Free Speech?

[Questioninggeller]

Jurors in the trial of a prominent Islamic scholar on Tuesday convicted him on 10 counts of encouraging followers in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops.

Jurors in their seventh day of deliberations reached their verdict in the trial Ali al-Timimi. Al-Timimi, 41, showed no visible reaction to the verdict.

U.S. government prosecutors said al-Timini faces a mandatory maximum sentence of life in prison.

Despite government objections, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema freed al Timimi on bond until his sentencing in July.

Prosecutors have said al-Timimi was a respected scholar who enjoyed "rock star" status among his followers and that he used that influence to guide them into a holy war against the United States.

Al-Timimi's lawyers have said he only counseled young Muslims after Sept. 11 that they might be wise to leave the United States because it would become difficult to practice their faith in the United States.

The foundation of the government's case was a Sept. 16, 2001, meeting in which al-Timimi offered an apocalyptic interpretation of the Sept. 11 attacks, which he said heralded the final battle between Muslims and nonbelievers. He said Muslims were obligated to defend the Taliban regime, prosecutors said.

Three people who attended that meeting later traveled to Pakistan and received military training from a group called Lashkar-e-Taiba, with the ultimate goal of using that training on the Taliban's behalf.

No one from the group ever made it to Afghanistan, but at least two group members have admitted their goal was to join the Taliban and that al-Timimi inspired them to do so.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/26/terror/main690989.shtml

So this guy is looking at possibly "life in prison" for trying to get people to join the Taliban?

[Art Vandelay]

What is a "mandatory maximum sentence "? What exactly was he charged with?

[clarsct]

Encourging people to fight for the Taliban. May I mention that we were at WAR right about then. Helping the enemy is treason. Without knowing more details, I find it difficult to draw conclusions on his actions. If he was merely protesting the war, that is free speech. If he was inciting treason, that is illegal. While it does not violate free speech, it does violate other laws set forth in the Constitution. ( I may be corrected here, but I believe the Constitution had a provision for treason.) I realize this is a sticky wicket, but there are legal definitions to be tangled with.

[CFLarsen]

The foundation of the government's case was a Sept. 16, 2001, meeting in which al-Timimi offered an apocalyptic interpretation of the Sept. 11 attacks, which he said heralded the final battle between Muslims and nonbelievers. He said Muslims were obligated to defend the Taliban regime, prosecutors said.

Coulter on Muslims:

Two days after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, Coulter wrote about Muslims: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" (as Media Matters for America has noted). On Hannity & Colmes, Coulter reinforced those sentiments, claiming, as she does in her new book, that they are true "[n]ow more than ever":

ALAN COLMES (co-host of Hannity & Colmes): [R]ight after September 11, you said, and you know where I'm going with this, I'm often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity. You say the same thing Nixon said in 1972: "Now more than ever."

COULTER: Now more than ever.

[...]

COULTER: By Friday of 9/11, we had accomplished point one and point two. Invade their countries, killed their leaders.

[...]

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.

[...]

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? Because that's what your ...

COULTER: Yes, that would be terrific.

COLMES: ... remarks suggest.

COULTER: That would be terrific, yes. [FOX News Channel, Hannity & Colmes, 10/4/04]
Source (http://mediamatters.org/items/200410050004)

Why isn't Ann Coulter prosecuted?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by clarsct
May I mention that we were at WAR right about then.

With whom?

[clarsct]

Putting aside the fine distinctions between a "war" and a "police action", as I find them to be semantically equivalent, we were at war in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government, whose religious leader orchestrated the attacks on 9/11. I would think this may translate to being at war with Afghanistan, but, in essence, it was the group who claimed responsibility that we had problems with. Your average Afghani probably wasn't involved, and, technically, wouldn't be our enemy, but I fear it was they who paid the price. It has always been this way with war, but I do think the technology used limited civilian casualties.

Such as it is, we were at war with a specific group of people. A call to aid those very people could very well be treasonous.

Please notice I did not mention Iraq. That is a war I simply cannot defend. Most of the world was with us in Afghanistan, Denmark included, I believe. (I am willing to be corrected, however.) It was our actions in Iraq that shot us in the foot. I didn't vote for the guy, don't blame me.

As for Ann Coulter, I'm sure she would be, or would have been, prosecuted in Afghanistan during the war. For the same reason, and, from a certain point of view, justly. I do not agree with her viewpoint, for what it's worth, but she does have a right to them.

I realize this is a case of subjective reasoning, but we are talking about the law here. I'm sure there are laws anywhere that defy logic. But they do exist, sometimes for the most emotional of reasons. Allowing an act of treason doesn't seem to make much sense to me. But your definition of treason may vary, which is why we have courts decide. It isn't perfect, but we just haven't found a better way.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by clarsct
we were at war in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government

Wrong.

