Criticism of one's govt and old letter on Castro

Disagreeing with one's Govt:


I hear that some strong anti-war criticism is treason or treasonous because it is harmful to our country and to our national security. But, one has to ask: is that the opinion of both the anti-war and pro-war sides? No, obviously a person opposed to the war in Iraq does not believe their actions are harmful to the U.S. They believe it is a good for the country. They could be right or wrong on this matter, but they believe they are right.
Do we want to call someone treasonous for taking action they believe is right but the shouter of "treason" believes is wrong? If it is treason or at least harmful to our national security shouldn't that be required to be shown in the realm of the public forum? Or, should we just agree with the person equating the anti-war position as treasonous without so much as a public trial through debate?
Now, we are at war, but again being at war doesn't mean that a war is right and must be supported. Again, the supporter of the war has an obligation to prove why a war is right and necessary to our national security and that dissent would be harmful to that national security if he/she wants to call another, a traitor. But, the quandry is if this "treason” didn't happen there would be no or little debate on a war. The war could be right; it could be wrong. It could be positive or negative to our national security, but it would be off limits to debate under the belief that this disagreement could lead to harming our national security.
So, in order to stamp out perceived threats to national security we effectively disband democracy in the war on terror until the war is won and Islamic fundamentalism is beaten, about a century or two from now. I do not believe anyone on any side of the political divide wants to on purpose harm our national security. Some might be wrong, but again to stamp out their voice is to stamp out any exchange of ideas. Our troops in Iraq might be fighting a good struggle. It might be the right war, at the right time, but that cannot be taken for granted just because we are told so by the government.
It doesn't matter the party in power at the time. The protections of speech in our Bill of Rights isn't just to protect an end — speech — but a means. Without the means of free speech the government can do anything that it wants, even if it is wrong.
If a war is right, again, let it be argued in the realm of the public sphere. If it is right but there is a question on how it is being led, again let it be debated in the public sphere.
Is the war in Iraq being fought to protect the free speech rights of Americans? No. One could state if we don’t fight them there they would commit terrorist attacks here, effectively eliminating the free speech rights of the ones they kill. But that argument would be the same that regulations on auto safety are necessary to protect the free speech rights of automobile passengers who might be killed in accidents.
The war on Iraq is complicated. There are no easy answers, on either sides. Those who will give you easy answers do not understand the nature of the problem. "Just support whatever the government says" isn't a solution to the tremendous problems we as a nation face when confronting the quandry of terror and Iraq.



Castro:

Now that Fidel Castro (I cannot call a dictator a president) is on death's door, I think we as a nation need to revisit our policy on the Cuban trade and travel embargo. I don't think there are many people who wish to see democracy spring in Cuba more then me, but unfortunately a half-century policy of embargo with Cuba isn’t working. If it was, then I would support it.
What it does though is allow the Cuban regime to support the myth that it is the US's fault that Cuba has a lousy economy by its embargo, not the fault of the government in charge. Ironically Cuba does engage in trade without Western nations, but their economy is still lousy, a point that the Cuban government obviously doesn't make to their people.
The Cuban community in Florida overall does support this embargo, but they should realize their support for this embargo isn't working. It should and must end. Why exactly does this embargo still exist? Strangely, because of the electoral college. Florida is such a close swing state during presidential elections that the Cuban-American community in Florida has enough power (as do Iowa farmers who support ethanol federal subsidies during the Iowa Caucus election) to keep these embargoes in place. Ironically, the electoral college system that we have might keep an undemocratic regime in power in Cuba, longer then it might have been