Nice Pro-Liberty Rant in... Pro Football Weekly?

[Rocketman]

Hub Arkush is the editor of PFW.  I was really happy to see this. 

http://profootballweekly.com/PFW/Commentary/Columns/2006/harkush2112.htm

Grievous decision
Recent ruling on BALCO reporters is regrettable

By Hub Arkush  (hub@pfwmedia.com)
Sept. 25, 2006
     

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Those are more than just words to me; they?re a dream I have for my kids and all the people I care about. It?s a pledge almost 300 million Americans share ? that despite our differences, what we must cherish above all else is ?liberty and justice for all.? More than a pledge worth dying for, it?s a dream worth living for.

But America has become more and more a hypocrisy in recent years, a place where many of you vilify me for speaking loudly and refusing to accept that starting wars is a path to peace. And my blood begins to boil at just the thought of someone trying to tell me there is anything about the current administration in Washington worth defending.

I am not writing or talking about Republicans and Democrats, or conservatives and liberals. The operative word in my rant about the rampant hypocrisy in America today is vilify. What happened to the place I grew up in, where a willingness to stand up and be heard, whether yours was the popular opinion or not, was a trait to be admired?

I am writing about the autocrats and demigods who litter both sides and all corners of the political spectrum. Somewhere, somehow, the political system we use to choose our leaders and chart our course in the greatest country in the world has become something far worse than corrupt. It has become the great divider, forcing us to choose between the left and the right and forcing us to scream a pox on the house of any who don?t agree.

I?m probably getting a bit dramatic, but it?s a semblance of the truth, and more importantly, the reality of America today. It is a symptom of the disease found around this country that is killing our freedom of speech. A freedom which, if lost, will render us incapable forever of fulfilling our most important pledge.

And now that crucial and priceless freedom is under attack from our courts as well, in many cases by judges and U.S. attorneys appointed by the same politicians who choose power over principle.

On Sept. 21, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White ruled that San Francisco Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada must serve up to 18 months in a federal prison if they refuse to rat on the man or woman who leaked federal grand jury testimony to them in the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative Case. Judge White said his hands were tied by the Supreme Court ruling in Branzburg vs. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) ?   that ?all citizens have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation.?

The concept of freedom of speech is so crucial to the dream that is America that it?s the First Amendment to our constitution. It reads: ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.?

I am neither lawyer nor judge, but I can read, and I do have a bit of common sense, so let me ask this. If the First Amendment says, ?Congress shall make no law ? abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ?, ? doesn?t it mean there can?t actually be a law that says a reporter must reveal his sources to a grand jury? I know for a fact that only the legislative branch of our government can make laws, and that all the courts can do, even the Supreme Court, is interpret those laws and enforce them.

The Branzburg vs. Hayes case dealt with a reporter refusing to give up admitted drug dealers who helped him gather information for his story. The vote of the court was 5-4, and the concern of the majority was that offenders breaking the law should not be shielded by the First Amendment, a sentiment I not only understand but agree with.

But the case of Williams and Fainaru-Wada doesn?t even vaguely resemble Branzburg vs. Hayes. The only crime their source is accused of is making sure we all knew about the gigantic fraud being perpetrated against all of us by Barry Bonds and others.

Why is no one interested in putting Bonds in jail in spite of the fact we all know he perjured himself in front of that grand jury? But the same prosecutors who don?t seem to mind Bonds? lies want two journalists to spend 18 months in jail for doing their jobs well. Isn?t this more about lawyers and politicians focusing on their own agendas than protecting our laws and Constitution?

I believe the Supreme Court got it wrong in 1972, and that?s why 31 states and the District of Columbia have media shield laws. I know putting Williams and Fainaru-Wada in jail would be a horrible miscarriage of justice.

I also know you?ve all heard the line ?We the people,? and I?m telling you right now that if we the people don?t stand up and do something to guarantee our most basic civil rights, none of us is going to be very happy about the country we wake up in tomorrow.

[error]

That's absolutely the last place I'd expect to find a pro-liberty rant of any kind.

[KBCraig]

Hub Arkush is the editor of PFW.  I was really happy to see this. 

http://profootballweekly.com/PFW/Commentary/Columns/2006/harkush2112.htm

Professional reporters are quick to wrap themselves in the Constitution when another professional reporter is in jeopardy. They're not as quick to champion a struggling independent reporter or a news blogger.

They tend to be obsessed with one clause in one amendment. You seldom seem them jump to the ramparts with a broken bottle in defense of the 2nd or 10th amendments.

It was a nice article, but it's limited in perspective.

Kevin

[error]

Professional reporters are quick to wrap themselves in the Constitution when another professional reporter is in jeopardy. They're not as quick to champion a struggling independent reporter or a news blogger.