Timeline:

==================================================

Sept. 13, 2001: Coulter says that all Muslim countries should be invaded, converted to Christian countries and all Muslim leaders should be killed.

Sept. 16, 2001: Al-Timimi makes his speech.

Sept. 20, 2001: Bush declares war on terror (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/). He specifically names the Taliban.

Oct. 7, 2001: The US invades Afghanistan. (http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-afghanistan-since-1992)

==================================================

The US was not at war at the time Al-Timimi made his speech.

Yet, Al-Timimi is prosecuted, while Coulter is not.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by clarsct
but she does have a right to them.

Why doesn't Al-Timimi have a right to his views?

[Darat]

Originally posted by clarsct
Putting aside the fine distinctions between a "war" and a "police action", as I find them to be semantically equivalent, we were at war in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government, whose religious leader orchestrated the attacks on 9/11.

...snip...

Bin Laden wasn't the religious leader of the Taliban government.

[clarsct]

You see? THIS is what happens when you listen to the US News Media!!!

Argh...I dunno...He was just probably caught in the post-9/11 hysteria. So what was Bin-Laden, anyway..other than damned tight with the Bush family? I had gotten the impression that he was a leader in the organization. Once again, my sources are probably flawed. It just seemed that we were more justified in Afghanistan..Iraq is a freaking blunder of monumental proportions.

I suppose the argument could be made that the information about the Taliban was leaked long before the Bush news conference, and therefore, Al Timimi knew that what he was saying would be treasonous, but that argument sounds weak, even to me. Doesn't mean a lawyer couldn't convict on it with a sympathetic jury. We'll have to see what happens on appeal.

Try to understand, we do TRY, but we are human. That is why we have the appeals court.

*sigh* And I never said Al Timimi didn't have a right to his views. I, in fact, said they were protected free speech, and he wasn't tried on a censorship basis. They probably tried him on a treason charge, which, legally, is a very fine line. Maybe some of the law types could explain it better.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by clarsct
You see? THIS is what happens when you listen to the US News Media!!!

Argh...I dunno...He was just probably caught in the post-9/11 hysteria. So what was Bin-Laden, anyway..other than damned tight with the Bush family? I had gotten the impression that he was a leader in the organization. Once again, my sources are probably flawed. It just seemed that we were more justified in Afghanistan..Iraq is a freaking blunder of monumental proportions.

I suppose the argument could be made that the information about the Taliban was leaked long before the Bush news conference, and therefore, Al Timimi knew that what he was saying would be treasonous, but that argument sounds weak, even to me. Doesn't mean a lawyer couldn't convict on it with a sympathetic jury. We'll have to see what happens on appeal.

Try to understand, we do TRY, but we are human. That is why we have the appeals court.

*sigh* And I never said Al Timimi didn't have a right to his views. I, in fact, said they were protected free speech, and he wasn't tried on a censorship basis. They probably tried him on a treason charge, which, legally, is a very fine line. Maybe some of the law types could explain it better.

Maybe you could do some legwork yourself, if you want to discuss this?

[Darat]

Originally posted by clarsct
You see? THIS is what happens when you listen to the US News Media!!!

Argh...I dunno...He was just probably caught in the post-9/11 hysteria. So what was Bin-Laden, anyway..other than damned tight with the Bush family? I had gotten the impression that he was a leader in the organization.

...snip...

He is (was?) the leader of Al-Qa'ida a terrorist organisation, the Taliban were the "legitimate" government of Afghanistan; they co-operated in a way that was beneficial to both but they weren’t one and the same.

[shanek]

Originally posted by clarsct
Encourging people to fight for the Taliban. May I mention that we were at WAR right about then.

We were? When did we declare war?

If he was inciting treason, that is illegal.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." —Article III Section 3 Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

How was the Taliban our enemies, given that just a few months earlier our government had given them $10 million in foreign aid? It must be an enemy in order to count as treason under the Constitution.

[shanek]

Originally posted by clarsct
Such as it is, we were at war with a specific group of people.

That group of people was not the Taliban.

A call to aid those very people could very well be treasonous.

No, it wouldn't, because the Taliban wasn't our enemy. Our government accused the Taliban of aiding bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and that was the pretense used to attack Afghanistan. But this is, at worst, giving aid to someone who's giving aid to the enemy, and the Constitution doesn't recognize any degrees of separation there.

I realize this is a case of subjective reasoning, but we are talking about the law here. I'm sure there are laws anywhere that defy logic.

www.dumblaws.com

[qoute]But your definition of treason may vary, which is why we have courts decide.[/QUOTE]

That's completely wrong. The only definition of treason that counts in this country is the one in Article III Section 3 Clause 1 of the Constitution.

