Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has many Americans fuming by his being allowed to speak at Columbia University. I understand. The man is a sexist, a criminal, a racist, a terrorist. He denies the Holocaust and promotes the genocide of all Jews. He was proud in his statement yesterday that there were no homosexuals in his country while oblivious to the fact that the reason it was true was because they kill homosexuals. He assured the world that Iran had no part in the violence in Iraq even though there is clear, irrefutable evidence that they do. The president of Columbia University, in his introduction of President Ahmadinejad, denounced him as a "petty and cruel dictator," an world-class fool who fills the international community with revulsion. I wouldn't want the man as my neighbor. I wouldn't invite him to my house. I wouldn't ask him to speak at the university. I particularly enjoyed Jim Jordan's suggestion that we arrest the man.
That having been said, I'm not on the side of the protesters or, in the final analysis, Jim Jordan. We are a nation of laws. Our laws say that diplomats have immunity. Thus, if we are to remain a nation of laws, we need to treat that criminal with that same respect. And while I would never invite the man to speak, I cannot raise my voice in too much complaint that he was invited. I spent 10 years in the Air Force defending the U. S. Constitution. That includes defending the right to free speech. And that includes giving a criminal dictator who denies his own people that right the same right here.
It irks me. It irks me that people have died to protect Ahmadinejad's right to speak freely in our country. It irks me that he would be allowed to lie to us openly. It irks me that we have provided him a propaganda victory which has translated into full-blown lies in the Islamic Republic News Agency. It irks me that a criminal, a dictator, and an enemy of my country would be allowed to express any opinion in this country. But I defended his right to do so and I will still stand for his right to do so. Sometimes it may feel like we need to revisit that right. Maybe we need to limit it. Maybe we need to dole it out more carefully. I don't even want to go there because I know where that would end up. While I am upset that the rights that I and so many others defended were abused by an enemy, I would be more upset if those rights were surrendered. So I'll keep my protests about Iran's president's visit here to myself.
8 comments:
I found your post on "Freedom" a little confusing. I think you missed an important detail of my article. I had pointed out that there was information that linked Ahmadinejad to the 1979 invasion of the US Embassy in Tehran and there may be other violations (particularly, although I didn't bring it up in the post, if their was intel on his government's activities in Iraq). He is a foreign leader, yes, but also a criminal, like Saddam. You also say diplomats have immunity, but is he a diplomat? I don't see that the US Dep. of State specifically says that.
It seems by your last sentence that you're confusing the right to free speech with a duty to keep quiet ["So I'll keep my protests about Iran's president's visit here to myself"].
I threw the arrest idea out there to stimulate people to think out of the box marked "sheep mentality". What is better, to slowly shepherd a nation into thinking they must invade another nation of 25 million people to get one man ( "regime change")? Or to grab the one man and put him up on charges while he's having dinner at Applebee's?
Your article begs the question. If arresting Mr. A for crimes committed is a crazy idea, then what can you say for the Iraq invasion?
Last, I think the issue is not freedom but justice.
Well, Jim, first I said I liked your idea of arresting him. I also called him a criminal and a terrorist.
My concern is not Ahmadinejad. My concern is whether or not he or anyone is actually afforded the right to free speech. The complaints have been that he was given the right to speak at Columbia and the United Nations. My point is that in America even terrorists and criminals have the right to free speech.
I still like the idea of arresting him ... not for speaking in public, but for crimes committed. Unfortunately, the "good guys" have a real problem. Criminals eluding the police can drive on the sidewalk with impunity. Law-abiding folks cannot, even when pursuing a criminal. In other words, being moral constrains us even when the evil is so evil. Also, if we arrested the president of Iran on an official visit, what kind of repercussions do you think that would have in the world? How many Americans would be taken into custody in Iran? How many would be killed in other Muslim countries? How many countries would we need to withdraw from to protect our people?
Sometimes "moral" includes letting a criminal go. It is the satisfaction of knowing that there is an Ultimate Judge to bring about ultimate justice that makes this possible.
You are correct that if you arrest the president of Iran there will be retaliation against Americans elsewhere. If you can't do that, then you can't go into Iraq and arrest Saddam Hussein. Of course, then we wouldn't be the "good guys" because the good guys have to be good.
Criminals eluding the police can drive on the sidewalk with impunity. Law-abiding folks cannot
In either case there is some misdemeanor committed like "endangerment" or "reckless driving" but they are not without consequence because they do not care.
moral constrains us even when the evil is so evil
Or we live with the consequences. Ask Dietrich Boenhoffer, German pastor and plotter to kill Hitler. The plot failed. He was executed. He is also is Heaven.
This begs the question, do we tie our hands to show some sign that we are moral or are we really being moral by tying up our hands? I think we should be "innocent as doves yet wise as snakes".
Would you, then, advocate, for instance, assassination?
But, again, we're not talking about the same issue. My point is not justice. My point is freedom of speech. Your point is justice. I will defend the right of the president of an enemy nation to speak freely in my country.
Assassinations? No! I hate the sight of blood - I pass out....It seems we're talking at cross points. You say he should speak and, in fact, he came out more as the buffoon he is in doing that. We look stronger and more confident for letting him speak - amongst ourselves. So fine, we let him speak, then we arrest him - that's justice. Don't prisoners have freedom of speech? BTW I've given up hope that we'd nab 'im...
I will defend the right of the president of an enemy nation to speak freely in my country
Poor Saddam. Why wasn't he invited? What difference was there between Saddam's enemy nation and that of Ahmadinejad?
Ahmadinejad's message was that we should convert or be destroyed. Is it logical that we fight other countries so that the leaders of other countries can have the right to come here and say such things? And again I see an inconsistency in the handling of Saddam. You can't hold two opposing views at the same time.
I think the beauty of the Columbia incident is that the president of the university introduced A. with such a strong rebuke. Free speech goes both ways. That was Mr. A's lesson for the day.
No assassinations? But that was Boenhoffer's plan, which you seemed to endorse. (Note: I have no doubt that the good pastor is in heaven. That doesn't make his option of murdering the leader of Germany a moral or biblical one.)
Poor Saddam. Why wasn't he invited?
Apparently we will continue to speak at cross purposes. I am still standing on free speech. You are still standing on justice. Oddly, we are not opposed to each other, although we seem to be coming across that way to each other.
But ... and this is just a question on my part ... it has appeared that you have been strongly opposed to the actions of the U.S. in Iraq. On the other hand, you are strongly in favor of arresting Iran's president. You even draw strong parallels. While you seem to think that my stand for free speech in America is inconsistent with defending our interests in the Middle East (I don't get the connection), isn't your stand for arresting a dictator of one country while opposing removing a dictator from another country inconsistent?
Oh, by the way, I really did enjoy the president of Columbia's introduction to the visiting speaker. Nice job.
Hi Stan
isn't your stand for arresting a dictator of one country while opposing removing a dictator from another country inconsistent
Yes it is! That's my point.
I liked the intro by Bollinger so much I posted it on the site (which I have fixed, forgot a little strip of code). Free speech is a wonderful thing. That someone would tell A to his face the truth that his Holocaust denial is "inexcusably ignorant" and that he acts like a "petty dictator" et al is beautiful.
That's how free speech is supposed to work. Yet some folks are whining that it was rude (sigh). It becomes clearer and clearer that many people in this country are coming up with excuses to do and say nothing when faced with evil.
Post a Comment