Ma Deuce Gunner

Ma Deuce Gunner

PROTECTING FREEDOM.....HALF AN INCH AT A TIME.

Friday, June 10, 2005

Maintenance of Freedom

Please accept my apologies for my recent lack of posting. Duty calls.

I was the CQ (Charge of Quarters) NCOIC (Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge) a few days ago, and posted on my XO's (Executive Officer, 2nd in commmand of the Company) are 5 quotes on the door to his office. I have walked past them a hundred times, and read them a few times. I read them again, and two of them struck me. One was from John Stuart Mill.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth fighting for is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the actions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill


The other one was this one:

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it" - Thomas Paine


There are a number of websites, news outlets, and people out there, American citizens, who constantly malign the military, the current administration, and the cause of freedom itself.

These folks are indeed "miserable creatures." These writers are morally bereft individuals. So, I find myself in a quandary... do I attack them for their excercising of their right to free speech, a right that I have volunteered to defend?? Do I dismiss their drivel as exactly what it is, and tell myself that it is just "free speech??" I feel that some of these people write treasonously. I think that the line between free speech and treason has been blurred, and dangerously so. These writers -- and I am speaking in general terms -- portray us as a barbaric, monopolistic, and imperialistically aspiring to dominate the world. I believe we are trying to spread freedom to the oppressed. To give those masses who have been persecuted under tyrannical and murderous dictators a chance at freedom.

Now some would say I am a blind champion of freedom. To a good many Americans, this may be the case. I in no way, shape, form, or insinuation mean to offend the supporters of our cause. I do not impugne your dedication to freedom, nor do I dismiss your gratitude for my service and every other person who has ever worn the uniform as a defender of the United States of America. Freedom is sweet to those who enjoy it. Freedom is just a little sweeter to those who have fought for it. Seeing how life was, could have been, and still is, in some cases, without the things we take for granted, is an amazing eye opener. Simply visiting a Third World country may not give the insight that I feel I have gained here. Again, I do not intend to demean anyone or their experiences, but freedom's flavor is a bit more scrumptious to those who have fought for it. A keen understanding of the definition of liberty is being etched into mine and the minds of all who serve in harm's way.

But I digress... treasonous "journalism" needs to be ended. I do not have the answer, though. Prosecution immediately springs to mind. Undoubtedly, the writers, bloggers, and journalists who purvey such garbage will cry foul and flail their arms, singing out, "We are just trying to tell the truth!! There is a public need to know!!" They think that classified information should be public knowledge. For example, the New York Times recently published an article detailing CIA procedures for transporting detainees. Wrong answer. These people who commit treason through their keyboards, microphones, and cameras are no better than John Walker Lindh.

There are aspects of war that are distasteful. Distasteful, but NECESSARY. George Orwell said it best:

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


He says "violence." Killing. Inflicting pain. If inflicting pain allows us to gain a tactical or strategic advantage to protect the innocent, so be it. I also want to clarify; attacking and killing an armed and resourceful enemy in military operations is not murder. USMC 2LT Ilario Pantano's case proved that. Blowing up IEDs and shattering the body of a two year old boy IS murder.

My point is this. There are things that go on in war that "Joe Sixpack" are better off not knowing; they are done in the intrest of freedom and national security. Those who divulge information which gives aid and comfort to the enemy are traitors. Those who cover incidents or acts which, however distasteful, assist in the attainment of freedom or the ability to win wars and defeat EVIL, and see what we do as "not worth it," are uglier than words can describe.

SCOUTS OUT!!!!!!

MDG.....OUT!

22 Comments:

At 10:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right on Deuce!!! It's nice to see someone in our PC weorld tell it like it is. Keep up the good work.

 
At 11:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its called the first amendment....it protects your rights as much as anyone else's. Without giving an example of what this "treasonous" journalism is - your post is rather pointless. There will never be a journalist "prosecuted" in this nation for simply publishing an article. That would be a clear and direct and absolute violation of the 1st Amendment - which 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."

Journalists, as much as every other individual, have a right and obligation to criticize the United States foreign policy when they believe it is misdirected.

And while you MAY NOT believe it is "misdirected" - other American citizens do. Both your opinion, and these journalists opinions are valid.

