Freedom of speech cannot and should not be absolute.
Freedom of speech is arguably the most important and cherished right in the panoply of American liberties. Without freedom of speech, the United States would be merely a shell of its once great self. But like all forms of liberty, this freedom cannot and should not be absolute. The best way to rob the freedom of speech of all its majesty and meaning is to give this freedom to those undeserving of it.
It was recently discovered that the Guantanamo Prison library is devoid of books by leftist-anarchist author Noam Chomsky, and that, Interventions, a recently released anthology of Chomsky's subversive anti-American diatribes, was banned outright from Guantanamo's ever-expanding library. Lest anyone objects that Chomsky's articles are merely left-leaning and not explicitly anti-American, Chomsky's response to hearing that Guantanamo's ban of his book was telling: "This happens sometimes in totalitarian regimes."
What Chomsky and his anti-American ilk consistently fail to understand is that democratic-freedom and anarchic-libertinism are mutually exclusive. This idea is nearly self-evident when it comes to the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment's freedom of speech. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." The moral of this oft-quoted aphorism is that certain forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment because the probable consequences of this speech are so harmful that protecting it would be turning the concept of liberty on its head.
Banning the public dissemination of books by Noam Chomsky or any other anti-American writer would be anathema to all Americans who value freedom and liberty. The availability of all political speech, no matter how hateful, no matter how distasteful, no matter how subversive to American government, is the very essence of the right protected by the First Amendment. Book burning and similar activities should be confined to dystopic fiction and dictatorships, and should have no place in the United States. But the full theoretical expansion of these beloved rights has no place in a prison system, especially one that houses prisoners with a particular interest in the destruction of American society and American lives.
The Code of Federal Regulations allows prison wardens to reject a book or publication "if it is determined detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution or if it might facilitate criminal activity." The Regulations go on to explicitly repudiate any power of a prison warden to ban a book solely because it contains political opinions that are distasteful and unpopular. However, the Supreme Court has stated that although prisoners retain some Constitutional rights, "these rights must be exercised with due regard for the 'inordinately difficult undertaking' that is modern prison administration."
Although the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitutional protection of habeas corpus applies to Guantanamo Prison, Guantanamo still remains largely outside of the federal prison system context, and therefore outside the official Federal Regulations as they apply to typical prisons. This distinction is eminently reasonable. Guantanamo houses hundreds of suspected Islamist terrorists who are being held for national security purposes. Guantanamo prisoners aren't the usual gang of extortionists, rapists, and murderers. These are international terrorists, specifically trained to kill as many innocent American citizens as possible. If the discretion to ban certain publications detrimental to security, good order, or discipline is considered a necessity for prisons housing robbers and drug-dealers, how much more so is this discretion needed for those in charge of a prison housing terrorists who aspire to mass murder and the genocide of Americans?
After news of Guantanamo Prison's ban of Chomsky's Interventions, became public, Leftists had their usual conniption fits. Leftist magazine, The Progressive, published a story denouncing the ban and snarking that, "we're supposed to believe in free speech in this country." Aping Chomsky's affinity for ludicrously comparing the United States to Nazi Germany, the article informs its readers that Chomsky's book is "verboten" in the prison library. The author goes on to write that "when we've taken every other freedom away from a prisoner . . . the least we can do is not imprison that person's mind." Apparently, the author is unaware of the Guantanamo library's other 16,000 volumes which are available to the approximately 200 suspected terrorists in Gitmo.
The Progressive article's underlying message — including its shrill tone, ignorance of the facts, and silly comparisons of America to brutal totalitarian regimes — is illustrative of the Left's failure to understand the very freedom of speech that they see themselves as defending. All of the freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights have certain important and necessary limits. As the saying goes, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." Rights and freedoms are only extended to the point where they stop being conducive to protecting the very ends for which they were created.
There can no longer be any doubt that Noam Chomsky's writings are anti-American at best and hostile to American democracy at worst. While the free expression of these ideas is appropriate (no matter how abhorrent) in American society, the dissemination of these ideas would be incitement in an American prison, and outright dangerous in Guantanamo. The prisoners of Guantanamo are all suspected of attempting to murder Americans because they are Americans. Many of these prisoners were prevented from committing suicide-terrorist attacks. Is it so unreasonable to believe that reading anti-American books such as Chomsky's would reinforce these suspected terrorists' beliefs in their cause, and encourage them to rebel, revolt, and cause as much mayhem as possible against the prison officials? Are the 160,000 other books which are unlikely to incite violence — including books on Islam, Muslim history, political theory, and even popular fiction — not enough intellectual stimulation for maximum-security prisoners? Do these suspected terrorists' rights to incite violence and the death of innocent civilians never end, even when they threaten the current and future well-being of Americans?
