Pat Robertson: Terrorist
RHertz
States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT team
members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
--
Evolution: Making life better for over 4 billion years.
========================================
Bobby D. Bryant
> Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the
> United States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S.
> Department of State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>
> Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
> arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
> threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
> team members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
Maybe the anti-terror legislation has a grandfather clause for previously
established right-wing nutcases.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Steven J.
"RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Zcrib.18345$N94.11243@lakeread02...
> Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
> States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
> State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>
> Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
> arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
> threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
team
> members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
>
(which seems to be the applicable portion of Federal Law -- perhaps one of
the lawyers here will weigh in) , anyone who threatens to "create a
substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying
or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property
within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage
any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the
United States" shall be subject to a sentence up to ten years in prison.
Anyone actually attempting or conspiring to do so shall be subject to, as
far as I can tell, any sentence up to imprisonment for life, without parole.
The trouble, I'd think, would be establishing that saying "If I could just
get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom," and "we should just blow that
up," are either a threat (note that Robertson did not say he actually
intends to do any such thing, or attempt to obtain any policy concessions in
exchange for not doing such a thing), or an attempt to get someone else to
do so. I think that, even given the current climate, it might be difficult
to convince a court (or even a prosecutor) that a general, presumably
hyperbolic assertion that something would be desirable constitutes a
solicitation for someone to actual obtain a nuclear device and plant it at
State Department headquarters, or that you would be arrested if you,
personally, made such comments.
I'm pretty sure I recall, back during the Reagan administration, Nancy
Reagan actually attempting to get a college newspaper columnist (a real
non-fan of her husband) responding to Reagan's landslide by suggesting that
someone should "cancel the ballot with a bullet." She was told that nothing
could be done; this wasn't an actual threat or attempt to solicit an
assasination. ISTM that Robertson's words equally fall short of any actual
attempt or threat.
>
> --
> Evolution: Making life better for over 4 billion years.
> ========================================
>
>
-- Steven J.
Lane Lewis
Free speech and is protected under the First Amendment of the
Constitution. There may be new laws against what Robinson did but they
wouldn't stand up in court. Free speech is our most important right.
Lane
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
AC
RHertz <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote:
> Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
> States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
> State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>
> Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
> arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
> threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT team
> members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
I just love Richard Boucher's statement "I lack sufficient capabilities to
express my disdain." That pretty much sums up my general feelings on Pat
Robertson and his ilk.
I think this a very good opportunity to peer into the mind of a
fundementalist. Here are all the mental mechanics that one will find in the
likes of Osama bin Laden or Dr. Ayman Zawahiri.
--
Aaron Clausen
island
>
> Free speech and is protected under the First Amendment of the
> Constitution.
Not entirely:
For example, eleven member/leaders of Communist Party of the U.S. were
convicted in 1949 for violating the Smith Act, which outlawed groups
teaching and advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/13.html
"The Smith Act of 1940 made it a criminal offense for anyone to
knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty,
necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing the Government of
the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to
organize any association which teaches, advises, or encourages such an
overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any
such association. No case involving pros ecution under this law was
reviewed by the Supreme Court until in Dennis v. United States 6 it
considered the convictions of eleven Communist Party leaders on charges
of conspiracy to violate the advocacy and organizing sections of the
statute."
~
This may be the most recent case involving a guy who did nothing more
than link a bomb making site to his anarchy site.
http://www.sfbayview.com/100803/webmaster100803.shtml
"Sherman was prosecuted under a 1997 law sponsored by Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, which makes it illegal to distribute information related to
explosives with the intent to use that information in a "federal crime
of violence."
The young man who authored the website with the bomb-making instructions
has not been charged with anything, but Sherman is now in federal
prison. The other young man is white and the son of wealthy Orange
County Republicans; Sherman is African American and the son of a single
mother with no property.
The key element in the case against Sherman hinged on the question of
“intent,” and because Sherman’s site espouses anarchism and is critical
of U.S. government policy, police brutality, globalization and racism,
the prosecution and judge maintained that his politics provided grounds
for intent."
~
By the same logic, could George Bush be tried as a traitor for
protecting his buddies the Saudis?
Boikat
"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@@@@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UQzib.100889$eS5....@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Zcrib.18345$N94.11243@lakeread02...
> > Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the
United
> > States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department
of
> > State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
> >
> > Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
> > arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
> > threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
> team
> > members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
> >
> > --
> > Evolution: Making life better for over 4 billion years.
> > ========================================
>
> Free speech and is protected under the First Amendment of the
> Constitution. There may be new laws against what Robinson did but they
> wouldn't stand up in court. Free speech is our most important right.
However, certain things are not covered by the 1st Amendment, like threats
to the president, crying "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, or "I've got a
Bomb" on board a passenger plane. Claiming that Robertson's whimsical
desire to nuke the state department is protected by the first amendment is
amusing. AFAIAC, sure, he can say whatever the hell he want's. And when
his new bunkie in Leavenworth is buttering his arse up, and asks, "What're
you in for, bitch?" Pat can explain to him that he was only joking.
RHertz
not 'movie' in a crowded firehouse), or make libelous statements, or
threaten the life of POTUS, it is illegal to make a terrorist threat.
The U.S.A. Patriot Act, Title 18, U.S.C. Chapter 113B, Section 2332B
makes it illegal to threaten a terrorist act:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2332b.html
I think it would be marvously amusing if Pat Robertson became one of the
first people tried under this law.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Free speech and is protected under the First Amendment of the
> Constitution. There may be new laws against what Robinson did but they
> wouldn't stand up in court.
Didn't you know that courts are now optional when dealing with persons
accused of terrorism?
rich hammett
> "RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Zcrib.18345$N94.11243@lakeread02...
>> Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
>> States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
>> State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>>
>> Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
>> arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
>> threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
> team
>> members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
>>
>> --
>> Evolution: Making life better for over 4 billion years.
>> ========================================
> Free speech and is protected under the First Amendment of the
> Constitution. There may be new laws against what Robinson did but they
> wouldn't stand up in court. Free speech is our most important right.
Try saying the exact same thing in an airport. Heck, try saying
"I hate people who bomb airplanes" in an airport security line.
You may not end up with a conviction, but you will end up missing
your plane.
rich
> Lane
> Amendment I
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the government for a redress of grievances.
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
howard hershey
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:41:47 +0000, Lane Lewis wrote:
>
>
>>Free speech and is protected under the First Amendment of the
>>Constitution. There may be new laws against what Robinson did but they
>>wouldn't stand up in court.
They already have been held up by the courts.
>
> Didn't you know that courts are now optional when dealing with persons
> accused of terrorism?
>
Courts are even optional if you are a U.S. citizen. Unless, perhaps,
you are True American™ like Pat Robertson rather than a dark-skinned
Hispanic muslim like Joseph Padilla. There are, after all, some
Americans who are more equal than other Americans in Ashcroft's America.
maff
> States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
> State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>
> Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
> arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
> threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT team
> members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "RHertz"
<RHer...@cox.rr.com>:
>Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
>States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
>State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>
>Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
>arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
>threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT team
>members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
Ummm...what threat? I see a blowhard talking to another
blowhard about what he thinks might be desirable, but I
don't see any threat. Sort of like, "Damn, wouldn't it be
nice if someone blew away Pat Robertson?". No threat there.
Heartfelt desire, perhaps, but that doesn't constitute a
threat.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by RHertz
From the cited page:
"(2) Treatment of threats, attempts and conspiracies. -
Whoever threatens to commit an offense under
paragraph (1), or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be
punished under subsection (c)."
A definition of "threat" (from AHD) within the meaning of
the Code:
"An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury,
evil, or punishment."
Neither Robertson nor Mowbray threatened to do anything, as
intent to commit was lacking. Although Robertson expressed
approval of such an act this is not (yet) "forbidden
speech". And it's my fervent hope that it never becomes so.
>I think it would be marvously amusing if Pat Robertson became one of the
>first people tried under this law.
Amusing? Perhaps to some. But count me out for laughing;
we're losing enough traditional freedoms in the holy name of
Security for me to see the loss of more as amusing.
Dissident
> "RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Zcrib.18345$N94.11243@lakeread02...
>
>>Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
>>States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
>>State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
>>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>>
>>Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
>>arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
>>threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
>
> team
>
>>members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
>
>
> Constitution. There may be new laws against what Robinson did but they
> wouldn't stand up in court. Free speech is our most important right.
Free speech may be our most important right, but in plain
fact you or I no longer have that right with regards to
statements like the one Pat Robertson made, and I'll be
damned, as a gay man, to stand by and see the government
grant special rights to fundamentalists to engage in
terrorism after all the fundamentalists' whining that equal
rights for my community are somehow "special rights".
Dissident
> The trouble, I'd think, would be establishing that saying "If I could just
> get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom," and "we should just blow that
> up," are either a threat (note that Robertson did not say he actually
> intends to do any such thing, or attempt to obtain any policy concessions in
> exchange for not doing such a thing), or an attempt to get someone else to
> do so. I think that, even given the current climate, it might be difficult
> to convince a court (or even a prosecutor) that a general, presumably
> hyperbolic assertion that something would be desirable constitutes a
> solicitation for someone to actual obtain a nuclear device and plant it at
> State Department headquarters, or that you would be arrested if you,
> personally, made such comments.
>
> I'm pretty sure I recall, back during the Reagan administration, Nancy
> Reagan actually attempting to get a college newspaper columnist (a real
> non-fan of her husband) responding to Reagan's landslide by suggesting that
> someone should "cancel the ballot with a bullet." She was told that nothing
> could be done; this wasn't an actual threat or attempt to solicit an
> assasination. ISTM that Robertson's words equally fall short of any actual
> attempt or threat.
Wasn't a college newspaper columnist questioned and threatened
with federal felony charges for publishing an article calling
on God to "smite" George Bush? Seems to be the same sort of
thing to me. Or perhaps an indirect admission by the
fundelistas in D.C. that they _know_ the putative hitman in
that case is really a non-existent entity.
island
> Bob C.
I would agree with everything that you say, except I would point out
that Pat is a little different than the average you and I, in that he is
in a position to influence people into action in his behalf, regardless
of whether or not there was actually intent that could be attributable
to him.
If Robertson "expressed approval of such an act", then he's right on the
borderline of promoting violence against a government institution.
