Free Speech?

[CFLarsen]

CFL, I don't know how much you know about linguistics and communication, but in order for you to make a statement such as "Person A did B" you must have basis of it or a further explanation of why you think B was done by A.

No, I don't. That would mean that I would presume to know what's going on in the heads of Coulter and al-Timimi. And I don't.

My point isn't invalid because I refuse to speculate on reasons why both said what they said.

Nice try, though.

 

[Garrette]

Very very very silly and ill considered of me to get involved at this point, but I'll give it a brief go by stating what I see to be the two major positions on this thread along with an idea on what they're not connecting:


CFLarsen:

1. al Timimi did not commit treason
2. Coulter did not commit treason
3. Coulter made remarks analogous to remarks made by al Timimi
4. To be consistent, the US legal system should be brought to bear against Coulter in the same manner it was brought to bear against al Timimi


Most everybody else:

1. al Timimi may or may not have committed treason but seems to have been convicted of it. Barring evidence to the contrary, we'll accept that.
2. Coulter did not commit treason, hasn't been charged with it, and hasn't been convicted of it
3. Coulter's remarks are not analogous to the remarks of al Timimi



The breakdown is in the analogy between the remarks. If analogous, CFLarsen's question has merit. If not, it doesn't.

Personally, I agree with most everybody else. Coulter's remarks are reprehensible, disgusting, bigoted, idiotic, irresponsible, and worthy of all the scorn we can heap upon them, but they do not constitute treason in that, in context, they do not advocate harm against the US. This will be the sticking point with CFL who thinks otherwise.

 

[Thanz]

You can deny that I haven't shown it, of course. But that doesn't make it so.

I am not denying that you HAVEN'T shown it - I am denying that you HAVE shown it.

Huh?? How can she not be after the Muslims in the US military, if she says that "no one" should be a Muslim?

You lost me there.

It is all about context, Mr. Larsen. Read what was actually said. Here is a link to the transcript on the Fox news site:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134537,00.html

It is clear that she is talking about invading other countries and converting them to Christianity. I don't see how you could interpret anything of what she says as a treasonous attack on any part of the US military.

She is a bigot and a fool, but what she said is not analogous at all to what Al-timimi was convicted of. Not even Mr. Fantastic could make that stretch.

 

[Garrette]

In light of Diogenes' findings, some of this becomes moot.

While it is still true, imo, that Coulter is not guilty of treason, it is conceivable that she is guilty of those bits of charges against al Timimi that Diogenese pointed out.

This gives a bit more merit to CFL's position, but not enough, I think.

In deciding to press charges or not, prosecutors must take context into account along with the possibility of conviction.

Given that Coulter was speaking on a political show in a political context and was not addressing her comments to a specific group, I do not see how she could be seen to be either 'counseling' or 'advocating' someone else to do harm.

Still reprehensible and all that, but not prosecutable, imo.

 

[Grammatron]

No, I don't. That would mean that I would presume to know what's going on in the heads of Coulter and al-Timimi. And I don't.

My point isn't invalid because I refuse to speculate on reasons why both said what they said.

Nice try, though.

So on what basis do you make your statement that she has commited treason?

 

[Garrette]

Grammatron,

CFL hasn't said that Coulter committed treason. (At least, he doesn't think he has; nor do I).

He has said that her comments were analogous to al Timimi, and since he was convicted of treason Coulter should be too for the legal system to remain consistent.

I think.

 

[Grammatron]

Grammatron,

CFL hasn't said that Coulter committed treason. (At least, he doesn't think he has; nor do I).

He has said that her comments were analogous to al Timimi, and since he was convicted of treason Coulter should be too for the legal system to remain consistent.

I think.

He said "I said that if al-Timimi was charged with treason, Coulter should, too." if he thinks she should be charged with it he must think she has commited it, no?

 

[Garrette]

No.

He's arguing about legal consistency regardless if either is objectively guilty.

The flaw in his argument is that the comments are not analogous; it is not in the fact that Coulter's don't rise to the level of treason.

 

[Grammatron]

No.

He's arguing about legal consistency regardless if either is objectively guilty.

The flaw in his argument is that the comments are not analogous; it is not in the fact that Coulter's don't rise to the level of treason.

So you're saying that he's arguing that Coulter's statement should be viewed as treasones as Al-Timimi's because in his eyes they are analogous?

 

[Garrette]

That is my understanding, yes.

 

[RandFan]

I used the dictionary definition you have provided.

It doesn't follow.

I refer you to her quotes.

Her quotes are clearly about citizens of Muslim countries otherwise why would she say "their leaders"?

Please make an effort to follow the debate.

