The Confederate Yankee and I have been going back and forth over whether or not Kevin Sites is a 'traitor' or not. Mostly for his benefit I repost my earlier discussion on censorship in a time of war. This post was originally written after the Abu Ghraib pictures were released and after Nick Berg had been beheaded.

Some of you might be shocked to learn that Rusty Shackleford, Libertarian, actually advocates censorship. I do. But only in the context of war and only in the context of speech directly related to the war effort.

Read the rest. It's a little academic, but if you don't mind a lot of references to Locke and Hobbes, I hope you find it readable if not completely outrageous. From Hobbes' Leviathan:

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.

The state of war is the medium in which all of our lives are lived. We are the fish, it is the water. All of our actions must be constructed with this in mind. We cannot escape the state of war by somehow denying we are in it. Can the fish suddenly sprout lungs and breathe simply because it does not recognize that his environment is water, not air?

That larger war, is all around us. The media does not understand this concept. They think there is a war 'over there' but not here. That somehow Iraq is separate from the larger war, which is all around us. This is why they believe it is ok to publish pictures of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib, because the 'war' is over there. Here, there is peace. But as Hobbes rightly observes the "nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary."

It may seem like an unimportant and abstract distinction. What does it matter whether or not a 'state of war' exists everywhere or only in Iraq? But distinctions, even when they are only made by assumption, are absolutely critical to the way we think. The distinction between war and peace is very crucial, because moral actions depend on context. If the context is peace, then moral beings are compelled by conscience to behave in one way. If the context is war, then the same moral being must act in another way. The same is true of the press.

A free-press cannot be maintained in a state of war. Even from a Lockean perspective we cannot understand our liberties as anything but ordered. The inconveniences of living without order makes man:

willing to quit this condition which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers; and it is not without reason that he seeks out and is willing to join in society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name- property. (Second Treatise IX:123)

Although I love the right to speak and cherish the liberty of the press, such liberty is meaningless without life. All of my rights and liberties are secondary to the need to protect my life. Governments are not founded to protect speech, rather, governments are instituted to protect life.

Free speech is an instrumental value--or it is a means to an end. We want freedom of speech and press because these things are necessary to a functioning democracy. However, a functioning democracy is secondary to some amount of order so that neighbors do not settle disputes on their own--a state of War according to Hobbes and an inconvenient state of Nature according to Locke.

When the secondary value of free speech conflicts with the primary value of protecting life, the secondary must be discarded. We ought not discard such things lightly, but sometimes they must be sacrificed. We do not let the body die to save the limb.

In a state of war, people die. In a state of peace, it is tacitly understood that you can say anything so long as your words are not a "clear and present danger" (See Schenck v. United States, 1919). Holmes' maxim seems to me a simple attempt at putting to words what we all kind of know deep down: only sticks and stones may break your bones, but words sometimes do hurt you.

You cannot say something that will incite someone to kill me. In a state of peace, people aren't normally incited to murder. In fact, yelling fire in a crowded theater rarely yields a riot. However, change the context and the result changes. In a state of war since some amount of anarchy is already present and there is an understanding that it is o.k. to kill, then the likelihood for words to lead to death is greatly multiplied.

Loose lips in times of peace are meaningless. In war, loose lips sink ships.

Did CBS's decision to air the photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib cause the brutal murder of Nick Berg? No. Of course not. Al Qaida rarely needs an excuse to commit an atrocity. Did such images contribute to his death? Probably not. He was a dead man walking from the moment he was captured.

However, such images do reinforce the preexisting notion in the Muslim world that the US is just another oppressive power. As such, these images mean that fence-sitters are more likely to join the opposition. Those not actually engaged in fighting will be less inclined to cooperate with us. Having a population less inclined to cooperate with us means terrorists will have an easier climate in which to operate. They will no longer have to fear their neighbor turning them in to Coalition forces. They can operate with near impunity. Chaos continues. People die. This all in one small field of one battle in the larger War on Terror.

For the larger war the images are even worse. They reinforce what the traitors Said and Chomsky have been saying for years: America is bad, mmm-kay. They ensure that hostility towards us will find increasing justification.

As moral beings, people tend to want to do good. I know, we all are sinful and all that, but that tells us little more than that men are selfish. Even the selfish man tries to find some justification for his actions. He is entitled to the money, everybody else does it, it's not as bad as some other worse thing, etc. The point is that we all need to feel that what we are doing is right.

Hence, the murderers and terrorists tell themselves stories that make their actions justifiable. The US is bad. So bad that they need to be stopped. So bad, that killing an American, even a civilian, is justified. So bad, that beheading him is the only way to let the Americans know that we mean business. America is a virus, and viruses need to be killed.

Our media's hyper-self-criticism is fodder for the fire. By making our minor flaws out to be something horrific, we give our enemies the moral justification they need to sleep at night after a day of mass-murder.

The images also remind us that propaganda works. The military had already begun investigating the abuses long before the images were available. But it was seeing the images, not the abuse that made so many furious. In a similar fashion, I had known that Nick Berg was beheaded and it pissed me off. But it was only when I saw the images that I went Mad Max.

Without the images the reality does not exist in the same way. When the media chose to run pictures of our abuse, they gave the enemy something else to throw in our faces. The great Satan is just as bad as Saddam Hussein---see, they are here to humiliate you---see, take up arms against the great Satan!!

More of our men are sure to die. There will be more Nick Bergs because of this.

Some of them would have died, with or without the images, but others' lives would have been spared. Some would have escaped, as did Thomas Hamil, because killing a hostage isn't always the priority. But if the US is a country of unreasonable barbarians, then there is no use in keeping hostages alive. Kill them all!

As long as we are in a state of war, the media must act in ways consistent with winning and bringing back a state of peace. If they cannot do it themselves, they must be forcibly censored.

Many of you may not know this, but during WWII the government had an actual censorship board. All broadcast and print media were censored for content that could hinder speedy victory. All pro-Japanese and pro-German publications were shut down. Leaders of the German-American Bund were rounded up and locked away.

All of the nation's propaganda might were aimed at winning the war. Pearl Harbor woke our population up, but a concerted effort at keeping our citizens ever aware of the war kept us awake. The event gave us the emotional will to begin the war, but it was propaganda that gave us the stomach to see it through to the end. The free-press gave way to the more immediate need of protecting lives.

For those of you who know my true identity, much of this may seem shocking. I am a civil libertarian, and if my state would allow it I would be a registered Libertarian. The main objection to regulating the press is the notion that somehow we will devolve into a state of fascism. In truth, it is the kind of 9/10 rhetoric I would have also used. But it is just rhetoric and nothing else.

Worse, it is a slippery slope argument that has no real basis in historical fact. As much as I love Nozick and Locke, epistemologically I must agree with Burke: societies and people do not spring forth from some imagined state of nature where rights exist, but are molded by culture and tradition.

The civil libertarian argument has much merit, but all arguements must be made in some context and with reference to actual social conditions. The context of the here and now is war; and the social condition of our nation is that of a people generally dedicated to limited government. We are a country and a people molded after Cincinnatus, not Caesar.

To think that content censorship would continue after we have defeated the threat of Islamofascism is to overlook WWI and WWII. In both cases we had direct censorship. In both cases the censorship eventually ended.

In sum, I call on Congress to recognize that the War on Terror must be handled as TOTAL WAR. All of the Nation's resources and will must be turned to that aim. From time to time events shock our conscience and reawaken us to the fact that our enemies want us dead. Between these times there must be a concerted effort by the entire nation to constantly remind us that war is a fact.

We do not fight war for its own sake, but to restore the state of peace. When we have won, then let us quibble about the merits of prancing prisoners around in underwear. Let us not focus on the mote in our own eye when the beam in our enemy's is strapped with TNT and he is eager to kill us.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:10 AM | Comments (44) | Add Comment
Post contains 2135 words, total size 12 kb.

