Free Speech?

[RandFan]

Furthermore, in the opinion of Michael Sheuer (former head of the CIA station dedicated to bin Laden), this sort of over-heated rhetoric gets air play in the mid-east and negatavely impacts the US in the war on terror.

It's speculation of course, but it's entirely possible that Coulter, from her visible perch, harmed the US more than al-Timimi did.

I concede your point. However the law isn't about causing harm but openly advocating harm. Coulter advocated harm to others that could lead to harm to us. Bad, but not treasonous.

 

[CFLarsen]

She didn't break the law. Are you going to continue to ask a question that was answered?

She was not even charged, for the very same that al-Timimi was convicted for. I am asking why. Are you going to answer that?

Wasn't that implicit in the post...let me check...no, it was direct I said "the government". I hope that is clear now.

So, if the government supports someone they also consider their enemies...then what?

Yes because the definition is consistant with the dictionary usage.

So, it is not exclusively when people want to kill you in the name of their god.

 

[RandFan]

No? Why not? She wants to get at her enemies, and some of those are US troops.

That is not proven. She spoke generically, here words were obviously poorly chosen and her ideas bankrupt but nothing suggests that she really wanted to kill American soldiers. The notion is silly.

You don't think that forcing a group of Americans to convert to a specific religion undermining American authority?

No, not directly if it is conducted by the American government.

A basic freedom, namely the right to believe in what god you want?

Her ideas are idiotic and counter to our constitution and American values. They are not treasonous.

If you don't believe that advocating killing Americans is against America, why do you think that al-Timimi is guilty of the very same?

This is a straw man. She, Coulter advocates no such thing. You are playing games. You are being disingenous.

 

[RandFan]

She was not even charged, for the very same that al-Timimi was convicted for.

Not established in the thread. You don't even know what al-Timimi said IIRC. Isn't that right?

I am asking why. Are you going to answer that?

Wouldn't it be reasonable to find out what al-Timimi said before you make such claims?

So, if the government supports someone they also consider their enemies...then what?

Nothing obviously, it is the governments choice to do so.

So, it is not exclusively when people want to kill you in the name of their god.

Of course not, that is simply one obvious example. The people in question meet that definition ergo they meet the formal definition.

 

[Darat]

I concede your point. However the law isn't about causing harm but openly advocating harm. Coulter advocated harm to others that could lead to harm to us. Bad, but not treasonous.

In the to and fro I've got a bit confused so I may have grasped the wrong end of the stick.

If (and that is a big IF) Coulter advocates killing Muslims and there are Muslim citizens of the USA and some of those citizens are in the military service isn't she advocating attacking the USA military so is in fact being treasonous?

(I reckon that's about the most tortuous chain of "reasoning" I've ever posted.)

 

[RandFan]

In the to and fro I've got a bit confused so I may have grasped the wrong end of the stick.

If (and that is a big IF) Coulter advocates killing Muslims and there are Muslim citizens of the USA and some of those citizens are in the military service isn't she advocating attacking the USA military so is in fact being treasonous?

(I reckon that's about the most tortuous chain of "reasoning" I've ever posted.)

I don't read that in her words. I would be willing to entertain the possibility if someone would like to outline and diagram her words and how she really believes that.

 

[CFLarsen]

That is not proven. She spoke generically, here words were obviously poorly chosen and her ideas bankrupt but nothing suggests that she really wanted to kill American soldiers. The notion is silly.

But she doesn't need to want to kill American soldiers. Using the definition you provided, all she needs to do is feel:

hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.

She clearly does that to American Muslim soldiers.

Not, directly if it is conducted by the American government.

Let me remind you of the Bill of Rights, 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 American government is not allowed to prohibit soldiers to be Muslims.

Her ideas are idiotic and counter to our constitution and American values. They are not treasonous.

Agree. But she is advocating the same as al-Timimi.

This is a straw man. She, Coulter advocates no such thing. You are playing games. You are being disingenous.

You specifically said:

Even if she advocated killing Americans it certainly wasn't to do so against America.

So, I am asking you: Why do you think that al-Timimi is guilty of advocating killing Americans?

 

[RandFan]

Point of order and full disclosure for those following along.

I like Coulter, I like her a lot. She pisses off liberals in a way that appeals to me. That being said: She is a partisan idiot who should know better. She says some of the dumbest things I have ever heard. She is in many ways an embarrassment and those on the left have every right to dismiss her as intellectually dishonest which is far worse than being intellectually bankrupt. She is also strident and intolerant. Why do I like her? Good question. I like Michael Moore also. Fallacious? Perhaps.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not established in the thread. You don't even know what al-Timimi said IIRC. Isn't that right?

Absolutely. But if you accept that he was convicted of advocating killing US troops, then do you also accept that it is what he said?

Nothing obviously, it is the governments choice to do so.

But wouldn't that be against e.g. the US Bill of Rights?

Of course not, that is simply one obvious example. The people in question meet that definition ergo they meet the formal definition.

So you have recanted this statement:

You know, I prefer your definition. Yeah, when a person makes a commitment to god to kill you, that person could then be construed to be an enemy.

You don't prefer that definition to others, then. Gotcha.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't read that in her words. I would be willing to entertain the possibility if someone would like to outline and diagram her words and how she really believes that.