[DaChew]

Just spitballing but if he was "encouraging followers in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops. Wouldn't that be conspiracy?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
How was the Taliban our enemies, given that just a few months earlier our government had given them $10 million in foreign aid?

Aren't you just a little bit too naive here? The US government has given money to its enemies before.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
That group of people was not the Taliban.

That is not correct. The US were at war with the Taliban. Whether it was right to do so is another issue.

Originally posted by shanek
No, it wouldn't, because the Taliban wasn't our enemy. Our government accused the Taliban of aiding bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and that was the pretense used to attack Afghanistan. But this is, at worst, giving aid to someone who's giving aid to the enemy, and the Constitution doesn't recognize any degrees of separation there.

Does it say anything in the constitution what an "enemy" is?

Originally posted by shanek
That's completely wrong. The only definition of treason that counts in this country is the one in Article III Section 3 Clause 1 of the Constitution.

If you were right, there would never be court decisions on constitutional matters. As it happens, there are.

[RandFan]

Jurors in the trial of a prominent Islamic scholar on Tuesday convicted him on 10 counts of encouraging followers in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks to join the Taliban [b]and fight U.S. troops. (emphasis mine)

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
So this guy is looking at possibly "life in prison" for trying to get people to join the Taliban? No, the guy is looking at possibly "life in prison" for sedition.

se·di·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-dshn)
n. [list=1]
Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.

Insurrection; rebellion.
[/list=1] As a free speech advocate I'm not at all comfortable with putting this guy away. But let's at least be accurate about what is happening.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why isn't Ann Coulter prosecuted? She hasn't as far as I know broken a law. Why would you ask that question?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
She hasn't as far as I know broken a law. Why would you ask that question?

Because al-Timimi is. What law has he broken?

[RandFan]

I'm trying to find case law on sedition but I'm beginning to have doubts about any current law. Does anyone know if there is a law against sedition at the moment. I believe the sedition law of 1917 was repealed.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Because al-Timimi is. What law has he broken? I'm trying to find out. I don't decide what is right or wrong and then argue fo 13 pages and refuse to admit that I'm wrong. If he hasn't then I will admit that.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm trying to find out.

Would it be a good idea to do that before you post?

[RandFan]

Treason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason)

The United States

To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution. Article Three defines treason as only levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. This safeguard may not be foolproof since Congress could pass a statute creating treason-like offences with different names (such as sedition, bearing arms against the state, etc.) which do not require the testimony of two witnesses, and have a much wider definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have generally been convicted of espionage rather than treason. In the United States Code the penalty ranges from "shall suffer death" to "shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

[CFLarsen]

What is the definition of an "enemy"?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Would it be a good idea to do that before you post? No, not really. No one I know is against opinion or speculation as long as the person who does that is willing to alter his or her opinion when better information comes along or is shown to be wrong. It is when one argues for 13 pages and refuses to admit that there is no basis for ones argument that there is a problem.

Thanks for the question but I have no problem admitting that I was wrong. It's called integrity.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Because al-Timimi is. What law has he broken? Treason, article three of the constitution.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/26/terror/main690989.shtml

So this guy is looking at possibly "life in prison" for trying to get people to join the Taliban?

Too bad it wasn't death.

I would no more shed a tear for him than I would a Nazi leader encouraging people to join the Nazis during WWII.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What is the definition of an "enemy"? You really don't know?

en·e·my ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-m)
n.
One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.[/b] Jurors in the trial of a prominent Islamic scholar on Tuesday convicted him on 10 counts of encouraging followers in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What is the definition of an "enemy"?

Uhhhhhh....

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...those who are swearing by God to murder you?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Beerina
Uhhhhhh....

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...those who are swearing by God to murder you? 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.

[CFLarsen]

Ann Coulter feels hatred towards at least some parts of the US, namely the Muslims (not to speak of the Democrats!). She wants to - forcibly - convert Muslims to Christians and to kill Muslim leaders.

I still don't see why Ann Coulter isn't prosecuted.

I could also ask why American companies who sell non-American products (thereby opposing the interests of the US) are not similarly prosecuted for treason.

There must be something else going on here. "Enemy" can't have that meaning.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
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.

Do you think we could agree to use commonly accepted terms, instead of what you think "enemy" means?

If you get to define every word the way you see fit, then honest debate is impossible.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Do you think we could agree to use commonly accepted terms, instead of what you think "enemy" means?

If you get to define every word the way you see fit, then honest debate is impossible. Does this mean that a person who has promised God to kill you, is not your enemy?