I'm just sayin... People in a position to motivate the masses have to
be careful about the nature of the Jihad that they call for... or they
might just get what they ask for... and then whose guilty of what?
Glenn
"rich hammett" <bubba...@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:volqetr...@corp.supernews.com...
> In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@@@@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
hämähäkki:
>
> > "RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:Zcrib.18345$N94.11243@lakeread02...
> >> Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
> >> States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
> >> State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> >> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
> >>
> >> Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
> >> arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
> >> threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
> > team
> >> members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Evolution: Making life better for over 4 billion years.
> >> ========================================
>
> > Free speech and is protected under the First Amendment of the
> > Constitution. There may be new laws against what Robinson did but they
> > wouldn't stand up in court. Free speech is our most important right.
>
> Try saying the exact same thing in an airport. Heck, try saying
> "I hate people who bomb airplanes" in an airport security line.
>
> You may not end up with a conviction, but you will end up missing
> your plane.
>
confiscated, as mine were once. Possible weapon there. Of course
writing pens and pencils are ok, as well as are one pound belt buckles on the
end of a long leather belt.
It's not especially that they think you would hijack a plane with fingernail
clippers, but that someone else in the plane might be able to access your bag
and use them against you.
It is reassuring to know that *everything* is being done to protect us.
Also reassuring to know that the majority of evolutionists responding to this
article think Robertson "did" something that should not be allowed.
AC liked Robertson to Bin Laden.
Boikat thinks it was Robertson's "desire" to nuke the State Department.
RHertz thinks Robertson should be charged and convicted based on one article.
Bryant thinks the courts are optional when "dealing" with persons accused of
terrorism
and implicitly acknowledged a double standard.
Hershey thinks that laws against what Robertson said have already been held up
in court.
Dissident claims "you or I no longer have that right with regards to
statements like the one Pat Robertson made."
Only Lane Lewis, Steven J, and Casanova recognized free speech and no stated
intent.
Hammett and maff's positions were not clear.
That's 6 out of 11 as of the last post.
Pip R. Lagenta
<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 05:52:51 +0000 (UTC), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by "RHertz"
><RHer...@cox.rr.com>:
>
>>Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
>>States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
>>State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
>>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>>
>>Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
>>arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
>>threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT team
>>members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
>
>Ummm...what threat? I see a blowhard talking to another
>blowhard about what he thinks might be desirable, but I
>don't see any threat. Sort of like, "Damn, wouldn't it be
>nice if someone blew away Pat Robertson?". No threat there.
>Heartfelt desire, perhaps, but that doesn't constitute a
>threat.
Or like "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" where it matters
to whom you say it.
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
island
> That's 6 out of 11 as of the last post.
HEY!... I posted an hour before you did! Whatsamatta... couldn't figure
out how to categorize my opinion?... join the club... ;)
John Wilkins
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:16:43 +0000 (UTC), Bob Casanova
> <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 05:52:51 +0000 (UTC), the following
> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by "RHertz"
> ><RHer...@cox.rr.com>:
> >
> >>Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
> >>States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
> >>State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> >>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
> >>
> >>Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
> >>arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
> >>threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT team
> >>members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
> >
> >Ummm...what threat? I see a blowhard talking to another
> >blowhard about what he thinks might be desirable, but I
> >don't see any threat. Sort of like, "Damn, wouldn't it be
> >nice if someone blew away Pat Robertson?". No threat there.
> >Heartfelt desire, perhaps, but that doesn't constitute a
> >threat.
>
> Or like "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" where it matters
> to whom you say it.
>
And who says it. If you happen to be a person of influence over those
who expect that if things turn out the way you wish it, you might reward
such favours, then you are partly culpable if someone follows up on it.
Oh, wait, that applies to Pat, doesn't it?
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
Chris Thompson
news:9oGib.1171$Rs4....@news.uswest.net:
Once again, you misrepresent what people say.
>
> AC liked Robertson to Bin Laden.
Indeed, as far as his fundie attitudes. And AC is correct. However, you
plainly imply that AC likens Robertson to OBL in the sense of being a
violent terrorist, and that is misleading.
> Boikat thinks it was Robertson's "desire" to nuke the State
> Department.
And he is correct. Robertson said so.
> RHertz thinks Robertson should be charged and convicted
> based on one article.
Well now, here's an out and out lie. Let's just paste in RHertz's post,
shall we? This is it, in its entirety:
***BEGIN***
But, just as it is illegal to cry 'fire' in a crowded movie house (but
not 'movie' in a crowded firehouse), or make libelous statements, or
threaten the life of POTUS, it is illegal to make a terrorist threat.
The U.S.A. Patriot Act, Title 18, U.S.C. Chapter 113B, Section 2332B
makes it illegal to threaten a terrorist act:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2332b.html
I think it would be marvously amusing if Pat Robertson became one of the
first people tried under this law.
***END***
Note that nowhere does RHertz write *anything* about convictions. RHertz
thinks it would be funny if PR was tried, but so what? I think so too.
Just like I would like to see Rush Limbaugh go to jail for illegal use of
narcotics and suborning his housekeeper to purchase them for him- things
he's admitted to.
> Bryant thinks the courts are optional when
> "dealing" with persons accused of terrorism
> and implicitly acknowledged a double standard.
They are. Why are so many people being held indefinitely without trial?
These people are being held without een being *charged*. And there are US
citizens among that number. Asscraft et al. have seemingly dispensed with
the constitutional rights of anyone they dislike.
> Hershey thinks that laws against what Robertson said have already been
> held up in court.
Sheesh, what's with you? These things you're writing bear no resemblance
to your original derisive statements. The laws HAVE been upheld in court-
they were challenged on constitutional grounds but the challenge was
rejected. So what?
> Dissident claims "you or I no longer have that right with regards to
> statements like the one Pat Robertson made."
Now there's one that's at least open to debate. I suggest you go on a
White House tour and say something like, "Someone ought to put a bomb right
under that dresser" and see whether your free speech is up to the task.
Glenn, you're still a miserable specimen.
But I have to ask....made much with your dowsing services recently?
Chris
catshark
<sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>"RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:Zcrib.18345$N94.11243@lakeread02...
>> Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
>> States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
>> State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>>
>> Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
>> arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
>> threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
>team
>> members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
>>
>Well, according to Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B of the United States Code
>(which seems to be the applicable portion of Federal Law -- perhaps one of
>the lawyers here will weigh in) , anyone who threatens to "create a
>substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying
>or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property
>within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage
>any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the
>United States" shall be subject to a sentence up to ten years in prison.
>Anyone actually attempting or conspiring to do so shall be subject to, as
>far as I can tell, any sentence up to imprisonment for life, without parole.
This would probably be closer (sections on terrorism):
TITLE 18 -
CHAPTER 41 - Section 875. Interstate communications
(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce
any communication containing any threat to kidnap
any person or any threat to injure the person of
another, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>
>The trouble, I'd think, would be establishing that saying "If I could just
>get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom," and "we should just blow that
>up," are either a threat (note that Robertson did not say he actually
>intends to do any such thing, or attempt to obtain any policy concessions in
>exchange for not doing such a thing), or an attempt to get someone else to
>do so. I think that, even given the current climate, it might be difficult
>to convince a court (or even a prosecutor) that a general, presumably
>hyperbolic assertion that something would be desirable constitutes a
>solicitation for someone to actual obtain a nuclear device and plant it at
>State Department headquarters, or that you would be arrested if you,
>personally, made such comments.
Yes, I'd agree. However, do *not* think you can joke around at an airport!
If you are in the immediate vicinity of a potential target and just say
"there is a bomb on the plane" or "Hijack" (or even "Hi, Jack"), you not
only can, but will, be prosecuted. If Robertson had said it standing
outside Foggy Bottom, it might well be a different result.
[...]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.
- Robert Carroll -
RHertz
Thanks.
It would be amusing to see Robertson *tried* under this statute, not
because necessarily because Robertson might face the chance of jail
time, but rather, it would be the ultimate test of the Patriot Act, and
it would probably whither under such scrutiny.
I would also submit that if it is illegal for someone who, say, is
Muslim, fundamentalist, but has not committed some other crime, has a
nationally syndicated talk show that is popular amoung other
fundmentalist Muslims, to make such a statement, it is also illegal for
PR to make such a statement. There can be no double standard, a threat
is a threat is a threat, and we will see whether JA's DOJ treats PR with
the same courtesy they would a fundmentalist Muslim. If not, it is
serious malfeasence on the part of JA.
Lane Lewis
"Dissident" <qq...@7600.net> wrote in message
news:3F8B1DE0...@7600.net...
What might be interesting is that if they don't prosecute him anyone
else would have to be released under equal protection of the law. Assuming
that the patriot act did make what Robinson said illegal and it stood up in
court. (highly doubtful on both counts).
Lane
AC
I think the most important one, and the one that a responsible media should
ask, is what if it was a Mullah that had made that statement. Robertson is
on the "right side", by which I mean, he's closely aligned with groups who
seem to have an important voice in the White House. If it was some American
Islamic leader who said that the State Department should be nuked, I suspect
the reaction would be swift and decisive.
--
Aaron Clausen
Glenn
"Chris Thompson" <rockw...@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9413D34C0C075r...@199.184.165.240...
>
> >
> > AC liked Robertson to Bin Laden.
>
> Indeed, as far as his fundie attitudes. And AC is correct. However, you
> plainly imply that AC likens Robertson to OBL in the sense of being a
> violent terrorist, and that is misleading.
Yes, it may have been misleading for AC to have made that comment
in a post that concerned what Robertson said.
>
> > Boikat thinks it was Robertson's "desire" to nuke the State
> > Department.
>
> And he is correct. Robertson said so.
>
Stop right there. Robertson said that after reading a book that you are left
thinking the answer is to get a bomb into the State Department and blow it up.
The above is not the same as advocating or having a desire to do such a thing.
He asked the author for his opinion if it was as bad as the book seemed to
make it out to be, and the author said it was. I don't see Robertson saying that
it is as bad as the book makes it out to be.
The reason why I snipped the rest of your post and don't usually read your
posts is because we differ radically in comprehension skills.
Now go for the personal attacks here_______________.
snip rest
Glenn
"RHertz" <Rhe...@nospamcox.net> wrote in message
news:VVIib.19804$N94.14829@lakeread02...
