|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2005 : 06:27:10
|
When does anti-war protests become anti-American? There is no question that people can protest the Iraq war and be as patriotic as a person that supports the war. My question is what can a person do or say that crosses the line from protest to treason? I believe that wanting America to lose the war and wanting the death of Americans is that line. The following examples I believe cross that line.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45012
“Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?”- Ward Churchill
Or this example from a banner at the bottom of the page that reads:
"We support our troops when they shoot their officers"
This should not be part of free speech and it is surely Anti-American and is treasonous. How do people on this forum feel about this? Is this form of protest acceptable? It is interesting that I never heard anything about these two incidents on the news.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 06:41:27 [Permalink]
|
| Killing the officer is treasonous, talking about it is not. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 06:42:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This should not be part of free speech and it is surely Anti-American and is treasonous.
If it remains in the realm of words, and falls short of inciting people to violence (like the "FIRE!" in a crowded room thing, or the Rowandan radio hosts telling people to go kill others), then it is proteced under free speech, imo.
From the link you posted, it doesn't seem as if Ward Churchill's statements go so far as to incite anyone to violence. It leaves out much of the context, so it is impossible from that little blurb to see what he was actually talking about.
The press and the right-wing love to misquote that guy also, so until I saw a transcript of what he said that clearly demonstrated the context... I'd have to say that just asking people if they would support violence against officers would be well protected under free speech.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 06:46:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If it remains in the realm of words, and falls short of inciting people to violence (like the "FIRE!" in a crowded room thing, or the Rowandan radio hosts telling people to go kill others), then it is proteced under free speech, imo.
Couldn't have said better myself. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 06:55:05 [Permalink]
|
I do not much trust Worldnetdaily and would like to see these comments in context.
Never the less, you ask a good if a bit complicated question.
To vocally advocate murder in any context is, if I'm not mistaken already covered by state and federal law. The problem arises when the decision must be made whether the speaker is merely some idiot running his mouth or is serious about it to the point of carrying out the threat, or aiding others in carrying out the threat.
quote:
"We support our troops when they shoot their officers"
This should not be part of free speech and it is surely Anti-American and is treasonous. How do people on this forum feel about this? Is this form of protest acceptable? It is interesting that I never heard anything about these two incidents on the news.
I agree, but again, which of these morons are serious and which are even stupider, and just following the crowd?
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 07:33:16 [Permalink]
|
Probably taken out of context.
This is a criminal action. The soldiers that are participating in this have an obligation to disobey orders to be there.
If they see someone participating in this illegal action, then would they then have an obligation to do what they could to sabotage this action?
To shoot an officer would be murder, but to take part in the war is also murder. Which would be worse? Murdering a terrorist or cooperating with him?
I am not advocating anything, just asking the question. If sabotaging murder is treasonous, then the charge of treason is wrong. It may be advocating murder, but I don't think to say such things would be treasonous. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 07:50:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
When does anti-war protests become anti-American?
When they actually harm the government's ability to function, or when the protestors give aid to an enemy of the government.quote:
"We support our troops when they shoot their officers"
This should not be part of free speech and it is surely Anti-American and is treasonous. How do people on this forum feel about this?
I feel you've gone overboard.
When not a single Confederate soldier or official was tried for treason after the Civil War, levelling such a charge over a simple protest slogan is way off the deep end.
Look, it's designed to anger people, with the purpose of getting the message out that the war is unacceptable (to the protesters). Exercising one's First Amendment rights in such a manner is absolutely the patriotic act of an American.
The ideas expressed may be socially repugnant, but the old cliche of "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" applies here. Hell, even I find the slogan to show misplaced anger - since our troops are not at fault - but except for public safety issues, people can say pretty much whatever damn fool thing they want to.quote:
Is this form of protest acceptable?
If it isn't, we may as well repeal freedom of speech entirely. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 10:35:34 [Permalink]
|
I often ask hypothetical or rhetorical questions to get people to see there are many angles of thought on any issue. When asking these thought provoking questions I'm often misinterpreted as supporting some activity or situation which I don't necessarily actually support. As has been mentioned, the context here would make the comments more meaningful. The freestanding short quotes cited including Mr. Churchill's question, "Would you render the same support...," don't appear to be an absolute suggestion to do that, but a hypothetical question.
Here I go again, preparing to be wildly misinterpreted... Several weeks ago a friend who supports the murder of innocent world citizens and illegal occupations of foreign lands told me, "For every one of those soldiers that dies you have more freedom."
I replied, "Well, since we want more freedom, and the deaths of more soldiers brings about more freedom, shouldn't we be supportive of more soldiers dying?" My friend misunderstood and nearly blew a gasket. Of course I wasn't advocating the killing of more soldiers.
And another angle... Lately the polls show that people's waning support of the war is due in part to the fact that there have been so many deaths among the US troops. It seems likely this war situation will only end when most of the US citizens demand that it end. If more soldiers dying causes more people to turn their support against the war, then shouldn't those of us who oppose the war be in favor of more soldiers dying in order to bring about a quicker end? Now cool your jets, it's a hypothetical question intended as food for thought.
When I've mentioned that tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed in Iraq by the American terrorist troops, I've occasionally heard the idiotic parroted reply, "We don't count civilian casualties." When those same ignorant people use the lives lost in the 9-11 incident to bolster their support for murdering other innocent people, I remind them that nobody important was lost in that event because, well, after all, we don't count civilian casualties. Relax, I'm not unsympathetic to the losses suffered on 9-11, but sometimes playing devil's advocate does help broaden some people's narrowed views.
