[$tinkle]

from wikipedia; sedition:

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, ...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 military or naval forces of the United States,... 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,...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.

ted's speech at hopkins

We have reached the point that a prolonged American military presence in Iraq is no longer productive for either Iraq or the United States. The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The cost is also being paid in shame and stain on America’s good name as a beacon of human rights. Nothing is more at odds with our values as Americans than the torture of another human being. Do you think that any Americans tell their children with pride that America tortures prisoners? Yet, high officials in the Administration in their arrogance strayed so far from our heritage and our belief in fundamental human decency that they approved the use of torture—and they were wrong, deeply wrong, to do that.

The Administration’s willful disregard of the Geneva Conventions led to the torture and flagrant abuse of the prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and that degradation has diminished America in the eyes of the whole world. It has diminished our moral voice on the planet.

it's far beyond "bring the troops home, now!" rhetoric. It gets far worse; keep reading if you have the stomach.

Someone get me a transcript of this bombastic windbag, then i'll get a thin pike set up in front of the hart/dirksen bldg.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I think Ted should just keep on pontificating. It does nothing but further alienate libs from the US mainstream....

 

[$tinkle]

it's unfortunate the sedition act was repealed in 1921.

remember that little dust-up his family started back in the 60's? when we withdrew from there, we didn't see any repercussions did we?

unless of course you were cambodian. Nah, there won't be any tribal squashing on the order of pol-pot. maybe DK can re-release "holiday in cambodia" w/ sunni overtones. That would be a smash!

 

[clancy98]

yeah, hes the best lib spokesperson the conservatives could hope for!

 

[-BB-]

 

[Macrider]

it's unfortunate the sedition act was repealed in 1921.

yeah, I hear you man...too bad that pesky First Amendment can't be repealed once and for all and we can start burning the books and putting the anti-Amercian peace-mongers up against the wall for daring to question our Glorious Leader and his brilliant decision to invade a nation without a good reason

why do so many of the right-wing sound just like the Brownshirts in a certain European country in the mid 1930's?

"Gosh, why can't we bring back the old days and just kill people people who don't think like us?"

 

[$tinkle]

yeah, I hear you man...too bad that pesky First Amendment can't be repealed once and for all and we can start burning the books and putting the anti-Amercian peace-mongers up against the wall for daring to question our Glorious Leader and his brilliant decision to invade a nation without a good reason

you don't even have an idea how troop morale works, do you? uncle ted is an opportunist of the worst degree. If he's so bent on this, why does he stop there? Lesser senators have visited the troops, why doesn't he? Why won't he make this speech in iraq, in front of the troops, with 72 hrs until the first iraqi democratic elections ever?

why do so many of the right-wing sound just like the Brownshirts in a certain European country in the mid 1930's?

worst.
argument.
yet.
ah yes, the old i-don't-really-have-the-facts-in-front-of-me-yet-but-i'm-sure-you're-a-closet-nazi "argument"

"Gosh, why can't we bring back the old days and just kill people people who don't think like us?"

uhhh...these are the good old days, but it's they [muslim extremists] who are killing those who don't think like them; go read any "press release" from the past six months by abu masab al-zarqawi; you could say it's a "blast from the past"

 

[Silver]

Show me the declaration of war before you start talking about sedition...

 

[ummbikes]

Stinkle you are still a two-bit neo-fascist tool.

Ignoranance, stupidity, and power, we are America!

 

[$tinkle]

silver: are we not at war with terrorism, as authorised by congress?

ummbikes: you are still lacking serious substance to assertions. (and a trollwhore)

 

[valve bouncer]

silver: are we not at war with terrorism, as authorised by congress?

ummbikes: you are still lacking serious substance to assertions. (and a trollwhore)

Don't forget the war on drugs and the war on poverty. Therefore poor people who smoke dope must be shot.
BTW, you calling ummbikes a trollwhore is rich in the extreme.

 

[$tinkle]

don't even think for a second i'm party to this notion of a war on drugs.
we have the richest poor in the world, where our poor have color tv's, cell phones, and oh yeah, drugs.

the troll whore comment was a reference to 'bout a year ago; i think that's when you were working on your tan, reading sylvia plath, sipping mint julips

 

[Silver]

silver: are we not at war with terrorism, as authorised by congress?

ummbikes: you are still lacking serious substance to assertions. (and a trollwhore)

Congress has never formally declared war (edit: against Iraq or "terror". They have authorized the President to use force, but that isn't a war declaration.) as far as I know. A vague assertion against an idea does not count.

Otherwise, we could have thrown every Republican into the clink a long time ago (for sedition against the war on poverty, for example.) That's a slippery slope I'd rather not start sliding down.

