Free Speech?

[shanek]

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.

Really? I don't remember anything of the kind, at least until the US did start attacking Afghanistan.

I couldn't find a thing on Google about this...well, except for a bunch of sites that claim that the Taliban/Afghanistan declared war on America when they flew planes into our buildings, which, of course, they didn't.

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

Can I come right out and say, "I don't know"? It was certainly accused, but the accusations went more toward aiding and protecting bin Laden and al-Qaeda. And as I recall, this aid and protection consisted of insisting that the US show them some evidence before they capture bin Laden and turn him over to the US.

 

[CFLarsen]

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?

Yes! He finally gets it, after many tries...

 

[CFLarsen]

It doesn't follow.

Why not?

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

She is not just talking about killing their leaders. Those Muslims who aren't killed must be converted to Christians.

Sorry, you have yet to make an argument.

Sure I have. That you don't agree with it does not mean that I haven't made it.

1.) This isn't about Coulter.

We have been discussing Coulter for 4 pages now. Have you not discussed Coulter?

2.) Your argument is Tu Quoque.

No, I am asking why the two aren't treated the same way.

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

I beg to differ.

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

Again, we have to go with what he was convicted for. You have agreed to that.

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.

But you accepted the conviction.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

From your link:

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

COULTER: The ones that we killed, yes.

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

COULTER: That would be a good start, yes.

COLMES: So, in other words, you wouldn't respect their religious beliefs? You would just want them all to be Christian.

COULTER: The point is, I mean, I suppose if I were a Muslim, I might say, "Oh, they are not practicing true Islam." What we must convert them to is true Islam, but the point is, a conversion must take place.

They think they are practicing religion when they fly planes into our skyscrapers and kill thousands of people, and to act like this isn't a problem of religion — whether it is true Islam or not — is just sticking your head in the sand.

COLMES: But you're talking about a group of extremists who misuse Islam and aren't practicing true Islam. But would you like to convert all of these countries to Christianity. Should they all become Christian nations?

COULTER: Yes, that would be terrific.

COLMES: Really?

COULTER: Yes.

COLMES: So we should just — they should all be Christians. You don't respect the fact that there are this many Muslims in the world, and the world would be a lot better if they were all Christians instead of Muslims?

COULTER: To be honest, I didn't really care, until they started flying planes into our buildings and blowing up small children. Then I took note.

COLMES: I see. Now they should all be Christians? OK. No further questions.

Are you still claiming that Coulter is not after the Muslims in the US military?

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

I don't understand. What difference does it make where she says it? Are you saying that Coulter gets off because she was on TV, as a political pundit?

As for addressing a specific group, what would you call Muslims, if not a specific group? If Muslims are the enemy, then you have the "group" you need.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

She has made it clear how she wants to deal with Muslims. She has not made any exceptions.

She is not that kind of pundit. Right?

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

"Yes you are"? What kind of argument is that? Do you mind if I decide what I am saying?

 

[CFLarsen]

Article 3 says nothing about foreign nationals.

Now you are moving the goalposts: It speaks of enemies.

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.

Probably. However, we do have Coulter's words.

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.

Irrelevant. Two people doesn't have to have anything to do with each other to be convicted of treason.

 

[Grammatron]

Yes! He finally gets it, after many tries...

I wish you could do the same.

 

[Grammatron]

From your link:



Are you still claiming that Coulter is not after the Muslims in the US military?

Are you claiming that he's claiming that she's claiming that it is indeed how things should be? I need to see some evidence.

 

[Grammatron]

I don't understand. What difference does it make where she says it? Are you saying that Coulter gets off because she was on TV, as a political pundit?

Well I guess you are getting. Yes, the location of the comments does indeed matter as far as US law is concerned, so is the context.

All the is rather obvious if you would read the law under which Al-Timimi was charged, did you do that yet?

You seem to have done some research on Coulter, so I assume you would look into the law as well.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well I guess you are getting. Yes, the location of the comments does indeed matter as far as US law is concerned, so is the context.

