Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right: Leahy and Welch Should Oppose Congressional Rebuke of Limbaugh

I agree, but... (4.00 / 2)

there's also no reason the government needs to sponsor his hate speech by including him in Armed Forces radio.

Ideally, though, the campaign to remove him from AFR should come from soldiers, not from Congress.

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:21:05 AM UTC

Thom Hartmann (4.00 / 1)

Or they could push to add "liberal" talk show, like Thom Hartmann's, which is excellent and from which they would learn about the Constitution they think they are fighting to protect.

---

by: Anne @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 15:04:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

AFRTS (1.00 / 1)

Ma'am,
The purpose of AFRTS is to entertain, not indoctrinate.  The shows are selected based on their popularity in the US and based on surveys of service members.  AFRTS has tried to include shows such as Al Franken and Sean Hannity in the interest of balance, but if they are not popular there is no justification to force service members to listen to them.
As to the comment regarding understanding the Constitution, if you were exposed to military members you would most likely find they have a much more in depth understanding of the Constitution than their civilian countrymen.  When you swear an oath to something you have a personal stake in its interpretation.

---

by: patrick cashman @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 16:49:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Highly doubtful... (4.00 / 2)

As to the comment regarding understanding the Constitution, if you were exposed to military members you would most likely find they have a much more in depth understanding of the Constitution than their civilian countrymen.

Do you have some statistics to back this up? I've met people in the military that were indeed highly educated about constitutional matters, and I've met others that, if it weren't for the military, they'd have zero options, not the brightest cards in the deck. My dad did two tours of 'Nam in the USMC, and I seriously doubt that he could tell me more than anything cursory about the Constitution. So, if you're going to make an assertion such as that, please back it up with something factual.

What you say is highly doubtful, considering that the way recruiters are lowering standards just to get people to volunteer for Bush's meat grinder. A real understanding of the Constitution comes from education, not just by virtue of being in the military (and yes, there are many fine men and women in the military who are educated, and there are many who aren't). I don't get the impression that the antagonists at Abu Ghraib knew jackshit about Constitutional principles. And when you have a president who treats it like a piece of toilet paper, no wonder.

And I would also venture to guess that if one was really devoted to constitutional principles, Limbaugh would have very few fans in the military, no? You really don't think that propaganda has anything to do with it? C'mon... There's the "stated purpose" and thre's what actually happens. How many of those "phony soldiers" Limbaugh talks about are buying into his line of crap now?

Oh, and btw... welcome to GMD.

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. Politics. Godlessness. Music. Films of questionable quality. It's all there, folks.

---

by: JDRyan @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 19:05:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Constitution (0.00 / 0)

I would hope that if a standard of proof is going to be applied, it be applied to both my statement and to the statement which caused me to comment in the first place; that military members need to "learn about the Constitution they think they are fighting to protect." 

It is interesting that you mention your father's service in the Marine Corps as that is the service I am most familiar with.  Specific to the Marine Corps, education on the Constitution is mandated through a publication referred to as the "Commandant's Reading List".

In 1989 General Al Gray, then Commandant of the Marine Corps, established the Professional Reading List in order:
"A. To impart a sense of Marine Values and Traits.
B.  To increase knowledge of our profession.
C.  To improve analytical and reasoning skills.
D.  To increase capacity of using printed media as a means of learning and communication.
E.  To increase knowledge of our Nation's institutions and the principles upon which our country and way of life were founded.
F.  To increase knowledge of the world's governments, culture, and geography."

The reasons are cut from General Gray's initiating message of 11 July 1989.  Unfortunately the original message is too old to be archived on the Marine Corps website at usmc.mil, but if you look on the left side of that site and enter "reading list" into the search box, select to search "ALMARS" for All Marine Messages, you will see subsequent Commandants' changes to the reading list.  Each Commandant highlights a book that is required reading for all Marines that year, (this year is "First to Fight") however the core group of books remain the same.  The books are assigned by rank and are required reading in order to be considered "Professional Military Education complete" for promotion.  Since the list was established the US Constitution has been mandatory reading for Marines in the ranks of Private, Private First Class, and Lance Corporal.

While the formal requirement is laid out in the reading list, I must have missed the mark in my comment.  Perhaps the point I was trying to make is better made using a little role playing.  Those who join the military are from the same economic background or a little bit better off than their civilian compatriots.  They are just as educated and generally a bit more than their civilian year group.  (The figures for this statement are available at www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2005/d20051213mythfact.pdf, which is a summation of the "DoD Almanac", a CRS reviewed document.)  So someone just like you chooses to join the military, but to do so he knows he must raise his right hand and swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  He is on average a pretty smart guy who has plenty of options, regardless of common myths.  He is swearing an oath the fulfillment of which could potentially cost  him his life.  His oath isn't to any man or political party, but to a single document that is readily available online, in the library, and posted in every military entrance processing center.  You think he doesn't read it first?  Wouldn't you?

---

by: patrick cashman @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 08:40:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

Well, thank you for shedding some new light on the matter, although I'm still a bit skeptical about the military being more educated than the civilian populace.

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. Politics. Godlessness. Music. Films of questionable quality. It's all there, folks.

---

by: JDRyan @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 11:42:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Welcome, Patrick (0.00 / 0)

to GMD. Have you ever heard the Thom Hartmann show? It is very good. I, myself, have learned a great deal about the Constitution from it - and enjoyed learning. It might be worth a try on AFRTS.

---

by: Anne @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 00:19:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I dunno...... (3.50 / 2)

I'd rather see then abstain than vote "no."
And why?
Because they voted to condemn MoveOn.
They look bad enough behind that as it is.
Do you not think that, in light of that vote, that voting against condemning Limbaugh would add insult to injury?
Just sayin'......
I'm also saying that any vote by any Congressman to condemn political speech from either side of the aisle....uh...."does not set well with me."
[/euphemism]


Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change.

---

by: kestrel9000 @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 15:08:17 PM UTC

It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL (0.00 / 0)

The Congress MUST NEVER suppress speech.

United Stats Supreme Court Opinion: Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, at page 528 (1960)

"First Amendment rights are beyond abridgment either by legislation that directly restrains their exercise or by suppression or impairment through harassment, humiliation, or exposure by government."

Note, the ruling said any harassment, humiliation, or exposure counts as infringing. It is infringing even if it's just a non-binding resolution, sense of the [whatever], or even just an annoying floor speech.

And footnotes from Justices Brennan and Goldberg in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 further elaborate on why we cannot sustain an intrusion on First Amendment rights on the ground that the intrusion is only a minor one:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. [381 U.S. 301, 310]  It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

The recent vote by the US House and Senate would certainly qualify as mild, but its mildness is no excuse - the Congress committed an obnoxious and illegitimate act, in contravention of the Constitution. These games of political pandering may seem harmless, but in truth they erode the very fabric of our Democracy.

Congress has now unconstitutionally abused its power in attempting to suppress speech, while failing to use its just powers to either end the immoral war or to bring the deeply corrupt administration to justice.

If recent Congressional actions and inactions indicate where their priorities lie, then I truly, deeply fear for our Republic.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 17:15:38 PM UTC