The Army Don’t Give Me No Rights

by AlvinBlah on August 5, 2007 |   Trackback URI   |     Email This Post Email This Post   |   233 Views  

Something needs to be clarified; the neo-conservative movement has slipped in and stolen a time honored principal of liberalism and twisted it into a dark weapon of divisive patriotism.

It is the sly and disgusting notion that the armed services provide civil liberties. Not only does the rhetoric machine insist that civil liberties stem from wartime activity, but to criticize this fallacy is to be unpatriotic in the eyes of the uber pro-military.

The armed services of the Untied States carry a long distinguished record, and are culturally respected by all Americans, and I write today not to discredit their service, but to point out the fallacy that our enlisted men and women somehow grant me freedom of speech. Military might is used to keep a nation stable. The Armed Services stand as the first and best line of defense from invasion and are the stalwarts of societal equilibrium. The military ensures that the status-quo is not shattered, both by foreign incursion, and domestic. I thank the military because I can sleep at night knowing that my home will not be subject to invasion by a foreign power. I know that when riotous movements break onto the streets there is a force there to support the police, and make sure that my city is not destroyed.

The military works for the government. And works very hard for them.

But nothing that they do supports civil rights or my freedoms. Stability does not walk hand in hand with social liberty or protected rights. The armed services do not protect, nor grant these rights. It’s not in their job description; and most importantly it never has been. Not till now. Not until the blind and bludgeoning rhetoric of politico talking heads have beaten the square peg into the round hole that the military “sets you free”.

This isn’t even clever bullshit. It’s an idea that has been beaten into the public and has so over saturated the system that even the left leaners think there is a degree of credibility to the notion that military service somehow magically translates into American civil liberties.

Civil Rights in the United States comes from the work of other Americans, domestic heroes. The ones that fought for what was right, but carried that fight against the institution. In fact there are numerous cases where the armed forces were used against activists that fought for civil liberties. From abolitionism to the civil rights revolutions of the 1960s the military has always stood on the side of big government. Not the progressive expansion and protection of our endowed rights.

The armed services have fought many hard wars, and soldiers on all battlefields have been forced to make morally difficult decisions while fighting to remove malignant government structures. However that alone is not the production of liberties, that is the creation of an opportunity.

Especially when you discuss the role of military in American liberties you have very little correlation. However the spin machines of political conservatism have worked hard at paralyzing every liberal and anti-war protester in the country by placing domestic freedoms in the hands of the fighting force. Church and State are separated in our country for a reason, their objectives while both worthy often run counter to each other, but the tension between them allows for a healthy balance overall. Civil Liberties and National Security no longer have that separation or tension.

Keeping our nation safe is a serious and important issue. One that gains little long term clout by distorting the debate. But generating a forced appreciation of the military one can easily turn that into a push for more stringent security measures. More stringent security may be needed, but if it comes at the cost of what I can say and where I can say it…well our nation was founded on the principals of “Live free or die” and “Die on my feet rather than live on my knees”.

Never forfeit your rights for if you take a step back in what is endowed to you, if you shirk on citizenship, or if you become comfortable without your rights…then you are being unamerican.

Once again we must stand and cry shenanigans on another spin move to keep everyone complacent and hamstrung. It’s time that the laughable concept of liberty and security being synonyms is put to rest.

I approve of our military, and I hope my friends that are serving finish their tours safe and sound. But I also know that none of my friends are working towards my freedoms and liberties.

That concept is a fucking joke.

The Army Dont Give Me No Rightskent state brandt 4 The Army Dont Give Me No RightsKentState The Army Dont Give Me No Rights

Kent State University, May 4, 1970.

~C

(x posted)

Share And Save
Other Posts On ProseBeforeHos You Might Like

Fox News During The Civil Rights Movement
The TSA’s Version Of The Bill Of Rights
Family Values In America
A Few of My Thoughts On Executive Orders
  • http://apoeticjustice.blogspot.com thepoetryman

    And that, Alvin, is a great post that should be read and understood. I did and I do.

    thank you,
    thepoetryman

  • Kevin

    I agree that this post should be read and understood, because it shows a supreme lack of understanding of how the world works on the part of the author. It’s ironic, as the initial idea set forth is undeniably true. The Armed Forces do not hand out civil or natural liberties. However the only way this fact remains true in the context of the real world is if you are a naive dolt, as it would certainly appear the author is. The statements the author made make perfect sense in the context of the Left’s unending desire to capitulate to foreign (and generally dangerous) influence. In the author’s addled mind, the military’s throwing off the chains of the British crown somehow did not result in a net gain of freedoms. Also, because it was the American Left who praised the Nazi Party (and continues to praise radical Islamists) they fail to to see that preventing these forces from an invasion of the United States (which both have expressed a desire for) is in fact GUARANTEEING freedoms. To the Left of the 1930′s and of today, the Nazi Party and radical Islamists are not threats, and would be more desirable running the country than the current Jeffersonian system. So of course the author does not view the deterrence (or actual stopping) of an invasion by these groups as the PROTECTION of freedoms that they are. The final point that makes this post so utterly ridiculous is the strawman that serves as its central “point.” You could count on one hand the number of people in the United States who think the military gives anyone freedom. This is amazingly obvious from the rhetoric used by, well, everyone in the country. No one talks of the military GIVING freedom, as the author foolish pulls out of a magic hat, apparently. Rather they talk of the military GUARANTEEING and PROTECTING freedom, and to anyone outside the crazy radical Left, this is clearly true.

    • Heywood

      Sorry, Kevin. Your anti-left ranting is adorable and all, but you’re dead wrong. The military protects us from invasion, but being protected from invasion does not in any way protect our civil rights. Our military could protect us 100% from foreign invasion, and our government could still take away our civil rights.

      • Wiredog

        Tell the Little Rock Nine that the US Army did not guard their Civil Rights.

        • Heywood

          I would, but there’s all these National Guard standing in the way.

  • Wiredog

    The Kent State shooting was carried out by the Ohio National Guard, called out by the Governor of Ohio at the request of the Mayor of Kent, Ohio. The Guardsmen were under command of the State at the time. The Ohio Attorney General chose not to charge the 29 guardsmen who fired on the crowd. They could not be charged in Federal courts, as such statutes did not exist at the time.
    The 101st Airborne Division protected the civil rights of the Little Rock Nine in 1957. Federalized Alabama troops forced Gov. Wallace to step aside for Vivian Malone and James Hood in 1963. I could go on…
    All members of the US Military swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies, they do not swear to back the government. So possibly your article applies only to the State of Ohio?

    • Soldierboy

      Oath of Enlistment:
      I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
      Keys to note:
      1. The Constitution is where your freedom of speech is found.
      2. Obeying orders according to regulation and the UCMJ means service members are expected to disobey unlawful orders (“I was following orders” is not a valid defense).

    • Dookity Dook

      I see. The Ohio National Guard were merely exercising their right to shoot anyone they damn well felt like shooting, ensuring that… no, wait. You’re still wrong. Explain to me again how you think the military grants anyone civil rights.

      Let’s not forget that the Little Rock Nine were originally prohibited by the National Guard from entering the school. It wasn’t until President Eisenhower federalized the troops and sent in the 101st Airborne that the situation was defused.

      If you want to count the number of times military force has been used to support civil rights and compare it to the number of times military force has been used to restrict those rights, we can do that. But I guarantee you will lose.

Previous post:

Next post: