Cynical Nation

Not that this has anything to do with the French (what is your obsession over them about anyway?), but I have checked the time a bajillion times in the past hour. It's going to be a very long day.

Stupid idea for a law, I agree. But we have people like McCain trying to run roughshod over the Internets and all. Governments regulate. That's what they do, you ol' libertarian. Governing least is best, but I'm afraid they can't justify those huge staffs, the pay raises, etc. if they govern less. That's the US and France and a lot of other governments. Mind you, the 109th Congress did less work than any other Congress, but that isn't the same as doing less legislating.

> what is your obsession over them about anyway?

They stole 3 years of my life. ;-)

They turned me into a newt.

I got better.

Sadly, not even an hour has passed and yet it feels like I should be packing up to go home already. It's going to be a very long day.

Almost as stupid as getting all knotted up over a bare boob or ass on TV.

Well, off to cook up some Freedom Fries.

> Sadly, not even an hour has passed and yet it feels like I should be packing up to go home already. It's going to be a very long day.

Meet you at the bar? That always helps move the day along.

We should pass the same law. It gets embarrassing with common citizens constantly filming all the Rodney King beatings and other criminal acts perpetrated by law enforcement, you know, the stuff JMK says never happens, and that's why it is OK to hold people without charge and torture them for information.

"We should pass the same law. It gets embarrassing with common citizens constantly filming all the Rodney King beatings and other criminal acts perpetrated by law enforcement..." (BH)


You can't seem to get much of anything right, Barely.

THAT sought of thing would be covered under the journalism exception of the above mentioned law, as the guy who made that recording went to the media with it.

A private citizen, under that law, could not use such material or even simulated violence in a "for-profit" film project.

The Rodney King example is a terrible example of alleged "police abuse."

King's vehicle was stopped for speeding in a residential area, after a high speed chase assisted by helicopter.

The two others in the vehicle were arrested without incident at the scene, as they wisely complied with police.

Rodney King decided to challenge the police at the scene.

Commanding officer, LAPD Seargent Stacey Koon, had the opportunity to have a female police officer (Melanie Singer) who'd had her gun drawn and trained on King, shoot the goonish King, but when she asked for permission to shoot, Sgt Koon, bravely backed her off and proceeded to direct the other officers to make a "take down of King."

The take down was made with police baton blows to King's lower extremities (legs) - There were no head fractures, nor any evidence of brain damage, though Mr. King did suffer a fractured cheek bone. The Holliday videotape shows no head blows by police. All available evidence indicates the fractured cheekbone occurred when he slammed face-first into the asphalt on three separate occasions.

The question often asked, is does a citizen have a right to contest or challenge an arrest, even in a civil manner (which King was not doing), with the arresting officers at the scene.

The answer is NO, as a citizen you have no right to contest a police officer's actions at the scene of an arrest.

Your ONLY recourse is post-arrest legal action for something like false arrest.

What if the you KNOW the police officer's actions are not only irregular, but illegal, can you challenge them then?

Again, NO. You cannot, as a private citizen, challenge police authority at a scene. If the police officer orders you to strip and do the chicken dance on a crowded highway, a naked chicken dance is very much in your near future, so is, most likely, a lottery-sized lawsuit settlement, after that humiliating ordeal.

Once a civilian challenges police authority, that civilian must be subdued and brought in and booked, for among other things "resisting arrest."

Ironically enough, a person can be charged with "resisting arrest," even if the police officer initially had no intent of arresting that person.

If you refuse to comply with an officers requests/demands, then he/she is duty-bound to place you under arrest. If you still refuse to comply, you will be charged with "resisting arrest" and be brought for booking on, at least that charge.

On the other hand, you'll never find a single quote of mine saying that police abuse never happens...it does.

The Abner Louima case is a very clear example of that. The King case, however, is not.

I've said and moreover, I've PROVED that police all across this nation routinely use "duress" long term interrogation with multiple interrogators, to try and slip up the suspect, sleep deprivation, uncomfortable living conditions, loud noise and bright lights, lying to and coercing suspects, threatening to place suspects in with more dangerous inmates and with inmates they are led to believe, see the suspect as having "cooperated with police" - ALL of that and more is allowed to be used on American citizens.