> Chris Thompson wrote:
snip
> >
> >>RHertz thinks Robertson should be charged and convicted
> >>based on one article.
> >
> >
> > Well now, here's an out and out lie. Let's just paste in RHertz's post,
> > shall we? This is it, in its entirety:
Oops. Both Thompson and RHertz missed this one, in its entirety:
"Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT team
members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?"
Note that RHerz does write something about convictions.
He thinks there is a double standard, that if "you or I" did *it*, they would
find SWAT teams storming through their doors.
Glenn
"island" <isl...@sundial.net> wrote in message
news:3F8B2C04...@sundial.net...
least, he did not express approval of such an act. He expressed what
the book left him thinking, perhaps what he thought was the authors
intent of the conclusion.
I'm not a follower of his, and I agree that people with access to the media
as he does should be careful what they say, but what we think people should
say and free speech are very often in conflict.
Giving anone the power to decide what people can say and what they can't
seems to me to be one of, if not the greatest threats to the country - to any
country.
RHertz
"Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:daKib.1193$Rs4....@news.uswest.net...
>
> "RHertz" <Rhe...@nospamcox.net> wrote in message
> news:VVIib.19804$N94.14829@lakeread02...
> > Chris Thompson wrote:
> snip
> > >
> > >>RHertz thinks Robertson should be charged and convicted
> > >>based on one article.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well now, here's an out and out lie. Let's just paste in RHertz's
post,
> > > shall we? This is it, in its entirety:
>
> Oops. Both Thompson and RHertz missed this one, in its entirety:
>
> "Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
> arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
> threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
team
> members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?"
>
> Note that RHerz does write something about convictions.
A person "facing" a lengthy prison sentence could be, in context, on trial,
for that crime. "Joe Blow is facing thirty years at his trial for mopery
with intent to creep." That's the way I meant it.
However, if a person isn't in danger of being convicted, why try them? So
perhaps I did mean to have him convicted. What I really want to try is the
Patriot Act and any double standard the DOJ might have about who they persue
in the war on terrorism. As to whether PR actually had intent to nuke Foggy
Bottom, or to encourage the same, well, let's have a jury decide, shall we?
--
Evolution: Making life better for over 4 billion years.
========================================
Stanley Friesen
>I just love Richard Boucher's statement "I lack sufficient capabilities to
>express my disdain." That pretty much sums up my general feelings on Pat
>Robertson and his ilk.
>
>I think this a very good opportunity to peer into the mind of a
>fundementalist.
Pat is *beyond* merely Fundamentalist. He makes most Fundies look
moderate.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Glenn
And even if I thought it was necessary to try Robertson, or anyone, I would
not gain amusement from it.
Perhaps anyone that thinks or says to himself that Robertson has intent to blow
up
the State Department based on that article, should be arrested,
charged and tried for making false accusations.
Notice "think" or "says to himself" and "article".
From your referenced article:
"I read your book. When you get through, you say (to yourself): 'If I could just
get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom (the State Department's main building),
I think that's the answer' and you say: 'We've got to blow that thing up.' I
mean, is it as bad as you say?" Robertson said."
Now, are things as bad as you say?
snip
Stanley Friesen
>
>AC likened Robertson to Bin Laden.
I have seen the similarity for quite some time, and not dependent on any
recent alleged statements of his. Pat is, and long has been, a
hate-monger and demagog.
>Boikat thinks it was Robertson's "desire" to nuke the State Department.
>RHertz thinks Robertson should be charged and convicted based on one article.
>Bryant thinks the courts are optional when "dealing" with persons accused of
>terrorism
On this is he is in fact correct. The Patriot Act authorizes holding
suspected terrorists in jail indefinitely without any court hearing at
all, not even the otherwise necessary Habeas Corpus.
I do not think it was wise to give Ashcroft this power, as he has shown
himself capable of misusing it. But my opinion of the law does not
change the *content* of it, nor the fact that it is actually
constitutional (as much as I would wish otherwise).
>and implicitly acknowledged a double standard.
>Hershey thinks that laws against what Robertson said have already been held up
>in court.
The recent Robertson statement is ambiguous, and probably does not fall
within the scope of the laws currently on the books. But the
prohibitions against terrorist threats *have* indeed held up in court.
Again, noting this *fact* does not mean I *approve* of it.
Stanley Friesen
>I would also submit that if it is illegal for someone who, say, is
>Muslim, fundamentalist, but has not committed some other crime, has a
>nationally syndicated talk show that is popular amoung other
>fundmentalist Muslims, to make such a statement, it is also illegal for
>PR to make such a statement. There can be no double standard, a threat
>is a threat is a threat, and we will see whether JA's DOJ treats PR with
>the same courtesy they would a fundmentalist Muslim. If not, it is
>serious malfeasence on the part of JA.
And malfeasance by JA would be surprising, how?
Would it even be new?
Stanley Friesen
>However, if a person isn't in danger of being convicted, why try them? So
>perhaps I did mean to have him convicted. What I really want to try is the
>Patriot Act and any double standard the DOJ might have about who they persue
>in the war on terrorism.
Unfortunately, the Patriot Act, as it stands, appears to be perfectly
constitutional. The key clause in the Constitution reads:
Article I, Section 9:
" The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public
Safety may require it"
As you can see, there is an escape clause here, which the Patriot Act
just *barely* meets (unfortunately).
Dale
> Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
> States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
> State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>
> arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
> threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
team
> members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
The Department of Homeland Security Threat Advisory
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/ remains - Yellow: Elevated: Significant Risk
of Terrorist Attacks.
John Wilkins
I agree with Glenn in this instance - Patters is just being careless,
musing on a possible interpretation. It's irresponsible and
inflammatory, but not a direct call to action. On the other hand, if a
Muslim cleric had said that, would that cleric have been left
unarrested?
Dale
Well, it's more a recognition that Robertson is being given a pass, where
anyone else would have ended up in a federal prison for saying something
like that. In other words, I think most people who are taking Robertson to
task about this are for free speech, but they figure as long as it's being
taken away, we should take it away equally. There's also a great deal of
resentment in that fact that it is people like Robertson, i.e., John
Ashcroft, who are taking away our freedoms, who are now seen to be even more
hypocritical because they allow one of their own to say things they would
never allow anyone else to say.
Glenn
"Stanley Friesen" <sar...@friesen.net> wrote in message
news:ei1novc8aumv467h2...@4ax.com...
> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
> >
> >AC likened Robertson to Bin Laden.
>
> I have seen the similarity for quite some time, and not dependent on any
> recent alleged statements of his. Pat is, and long has been, a
> hate-monger and demagog.
I'm rather surprised that you would say this. Bin Laden has actively committed
crimes against humanity. Would you liken Pat Robertson to Hitler also??
>
> >Boikat thinks it was Robertson's "desire" to nuke the State Department.
> >RHertz thinks Robertson should be charged and convicted based on one article.
> >Bryant thinks the courts are optional when "dealing" with persons accused of
> >terrorism
>
> On this is he is in fact correct. The Patriot Act authorizes holding
> suspected terrorists in jail indefinitely without any court hearing at
> all, not even the otherwise necessary Habeas Corpus.
Yes, still they have some rights. "Dealing" with people can include
apprehension,
but would seem to be more of a term for disposing of, or convicting, a person,
rather than not just holding them.
I don't think the intent of the Patriot Act is to "deal" with people by holding
them.
Do you have a reference showing that by the Patriot Act, a person can be held
indefinitely without any further action?
>
> I do not think it was wise to give Ashcroft this power, as he has shown
> himself capable of misusing it. But my opinion of the law does not
> change the *content* of it, nor the fact that it is actually
> constitutional (as much as I would wish otherwise).
Constitutional? That is interesting.
>
> >and implicitly acknowledged a double standard.
> >Hershey thinks that laws against what Robertson said have already been held
up
> >in court.
>
> The recent Robertson statement is ambiguous, and probably does not fall
> within the scope of the laws currently on the books. But the
> prohibitions against terrorist threats *have* indeed held up in court.
>
> Again, noting this *fact* does not mean I *approve* of it.
Understood.
Mike Dworetsky
"RHertz" <Rhe...@nospamcox.net> wrote in message
news:zuAib.19464$N94.3638@lakeread02...
> Lane Lewis wrote:
> >
> > Amendment I
> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech,
> > or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to
> > petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> >
> But, just as it is illegal to cry 'fire' in a crowded movie house (but
> not 'movie' in a crowded firehouse), or make libelous statements, or
> threaten the life of POTUS, it is illegal to make a terrorist threat.
> The U.S.A. Patriot Act, Title 18, U.S.C. Chapter 113B, Section 2332B
> makes it illegal to threaten a terrorist act:
>
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2332b.html
>
> I think it would be marvously amusing if Pat Robertson became one of the
> first people tried under this law.
>
It is illegal to cry, "Fire!" FALSELY in a crowded theatre. If the place is
actually on fire, warning others in order that they may escape is not
illegal. Starting a panic when there is no fire would not involve protected
free speech under the US Constitution (according to the famous example).
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Glenn
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1g2tt1a.15ritbm1t0liuoN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
Are there no good Muslim clerics?
Robertson has always struck me as not able to think about what
he is going to say before he blurts it out, and has all the luck of
road kill about what does come out.
But I imagine that the government is familiar with Robertson's activities...
There is some difference between one who aspired to be President
and a Muslim cleric.
Jim Heckman
On 13-Oct-2003, Stanley Friesen <sar...@friesen.net> wrote
in message <a62novggpu9vs0lmh...@4ax.com>:
[...]
> Unfortunately, the Patriot Act, as it stands, appears to be perfectly
> constitutional. The key clause in the Constitution reads:
> Article I, Section 9:
> " The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
> suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public
> Safety may require it"
>
> As you can see, there is an escape clause here, which the Patriot Act
> just *barely* meets (unfortunately).
I'm curious as to which case you think currently applies,
rebellion or invasion, and also why you think public safety
requires suspension of habeas corpus. It's certainly not clear
to me that suspension of h. c. under the provisions of the
Patriot Act even *promotes* public safety.
--
Jim Heckman
C. Thompson
It isn't a personal attack to say you're lying when you are.
