Welcome to the SLUniverse Forums!

Cristiano · 10-12-2008, 01:24 AM

Frank Rich has written an incredible op/ed piece on the recent events in the McCain campaign and the return of the fear of an Obama assasination attempt. It is long but worth the read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/op...=1&oref=slogin

Excerpt:

Quote:

IF you think way back to the start of this marathon campaign, back when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender, then you remember the biggest fear about Barack Obama: a crazy person might take a shot at him.

Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries.

“I’ve got the best protection in the world, so stop worrying,” Obama reassured his supporters. Eventually the country got conditioned to his appearing in large arenas without incident (though I confess that the first loud burst of fireworks at the end of his convention stadium speech gave me a start). In America, nothing does succeed like success. The fear receded.

Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.

All’s fair in politics. John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform. But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating.

What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

As a side note, it makes sense now why Palin's rallies have taken such a nasty tone and why she is using catch phrases like "palling around with terrorists". Inexplicably, the Mccain campaign hired Tucker Eskew as a handler for Palin. This is the same man who was involved in 2000 with smearing John McCain in the infamous South Carolina "black baby" push poll, and is one of the nastiest figures in politics.

McCain Sells His Soul: Hires Man Who Sunk His 2000 Campaign | Crooks and Liars

Siobhan OFlynn · 10-12-2008, 02:11 AM

Are there laws against inciting riots and encouraging public unrest? I would LOVE to see Sarah Palin arrested for making incendiary speeches and promoting violence against a presidential candidate.

Richie Waves · 10-12-2008, 03:45 AM

That's a dam good read!

Briar Bing · 10-12-2008, 03:50 AM

Who the hell is making these decisions within the McCain camp?

Bruise Shepherd · 10-12-2008, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Briar Bing

Who the hell is making these decisions within the McCain camp?

From the little I've seen, it could be the Fox news editor that is responsible for crap like this

Brenda Archer · 10-12-2008, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.

dear god, we are f*cked. This kind of public racism is the one thing I couldn't have imagined in my most pessimistic moments.

These theocons have no respect for law. The outcome is inevitable. I don't merely mean an assassination, either. They've decided the country righteously belongs to them and to hell with any majority.

Tyche Shepherd · 10-12-2008, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Briar Bing

Who the hell is making these decisions within the McCain camp?

The UK Sunday Times today has an article about divides opening in McCain's campaign team over this very issue - Some even think its a deliberate ploy by Palin who wants to be seen as the fighter if they lose , leaving her open for Palin 2012 ....

McCain tussles with Palin over whipping up a mob mentality - Times Online

Cristiano · 10-12-2008, 06:53 AM

Wow, in reading more about Tucker Eskew, I discovered another interesting thing. This is a quote from an interview McCain did:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John McCain

Thousands and thousands of calls from people to voters saying "You know the McCains have a black baby" I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those.

Yet just a week ago, Sarah Palin was trying to use a similar quote from Madeline Albright about women helping other women, though she couldn't even be bright enough to read something correctly from a fucking coffee cup and misquoted itl.

Arilynn · 10-12-2008, 09:36 AM

The whole piece is excellent, but this part in particular:

Quote:

What’s troubling here is not only the candidates’ loose inflammatory talk but also their refusal to step in promptly and strongly when someone responds to it with bloodthirsty threats in a crowded arena. Joe Biden had it exactly right when he expressed concern last week that “a leading American politician who might be vice president of the United States would not just stop midsentence and turn and condemn that.” To stay silent is to pour gas on the fires.

I

Frank Rich.

Tess Whitcroft · 10-12-2008, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siobhan OFlynn

Are there laws against inciting riots and encouraging public unrest? I would LOVE to see Sarah Palin arrested for making incendiary speeches and promoting violence against a presidential candidate.

There are indeed laws against "Inciting a Riot" From Lawyers.com

Q. What does the charge inciting a riot mean and what will happen?

A. Under federal law, a riot is a public disturbance involving an act of violence by one or more persons who are assembled in a group of at least three people. The act of violence must be one that presents a clear and present danger of injury to another person or damage to another person's property. Threatening to commit a violent act in such a group situation that could injure another person or damage property is also considered a riot if one of the persons in the group has the ability at the time to carry out the threatened violence.

Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot. It does not apply to someone who merely advocates ideas or expresses beliefs, if those ideas and beliefs do not involve advocating violence.

The federal crime of inciting a riot carries a possible penalty of up to five years in prison and a fine.

State and local governments also have laws that make it a crime to incite a riot. The penalties range from fines only to jail time. It is important that the law, even if only a municipal ordinance, specify the conduct that is prohibited with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited.

Tess

Gigs · 10-12-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siobhan OFlynn

Are there laws against inciting riots and encouraging public unrest? I would LOVE to see Sarah Palin arrested for making incendiary speeches and promoting violence against a presidential candidate.

We have a thing called the 1st amendment. It especially applies to political speech, even unpopular political speech.

