No, I am not exaggerating their positions.

[theweaselking]

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for the government to "blacklist" people who disagree with the invasion of Iraq, since disagreeing with the government is terrorism and makes you only one step removed from being a suicide bomber.

At the same time, Bill O'Reilly equates dissent with treason and demands the arrest of everyone who doesn't agree with him.

Comments

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

Reading Friedman's article, I'm not sure whether that position is his, or whether he's paraphrasing James Rubin, formerly of the State Department.

I'm also not sure whether I'd describe his proposal as a blacklist, nor whether I'd equate what he calls "excuse makers" with "people who see a connection between Iraq and terrorism". I see a pretty big difference between the position that terrorism is a legitimate response to imperialism and the position that a war might incite reprisals in the form of terrorism.

I expect better reasoning from an organization that calls itself Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. I don't necessarily agree with Friedman[*], but if they're going to accuse him of even a splinter of bias, they ought to check themselves for beams.

*For one thing, if a list is supposed to be "nondiscriminatory", how the heck are they going to do it? Any kind of list implies some sort of selection criteria, and believe me, those are damned hard to come up with even when you're not concerned about possibly violent political repercussions. Would the list have to include itself?

[publius1.livejournal.com]

It's very much not the government's job to do what Friedman is asking, simply because the criteria he calls for is far too nebulous and subjective.

The idea of stigmatizing fanatical elements in our midst is not necessarily a bad one, though. I just don't believe it should have governmental sanction.

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

the criteria he calls for is far too nebulous and subjective

That right there is my biggest problem with it.

I've written selection policies. For books, but the principle is the same. If such a list is to be taken at all seriously (and, as I said in my previous comment, stand any chance of not having to include itself), the selection criteria need to be exacting, specific, and public. How likely would they be to achieve any of these, let alone all three?

WTF?

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

So, this fucking totalitarian shit thinks that it's a Good Idea (tm) to tell people that they aren't allowed to look at the facts surrounding the situation and state the conclusions that they draw from that, like, how, oh, you know, terror attacks in Iraq have increased since the "liberation", not decreased? Fuck, they might have increased globally.
This Orwellian bullshit has got to be put a stop too.

[sivi-volk.livejournal.com]

So some wackos want legitimate discussion and dissent quashed through State intervention?

Well, normally I'd say "so what?", but the way things are going I'll wait to see how it goes.

I don't think Americans are ready to allow this.

What with 51% now questioning the whole Iraq affair.

[corruptedjasper.livejournal.com]

51% is a HUGE MANDATE!

[sivi-volk.livejournal.com]

No, but it means a good half of the country would be under scrutiny and possible arrest.