1 I agree with a certain level of censorship in wartime Rusty, I agree with that 100%. But that has nothing to do with the Sites case. Sites presented the video to the MArines, and the Marines cleared it for release. I'll say it again. The government allowed him to release the tapes. Therefore, categorically, he cannot be guilty of treason, my friend. Unless you want to charge the Marines with treason as well...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 12, 2005 11:50 AM (P1Gho)

2 Treason got bandied about too much during the most recent campaign as a term aimed at getting an emotional reaction. Maybe betrayal can be substituted if anyone can tell the difference since treason has a legal definition that differs alot from the usage of it lately. I come down with Confederate Yankee on this one. Sites isn't a traitor per se, even if his actions are reprehensible. This is a case of the military inviting embeds in and not squelching the report. There was censorship in place throughout the war in Iraq with the embeds.

Posted by: Jeff at April 12, 2005 01:02 PM (ifPXk)

3 Confederate Yankee, When you say the Marines 'cleared it for release', what do you mean? Under the current rules, my impression is that the military can only censor times and places of troop movements.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 12, 2005 01:06 PM (JQjhA)

4 "In sum, I call on Congress to recognize that the War on Terror must be handled as TOTAL WAR. All of the Nation's resources and will must be turned to that aim. From time to time events shock our conscience and reawaken us to the fact that our enemies want us dead. Between these times there must be a concerted effort by the entire nation to constantly remind us that war is a fact. " - Rusty This is nothing close to "total war" and never will be. "Total wars" like WWII occur when we are genuinely threatened. There is no threat that our country will be taken over by another. There is no draft. There is no rationing. There are no colleges that can't put together a football team because all the men are in arms. There is no mass movement to join up. In fact, recruitment is down 40% from stated goals. We don't need to censor our media or lose our civil liberties over this preemtive war of choice. In short, your just being hysterical Rusty and cooler heads won't allow you and your ilk to destroy this country.

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 01:44 PM (/+dAV)

5 Maybe things are more serious than I thought... The Secret Service, which has the job of guarding the president and other dignitaries, now has a new temporary duty — protecting a mother duck and her nine eggs. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7431409/ Notice how the Secret Service doesn’t know how to spell “quiet”.

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 01:59 PM (/+dAV)

6 >>>"Notice how the Secret Service doesn’t know how to spell “quiet”." dude, was that a crack on the Secret Service? What did they ever do to you.

Posted by: Carlos at April 12, 2005 02:03 PM (8e/V4)

7 Have I sinned Carlos? God forgive me! I too love the Fuhrer. I too love the Fuhrer. I too love the Fuhrer. I'm a good American too Sig Heil!

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 02:12 PM (/+dAV)

8 Yes greg, because references to America or American patriotism as modern day Nazism never get old. Do you have the first clue about the Nazis?

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 12, 2005 02:23 PM (jPCiN)

9 I have a second clue about Zionazis. I think we should adopt that whole goose stepping thing the real Nazis did. It looks so cute!

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 02:26 PM (/+dAV)

10 "dude, was that a crack on the Secret Service? What did they ever do to you." For one thing they arrest people with anti-Bush T-shirts at pro-Bush rallies. http://www.refuseandresist.org/police_state/art.php?aid=1495 http:/www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/10/ale04068.html

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 02:40 PM (/+dAV)

11 Your kind of an asshole aren't you greg?

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 12, 2005 02:41 PM (jPCiN)

12 Aw! poor baby Defense Guy wants his total war. Hey DG, why don't you go and join up. They need you man. You're killer material brother. Or are you a Chickenhawk?

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 02:48 PM (/+dAV)

13 LOL Nazis??? Well go here: http://www.protestwarrior.com and check out how the good boys on the left react when a handful of conservatives crash one of their parties. If ever there were a true fucktard greg wins hands down!!!

Posted by: mike at April 12, 2005 02:49 PM (TJ8HB)

14 I take it back greg, your not kind of an asshole, your an unoriginal asshole. Better?

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 12, 2005 02:52 PM (jPCiN)

15 Same question Mike. Why not go join up? Are you a Chickenhawk? Pussytard!

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 02:54 PM (/+dAV)

16 When you say the Marines 'cleared it for release', what do you mean? I mean Sites showned the video to the USMC, and while they could have easily chosen to censor or confiscate the video, they instead decided to work with Sites, which provided the bakground context of this story, and the players involved. Immediately after the mosque incident, I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation. We all knew it was a complicated story, and if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region. I offered to hold the tape until they had time to look into incident and begin an investigation -- providing me with information that would fill in some of the blanks. For those who don't practice journalism as a profession, it may be difficult to understand why we must report stories like this at all -- especially if they seem to be aberrations, and not representative of the behavior or character of an organization as a whole. That was from Sites' "Open Letter to Devil Dogs of the 3.1."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 12, 2005 02:54 PM (ygMXr)