As a liberal, you should be defending this. The ACLU defended the KKK's right to march and speak in public.

About the riot stuff, in 1919 the constitutional test was established as a "clear and present danger". In 1969, this test was replaced with "imminent lawless action".

Unless Obama is actually present at these McCain rallies, there is no way that there could be imminent lawless action. The test requires that "the speech likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned."

So no, you can't silence people you disagree with. It's disappointing that you even want to.

Siobhan OFlynn · 10-12-2008, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigs

We have a thing called the 1st amendment. It especially applies to political speech, even unpopular political speech.

As a liberal, you should be defending this. The ACLU defended the KKK's right to march and speak in public.

About the riot stuff, in 1919 the constitutional test was established as a "clear and present danger". In 1969, this test was replaced with "imminent lawless action".

Unless Obama is actually present at these McCain rallies, there is no way that there could be imminent lawless action. The test requires that "the speech likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned."

So no, you can't silence people you disagree with. It's disappointing that you even want to.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there was a guy arrested in Florida for making vague threats against Obama in some training class he was taking.

I don't care what kind of hatred that good Christian woman, Sarah Palin, spills. But when she remains silent after her words have incited her listeners to cry out "Kill him", I think that's wrong and if it's not unlawful, it should be. If you made an offhand threat about killing her in front of witnesses, you would be arrested, too.

It's disappointing to me that you would use the First Amendment to condone racially charged, violent hate speech and death threats against a presidential candidate while wrapping yourself in the American flag.

Gigs · 10-12-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Sorry to disappoint you, but there was a guy arrested in Florida for making vague threats against Obama in some training class he was taking.

If this person challenged the constitutionality of the charges, he would win.

Quote:

I don't care what kind of hatred that good Christian woman, Sarah Palin, spills. But when she remains silent after her words have incited her listeners to cry out "Kill him", I think that's wrong and if it's not unlawful, it should be. If you made an offhand threat about killing her in front of witnesses, you would be arrested, too.

Brandenburg v. Ohio clarified that it is specifically legal to advocate violence to effect political and economic change, as long as there is not imminent lawless action.

I'm sorry you don't agree with the 1st amendment. I suggest you move to a country that doesn't value free speech.

Under the current test, yelling "Lynch the nigger" at your KKK rally is 100% legal and constitutionally protected. Yelling "Lynch the nigger" at an Obama rally where there are 100s of people ready to rush the stage, that's very much not protected speech. That's how the imminent danger test works.

Tess Whitcroft · 10-12-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigs

So no, you can't silence people you disagree with. It's disappointing that you even want to.

It has nothing to do with disagreeing with them. They are walking a very fine line and if they cross it the results could be a tragedy on a national scale. Even if they don't cross the line into illegal they are out of line if they don't make a serious effort to tone down the rhetoric. At this point they should, of their own free wills, make that effort.

Tess

Siobhan OFlynn · 10-12-2008, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigs

If this person challenged the constitutionality of the charges, he would win.

Brandenburg v. Ohio clarified that it is specifically legal to advocate violence to effect political and economic change, as long as there is not imminent lawless action.

I'm sorry you don't agree with the 1st amendment. I suggest you move to a country that doesn't value free speech.

You don't think shouting "Kill him" is imminent lawless action? What planet do you live on anyway?

Gigs · 10-12-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siobhan OFlynn

You don't think shouting "Kill him" is imminent lawless action? What planet do you live on anyway?

It's not "imminent lawless action" if "him" isn't present at the place it's being yelled.

The Brandenburg case was exactly this. Clarence Brandenburg advocated marching on Washington and killing the president, the supreme court, and congress at his KKK rally. The court found that it was protected speech because there was not imminent lawless action.

Gigs · 10-12-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tess Whitcroft

Even if they don't cross the line into illegal they are out of line if they don't make a serious effort to tone down the rhetoric. At this point they should, of their own free wills, make that effort.

They are just hanging themselves. This stuff only serves to damage the Republican party.

Siobhan OFlynn · 10-12-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigs

It's not "imminent lawless action" if "him" isn't present at the place it's being yelled.

The Brandenburg case was exactly this. Clarence Brandenburg advocated marching on Washington and killing the president, the supreme court, and congress at his KKK rally. The court found that it was protected speech because there was not imminent lawless action.

This is the story of the guy who was arrested in Miami. I have no idea what the outcome has been so far, since this is all I could find. Barack Obama was nowhere near this guy when he made his threat.
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - New Details: Man held for alleged Obama assassination threat « - Blogs from CNN.com

I have also heard of people who've been arrested simply for having anti Bush bumperstickers on their cars. One guy had his whole car covered with them and he was arrested. If I can find the link to that, I will post it. Don't forget, the Bush administration has spent the last 8 years using the Constitution as toilet paper and "The Patriot Act" has made many of us into unintentional criminals.

Max Herzog · 10-12-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigs

It's not "imminent lawless action" if "him" isn't present at the place it's being yelled.