 

[$tinkle]

Otherwise, we could have thrown every Republican into the clink a long time ago

we'd just vote in zell miller

 

[Macrider]

you don't even have an idea how troop morale works, do you? uncle ted is an opportunist of the worst degree. If he's so bent on this, why does he stop there? Lesser senators have visited the troops, why doesn't he? Why won't he make this speech in iraq, in front of the troops, with 72 hrs until the first iraqi democratic elections ever?worst.
argument.
yet.
ah yes, the old i-don't-really-have-the-facts-in-front-of-me-yet-but-i'm-sure-you're-a-closet-nazi "argument"uhhh...these are the good old days, but it's they [muslim extremists] who are killing those who don't think like them; go read any "press release" from the past six months by abu masab al-zarqawi; you could say it's a "blast from the past"

"troop morale" makes a piss-poor argument for controlling our 1st Amendment protections - and as someone pointed out, we aren't at war, so treason cannot be brought up - you want to state your opinion that you think it was in bad taste etc. - fine, but your argument about treason is completely off the mark

In addition, since there WERE no WMD and there WAS no Saddam-9/11 connection - our troops never needed to be in Iraq - so if they hadn't been sent on false pretenses, we wouldn't have to worry about a lack of up-armored humvees or body armor or illegal stop-gapping or troop morale would we?

and please save the al zarqawi - #1 - his camp was in the no-fly zone and the Pentagon wanted to take him out TWICE before the invasion - it was denied for who-knows why but I suspect to bolster the argument in favor of invasion - and of course, if US troops weren't there (and remember, Iraq poised NO threat to the US) and US civilians weren't there, there would be no Americans for zarqawi to decapitate etc., would there?

 

[$tinkle]

...and as someone pointed out, we aren't at war,

really?

so treason cannot be brought up - you want to state your opinion that you think it was in bad taste etc. - fine, but your argument about treason is completely off the mark

well that's a relief, seeing how i said "sedition", not "treason" (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason)

In addition, since there WERE no WMD

are you sure about that?

and there WAS no Saddam-9/11 connection -

this is a straw man argument (item #3)

our troops never needed to be in Iraq

congress disagrees

- so if they hadn't been sent on false pretenses, we wouldn't have to worry about a lack of up-armored humvees or body armor or illegal stop-gapping or troop morale would we?

ah, yes; the certainty of intell

and please save the al zarqawi - #1 - his camp was in the no-fly zone and the Pentagon wanted to take him out TWICE before the invasion

so now you're saying al-qaeda was in iraq before the invasion???

... (and remember, Iraq poised NO threat to the US)

then why did we have a no-fly zone?
(by the way, he was a building - not eminent - threat; heaps & heaps of congress(wo)men on both sides of the aisle echo this over the past handful of years even before 9/11)

...and US civilians weren't there, there would be no Americans for zarqawi to decapitate etc., would there?

right; he would have just stuck to the iraqis, japanese, nepalese, korean, etc. he already beheaded

 

[Silver]

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11.

We're not at war.

 

[Macrider]

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11.

We're not at war.

BINGO!

Silver gets the prize...btw, this whole "Authorization of Force" is such a farce -the Constitution so clearly keeps the power to wage war out of the hands of the Executive Branch - and yet again and again we have Presidents deciding to commit troops without going through the bother of declaring war...

Silver, great avatar, probably my favorite on RM

 

[Macrider]

really?

well that's a relief, seeing how i said "sedition", not "treason" (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason)are you sure about that?this is a straw man argument (item #3)congress disagreesah, yes; the certainty of intellso now you're saying al-qaeda was in iraq before the invasion???then why did we have a no-fly zone?
(by the way, he was a building - not eminent - threat; heaps & heaps of congress(wo)men on both sides of the aisle echo this over the past handful of years even before 9/11)right; he would have just stuck to the iraqis, japanese, nepalese, korean, etc. he already beheaded

lets see, since our own President has admitted there were NO WMD, yes, I am sure of it "we sure expected them to be there" I belive were his words...

except of course the UN weapons inspectors had been telling us there wasn't anything there...long before we sent troops in
no al zarqawi is NOT al queda - although he NOW appears to have connections - connections that our invasion has encouraged - and since his camp was inside our no-fly zone in the north, it begs the question why the camp wasn't taken out LONG before US troops arrived in-country - we had a no-fly zone in both the north and south of Iraq after the first gulf war because our gov't encouraged the Kurds to rebel as well as the southern Shia - we then abandoned them to Saddam's tender mercies (like we did with the Hmong in Viet Naam) and had to put in the no-fly to keep Saddam from slaughtering those rebels in the north & south

 

[$tinkle]

silver: then you must be posting from your folks' house in canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Iraq_War

 

[Macrider]

silver: then you must be posting from your folks' house in canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Iraq_War

you do know that anyone can enter stuff into wikipedia, right?

 

[Silver]

silver: then you must be posting from your folks' house in canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Iraq_War

You're not understanding...or you're being deliberately difficult.

There has to be a declaration of war for the nation to be at war. An authorization for the president to use force is an end run around the constitution.

Only Congress can legally declare war. And Congress didn't do that.

 

[$tinkle]

except of course the UN weapons inspectors had been telling us there wasn't anything there...long before we sent troops in

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

no al zarqawi is NOT al queda - although he NOW appears to have connections
<snip>

just so i understand your point of view:
we are not authorized to attack terrorists unless one of two conditions is met:
1: they attack us first
2: they have an al-qaeda coming out party

 

[$tinkle]

silver: when there is a "back-door" draft of reservists, when active duty are not allowed to come home after their commitment is up, it sure seems like a war to those involved.

shall we call this a distinction without a difference then?

 

[Silver]

silver: when there is a "back-door" draft of reservists, when active duty are not allowed to come home after their commitment is up, it sure seems like a war to those involved.

shall we call this a distinction without a difference then?

I agree with you, until you get to talking about sedition. That's when the difference starts to become important.

Civil rights are usually curtailed after a war declaration. Which is probably why it hasn't happened since WWII. Vietnam didn't even qualify.