Ed Rasimus wrote:
The acts of non-violent protest are, indeed, well thought through. The
philosophy of non-violence that leads to these acts is not. One would
have to ignore all of history to live comfortably in the belief that
pacifism, unilateral disarmament, etc is going to lead to peace. It
only leads to Auschwitz. Get on the train and work will make you
free...

No. It is simply untrue to state that the philosophy of non-violence
only leads to Auschwitz. I KNOW you (meaning you, Ed, not necessarily
everyone who reads this) know of very famous examples of non-violent
protest leading to very positive societal change, and I won't insult
either of us by listing various instances. Of course the military
policies of our government has made us safer in many ways, and of course
these nuns are kooky, but if you don't see that you're ignoring some
logical steps in your arguments, I have to think that there's more
motivating your position than you've admitted.

Not to wave paper, [Ed then waves his papers], I've never heard of
"regularizing" nukes.
. . . .
Your basic statement as a premise for
further discussion is flawed.

This is my fault, as I didn't explain that I meant regularizing within
the U.S. military/political structures only. That is, more hawkish (not
a term I like, really) leaders have repeatedly advocated building and
using nukes in a wider range of applications. These plans, when they
become public, lead to silly protests by nuns and such, and also a
fairly strong backlash from the general populace. I guess I was trying
to point out that without the silly protests, the public's discomfort
might be easier to spin or simply ignore.

Apathy is a two-edged sword. It can signify ignorance, but it can also
indicate substantial satisfaction with existing policy.

Obviously you disagree, but I think this makes my point rather well.
Most people are apathetic about virtually all military decisions. When
some groups--obviously the most passionate and thus quite outside the
mainstream--start protesting actions of the U.S. military, it brings out
feelings in common people that hadn't existed before, simply because
they hadn't considered the issue. That these nuns are controversial is
a sign to me that people WERE substantially satisfied, but when they
thought about the issue further, they realized that they have mixed
feelings about the issue. I would guess that causing people to discuss
this issue in the way we are now would be considered a success by these
nuns.

I'm appalled that society still overlooks the damage caused by such
acute ignorance as that of the nuns.

Overlooks how? They were caught and arrested. Most people heard the
story at some point. There was no big backlash against punishing them.
What is appalling you here?

To apologize for their behavior
in cutting fences, hammering on weapons, defacing government property,
obstructing military members in the conduct of their duties, etc, on
the grounds that they are legitimate protesters and not law-breakers
is ludicrous.

Who's apologizing? They did what they did because they knew it was
wrong. They made a judgement which you obviously disagree with, but
again I think you're missing some of your own motivation. Who claimed
they weren't law-breakers? I don't understand why you would say that.
They ARE legitimate protesters (as we all are), even if this protest was
not legitimate legally.

We've got a First Amendment right in this country to protest policy,
but it involves discussion, presentation of alternatives, concensus
building, compromise and political process.

No, it doesn't. Those things are usually included in debates by
default, but First Amendment protections exist even with activities that
are solo and completely one-sided. I don't have to have this discussion
with you for my opinions to be protected; I decided to start typing my
feelings this time, but many times I don't. What I say, and what I
believe, are protected either way.

It doesn't support
law-breaking, regardless of the morality of your cause.

I agree that the Constitution doesn't protect illegal actions, but that
doesn't mean that all illegal actions are consequently morally wrong.
I'm not arguing that they should have Constitutional protection for
their actions. I'm arguing that their illegal actions are (at least in
their eyes) the better moral choice than doing nothing.

They should have been maxed.

I agree.


Glenn