On captured enemy combatants, it is probably best that (1) we don't know what techniques are used against them (we actually don't) and (2) best not concern ourselves with such things, for as common citizens we lack both the necessary information and the expertise to make informed judgments about such things.

LOL! So now you defend the cops who mercilessly beat Rodney King for half an hour, standing around him laughing and joking. Yes, they were so brave, just doing their jobs.

We all saw the tape.

Between this and defending Ann Coulter as an "excellent historian" you have become an even bigger joke than you were before.

Bailey: By "half an hour" did you mean 19 seconds, which was the actual amount of time he was mercilessly beaten?

Well, off to cook up some Freedom Fries

freedom fries (:P) now THAT was ridiculous. What time period did the Reps think we were, 1918?

ps...Barry, how did the French take 3 years off your life?

I gave you an accurate example of police abuse (the Abner Louima case) and explained what the law says about contesting or challenging an arrest at the scene, though that wasn't what King was doing, he was advancing, menacingly toward police, refusing to obey their lawful commands to "get on the ground." Had he done that (obeyed the law) he'd have been arrested like his two passengers were - without incident.

And again, you're unable to quote me "defending Coulter." She was indeed a brilliant law student and an excellent historian, especially on post-WW II American history (saw her interviewed on that topic).

What I did defend is the 1st Amendment - Anne Coulter has a 1st Amendment right to be offensive and obnoxious, just as do the likes of Bill Maher, Ted Rall and Al Franken and others whom I don't like.

The idea that you now feel that those people have no such right (I'm assuming that since you feel Coulter's offensive speech should be stifled, so should Maher's, Rall's, Franken's, etc) is not at all surprising to me.

The 1st Amendment was written specifically to defend obnoxious, unpopular and offensive speech....like yours and even on rare occasion, mine.

I gave you an accurate example of police abuse (the Abner Louima case) and explained what the law says about contesting or challenging an arrest at the scene, though that wasn't what King was doing, he was advancing, menacingly toward police, refusing to obey their lawful commands to "get on the ground." Had he done that (obeyed the law) he'd have been arrested like his two passengers were - without incident.

And again, you're unable to quote me "defending Coulter." She was indeed a brilliant law student and an excellent historian, especially on post-WW II American history (saw her interviewed on that topic).

What I did defend is the 1st Amendment - Anne Coulter has a 1st Amendment right to be offensive and obnoxious, just as do the likes of Bill Maher, Ted Rall and Al Franken and others whom I don't like.

The idea that you now feel that those people have no such right (I'm assuming that since you feel Coulter's offensive speech should be stifled, so should Maher's, Rall's, Franken's, etc) is not at all surprising to me.

The 1st Amendment was written specifically to defend obnoxious, unpopular and offensive speech....like yours and even on rare occasion, mine.

You are correct, JMK. The 1st Amendment protects obnoxious speech. However, it was written to defend it from official, government censorship, not from individuals, for example, calling companies to ask them to pull their ads from her web site.

And don't sell yourself short, my friend. You are much more offensive than you give yourself credit for. :-)

First, ONLY the government can truly censure an individual DBK. Real censurship requires the power to ban or outlaw.

People boycotting advertisers, etc is NOT censureship, but freedom of choice.

I've written to and called many sponsors who've endorsed ideas and people I've found offensive and refused to buy products from them. I'm always polite and never resort to invective and clearly state my case and how troubling I find their endorsing such things.

Second, I've found that generally people are as "offensive" as one finds them disagreeable.

Most people seem to find it much more easy to be offended by that with which they disagree.

LOL! Way to go, liars. It was actually a 12 minute video, but the incident was, like I said, about 30 minutes. The first part was King being tasered repeatedly and having a gun pointed at his head. The "19 seconds" you are trying to twist into the whole incident was just the amount of time that all four officers simultaneously wailed away on a man who was lying on the ground, helpless.

But hell, we all know that this is how Repug bastards think the country should be run. You would both have made perfect Nazis.

Thank you, JMK, for repeating what I wrote to you as though you were teaching me something after I had just said the same thing.

Also, you may want to take note of that smiley thing at the end of my last comment, which indicates that I was just kidding around. Still, thank you for responding to my little joke with more pedantry.

We'll have to do this more often, JMK. How about now?

"The Fourth Amendment is about unlawful searches and seizures by government representatives or agencies."

There, now repeat that back to me in a self-important tone and use many more words than necessary so that I can see how much you disagree with me and how brilliant and self-important you are.

Anyway, I forgive you, JMK. You can't help yourself.

Barry,
How did the French stole 3 years from your life? Did you stay there for 3 years?
If so, you gained an extra 3 years in your life, especially if it was Paris. I think Paris is the second nicest city in the world (with the best being Sidney, Australia).

I've never been to Sydney, but I have to agree with Blue Wind (except that makes Paris number one, so it means I am disagreeing and...oh hell, I can't get into all that).

Paris is the most beautiful city I have ever seen and Mrs DBK and I enjoyed it immensely. We've been to New York (naturally), San Francisco (many times), Maui, Dublin, Lisbon, Barcelona (man, I loved Barcelona...also a very beautiful city), and numerous other places in the US and abroad and Paris is number one. But VERY expensive. Mrs DBK and I discussed looking for jobs there and just staying, but that didn't happen.

DBK,
Your point is well taken. Paris is a fantastic city. I ranked Sydney a little higher, because of the unbelievable view of the opera house in the water, and the communication between different parts of the city by small boats (water-taxis). Also, Sydney is more modern than Paris and very futuristic. But Paris is certainly number 1 as the most romantic city in the world.

BW,

Mrs DBK and I want to get to Australia in the next year or two (or maybe three).

Every time I think of Paris I get a pit of the stomach feeling of longing. Then I think about the cost and the longing lessens. That is not only a beautiful city, but expensive as all hell.

BW, you're right. The three years I lived in Paris were among the best of my life. I just like to give the French a hard time. ;-)

DBK,
Well, when you are ready to go to Australia, if you want I could make some suggestions for places to visit. It is an unbelievably beautiful country. As for Paris, of course and it is very expensive there. Everywhere in europe is very expensive these days. I have not been to Barcelona that you mentioned, and that is a city I want to visit in the future. Everybody thinks very highly of that city in Catalonia*

* not Spain :)

I second the motion on Paris being numero uno.

BH: "LOL! Way to go, liars. It was actually a 12 minute video, but the incident was, like I said, about 30 minutes. The first part was King being tasered repeatedly and having a gun pointed at his head. The "19 seconds" you are trying to twist into the whole incident was just the amount of time that all four officers simultaneously wailed away on a man who was lying on the ground, helpless.

It is neither immoral nor illegal to arrest someone for multiple violations of the law. It is neither immoral nor illegal for police to use force to restrain a suspect who is violently resisting arrest. The only aspect of the incident that is reasonably at question is the use of excessive force. Why should he have not had a gun pointed at his head after threatening violence to a police officer?

The entire "incident" (excluding the eight minute car chase that led to Mr. King's arrest) included several minutes of Mr. King threatening a female CHP officer with violence, followed by an attempt to induce Mr. King to cease resisting, follwed by approximately two minutes of beating. The 19 seconds is the amount of time that objective observers agree the police used excessive force in restraining Mr. King.

Mr. King should have surrendered when called upon to do so. If Mr. King was at all uncertain about the situation, then he should have ceased resistance the first time he was tasered since there could have been no further doubt about the police's intent to apprehend him. If he was still confused at that point, then surely he should have understood that it was time to surrender when the police used direct physical force to induce his compliance. Once on the ground and surrounded by police who were clearly intent on keeping him there, he should have stayed there.

The police crossed the line when it became clear that Mr. King finally ceased resistance, but they continued to administer a beating with their clubs. That use of excessive force lasted approximately 19 seconds.

Cuffing a suspect and keeping the suspect on the ground while completing arrest procedures does not constitute undue force by any rational standard. The entire incident did, indeed, last about 30 minutes -- ~5 minutes of King threating physical violence; ~3 minutes of police attempting to restrain King (including tasering him) without striking him; ~2 minutes of police using direct force (including 19 seconds of excessive force); ~10 minutes of continued restraint of King on the ground; and ~10 minutes more while the arrest was completed (including body search and mandatory reporting of the incident) and King was taken into custody.