17 Well Defense Guy... Are you a Chickenhawk?

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 02:56 PM (/+dAV)

18 A repititous unoriginal asshole. Let's recap the leftist talking points: greg states - -American patriotism akin to goose stepping Nazi's. - Check -If you care so much, why not join up, warmonger? - Check -Claim of chickenhwak status. - Check Do you get points for staying on target with the list of approved talking points? BTW - my clearance comes through the DIA, where does yours?

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 12, 2005 03:07 PM (jPCiN)

19 greg, asking a pro-war person to "join up" makes about as much sense as demanding that a pro-choicer get an abortion, or demanding that a Liberal pay more taxes than he has to. It's fairly good rhetorical device, but it's just that--rhetoric.

Posted by: Carlos at April 12, 2005 03:11 PM (8e/V4)

20 There, there Defense Guy, sure it does. So you're like a big Eichman then, eh?

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 03:13 PM (/+dAV)

21 Truth hurts, eh? Is poor widdle greggy upset that someone called his bluff? Your really showing those 'smarts' throwing around all the Nazi references.

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 12, 2005 03:16 PM (jPCiN)

22 "asking a pro-war person to "join up" makes about as much sense as demanding that a pro-choicer get an abortion" I fail to see your logic. By the way Carlos, what's your excuse? No need to answer. It's 'cause you're too fucking smart!

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 03:16 PM (/+dAV)

23 greg you wouldn't recognize logic if it was biting you in the ass. Why not try something original?

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 12, 2005 03:17 PM (jPCiN)

24 "BTW - my clearance comes through the DIA, where does yours?"-Defense Guy I'm a dissident so I have no clearance. But again, why aren't you suited up and fighting man? If I was half as committed to this "war" as you are I'd be there.

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 03:21 PM (/+dAV)

25 No I wouldn't recognize logic if it was biting me in the ass, but I would if it was biting me on the ass.

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 03:25 PM (/+dAV)

26 Sure you would greg, sure you would. Don't worry there is a part of the country that just loves American hating cowards such as yourself. Alas, your typical answers now bore me, and out of deference to the Jawa masters I will stop polluting this thread with my own pissing contest. OK, one more parting shot. The liberals of this world must be proud to count you as one of their own. dissident, hah?

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 12, 2005 03:27 PM (jPCiN)

27 Defense Guy, You never answered why you haven't joined up. I conclude that you are a Chickenhawk coward.

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 03:31 PM (/+dAV)

28 "In sum, I call on Congress to recognize that the War on Terror must be handled as TOTAL WAR. All of the Nation's resources and will must be turned to that aim. From time to time events shock our conscience and reawaken us to the fact that our enemies want us dead. Between these times there must be a concerted effort by the entire nation to constantly remind us that war is a fact. " - Rusty This is nothing close to "total war" and never will be. "Total wars" like WWII occur when we are genuinely threatened. There is no threat that our country will be taken over by another. There is no draft. There is no rationing. There are no colleges that can't put together a football team because all the men are in arms. There is no mass movement to join up. In fact, recruitment is down 40% from stated goals. We don't need to censor our media or lose our civil liberties over this preemtive war of choice. In short, your just being hysterical Rusty and cooler heads won't allow you and your ilk to destroy this country.

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 03:32 PM (/+dAV)

29 No I wouldn't recognize logic if it was biting me in the ass, but I would if it was biting me on the ass. So, you wouldn't recognize if logic was biting you in the ass, becuase Lemmiwinks is already there, and you couldn't tell if the bite was from logic or Lemmiwinks. However if logic was external when it bit you, you could tell as the sensation would be coming from a different place than your over-populated rectum. That is one of the few things you've said on this thread that made sense.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 12, 2005 03:41 PM (ygMXr)

30 BREAKING NEWS; JUDGE ORDERS CONFEDERATE YANKEE RECONNECTED TO JEFF GANNON'S FEEDING TUBE

Posted by: Greg at April 12, 2005 03:43 PM (/+dAV)

31 ‘Iran a step away from uranium enrichment' http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1113272267256 It should be pretty obvious just what is being talked about at Crawford, and more to the point, who is doing the talking and who has been ordered to listen and obey. When your kids are dying in Iran (as they are already doing in Iraq), you will know at whose command their blood is spilled.