Here's Robertson's take on things:
***BEGIN***
"I read your book," Robertson said. "When you get through, you say, 'If I
could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the
answer,' and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up.' I mean, is it as
bad as you say?" Robertson said.
"It is," Mowbray said, although his book never suggests that the State
Department should be blown up with a nuclear device.
Foggy Bottom is the nickname for the State Department's Washington
headquarters.
In a June interview with Mowbray on the "700 Club", Robertson made similar
remarks.
"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things
up like Newt Gingrich wants to do," he said.
***END***
The above was taken from CNN's site:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/09/robertson.state/index.html
So yes, PR is advocating the destruction of the State Department. What part
of "We've got to blow that thing up" is unclear to you?
Is he plotting to do it? Or expressing intent? No, but then no one said he
was.
There might be a difference in our comprehension skills, but I don't think
it's that great, and with a little bit of work you can probably fix the
issue. However, you just have to get over this lying business.
Chris
C. Thompson
I have to disagree. Read his comments at:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/09/robertson.state/index.html
He is expressing a clear desire to destroy the state department. It isn't
an interpretation of someone else's words.
He read a purportedly nonfiction work by Joel Mowbray, and this was his way
of expressing his desire to fix things at the State Dept.
Chris
C. Thompson
What has that got to do with anything?
>
> Robertson has always struck me as not able to think about what
> he is going to say before he blurts it out, and has all the luck of
> road kill about what does come out.
> But I imagine that the government is familiar with Robertson's
> activities... There is some difference between one who aspired to be
> President and a Muslim cleric.
Ah, so the political aspirations are what's important. Or the amount of
power and the powerful friends you accrue.
To my mind, a dangerous kook is a dangerous kook, no matter his politics.
Hell, we got one as president as I write this.
Chris
TomS
<bmgmro$a9m$1...@pat.cis.cuny.edu>, C. Thompson stated..."
[...snip...]
>I have to disagree. Read his comments at:
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/09/robertson.state/index.html
>
>He is expressing a clear desire to destroy the state department. It isn't
>an interpretation of someone else's words.
>
>He read a purportedly nonfiction work by Joel Mowbray, and this was his way
>of expressing his desire to fix things at the State Dept.
There is a more recent statement from CBN:
<http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/031013d.asp>
This clarifies that Mobray did not say that the State Department should
be "nuked".
Matt Silberstein
<sar...@friesen.net>:
Nope. If it did not work in the Civil War it will not work now.
Matt Silberstein
<glenns...@spamqwest.net>:
>
>"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:1g2tt1a.15ritbm1t0liuoN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
[snip]
>> I agree with Glenn in this instance - Patters is just being careless,
>> musing on a possible interpretation. It's irresponsible and
>> inflammatory, but not a direct call to action. On the other hand, if a
>> Muslim cleric had said that, would that cleric have been left
>> unarrested?
>
>Are there no good Muslim clerics?
Sure there are. Now how about responding to the question rather
than avoiding it. Do you think that a Muslim cleric would be
treated differently for the same statements than Robertson?
>Robertson has always struck me as not able to think about what
>he is going to say before he blurts it out, and has all the luck of
>road kill about what does come out.
Funny, I think he thinks this stuff through very carefully. He
always looks like he is reading a script. (He also looks like he
has Parkinson's or something like it).
>But I imagine that the government is familiar with Robertson's activities...
>There is some difference between one who aspired to be President
>and a Muslim cleric.
Yeah, one has shown more willingness to put political views into
operation. (OTOH Robertson has also shown a lack of willingness
to face personal danger so that may work in his defense.)
Matt Silberstein
<glenns...@spamqwest.net>:
>
>"Stanley Friesen" <sar...@friesen.net> wrote in message
>news:ei1novc8aumv467h2...@4ax.com...
>> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >AC likened Robertson to Bin Laden.
>>
>> I have seen the similarity for quite some time, and not dependent on any
>> recent alleged statements of his. Pat is, and long has been, a
>> hate-monger and demagog.
>
>I'm rather surprised that you would say this. Bin Laden has actively committed
>crimes against humanity. Would you liken Pat Robertson to Hitler also??
Crimes against humanity? How so? Sure, it was wrong to target
civilians, but there are plenty of people who do that. Do not
confuse targeting civilians with planning and executing genocide.
Yes, Robertson is similar to Bin Laden in many ways. Since he has
some much personal and political power in the U.S. he does not
turn to violence as his mechanism. But both tend to dehumanize
their enemies, they promote a combination of politics and
religion I find dangerous, and both show no notion that others
might have worthwhile views. I have to admit a problem though. I
know Robertson's views from his own mouth, Bin Laden might not be
as bad as he is portrayed in the U.S. press.
>> >Boikat thinks it was Robertson's "desire" to nuke the State Department.
>> >RHertz thinks Robertson should be charged and convicted based on one article.
>> >Bryant thinks the courts are optional when "dealing" with persons accused of
>> >terrorism
>>
>> On this is he is in fact correct. The Patriot Act authorizes holding
>> suspected terrorists in jail indefinitely without any court hearing at
>> all, not even the otherwise necessary Habeas Corpus.
>
>Yes, still they have some rights. "Dealing" with people can include
>apprehension,
>but would seem to be more of a term for disposing of, or convicting, a person,
>rather than not just holding them.
>I don't think the intent of the Patriot Act is to "deal" with people by holding
>them.
>Do you have a reference showing that by the Patriot Act, a person can be held
>indefinitely without any further action?
Glen, this is mind boggling. Do you not know that they are
actually doing this even as we speak? There are American citizens
held by the American government without the right to see a
lawyer, know the charges against them, or have a clue about what
might happen to them. Whether or not this is because of the
Patriot Act is rather irrelevant. It is terrifying. Check out the
recent Red Cross report for a piece of the story.
>
>> I do not think it was wise to give Ashcroft this power, as he has shown
>> himself capable of misusing it. But my opinion of the law does not
>> change the *content* of it, nor the fact that it is actually
>> constitutional (as much as I would wish otherwise).
>
>Constitutional? That is interesting.
Constitutional during times of fear is not the same as
constitutional during other times.
Stanley Friesen
>
>"Stanley Friesen" <sar...@friesen.net> wrote in message
>news:ei1novc8aumv467h2...@4ax.com...
>> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >AC likened Robertson to Bin Laden.
>>
>> I have seen the similarity for quite some time, and not dependent on any
>> recent alleged statements of his. Pat is, and long has been, a
>> hate-monger and demagog.
>
>I'm rather surprised that you would say this. Bin Laden has actively committed
>crimes against humanity. Would you liken Pat Robertson to Hitler also??
No, Hitler wasn't a *religious* fanatic. Pat has been involved in
dubious and hurtful activities done in God's name since *long* before
anybody in the USA ever even *heard* of bin Laden. [OK, so Pat is more
like the Ayatollah than like bin Laden].
>> On this is he is in fact correct. The Patriot Act authorizes holding
>> suspected terrorists in jail indefinitely without any court hearing at
>> all, not even the otherwise necessary Habeas Corpus.
>
>Yes, still they have some rights. "Dealing" with people can include
>apprehension,
Very few. Those held under the Patriot Act have no access to lawyers or
relatives - they are held incommunicado.
>but would seem to be more of a term for disposing of, or convicting, a person,
>rather than not just holding them.
>I don't think the intent of the Patriot Act is to "deal" with people by holding
>them.
Actually, it is. Its purpose in this clause is to take potential
terrorists out of circulation so they can not even *plan* terrorist
activities any longer. Also, a person being held with no other human
contact is more likely to break down under questioning, making it easier
to extract information. No attempt whatever need be made to charge them
with a crime - merely having Ashcroft assert they are a terrorist threat
is sufficient.
>Do you have a reference showing that by the Patriot Act, a person can be held
>indefinitely without any further action?
Why not read the act itself - it is public domain. Or any of the news
magazine articles on people being held under the act.
>>
>> I do not think it was wise to give Ashcroft this power, as he has shown
>> himself capable of misusing it. But my opinion of the law does not
>> change the *content* of it, nor the fact that it is actually
>> constitutional (as much as I would wish otherwise).
>
>Constitutional? That is interesting.
Yes - in another post I even cite the clause in the constitution that
makes it so. Essentially, there is an exception in the Constitution
regarding the Writ of Habeas Corpus for times of war. To the extent
that we really are at war with terrorists, the law is constitutional.
Admittedly this is a marginal justification in this case - but it is
still valid.
Stanley Friesen
>
>"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:1g2tt1a.15ritbm1t0liuoN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
>> musing on a possible interpretation. It's irresponsible and
>> inflammatory, but not a direct call to action. On the other hand, if a
>> Muslim cleric had said that, would that cleric have been left
>> unarrested?
>
>Are there no good Muslim clerics?
>
the fact that the government is patently applying a double standard
here. (Actually, not just the government - I suspect that if it had
been a Muslim cleric it would have been front-page news in all the
newspapers).
>There is some difference between one who aspired to be President
>and a Muslim cleric.
>
Just that one is closer to the US mainstream, and is more familiar to
most US citizens.
[Actually, I suspect most Muslim clerics in the USA are less radical
than Pat Robertson as well].
If Pat actually *were* elected President, I would leave the USA before
he was sworn in.
Stanley Friesen
>
>On 13-Oct-2003, Stanley Friesen <sar...@friesen.net> wrote
>in message <a62novggpu9vs0lmh...@4ax.com>:
>>
>> just *barely* meets (unfortunately).
>
>I'm curious as to which case you think currently applies,
>rebellion or invasion, and also why you think public safety
>requires suspension of habeas corpus.
*I* don't think so, that is what the Constitution says.
As to the first question: I suspect that the phrasing was intended as a
general cover for a state of war, certainly the Supreme Court is likely
to view it that way. From the very beginning our opposition to the
terrorists has been treated as a war by both the government and the
press. However, in a technical sense it could be construed as an
invasion, since the persons involved entered the country for the purpose
of performing those acts.
>It's certainly not clear
>to me that suspension of h. c. under the provisions of the
>Patriot Act even *promotes* public safety.
I agree, but I am not sure that actually effects the constitutionality
of the law. The argument for its current form is that a terrorist could
continue to plan terrorist activity even in prison by using their lawyer
as a contact. This is probably sufficient to make it constitutional,
even if it is dubious in practice.