Mr. King was not "wailed on" for 30.

A small, probably non-essential point. If someone would be kind enough to hold you down and helpless for 19 seconds and I was able to beat the snot out of you for those 19 seconds with a stick, I'll bet I could do some amazing amount of damage. The point being that the amount of time is immaterial. I could, with a nightstick, change your life in one second.

Now, back to traveler's tales. Apologies for the travelogue, especially to BNJ. BW, I'd be happy to give you Barcelona tips. I had the greatest time there. The Picasso Museum and La Sagrada Familia are absolutely essential stops. There's a lot more. Some cities you can stay in for a week and never be bored and some cities run out of interesting things in a weekend (like San Antonio, which was over for me in 14 hours but we spent an entire weekend there...nice town but boring, and Riverwalk is not worth much unless you go on vacation to shop and see stuff you could see anywhere in the US).

Here's one brief post I did on Barcelona.
http://frogsdong.blogspot.com/2005/09/sagrada-familia.html

DBK,
Thanks. When I finally decide to go there, I may ask you more. Over the next few months I will visit europe again, but I dont think I can make it to Barcelona. It will have to wait for a couple of years I think. From what I hear Barcelona must be among the top 5-6 cities in europe.

P.S. I agree with you that San Antonio gets boring quickly. For me it was over in 4-5 hours.

DBK: "A small, probably non-essential point. If someone would be kind enough to hold you down and helpless for 19 seconds and I was able to beat the snot out of you for those 19 seconds with a stick, I'll bet I could do some amazing amount of damage. The point being that the amount of time is immaterial. I could, with a nightstick, change your life in one second."

The amount of time is very material in this case. There is a world of difference between over-reacting for 19 seconds in confrontation that was already violent and emotionally charged and "wailing" on someone for 30 minutes for no particular reason.

LAPD didn't just roll up on Rodney and start "wailing" on him because they didn't like his skin color.

"Anyway, I forgive you, JMK. You can't help yourself." (DBK)


I did that because you posted as though I didn't make a distinction between government and individual action, when I've posted many times with the add-on phrase "so long as they can find an outlet."
Though today, you don't even need a conventional outlet, you still need protection from government sanction.

Is that your new tact, when you agree with me, to find a snarky way to put it, so it doesn't look like actual agreement?

I don't look for reasons to disagre with other peopl and when I do, I do what all people who disagreee have a basic duty to do - to explain, in full and often painstaking detail, with citations and links when necessary.

I know a lot of people see the "art of the quick jab" as high-art, but from what I've seen, that's generally the domain of those who either can't or lack the required passion to make a full explanation/defense of their viewpoint.

"A small, probably non-essential point. If someone would be kind enough to hold you down and helpless for 19 seconds and I was able to beat the snot out of you for those 19 seconds with a stick, I'll bet I could do some amazing amount of damage. The point being that the amount of time is immaterial. I could, with a nightstick, change your life in one second."


Again there is a big difference between someone holding you down (none of the cops had King "held on the ground," they were trying to get him to stay on the ground) and the police doing the same.

In my case, as a fellow civilian with no police powers, that would be assault in every instance.

If the police just stopped your car and did that, they'd be facing jail time, and you'd be facing a lottery sized pay-off.

If, however, you were resisting arrest, even "resisting without violence," the police will subdue you, because, at that point, they must subdue you, as a private citizen has no right to resist arrest, you have no right to redress at that point, because you were in the wrong.

Even if we perceive that arrest to be an unfounded one and even if we are positive the police officer arresting us is wrong, we, as private citizens, have no legal right to resist arrest.

There is (1) no doubt that Rodney King resisted arrest, as the other two occupants of that vehicle were arrested without incident because they did the right thing and complied with the arrest and (2) the video clearly showed King failing to obey police commands, confronting them (he didn't even go down when tasered twice, apparently the tasers malfunctioned) and when he finally was brought down, he continued to try and get back up.

