http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Fri, 9 Apr 2004 20:25:27 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/09/075033.php#comment-57213 I am not clear on this and would appreciate input from knowledgeable people who are. Can't the government stop civilians from traveling to a war zone for a reason such as evangelizing? It seems to me that doing so would preclude the fallout that will surely occur when some of those people are taken hostage or killed. Both the constitutionally protected right to free expression and right to travel are limited. So, I wonder why the protective measure of limiting travel to Iraq has not been taken. 57213@blogcritics.org Fri, 9 Apr 2004 20:25:27 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/09/075033.php#comment-57082 First let me say that I absolutely abhor what some Iraqis are doing to civilians. It's just beyond words. But my feeling about civilians who are in Iraq to evangelize [even if it's under the guise of "humanitarian aid"] is that I don't think our military should go out of its way to protect them. By that I mean that soldiers shouldn't endanger themselves to protect civilians there to try to convert Iraqis to their religion. If you are a civilian and you go into Iraq for religious reasons or even just for a fat pay check, you shouldn't expect the US military to protect you. I'm not saying the civilians do expect protection, but I just don't want to hear about one US military casualty that results from protecting civilians. Civilians should bring their own protection, but as we've seen, even retired commandos aren't safe there. 57082@blogcritics.org Fri, 9 Apr 2004 10:04:56 EDT