KeJia Sista
Aug 24th, 2005, 01:34 PM
ACTION ALERT:
> A New Blacklist for "Excuse Makers"
> Those who think Iraq War sparks terror are "despicable," says Friedman
>
> July 27, 2005
>
> New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has urged the U.S.
> government to create blacklists of condemned political speech--not
> only by those who advocate violence, but also by those who believe
> that U.S. government actions may encourage violent reprisals. The
> latter group, which Friedman called "just one notch less despicable
> than the terrorists," includes a majority of Americans, according
> to recent polls.
>
> Friedman's July 22 column proposed that the State Department, in
> order to "shine a spotlight on hate speech wherever it appears,"
> create a quarterly "War of Ideas Report, which would focus on those
> religious leaders and writers who are inciting violence against
> others." But Friedman said the governmental speech monitoring
> should go beyond those who actually advocate violence, and also
> include what former State Department spokesperson Jamie Rubin calls
> "excuse makers." Friedman wrote:
>
> "After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out
> to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains
> why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch
> less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed.
> When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a
> grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a
> political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of
> innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow 'understandable'
> is outrageous. 'It erases the distinction between legitimate
> dissent and terrorism,' Mr. Rubin said, 'and an open society needs
> to maintain a clear wall between them.'"
>
> The "despicable" idea that there may be a connection between acts
> of terrorism and particular policies by Western countries is one
> that is widely held by the citizens of those countries. Asked by
> the CNN/Gallup poll on July 7, "Do you think the terrorists
> attacked London today mostly because Great Britain supports the
> United States in the war in Iraq?" 56 percent of Americans agreed.
> In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll (7/7-10/05), 54 percent said "the
> war with Iraq has made the U.S....less safe from terrorism." Since
> they see a connection between Iraq and terrorism, a majority of
> Americans are what Friedman calls "excuse makers" who "deserve to
> be exposed."
>
> Friedman's column urged the government to create quarterly lists of
> "hatemongers" and "excuse makers"--as well as "truth tellers,"
> Muslims who agree with Friedman's critique of Islam. Friedman's
> proposed list of "excuse makers" would have to include his New York
> Times colleague Bob Herbert, who wrote in his July 25 column,
> "There is still no indication that the Bush administration
> recognizes the utter folly of its war in Iraq, which has been like
> a constant spray of gasoline on the fire of global terrorism."
>
> Leading members of the U.S. intelligence community might also find
> themselves on such a blacklist, based on a report summarized
> earlier this year in the Washington Post (1/14/05):
>
> "Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next
> generation of 'professionalized' terrorists, according to a report
> released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA
> director's think tank.... According to the NIC report, Iraq has
> joined the list of conflicts--including the Israeli-Palestinian
> stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir,
> Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand--that have
> deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic
> ideology."
>
> Though Friedman calls on the State Department to compile the "Top
> 10 hatemongers" list in a "nondiscriminatory way," it's doubtful
> that such a list would, in fact, even-handedly include all
> advocates of violence. It would not be likely, for example, to
> include someone like Thomas Friedman, who during the Kosovo War
> (4/6/99) called on the Clinton administration to "give war a
> chance," writing, "Let's see what 12 weeks of less than surgical
> bombing does." In a follow-up column (4/23/99) he declared that
> "Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation," and
> insisted that "every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road and
> war-related factory has to be targeted." Despite the fact that by
> calling for attacks on civilian targets he was advocating war
> crimes, Friedman should have no fear that he'll find himself on a
> State Department list of "hatemongers."
>
> Friedman's suggestion that those who seek to understand or explain
> political violence are not part of "legitimate dissent" comes at a
> time when calls for censorship are becoming more and more blatant.
> Bill O'Reilly (Radio Factor, 6/20/05, cited by Media Matters,
> 6/22/05) made a chilling call for the criminalization war opponents:
>
> "You must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq War and
> the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that
> undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines
> the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9/11, is a traitor. Everybody
> got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So,
> all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could
> incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send
> over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know,
> they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care
> less."
>
> The call for the arrests of Air America Radio hosts was said as
> though it were a joke, though O'Reilly is deadly serious when he
> says that the commentators on that network are "undermining" the
> war--and that such "undermining" is treason.
>
> O'Reilly more recently (7/25/05) went after Herbert's column that
> argued that the Iraq War fueled terrorism: "Bob Herbert is most
> likely helping the terrorists, but his hatred of Mr. Bush blinds
> him to that. He's not alone, but this kind of stuff has got to
> stop. We're now fighting for our lives. And those helping the enemy
> will be brought to your attention."
>
> "Attention," rather than arrests, is all that Friedman has
> threatened "excuse makers" like Herbert with. But it's a small
> step, as O'Reilly's rhetoric demonstrates, between marginalizing
> critics of U.S. foreign policy as "just one notch less despicable
> than the terrorists"--and criminalizing criticism itself.
>
> ACTION: Please let Thomas Friedman know that opponents of the Iraq
> War do not deserve to be on a government blacklist--even if they
> oppose the war because they believe it encourages terrorism.
>
> CONTACT:
> Thomas Friedman
> c/o New York Times Editorial Page
> editorial@nytimes.com
>
> As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if
> you maintain a polite tone.