Prove it.

All the is rather obvious if you would read the law under which Al-Timimi was charged

Prove it.

You seem to have done some research on Coulter, so I assume you would look into the law as well.

You do your own homework.

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you claiming that he's claiming that she's claiming that it is indeed how things should be? I need to see some evidence.

I refer you to Coulter's words.

 

[Kodiak]

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

I guess the only imbecile is you, since no one here is asking you to re-state your position, but instead asking you to provide anything in the form of evidence to support your premises.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

I don't understand. What difference does it make where she says it? Are you saying that Coulter gets off because she was on TV, as a political pundit?

No, not because of that, but it is part of the context.

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

As for addressing a specific group, what would you call Muslims, if not a specific group? If Muslims are the enemy, then you have the "group" you need.

She wasn’t addressing Muslims, she was talking about them, and only about a clear subset of them. She was addressing an amorphous political audience when she was talking about Muslims.

In regard to the subset of Muslims about which she was talking, I refer you first to earlier posts in which this topic began with her talking about invading other countries. That defines the subset: Muslims in other countries that the US ought to invade. You (inadvertently, I’m sure) left this part out of your quotation.

I refer you second to this part of the conversation that you quoted. Emphasis mine:

COLMES: But you're talking about a group of extremists who misuse Islam and aren't practicing true Islam. But would you like to convert all of these countries to Christianity. Should they all become Christian nations?

The remaining comments are in response to this, i.e., Coulter is talking about Muslims in countries the US ought to invade.

I find it difficult to understand why this continues to elude you.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

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

Just as an aside. Surely in matters of law and prosecuting people it is fair to state "well since s/he was prosecuted for X so should s/he" since the law and justice are meant to apply to all? Therefore I don't think it is right to say this is a "Tu Quoque" fallacy.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I refer you second to this part of the conversation that you quoted. Emphasis mine:

COLMES: But you're talking about a group of extremists who misuse Islam and aren't practicing true Islam. But would you like to convert all of these countries to Christianity. Should they all become Christian nations?

The remaining comments are in response to this, i.e., Coulter is talking about Muslims in countries the US ought to invade.

I find it difficult to understand why this continues to elude you.

From this conversation I think there is a distinct difference between the reported words of both so I can understand why no charges were made against her. (Although if you want to go to the land of silliness you could argue that what she said could be taken to mean that if a Muslim USA soldier was in a Muslim country they should be targeted... )

 

[CFLarsen]

No, not because of that, but it is part of the context.

How would that get you off being prosecuted for treason?

She wasn’t addressing Muslims, she was talking about them, and only about a clear subset of them. She was addressing an amorphous political audience when she was talking about Muslims.

So? Can you only get prosecuted for treason if you are addressing a specific political audience?

The remaining comments are in response to this, i.e., Coulter is talking about Muslims in countries the US ought to invade.

I find it difficult to understand why this continues to elude you.

You mention context. Why isn't Coulter's blanket statement about Muslims being converted to Christianity relevant?

 

[CFLarsen]

I guess the only imbecile is you, since no one here is asking you to re-state your position, but instead asking you to provide anything in the form of evidence to support your premises.

I was asked - again - why I thought Coulter should be charged with treason.

It is rather idiotic to ask a question that has been answered many times before.

 

[Thanz]

You mention context. Why isn't Coulter's blanket statement about Muslims being converted to Christianity relevant?

Because it is in no way treason. Bigoted and idiotic? You bet. But treason? Nope.

Even if she came right out and said "All muslims in the US military should be converted to Christianity" that would not amount to treason. Even if she took it further and said that all Muslims in the military should convert or be turfed out of the military, that wouldn't be treason. And that is putting your case at its absolute highest, as she has said nothing even close to that. All of her comments were in the context of invading foreign muslim nations.

Do you still not see the difference between what she said and a muslim cleric telling other muslims that they need to go to Pakistan, train, and then fight in Afganistan against the Great Satan America?