Not that I expect a simple 'yes' or ' no ' answer.. Just thought I would throw this out for the record, since you apparently wish to argue semantics rather than debate honestly.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ann Coulter feels hatred towards at least some parts of the US, namely the Muslims (not to speak of the Democrats!). She wants to - forcibly - convert Muslims to Christians and to kill Muslim leaders.

I still don't see why Ann Coulter isn't prosecuted. Really? Are you that obtuse? Coulter was advocating the use of US troops to kick some serious foreign ass. Al-Timimi was convicted of inciting/encouraging people to kick US troop ass. Do you not see the fundamental difference here?
I could also ask why American companies who sell non-American products (thereby opposing the interests of the US) are not similarly prosecuted for treason. You could, but you would look stupid. Not that you don't already, with the Coulter thing, but you might want to stop digging.

Do you not also see a fundamental difference between encouraging people to kill US troops and selling a trinket made in China?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why isn't Ann Coulter prosecuted? What would she be charged with?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Does this mean that a person who has promised God to kill you, is not your enemy?

Not that I expect a simple 'yes' or ' no ' answer..

You shouldn't, because the world is rarely black-or-white. I wouldn't care what reason that person would give to kill me. He would be a threat to me at any rate. My "enemy"? If you want to use that word, sure.

Originally posted by Diogenes
Just thought I would throw this out for the record, since you apparently wish to argue semantics rather than debate honestly.

We cannot have one part of a debate define what the words mean. An "enemy" does not merely mean someone who has promised God to kill someone else.

If whether or not you are an enemy is going to be determined by your religious beliefs, then we are talking about a religious war. Is that the case in Afghanistan?

No? Then the definition of "enemy" doesn't apply here.

Yes? Great... :rolleyes:

[varwoche]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I still don't see why Ann Coulter isn't prosecuted. 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.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Really? Are you that obtuse? Coulter was advocating the use of US troops to kick some serious foreign ass. Al-Timimi was convicted of inciting/encouraging people to kick US troop ass. Do you not see the fundamental difference here?

What, exactly, did al-Timimi say?

Originally posted by Thanz
Do you not also see a fundamental difference between encouraging people to kill US troops and selling a trinket made in China?

Was that what al-Timimi did? How do you know?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
What would she be charged with?

The same as al-Timimi. Although personally, judging from what we know was said, I can't see why any of them should be prosecuted.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by varwoche
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.

Absolutely.

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

Not many outside the US has heard of Coulter, but who has heard of al-Timimi??

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What, exactly, did al-Timimi say?
I don't know. I wasn't there. I can only surmise based on what he was convicted of.
Was that what al-Timimi did? How do you know? 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, having only read some short news reports of the trial.

Certainly, Coulter has not advocated any action against the United States. How could she be charged with treason?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You shouldn't, because the world is rarely black-or-white. I wouldn't care what reason that person would give to kill me. He would be a threat to me at any rate. My "enemy"? If you want to use that word, sure.



We cannot have one part of a debate define what the words mean.

We can't? Says who? Are you saying you have never heard someone say something like " for the purpose of this debate, I define A to mean B..".. If the person changes the meaning later, it gives you a point of recourse.. Very logical ..


An "enemy" does not merely mean someone who has promised God to kill someone else.
If whether or not you are an enemy is going to be determined by your religious beliefs, then we are talking about a religious war. Is that the case in Afghanistan?

No? Then the definition of "enemy" doesn't apply here.

So? Then another definition would apply ? It doesn't mean that someone who has promised God to kill you does not come under the definition of enemy ...


Yes? Great... :rolleyes: Did you have a point?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
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, having only read some short news reports of the trial.

I didn't ask what he was convicted of. I asked what he had said.

And we don't know. However, we do know what Coulter said.

Originally posted by Thanz
Certainly, Coulter has not advocated any action against the United States. How could she be charged with treason?

She has advocated action against American troops (the Muslim ones), precisely what al-Timimi was convicted of (but we don't know what he actually said).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Did you have a point?

If you don't get it, you don't get it.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why isn't Ann Coulter prosecuted? On what charge?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
On what charge?

You already asked that, and I already answered:

The same as al-Timimi. Although personally, judging from what we know was said, I can't see why any of them should be prosecuted.

Do you have problems remembering what you just asked?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If you don't get it, you don't get it.

Did anyone else get it?




Is anyone else familiar with the practice of establishing definitions for the purpose of debate?

Does anyone else feel that determining who your enemies are, for whatever reason, is a difficult task and subject to a concise definition of the word ' enemy ' ?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You already asked that, and I already answered:

The same as al-Timimi. Although personally, judging from what we know was said, I can't see why any of them should be prosecuted.

Do you have problems remembering what you just asked? Show where Ann Coulter committed treason against the United States.

You are the one making the claim that she did.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Is anyone else familiar with the practice of establishing definitions for the purpose of debate?

Does anyone else feel that determining who your enemies are, for whatever reason, is a difficult task and subject to a concise definition of the word ' enemy ' ?

When we are talking law and reasons to go to war, definitely.

You really don't think it is a problem that people can make up their own definitions of terms?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Show where Ann Coulter committed treason against the United States.

You are the one making the claim that she did.

I strongly urge you to read what I wrote earlier:

Although personally, judging from what we know was said, I can't see why any of them should be prosecuted.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ann Coulter feels hatred towards at least some parts of the US, namely the Muslims (not to speak of the Democrats!). She wants to - forcibly - convert Muslims to Christians and to kill Muslim leaders.

I still don't see why Ann Coulter isn't prosecuted. She didn't break a law. She didn't commit treason.

I could also ask why American companies who sell non-American products (thereby opposing the interests of the US) are not similarly prosecuted for treason. It depends on what the the government believes is in our best interest. I concede that they are often if not usually wrong. But if the government decides that businesses can trade with the enemy that is the governments choice as our representatives. Telling people to go to war against America is NOT an approved action.

There must be something else going on here. "Enemy" can't have that meaning. What meaning? I gave you the dictionary usage of the word.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Do you think we could agree to use commonly accepted terms, instead of what you think "enemy" means? Uhhh... I gave you the definition from the dictionary. {sigh} Here we go again. You are the most obtuse person I know. I'll post it again for your benefit.

en·e·my ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-m)
n.
One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.[/b]

If you get to define every word the way you see fit, then honest debate is impossible. If you refuse to acknowledge the definitions that are posted THEN honest debate is impossible.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
She didn't break a law. She didn't commit treason.

I agree. I am asking why she wasn't prosecuted when al-Timimi was.

Originally posted by RandFan
It depends on what the the government believes is in our best interest. I concede that they are often if not usually wrong. But if the government decides that businesses can trade with the enemy that is the governments choice as our representatives. Telling people to go to war against America is NOT an approved action.

By whom? The government or you?

Originally posted by RandFan
What meaning? I gave you the dictionary usage of the word.

You also said this about Beerina's post:

Originally posted by RandFan
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.

So, what definition do you want to use? The dictionary definition or Beerina's?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I didn't ask what he was convicted of. I asked what he had said.

And we don't know. However, we do know what Coulter said.



She has advocated action against American troops (the Muslim ones), precisely what al-Timimi was convicted of (but we don't know what he actually said).

What "action" did she advocate against muslim US troops? From the comments on this thread, I can only see that she called for them to be converted to Christianity.

I am, of course, happy to consider evidence that she advocated action.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And we don't know. However, we do know what Coulter said. Which had nothing to do with Treason. Why are you equating that with what al-Timimi said if you don't know what he said?

She has advocated action against American troops (the Muslim ones), precisely what al-Timimi was convicted of (but we don't know what he actually said). Only in an extreme reading of her words. I don't at all get the impression that she advocated killing American Soldiers and it certainly wasn't to undermine Americana authority. I'm sorry but this really isn't going to fly. Even if she advocated killing Americans it certainly wasn't to do so against America. And I don't at all think she advocated killing Americans. Her thoughts are idiotic but not treasonous.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
What "action" did she advocate against muslim US troops? From the comments on this thread, I can only see that she called for them to be converted to Christianity.

I am, of course, happy to consider evidence that she advocated action.

Ah, you are thinking of "physical" action. I am thinking of "action", as in "taking action".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If you don't get it, you don't get it. Riiiight! It's our fault. Good argument. Blame the listener. I note that all of the woos on this board do that. When someone doesn't understand your point it is reasonable to try and restate it so that other can understand. If you are obtuse simply pretend that others do not get it. Why do I feel that we are about to go 14 pages trying to get Larsen to make a coherent argument.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I agree. I am asking why she wasn't prosecuted when al-Timimi was. She didn't break the law. Are you going to continue to ask a question that was answered?

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

You also said this about Beerina's post: Yes because the definition is consistant with the dictionary usage.

So, what definition do you want to use? The dictionary definition or Beerina's? See above.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
Which had nothing to do with Treason.

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

Originally posted by RandFan
Only in an extreme reading of her words. I don't at all get the impression that she advocated killing American Soldiers and it certainly wasn't to undermine Americana authority.

You don't think that forcing a group of Americans to convert to a specific religion undermining American authority? A basic freedom, namely the right to believe in what god you want?

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm sorry but this really isn't going to fly. Even if she advocated killing Americans it certainly wasn't to do so against America. And I don't at all think she advocated killing Americans. Her thoughts are idiotic but 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?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by varwoche
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]

Originally posted by RandFan
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?