Skeptics will say that this is an overreaction. They will quote — absurdly out of context — Benjamin Franklin's pithy statement, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." But no amount of misplaced "maxims" can stand up to the reality of the situation. The prisoners in Guantanamo are willing to give up their lives in order to destroy the lives of others. They use the freedoms Americans cherish in order to further their evil ends. Allowing Guantanamo prisoners the full host of freedoms that are inalienable to Americans, just to have them turn these freedoms into weapons against freedom itself, is counterproductive and morally abhorrent. Irving Kristol once wrote, "I . . . see no reason why we should not be able to distinguish repressive censorship from liberal censorship of the written and spoken word." The ban in Guantanamo Prison of Noam Chomsky's book is clearly of the liberal kind, and will do much to advance the cause of both freedom and security for all Americans.
You make a good case that those imprisoned don't have the right to any and all literary works that they might want.
You even get bonus points for noting (most of the time, at least) that the detainees at Guantanamo are suspected terrorists. (Though, apparently, even the Pentagon concedes most aren't even that.) Unfortunately, that's as much as anyone can say, because there's never been a process to let them be convicted terrorists. The restrictions would be a lot more palatable to the conscience if there were some procedure for either ending or formalizing them.
I did kinda hope Obama might actually put something like that into place, but no dice.
Last time I checked, Chomsky was still freely talking, and probably is still writing unencumbered by government intervention. His books are readily available. Therefore, he has not been censored.
Making choices as to what literature will be made available in gitmo is not censorship. Preventing Playboy from appearing in public school libraries is not censorship. Borders Books, when they make selections as to what literature will be sold in their stores, is not engaging in censorship.
Even if the Warden's decision was based on ideology, it still isn't censorship. Censorship requires a systematic, substantial or near-total suppression of ideas or literature by government.
Regarding "…liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights…," I am not pursuaded this is appropriate phraseology. The mis-named "Bill of Rights" is actually a "Bill of Additional Government Restrictions."
From the Preamble to the Bill of Rights: "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…"
Certain rights are mentioned in passing as the Founders further limited the power of government via the Bill of Rights, but their intent was not to enshrine rights. The Ninth Amendment makes this clear: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The full quote of Chomsky's reaction:
"This happens sometimes in totalitarian regimes. Of some incidental interest, perhaps, is the nature of the book they banned. It consists of op-eds written for The New York Times syndicate and distributed by them. The subversive rot must run very deep."
Libertarian Conservative is an Oxymoron. Mark you're an idiot. If you had the intellect to comprehend the world around you then perhaps you could grasp Chomsky's credibility.
Raymond,
An unreferenced citation in a UK newspaper that an unquantified "most" of the 225 detainees at Gitmo have been deemed "harmless", along with an accompanying mention that few other countries are willing to take the unquantified number of "harmless", faithful practitioners of that most peaceful religion, and that 60 to 80 of the self-same detainees that are "most dangerous" (I guess those must be the ones who resisted unlawful arrest by jackboot military thugs while they were being beaten and dragged away from their pottery wheels, or something) can't find placement in the United States' most secure prison facilities because congressmembers believe they are a danger to their constituents isn't' exactly a strong establishment of your case that the government is torturing and abusing innocent Muslim men rounded up in droves from their mosques as they peacefully worshipped while the fascist American military gunned down their wives and children. (give me a minute to compose myself – the tears are inhibiting the function of my keyboard). But I'm sure the author appreciates your "bonus points" – your endorsement being so valuable given your considerable importance and intellect.
It may soothe your wounded heart, though, to know that there is, indeed, a method for converting military detainees from "suspected" to "convicted" war criminals. And you have Obama to thank for it.
It says "Conservative & Libertarian Politics" under this website's title. But here we discover that there's liberty and then there's liberty: there's the "democratic-freedom" to say things that Mark Cantora likes, and then there's "anarchic-libertinism" — the freedom to say things that Mark Cantora does not like, and specifically, the freedom to document and describe certain acts undertaken by the government of the USA. To merely mention such acts is "anti-American". Such is the crime Noam Chomsky has committed, according to Mark Cantora.
Maybe I've just been suckered by crazy, revolutionary writers, ranging from Thomas Paine to Noam Chomsky himself, but it seems to me that banning such writing is what's anti-American.
When will the Left learn that prisons exist precisely to take away prisoners’ rights? Not to re-hash old arguments, but the terrorists at GTMO are not “prisoners” which implies they are POWs. They are unlawful combatants, and as such are not entitled to POW status, which, according to Geneva, gives certain rights to POWs not conferred on unlawfuls. I don’t recall that even POWs are entitled to a library of any kind. Not only that, but detention of a combatant is not punitive in nature. It is a military action to prevent the detainees from re-enforcing the enemy. Somehow, the courts managed to ignore that tidbit.