There is nothing treasonous or anti-American about my comments above or my way of approaching these issues. I'm not advocating anything illegal or dangerous. Consider the remarks as rhetorical, food for thought. If it makes some people uncomfortable, oh well, that'll happen. In fact discomfort is generally the only thing that will cause people to demand solutions to problems. I'm as patriotic as anyone, probably more so than those who blindly support killing people in foreign lands when the real rationale and goal of the murders has not even been stated by Bush and his pals who initiated this war.
Maybe this...quote:
This should not be part of free speech and it is surely Anti-American and is treasonous.
... should not be part of free speech. It is surely Anti-American and is treasonous. 
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 10:47:28 [Permalink]
|
| IMO bribing a govenment official and taking bribes as a government official, along with election fraud would be the highest crimes in a democracy such as America. Of course attempting to overthrow the Government would be in the smae catagory, but this example is not an attempt to do so. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 12:28:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Robb:
I believe that wanting America to lose the war and wanting the death of Americans is that line.
I don't want the death of Americans. Wanting or not wanting America to win the war in Iraq is moot since there is no way to win this war.
We have been on the wrong side of many conflicts. Protesting our involvement in those conflicts was/is an act of patriotism. Even hoping we loose a war can be an act of patriotism unless you take the position of “my country, right or wrong.” A boneheaded position if ever there was one.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 12:39:44 [Permalink]
|
So no matter what kind of war we (the US) gets itself into, I have to support that effort or I'm a traitor?
I think people who protest what they see as wrong are far more patriotic than the automatons that repeat the mantra "my country/president, right or wrong". I find that mantra to be morally bankrupt and intellectually lazy. (I also find that the majority of people who live by that mantra also possess a lot of other qualities that I find morally bankrupt - usually having to do with religion, etc.)
edited for extremely poor spelling - one day i'll use the spell checker - But Not This Day! |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 07/01/2005 12:42:54 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 12:48:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
When does anti-war protests become anti-American? There is no question that people can protest the Iraq war and be as patriotic as a person that supports the war. My question is what can a person do or say that crosses the line from protest to treason? I believe that wanting America to lose the war and wanting the death of Americans is that line. The following examples I believe cross that line.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45012
“Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?”- Ward Churchill
Or this example from a banner at the bottom of the page that reads:
"We support our troops when they shoot their officers"
This should not be part of free speech and it is surely Anti-American and is treasonous. How do people on this forum feel about this? Is this form of protest acceptable? It is interesting that I never heard anything about these two incidents on the news.
Why shouldn't it? While ineffective and combative, it is worthy of protection so that extremist views will discredit themselves.
It is neither un-American nor treasonous.
"If [a] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its
reasoning, refute it. But for God's sake, let us freely hear both
sides if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814.
"I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion without imputing to them criminality." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." -- Howard Zinn (originally attributed to Thomas Jefferson)
"The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country." -- Robert F. Kennedy
"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." -- President Dwight D Eisenhower
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 07/01/2005 13:06:52 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2005 : 20:52:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
If more soldiers dying causes more people to turn their support against the war, then shouldn't those of us who oppose the war be in favor of more soldiers dying in order to bring about a quicker end? Now cool your jets, it's a hypothetical question intended as food for thought.
Ok, here comes a thought I just had in response to your highly hypothetical question:
Since (I think) most of us here agree that the war on Iraq is illegal, then the soldiers dying in the war are participating in an unlawful action when they should have refused participation in the first place...
Many articles of the Geneva convention has been violated by USA. So I have a hard time feeling empathy for the troops. Especially when I see pictures of American soldiers posing poudly with tortured prisoners, or news-footage of an American soldier shooting an unarmed and wounded civilian because he was flitching from pain, or soldiers arbitrarily fireing off rounds after rounds into residential areas without aiming at specific (armed) targets with no apparent regards for any civilians that may still be occupying those houses.
quote:
Maybe this...quote:
This should not be part of free speech and it is surely Anti-American and is treasonous.
... should not be part of free speech. It is surely Anti-American and is treasonous.
I concur.
Dissenting opinions are one of the cornerstones of a working democracy. By disallowing dissenting opinions you are actually attacking the very foundation of your country!
In a representative democracy people need to have the freedom to voice their disagreement with their elected leaders. The stronger the disagreement, the louder the voice (and the harsher the words).
Robb, what your president has done is illegal, and I'm very disappointed that you stand behind and buy his ans his goons' rhethoric.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2005 : 21:40:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Dissenting opinions are one of the cornerstones of a working democracy. By disallowing dissenting opinions you are actually attacking the very foundation of your country!
To be fair to Robb, he wasn't arguing against dissenting opinions in general, he was arguing against dissenters who - on the surface - appear to be advocating the murder of U.S. soldiers.
Of course, any attempt to criminalize the latter would, inevitably, affect all disagreement (in conflict with the First Amendment), but let's try to stick to what people actually say. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2005 : 21:49:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If more soldiers dying causes more people to turn their support against the war, then shouldn't those of us who oppose the war be in favor of more soldiers dying in order to bring about a quicker end?
A false dichotomy.... Of course we shouldn't be interested in seeing more deaths, even if it does bring about a quicker end to US involvement.
The best answer obviously lies outside of your proposition.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