 
At 12:14 PM, Blogger El Capitan said...

Indeed the constitution protects freedom of speech, but when someone uses speech that knowingly brings harm to others, isn't that crossing the line. It's the old story about yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater... hundreds died being trampled, and the person claimed his Freedom of Speech protected his actions, but the freedom of speech does not protect such actions.

Yelling 'fire' which resulted in numerous deaths is similar to publishing countless false or misleading stories about U.S. soldiers and our Government. Countless innocent lives have been lost because of such reporting. Is this not the same thing as yelling 'fire'?

I'm 100% for the freedom of speech, and I will proudly stand up and protect that right for all. I will not however protect those who are directly harming or purposely putting in danger the very constitution that promises that freedom and the people like myself that have sworn protect it.

Until you've sacrificed everything to protect your freedom and the freedom of others, you will never understand what freedom is.

 
At 12:15 PM, Blogger El Capitan said...

Good post MDG!

 
At 1:27 PM, Blogger GunnNutt said...

anon 9:52 - I call bullhocky on your "opinion" and I don't give a rat's ass if your feelings are hurt. You prize the 1st amendment above all because you think it protects your blatant anti-American hate speech. I agree w/MDG that the lables traitor and treason should be applied more liberally.

 
At 2:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

trust me - my feelings are not "hurt" by MDG's post - I am simply pointing out the irony of MDG's comment. That he would "prosecute" someone for their speech or publication. Yet he espouses himself to be a "blind champion of freedom."

Further - I fail to understand how pointing to the language and protections of our Constitution can be remotely considered "anti-American hate speech."

 
At 4:59 PM, Blogger Sgt. B. said...

Amen Brother...

"The First Amendment contains not only a right, but an inherent responsibility..."

At what point does freedom of speech become sedition?

If "journalists" wish to "spread the truth", they should be able to back up their stories with facts... Not innuendo, not guesswork, but FACTS.

How many "journalists" have perverted the Freedom of the Press in order to make a buck, or forward some agenda, instead of remaining strictly objective...

 
At 6:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

they report the facts - you guys just don't want to believe them.

it is possible for the American government to make mistakes. (i.e., abu ghraib, guantanamo, WMD) its usually the journalists that enlighten the public as to these truths.

 
At 7:19 PM, Anonymous Dave said...

Re: Anonymous 9:52
I spent two years overseas defending the right of some self-centered, over-educated, santimonious, condecending jerk to quote to me the First Amendment.
Okay, fair enough, but please, at least recognize the difference between honoring the amendment and hiding behind it.
On target, MGD-----Thanks

 
At 9:49 PM, Blogger PSUpete said...

That was one of your BEST peices yet MDG! I have to re-post this on my site. Damn, that was some good writing brother!

 
At 10:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent post! The 1st Amendment assumes that a person supports one's country and has SOME common sense. I don't see a lot of that around the MSM these days. I agree that a lot we read and hear borders on treason. I don't have a "need to know" a lot of stuff I hear reported just to make a buck for some media outlet.

 
At 5:14 AM, Blogger Michael said...

Anon 09:52-

Re-read my post. I do not "espouse" myself as a blind champion of freedom. I said that some may call me such. I see, on a daily basis, and have for the past six months, the effects of oppression and dictatorship. I have lived free at home, and see how horrible life can be without it.

Pay attention, assimilate the information, and then post your comment after your knee stops jerking.

 
At 11:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok -
How exactly do you judge what is "treasonous" in journalism?
How do you prove what words constitute criminal behavior?
How do YOU KNOW what articles aid the enemy? Who is the judge?

And to equate a journalist reporting on a very timely issue - detainees - to a citizen who moved to Afghanistan to fight for his religious zealotry is a little extreme, won't you admit? Especially considering the treatment of detainees is one of the biggest stories in America today. By the way, there are men within the Army willing to speak out - do you call them treasonous? "Inside the Wire" by a former Army Seargent - do you consider this man committing treason? because he's telling the truth?

 
At 5:18 PM, Blogger dick said...

Anonymous,

As a matter of fact the soldier you quote has been proven not to have spoken the truth in many of his assertations.