The Brandenburg case was exactly this. Clarence Brandenburg advocated marching on Washington and killing the president, the supreme court, and congress at his KKK rally. The court found that it was protected speech because there was not imminent lawless action.

As a non-American, I'm not up on matters Constitutional, but how are Q&A sessions held by the major parties as they electioneer, "protected"? TV cameras are present at every rally, every town hall session, and beam the events nationally and the world over.

Gigs · 10-12-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siobhan OFlynn

This is the story of the guy who was arrested in Miami. I have no idea what the outcome has been so far, since this is all I could find. Barack Obama was nowhere near this guy when he made his threat.

The standards for a private relation like this are a little different from those of public advocacy.

In the case of someone relating that they are going to commit a crime, it breaks down into mens rea and actus reus. Mens rea is "the guilty mind". It is the intent to commit a crime. Actus reus is "guilty action". Simply saying you are going to kill someone, without taking any actions toward that end, is not a crime.

I can say "I'm going to cut you, bitch!", and that's (usually) legal. If I say "I'm going to cut you, bitch!" and I pick up a knife or pull out a knife, then that's a crime.

So there has to be some significant action toward the end of committing a crime. If this Miami guy had stuff at his house that indicated he was making actual plans and actions toward the end of killing Obama, then he is guilty of attempted murder, all constitutional issues aside.

Quote:

Don't forget, the Bush administration has spent the last 8 years using the Constitution as toilet paper and "The Patriot Act" has made many of us into unintentional criminals.

Yeah, that's why I said it was disappointing before. If we can't count on liberals to protect the Constitution either, we are really fucked. There's not enough libertarians to carry the day.

Gigs · 10-12-2008, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Herzog

As a non-American, I'm not up on matters Constitutional, but how are Q&A sessions held by the major parties as they electioneer, "protected"? TV cameras are present at every rally, every town hall session, and beam the events nationally and the world over.

Oh sorry, I guess that's American legal jargon. "Constitutionally protected speech" means that it can't be punished criminally.

Usually what you are referring to, we call "privileged communication", that can't be forced to be revealed even with a court order.

RandoymRandt · 10-12-2008, 11:08 AM

Racist Obama billboard causes outrage // Current

Siobhan OFlynn · 10-12-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigs

Yeah, that's why I said it was disappointing before. If we can't count on liberals to protect the Constitution either, we are really fucked. There's not enough libertarians to carry the day.

Sometimes, even liberals reach the end of their rope. I will defend Sarah Palin's right to free speech, but if it ends up that she's incited someone to kill a presidential candidate, I know that the only consequences she'll face are having to live with herself and her (hopefully) guilty conscience. And that makes me very angry and sad.

It also pisses me off that Conservatives hate the ACLU, but if push comes to shove, they will use court decisions they abhor to their advantage every time. Which they have every right to do. But it would be nice to hear a "thank you for protecting my civil liberties, ACLU" once in awhile.

Siobhan OFlynn · 10-12-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandoymRandt

Racist Obama billboard causes outrage // Current

This billboard is a perfect example of someone of a conservative republican persuasion wrapping themselves in the Constitution to defend a racist/ hateful sign.

Gigs · 10-12-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siobhan OFlynn

Which they have every right to do. But it would be nice to hear a "thank you for protecting my civil liberties, ACLU" once in awhile.

Heh, for 100% coverage, I donate to the ACLU and the NRA. The ACLU got a bum copy of the constitution that seems to be missing the 2nd amendment.

It makes for some interesting junk mail. I get stuff like "Free Tibet" right next to the Jerry Falwell magazine, "die with dignity" and "right to smoke" solicitations... all at the same time. It's great.

10-12-2008, 02:11 AM	#2 (permalink)
Siobhan OFlynn The original prim whore had better not find chicken shit on her sofa Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sunset Valley or Riverview Posts: 3,818 SL Join Date: 08-19-2003 My Mood: Awards: 1	Are there laws against inciting riots and encouraging public unrest? I would LOVE to see Sarah Palin arrested for making incendiary speeches and promoting violence against a presidential candidate. __________________

10-12-2008, 03:45 AM	#3 (permalink)
Richie Waves 50/50 Is Three apples Tall Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Between Iraq and Israel Posts: 8,318 SL Join Date: 27/06/2005	That's a dam good read! __________________ My lastfm Hello, I'm a recovering crackhead and this is my retarded sister. Can we have some welfare please? -Dennis

10-12-2008, 03:50 AM	#4 (permalink)
Briar Bing Thorny yet fuzzy Oh, I zigs and I zags; I tos and I fros Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: MN USA Posts: 2,028 Scrabble Blast Champion! SL Join Date: May 2003 My Mood:	Who the hell is making these decisions within the McCain camp? __________________ The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot. ~Mark Twain

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-12-2008, 11:08 AM	#22 (permalink)
RandoymRandt Smiles, everyone, smiles! part of the problem Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: AU Posts: 2,662 SL Join Date: Originally June 5, 2007 My Mood:	Racist Obama billboard causes outrage // Current