Those cops were duty-bound by LAPD directives to cuff him and bring him in for booking at that point (once he resisted arrest).

The Abner Louima case was an clear example of police abuse/misconduct, the King case really wasn't.

On the 19-second issue, don't take my remarks further than intended.

"Is that your new tact, when you agree with me, to find a snarky way to put it, so it doesn't look like actual agreement?"
Um, you did understand what I wrote, right? Because that was you couching your agreement with me in terms of disagreement, which sorta kinda was exactly what I already wrote. Did you mean our posts "crossed in the mail", so to speak? Okay, then say that. And then I say, "Sorry."

Wanna try it?

"P.S. I agree with you that San Antonio gets boring quickly. For me it was over in 4-5 hours."

What were you doing that you were able to be done w/ ol' San Antone in 5 hours?

I respond in kind DBK.

You made a scolding, school-marm type comment, insinuating that I didn't make a distinction between government and individual action - "However, it was written to defend it from official, government censorship, not from individuals, for example, calling companies to ask them to pull their ads from her web site."

I felt that warranted an equally pedantic and school-marmish comment in reply.

Again, I really would appreciate your not holding me to a standard you don't adhere to yourself.

In this case, I''m just a mirror.

Please the mirror didn't ask for an apology from you, don't ask for one from me.

It comes down to that pesky old single standard thing again.

Your remarks weren't clear to me. Are you claiming I asked you for an apology?

"Are you claiming I asked you for an apology? (DBK)


Then perhaps you would clarify this request for a non-apology, Okay, then say that. And then I say, "Sorry."

Wanna try it? (DBK)

I AM actually sorry that YOU initially misconstrued my initial posts and then felt them worthy of a solding about how the 1st Amendment protects one only from government actions, when I was very clear about that early on.

You posted what amounted to an agreemnt without agreeing, or what could perhaps more aptly be called a disagreeable agreement.

That's petulant enough, but then you're going to get peeved when I merely respond in as snarky a manner?

Bad form old boy.

I guess I confused you.

Did you mean our posts "crossed in the mail", so to speak? Okay, then say that. And then I say, "Sorry."

That means you say "Our posts crossed in the mail" and I say "Sorry". That was me apologizing for the misunderstanding.

That was my misunderstanding...and I am sorry about that.

I'm guilty of what I call others on - skimming through a post and I misunderstood your point.

That's on me.

I don't think we disagree about the 1st Amendment or even about the potential negative impact of political correctness.

Ann Coulter is often an ass and as Barry pointed out, she often detracts serious consideration from otherwise important arguments that other Conservatives are trying to make.

There are many others (Bill Maher, Ted Rall, among others) who are equally over-the-top on the other side and none of them should be slenced for merely being offensive.

I probably agree with Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the Media Research Center, who said "It would be outrageous if Coulter is blacklisted by networks but Maher isn't." The HBO comic angered some by recent remarks suggesting more people would live if an assassination attempt against Vice President Dick Cheney had been successful.

You don't have to like such people (I generally don't) to support their right to be outrageous, even offensive.

"You don't have to like such people (I generally don't) to support their right to be outrageous, even offensive."

Like young Mr Glick, too?

Freed, I've said and I'll stand by the view that not only are Jeremy Glick's statements treasonous, but so are those who say things like "America is the world's biggest terrorist," and likening the current administration to the Third Reich. I believe ALL of those statements support the enemies of the U.S. and are meant to as "aid and comfort" to them, so I'd classify any such statements as treasonous and not merely "offensive."

Treasonous speech, like slanderous speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

There are Civil and criminal sanctions that apply to both and in my view, it's very unfortunate that they have not been more widely applied.

JMK,
I'm glad we cleared that up. I agree that we probably agree on those points as well as many others. I would never consider censoring Coulter or Maher or anyone, but, and I am sure you would agree with this, there are consequences to speech.

