http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt
Quote
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or
teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any
such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts
to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,
group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or
violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any
such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes
thereof -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in
this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for
employment by the United States or any department or agency
thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize",
with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include
the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the
regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units
of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
Treason Party?
Is voting a force?
What fair citizen would conspire against its government, with such virtuous laws?
I'm not sure, but I THINK the general idea is to prevent outbreaks of political violence, and political decisions that are decided based on threat of force, and to enable the poor and weak to have at least some kind of representation instead of being bullied by those wealthy enough to hire a militia.
MAYBE I'M JUST NAIVE.
(http://tomkolovos.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/24972_382925783587_24718773587_3655178_2736968_n1.jpg?w=442&h=720)
Annnnd http://www.theskanner.com/article/2011/01/11/Legal-Precedents-for-Political-Incitement-Set-in-Portland
Quote
Gabrielle Giffords, Sarah Palin, Mulugeta Seraw, Tom Metzger, Dr. George Tiller, "The Nuremberg Files" -- it is a strange coincidence that two of the biggest civil cases in America against virulent conservative rhetoric – incidents that involved politically-motivated murders – were tried in Portland courtrooms.
In 2002, anti-choice activists who had created a "wanted" poster-style website listing abortion providers with gun sights over their faces were found liable for damages because the site constituted "a true threat," and not protected First Amendment speech.
And in 1988, White supremacist leader Tom Metzger and his son, John, were found guilty of "organizing" and inciting the fatal skinhead beating of Portland resident Mulugeta Seraw.
Gee, looks like legal precedent has been set.
That law seems to go way way beyond that. They're talking about 20 years for quoting Jefferson.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 12, 2011, 02:52:43 AM
That law seems to go way way beyond that. They're talking about 20 years for quoting Jefferson.
Not quite.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 12, 2011, 02:52:43 AM
That law seems to go way way beyond that. They're talking about 20 years for quoting Jefferson.
Um, no.
Reread the part you bolded. While quoting him wouldn't quite do it, quoting him on TV or republishing the things he wrote would (I'm specifically thinking of the bits where he approved of the Whiskey rebellion).
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 12, 2011, 03:49:51 AM
Reread the part you bolded. While quoting him wouldn't quite do it, quoting him on TV or republishing the things he wrote would (I'm specifically thinking of the bits where he approved of the Whiskey rebellion).
Still no.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 12, 2011, 03:49:51 AM
Reread the part you bolded. While quoting him wouldn't quite do it, quoting him on TV or republishing the things he wrote would (I'm specifically thinking of the bits where he approved of the Whiskey rebellion).
Yeah. Just no. LOL.
You should check out the definition of the word "intent", that might help you out a bit.
And, if your next question is "who determines intent?", in the case that a person is tried under this law, the determination of intent would be made in a court of law, just as it is in other criminal cases.
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 03:56:53 AM
You should check out the definition of the word "intent", that might help you out a bit.
And, if your next question is "who determines intent?", in the case that a person is tried under this law, the determination of intent would be made in a court of law, just as it is in other criminal cases.
Intent is whatever the prosecutor says intent is, its the same with every other 'intent' law.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 12, 2011, 04:11:28 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 03:56:53 AM
You should check out the definition of the word "intent", that might help you out a bit.
And, if your next question is "who determines intent?", in the case that a person is tried under this law, the determination of intent would be made in a court of law, just as it is in other criminal cases.
Intent is whatever the prosecutor says intent is, its the same with every other 'intent' law.
WOW.
Again, just no. By orders of magnitude this time.
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 04:19:59 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 12, 2011, 04:11:28 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 03:56:53 AM
You should check out the definition of the word "intent", that might help you out a bit.
And, if your next question is "who determines intent?", in the case that a person is tried under this law, the determination of intent would be made in a court of law, just as it is in other criminal cases.
Intent is whatever the prosecutor says intent is, its the same with every other 'intent' law.
WOW.
Again, just no. By orders of magnitude this time.
Here they don't even have to specify what intent was being intended. The mere addition of the words "with intent" hung on the end of any assault charge at all, generally means the difference between a custodial sentence and a community based sentence.