Stanley Friesen
>"RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
>> Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
>> arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
>> threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
>team
>> members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
>
>The Department of Homeland Security Threat Advisory
>http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/ remains - Yellow: Elevated: Significant Risk
>of Terrorist Attacks.
>
This doesn't justify a double standard. Not all terrorists are
necessarily foreign nationals.
Stanley Friesen
>>As you can see, there is an escape clause here, which the Patriot Act
>>just *barely* meets (unfortunately).
>
>Nope. If it did not work in the Civil War it will not work now.
>
War? This surprises me.
However, it *was* accepted during WW II with regard to the Japanese
internments, so the precedents go both ways.
C. Thompson
> "island" <isl...@sundial.net> wrote in message
> news:3F8B2C04...@sundial.net...
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:39:06 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by RHertz
>>> <Rhe...@nospamcox.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against
>>>>>> the United States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in
>>>>>> the U.S. Department of State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
>>>>>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> kook be arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison
>>>>>> sentence for this threat? If you or I did it, don't you think
>>>>>> that ninja-outfitted SWAT
>>>>>
>>>>> team
>>>>>
>>>>>> members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evolution: Making life better for over 4 billion years.
>>>>>> ========================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Free speech and is protected under the First Amendment of the
>>>>> Constitution. There may be new laws against what Robinson did but
>>>>> they wouldn't stand up in court. Free speech is our most
>>>>> important right.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Amendment I
>>>>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>>>>> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
>>>>> the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
>>>>> people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
>>>>> a redress of grievances.
>>>>>
>>>> But, just as it is illegal to cry 'fire' in a crowded movie house
>>>> (but not 'movie' in a crowded firehouse), or make libelous
>>>> statements, or threaten the life of POTUS, it is illegal to make a
>>>> terrorist threat. The U.S.A. Patriot Act, Title 18, U.S.C. Chapter
>>>>
>>>> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2332b.html
>>>
>>> From the cited page:
>>>
>>> "(2) Treatment of threats, attempts and conspiracies. -
>>>
>>> Whoever threatens to commit an offense under
>>> paragraph (1), or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be
>>> punished under subsection (c)."
>>>
>>> A definition of "threat" (from AHD) within the meaning of
>>> the Code:
>>>
>>> "An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury,
>>> evil, or punishment."
>>>
>>> Neither Robertson nor Mowbray threatened to do anything, as
>>> intent to commit was lacking. Although Robertson expressed
>>> approval of such an act this is not (yet) "forbidden
>>> speech". And it's my fervent hope that it never becomes so.
>>>
>>>> I think it would be marvously amusing if Pat Robertson became one
>>>> of the first people tried under this law.
>>>
>>> we're losing enough traditional freedoms in the holy name of
>>> Security for me to see the loss of more as amusing.
>>
>>> Bob C.
>>
>> I would agree with everything that you say, except I would point out
>> that Pat is a little different than the average you and I, in that
>> he is in a position to influence people into action in his behalf,
>> regardless of whether or not there was actually intent that could be
>> attributable to him.
>>
>> If Robertson "expressed approval of such an act", then he's right on
>> the borderline of promoting violence against a government
>> institution.
>>
>> I'm just sayin... People in a position to motivate the masses have
>> to be careful about the nature of the Jihad that they call for... or
>> they might just get what they ask for... and then whose guilty of
>> what?
>>
> I agree. Fortunately for Robertson, from what I gather from the
> article at least, he did not express approval of such an act. He
> expressed what the book left him thinking, perhaps what he thought
> was the authors intent of the conclusion.
(snip)
Oh Glenn. Oh my. In another post in this thread you imply that I have
comprehension problems.
Let's take another look at what ole Pat said, and the context in which he
said it.
Sorry to be repetitive, but I think it takes a few whacks before things sink
into Glenn's....um, cephalothorax?
***BEGIN***
Introducing Mowbray on his show, Robertson said that a reader of his book
could conclude that the State Department needed a nuclear explosion.
"I read your book," Robertson said. "When you get through, you say, 'If I
could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the
answer,' and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up.' I mean, is it as
bad as you say?" Robertson said.
"It is," Mowbray said, although his book never suggests that the State
Department should be blown up with a nuclear device.
Foggy Bottom is the nickname for the State Department's Washington
headquarters.
In a June interview with Mowbray on the "700 Club", Robertson made similar
remarks.
"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things
up like Newt Gingrich wants to do," he said.
***END***
The meaning is perfectly clear. After reading Mowbrey's book, what he read
made him desire the destruction of the state department. Whether you agree
with Mowbry or not (and Mowbry neither agreed nor disagreed with PR on the
show) the June remark of Robertson's makes it quite clear that's what he
wants.
Um, comprehension problems?
Chris
Dale
AC
Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
> "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1g2tt1a.15ritbm1t0liuoN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
>>
>> musing on a possible interpretation. It's irresponsible and
>> inflammatory, but not a direct call to action. On the other hand, if a
>> Muslim cleric had said that, would that cleric have been left
>> unarrested?
>
> Are there no good Muslim clerics?
Some of the Muslim leaders I've seen in interviews seem very thoughtful, and
very aware of the difficult position that bin Laden and al Qaeda have put
them in.
>
> Robertson has always struck me as not able to think about what
> he is going to say before he blurts it out, and has all the luck of
> road kill about what does come out.
> But I imagine that the government is familiar with Robertson's activities...
> There is some difference between one who aspired to be President
> and a Muslim cleric.
I'm sure the government has probably made itself very familiar with what
Muslim clerics, particularly those that are held with the same import in the
Islamic community as Robertson is held in the Fundementalist camp.
Other than some angry noises from the State Department, nothing will happen
to Robertson because he is part of the establishment. I doubt we can say
the same of any Muslim religious leader in the United States that was
equally vocal. Then again, I get the impression that many Muslims feel
rather threatened in the land of freedom.
Robertson is on the winning side here. He has nothing to fear, even if he
does make these sorts of stupid comments.
--
Aaron Clausen
Richard Uhrich
Ex Parte Milligan on Habeas Corpus:
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people
equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection
all classes of men at all times and under all circumstances."
--
Richard Uhrich
---
"so skeptical, I can hardly believe it" -- Penn Jillette quoting Chip Denman
eflorack
> Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
> States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
> State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>
> arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
> threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT team
> members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
Double standard, you say?
Interesting.
Let's see... the left is very upset at Pat Robertson talking
euphemisticly about bombing the State Dept, (because it would be a
terrorist act, the loss of life and so on).....
....and yet but the left doesn't seem to have any problem with and
actively supports the rights of people saying 'Americans got what they
desrved on 9/11'...(when terrorists killed around 3000 of our people)
?
Hmmm.
Ken Shaw
"Dissident" <qq...@7600.net> wrote in message news:3F8B1C7...@7600.net...
> Steven J. wrote:
> > The trouble, I'd think, would be establishing that saying "If I could
just
> > get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom," and "we should just blow that
> > up," are either a threat (note that Robertson did not say he actually
> > intends to do any such thing, or attempt to obtain any policy
concessions in
> > exchange for not doing such a thing), or an attempt to get someone else
to
> > do so. I think that, even given the current climate, it might be
difficult
> > to convince a court (or even a prosecutor) that a general, presumably
> > hyperbolic assertion that something would be desirable constitutes a
> > solicitation for someone to actual obtain a nuclear device and plant it
at
> > State Department headquarters, or that you would be arrested if you,
> > personally, made such comments.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure I recall, back during the Reagan administration, Nancy
> > Reagan actually attempting to get a college newspaper columnist (a real
> > non-fan of her husband) responding to Reagan's landslide by suggesting
that
> > someone should "cancel the ballot with a bullet." She was told that
nothing
> > could be done; this wasn't an actual threat or attempt to solicit an
> > assasination. ISTM that Robertson's words equally fall short of any
actual
> > attempt or threat.
>
> Wasn't a college newspaper columnist questioned and threatened
> with federal felony charges for publishing an article calling
> on God to "smite" George Bush? Seems to be the same sort of
> thing to me. Or perhaps an indirect admission by the
> fundelistas in D.C. that they _know_ the putative hitman in
> that case is really a non-existent entity.
>
The Secret Service investigates any threat against the president that comes
to their attention. Even that sort of statement in college newspaper is
likely to draw their wrath.
Ken
Marc Carter
> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Stanley Friesen" <sar...@friesen.net> wrote in message
>>news:ei1novc8aumv467h2...@4ax.com...
[snip]
>>> I do not think it was wise to give Ashcroft this power, as he has shown
>>> himself capable of misusing it. But my opinion of the law does not
>>> change the *content* of it, nor the fact that it is actually
>>> constitutional (as much as I would wish otherwise).
>>
>>Constitutional? That is interesting.
>
> Yes - in another post I even cite the clause in the constitution that
> makes it so. Essentially, there is an exception in the Constitution
> regarding the Writ of Habeas Corpus for times of war. To the extent
> that we really are at war with terrorists, the law is constitutional.
> Admittedly this is a marginal justification in this case - but it is
> still valid.
What makes this particularly alarming is that we don't have a clear idea
that this "war" is ever going to end. In the 18th century there was a
much clearer idea of a "state of war" than this current "war on terror."
By my reading, this is a metaphorical war, like the "war on drugs," and so
we could be without the protection of habeas corpus for, essentially,
ever.
m
Walter Bushell
> "Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@@@@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:UQzib.100889$eS5....@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:Zcrib.18345$N94.11243@lakeread02...
> > > Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the
> United
> > > States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department
> of
> > > State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> > > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
> > >
> > > Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
> > > arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
> > > threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
> > team
> > > members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Evolution: Making life better for over 4 billion years.
> > > ========================================
> >
> > Free speech and is protected under the First Amendment of the
> > Constitution. There may be new laws against what Robinson did but they
> > wouldn't stand up in court. Free speech is our most important right.
>
> However, certain things are not covered by the 1st Amendment, like threats
> to the president, crying "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, or "I've got a
> Bomb" on board a passenger plane. Claiming that Robertson's whimsical
> desire to nuke the state department is protected by the first amendment is
> amusing. AFAIAC, sure, he can say whatever the hell he want's. And when
> his new bunkie in Leavenworth is buttering his arse up, and asks, "What're
> you in for, bitch?" Pat can explain to him that he was only joking.