“There can no longer be any doubt that Noam Chomsky's writings are anti-American at best and hostile to American democracy at worst.”
Somehow, to Leftists, the idea of free speech is yet unfulfilled unless such miscreants are commissioned by their victims to destroy hard-won, proven ideas and convictions, through the advocacy of the moral equivalent of 2+2=5, on the outside chance that somehow, somewhere there just might exist in their despotic philosophies a single grain of truth worth pursuing, that dare not be overlooked at any cost, lest the salvation of all mankind be lost forever.
Such are so bereft of original ideas that they must take the antitheses of good ones and foist them off onto each new crop of unsuspecting freshmen, who are only too eager to hear that their parents, teachers, and spiritual advisers have, to the last one, been wrong in everything all these years. That such fraud is exposed by the fact that they themselves do not live according to their professed ideologies (see example below) they would have for the rest of us should be proof-positive to the most causal observer or dimmest Doubting Thomas, with only the least of his wits about him, that no such grain exists, nor has ever existed. To wit:
“Whereas readers of The Prospect found the top public intellectual in Chomsky, I found a poster child for modern-day capitalism and, because of his anti-capitalist views, a complete hypocrite. … Chomsky is [financially] rich precisely because he has been such an enormously successful capitalist.”
"The Branding of the World's Top Intellectual: Noam Chomsky"
By Peter Schweizer Published 10/19/2005
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=1019055
As far as the US being a totalitarian regime, ever since Bush was accused of turning America into another Nazi Germany, I have asked those accusers to tell me where I can apply to be the Kommandant of the concentration camp that houses the Leftist judges, professors, and politicians. I gave up waiting for an answer some time ago.
Mr. Mulligan – If you can scrape up the slightest quote of my actual words to support the characterization you gave of my position, I'd be fascinated to see it. Best of luck!
Raymond,
That's why I used quotation marks – because I was obviously excerpting unexaggerated words that you actually said. Why wait a second, I didn't do that at all, did I?
I think the point probably came through just fine – the objects of your affection at Guatanamo Bay aren't quite the sympathetic pictures of innocence you'd like to build them into. And, contrary to your assertion, they are being tried even as we speak in courts of law, with the support of the president. If "most" of them are innocent of crimes (to say nothing of "harmless"), they should be separated from the guilty in short order. Sounds like a dream come true.
…the objects of your affection at Guatanamo Bay aren't quite the sympathetic pictures of innocence you'd like to build them into…
Well, actually, as I've pointed out before, some of them are.
Oh, and no, "even as we speak", the detainees are not being tried. Here, hip yourself, this just came out today: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114280522
Well, I suppose what constitutes a "sympathetic picture" is ultimately subjective. However, it's worth nothing that simply repeating your assertion does not make it a fact. Or to put it in more nauseatingly trite terms, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Also, existing military tribunal cases were put on recess in January, re-authorized in May, and remain ongoing. I don't know if you actually read past the title of the article you referenced, but, to quote:
Justice Department lawyers are now nearing a decision over who will be tried in open federal court, who will face military commissions, and who may be indefinitely incarcerated.
So, yes, trials are ongoing, and the rest will be soon, that is if Hope and Change can meet its self-imposed deadline. Isn't that what you've been crying into your beer for the past 6 years?
…simply repeating your assertion does not make it a fact.
What part of my 'assertion' do you disagree with? That innocent people have demonstrably been put in Guantanamo? That that taxi driver was beaten to death? That the majority of detainees at Guantanamo were not captured by U.S. troops and were instead turned over by other governments and individuals for reward money?
And note that what you quoted says that "Justice Department lawyers are now nearing a decision over who will be tried…", and not that "trials are ongoing". Obama made noises back in May about re-authorizing the tribunals, but they haven't actually been put into action.
We weren't talking about objective facts such as that – I said that most of the detainees at Guantanamo were not "sympathetic pictures of innocence" and you countered that, indeed, most of them are sympathetic pictures of innocence. It was stupid of me to bring it up – we could go back and forth indefinitely about what constitutes a "sympathetic picture", as that's simply not an objective term. Ultimately we're exchanging nothing more than presumptions about the people at Guantanamo Bay, as neither of us is privy to the evidence against the detainees there.
I understand what the quotation said. There were military tribunals in progress when Obama took office, they were recessed (not stopped) in January, and re-authorized in May. Those tribunals (technically) remain in progress, and the justice department is now ready to let others go forward as well. This seems like what you've been screaming for since 2003, so I don't understand why it's still such a big issue for you.
Mr. Mulligan – You write, "…you countered that, indeed, most of them are sympathetic pictures of innocence".
Go read comment #8 again. There is, in fact, a difference between "most" and "some"; you may want to refresh yourself on that. Sadly, though, I've gotten used to people here arguing with me based on what they wish or hallucinate I'd written, rather than what I actually write.