And to Loiter, in itself is not an offence at all. But if they sling "with intent" on the end, "Loitering with intent" is an arrestible offence. They never have to specify "intent" because you're never going to get charged with it. But it's open day on just about anybody they really want to screw over. Which worries me a lot. Not for myself, but generally. I remember how rough that can get. And why I shouldn't ever be tempted to IRL Troll the Police again.
Prosecutors have successfully federal twisted hacking laws to make giving a fake name on myspace a criminal charge (even got a conviction). You must *always* assume the worst about any proposed law.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 12, 2011, 07:09:57 AM
Prosecutors have successfully federal twisted hacking laws to make giving a fake name on myspace a criminal charge (even got a conviction). You must *always* assume the worst about any proposed law.
That's probably the most ridiculous thing I've heard .............all day! What about non-US Name-cheaters? Extradition?
Well, at least we'll all get to meet each other at Guantomono :mrgreen:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 12, 2011, 07:09:57 AM
Prosecutors have successfully federal twisted hacking laws to make giving a fake name on myspace a criminal charge (even got a conviction). You must *always* assume the worst about any proposed law.
Actually, if the case I'm thinking of is the same one, the woman convicted was engaged in cyberbullying that resulted in the death of a teenage girl, right? IIRC, the case was made that the woman was perpetrating a hoax, which is NOT the same as using a pseudonym to make an account.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 12, 2011, 07:25:34 AM
Well, at least we'll all get to meet each other at Guantomono :mrgreen:
Not if they suspect we are part of the same group. They'll just solitary everyone else for 6 months, and start water boarding you for info.
I just fucking
:facepalm:
Intent is the fucking crux of this law, which has existed since nineteen fucking forty. The prosecutor has to PROVE INTENT TO COMMIT TREASON. Just like "intent" is crucial for a murder conviction. You CANNOT be convicted of inciting violence unless you can be proven in a court of law to have intended to incite violence. Otherwise, it's just an unfortunate coincidence, and not a crime.
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 07:53:27 AM
I just fucking
:facepalm:
Intent is the fucking crux of this law, which has existed since nineteen fucking forty. The prosecutor has to PROVE INTENT TO COMMIT TREASON. Just like "intent" is crucial for a murder conviction. You CANNOT be convicted of inciting violence unless you can be proven in a court of law to have intended to incite violence. Otherwise, it's just an unfortunate coincidence, and not a crime.
But Nigel! The mean prosecutors badger the witnesses! They twist the federal of the judges! They will manipulate you into signing a full confession!
Seriously though, Requia, how many treason cases do you fucking see? This law isn't new. It's been on the books for a long fucking time.
I thought overthrowing the government was one of them inalienable rights what baby Jesus done give us. :?
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government
I haven't seen any information from the tea party advocating the overthrow or destruction of the US government.
And if that position is out there, It's likely on the fringe of the fringe. And really, I'd be interested to see what that nutjobbery's idea is to replace it with, just so I can laugh good and hard about it.
I was into treason before it became big and popular.
Once the government stops following the constitution, then at that point it is no longer treason to try to overthrow the government. At that exact moment it becomes patriotic.
Try telling that to the prosecutor.
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 12, 2011, 02:57:44 PM
Try telling that to the prosecutor.
This I understand. That doesn't alter the fact that at that point rebellion is a civic duty.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 12, 2011, 01:43:05 PM
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government
I haven't seen any information from the tea party advocating the overthrow or destruction of the US government.
And if that position is out there, It's likely on the fringe of the fringe. And really, I'd be interested to see what that nutjobbery's idea is to replace it with, just so I can laugh good and hard about it.
Wow. You really need to read the whole things and see how ALL of the words work together in context in order to understand it.
I'm monumentally disappointed with this board, right now. The sheer, mind-numbing inability to read and understand a fairly simple piece of US code is disheartening.
And I thought my reading comprehension skills were in the tank.
It's quite simple.
What the Teabaggers consider "constitutional" has no basis in the actual Constitution. They want to enact laws which subvert and will destroy US constitutional government (so do the Democrats, as per Obama's administration proves, but anyway...). Also, turning up to political rallies with guns, or saying "we forgot our guns...this time" is an implicit threat and proof that there is an acceptance among Teabagger crowds that violence is an acceptable solution to not only US foreign policy problems, but domestic US policy problems as well.