It's not a question of whether she believes it or not. That is just making excuses for her. We have to go with what she said:

Coulter wrote about Muslims: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"

.....

COLMES: Would you like to convert these people all to Christianity?

COULTER: The ones that we haven't killed, yes.

COLMES: So no one should be Muslim. They should all be Christian?

COULTER: That would be a good start, yes.

It doesn't get clearer than that: She wants to kill Muslims and those that are not killed must be converted to Christians.

 

[RandFan]

But she doesn't need to want to kill American soldiers. Using the definition you provided, all she needs to do is feel:

No, I don't think that follows. Why would you say that.

She clearly does that to American Muslim soldiers.

As clear as mud. Can you show how?

The American government is not allowed to prohibit soldiers to be Muslims.

No argument, and this makes your argument how? BTW, what is your argument? Hopefully not the whole Coulter thing?

Agree. But she is advocating the same as al-Timimi.

You say that you don't know what al-Timimi has said so how do you know that it is the same?

So, I am asking you: Why do you think that al-Timimi is guilty of advocating killing Americans?

I am only repeating what the article said. I don't know what al-Timimi said. You admit that you don't either. I only know that he was convicted. I concede that his conviction could have been completely bogus. Absent evidence that his conviction was bogus and the article wrong then I am assuming that he advocated that people take up arms against America. If that is wrong I would like to know. I can't find any more information yet. I have to go to an appointment so I will try and find it later today. I suppose that it is too much to ask for you to post something?

 

[RandFan]

It's not a question of whether she believes it or not. That is just making excuses for her. We have to go with what she said:

No, I'm just being honest.

It doesn't get clearer than that: She wants to kill Muslims and those that are not killed must be converted to Christians.

No, this is in bad faith and is disingenous. Kill or convert those members of those countries.

Coulter wrote about Muslims: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"

If she had really said or meant what you attribute to her I would agree. But she was quite clear that she meant the citizens of Muslim countries and not American citizens. If you continue to insist that she did not mean that then you are being intellectually dishonest.

I have to go, see ya later.

 

[RandFan]

Coulter wrote about Muslims: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"

Where in there do you read American? Ok, now I'm gone. Sorry.

 

[aerocontrols]

Randfan:

I submit that you are engaged in a futile effort. Why waste your time?

See here, for example.

Like you, I find him to lack intellectual honesty.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, I don't think that follows. Why would you say that.

I used the dictionary definition you have provided.

As clear as mud. Can you show how?

I refer you to her quotes.

No argument, and this makes your argument how?

Please make an effort to follow the debate.

BTW, what is your argument? Hopefully not the whole Coulter thing?

As I have made crystal clear several times now, I am asking why Coulter is not prosecuted for the same things that al-Timimi was convicted for.

You say that you don't know what al-Timimi has said so how do you know that it is the same?

Like you, I am going with what he was convicted for.

I am only repeating what the article said. I don't know what al-Timimi said. You admit that you don't either. I only know that he was convicted. I concede that his conviction could have been completely bogus. Absent evidence that his conviction was bogus and the article wrong then I am assuming that he advocated that people take up arms against America. If that is wrong I would like to know.

You have argued yourself that it is: You were asked what law al-Timimi had broken and you posted the Wikipedia article on treason: "only levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,"

I can't find any more information yet. I have to go to an appointment so I will try and find it later today. I suppose that it is too much to ask for you to post something?

If I find something, sure.

 

[shanek]

Furthermore, in the opinion of Michael Sheuer (former head of the CIA station dedicated to bin Laden), this sort of over-heated rhetoric gets air play in the mid-east and negatavely impacts the US in the war on terror.

It's speculation of course, but it's entirely possible that Coulter, from her visible perch, harmed the US more than al-Timimi did.

Well, if you really want to get down to the nuts and bolts of it, it's this insane War on Terror and us having our armies in countries where it has no business being that is stirring up anti-American sentiment and making it much easier for groups such as al-Qaeda to recruit new terrorists. So, then, that means that our government is committing treason!

 

[shanek]

It looks like that was what he was convicted of. The jury deliberated for seven days. I think they are in a better position to determine what he did than I,

Unless the jury was misinformed about the nature of the speech, or the judge prevented the defense from speaking as to the reasoning behind his speech, or the judge stopped the defense from arguing the defendant's rights as protected by the Constitution, or the jury believed the lie the judge almost certainly told that they didn't have any option to nullify the law...all of which have happened before.

 

[CFLarsen]

If she had really said or meant what you attribute to her I would agree. But she was quite clear that she meant the citizens of Muslim countries and not American citizens. If you continue to insist that she did not mean that then you are being intellectually dishonest.

COLMES: So no one should be Muslim. They should all be Christian?

COULTER: That would be a good start, yes.

Please explain that.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

So, I am asking you: Why do you think that al-Timimi is guilty of advocating killing Americans?

Uhhhh, because a court of law found him guilty ?

 

[CFLarsen]

Unless the jury was misinformed about the nature of the speech, or the judge prevented the defense from speaking as to the reasoning behind his speech, or the judge stopped the defense from arguing the defendant's rights as protected by the Constitution, or the jury believed the lie the judge almost certainly told that they didn't have any option to nullify the law...all of which have happened before.

This applies to all court decisions.