparently hoping you won't publicly protest means that you are against poeple's right to peaceful assembly and their right to free speech.
I also read the entire press release from the American Legion, and not once did I see where ANYONE used the word "traitor"
Other quotes that the E&P apparently missed:
“Warriors, above all other people, pray for peace, for they must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war,”
The measure recognizes that the global war on terrorism is as deadly as any war
in which the United States has been previously engaged and that the President and Congress did authorize military actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
There is one quote that the E&P used quite effectively... and quite wrongly (IMHO):
"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,"
Those of us who have been on the blue pages since the war started will remember one particular member who was banned because of the "facts" he presented about the US military, and the war, and about the "peace-loving Iraqi government". In, my opinion, Noah, THAT is what the American Legion was talking about. Cindy Sheehan is not the focus of their ire. YOU are not the focus of their ire. The two of you are using the first amendment properly (no matter how much I would prefer you didn't ). It is the "banned members" who are acting like the other "famous protester" of days gone by, who was simply using her First Amendment rights that we are fighting against.
(try the after dark section)