Quote from: Cain on January 12, 2011, 05:31:53 PM
It's quite simple.
What the Teabaggers consider "constitutional" has no basis in the actual Constitution. They want to enact laws which subvert and will destroy US constitutional government (so do the Democrats, as per Obama's administration proves, but anyway...). Also, turning up to political rallies with guns, or saying "we forgot our guns...this time" is an implicit threat and proof that there is an acceptance among Teabagger crowds that violence is an acceptable solution to not only US foreign policy problems, but domestic US policy problems as well.
Once they get what want and the constitution is dead(er) they will be very surprised and unhappy with the results. I am thinking on the piece Roger wrote about the downfall.
Quote from: Cain on January 12, 2011, 05:31:53 PM
It's quite simple.
What the Teabaggers consider "constitutional" has no basis in the actual Constitution. They want to enact laws which subvert and will destroy US constitutional government (so do the Democrats, as per Obama's administration proves, but anyway...). Also, turning up to political rallies with guns, or saying "we forgot our guns...this time" is an implicit threat and proof that there is an acceptance among Teabagger crowds that violence is an acceptable solution to not only US foreign policy problems, but domestic US policy problems as well.
Right.
Voting your opponents out of office isn't treason. Overthrowing the government by vote is not treason. Overthrowing the government through violence is treason. Inciting violence for the purpose of governmental change is treason.
Is it inciting to use firearm imagery and verbiage in political propaganda? It might be. Intent would have to be proven.
Quote from: Cain on January 12, 2011, 05:31:53 PM
It's quite simple.
What the Teabaggers consider "constitutional" has no basis in the actual Constitution. They want to enact laws which subvert and will destroy US constitutional government (so do the Democrats, as per Obama's administration proves, but anyway...). Also, turning up to political rallies with guns, or saying "we forgot our guns...this time" is an implicit threat and proof that there is an acceptance among Teabagger crowds that violence is an acceptable solution to not only US foreign policy problems, but domestic US policy problems as well.
Cain nails it, as usual.
So far, the trends have been disturbing, but likely not enough for legal action. The breaking of the windows and harassment after the healthcare vote was passed. The aforementioned fixation with implicitly threatening political opponents with guns. The claims that the government in charge is like Nazi Germany/the Soviet Union/the CSA (all of which were militarily resisted). The uncritical promotion of mass political violence abroad. All of these are rhetorical implications which suggest contempt for the democratically elected ruling government and suggests, in a rather coy manner, that political violence may not be entirely out of the question.
Not that I expect more than a few idiots to act in any case. Political violence in the US is still far lower than it was in, say, the 1960s. And even that wasn't as bad as what happened under the Italian republic in the 60s and 70s.
The problem is you only need a few idiots. September 11th was operationally carried out by 19 idiots. The reaction...well, who wants to even guess at how many people have died between the US government and its allies, and Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and their allies? Things tend to spiral out of control very quickly once violence gets introduced into political situations, because politics makes people, as a rule, tribal, enthocentric and willing to go to great lengths to crush even minor percieved threats.
While it is debateable how much violent rhetoric may contribute to any individual act of violence (for instance, it seems to have had no effect in the current Arizona case), the overall effect is one where a political culture more prone to violence forms. And that opens up the very real possibility of treasonous acts, and subsequent crackdowns on dissidents of all kinds, legitimate and peaceful or not. Just remember, in the last bout of craziness, the FBI were spying on Quakers and the Rotary Club. Next time around, they might be throwing (more) people in legal black holes.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 12, 2011, 01:43:05 PM
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government
I haven't seen any information from the tea party advocating the overthrow or destruction of the US government.
And if that position is out there, It's likely on the fringe of the fringe. And really, I'd be interested to see what that nutjobbery's idea is to replace it with, just so I can laugh good and hard about it.
Poor DP. His tea party is going all sick and wrong. :sadbanana:
I like Cain's analysis. Whenever I start going all paranoid, I can rely on him to give me a solid basis for my fears.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 12, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
I like Cain's analysis. Whenever I start going all paranoid, I can rely on him to give me a solid basis for my fears.
i completely agree, on all accounts.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 12, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
I like Cain's analysis. Whenever I start going all paranoid, I can rely on him to give me a solid basis for my fears.
My paranoia is strong. People are stupider these days.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2011, 06:06:07 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 12, 2011, 01:43:05 PM
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government
I haven't seen any information from the tea party advocating the overthrow or destruction of the US government.
And if that position is out there, It's likely on the fringe of the fringe. And really, I'd be interested to see what that nutjobbery's idea is to replace it with, just so I can laugh good and hard about it.
Poor DP. His tea party is going all sick and wrong. :sadbanana:
It went sick and wrong years ago and I patently washed my hands of any involvement with the local groups here. Still some good, well intentioned people involved, but too much religion for my tastes.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 12, 2011, 06:13:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2011, 06:06:07 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 12, 2011, 01:43:05 PM
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government
I haven't seen any information from the tea party advocating the overthrow or destruction of the US government.
And if that position is out there, It's likely on the fringe of the fringe. And really, I'd be interested to see what that nutjobbery's idea is to replace it with, just so I can laugh good and hard about it.
Poor DP. His tea party is going all sick and wrong. :sadbanana:
It went sick and wrong years ago and I patently washed my hands of any involvement with the local groups here. Still some good, well intentioned people involved, but too much religion for my tastes.
It was always, from the beginning, exactly what it is today. Know-nothing populism.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 12, 2011, 06:13:33 PM
It went sick and wrong years ago and I patently washed my hands of any involvement with the local groups here. Still some good, well intentioned people involved, but too much religion for my tastes.
Unfortunately, there are good people in almost any cause. Even fucking PETA. The problem is when they are outnumbered by idiots, demagogues and content camp followers.
Quote from: Cain on January 12, 2011, 06:22:45 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 12, 2011, 06:13:33 PM
It went sick and wrong years ago and I patently washed my hands of any involvement with the local groups here. Still some good, well intentioned people involved, but too much religion for my tastes.
Unfortunately, there are good people in almost any cause. Even fucking PETA. The problem is when they are outnumbered by idiots, demagogues and content camp followers.
With the 3rd largest Southern Baptist church square in the middle of 11 blocks of downtown Jacksonville it was perhaps inevitable that there would be a lot of christians drawn into the group. The social conservative bent they brought turned me completely off.
Not my cup of tea.
Love this thread, Nigel. Thanks for bringing this up.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 12, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
I like Cain's analysis. Whenever I start going all paranoid, I can rely on him to give me a solid basis for my fears.
Amen. He has a grand ability to articulate what I can only stumble over.
Could someone please explain the following quote from the code? (the part I bold-ed, specifically)
"-CITE-
18 USC Sec. 2383 02/01/2010
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
-HEAD-
Sec. 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
-STATUTE-
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any
rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United
States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United
States."
Because I think I am understanding it in a (hopefully) wrong way.
Quote from: maphdet on January 12, 2011, 08:52:42 PM
Could someone please explain the following quote from the code? (the part I bold-ed, specifically)
"-CITE-
18 USC Sec. 2383 02/01/2010
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
-HEAD-
Sec. 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
-STATUTE-
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any
rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United
States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United
States."
Because I think I am understanding it in a (hopefully) wrong way.
If you aid in anyway an armed rebellion against federal authority and representatives thereof you're barred from running for office and go to jail for ten years?
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 12, 2011, 08:55:27 PM
Quote from: maphdet on January 12, 2011, 08:52:42 PM
Could someone please explain the following quote from the code? (the part I bold-ed, specifically)
"-CITE-
18 USC Sec. 2383 02/01/2010
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
-HEAD-
Sec. 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
-STATUTE-
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any
rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United
States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United
States."
Because I think I am understanding it in a (hopefully) wrong way.
If you aid in anyway an armed rebellion against federal authority and representatives thereof you're barred from running for office and go to jail for ten years?
I'm not sure it even has to be armed rebellion to qualify with that wording.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 12, 2011, 09:03:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 12, 2011, 08:55:27 PM
Quote from: maphdet on January 12, 2011, 08:52:42 PM
Could someone please explain the following quote from the code? (the part I bold-ed, specifically)
"-CITE-
18 USC Sec. 2383 02/01/2010
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
-HEAD-
Sec. 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
-STATUTE-
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any
rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United
States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United
States."
