|Carter speaks out against his country. Should he use more restraint than the rest of us?
||[Jun. 26th, 2012|08:16 am]
Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are certainly important. Balanced very carefully against that must also be national security.|
If "information", freely expressed, is used in such a way that it can be a catalyst to improve a situation - that makes sense to me, but, if its only result will be to sell more newspapers, while igniting and inflaming radical threats to our people, and consequently our safety and liberty, I do take pause.
Jimmy Carter has a recent rant out, splashed on the front lines of yahoo internet news, criticizing our government as a "widespread violator of human rights" (google - Jimmy Carter Accuses U.S. of 'Widespread Abuse of Human Rights'). If you read the article it focuses on our treatment of terrorists, suspected terrorists and innocent civilians who are in harms way because of our ongoing "war on terror". While I may agree or disagree with his thinking - is this helpful? Is he serving a greater good by putting this out there, or just making us less safe? Is the media being responsible in their headlines and portrayal of his opinions? As a previous president, do his personal opinions expressed in the media carry more weight than the average citizen, getting looked at more closely by others, particularly other countries? - This is food for thought. Should authoritative figures - and our media - consider 'possible harm to our safety' when they use their rights to free speech? It often seems like they do not. - This is a huge topic I realize. For the sake of this post, I will pull one interesting thing I grabbed from the piece, which could potentially target Americans (in house).
"He (Carter) also condemned recent legislation that gives the president the power to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely, although a federal judge blocked the law from taking effect for any suspects not affiliated with the September 11 terrorist attacks.
This law violates the right to freedom of expression and to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, two other rights enshrined in the declaration," Carter said."
For simplicity, and not to make this post crazy looooong... I will just say for now, I agree with Carter on his thinking on holding "suspected terrorists indefinitely", as some sort of blank check, which could potentially be used to intimidate innocent Americans into silence or compliance. Good for the court putting some reigns on it (this time). Are we willing to surrender our freedom to secure our safety? I'm not.