The Real Protectors Of Our Freedoms

[ChoppinBroccoli]

Thanks to so many kind words from my fellow posters, and as a direct result of their suggestions, I have decided to take my response to another thread and turn it into an O/P. I'm not sure if I'm violating some sort of board protocol by doing so, and I apologize if I am. But so many people wanted this to be an O/P that I decided to indulge them. So here it is:


I get really sick of people who insist on deifying "The Troops." Now look, let me just start out by saying that I have the requisite amount of respect for people who are willing to serve their country and fight, and possibly die in, a war they had no say in starting. That kind of altruism is admirable. But I'm pretty sick of getting bombarded with e-mails and bumper stickers and billboards and advertisements about how I have NOBODY but the military to thank for my freedoms.

Let's get one thing straight: "The Troops" are NOT in Iraq fighting for MY freedoms, or for anyone else's. Iraq never threatened our freedoms. And as far as bowing and scraping to military members for all my various freedoms, when was the last time anyone thanked the people who REALLY defend our freedoms EVERY DAY in this country? And if you don't know who that is, let's play a little game.

From where do we derive our freedoms in this country? From the ability to crush other nations militarily? Not even close. Our freedoms come from the Constitution. Now, when YOUR Constitutional rights are violated, who goes to bat for you, and where do they do their fighting? The answer is NOT "a soldier" and "to a foreign country, rifle in hand." The real answer is that when friendly Mr. Policeman violates your right to be free from Government intrusions on your rights, and when patriotic Mr. Governor tramples on your Constitutional rights, or when smirking Mr. President blatantly ignores entire portions of the Constitution, it's a LAWYER that goes to bat for YOU, and he does it in a courtroom, NOT on foreign soil. Did "The Troops" protect you from discrimination in the workplace? Did "The Troops" desegregate the schools? Did "The Troops" give women and minorities equal rights? No, some lawyer did. And when you've been wrongfully charged with a crime, thrown in jail (or Guantanamo Bay), and had your rights trampled upon, will a soldier walk into the courthouse with you and fight for your freedom? No, but guess who will.

I just can't stand that folks like me, who are on the REAL "front lines" of the battle for your Constitutional rights, seem to get nothing but contempt and scorn from the public, while the folks being sent around the world to oppress smaller nations and kill in my name are hailed as the TRUE heroes of our democracy and protectors of our freedoms. I've got news for the public in general: without lawyers in the courthouses exposing the egregious violations of our Constitutional rights that happen EVERY DAY in this country, there wouldn't be any freedoms left by the time "The Troops" got home from "protecting" them. Ever wonder why that famous Shakespearean quote, "First, let's kill all the lawyers" exists? Because in that play, the people speaking that line are planning a coup to take over the government, and they knew that the lawyers (the real defenders of the PEOPLE'S freedoms) would stand in their way to taking over, so they had to kill them in order to have their way. Not exactly the same meaning as people would have you believe, is it?

As I said before, I don't begrudge anybody the respect they deserve for doing good work. "The Troops" deserve their respect, just as school teachers, medical professionals, and good and decent people of most any profession deserve theirs. But to somehow make the leap that if you enjoy freedom, you ONLY have "The Troops" to thank is a fairly huge distortion of the truth. Just think that the next time you want to tell a lawyer joke, some lawyer somewhere went to Court to fight for your right to tell it.

[A HERETIC I AM]

1. Well said and gladly rec'd

Nicely put.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

7. I Also Hate THAT Old Chestnut

You know the one about how lawyers profit from the suffering of others. And how many non-suffering people do doctors treat? The cynical look at the situation and say that the lawyers are soaking some pour soul who's in a fix, when in reality, what is going on is the lawyer is HELPING a person who is in need of help.

Or maybe it's just that you begrudge lawyers the money we make. Well, pardon me, but I wasn't aware that the vast majority of the American public worked for free. After 7 years of higher education and $80,000 in student loans, not to mention a family to support, I'm afraid I do expect to be paid when I work. Or maybe you're operating under the misconception that we're all rich and drive BMWs. Some are, but the vast majority of us struggle just to make a living every month. Why? Because there's just not that much work out there right now (when people don't have money for essentials, they certainly don't have money to hire attorneys--not when there's a..........PUBLIC OPTION.........in place that will help them for free, anyway). Another reason is that when a client "hires" you, the only money you can ever expect to be paid is whatever you can get them to pay up front. Apparently EVERYONE expects attorneys to work for free.