Originally posted by RandFan
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?

Originally posted by RandFan
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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]

Originally posted by RandFan
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]

Originally posted by Darat
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]

Originally posted by RandFan
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.

Originally posted by RandFan
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.

Originally posted by RandFan
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.

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

You specifically said:

Originally posted by RandFan
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]

Originally posted by RandFan
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?

Originally posted by RandFan
Nothing obviously, it is the governments choice to do so.

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

Originally posted by RandFan
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:

Originally posted by RandFan
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]

Originally posted by RandFan
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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 (http://randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45138), for example.

Like you, I find him to lack intellectual honesty.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, I don't think that follows. Why would you say that.

I used the dictionary definition you have provided.

Originally posted by RandFan
As clear as mud. Can you show how?

I refer you to her quotes.

Originally posted by RandFan
No argument, and this makes your argument how?

Please make an effort to follow the debate.

Originally posted by RandFan
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.

Originally posted by RandFan
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.

Originally posted by RandFan
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,"

Originally posted by RandFan
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]

Originally posted by varwoche
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]

Originally posted by Thanz
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]

Originally posted by RandFan
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


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]

Originally posted by shanek
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.

[RandFan]

Just one more thing, let's assume for the sake of argument that Coulter is doing exactly what you say she is. Your argument is Po Quoque. Your argument once again is fallacious.

In the end what Coulter does really has no bearing on Al-Timimi.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Uhhhh, because a court of law found him guilty ?

So, you think that OJ was innocent?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, you think that OJ was innocent? In the eyes of the law, yes.

Are we talking about something else?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
Just one more thing, let's assume for the sake of argument that Coulter is doing exactly what you say she is. Your argument is Po Quoque. Your argument once again is fallacious.

Just because Coulter does something wrong doesn't make it OK for al-Timimi.

Strawman. I'm not saying that at all.

I am asking why she isn't prosecuted for doing the same as al-Timimi.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by RandFan
In the end what Coulter does really has no bearing on Al-Timimi. Not to mention OJ...


Hitler anyone?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diogenes
In the eyes of the law, yes.

Are we talking about something else?

Am I the only one who thinks that there should be a modification of Godwin's Law to include references to OJ as well as Hitler?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I didn't ask what he was convicted of. I asked what he had said.

And we don't know. However, we do know what Coulter said. And what she said was nothing remotely close to what Al-Timimi was convicted of. Timimi was convicted of telling muslims to go and train and fight along side the Taliban against America. Coulter never even comes close to this. She has advocated action against American troops (the Muslim ones), precisely what al-Timimi was convicted of (but we don't know what he actually said). She certainly did not. She advocated action against other countries that are Muslim. The only thing you seem to be hanging your hat on is in an answer where she says it would be a start if no one were muslim. Where is the advocated action against American soldiers? You are inventing it out of whole cloth. She advocates intense action against other countries. I don't see any specific actions advocated against any americans or troops.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
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. Without any evidence, I'm not willing to accept that any of that happened. However, even if it ALL happened, the Jury was in a far better position to judge what he did than I am, having heard precisely zero actual testimony. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
In the eyes of the law, yes.

Are we talking about something else?

What do you think about the conviction?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
The only thing you seem to be hanging your hat on is in an answer where she says it would be a start if no one were muslim. Where is the advocated action against American soldiers?

there are only approximately 4,500 Muslims in uniform
Source (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030924-091208-9162r.htm)

Your call.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Your call. Thanks! I've made the call. What Coulter said, while remarkably bigoted and idiotic, does not come close to telling people to train and fight against American soldiers in Afganistan.

Now that you have made it my call, I take it you agree?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Thanz
Thanks! I've made the call. What Coulter said, while remarkably bigoted and idiotic, does not come close to telling people to train and fight against American soldiers in Afganistan.

Now that you have made it my call, I take it you agree?

Should I check back in Ohhhh..............about 13 pages?

:p

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What do you think about the conviction? Do you mean the aquittal?


I respect the jury's decision. I have no information that compels me to believe that it was the wrong one.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Thanks! I've made the call. What Coulter said, while remarkably bigoted and idiotic, does not come close to telling people to train and fight against American soldiers in Afganistan.

Now that you have made it my call, I take it you agree?

No.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Do you mean the aquittal?

No, al-Timimi's.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, al-Timimi's. I respect the jury's decision. I have no information that compels me to believe that it was the wrong one.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why isn't Ann Coulter prosecuted?

She has committed no crime.

If you disagree, please, as a supposed proponent of skepticism, logic and reason, provide the law you believe she has violated and any evidence that illustrates her violation of that law.

Thanks.












I predict crickets and/or obfuscation...