It is funny that you mention Maher. You didn't mention "Politically Incorrect", his old HBO show, which was canceled because Maher said the 9/11 "suiciders" (heh) weren't cowards because it takes courage to fly a plane into a building knowing you will die. Your analogy, whether you recalled that show or not, is pretty damn good because both Maher and Coulter know what happens when you cross the arbitrary line of public taste. I have no idea how that line is established but I think that most of us know where it lies by instinct. I rarely ever have anything to say about Coulter, but I wouldn't, as some do, post that she's a "c**t" because that, for me, crosses that line. Coulter crosses that line a lot gets away with it a lot, which is why she is so surprised by the reaction this time: as has been pointed out in many places, she has said much worse. But perhaps it was that she was addressing CPAC, and therefore was speaking as a kind of unofficially official voice of the Republican Party, and the Republican Party didn't want to be the party that calls people dirty names. When she speaks for herself only she can say what she wants and the party can easily disassociate itself from her words. When she is a speaker at a Republican conference, that's a whole 'nother bag of fajitas and the party didn't want to wear her words as the latest spring fashion.

I don't know...treasonous ACTS may be criminal but 'speech'? Who's to judge that? I've heard people say things--on both the left and right--that their ideological opposites shriek is 'treasonous'

I guess one man's 'treasonous' speech is another's mere opinion. I don't buy the bullcrap like Ari Fleischer said in 2001 that "We all need to watch what we say..." Nonsense.

For some fascinating information on treason and the law, go here.

Having read the linked material, I think the statements, regarded as treason by JMK, do not rise to the standard of the law. Such a broad interpretation would fly in the face of the intentions of the Founding Fathers to restrict treason charges. Similarly, it is stretching it a bit to say that a remark that might make an enemy, upon hearing it, feel good and perhaps be encouraged, is treasonous. By that standard, one could interpret announcing an international soccer victory by an enemy nation in the World Cup as being treasonous. It's just way too broad. Courts do not care for broad interpretations, as a rule, and they are wise to do so because a law that can be turned into a blanket is a law that can be misused and abused easily, which goes precisely to the linked article and the concerns of the Founding Fathers.

In my own case, I view Bush as the worst president in our history and I believe he is lying when he claims to be fighting a war on terrorists and when he pretends to even care about such a war. I question his sincerity and his intentions. I do so out of a concern for America and its future. Furthermore, I consider a statement that "Bush is the world's biggest terrorist" hyperbole, although Bush's actions can be interpreted as meeting the definition of terrorism in the dictionary.

Given the broad interpretation of treason being floated here, when I say, "Bush is America's worst president ever, has failed the US military and harmed it immensely, and is destructive to America and its interests", does that constitute terrorism in the eyes of those who interpret the statute broadly?

Consider yourself reported to the proper authorities, DBK: the FBI, the Justice Dept., Homeland Security and JMK.
What size is your neck?

I prefer a Four-in-Hand if you're referring to neckties. But that's a different thread.

"Given the broad interpretation of treason being floated here, when I say, "Bush is America's worst president ever, has failed the US military and harmed it immensely, and is destructive to America and its interests", does that constitute terrorism in the eyes of those who interpret the statute broadly?" (DBK)


Claiming the current or ANY administration knew about and wanted 9/11 to happen is NOT an "accusation."

Any more than my saying DBK is gay and has Aids, is a mere "accusation."

A false allegation = SLANDER, and it is a felony.

An "accusation" must have some supporting facts ("merit") - since I don't know you I cannot possibly have facts to support or merit such an allegation.

Same with statements that sympathize with the enemy - such things as "Yes, the terrorists are bad, but often we're far worse," is indeed a comfort and is almost certainly meant as a comfort to the enemy via a self-condemnation.

Your opinions about Bush being the worst President, failed the military, etc., etc., ARE NOT nearly the same.

They amount to the same as my saying, "I often disagree with DBK on the issues."

That's NOT a slanderous accusation.

Just as likening the current administration to the Third Reich is NOT a mere "personal opinion," its actually rationalizing anti-American terrorism in the name of fighting a greater evil (the Bush admin)...and that almost certainly "gives aid and comfort to the enemy."

Opposing the war and reviling the Bush administration are far different than making statements that either sympathize or condone attacks by America's enemies. While the former is merely a personal opinion, the latter is as much a felony as is slander...even a more serious one, as such statements are designed to condone the actions of foreign or domestic enemies by comparing them favorably to the current U.S. government.