>
Triggering a nuclear bomb in Foggy Bottom would I think be a direct
threat against the President.
> > Lane
> >
> > Amendment I
> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> > or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> > petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> >
--
The last temptation is the highest treason:
To do the right thing for the wrong reason. --T..S. Eliot
Walter
Walter Bushell
> Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
> States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
> State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>
> Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
> arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
> threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT team
> members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
He has the potential to channel mega money to the "W" presidential
campain.
Walter Bushell
> "RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Zcrib.18345$N94.11243@lakeread02...
> > Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
> > States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
> > State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
> >
> > Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
> > arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
> > threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
> team
> > members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
>
> The Department of Homeland Security Threat Advisory
> http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/ remains - Yellow: Elevated: Significant Risk
> of Terrorist Attacks.
Damn, I thought it had been lowered to pale vermillion.
Walter Bushell
<Snip>
> As to the first question: I suspect that the phrasing was intended as a
> general cover for a state of war, certainly the Supreme Court is likely
> to view it that way. From the very beginning our opposition to the
> terrorists has been treated as a war by both the government and the
> press. However, in a technical sense it could be construed as an
> invasion, since the persons involved entered the country for the purpose
> of performing those acts.
That's not an invasion, that's a raid. An invasion requires the use of
regular troops in numbers.
Lane Lewis
"eflorack" <eflo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bd154db5.03101...@posting.google.com...
That was Jerry Falwell that said that but he did apologize. People have
a right to say what they want even something stupid like Falwell said. The
first Amendment is supported by both the right and the left as it should be.
It is mostly objected to by people who wish to start a theocracy in the
united states.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/
Lane
Glenn
"C. Thompson" <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bmgt0e$av5$1...@pat.cis.cuny.edu...
Mark Isaak
<glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>I'm rather surprised that you would say this. Bin Laden has actively committed
>crimes against humanity. Would you liken Pat Robertson to Hitler also??
I think Hitler may have been nicer. Roberson's only redeeming feature
is that he is not in power.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Glenn
"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:s4ooovg6eh7liuovm...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:16:31 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
> >I'm rather surprised that you would say this. Bin Laden has actively
committed
> >crimes against humanity. Would you liken Pat Robertson to Hitler also??
>
> I think Hitler may have been nicer. Roberson's only redeeming feature
> is that he is not in power.
>
eflorack
So why all the objection to the statement, then?
Are you suggesting that Falwells followers are closet liberals?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Pip R. Lagenta"
<morbiu...@comcast.net>:
>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:16:43 +0000 (UTC), Bob Casanova
><nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 05:52:51 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by "RHertz"
>><RHer...@cox.rr.com>:
>>
>>>Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
>>>States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
>>>State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
>>>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>>>
>>>Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
>>>arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
>>>threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT team
>>>members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
>>
>>Ummm...what threat? I see a blowhard talking to another
>>blowhard about what he thinks might be desirable, but I
>>don't see any threat. Sort of like, "Damn, wouldn't it be
>>nice if someone blew away Pat Robertson?". No threat there.
>>Heartfelt desire, perhaps, but that doesn't constitute a
>>threat.
>
>Or like "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" where it matters
>to whom you say it.
True, but the circumstances were a *wee* bit different, the
king's wish (at that time) being the legal equivalent of a
command.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by wil...@wehi.edu.au
(John Wilkins):
>Pip R. Lagenta <morbiu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:16:43 +0000 (UTC), Bob Casanova
>> <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 05:52:51 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by "RHertz"
>> ><RHer...@cox.rr.com>:
>> >
>> >>Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
>> >>States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
>> >>State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
>> >>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>> >>
>> >>Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
>> >>arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
>> >>threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT team
>> >>members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
>> >
>> >Ummm...what threat? I see a blowhard talking to another
>> >blowhard about what he thinks might be desirable, but I
>> >don't see any threat. Sort of like, "Damn, wouldn't it be
>> >nice if someone blew away Pat Robertson?". No threat there.
>> >Heartfelt desire, perhaps, but that doesn't constitute a
>> >threat.
>>
>> Or like "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" where it matters
>> to whom you say it.
>>
>And who says it. If you happen to be a person of influence over those
>who expect that if things turn out the way you wish it, you might reward
>such favours, then you are partly culpable if someone follows up on it.
>Oh, wait, that applies to Pat, doesn't it?
Not in the same way or to the same degree. Pat's stated
wish, unlike Henry's, is *not* law (no matter how much he
wishes otherwise).
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by island
<isl...@sundial.net>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:39:06 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by RHertz
>> <Rhe...@nospamcox.net>:
>>
>> >Lane Lewis wrote:
>> >> "RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:Zcrib.18345$N94.11243@lakeread02...
>> >>
>> >>>Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
>> >>>States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
>> >>>State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
>> >>>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>> >>>
>> >>>Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
>> >>>arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
>> >>>threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
>> >>
>> >> team
>> >>
>> >>>members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
>> >>>
Point taken, but I think the promotion would need to be a
bit more blatant to trigger prosecution, either under the
new law or under already-existing ones. If he had said
something like "It would be wonderful if one of my listeners
would bomb..." I'd agree he stepped over the line, and for
exactly the reasons you stated; incitement to riot has a
similar trigger level. But he didn't.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Stanley Friesen
<sar...@friesen.net>:
>"RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote:
>>However, if a person isn't in danger of being convicted, why try them? So
>>perhaps I did mean to have him convicted. What I really want to try is the
>>Patriot Act and any double standard the DOJ might have about who they persue
>>in the war on terrorism.
>
>Unfortunately, the Patriot Act, as it stands, appears to be perfectly
>constitutional. The key clause in the Constitution reads:
>Article I, Section 9:
>" The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
>suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public
>Safety may require it"
>
>As you can see, there is an escape clause here, which the Patriot Act
>just *barely* meets (unfortunately).
But that clause is clearly intended as a way of dealing with
a *temporary* situation, and not as allowance for a
permanent suspension. Does the Act have a sunset clause? If
not, and if there is no language in it which makes it void
given the cessation of a particular set of circumstances
("invasion" and "rebellion" are fairly easy to define, and
neither includes individual suicide bombers), then I'd hope
a Supreme Court challenge would be both rapid and
successful.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Jim Heckman"
<wnzrfe...@lnubb.pbz.invalid>:
>
>On 13-Oct-2003, Stanley Friesen <sar...@friesen.net> wrote
>in message <a62novggpu9vs0lmh...@4ax.com>:
>
>[...]
>
>> Unfortunately, the Patriot Act, as it stands, appears to be perfectly
>> constitutional. The key clause in the Constitution reads:
>> Article I, Section 9:
>> " The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
>> suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public
>> Safety may require it"
>>
>> As you can see, there is an escape clause here, which the Patriot Act
>> just *barely* meets (unfortunately).
>
>I'm curious as to which case you think currently applies,
>rebellion or invasion, and also why you think public safety
>requires suspension of habeas corpus. It's certainly not clear
>to me that suspension of h. c. under the provisions of the
>Patriot Act even *promotes* public safety.
I would suspect it's the "invasion" part, and that those in
favor of the Act would and will try to claim that some
sovereign nation is actively promoting the terrorists. Of
course, under these circumstances it *would* qualify as an
invasion, but they'll have to have *really* good evidence
that this is the case before I'd buy it. And given such
evidence there's no reason why the US shouldn't respond as
to any other act of war. But the evidence must be
incontrovertible, and the Act must be rescinded as soon as
possible. Just my 20 mills, of course...
Matt Silberstein
<sar...@friesen.net>:
>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>>As you can see, there is an escape clause here, which the Patriot Act
>>>just *barely* meets (unfortunately).
>>
>>Nope. If it did not work in the Civil War it will not work now.
>>
>The Supreme Court rejected suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil
>War? This surprises me.
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm gives the
story.
>However, it *was* accepted during WW II with regard to the Japanese
>internments, so the precedents go both ways.
No, they did not suspend Habeas Corpus. A Japanese citizen was
given his day in court, he just lost. The relocation, while
terribly wrong, was not a suspension of Habeas Corpus.
That said, I had not read the decision before and the patina of
legality was not as thin as I had though. It was wrong, IMO, but
in law and fact, but it was not entirely nonsensical (as a matter
of law). What they did was forbid people of Japanese descent from
all military areas. They then made the entire West Coast (but not
Hawaii for some reason) a military area. I can understand some
restrictions on military areas (that is the patina of law) though
obviously not the whole area and it is wrong to discriminate on
the basis of ancestry.
Michael Ikeda
news:0eroovc66kiff5297...@4ax.com:
(snipped)
> That said, I had not read the decision before and the patina of
> legality was not as thin as I had though. It was wrong, IMO, but
> in law and fact, but it was not entirely nonsensical (as a
> matter of law). What they did was forbid people of Japanese
> descent from all military areas. They then made the entire West
> Coast (but not Hawaii for some reason) a military area. I can
> understand some restrictions on military areas (that is the
> patina of law) though obviously not the whole area and it is
> wrong to discriminate on the basis of ancestry.
>
The "some reason" being that the local elite in Hawaii strongly
opposed relocation, while the local elite in California strongly
supported it.
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
Chris Thompson
news:r3Yib.36$sA4....@news.uswest.net:
Lack of substantive reply noted.
John Wilkins
> Dale <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
>
> > "RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:Zcrib.18345$N94.11243@lakeread02...
> > > Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
> > > States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
> > > State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> > > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
> > >
> > > Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
> > > arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
> > > threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
> > team
> > > members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
> >
> > The Department of Homeland Security Threat Advisory
> > http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/ remains - Yellow: Elevated: Significant Risk
> > of Terrorist Attacks.
>
> Damn, I thought it had been lowered to pale vermillion.
Me too, but I get my news from the same source you do :-)
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
Robert Parson
<sar...@friesen.net> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>>As you can see, there is an escape clause here, which the Patriot Act
>>>just *barely* meets (unfortunately).
>>
>>Nope. If it did not work in the Civil War it will not work now.
>>
>The Supreme Court rejected suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil
>War? This surprises me.
