UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 18

Re: Officials At Andrews AFB Bomb First Amendment!

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 14:20:21 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 06:50:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Officials At Andrews AFB Bomb First Amendment!

>From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 21:45:07 -0400
>Subject: Re: Officials At Andrews AFB Bomb First Amendment!

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 11:06:55 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Officials At Andrews AFB Bomb First Amendment!

>>>From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci.nul>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 09:06:12 -0400
>>>Subject: Officials At Andrews AFB Bomb First Amendment!

>>Larry, Errol, List, All,

>>I find this highly inflammatory, biased, and more importantly,
>>that it has nothing to do with UFOs!

>>>Like Their Counterparts at Wright-Patterson, Langley, and
>>>Lackland Air Force Bases, Officials at Andrews AFB Have No Right
>>>to Bomb the First Amendment!

>>>By Larry W. Bryant


>>>A group of current/former U. S. servicemembers - known as the
>>>Ghost Troop (http://geocities.com/onlythecaptain/ ) - has found
>>>the "bloody knife" exposing the OFFICIALLY UNRELEASED number of
>>>Americans who died during the fierce battle at Iraq's capital in
>>>the spring of 2003. That number, of course, dwarfs the
>>>officially released count. To help determine the discrepancy's
>>>cause/perpetuators/accountability, the group is seeking all
>>>related documentary evidence and sworn testimony from all BOBCUP
>>>whistleblowers brave enough to come forward. Armed with your
>>>accounts, the group can help persuade Congress to exercise its
>>>oversight authority in this matter. Contact: Larry W. Bryant

>>>At this point, were I the U. S. attorney assigned to represent
>>>the defendant in Bryant v. Rumsfeld, et al., I'd submit my
>>>resignation forthwith - rather than countenance any form of
>>>viewpoint discrimination.

>>>What's worse for Amerika: being "anti-military," or being
>>>anti-First Amendment?

>>This is not a First Amendment issue. The base newspaper is the
>>commander's instrument for communication with the soldiers. It
>>operates under many of the same restrictions that a civilian
>>newspaper uses, but the commander is the publisher. Just as
>>civilian newspapers have the right to reject advertising they
>>find offensive, so does the base newspaper. We have all heard
>>stories that one network decided not to run an ad that another
>>found acceptable. No one retreated to First Amendment arguments
>>at that time.

>>Second, that ad is anti-military, especially after you read the
>>allegations raised on the web page that Bryant provides for us.
>>There certainly is no obligation for the base newspaper to run
>>an ad with that "spin" in it. (Even without the additional
>>information, the ad certainly seems to be anti-military.)

>>Finally, I notice that the man Bryant cites by pointing us to
>>the web site was not in Baghdad. His allegations are so much
>>speculation. However, I spent a great deal of time on the
>>Baghdad International Airport (known to the soldiers as BIAP)
>>and I saw nothing to support these claims of huge American
>>casualties. (I wonder here if the term casualties isn't
>>confused! It means wounded and missing as well as killed.) I
>>had the opportunity to review a great deal of information (some
>>of it classified) about the battle of Baghdad, and is simply
>>does not bear out these allegations.

>>I would suggest that Bryant take his fight with the government
>>about this into a different forum and leave this one to UFOs.

>Kevin Randle's protestation serves to remind me why I've chosen
>not to waste time and effort in trying to justify my existence
>to those who'd prefer that I disappear.

>Nevertheless, I now consider it my civic duty to respond to
>Kevin's ill-founded concerns:

>(1) The freedom-of-speech clause of the First Amendment to the
>U. S. Constitution exists not so much to protect non-
>inflammatory (read: orthodox) speech as to protect the
>"inflammatory" kind (read: unorthodox). Apparently, Kevin
>happens to be not the only (otherwise educated) citizen
>unfamiliar with that simple doctrine.

Yeah, I get it. You have the right to say any stupid thing you
want and I have the right to ignore it. The First Amendment does
not require me to listen.

>(2) I of course claim no expertise as to what did or didn't
>happen (and why) during/after the Battle of Baghdad. I leave
>details of that matter to those interested in
>researching/debating it. The ad in question happens to be part
>of my whole series of whistleblower-solicitation ads aimed at
>the audience of military newspapers. That audience has a First
>Amendment right to receive those ads' content without any
>interference from the post/base commander. What's done
>(illegally) unto one such ad in the series is done unto them all
>- in terms of any official prior-restraint policy directed at
>them by the commander. All this First Amendment doctrine appears
>for anyone to see and digest within the complaints filed in the
>two cases of Bryant v. Rumsfeld, et al.

Then why bring up the Battle of Baghdad and point us to a web
site that deals with that, but has no connection to UFOs? You
claim to know nothing about this, but want us to support your
admittedly ignorant point of view.

>(3) Even as I speak, four USAF base commanders are stonewalling
>the recent prepublication-review submission of my ad "Blow the
>Whistle on the Neo-UFO Whistleblowers!" If they persist in this
>interference, they risk being cited for contempt of court -
>since their doing so violates terms of the consent judgment I
>won back in the late eighties during the course of my First
>Amendment lawsuit Bryant v. Weinberger, et al. The court's order
>requires all DoD officials to refrain from interfering with my
>submitted "UFO cover-up" whistleblower-solicitation ads.

>(4) As with any other form of speech critical of government
>policy/practice, "ANTI-military" speech (the opposite of PRO-
>military speech) deserves full protection of the First
>Amendment - especially when that speech occurs in a "designated
>public form" like the ad pages of military newspapers (an
>argument central to my case against Rumsfeld's public affairs

I would suggest that a publication for the beef industry
wouldn't be interested in ads from PETA or that a publication
from the Catholic Church would be interested in an abortionist
ad. And a military newspaper would not be interested in anti-
military ads. Again, I understand you have the right to your
opinion and the right to attempt publication of  that opinion,
but I have the right to ignore it as the publication has the
right to refuse it.

>(5) If Kevin now continues to fail to see the relevance of my
>Rumsfeld case to the politics of Ufology, then he has some more
>9th-grade civics homework awaiting him.

Please. You were talking about the your First Amendment right to
say any dumb thing you want and I was talking about my right to
ignore you. Your original post had nothing to do with UFOs
and that was my point.

Lecture away if you will, but I now invoke my right not to listen.


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com