They tend to be obsessed with one clause in one amendment. You seldom seem them jump to the ramparts with a broken bottle in defense of the 2nd or 10th amendments.

It's more like they took the Constitution, ripped out one small part of it to cover themselves with, and burned the rest.

[mvpel]

Who "started" the war?

Osama bin Ladin declared war on the United States in 1996, has everyone forgotten that?

They even made a movie about one of al-Qaeda's attacks on the US, called "Black Hawk Down."

There were a long string of bombings and attacks on US interests, including the USS Cole, US embassies in various countries of Africa, and so on.

It finally took 9/11 and the deaths of thousands of Americans for us to finally realize we were already at war.  So this business of "...refusing to accept that starting wars is a path to peace..." is a pile of horse manure.

Destroying the capabilities and the will of people who are trying to kill you is a path to peace - even an idiot can figure that one out.

[Dreepa]

Who "started" the war?

Osama bin Ladin declared war on the United States in 1996, has everyone forgotten that?

And is OBL hiding in Iraq?
If yes ok.
If no then why did we attack Iraq?

[Rocketman]

Who "started" the war?

Osama bin Ladin declared war on the United States in 1996, has everyone forgotten that?

Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq

[Rocketman]

mvpel, your trigger must be getting sensitive... this isn't even an anti-war rant.

But America has become more and more a hypocrisy in recent years, a place where many of you vilify me for speaking loudly and refusing to accept that starting wars is a path to peace. And my blood begins to boil at just the thought of someone trying to tell me there is anything about the current administration in Washington worth defending.

I am not writing or talking about Republicans and Democrats, or conservatives and liberals. The operative word in my rant about the rampant hypocrisy in America today is vilify. What happened to the place I grew up in, where a willingness to stand up and be heard, whether yours was the popular opinion or not, was a trait to be admired?

He mentions his anti-war position in passing, and focuses on the fact that he resents being vilified for speaking his mind in a supposedly free country. 

Do you care about the First Amendment, or do you think 9-11 necessitates its repeal?!?!  The case for this war (and I mean the one in Iraq) has finally been exposed to a semi-free marketplace of ideas, and it's losing badly... finally.  People are finally realizing that despite what their president says, it isn't unpatriotic to ask basic questions, and they aren't satisfied with the answers.

If we ever have another time of peace, I will certainly defend your right to advocate for military aggression.  Preach your pro-war message from the mountaintops, and publish it in every paper!  But seriously, are you so smitten with Bush that you can defend his administration's War on Critical Thinking?

If a smart, freedom-loving guy like you is still in "How Dare Americans Oppose This War!" mode, well, I find that pretty damned hard to believe.

[Rocketman]

Who "started" the war?

Osama bin Ladin declared war on the United States in 1996, has everyone forgotten that?

And is OBL hiding in Iraq?
If yes ok.
If no then why did we attack Iraq?

Dreepa, you're either with us or you're against us.  Questioning the commander-in-chief is giving aid and comfort the enemy.  You're emboldening the terrorists!

[Rocketman]

Who "started" the war?

Osama bin Ladin declared war on the United States in 1996, has everyone forgotten that?

And is OBL hiding in Iraq?
If yes ok.
If no then why did we attack Iraq?

Dreepa, you're either with us or you're against us.  Questioning the commander-in-chief is giving aid and comfort the enemy.  You're emboldening the terrorists!



edited to add the eye-rolling 

[David]

Who "started" the war?

Osama bin Ladin declared war on the United States in 1996, has everyone forgotten that?

They even made a movie about one of al-Qaeda's attacks on the US, called "Black Hawk Down."

There were a long string of bombings and attacks on US interests, including the USS Cole, US embassies in various countries of Africa, and so on.

It finally took 9/11 and the deaths of thousands of Americans for us to finally realize we were already at war.  So this business of "...refusing to accept that starting wars is a path to peace..." is a pile of horse manure.

Destroying the capabilities and the will of people who are trying to kill you is a path to peace - even an idiot can figure that one out.

Had the us gov't not been in Somalia, the 'terrorists' would not have had to defend themselves from us.  The operative word is defend.
If the us gov't didn't back up with money, weapons ect. gov'ts that are only a few shades 'better' than nazi germany, then we would not be the object of hatred by so many of the Victims of those evil gov'ts. 
If someone was the cheerleader for a group of organized thugs that killed my parents, raped my sister, or tortured someone in my family with a presumtion of guilt rather than the presumtion of innoscence, then you can bet I will be hatefully mad at the cheerleader and the perpatrator. 

I know, I know, I am a terrorist lover.  But I hope the evil that you wish on the Innoscents overseas never occurs in this country.  Because our little pistols and shotguns will not stop a bomb anymore than they stopped the bombs over Fallugia Iraq.