There are two cases here, which often get conflated. In the first, "Ex
Parte Merryman", the Court challenged Lincoln's suspension of Habeas
Corpus in Maryland on the grounds that the authority to suspend H. C.
lay with Congress rather than with the President (since the relevant
clause is in Article I, which describes the powers of Congress.) Lincoln
argued in response that since Congress was not in session he had no
alternative. (Congress did subsequently ratify the President's action.)
The second case, "Ex Parte Milligan" has much broader implications. In
1864, provost marshals in Indiana arrested several members of a
pro-confederate organization called the "Sons of Liberty". A military
tribunal convicted them of conspiracy, inciting insurrection, and
affording aid and comfort to the rebels. In 1866 the Supreme Court threw
out the conviction on the grounds that the military tribunal was
illegitimate as long as civilian courts were functioning in the area.
In doing so, the Court clearly set very narrow limits on what you call
the 'escape clause' - in essence, it only applies to circumstances
where the normal judicial institutions are actually unable to function.
The full text of the decision is at
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/071-002a.htm.
Two particularly powerful excerpts:
"It is essential to the safety of every government that, in a great
crisis like the one we have just passed through, there should be a power
somewhere of suspending the writ of habeas corpus. In every war, there
are men of previously good character wicked enough to counsel their
fellow-citizens to resist the measures deemed necessary by a good
government to sustain its just authority and overthrow its enemies, and
their influence may lead to dangerous combinations. In the emergency of
the times, an immediate public investigation according to law may not be
possible, and yet the period to the country may be too imminent to
suffer such persons to go at large. Unquestionably, there is then an
exigency which demands that the government, if it should see fit in the
exercise of a proper discretion to make arrests, should not be required
to produce the persons arrested {126} in answer to a writ of habeas
corpus. The Constitution goes no further. It does not say, after a writ
of habeas corpus is denied a citizen, that he shall be tried otherwise
than by the course of the common law; if it had intended this result, it
was easy, by the use of direct words, to have accomplished it. The
illustrious men who framed that instrument were guarding the foundations
of civil liberty against the abuses of unlimited power; they were full
of wisdom, and the lessons of history informed them that a trial by an
established court, assisted by an impartial jury, was the only sure way
of protecting the citizen against oppression and wrong."
" It follows from what has been said on this subject that there are
occasions when martial rule can be properly applied. If, in foreign
invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is
impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the
theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there
is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus
overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society, and as no
power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule
until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the
rule, so it limits its duration, for, if this government is continued
after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power.
Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open and in the proper
and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to
the locality of actual war."
-------
Robert
Pip R. Lagenta
Bushell) wrote:
>Dale <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
>
>> "RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:Zcrib.18345$N94.11243@lakeread02...
>> > Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
>> > States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
>> > State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
>> > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>> >
>> > Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
>> > arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
>> > threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
>> team
>> > members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
>>
>> The Department of Homeland Security Threat Advisory
>> http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/ remains - Yellow: Elevated: Significant Risk
>> of Terrorist Attacks.
>
>Damn, I thought it had been lowered to pale vermillion.
That would involve changing the light bulb.
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Matt Silberstein
>"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@@@@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BFXib.49479$Pd.10...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>> "eflorack" <eflo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:bd154db5.03101...@posting.google.com...
>> > "RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:<Zcrib.18345$N94.11243@lakeread02>...
>> > > Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the
>> United
>> > > States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department
>> of
>> > > State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
>> > > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
>> > >
>> > > Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
>> > > arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
>> > > threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT
>> team
>> > > members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
>> >
>> > Double standard, you say?
>> > Interesting.
>> >
>> > Let's see... the left is very upset at Pat Robertson talking
>> > euphemisticly about bombing the State Dept, (because it would be a
>> > terrorist act, the loss of life and so on).....
I gather from your comments that you disagree with the "left"
here, that you are not upset about blowing up the State
Department with nuclear bombs.
>> > ....and yet but the left doesn't seem to have any problem with and
>> > actively supports the rights of people saying 'Americans got what they
>> > desrved on 9/11'...(when terrorists killed around 3000 of our people)
>> > ?
>> > Hmmm.
What hmmm? It is not criminal to say "X was a good thing", it is,
potentially, criminal to say "It would be good if we did X". If
Robertson has said it would be a good thing for people to go out
and kill State Department employees, and his followers did that,
he would likely be criminally liable.
>> That was Jerry Falwell that said that but he did apologize. People have
>> a right to say what they want even something stupid like Falwell said. The
>> first Amendment is supported by both the right and the left as it should be.
>> It is mostly objected to by people who wish to start a theocracy in the
>> united states.
>
>So why all the objection to the statement, then?
>Are you suggesting that Falwells followers are closet liberals?
No, he is suggesting that you were *wrong* when you claimed it
was liberals who made that claim.
Lane Lewis
From a free speech standpoint there is no objection.
From a humanitarian viewpoint he should have rephrased it to mean that
religious fanatics like himself caused 9/11 rather than the imaginary
bogeymen that the far right believes in.
Lane
Robert Parson
<matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>The Supreme Court rejected suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil
>>War? This surprises me.
>
>http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm gives the
>story.
Caution. That particular page looks basically ok (although it seriously
understates the gravity of the offenses for which these people were
arrested - for example, Merryman was a lieutenant in a secessionist
cavalry unit which had been burning bridges and cutting telegraph
wires.) However, that website has a whole lot of tendentious crap on it
(including neoconfederate propaganda and the usual anti-income-tax
weirdness) and I'd stay away from it on general principles.
----
Robert
Lane Lewis
"AC" <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbomo1g...@clausen.alberni.net...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 02:16:43 +0000 (UTC),
> Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@@> wrote:
snip
> >
> > What might be interesting is that if they don't prosecute him anyone
> > else would have to be released under equal protection of the law.
Assuming
> > that the patriot act did make what Robinson said illegal and it stood up
in
> > court. (highly doubtful on both counts).
>
> I think the most important one, and the one that a responsible media
should
> ask, is what if it was a Mullah that had made that statement. Robertson
is
> on the "right side", by which I mean, he's closely aligned with groups who
> seem to have an important voice in the White House. If it was some
American
> Islamic leader who said that the State Department should be nuked, I
suspect
> the reaction would be swift and decisive.
>Aaron Clausen tao...@alberni.net
Therein lies the problem with speech and press restrictions. They are
used almost exclusively to suppress minority opinions. Those in power can
never be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to free speech. Our
forefathers saw this plainly in the actions of king George who tried to
control the press in the colonies. Ashcroft is trying to do the same with
patriot act, hopefully with no success at all.
Lane
Stanley Friesen
>
>What makes this particularly alarming is that we don't have a clear idea
>that this "war" is ever going to end. In the 18th century there was a
>much clearer idea of a "state of war" than this current "war on terror."
>By my reading, this is a metaphorical war, like the "war on drugs," and so
>we could be without the protection of habeas corpus for, essentially,
>ever.
>
after the passage of the Patriot act.
*However*, if Ashcroft & Bush have their way, there will be a follow-on
law which explicitly removes the time limit. This must be opposed
firmly and strongly.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Stanley Friesen
Pat Robertson in power would be a greater threat to our liberties here
in this country than Bush and Ashcroft. Luckily, right now, he has a
snowball's chance of getting elected.
Stanley Friesen
>
>There are two cases here, which often get conflated. In the first, "Ex
>Parte Merryman", the Court challenged Lincoln's suspension of Habeas
>Corpus in Maryland on the grounds that the authority to suspend H. C.
>lay with Congress rather than with the President (since the relevant
>clause is in Article I, which describes the powers of Congress.) Lincoln
>argued in response that since Congress was not in session he had no
>alternative. (Congress did subsequently ratify the President's action.)
This, thus, becomes irrelevant here, as the Patriot Act is indeed an act
of Congress, per the Constitution.
>
>The second case, "Ex Parte Milligan" has much broader implications. In
>1864, provost marshals in Indiana arrested several members of a
>pro-confederate organization called the "Sons of Liberty". A military
>tribunal convicted them of conspiracy, inciting insurrection, and
>affording aid and comfort to the rebels. In 1866 the Supreme Court threw
>out the conviction on the grounds that the military tribunal was
>illegitimate as long as civilian courts were functioning in the area.
>In doing so, the Court clearly set very narrow limits on what you call
>the 'escape clause' - in essence, it only applies to circumstances
>where the normal judicial institutions are actually unable to function.
Actually, based on the description below, the restriction is on
suspension of civil trials, not suspension of Habeas Corpus.
>
>The full text of the decision is at
>http://www.constitution.org/ussc/071-002a.htm.
> Two particularly powerful excerpts:
>
>"It is essential to the safety of every government that, in a great
>crisis like the one we have just passed through, there should be a power
>somewhere of suspending the writ of habeas corpus. In every war, there
>are men of previously good character wicked enough to counsel their
>fellow-citizens to resist the measures deemed necessary by a good
>government to sustain its just authority and overthrow its enemies, and
>their influence may lead to dangerous combinations. In the emergency of
>the times, an immediate public investigation according to law may not be
>possible, and yet the period to the country may be too imminent to
>suffer such persons to go at large. Unquestionably, there is then an
>exigency which demands that the government, if it should see fit in the
>exercise of a proper discretion to make arrests, should not be required
>to produce the persons arrested {126} in answer to a writ of habeas
>corpus. The Constitution goes no further. It does not say, after a writ
>of habeas corpus is denied a citizen, that he shall be tried otherwise
>than by the course of the common law; ... "
Unfortunately, the people being held under the Patriot Act are not being
tried *at* *all*. Indeed they are not even being charged with any
crime, so far as I can tell. So it is not clear that this ruling
applies to the current situation.
Stanley Friesen
>"Stanley Friesen" <sar...@friesen.net> wrote in message
>news:0e2oov4s14ili20el...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> This doesn't justify a double standard. Not all terrorists are
>> necessarily foreign nationals.
>
>Huh?
>
There are in this country a number of small, radical political groups
that promote and use terrorism. The members of several are largely
whites. Race and nationality are poor predictors of terrorist
tendencies.
Stanley Friesen
>>As you can see, there is an escape clause here, which the Patriot Act
>>just *barely* meets (unfortunately).
>
>But that clause is clearly intended as a way of dealing with
>a *temporary* situation, and not as allowance for a
>permanent suspension. Does the Act have a sunset clause?
Yes, a 5 year sunset.