A false allegation = SLANDER, and it is a felony.
In some countries there are criminal penalties for defamation under some circumstances, but I don't think slander is a felony in the US. You sure about that? Got a cite? My cursory research found nothing to substantiate your claim that slander is a felony.

"Yes, the terrorists are bad, but often we're far worse," is indeed a comfort and is almost certainly meant as a comfort to the enemy via a self-condemnation.
While the notion of "encouragement" may include, to you, "saying things critical of our government", it is, in fact, much more sensibly (I'm applying common sense here, which is honored in the law and relied upon in some cases when a judge must decide "what would a sensible, average sort of person think or do") interpreted as "saying something that spurs the enemy on, such as, 'you go ahead, you're doing great'." Again, anything might "encourage" or "comfort" and enemy, the way you frame it, including the remarks I made and which you excused. You make no material distinction between what I said and what you call treason. More on that later.

Finally, and this is an important point, speech can, in fact, be treasonous but not rise to the legal definition and be prosecutable.

Your opinions about Bush being the worst President, failed the military, etc., etc., ARE NOT nearly the same.
Not at all. They are, by your definition, very much the same. Wouldn't a statement that our military is weaker encourage an enemy? "Encouragement" is part of the legal definition of "comfort". (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a173.htm)

They amount to the same as my saying, "I often disagree with DBK on the issues."
No, they encourage an enemy in the same way as the other statements. There is a world of difference between "I often disagree with how Bush uses the military" and "Bush has done massive harm to our military with his incompetence."

That's NOT a slanderous accusation.
Let's not go any further down the slander road. It isn't germane and I don't think you have a good argument there. Slander is a whole 'nother box of taters.

Just as likening the current administration to the Third Reich is NOT a mere "personal opinion,"
It's an apt comparison.

its actually rationalizing anti-American terrorism in the name of fighting a greater evil (the Bush admin)...and that almost certainly "gives aid and comfort to the enemy."
Um, sadly, no. If my government is in violation of the Constitution and doing grave harm to the American people, it is patriotism to note that and to try to restore the rule of law. It is my patriotic duty to recognize and alert people to dangers from those within the government to our government and way of life.

Treason can only apply to acts that are harmful to the government qua government, not the individuals who compose the government or the things that those individuals do or even the people they govern. In other words, I can commit treason against the state as it is organized and defined by the Constitution, but there must be more to it than merely, for example, attacking American citizens. Attempting or intending to overthrow or otherwise damage the functions of government as they are defined by the Constitution is treason, whether by attempting to overthrow the government directly or through assisting a proxy to do so. Other acts might be criminal, but are not treason. There must be something in the nature of an intention to harm the government within the aid or comfort to an enemy in order for there to be treason. If an enemy takes heart at something you say, but your intent and purpose is to protect the American people and the Constitution, then the aid and comfort to an enemy may be coincidental, like that soccer match to which I referred earlier, but are not treason.

Let's take that analogy further. If the US team plays the Iranian team in the World Cup while we are at war with Iran and the US team loses, that could give a lot of aid and comfort to the Iranians. Do you prosecute the US team for treason? Why not? If you take a very simple view of the law and say that there need be no intent to aid or comfort the enemy, but only that aid and comfort occurred, then you have to prosecute the team. Under the loose definition that you seem to be proposing, a soldier who fails to defeat the enemy, though he may be wounded multiple times and captured, is treasonous because his failure may have given aid and comfort to the enemy. Of course that is absurd, but it fits the definition you propose when you make that definition rely upon a simple view of "aid and comfort". Jane Fonda's actions and statements in Hanoi were treasonous. Me saying, "George Bush is a terrorist and must be stopped" is not treasonous because my intention is to restore the US to its proper function under the Constitution.

I wrote a response but it was so long I don't think it allowed me to post. BNJ?

However, since I only have a moment right now, let me just say...

...slander is a felony? I don't think so. There are criminal penalties for defamation in some countries, but not the US.

> I wrote a response but it was so long I don't think it allowed me to post. BNJ?