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 03:44 PM (/+dAV)

32 Confederate Yankee, I couldn't recognize logic if it was "in" my ass as you can because I haven't got the anal acuity that you have. Fags like you can make correct change with their sphincters.

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 03:46 PM (/+dAV)

33 >>>"By the way Carlos, what's your excuse? No need to answer. It's 'cause you're too fucking smart!" LOL! wrong. I'm too old. But if I could start again, I would have gone to the military before going into college. I regret that I didn't. But I was a Liberal back then, and I considered the military to be evil. So I lost my chance.

Posted by: Carlos at April 12, 2005 04:28 PM (8e/V4)

34 Greg - we are at total war. On 91101 American soil was under attack, thousands died and many more thousands were injured. $billions of American property was destroyed. We had no draft in 1777 but we had a total life or death war.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at April 12, 2005 04:31 PM (HNgs/)

35 Was there a catalyst to your transformation? 9--11? If I believed the official 9-11 story I'd be right with you.

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 04:35 PM (/+dAV)

36 Greg - "we are at total war. On 91101 American soil was under attack, thousands died and many more thousands were injured. $billions of American property was destroyed. We had no draft in 1777 but we had a total life or death war." It doesn't seem like total war to me. Not like WWII at all. By the way, I thought Osama attacked us on 9-11. President Bush himself has stated that there is no Iraq/9-11 connection despite that 70% of Americans think we were attacked by Saddam on 9-11. Not too smart. How many people must die until you feel avenged?

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2005 04:39 PM (/+dAV)

37 Defense Guy: Welcome to the blog. I see you have already learned the first undeniable fact. Grey is an asshole. One of these shitheads who voted for Kerry and cannot accept that he lost. So he raves anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-this, anti-that, etc: And always if he can't get his way he will resort to vile, sick, homosexual lanquage. My take on Greg. A faggot traitor. After a while that's the only conclusion one can intelligently come up with.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 12, 2005 05:24 PM (CBNGy)

38 Censor nothing.

Posted by: Collin Baber at April 12, 2005 06:17 PM (FV4oJ)

39 well now, Rusty, aren't you a puzzle of contradiction? I guess you mean the war time censorship should apply to your blog as well? to quote someone with a world class blog, "Heh".

Posted by: Mr. K at April 12, 2005 06:26 PM (22x5h)

40 Dear Defense Guy, Did you take part in DIA's GTAP?

Posted by: Collin Baber at April 12, 2005 07:34 PM (FV4oJ)

41 " Even if the actual battles are far away, the state of war exists. It is here. It is now." I think you have an idea of total war, which is not what we're in. For you war either is or isn't. That sort of totalism, of black/white, is just misguided, no matter how many philosphisers quotes you can get.

Posted by: actus at April 12, 2005 08:37 PM (EQbuu)

42 greyrooster Thanks for the welcome. I have the site in my favorites list, but only recently started delving into the comments section. CB No.

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 13, 2005 08:41 AM (jPCiN)

43 Defense Guy: Warning! if you show patriotism in any form you will be attacked by the likes of traitors like Greg. The Collin Baber is a commie to be ignored. An America hating garbage pit. Nothing more. Some well meaning bloggers converse with these things just for the sake of retoric. Which produces nothing but more retoric. Which produces more retoric. Which produces nothing but more retoric. All which changes no ones mind. Which produces nothing but more retoric. And on, and on, and on. Good luck.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 16, 2005 08:05 AM (sB5vg)

44 Defense Guy: I forgot. Please go to Jawas explained. It gives detail on what this blog is about. It's also a work of art that should be posted on the front page of every newspaper in the country. It's is on the left side of the main page.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 16, 2005 08:10 AM (sB5vg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment