This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
"We'll also be bringing a movable cage in which to confine military recruiters until they no longer pose a danger to our friends and neighbors."
I would say the authorities have a right to stop them before they get started based on these writings.
Why don't all these ungrateful asswipes go live in that paradise known as Cuba?
I came across this story the other day. The "moveable cage" sounds an awful lot like kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment. This, of course, on top of trespassing and seizing property.
I really wish they would just go to the nearest socialist gulag of their choice. They have quite a number to choose from. Hands off the US!
Hey! The moonbats are right! It IS our fault!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/
2008...ts_080312172746
“The monitoring group called on Europe and North America to do more, through laws and social action, to protect Muslims from threats and discrimination and prevent insults against Islam's religious symbols.”
Are they bleeping kidding?
This needs to go with the above story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/
20080...ts_islamic_dc_2
Does this mean we get to hit Libtard recruitment strongholds?
We start by bombing all parent's basements in blue states and work our way toward rehab facilities parking lots.
These useful idiots are starting to annoy me! Their name needs to be changed from Moonbats to Moon Battery! Their insistance that they can FORCE social change is starting to rise to the level of insurgency. California has already put the mechanisms in place for these groups to preach the violent overtrow of the US Gov't in our schools. What else do they have to do before they are recognized as terrorists?
A commentary on why the left really DOESN'T support our troops: A commentary: http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.c...1/article/
29447
So - attacking federal offices (or at least the threat of), kidnapping federal troops (again, at least the threat), and occupying said offices (see above) - does the government NOT want to "offend" these groups? Talk about foreknowledge of an attack by terrorists...
Where, exactly, does "freedom of speech" end, and the right to protect your own begin?
Tell you what - any moonbats mess with my vehicle, just because it has a USMC emblem on it, will not be able to leave the scene the same way they arrived.
Gare-ON-teed.
Yeah, how dare these idiots exercise free speech, don't they know this is no longer 'America?'
The RIGHT does not support our troops. They feed Iraq with dribbles not surges, just enough so the public doesn't notice and have to start a draft to really get the job done.
They use the troops as political pawns. A few thousand dead, heck we can all deal with that, right? You guys just don't get it, do you?
Moonbats remind me of spoiled 3 year olds. "If I don't get my way, I'll throw a tantrum so you'll pay attention to me!"
I say we treat 'em like 3 year olds. Sit 'em in the "corner" (read jail) for a f@#king "time out". Because Cary's right. Their speech sounds like credible threats to me.
Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States, and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both: Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service..
At one time in this nation, we hung people in public for being traitors to this nation. Now we parade them across our televisions as some sort of culturaly intrinsic heroes.
They should be arrested and incacerated for the maximum allowable time. This nation has lost its identity and continually allows itself to be assaulted and impugned from within. This is self-destructive behavior and has historically been witness during the decline of powerful nation states that eventually culminated in their collapse. I think it should be handled as a national security issue.
You have the right to free speech, therfore say what you will, but frame that speech carefully as to not approach the level of sedition or treason. Also, take no other action that interferes with the ability of the United States of America to defend herself. If you do, you go to jail for a very, very long time.
Kayinsane demands MSNBC fire Pat Buchanan for correcting a negro woman on-air!
She fired off this bilge to them immediately:
Pat Buchanan should be fired for telling Keri Goff to ’shut up’ last night on your show. Americans are tired of the racist bullcrap on our televisions. Has Buchanan ever told a white guest to shut up? No! Fire him for being a racist and the irony was not lost on your viewers last night that your guests were talking about Ferraro’s comments about Barack and then Buchanan felt the need to tell the only black panelist to shut up in a way that was demeaning and demoralizing.
MSNBC is getting more pathetic each day. Keith Olbermann is the only classy show in the lineup. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing this kind of crap to go on! Fire Buchanan please!
Is MSNBC the new Fox news? Apparently so. Boooo-hisss. Zeeg Heil!
I left a comment in the thread SURE to stir up that pathetic hornet's nest! :lol
Yeah, how dare these idiots exercise free speech
Last time I checked, omoron, throwing paint, rocks, and molotov cocktails (don't get excited on that word, sweetcheeks) didn't qualify as "free speech". But leave it to your sick, depraved ass to defend it as such.
Pussy.
Yeah, how dare these idiots exercise free speech, don't they know this is no longer 'America?' - orion
OK, idiot, here's the deal.
I will fight to the death your RIGHT to say anything you want to - as long as YOU exercise the RESPONSIBILITY to take ACCOUNTABILITY for what you say.
These libtards are talking about EVICTING with FORCE the occupants of office space paid for by the US Government - in other words, your dime, you clueless twit. They are talking about an ARMED insurgence against US troops on US soil - and that, my dear, demented, idiotic, pathetic excuse for wasting oxygen, is called TERRORISM. By DOMESTIC ENEMIES. Guess what? The oath I took when I enlisted said I was to DEFEND THE NATION AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
Orion, you are really a work of art. Even if someone were to come to your residence and take you prisoner, claiming you were infringing on their right to peace, you would let them, wouldn't you? Pacifism is one thing; allowing bullies to run your lives is another. Grow a pair - of brain cells, you twit. Then learn how to use them.
Orion,
Since you insist on showing your extreme lack of intelligence no matter how many times people illustrate if for you allow me to explain a few things about free speech.
It is limited in certain aspects. You can not encite violence, elicit criminal activity, speak untrue things about another that causes measurable harm to that person, plagerize the works of another without due credit, lie under oath, threated to assault someone, threatend the security of the state or foster sedition and treason against the government. There are many other restrictions of free speech but the essential concept follows the 'fire in a theatre' example.
You cannot scream 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre thereby inciting a panic in which harm could come to those involved in exiting the theatre and then claim 'Free Speech' when it is discovered that no threat existed. You have committed a criminal offense at that point because you engangered the lives and safety of others.
Threatening military personel or threatening to interfere with them during the official discharge of their duty is a crime during peace time. To do so during war could be seen as a seditious or treasonous act against this nation. Furthermore, they are infringing on the rights of the individuals who wish to sign up for service in our military and oppressing their First Amendment rights by denying them access to the recruiting stations. You may not excercise your rights at the expense of the rights of another.
These people should be arrested for their actions and their statements based on the fact that they are terroristic threats.
Advocating the use of violence in speech or writing against the United States government, however repulsive, is constitutionally protected free speech unless such speech produces an imminent threat of lawlessness, which does not seem to be the case here, although I'm sure a few creative minds suggest otherwise.
See Brandenburg v Ohio
These libtards are talking about EVICTING with FORCE the occupants of office space paid for by the US Government
Exactly. They're talking. Law enforcement officials have it in their power to take every preventive measure necessary to keep things lawful and orderly. If there is an imminent threat of lawlessness, they can certainly take appropriate action and the people arrested for such behavior will have no First Amendment claim.
You have the right to free speech, therfore say what you will, but frame that speech carefully as to not approach the level of sedition or treason.
Read ex parte Bollman for the constitutional definition of treason. It has nothing to do with speech.
The fact that the SCOTUS upheld Sedition Act prosecutions made during WWI is one of the greatest travesties in our court's history. In my not so humble and not so subtle opinion, one has to be pretty rectally implanted to find anything consitutional about a Sedition Act.
I have no problem executing spies and traitors and applying the law to those who break it.
I do have a problem with people playing fast and loose with what those definitions ought to be.
I don't like this situation much and these protestors are advocating things that are beyond repulsive. They have a right to say it and not thrown in jail for it.
I am not saying that the police should not intervene. They should.
Lets start using painball guns on those no good moonbats lets stain them with sissystinkpink
ECL. this organization has published plans to execute this attack.
When, precisely, is it no longer free speech and when, precisely, is it a case of protecting one's assets?
It is my humble opinion that if knowledge of an attack is procured, then all involved should be detained, investigated, and jailed if need be. I would much rather apologize to someone who was temporarily detained for the wrong reason than pay out damages to a family who lost their loved one.
Sandpiper - mix the paint with eau de skunk. That should help.
I don't like this situation much and these protestors are advocating things that are beyond repulsive. They have a right to say it and not thrown in jail for it.
I am not saying that the police should not intervene. They should.