Also, a great number of attorneys (and I'd say the percentage is well over 50%) actually take it upon themselves to provide their services to those in need. Speaking personally, the vast majority of my cases are court-appointed cases in which I represent indigent people at no cost to them (and most of the attorneys I know also accept court-appointed cases, if not regularly, then at least from time to time). I also take a few cases every year on a "pro bono" (a fancy word for "free") basis, and am encouraged by the American Bar Association to do so. Name one other labor union that encourages its members to work for free and/or donate their services to those in need.

So before you go castigating attorneys for wanting to be paid for their work, just imagine the same scenario playing out in a doctor's office. Would you walk into a doctor's office and expect to be treated for free? Would you walk into a grocery store and expect to walk out with food if you had no money? So why do you project that kind of standard on lawyers?

[AspenRose]

9. As one who used to work for a family law attorney, I can truthfully say

there were times when she didn't get paid. She would take clients she knew were a 'financial risk,' because she wanted to help them. And she didn't turn them in to a collection agency, either.

She was also a guardian ad litem, and currently works for the state's women, children and families division.

Our president was an attorney, who was a community organizer. His wife, also an attorney. Our VP, also an attorney. Secretary of State, an attorney.

There are good and bad in every profession.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Don't get me started on lawyers. I dealt with two who took me outside the

courtroom and tag-team threatened me.

[anonymous171]

4. To say that the troops do not defend our freedoms is to overlook certain realities

The only reason our government exists and continues to exist is because of the military. Our military (The Troops) allow us to maintain our society. What good were lawyers during World War 2? The state is a institution that relies on coercion. Lawyers' laws mean nothing unless they can be enforced (that is why international law is a fucking joke.) Sorry to burst your little idealistic bubble.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

10. OK, Fine

First of all, I never said the Troops played NO part in defending freedoms. I simply stated they're not the ONLY people to thank for our freedoms. That's like saying, "If you know how to read, thank a teacher." A worthwhile sentiment, but no teacher ever taught ME to read. My parents did. Actually, to draw a more accurate analogy, it would be like saying, "If you've ever learned anything, thank a teacher." People learn things all the time, and most of what they learn, they learn outside of school and NOT from a teacher. Same deal.

But getting back to your post that freedoms wouldn't exist if society didn't exist, and the soldiers defend the society, therefore........you know, the whole convoluted thing. What it all boils down to is YOU'RE claiming that without a military, there would be no freedom. I'll alert Switzerland, who has no military, yet still has probably more freedoms than we do here in America.

[anonymous171]

15. The state secures those freedoms. The military secures the state.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

16. So Are You Saying.......

.........that if every country in the world simultaneously had a revelation and adopted a Zen Buddhist "live and let live" thing, and every country threw down its weapons, disbanded its military, and agreed to live in peace with each other...........that the world would have no freedoms? Because as I illustrated by using Switzerland, you don't need a military to have a secure state. You simply need to have no natural enemies.

And just because there is no threat of foreign invaders doesn't mean you still don't face threats to your freedoms. As I tried to point out in my original post, the larger threats to your freedoms come from within, not from without. Is there more of a chance that America will be taken over by foreign invaders, or that your local police department will conduct an illegal search of your vehicle during a traffic stop? Is there a greater chance that we'll be enslaved by a foreign dictator who will stage a coup and take over the country, or that your State legislature will pass a law that unfairly infringes on your right to free speech (or, on a more timely note, your ability to marry who you want)? THAT'S the point. The real battles for our freedoms are being fought every day, and they're being fought RIGHT HERE by people who don't carry guns or wear camouflage.

[anonymous171]

17. Wow. when you say it that way I totally agree with you.

All I was trying to say was that soldiers do have a role in the whole "defending freedom" process. I wasn't trying to say that lawyers and the like didn't have a major role in securing our freedoms and rights at home because that would be a stupid (and incorrect) thing to say.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

18. And I Agreed With That Point

So I guess we actually see eye-to-eye on this one.

[Hannah Bell]

22. "no natural enemies" - not exactly. switzerland = a world banking state.

they have enemies, just not ones with big guns.

[treestar]

13. There is a respect for sovereignty now

We don't invade Mexico, though we could. I don't think they have much of a military, but still have a country, just like Switzerland. It's not absolutely so. Geography can play a part.

Having nuclear weapons is probably more significant now.

The military is in Afghanistan and Iraq, not here. Obviously, we can exist without them.

Laws do not belong to lawyers. Don't know why you'd call them "lawyer's laws." International law can't be enforced and that is acknowledged. But domestic laws can and are enforced.

[eridani]

21. WW II marks the last time that our military had anything to do with "freedom"

--unless you mean the freedom to beat the shit out of weaker countries and take their stuff.

[proteus_lives]

24. Don't forget Korea.

We did the right thing by fending off NK, Mao and Stalin.

[eridani]

29. We wouldn't have had to if we'd let SK just pick theri own government--

--instead of imposing thugs who collaborated with the Japanese on theim.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Oh, and a big fat unrec for your whiny titty baby rant about "Why don't

they deify ME instead?"

[Zix]

26. What a waste of bandwidth. Did you even read a word of it?

[emulatorloo]

6. ??????????? I think I need to take a break from DU today, it isn't making any sense to me anymore.

[Zix]

25. Makes perfect sense to me.

Maybe you just can't read.

[Zoeisright]

8. K&R

The glorification of the troops is one thing that keeps people enlisting to be killed at the whim of leaders.

'The Americanization of Emily' is an excellent movie that hits this point right on the head.

[Joe Fields]

11. If you are talking about ACLU lawyers, I might agree. The rest can go to hell!

[redqueen]

12. K&R

Thanks for making this an OP.

(And now I have that song in my head again.)

[Individualist]

14. K&R

[Prism]

19. Coercive force is at the heart of law and the state

Unpleasant truth, and easy to lose sight of when you're in the heart of the most powerful military force in history, but the military is the guarantor of our freedoms. You can write whatever you please on a sheet of paper. Without coercive force, it is meaningless. No one read the Declaration of Independence and went "Oh, well they've stated their case so strongly. Let's leave them to it, eh?" It is only through the willingness of enough people to physically force independence that an American state was achieved.

All law is similar. A judge can order whatever he likes. It is law enforcement that brings the necessary weight for that law to be duly carried out. It is the threat of that enforcement that generally induces citizens to obey. People don't pay their taxes because they enjoy doing it so very much. They do so, because they would get in trouble otherwise.

And so on.

Lawyers are necessary to the functioning and maintainance of a constitutional system. But pretending that without a military we'd be somehow left alone a la Switzerland is fantasy. Let us not forget the endless, blood-soaked bargains Switzerland made to maintain their neutrality. It was a far cry from a magical "If we'd just get along". They went along with genocidal regimes in the past to keep their precarious position.

We don't have to agree with every military action our government takes. However, the idea that we owe the military nothing or that they are not why we enjoy the freedom and prosperity we do is the kind of convenient belief allowed to the highly privileged and comfortable. If we did not have the military we do, other countries would fill that power vacuum and wander about the world doing who knows what. Not only does this apply to America. Our military protected Western Europe for over fifty years from a system and confederation that had very different ideas about what freedoms should be allowed people.

The fact that this attitude prevails while we still have yet living veterans who show us exactly what could happen without a military ready and able to protect the American state is a testament to just how over-privileged some have become, where common sense is easily dispensed in the breezy luxury of self-celebration.

It's poop.

[eridani]

23. Costa Rica does fine without a military

Pretty sure they have cops, though.

[anonymous171]

30. Just because a country does not maintain a military does not mean that it is not protected by one

[Fla_Democrat]

20. Thank you, Fletcher Reede

:eyes:

[Zix]

27. Not getting it, are you?

[wuvuj]

28. States the obvious?

That the real threats to our freedom come from within the US...not overseas.

The military is mainly fighting for the freedom of corporations to exploit labor and resources around the globe...and within the US.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23908.htm


“If you look at the deployment of US forces in Afghanistan, as against other NATO country forces in Afghanistan, you’ll see that undoubtedly the US forces are positioned to guard the pipeline route. It’s what it’s about. It’s about money, its about energy, it’s not about democracy.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23906.htm



It IS true that "freedom isn't free"...that means YOU need to fight for it where it counts...at home?