I suppose it is a matter of opinion whether Dilawar and the passengers in his taxi paint a sympathetic picture or not… but I find I don't really give a rip for someone who can't muster up sympathy for that.
Mr. Ingles: If you believe that the United States should revise its policies about capturing/incarcerating persons in war zones, what improvements would you envision? Thank you.
Ruminator – I was really cheesed off when Bush claimed that no policy or procedure was necessary at all. The courts finally got him to back off on that somewhat.
I've said all this before (and can offer links if you'd like), but it's pretty straightforward. In combat, no change – you stay alive and get the mission done. Soldiers should of course try to avoid mistakes, and they do try already anyway. But they're human, some mistakes are inevitable.
For terrorists and combatants caught by U.S. troops, in combat, violating protocols of war (no uniform, etc.) – no change (aside from no torture, see below). They are "the common enemy of mankind", like pirates.
For people turned over to U.S. troops by others – especially the ones turned over for reward money – at minimum, a competent tribunal to determine if they are, in fact, terrorists/unlawful combatants. Until that determination has been made, full protection under the Geneva Convention, as demanded by Article 5. (That happens to be the majority of the people in detention, btw.) The defendant should have some ability to confront evidence and witnesses whenever remotely practical. The assumption up until now seems to have been, "if you're in custody, you must be guilty", and that's… problematic.
For someone determined to be a terrorist by a competent tribunal – torture's morally justifiable, but manifestly counterproductive. There are equally effective ways of intelligence-gathering that don't have the horrible political costs and fallout of torture. Rendition to outsource the torture's also out, for the same reasons. Indefinite detention's fine, execution's fine.
Things started turning around in Northern Ireland when the British government began cutting out the thug tactics and attempted to follow a rule-of-law approach to the IRA. 9/11 pretty much killed the IRA but they were already weakening because they'd lost any claim to moral equivalency with the British government. We are not equivalent to Al Qaeda, never have been – but things like Abu Ghraib and the treatment of KSM have hurt the perception of the U.S. badly in much of the Arab world. We need to be clearly, unquestionably better morally than those we oppose – because the battle is primarily ideological and not military.
Raymond,
You cited a newspaper article calling "most" of the detainees at Guantanamo "harmless". You said "some" were "sympathetic pictures of innocence". Quibble ad nauseam, as you always do, about the semantics, but there's still no practical difference. When you cite fabricated, imprecise, non-numerical "figures" in support of an argument about whether or not a person fits the definition of a subjective term you're engaging in a pointless conversation. Like I said, I fault myself as much for bringing it up as you for indulging every possible minutia of what amounts to a "No, you!" argument.
And since we're nitpicking, I didn't realize Dilawar was a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, awaiting trial in a military tribunal or US Federal Court. That was, after all, the topic under discussion. I think the bigger problem with the discussions you have on this site is that you can't ever seem to keep track of which positions you're defending, change your mind about the nature of your argument(s) mid-conversation, and then blame others when they can't or won't travel down endless labyrinths of ever-changing topics and arguments with you.
Raymond:
Re: Soldiers should of course try to avoid mistakes, and they do try already anyway. But they're human, some mistakes are inevitable.”
Unlike the courts?
Re: “…torture's morally justifiable…”
Suppose instead of letting them have Chomsky’s books, they played Chomsky’s lectures over the PA system so the detainees could listen all day long. Would you consider that torture?
"Quibbling ad nauseum…semantics:" It takes two to tango.
"Noam Chomsky lectures as torture"…hilarious. Does this advance the discussion?
Ray: thanks for your thoughtful reply.
It takes two to tango.
I acknowledged the futility of the argument given the subjective nature of the language, including that which I introduced, when I said:
It was stupid of me to bring it up – we could go back and forth indefinitely about what constitutes a "sympathetic picture", as that's simply not an objective term. Ultimately we're exchanging nothing more than presumptions about the people at Guantanamo Bay, as neither of us is privy to the evidence against the detainees there.
I fault myself as much for bringing it up as you for indulging every possible minutia of what amounts to a "No, you!" argument.
So I don't think it's quite fair to say that I am "quibbling over semantics". For continuing a pointless discussion, though, I would have to admit guilt. And having done so, I think it would only be appropriate to stop.
I don't know whether reading Chomsky would make these folks more dangerous. They're already as dangerous as can be, right? (excepting the taxi passengers). Don't these folks already know that there probably is such a writer in America, and yet his view is a minority view? If there are books by William F. Buckley, have we been expecting them to adopt his views?
Wouldn't it be more logical to ban Chomsky from American prisons, where people with generalized anti-social tendencies have not yet developed political motives?
The real argument is about discrediting the Progressive of course. "Ignorance of the facts" is real charge, if proven. "Shrill tone" reminds me of myself complaining about IC, and being ignored (probably for good reason.)