East Coast Libertarian
This isn't free speech. It is a plan of action. They are not just talking about trespassing, they are talking about the unlawful detaining of an American citizen.
If we were at peace I would hold them responsible for criminal intent. During wartime I would imprison them and throw away the key.
I'm tired of screwing around with these jerks! Since when is sedition a part of someone's constitution rights?
When these protesters use any kind of force they become enemy combatants.
When these protesters use any kind of force they become enemy combatants.
No they won't. They will be tried as civilians in federal court for violations of the laws of this nation.
Witness,
We don't have a sedition act on our books, and for good reason. Besides, even if a law or two were broken, despite my reservations to the contrary (I'm not always right on these things), I'd hardly argue treason.
Like I said, there is a necessary role for law enforcement to stop this nonsense before anything really does get out of hand.
The localities could arguably step in and prevent the marches from happening. Let the court challenges fly and have it sorted out there.
It is my humble opinion that if knowledge of an attack is procured, then all involved should be detained, investigated, and jailed if need be. I would much rather apologize to someone who was temporarily detained for the wrong reason than pay out damages to a family who lost their loved one.
Hence, the qualifier of an "imminent threat of lawlessness" in First Amendment law.
I don't disagree with you on investigating these incidents fully and determining whether or not the appropriate action should be taken. While there is a heavy threshold on government in terms of taking action, situations like this do push the fine line (frankly, a lot).
I'm certainly not advocating that the police wait for the protestors to get violent before they step in and remedy the situation. That's not law enforcement. That's stupidity.
No offence, but sometimes the constitutional hobbiests (sp?) lose sight of criminal law in the pursuit of the "constitutional" answer to a given set of facts.
just sayin'
"government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation"
The distinction here, I would argue, is that here, the advocacy of force or law violation is fairly precise: They want to cage marines.
Alan
May I respectfully suggest to you that the Alberto Gonzalez test for "enemy combatants" is not met here. I would think these asshats are bog-standard criminals.
aid and abet:
to assist or facilitate the commission of a crime, or to promote its accomplishment
conspiracy:
an agreement by two or more persons to commit and unlawful act
Horse radishes, ECL! There have been times in this country during war when we got down and dirty with our own for the sake of our own. During the Civil War Lincoln suspended habius corpus and during WWII we interred hundreds of thousands.
Your theory is great, in theory only. During war I want the enemy's heads to roll. If the enemy happens to be American born - so be it!
I also like the idea of expulsion! Remember the man with no country? Sentenced to live aboard ship and never allowed to step foot upon any shore? I like that idea! We need more creative thinking like that!
News conference will be called tomorrow to discuss the growing attacks against recruiting offices: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bi...04773338&
EDATE=
It turns out Kay is NOT in Maine after all. I have a picture of her ALABAMA compound!
POG has updated their site: http://www.organizepittsburgh.org/
Evidently their little escapade has gained attention and they've received some mail that hurt their feewings (awww poor babies!) Anyway - they are pretty much saying, "Bring it on!"
It turns out Kay is NOT in Maine after all. I have a picture of her ALABAMA compound!
Radical Redneck
Where do you find this stuff?
I say hold the fanacialy liable for any damages they cuase make them pay right out of their own pockets for their vandalism
Now, to cover their tracks, the POG site is claiming they are just "talking" about things - they don't actually think they would be able to do them.
And, they are saying that the "righties" that have left hateful messages on their board have helped their cause, in that the media exposure has been priceless.
Moonbats. Can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em.
ECL,
Just a note.
Most states support conspiracy and terroristic threat laws:
Ex: Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
§ 15.02. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
(a) A person commits criminal conspiracy if, with intent that a felony be committed:
(1) he agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense;
and
(2) he or one or more of them performs an overt act in
pursuance of the agreement.
§ 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT.
(a) A person commits an
offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:
(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, place of employment or occupation, aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance, or other public place;
(4) cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;
(5) place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
(6) influence the conduct or activities of a branch or
agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.
Therefore, as defined above this could easily be construed as a terroristic threat and the conspiracty to commit the acts described in the threat. Prosecution of these two laws together to contruse an offense from similar actions to what this group did has stood the challenge of the Texas Supreme Court and Federal District Courts many times in this state.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