[varwoche]

Originally posted by RandFan
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. Agreed. I was merely taking a potshot (at the singular most hateful talking head I've ever seen, parenthesized in hopes of not spawning a Coulter, the anti-viagra, diversion). ;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kodiak
She has committed no crime.

If you disagree, please, as a supposed proponent of skepticism, logic and reason, provide the law you believe she has violated and any evidence that illustrates her violation of that law.

Thanks.












I predict crickets and/or obfuscation...

And I assert that you haven't been paying any attention to anything I have posted in this thread.

I have repeatedly said that I don't think that either Coulter's or al-Timimi's actions are criminal.

If you disagree, please, as a supposed proponent of skepticism, logic and reason, provide the quotes you believe show otherwise and any evidence that illustrates this.

Thanks.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And I assert that you haven't been paying any attention to anything I have posted in this thread.

I have repeatedly said that I don't think that either Coulter's or al-Timimi's actions are criminal.

If you disagree, please, as a supposed proponent of skepticism, logic and reason, provide the quotes you believe show otherwise and any evidence that illustrates this.

Thanks.

I'll take that.

Al-Timimi's guilty because he made a speicfic request to a specific group of people; he told a group of his followers to go and fight US troops. Coulter made a general statement that we should go convert all Muslims in Muslims nations. These slight differences make the two extremely different situations as far as the law of USA is concerned.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And I assert
I have repeatedly said that I don't think that either Coulter's or al-Timimi's actions are criminal.


Thanks. You realize I'm sure, that what you think, is meaningless in a skeptical forum, when not based on evidence.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I'll take that.

Al-Timimi's guilty because he made a speicfic request to a specific group of people; he told a group of his followers to go and fight US troops. Coulter made a general statement that we should go convert all Muslims in Muslims nations. These slight differences make the two extremely different situations as far as the law of USA is concerned.

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.

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

Coulter chose Muslims. That's OK with you.

Is that correct?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And I assert that you haven't been paying any attention to anything I have posted in this thread.

I have repeatedly said that I don't think that either Coulter's or al-Timimi's actions are criminal.

If you disagree, please, as a supposed proponent of skepticism, logic and reason, provide the quotes you believe show otherwise and any evidence that illustrates this.

Thanks.

Your own words Claus:

"Ann Coulter feels hatred towards at least some parts of the US, namely the Muslims (not to speak of the Democrats!). She wants to - forcibly - convert Muslims to Christians and to kill Muslim leaders.

I still don't see why Ann Coulter isn't prosecuted."

"She has advocated action against American troops (the Muslim ones), precisely what al-Timimi was convicted of (but we don't know what he actually said)."

"You don't think that forcing a group of Americans to convert to a specific religion undermining American authority? A basic freedom, namely the right to believe in what god you want?"

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






Now I know you later opined that you thought neither of them should be charged with a crime, but regardless, you've clearly failed to do two things.

1.) You have yet to provide any evidence that al-Timimi was wrongly prosecuted and that his actions did not violate any of the laws for which he was prosecuted.

2.) You have yet to show how Coulter and al-Timimi are analogous in either their person or in their action.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
You realize I'm sure, that what you think, is meaningless in a skeptical forum, when not based on evidence.

Then I fail to understand how you can make this statement:

Originally posted by Diogenes
Show where Ann Coulter committed treason against the United States.

You are the one making the claim that she did.

Where is the evidence for that?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kodiak
1.) You have yet to provide any evidence that al-Timimi was wrongly prosecuted and that his actions did not violate any of the laws for which he was prosecuted.

Eh? Are you intoxicated or otherwise impaired in any way? I am saying that I don't think that either Coulter or al-Timimi are guilty of a crime. I am not a defense attorney, I am not making a legal statement.

What I am asking is this: If al-Timimi is guilty, then why isn't Coulter as well?

Originally posted by Kodiak
2.) You have yet to show how Coulter and al-Timimi are analogous in either their person or in their action.

I have shown this, to the best of my ability. Why do you think, specifically, that I haven't?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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.

Not specific enough as far as US Law is concerned.

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

Not just Americans, US soldiers in a battlefield.

Coulter chose Muslims. That's OK with you.

Is that correct?

I have not yet formed my own opinion on the matter, however based on the facts and the way the US Law is stractured it makes sense for al-Timimi to be charged and not Coultier. It would also make sense for Coultier to be sued by a Muslim group of some sort in a civil court.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Not specific enough as far as US Law is concerned.

Prove it.

Originally posted by Grammatron
Not just Americans, US soldiers in a battlefield.

So? Are US soldiers ÃœberAmericans?

Originally posted by Grammatron
I have not yet formed my own opinion on the matter, however based on the facts and the way the US Law is stractured it makes sense for al-Timimi to be charged and not Coultier. It would also make sense for Coultier to be sued by a Muslim group of some sort in a civil court.