I can't speak for MDG but to me the whole concept of the journalists putting themselves above their country is ridiculous. We see them write that they are citizens of the world, not Americans, when they practice journalism. Yet when they are called on the carpet for what they print, then they hide behind the first amendment.

You talk about the journalists and Abu ghraib. The whole story behind Abu Ghraib as reported by Mr Hersh and the television stations was passed on to them by the uncle of a soldier who was already in trouble for his part in the Abu Ghraib actions. He was already being brought up on charges by the time his uncle gave the photos and story to the reporter. However, the US military was already charging the people involved and had reported the story months before. The uncle had tried to pass off the photos to 20 Democratic congressmen and several other news media organizations. The situation was in hand before this came out. However, as a result of the overplaying of the situation the enemy got a lot of good press and probably caused the deaths of several US servicemen. Is that what you want, the deaths of more servicemen? because that seems to be what you are trying for.

You are happy to see these unsourced rumors to be played out in the news media and then you wills tand there and tell us you are supporting the troops but not what they are doing. I think I can speak for the troops when I say thanks, but no thanks. Peddle your garbage somewhere else. The troops have enough to do without your doing all you can to make their mission worse.

 
At 7:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Abu ghraib was an atrocity. especially considering the number of potentially innocent civilians sent there. Treatment of prisoners there and at Guantanomo Bay is what led to greater violence. The press's decision to print it or not print it does not change the fact that it happened. Only after the journalists printed the story were changes implemented.

Journalists are protected in this country. This was a decision made by the Founding Fathers of our great nation. Not some judge or some legislature. Its the primary right the Founding Fathers sought to protect. For you to equate it with treason is absurd.

 
At 11:05 PM, Blogger KJ said...

MDG's post makes me realize again what I know to be true. Some of the best minds, the best thinkers, the best people, our country has is serving in the armed services right now. Perhaps they have always done, but now more than ever, thanks to the internet, they have a voice. Believe it, people, America is listening, weighing, and judging. Keep on Keeping on.
It's the Truth that makes us Free. Always has, always will.
Kat

 
At 9:10 AM, Blogger Subsunk said...

MDG,

Good post, but you and I both know we will never see the prosecution of journalists for printing lies or innuendo as well as their facts. I believe the important part of your post and some of the comments here is that journalists may print anything they choose and they may actually believe they are doing the country a service (and frequently they do) by being aggressive investigative reporters. (Of course to be an aggressive investigative reporter, you have to get your comfortable ass out of the hotel in Baghdad and go on patrol with the scouts and report firsthand everything you see).

But they also have a responsibility to make sure their facts are accurate, their opinions are not included in a factual story, and when they make a mistake, especially those which damage the reputation of individuals or institutions, it is an absolute requirement to prominently announce their mistake and make corrections, and, in my opinion, restitution, where warranted. It is this part of their job which they do not even try to pursue. They routinely fail to issue corrections. They routinely accuse institutions including the US military and government personnel of misconduct, torture, murder as a routine practice, rape of civilians, indiscriminate bombing, theft of foreign oil, all without the slightest bit of evidence. They have shown themselves to be more cover-up oriented than Tricky Dick Nixon ever was about Watergate.

I believe the only way this could be combatted would be to license reporters and oversee them through state licensing organizations or national oversight committees like the American Bar Association, or the American Medical Association. But I hesitate to give reporters the same professional standing as those outstanding professions. They don't deserve it.

For those anonymous posters here who try to give the press credit for exposing the Abu Ghraib and other detainee scandals, I have only contempt. Were you watching the same military press conferences I was? I saw the report from the military in January 04 that they had been notified of the abuse and had begun the investigation. No press members cared. When the photos are released to Democrat congressmen in March 04, and they give them to the press, all of a sudden it is a scandal. Again the military was there first, they were open about it, and they prosecuted the guilty. The press added nothing to this process but endangerment of our personnel through outrage at the story.

I am disgusted that our military's job must continually be hampered by our own papers and TV placing more and more obstacles and restrictions on the normal humane practices of the military. Why must our own fellow citizens make your job so much harder than it has to be? Do they truly care so little for your life that they will try to tie your hands to keep you from doing your job while they insist on placing you in harms way. The so-called investigative press has done nothing, exposed nothing, and contributed nothing to making America safer or assist in prosecution of the war on terrorists or the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They act like they are the Generals with a better plan, quoting politicians who have zero credibility and experience as Generals either. The blind quoting the stupid, indeed.

