FC: Lisa Dean replies to Politech, retracts "treason" editorial

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

Just catching up on CFP-week email now...

Previous Politech message:
"Free Congress' Lisa Dean: Anti-war protester committed treason"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-04603.html

-Declan

---
From: "Lisa S. Dean" <LSDean () freecongress org>
To: "'declan () well com'" <declan () well com>
Subject: FW: FC: Free Congress' Lisa Dean: Anti-war protester committed tr
        eason
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:52:55 -0500

Declan,

I wrote this editorial after having just seen the photograph of those
protestors in SF.  It was written passionately because I was outraged that
those protesters were as irresponsible as they were and yes, I used the word
"treason" loosely, which I retract.  You implied to your readers that I
wanted these people charged with treason.  That is blowing it up a bit.
Never did I suggest such a thing. I merely overstated their behavior.  These
protestors were highly irresponsible and terribly insensitive to our men and
women risking their lives overseas as well as to their families and friends
here at home.  That was the point.

As far as FCF is concerned, you have known us for years and know that our
views on privacy and First Amendment issues have been consistent with yours.


By the way, FCF supported Ashcroft for AG because the choice was between him
and Gov. Keating, who, as you probably remember, had an abysmal record on
privacy.  At the time Ashcroft was the better choice of the likely
candidates. While FCF was one of the first to show support for Ashcroft, we
were also the first to slam him after 9/11 and have consistently done so
since.

Regards,
Lisa



Reply-To: <byoder () earthlink net>
From: "Brian K. Yoder" <byoder () earthlink net>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: Free Congress' Lisa Dean: Anti-war protester committed treason
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:25:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CJEGJJDLKIGIKEEMLKBGEEACDDAA.byoder () earthlink net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
        boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C2F6C8.461EA220"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030330002942.01ea8268 () mail well com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=4.0
        tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12,IN_REP_TO,MAILTO_LINK,
              QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_02_03,USER_AGENT_OUTLOOK
        version=2.44-the_well_m
X-Spam-Level:
X-UIDL: 1bfa0aa67504ab7850a9b82d51e10afe


I don't think that this is a "loose" definition of treason.  It is treason 
and the folks who published this call for desertion thing admit it 
themselves.  These jokers are not "not supporting the troops" (and they 
have every right to do that, no matter how stupid that is).  They are 
actively trying to hurt the military's ability to act.  Folks who invade 
government offices and spread blood around are making (small and weak) 
physical attacks against the government too.  Where would you draw the line 
on such things?

Regarding Ashcroft's comments, I didn't notice him using the world treason 
at all.  He just said that they were "aiding terrorists" by making unfair 
charges (and I think he's right about that).  I don't think the FCF guys 
used the "T" word either.  I don't think that this kind of "aid" should be 
legally considered to be treason, but it's nasty and in my humble opinion 
generally not a sincere criticism either.

There are all kinds of legitimate questions and criticisms of the things 
that the administration has proposed and I have my own set of them on a 
number of different grounds, but there's a difference between that kind of 
thing and intentional muddying of the waters and obstruction of the 
government's activities for political advantage or because of paranoia.  I 
don't think even that stuff is treason (and in the stuff I read Ashcroft 
didn't use that term either) but it's stupid, dangerous, and worth being 
denounced by anybody with a brain.  It is really a good idea to get as 
close as you possibly can to the edge of treason but without going over the 
edge to the point that even your friends will denounce you?  I don't think 
it is any smarter than going right up to the edge of the legal definitions 
of theft, kidnapping, assault, or murder.

Fortunately these idiots discredit themselves fairly well without any help 
from other people anyway.

Lately I have noticed a common "excuse" being used by people with absurd 
and dangerous ideas that goes something like this:

Nutball: Crazy idea X is true!
Regular Guy: Hey, you are nuts!  That's not true!  Here's why... And 
besides, you probably believe that because you are a nutball!
Nutball: But I have a constitutional right to say X is true!  You are 
trampling on my rights by denouncing me and my idea!
Regular Guy: Of course you have a right to say X.  I never said that you 
don't have a legal right to say X.  I just said that anyone who believes X 
is a nutball..
Nutball: Help!  Help!  I'm being repressed!
This changes the subject from whether X is a nutty idea to the (fake) issue 
of whether the "Regular Guy" is a political tyrant who doesn't respect the 
rights of others.

--Brian

--- Brian Yoder
--- byoder () earthlink net
--- Cell Phone: 626-255-3338  Pager: byodermobile () earthlink net







-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------