The intended (but not yet proposed) follow-on law, Patriot II,
explicitly lacks any sunset clause.
> If
>not, and if there is no language in it which makes it void
>given the cessation of a particular set of circumstances
>("invasion" and "rebellion" are fairly easy to define, and
>neither includes individual suicide bombers), then I'd hope
>a Supreme Court challenge would be both rapid and
>successful.
It is already too late for rapid, as it has been on the books for well
over a year.
Stanley Friesen
>
>So why all the objection to the statement, then?
>Are you suggesting that Falwells followers are closet liberals?
No, the problem is that if somebody *else* had made those statements he
would be in jail in D.C. at this very moment. This is called hypocrisy.
We are pointing out that the government is being hypocritical in
ignoring Robertson's folly.
I, at least, would be much happier if *nobody* were at risk of arrest
for such things, as obnoxious as I find that sort of statement. But if
such statements are to be illegal, then they should be illegal for
*everybody*, not just people that Ashcroft doesn't like.
John Wilkins
An odd way to defend democracy against terror, by abandoning it...
Walter Bushell
> "RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<Zcrib.18345$N94.11243@lakeread02>...
> > Televangelist Pat Robertson has made a terrorist threat against the United
> > States, and is plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of
> > State's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html
> >
> > Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
> > arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for this
> > threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that ninja-outfitted SWAT team
> > members would storm through our doors? Why the double standard?
>
> Double standard, you say?
> Interesting.
>
> Let's see... the left is very upset at Pat Robertson talking
> euphemisticly about bombing the State Dept, (because it would be a
> terrorist act, the loss of life and so on).....
>
> ....and yet but the left doesn't seem to have any problem with and
> actively supports the rights of people saying 'Americans got what they
> desrved on 9/11'...(when terrorists killed around 3000 of our people)
> ?
>
>
>
>
> Hmmm.
"'Americans got what they
desrved on 9/11'.." wasn't that Pat Robinson?
--
The last temptation is the highest treason:
To do the right thing for the wrong reason. --T..S. Eliot
Walter
Robert Parson
<sar...@friesen.net> wrote:
>rpar...@yahoo.com (Robert Parson) wrote:
>>The full text of the decision is at
>>http://www.constitution.org/ussc/071-002a.htm.
>> Two particularly powerful excerpts:
>>
>>"It is essential to the safety of every government that, in a great
>>crisis like the one we have just passed through, there should be a power
>>somewhere of suspending the writ of habeas corpus. In every war, there
>>are men of previously good character wicked enough to counsel their
>>fellow-citizens to resist the measures deemed necessary by a good
>>government to sustain its just authority and overthrow its enemies, and
>>their influence may lead to dangerous combinations. In the emergency of
>>the times, an immediate public investigation according to law may not be
>>possible, and yet the period to the country may be too imminent to
>>suffer such persons to go at large. Unquestionably, there is then an
>>exigency which demands that the government, if it should see fit in the
>>exercise of a proper discretion to make arrests, should not be required
>>to produce the persons arrested {126} in answer to a writ of habeas
>>corpus. The Constitution goes no further. It does not say, after a writ
>>of habeas corpus is denied a citizen, that he shall be tried otherwise
>>than by the course of the common law; ... "
>
>Unfortunately, the people being held under the Patriot Act are not being
>tried *at* *all*. Indeed they are not even being charged with any
>crime, so far as I can tell. So it is not clear that this ruling
>applies to the current situation.
If you read the full decision, Stan - you will see that all of these
issues are discussed. The right of an accused person to _a_ trial is
guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments, independent of anything in
Article I (and I would imagine that if anyone were to find a conflict
between Article I and the Amendments, the latter would have to win out
since they are, after all, amendments.) The relevant excerpts:
"Another guarantee of freedom was broken when Milligan was denied a
trial by jury. The great minds of the country {123} have differed on the
correct interpretation to be given to various provisions of the Federal
Constitution, and judicial decision has been often invoked to settle
their true meaning; but, until recently, no one ever doubted that the
right of trial by jury was fortified in the organic law against the
power of attack. It is now assailed, but if ideas can be expressed in
words and language has any meaning, this right — one of the most
valuable in a free country — is preserved to everyone accused of crime
who is not attached to the army or navy or militia in actual service.
The sixth amendment affirms that, "in all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an
impartial jury," language broad enough to embrace all persons and cases;
but the fifth, recognizing the necessity of an indictment or presentment
before anyone can be held to answer for high crimes, "excepts cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual
service, in time of war or public danger," and the framers of the
Constitution doubtless meant to limit the right of trial by jury in the
sixth amendment to those persons who were subject to indictment or
presentment in the fifth.
The discipline necessary to the efficiency of the army and navy required
other and swifter modes of trial than are furnished by the common law
courts, and, in pursuance of the power conferred by the Constitution,
Congress has declared the kinds of trial, and the manner in which they
shall be conducted, for offences committed while the party is in the
military or naval service. Everyone connected with these branches of the
public service is amenable to the jurisdiction which Congress has
created for their government, and, while thus serving, surrenders his
right to be tried by the civil courts. All other persons, citizens of
states where the courts are open, if charged with crime, are guaranteed
the inestimable privilege of trial by jury. This privilege is a vital
principle, underlying the whole administration of criminal justice; it
is not held by sufferance, and cannot be frittered away on any plea of
state or political necessity. When peace prevails, and the authority of
the government is undisputed, {124} there is no difficulty of preserving
the safeguards of liberty, for the ordinary modes of trial are never
neglected, and no one wishes it otherwise; but if society is disturbed
by civil commotion — if the passions of men are aroused and the
restraints of law weakened, if not disregarded — these safeguards need,
and should receive, the watchful care of those intrusted with the
guardianship of the Constitution and laws. In no other way can we
transmit to posterity unimpaired the blessings of liberty, consecrated
by the sacrifices of the Revolution"
--------
Robert
Dissident
> I think the most important one, and the one that a responsible media should
> ask, is what if it was a Mullah that had made that statement. Robertson is
> on the "right side", by which I mean, he's closely aligned with groups who
> seem to have an important voice in the White House. If it was some American
> Islamic leader who said that the State Department should be nuked, I suspect
> the reaction would be swift and decisive.
I'd also like to know whether, if Pat Robertson is to be let
off for this one, other citizens are to be allowed a free
choice of federal agencies they'd like to see nuked, or
whether only the State Department is to be hung out to dry.
If the former proves true, I plan to cast my ballot for
Justice.
Dale
Yeah, but still, what has that got to do with what I posted?
Walter Bushell
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Dale <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "RHertz" <RHer...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Zcrib.18345$N94.11243@lakeread02... > Televangelist Pat Robertson
> > > has made a terrorist threat against the United > States, and is
> > > plotting to place a nuclear bomb in the U.S. Department of > State's
> > > headquarters in Washington, D.C. >
> > > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001762790_watch10.html > >
> > > Isn't there a law against this sort of thing? Shouldn't this kook be
> > > > arrested, charged, tried, and face a lengthy prison sentence for
> > > this > threat? If you or I did it, don't you think that
> > > ninja-outfitted SWAT team > members would storm through our doors?
> > > Why the double standard?
> > >
> > > The Department of Homeland Security Threat Advisory
> > > http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/ remains - Yellow: Elevated: Significant
> > > Risk of Terrorist Attacks.
> >
> > Damn, I thought it had been lowered to pale vermillion.
>
> Me too, but I get my news from the same source you do :-)
Much more accurate than Fox News, eh?
catshark
Wilkins) wrote:
>Stanley Friesen <sar...@friesen.net> wrote:
>
>> "Marc Carter" <marcMUN...@speakMUNGEeasy.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >What makes this particularly alarming is that we don't have a clear idea
>> >that this "war" is ever going to end. In the 18th century there was a
>> >much clearer idea of a "state of war" than this current "war on terror."
>> >By my reading, this is a metaphorical war, like the "war on drugs," and so
>> >we could be without the protection of habeas corpus for, essentially,
>> >ever.
>> >
>> Right *now*, if Congress does nothing else, we will get it back 5 years
>> after the passage of the Patriot act.
>>
>> *However*, if Ashcroft & Bush have their way, there will be a follow-on
>> law which explicitly removes the time limit. This must be opposed
>> firmly and strongly.
>
>An odd way to defend democracy against terror, by abandoning it...
As if they set out to defend democracy . . .
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Remember all men would be tyrants if they could.
- Daniel Defoe -
Marc Carter
Maybe I'm a cynic, but (oh, wait: I *am* a cynic), but this whole
administration seems to be one giant get-rich-quick scheme. Everything
that happens is spun to provide smoke and mirrors. I think that, at some
level (at least at one time), Perl and the neo-cons were in fact serious
about seeing the removal of Hussein as a good, and that it was incumbent
upon the West to do it. But the administration has corrupted it into a
giant grab-bag of goodies for the people that put the administration in
power.
> Remember all men would be tyrants if they could.
>
> - Daniel Defoe -
And some will do everything they can to hold onto it, once they get it...
m
Lane Lewis
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bmg9rg$nge$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
>
> "RHertz" <Rhe...@nospamcox.net> wrote in message
> news:zuAib.19464$N94.3638@lakeread02...
> > Lane Lewis wrote:
> > >
> > > Amendment I
> > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> > > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech,
> > > or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
> to
> > > petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> > >
> > But, just as it is illegal to cry 'fire' in a crowded movie house (but
> > not 'movie' in a crowded firehouse), or make libelous statements, or
> > threaten the life of POTUS, it is illegal to make a terrorist threat.
> > The U.S.A. Patriot Act, Title 18, U.S.C. Chapter 113B, Section 2332B
> > makes it illegal to threaten a terrorist act:
> >
> > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2332b.html
> >
> > first people tried under this law.
> >
>
is
> actually on fire, warning others in order that they may escape is not
> illegal. Starting a panic when there is no fire would not involve
protected
> free speech under the US Constitution (according to the famous example).
>Mike Dworetsky
Under the "clear and present danger" scenerio it would also be illegal to
urge a mob on to destruction. But in the case of Robertson no such mob exist
and therefore he would have to be convicted under the Patriot Act if indeed
what he said is illegal under that act. The Patriot act has yet to be tested
in the courts and I doubt that if what Robertson said falls under that act
it will be upheld in the courts.
Lane