Just know that we support your mission in overwhelming numbers here in the US. The empty barrels of the antiwar crowd are making the most noise. You keep doing your job, and we'll keep supporting you. God bless, take care, and stay focused.

Press on.

Subsunk

 
At 9:27 AM, Blogger Subsunk said...

"Anonymous said...
Its called the first amendment....it protects your rights as much as anyone else's. Without giving an example of what this "treasonous" journalism is - your post is rather pointless. There will never be a journalist "prosecuted" in this nation for simply publishing an article. That would be a clear and direct and absolute violation of the 1st Amendment - which 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."

Journalists, as much as every other individual, have a right and obligation to criticize the United States foreign policy when they believe it is misdirected.

And while you MAY NOT believe it is "misdirected" - other American citizens do. Both your opinion, and these journalists opinions are valid."

Well, anonymouse, while these opinions may be valid, it is equally clear that one is correct and one is wrong. When these other American citizens are proved wrong, will you and the reporters admit they were wrong and that you are sorry you tried to stop the progress being made? You never have admitted you were wrong before. Again Tricky Dick Nixon was an amateur compared to the "cover my mistakes" press.

If "there will never be a journalist "prosecuted" in this nation for simply publishing an article. That would be a clear and direct and absolute violation of the 1st Amendment", then it is equally true that there should never be any US citizen prosecuted for saying anything about how idiotic and stupid these journalists are. When they (and you) try to act like they are experts on fighting insurgencies and on whether we are taking the right path, they only show they have no idea what they are talking about and have not studied American history in the least. And, oh, how you scream bloody murder and social injustice when anyone says the press is wrong. Who died and put the press in charge? Why do you assume the press has all the answers just because they get their opinions printed instead of mine? What school did they go to that makes them infallible?

Your opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got 'em and they all stink (including mine, I'm sure).

Continue your traitorous defense of evil terrorists. It will all come back to haunt you someday. But my conscience will be clear.

Subsunk

 
At 9:49 AM, Blogger Subsunk said...

"Anonymouse said...
Abu ghraib was an atrocity. especially considering the number of potentially innocent civilians sent there. Treatment of prisoners there and at Guantanomo Bay is what led to greater violence. The press's decision to print it or not print it does not change the fact that it happened. Only after the journalists printed the story were changes implemented.

Journalists are protected in this country. This was a decision made by the Founding Fathers of our great nation. Not some judge or some legislature. Its the primary right the Founding Fathers sought to protect. For you to equate it with treason is absurd."

An atrocity is grabbing a young man by the hair, with his hands tied behind his back, dressed in an orange jumpsuit, sawing twenty or thirty times across his neck with a dull knife, as he screams in pain, and his blood runs out on the floor, then holding the poor man's head up to the camera, eyes still wide open, mouth slack jawed in death agonies, all the while yelling how great God is that he allows you to do this for sport.

"Treatment of prisoners there and at Guantanomo Bay is what led to greater violence." No, sensational press releases purporting to blame America for these actions as routine practices of American guards in the treatment of prisoners there and at Guantanamo Bay is what led to greater violence.

Since you call the detainees at Abu Ghraib "potentially innocent civilians", you obviously have no clue to how many were innocent or not. I will trust those whose job it is to capture bad men, sort out the good from the bad, and release the innocent when found, before I will trust you to be able to use "magic" to make the correct people be placed in jail instead.

"Only after the journalists printed the story were changes implemented." What a crock. The changes were made in January and February 2004. The press didn't even report it until March. Get your facts straight, idiot.

"Journalists are protected in this country. This was a decision made by the Founding Fathers of our great nation. Not some judge or some legislature. Its the primary right the Founding Fathers sought to protect. For you to equate it with treason is absurd." Again, who made journalists untouchable? When they are wrong, don't they have to face consequences? Why is questioning them out of bounds? What makes them perfect? If the answer is that they aren't perfect, that they make mistakes just like every other C student in the world, then why do they deserve special treatment and immunity from consequences when they are wrong??? And if you walk like a traitor, talk like a traitor, smell like a traitor, then you sure as hell ain't a duck.