Because I think I am understanding it in a (hopefully) wrong way.
If you aid in anyway an armed rebellion against federal authority and representatives thereof you're barred from running for office and go to jail for ten years?
I'm not sure it even has to be armed rebellion to qualify with that wording.
Hmm. Perhaps not. But a rebellion/insurrection is by definition a violent uprising against authority.
One wonders what the statutory definition of "rebellion" and "insurrection" is... or if that has to be decided by the case law.
Quote from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebellion
2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government
b : an instance of such defiance or resistance
Quote from: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rebellion
REBELLION, crim. law. The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
2. If the rebellion amount to treason, it is punished by the laws of the United States with death. If it be a mere resistance of process, it is generally punished by fine and imprisonment. See Dalloz, Dict. h.t.; Code Penal, 209.
I dunno how much I would trust freedictionary.com, but that's a quick google. Currently looking for more reliable definition.
To overthrow your Government by force of Arms, is only Treason if you fail. If you win, you can charge them with Treason, inciting others to commit a Felony, Entrapment, buggering farmyard livestock, eating the newborn, and any other fucking thing you can think of. If you win,
Yuo are teh Law. They are Seditionists, Terrorists, and committed to the destruction of your Administrative Body. Don't you still have Electric Chairs for such rabble?
We retired them in favor of country club prisons.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 13, 2011, 12:06:58 AM
We retired them in favor of country club prisons.
Can't be that difficult to knock one up, out of bits and pieces can it? It would make a fine symbol, of traditional American Values, so the people can rally behind the New Administration, comfortable in the reassuring solidity of a familiar and much loved Icon of Judiciary Gravitas.
Quote from: BadBeast on January 13, 2011, 12:22:58 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 13, 2011, 12:06:58 AM
We retired them in favor of country club prisons.
Can't be that difficult to knock one up, out of bits and pieces can it? It would make a fine symbol, of traditional American Values, so the people can rally behind the New Administration, comfortable in the reassuring solidity of a familiar and much loved Icon of Judiciary Gravitas.
They are all in Tucson being used as sex toys.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 13, 2011, 12:33:11 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on January 13, 2011, 12:22:58 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 13, 2011, 12:06:58 AM
We retired them in favor of country club prisons.
Can't be that difficult to knock one up, out of bits and pieces can it? It would make a fine symbol, of traditional American Values, so the people can rally behind the New Administration, comfortable in the reassuring solidity of a familiar and much loved Icon of Judiciary Gravitas.
They are all in Tucson being used as sex toys.
Now why does that not surprise me? So all you have left to do is run a few Snake Oil Merchants out of DC, and make it down to Arizona without once resorting to Punnery of any kind.
Those Tusconites are hammering the last lumpy bits out of a shiny new paradigm, and when your mission is complete, it shall be all yours. You get to set the default settings. How cool is that? Mr President.
You know what's really interesting about the US treason laws? According to my own readings, running your own private foreign policy via the military and providing advice designed to continue on a war is not, in fact, treasonous. It would be under the Swedish constitution, interestingly enough, but not in America.
I mention this because, upon reading "Obama's Wars" by Bob Woodward makes it very clear that the Pentagon is really running the show in Afghanistan, and they provided Obama with poor and one-sided information about the country - when they bothered to give any information at all, that is. I would have thought subverting the policy of duly elected and legally recognized officials of the American government, representing the American people, would have been a crime, but if it is, it's not treason.
Quote from: Cain on January 14, 2011, 08:00:49 PM
You know what's really interesting about the US treason laws? According to my own readings, running your own private foreign policy via the military and providing advice designed to continue on a war is not, in fact, treasonous. It would be under the Swedish constitution, interestingly enough, but not in America.
I mention this because, upon reading "Obama's Wars" by Bob Woodward makes it very clear that the Pentagon is really running the show in Afghanistan, and they provided Obama with poor and one-sided information about the country - when they bothered to give any information at all, that is. I would have thought subverting the policy of duly elected and legally recognized officials of the American government, representing the American people, would have been a crime, but if it is, it's not treason.
Hmmm. That... is indeed quite interesting.
Damn. I just ass/u/med
So, you're saying I live in a Junta?
