In June General McChrystal's comments, or at least those of his closest associates, slingshot the General out of the Army. What seemed like sidebar conversations or idle chatter found their way into printed media. Of course, there is hardly a case of an article appearing solely in print. Print media outlets have web listings where their articles are located in part or in their entirety. This means that the comments made to a reporter hold the potential for being read by anyone on the globe. Negative comments about the President of the United States can therefore find themselves broadcast among the troops in Afghanistan, or even the enemy seeking to paint the picture of a failed coalition to prevent them freedom of maneuver or haven.
Just three months later, the pastor of an obscure church in Gainsville, Florida declared that his church would hold a Koran burning gathering on 11 September. http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/09/ap-petraeus-afghanistan-burning-koran-090710/
As coalition forces endeavor to build partnerships with local civilians and both political and military leaders seek to foster trust and respect with nations whose populations are predominantly Muslim, this pastor argues that his first amendment rights are paramount to a fragile coalition. The immediacy of his actions in a globally connected world place soldiers' lives at stake and threatens to undermine the very relationships upon which our coalition is founded.
I offer both scenarios to demonstrate the immediacy of individual actions in a global network. I bring up the second scenario in order to discuss issues of individual or corporate culpability...
When does the individual rights of one person outweigh the safety and security of a larger group? Conversely, when does the security of a group outweigh the individual rights of a citizen? Who makes this decision? What actions can/should be taken when an individual acts in a manner which fails to recognize the immediacy of their actions in a country thousands of miles away?
Just some thoughts for discussion...
Geoff Bailey
1 comment:
In an effort to help Geoff....
In this case, not being a Constitutional Law Scholar, I would look at the First Amendment again. It says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech, which I believe the pastor is trying to invoke. However, the amendment goes on to add the words "peaceably to assemble." Therefore, executing these previously mentioned rights must be done in a peaceful manner. The pastor in this case seems to be preaching something unpeaceful or at least attempting to get some results that are unpeaceful.
Another way to refine the question is to ask: When do an individuals First Amendment Rights outweigh the National Interest of the Nation?
Post a Comment