>
> Read Friedman's column here:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/opinion/22friedman.html
Ke Jia
> A New Blacklist for "Excuse Makers"
> Those who think Iraq War sparks terror are "despicable," says Friedman
>
> July 27, 2005
>
> New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has urged the U.S.
> government to create blacklists of condemned political speech--not
> only by those who advocate violence, but also by those who believe
> that U.S. government actions may encourage violent reprisals. The
> latter group, which Friedman called "just one notch less despicable
> than the terrorists," includes a majority of Americans, according
> to recent polls.
>
> Friedman's July 22 column proposed that the State Department, in
> order to "shine a spotlight on hate speech wherever it appears,"
> create a quarterly "War of Ideas Report, which would focus on those
> religious leaders and writers who are inciting violence against
> others." But Friedman said the governmental speech monitoring
> should go beyond those who actually advocate violence, and also
> include what former State Department spokesperson Jamie Rubin calls
> "excuse makers." Friedman wrote:
>
> "After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out
> to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains
> why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch
> less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed.
> When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a
> grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a
> political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of
> innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow 'understandable'
> is outrageous. 'It erases the distinction between legitimate
> dissent and terrorism,' Mr. Rubin said, 'and an open society needs
> to maintain a clear wall between them.'"
>
> The "despicable" idea that there may be a connection between acts
> of terrorism and particular policies by Western countries is one
> that is widely held by the citizens of those countries. Asked by
> the CNN/Gallup poll on July 7, "Do you think the terrorists
> attacked London today mostly because Great Britain supports the
> United States in the war in Iraq?" 56 percent of Americans agreed.
> In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll (7/7-10/05), 54 percent said "the
> war with Iraq has made the U.S....less safe from terrorism." Since
> they see a connection between Iraq and terrorism, a majority of
> Americans are what Friedman calls "excuse makers" who "deserve to
> be exposed."
>
> Friedman's column urged the government to create quarterly lists of
> "hatemongers" and "excuse makers"--as well as "truth tellers,"
> Muslims who agree with Friedman's critique of Islam. Friedman's
> proposed list of "excuse makers" would have to include his New York
> Times colleague Bob Herbert, who wrote in his July 25 column,
> "There is still no indication that the Bush administration
> recognizes the utter folly of its war in Iraq, which has been like
> a constant spray of gasoline on the fire of global terrorism."
>
> Leading members of the U.S. intelligence community might also find
> themselves on such a blacklist, based on a report summarized
> earlier this year in the Washington Post (1/14/05):
>
> "Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next
> generation of 'professionalized' terrorists, according to a report
> released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA
> director's think tank.... According to the NIC report, Iraq has
> joined the list of conflicts--including the Israeli-Palestinian
> stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir,
> Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand--that have
> deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic
> ideology."
>
> Though Friedman calls on the State Department to compile the "Top
> 10 hatemongers" list in a "nondiscriminatory way," it's doubtful
> that such a list would, in fact, even-handedly include all
> advocates of violence. It would not be likely, for example, to
> include someone like Thomas Friedman, who during the Kosovo War
> (4/6/99) called on the Clinton administration to "give war a
> chance," writing, "Let's see what 12 weeks of less than surgical
> bombing does." In a follow-up column (4/23/99) he declared that
> "Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation," and
> insisted that "every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road and
> war-related factory has to be targeted." Despite the fact that by
> calling for attacks on civilian targets he was advocating war
> crimes, Friedman should have no fear that he'll find himself on a
> State Department list of "hatemongers."
>
> Friedman's suggestion that those who seek to understand or explain
> political violence are not part of "legitimate dissent" comes at a
> time when calls for censorship are becoming more and more blatant.
> Bill O'Reilly (Radio Factor, 6/20/05, cited by Media Matters,
> 6/22/05) made a chilling call for the criminalization war opponents:
>
> "You must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq War and
> the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that
> undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines
> the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9/11, is a traitor. Everybody
> got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So,
> all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could
> incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send
> over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know,
> they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care
> less."
>
> The call for the arrests of Air America Radio hosts was said as
> though it were a joke, though O'Reilly is deadly serious when he
> says that the commentators on that network are "undermining" the
> war--and that such "undermining" is treason.
>
> O'Reilly more recently (7/25/05) went after Herbert's column that
> argued that the Iraq War fueled terrorism: "Bob Herbert is most
> likely helping the terrorists, but his hatred of Mr. Bush blinds
> him to that. He's not alone, but this kind of stuff has got to
> stop. We're now fighting for our lives. And those helping the enemy
> will be brought to your attention."
>
> "Attention," rather than arrests, is all that Friedman has
> threatened "excuse makers" like Herbert with. But it's a small
> step, as O'Reilly's rhetoric demonstrates, between marginalizing
> critics of U.S. foreign policy as "just one notch less despicable
> than the terrorists"--and criminalizing criticism itself.
>
> ACTION: Please let Thomas Friedman know that opponents of the Iraq
> War do not deserve to be on a government blacklist--even if they
> oppose the war because they believe it encourages terrorism.
>
> CONTACT:
> Thomas Friedman
> c/o New York Times Editorial Page
> editorial@nytimes.com
>
> As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if
> you maintain a polite tone.
>
> Read Friedman's column here:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/opinion/22friedman.html
Ke Jia