¡VIVA LA RAZA!
Quote from: Cain on January 12, 2011, 02:36:47 PM
I was into treason before it became big and popular.
http://revcom.us/socialistconstitution/index.html :D
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 12, 2011, 09:03:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 12, 2011, 08:55:27 PM
Quote from: maphdet on January 12, 2011, 08:52:42 PM
Could someone please explain the following quote from the code? (the part I bold-ed, specifically)
"-CITE-
18 USC Sec. 2383 02/01/2010
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
-HEAD-
Sec. 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
-STATUTE-
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any
rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United
States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United
States."
Because I think I am understanding it in a (hopefully) wrong way.
If you aid in anyway an armed rebellion against federal authority and representatives thereof you're barred from running for office and go to jail for ten years?
I'm not sure it even has to be armed rebellion to qualify with that wording.
Like acts of mass disobedience...
My guess is they would want to use on people fighting for illegals rights
Heck maybe even wikileaks, that will teach those bastards at the aclu
maybe target hippies if they keep up their anti war rhetoric ?
There's no sport, or kudos in beating on Hippys. Also they wouldn't get antsy enough to justify getting the super-frozen brine cannons out.
Depends if they keep voting out pro war dems out of the primaries
I mean that operating behind the scenes as a financier or organizer of any group large enough to challenge "dur lawr" could be charged under this as broad as it's written.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 15, 2011, 03:30:13 AM
I mean that operating behind the scenes as a financier or organizer of any group large enough to challenge "dur lawr" could be charged under this as broad as it's written.
Shocking, isn't it? :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 15, 2011, 03:45:30 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 15, 2011, 03:30:13 AM
I mean that operating behind the scenes as a financier or organizer of any group large enough to challenge "dur lawr" could be charged under this as broad as it's written.
Shocking, isn't it? :lulz:
only that it hasn't been used more often. not that is necessarily a good thing. just surprising.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 15, 2011, 04:21:08 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 15, 2011, 03:45:30 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 15, 2011, 03:30:13 AM
I mean that operating behind the scenes as a financier or organizer of any group large enough to challenge "dur lawr" could be charged under this as broad as it's written.
Shocking, isn't it? :lulz:
only that it hasn't been used more often. not that is necessarily a good thing. just surprising.
Expect that to change. Brinksmanship: It's your pal!
The thing is, why they may have the legal right to use such laws, it pays not to use the worst ones until it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise people will be like "Hey wait a minute, that's not right!", instead you need to turn up the ridiculousness of the enforced laws very slowly, even if they're already written and you'd have the right, turn up the heat very slowly, like that story about cooking a frog or a lobster.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 15, 2011, 05:13:13 PM
The thing is, why they may have the legal right to use such laws, it pays not to use the worst ones until it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise people will be like "Hey wait a minute, that's not right!", instead you need to turn up the ridiculousness of the enforced laws very slowly, even if they're already written and you'd have the right, turn up the heat very slowly, like that story about cooking a frog or a lobster.
Just like the Patriot Act. Right? oops, no rights.
The Patriot Act was named that way because, in order to get away with it, they had to put up a huge patriot act, right?
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 15, 2011, 05:19:08 PM
The Patriot Act was named that way because, in order to get away with it, they had to put up a huge patriot act, right?
NEWSFEED
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 02:13:53 AM
Annnnd http://www.theskanner.com/article/2011/01/11/Legal-Precedents-for-Political-Incitement-Set-in-Portland
Quote
Gabrielle Giffords, Sarah Palin, Mulugeta Seraw, Tom Metzger, Dr. George Tiller, "The Nuremberg Files" -- it is a strange coincidence that two of the biggest civil cases in America against virulent conservative rhetoric – incidents that involved politically-motivated murders – were tried in Portland courtrooms.
In 2002, anti-choice activists who had created a "wanted" poster-style website listing abortion providers with gun sights over their faces were found liable for damages because the site constituted "a true threat," and not protected First Amendment speech.
And in 1988, White supremacist leader Tom Metzger and his son, John, were found guilty of "organizing" and inciting the fatal skinhead beating of Portland resident Mulugeta Seraw.
Gee, looks like legal precedent has been set.
That Metzger case is a sham