Should we prosecute sedition?

Quote:

---

Should we prosecute sedition?
Feb 15, 2006
by Ben Shapiro ( bio | archive | contact )

Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A Last Sunday, former Vice President Al Gore spoke before the Jiddah Economic Forum. He told the mostly Saudi audience that the United States had committed "terrible atrocities" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He stated that Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and detained in "unforgivable conditions." He criticized America's new immigration policy, which more carefully scrutinizes Saudi visas, explaining, "The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake." Finally, he concluded, "There have been terrible abuses, and it's wrong. … I want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

These are outrageous statements. And the silence from the left is deafening. The Democratic National Committee told me that they had not released a statement regarding Gore's speech and had no plans to do so. The New York Times editorial board, the official outlet of the American left, wrote nary a word about the speech.

It is now considered bad form to criticize those who commit seditious acts against the United States. Challenging the patriotism of a traitor draws more ire than engaging in treasonable activities. Calling out those who undermine our nation creates more of a backlash than actually undermining our nation.


Let us consider, however, the probable consequences of Gore's mea culpa on behalf of the "majority" of his countrymen. No doubt his words will fuel the massive tide of propaganda spewing forth from Muslim dictatorships around the globe. No doubt his words will be used to bolster the credibility of horrific disinformation like the Turkish-made, Gary-Busey-and-Billy Zane-starring monstrosity "Valley of the Wolves: Iraq," which accuses American troops of war atrocities and depicts a Jewish-American doctor (Busey) slicing organs out of Arab victims and shipping the body parts off to New York, London and Israel. No doubt Gore's speech will precipitate additional violence against Americans in Iraq and around the globe.

And Gore is not alone. Much of the language of the "loyal opposition" has been anything but loyal. In September 2002, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) called President Bush a liar on Saddam Hussein's turf, then added that Hussein's regime was worthy of American trust. On "Face the Nation" back in December, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) stated that American troops were "going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of, of, of historical customs, religious customs …" Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, averred in December that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

At some point, opposition must be considered disloyal. At some point, the American people must say "enough." At some point, Republicans in Congress must stop delicately tiptoeing with regard to sedition and must pass legislation to prosecute such sedition.

"Freedom of speech!" the American Civil Liberties Union will protest. Before we buy into the slogan, we must remember our history. President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and allowed governmental officials to arrest Rep. Clement Vallandigham after Vallandigham called the Civil War "cruel" and "wicked," shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers, and had members of the Maryland legislature placed in prison to prevent Maryland's secession. The Union won the Civil War.

Under the Espionage Act of 1917, opponents of World War I were routinely prosecuted, and the Supreme Court routinely upheld their convictions. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes rightly wrote, "When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." The Allies won World War I.

During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans, as well as allowing the prosecution and/or deportation of those who opposed the war. The Allies won World War II.

During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld the free speech rights of war opponents, whether those opponents distributed leaflets depicting the rape of the Statue of Liberty or wore jackets emblazoned with the slogan "F--- the Draft." America lost the Vietnam War.

This is not to argue that every measure taken by the government to prosecute opponents of American wars is just or right or Constitutional. Some restrictions, however, are just and right and Constitutional -- and necessary. No war can be won when members of a disloyal opposition are given free reign to undermine it.

---

Where does protest stop and treason begin?

LINK

Had no idea he said that in his speech, ironic considering plenty of us on the left essentially hate the Saudi government and the manner in which the US has pandered to them. Yet here goes this jackass. Honestly, it doesn't surprise me, Gore time and time again says things that I honetly think he thinks won't be reported/verified/or cross-referenced. Before Iraq part 2 he goes on television saying he was all for finishing the job the first time, and within an hour C-SPAN is showing him in 92 on the Senate floor pleading for the coalition NOT to invade Iraq and stop with repelling Saddam.


In answer to your question, I would tend to say no. The definition of sedition will change as the guard changes, lest I remind everyone of Tailgunner Joe. People like this dig their own graves and torpedo their own careers.

As far as the movie is concerned, people who think it is seditious are outright idiots. Its fiction. Its a movie. Are we gonna prosecute John Grisham as well? Hollywood? I don't have enough fingers and toes to count all the films where a branch of the government intends to kill its own citizens to further some sort of agenda. Go rent The Long Kiss Goodnight, or conspiracy Theory. And for that matter, what about films like The Patriot, where the "enemy" is sensationalized, outright lies and fiction. the fact that the fiction takes place in the present makes it no more or less obtrusive. If we are going to have network television shows that are FICTICIOUS about our soldiers in Iraq and the trials they endure day to day, then now can we be pissed when somoene makes a movie from the other camp.

That being said, I think billy Zane and Busey made poor career moves.


Attributing the winning of previous wars with sedition laws and the "losing" of vietnam with freedom of speech is ridiculous. This is not the civil war. This is not WWII. This is a war against an idea, an adjective, with a hidden enemy and to be honest it has gotten off to a bit of a shakey start with bungled intel in the Iraq situation. To start prosecuting people who dissent is stupid, and to prosecute people who intentionally spread misinformation is like saying that our leaders can do it but we cannot. Give me a fkin break

Heh. Vocal dissent is a byterm for treason?

Not so much dissent as intentional misinformation spread to raise opposition. But even in the examples from the author of the column, it doesn't all add up to sedition. The japanese rounded up weren't being seditious necessarily, they were just being japanese. The way the author frames the argument, sedition prosecutions are being poised as a threat, as a way of telling people to shut the hell up.

Public bodies cant sue for libel as they are public figures, theefore the normal safeguards to keep al gore from telling lies about me dont exist to keep al gore from telling lies about his country.

In the examples you mentioned Gwain, the powers that be were slapping Sedition orders onto OTHER people, and extremely rarely on themselves. As MRD states, no one is going to pass legislation that might mean they can get locked up for slandering an opponent.

WW1 and WW2 did have allies. In WW1 the Germans did give up when they saw America was going to join, but more because of America's potential, not its military strength. The British blockade of imports did far more real damage - as did the slaughters on the battle fronts.

WW2 similar story in Europe: Allies. The USSR would probably have beaten the Germans singlehanded (except for the notable material aid).

Vietnam: troops for 1 year - what is this a war or a holiday camp? In WW1 and WW2 troops fought THE WAR - they didn't see the finish till it finished. And there was a far clearer reason for fighting, not napalming some gooks in a jungls as if they might threaten the entire world :laugh4:

Saying taking any line against the government is sedition is IMO against democracy itself, and means we'd quickly come to resemble the enemy. Bush has bungled many things, and these need to be pointed out - at least then he might not do them again! If there is carte blanche cover up, then it'd only be the leader's own consience... And when that's a not too bright born again Christian, personally that worries me!

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Not so much dissent as intentional misinformation spread to raise opposition.

---

It's the US, mang. Everybody does that.

Why not forbid all parties except the Comint... no, I mean Republicans and punish all dissenters... no, I mean traitors with Gulag... no, I mean freedom camps in Alaska and Cuba?

Edit: edited to remove possibly accusing tone which wasn't intention

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Gawain, why not forbid all parties except the Comint... no, I mean Republicans and punish all dissenters... no, I mean traitors with Gulag... no, I mean freedom camps in Alaska and Cuba?

---

I don't Think G. was trying To say this was necessarily his viewpoint, only Trying to spark a discussion.

BTW previous examples of sedition laws have little to do with Todays applications because of the quick and easy dissimination of information. Had the internet existed during the red scare, half tHe counTry would be investigated bEcause They surfed for info. Printing presses are dead my friends, and The internet will be taxed before you can say "regulation"

wow.....having an unpopular opinion is treason......:help:

help me out here.....this article came from the funny pages right?.....I mean there´s no way anyone would believe such crap....or am I wrong?:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Where does protest stop and treason begin?

---

In Quebec.

Not only do we have a legal separatist party in the province, but we actually have a federal wing of that party collecting federal paychecks while they do everything they can to destroy the country. :dizzy2:

And every single man and woman in the Bloc Quebecois federal party that advocates separating Quebec from Canada has insisted on keeping their Canadian federal pensions that come with service in the federal parliament even if they succeed in breaking up the country. In the words of Lucien Bouchard, former head of the Bloc Quebecois, regarding keeping a federal pension if he succeeded in destroying the country, "I earned that money!" Yeah. Right.

So at the same time my taxes pay for a government to manage the country, more of my tax money goes to pay the salaries of people who want to break up the country. Have your federal government force you to send Osama bin Laden a cheque once a month and then tell me how furious you would be.

Find me another situation as stupid as it is in Canada and I'll send you a dollar.

I certainly can't top Beirut's example. Here's a recent report of a sedition investigation actually being launched here:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16438

thumbnail version: Gov't employee (VA nurse) writes a Letter to the Editor, urging active oppostion to administration policies - gets investigated.

Quote:

---

Find me another situation as stupid as it is in Canada and I'll send you a dollar.

---

In Northern Ireland a bunch of ex-terrorists are paid for hanging around doing nothing because they refuse to come to Parliament or to have a local government with their hated enemies.

Should the seperatists starve until they convince enough people to let them leave? Until there is a seperation they are elected members of the Canadian Government and thus are entitled to every benefit the nationalists get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

In Quebec.

Not only do we have a legal separatist party in the province, but we actually have a federal wing of that party collecting federal paychecks while they do everything they can to destroy the country. :dizzy2:

And every single man and woman in the Bloc Quebecois federal party that advocates separating Quebec from Canada has insisted on keeping their Canadian federal pensions that come with service in the federal parliament even if they succeed in breaking up the country. In the words of Lucien Bouchard, former head of the Bloc Quebecois, regarding keeping a federal pension if he succeeded in destroying the country, "I earned that money!" Yeah. Right.

So at the same time my taxes pay for a government to manage the country, more of my tax money goes to pay the salaries of people who want to break up the country. Have your federal government force you to send Osama bin Laden a cheque once a month and then tell me how furious you would be.

Find me another situation as stupid as it is in Canada and I'll send you a dollar.

---

Another situation as stupid ? How about the disregard some English Canadians, even ones residing in Québec, have for fellow Canadians?

Sovereignists are neither terrorists, nor stupid, nor out on destroying Canada.

The Bloc Québécois is striving towards what they deem the best political constellation for the peoples of Canada. That's their God-given democratic right. Just like it is the democratic right of their opponents to disagree with them. To say that the Bloc is destroying Canada in a Bin Ladenesque fashion is stretching things as much as saying that the English are oppressing Québec in neo-colonial fashion.

And should Canada ever break up, they obviously are entitled to their federal pensions. They've paid for them, through federal taxes. In turn, obviously again, English Canadians are entitled to what Québec owns them towards their pensions, as their tax money has benefitted Québec. Most Québécois, not half as dumb as English stereotyping would have it, do realise this.

You can send that loony to the Bloc Québécois, boulevard René-Lévesque Est 1717, Montréal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Where does protest stop and treason begin?

LINK

---

Yes sedition should be prosecuted.

But protesting or speaking out against a war is not sedition, nor is speaking out (in a democratic society) against the actions of the current political majority.

And Gore's speech was not sedition, since he didn't really say anything (at least from the snippets included in the article) that could not be reasonably argued as truth.

And any author that tries to hold up the Japanese internment as a valid precedent for future government action should really give his head a shake. That basically invalidated any shred of a point he might have had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Find me another situation as stupid as it is in Canada and I'll send you a dollar.

---

In Belgium there was a party that was called People's Union, that advocated splitting up the country and dissolved. Belgium has also 6 governements, including one for the German language.

I fear the Norwegian Communist Party. :hide:

(yes, it exists)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Another situation as stupid ? How about the disregard some English Canadians, even ones residing in Québec, have for fellow Canadians?

---

Well that isn't me. I love my country dearly and all who live here. Except the separatists of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Sovereignists are neither terrorists, nor stupid, nor out on destroying Canada.

---

Some have been terrorists and have been hired by the Parti Quebecois government. As far as being stupid, the way I see it anyone who wants to destroy this magnificient country is ignorant beyond words. And it is destruction they seek. They spell out their agenda gently to those with a sympathetic ear, but they want what they want and coulnd't care less about how they get it, who they hurt, or the mess they leave behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The Bloc Québécois is striving towards what they deem the best political constellation for the peoples of Canada. That's their God-given democratic right. Just like it is the democratic right of their opponents to disagree with them. To say that the Bloc is destroying Canada in a Bin Ladenesque fashion is stretching things as much as saying that the English are oppressing Québec in neo-colonial fashion.

---

"The best political constelation for the peoples of Canada"? That's a new one on me. Sure they have a right to dissent, but what they are doing is far beyond that. They insist on rights for themselves that they have already said they would deny to others. They incite hatred, xenophobia, and cultural purity, all the hallmarks of oppresive movements. Perhaps you missed the parts where our separatist premieres said Quebec needed more white babies and blamed the "ethnic people" for the separatist loss in the last referendum. (The one they tried to steal through intimidation and vote fraud.) Don't kid yourself, the separatists are not the peaceful loving people you might think they are.

I've lived here for 42 years and I know these people very, very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

And should Canada ever break up, they obviously are entitled to their federal pensions.

---

And after I leave my girlfriend I'll be back for sex on a once a week basis. It doesn't work that way. You leave... you leave!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

You can send that loony to the Bloc Québécois, boulevard René-Lévesque Est 1717, Montréal.

---

I wouldn't send them water if they were on fire.

Louis, are you Charles de Gaulle? And by 'English Canadians', I assume you mean 'Canadians who are anglophones' or 'Canadians who speak English as a first language'. I'm not a French Canadian, but I'm not an English Canadian either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

Louis, are you Charles de Gaulle?

---

I do secretly enjoy how he stirred things up in Canada in 1968. 'Vive le Québec. Vive le Québec...libre. Et vive le Canada français!'
(Hail Quebec. Hail a...free Quebec. And hail French Canada!)

Quote:

---

And by 'English Canadians', I assume you mean 'Canadians who are anglophones' or 'Canadians who speak English as a first language'. I'm not a French Canadian, but I'm not an English Canadian either.

---

Yes, I meant English in a linguistic sense: anglophone Canadians. I formed 'English Canadians' analogous to 'French Canadians'.
As I'm not a native English speaker, please do teach me proper English terminology. In general, I absolutely welcome corrections to my English.
Speaking of which, is 'Canuck' used exclusively for anglophones?

Beirut, we've gone through all this before,~;)

I will not reply to your post point-by-point.
We agree that Canada should remain undivided. If it aint broke, don't fix it and all that.
About the nature of the wish for Quebecan independence, at least about the legitimacy of that wish, we shall probably never reach an agreement.

That's some sedition for the record. That guy was a friggin' wanker.

'French Canadian' really boils down to 'Canadians of French descent', which is truly the basis of the separatist argument.

I'm not sure about 'Canuck'. Typically, only Yanks and European immigrants use it, but I've heard that it refers specifically to Western Canadians.

Quote:

---

He told the mostly Saudi audience that the United States had committed "terrible atrocities" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He stated that Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and detained in "unforgivable conditions." He criticized America's new immigration policy, which more carefully scrutinizes Saudi visas, explaining, "The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake." Finally, he concluded, "There have been terrible abuses, and it's wrong. … I want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

These are outrageous statements.

---

No, they are the truth.

Atrocities have been committed from Guantanamo Bay to Bagram air base to Abu Ghraib. How is that untrue?

Arabs and other Muslims were indiscriminately rounded up following 9/11 and have been detained in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc. in 'unforgivable conditions'. How is that untrue?

There have been terrible abuses in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib etc. How is that untrue?

A majority of Americans object to the abuses committed in these places, and so they clearly 'do not represent the desires or wishes or feeling of the majority of the citizens' of the USA. How is that untrue?

I guess the truth is outrageous to some. That doesn't mean you can or should prosecute those who speak it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Beirut, we've gone through all this before,~;)

I will not reply to your post point-by-point.
We agree that Canada should remain undivided. If it aint broke, don't fix it and all that.
About the nature of the wish for Quebecan independence, at least about the legitimacy of that wish, we shall probably never reach an agreement.

---

Agreed.

However, I'm sure you would share my... vehement point of view, on these matters if I suggested the Basque ETA had the right to a French paycheck.

I like the idea that World War Two was won just because the Americans rounded up their Japanese population. If we had realised it would be that easy we would never have bothered with the whole fighting thing! And then the comparison to Vietnam, LOL! :laugh4:

How is assuring them that "most Americans did not support such treatment" while apologizing for clear mistakes of the administration currently sedition??

You really don't think these things through, do you? ~:joker:

What he was saying is largely, if not entirely, accurate. AND he was criticizing the administration while pointing out that most Americans were not on board with the mistreatment. If anything, it was damage control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

However, I'm sure you would share my... vehement point of view, on these matters if I suggested the Basque ETA had the right to a French paycheck.

---

Do the French separatists fight the battles at the polls or with bombs like the Basque?

BTW did you know that the Basque are Celts...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Do the French separatists fight the battles at the polls or with bombs like the Basque?

BTW did you know that the Basque are Celts...

---

They've done both.

I was under the impression that the Basques' ethnicity was a mystery for the most part. I've heard that they are pre-Indo-European from some.

The joys of DNA testing confirming linguisitics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Do the French separatists fight the battles at the polls or with bombs like the Basque?

---

Recently at the polls. In the past the militant wing of the separatists were responsilble for kidnappings, bombings, murder, robbery and assasinations.