Protect me from the man who can claim I am a pedophile or a thief or murderer without proof. For in my neighbor's eyes I will be guilty without him producing one iota of evidence. The greatest threat to civil liberties in this country is an evil idiot with a grudge and a pen. For the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth are his playthings and he molds them however it suits him. Again, only accountability for stupid opinions, and for being dead wrong will fix this injustice.

We are lucky that ignoring our biased press is more prevalent than believing the lies Columbia Journalism graduates try to foist on us as news.

Subsunk

 
At 11:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Since you call the detainees at Abu Ghraib "potentially innocent civilians", you obviously have no clue to how many were innocent or not."

My information was gained from speaking to my close friends and family members who have served over the past 2 years in Iraq, in the United States Army. Both officers and grunts in the infantry. My entire family is military, my cousins, brothers, aunts and uncles. So while I appreciate you telling me I know nothing. I know plenty - and have had MANY lengthy discussions regarding the realities on the ground in Iraq. I am entitled to a difference of opinion, and i will speak that opinion because I have a right. As do members of the press.

Typical with supporters of this administration and this war - you would rather call me names and attack that take any of my comments seriously.

"Again, who made journalists untouchable?"
James Madison - he drafted the Bill of Rights.

 
At 7:41 AM, Blogger Subsunk said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 7:46 AM, Blogger Subsunk said...

Anonymouse,

Since you so obviously have great contacts in the military, then please explain exactly how many of the detainees at Abu Ghraib were innocent of any crimes or insurgent activity. You are the one who asserted many of the detainees are innocent, and you feel you gained this information from reliable military sources. So how many were innocent? Percentages are OK. And then explain, in gross and gory detail, exactly how you or your family has a better idea of how to detain the correct people.

The Bill of Rights does not say journalists are the only legal authorities in America who cannot be prosecuted or suffer consequences when they lie. It says they can say anything they want to say. And therefore I can say anything I want to about them. The vast majority of big newspaper editors and many reporters are liars who print only what they think will make America, Republicans, and especially George W. Bush look like evil mean people. They especially print what they think will make Democrats and journalists and other people who think like they do look good by comparison. They are not interested in the whole truth. They are interested only in their truth.

You live here in America. What made you feel like everyone else who lives here is evil? What have Republicans ever done directly to you which stole money from your pocket, or made you suffer because you couldn't get medicine or food or water, put you in jail unjustly? How did Bush hurt you directly? Did he order your family into battle in a way you don't like? Or did they volunteer before he got elected, and he just happens to be the one using them right now.

I am a military man. My father was a military man. I too am allowed to say what I wish to say about this subject. I volunteered to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies (including the domestic ones).

Ask your family if they truly think stories about US soldiers indiscriminately killing innocent civilians is true. Make them identify the criminals in their own units. If they can't then you and they are doing a serious disservice to those who are serving their country without regard to whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House. My bet is you have mischaracterized what they said.

Maybe they don't like being in Iraq, but they can't point to any cases of murder or assault which have yet to be prosecuted because there aren't any which aren't being investigated or prosecuted. I also bet they believe in what they are doing over there, and seriously dislike it when the press gets their good story wrong. I'm not saying they love everything about what is going on. But if there is a better idea, what is it?

I don't expect you to agree with me. I expect you to quit supporting the enemy. I expect you to think hard before you give aid and comfort to the people who would love to kill your loved ones in the military or you here at home just because you are Americans.

People hate America because of what they read in their press about us, not because they know us. And our press telling lies about how we act and treat others perpetuates those lies. It has been going on since 1979. So don't expect me to agree that Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, or any other detainee camp had anything to do with their continued hatred of Americans and their desire to kill us. I've been living this since 1980. Read some of the news stories from then and come back and tell me what has changed. Until you have a similar amount of time on the pond, don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about either.

I will pray for your family and their continued safety. I also pray that none of them is ever falsely accused by members of the press for acts they saw or did in the military. Because falsehoods, however innocently reported, never leave a man's reputation. Your family members should be commended for choosing to serve their country. Not denigrated for being in the military. And you, of all people, should recognize that.

Subsunk

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home