I see it here. Twice, in fact.

Eh, the commenting thingie is weird. Sometimes you have to do a hard reload to see what you wrote.

Hey Beavis, he said 'hard reload.' huhuhhhuuhhhuhhh

Heh-heh-m-heh-heh...

As moderator, can you remove the extra comment (the one where I was "Anonymous")? I can do that on Haloscan.

Anyway, I apologize for the double-comment.

I can do all.

Actually the libel (slander) laws vary from state to state and in some states there remain criminal penalties on the books, though it is almost always a Civil tort.

Only since 1964 with the NY Times vs Sullivan decision, has the federal government announced even modest restrictions on state defamation laws.

I believe that case set the generally accepted guideline under which a public figure can claim defamation. The plaintiff (accuser) has to prove not just that the statement was false, but also that it was made with actual malice - that is, with knowledge of its falsity or with a reckless disregard for the truth.

And I believe you're wrong about a person criticizing the war for "weakening the military."

If you, or I, or Pat Buchanan say that, we (1) have no military expertise on which to base that, unless it's General DBK, or Admiral Buchanan...and then those folks may have violated a variety of military codes, if they're still active and (2) can be easily countermanded by an active military commander trumpeting the company line.

No, calling G W Bush "the world's biggest terrorist," OR comparing the current administration to the Third Reich are clearly and demonstrably false statements and even if the person making such statements is too stupid to realize they're obviously false, they're certainly guilty of a "reckless disregard for the truth."

And YES, I firmly believe American citizens saying such things, are in effect, rationalizing terrorism and in that regard supporting an enemy during wartime and that goes far beyond the realm of mere dissent.

"If my government is in violation of the Constitution and doing grave harm to the American people, it is patriotism to note that and to try to restore the rule of law." (DBK)


OK, anyone who holds that this administration has violated the Constitution is an extremist.

In fact, they're extremists unrooted to any reality.

The Patriot Act has withstood court scrutiny.

Thankfully, so have the Military tribunals that some very misguided Leftists in this country inanely opposed on the grounds that "enemy combatants deserved their day in an American court."

Now THAT is an Unconstitutional argument and was shown to be such in a recent SC ruling upholding the tribunals.

An Aussie detainee (Australia's version of "Taliban Johnn") will be among the first so tried.

Find some actual violations of the Constitution for me, will ya?


Just as likening the current administration to the Third Reich is NOT a mere "personal opinion," (JMK)


It's an apt comparison. (DBK)


Well, thanks for demonstrating so clearly that there is no possibility of us finding ANY common ground between us whatsoever.

Of course to make that "apt comparison," I'll need to see the evidence of those extermination camps, the government confiscation of private property (from Arabs/Muslims), the mass deportation or exodus of Arabs/Muslims from America and the shuttering of Mosques, etc.

A comparison is only apt or valid if it can be shown to be a one-to-one comparison.

If anything, the domestic WoT has not gone nearly far enough.

I also believe we here will all live see it go much, much farther...perhaps at some point, so far, that it even becomes somewhat uncomfortable in my own eyes, but that's a long, loooong way off. Not out of sight of course, because I'm pretty sure that just ONE more attack here might just do it - opening the door for some of the above....no, not the extermination camps, but the quarantining of the Arab/Muslim world (no more immigrant s from there), the mass exodus of Arabs/Muslims from America via self-deportation, and much more intrusive domestic security procedures.

The terrorists didn't do anything wrong. After all, they only rammed those jetliners into the WTC towers for a few seconds. They didn't even do it for 19 seconds, and then they died -- the ultimate penalty.

According to you guys, the 9-11 hijackers are heros!

"According to you guys, the 9-11 hijackers are heros!" (BH)


Perhaps this was supposed to be addressed to another thread?

Because no one mentioned the 9/11 hijackers OR al Qaeda in THIS thread.

And rightfully so, since the WoT is NOT about al Qaeda...it's a war against a radicalized and virulently growing form of Ahria-based Islam.

The fact is that al Qaeda and Hezbollah are just two small parts of a much greater whole.

We have nukes and the terrorists don't (yet).

Time to use them.

Start with Mecca and Medina.