Sorry, you have yet to make an argument.

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.

1.) This isn't about Coulter.

2.) Your argument is Tu Quoque.

3.) It is demonstrable that Coulter did not say the same thing.

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

This is silly. How can you know she said the same thing if you don't even know what he said?

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,"

And now I'm telling you that I don't know how al-Timimi broke any laws. Skepticism demands we find out before we decide if the conviction was appropriate.

 

[RandFan]

Please explain that.

It means no one should be Muslim (according to her). It's assinine but she does not say how to accomplish that in regards to American Muslims.

 

[RandFan]

Strawman. I'm not saying that at all.

Yes you are. Whatever Coulter has or has not done has nothing to do with deciding whether or not al-Timimi is guilty of Treason.

Coulter is simply a red hearing and a classic Tu Quoque.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, but Coulter did exactly the same thing.

She made a specific request - killing Muslims and converting those that weren't killed - to a specific group of people - Muslims.

Article 3 says nothing about foreign nationals.

al-Timimi chose Americans as his target. That's not OK with you.

No one has posted al-Timimi's words so you are speculating. If he targeted American's in an atempt to overthrow America then that appears to be treason.

Coulter chose Muslims. That's OK with you.

No but then that is a fallacious argument. Coulter has nothing to do with al-Timimi and even if she did exactly what al-Timimi did it does not change the facts of HIS case. Arguing Ann Coulter is fallacious. I'm betting you follow this fallacious line of argument for at least 14 pages and then you stop and go away.

 

[RandFan]

Example of Larsen Logic

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

Now, according to logic this includes American soldiers. Let's assume that it does. If we follow the argument to its logical conclusion then Ann is saying that we should invade American and convert George W. Bush to Christianity.

Come on Larsen, you can do better than that.

BTW, Coulter is Larsen's Red Herring. Assuming that Coulter did advocate the killing of American soldiers it wouldn't make al-Timimi any less treasonous (assuming that he was).

I concede that if Coulter DID advocate the killing of American Soldiers and the overthrow of the American government then she is treasonous. But such a notion raises a question, why? Our leaders are already predominantly Christian. What purpose would this serve?

If she is only advocating the killing of American soldiers because they are Muslim then she is simply advocating murder. It is the intent to overthrow the government that makes one treasonous. She clearly did not do this.

Your out of gas Larsen. This is not a point that one can reasonably debate. However there is no doubt that you will do it anyway.

 

[RandFan]

The US.

How? She likes Bush in charge. She likes that the Congress is populated with right wingers. How could treason help her. She want America to invade Muslim countries. Kind of hard to do if you are trying to overthrow America.

Your argument is silly.

 

[RandFan]

Am I dealing with imbeciles here? How many times do I have to re-state what my position is?

The same way al-Timimi is.

Again, I should emphasize that I don't think she or al-Timimi are committing treason. But if he is prosecuted, she should be, too.

But he advocated taking up arms against America. Ann advocated taking up arms against Muslim countries. As Darat has said only a tortured and extreme reading of Ann's words would suggest that she advocates the overthrow of America.

 

[crimresearch]

Well, 1inCLaus cannot prevent us from discussing on topic unless we spend ALL of our time on him....

So on a tangent slightly less removed:

I am unable to find this with a quick Google, but I distinctly remember that in the rhetoric flying back and forth after 9/11, that the recognized government of Afghanistan, the Taliban *did* issue a formal declaration of war against the US.

This was in the context of 'We had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, but the evil US is going to unjustly invade us anyway, so we hereby declare war on them.

And now no one seems to be willing to come right out and say that the Taliban had *nothing* to do with 9/11...

So how would that not satisfy the typical requirements to be in a state of war, and therefor make recruiting for the enemy treason?

 

[RandFan]

I would say Coulter is guilty of the last one, and maybe the next to last, but I don't know exactly what the ' Neutrality Act ' is, and what constitutes a violation of same....

I will be the first to say that in light of this, CFL's suggestion that Ms Coulter should be charged with ( some of ) the same charges as Al-Timimi, is not without merit.


I appoligize for suggesting otherwise.. I got hung up on the ' Treason ' thing, which doesn't seem to be included in the charges.

Bravo, someone actually took the time to find out what was said and did indead find that Coulter might be guilty of something. I agree with you.

Still, how does this alter what al-Timimi has or has not done? It is To Quoque to say "well she did it also".

 

[shanek]

BTW, Coulter is Larsen's Red Herring. Assuming that Coulter did advocate the killing of American soldiers it wouldn't make al-Timimi any less treasonous (assuming that he was).

Claus never met a Tu Quoque fallacy he didn't like.