Our democracy requires room for anti-war dissent :: TigerHawk
Our democracy requires room for anti-war dissent, even if the price is aid and comfort to the enemy. Assuming, arguendo, that anti-war dissent does give aid and comfort to the enemy (I discuss why this must be so later in the post), are there types of dissent that more efficiently balance the benefit (robust public debate about a topic as momentous as the war) with the costs (the sending of signals that embolden the enemy and demoralize our own soldiers) than other types? If so, are these more efficient methods or arguments of dissent more moral or legitimate than methods or arguments that do little to advance the debate but do relatively more damage to the American war effort? These are the questions that interest me.Read the whole thing. It will keep, so wait until you can give it your undivided attention.