I am not asking what you think of US Law. I am asking if it is OK with you that Coulter advocates killing Muslims simply because they are Muslims.

Yes or no?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Sorry, but Coulter did exactly the same thing.Only if by "exactly the same thing" you mean "something categorically different".She made a specific request - killing Muslims and converting those that weren't killed - to a specific group of people - Muslims.Muslims in other countries.al-Timimi chose Americans as his target. That's not OK with you.

Coulter chose Muslims. That's OK with you.
It is not whether it is okay with Grammatron or anyone else. We are trying to explain to you the difference and why one can be considered treason and the other just the stupid meanderings of a bigoted loudmouth.

When your goal is to help those in a foreign nation kick the ass of the United States (by, say, inducing them to go train in Pakistan to fight alongside the Taliban against the US) that can be considered treasonous. In case you are not following along, this is the Al-Timimi case.

When your goal is to get the American military to go and kick the ass of foreign nations and build an empire, whatever the idiotic bigoted basis for that goal (like, for instance, the fact that they are of a different religion) that is not considered treasonous. In case you are not following along, this is the Coulter case.

And that is why someone can be prosectued for the first instance while not prosecuted in the second.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Then I fail to understand how you can make this statement:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diogenes
Show where Ann Coulter committed treason against the United States.

You are the one making the claim that she did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Where is the evidence for that?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diogenes
What would she be charged with?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CFLarse
The same as al-Timimi. Although personally, judging from what we know was said, I can't see why any of them should be prosecuted.

-----------------------------------------------------

My mistake. You said she should be charged with treason, not that she committed it.

Silly me for thinking the two ideas were somehow related.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Only if by "exactly the same thing" you mean "something categorically different".

In your opinion, yes.

Originally posted by Thanz
Muslims in other countries.

Ah, I see! So, American Muslims are OK, because they are - after all - American?

Originally posted by Thanz
It is not whether it is okay with Grammatron or anyone else. We are trying to explain to you the difference and why one can be considered treason and the other just the stupid meanderings of a bigoted loudmouth.

Who's the bigot here?

Originally posted by Thanz
When your goal is to help those in a foreign nation kick the ass of the United States (by, say, inducing them to go train in Pakistan to fight alongside the Taliban against the US) that can be considered treasonous. In case you are not following along, this is the Al-Timimi case.

When your goal is to get the American military to go and kick the ass of foreign nations and build an empire, whatever the idiotic bigoted basis for that goal (like, for instance, the fact that they are of a different religion) that is not considered treasonous. In case you are not following along, this is the Coulter case.

I'm sorry, but there is no question that Coulter is after the part of US military that is Muslim. Can you address that, please?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Prove it.

Simple enough, read the law under which Al-Timimi was convicted under and all should be clear.

So? Are US soldiers ÃœberAmericans?

No.

I am not asking what you think of US Law. I am asking if it is OK with you that Coulter advocates killing Muslims simply because they are Muslims.

Yes or no?
Two part answer: I don't see what my view has to do with at all, seems like a strawman to me; I already told you that I have not yet formed an opinion this matter.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
My mistake. You said she should be charged with treason, not that she committed it.

Silly me for thinking the two ideas were somehow related.

I said that if al-Timimi was charged with treason, Coulter should, too.

Good to see that you can admit your mistakes, though.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I said that if al-Timimi was charged with treason, Coulter should, too.

Good to see that you can admit your mistakes, though.

Treason against whom?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Treason against whom?

The US.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The US.

How is Ann Coulter commiting Treason against the US?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
How is Ann Coulter commiting Treason against the US?

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.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ah, I see! So, American Muslims are OK, because they are - after all - American? Ok to who? Coulter? I have no idea. To me? I have no problems with Muslims no matter where they live.
Who's the bigot here? Coulter.
I'm sorry, but there is no question that Coulter is after the part of US military that is Muslim. Can you address that, please? There certainly is a "question" about that, to say the least. There is nothing from her remarks at all that indicates she is after Muslims in the military. She is quite specific about going over and kicking foreign ass. If you have anything that shows otherwise, let's see it.

And no, I do not consider a general statement that no one should be muslim, divorced from all context, to indicate that she is after muslims in the US military.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
There certainly is a "question" about that, to say the least. There is nothing from her remarks at all that indicates she is after Muslims in the military. She is quite specific about going over and kicking foreign ass. If you have anything that shows otherwise, let's see it.

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

Originally posted by Thanz
And no, I do not consider a general statement that no one should be muslim, divorced from all context, to indicate that she is after muslims in the US military.

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.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I said that if al-Timimi was charged with treason, Coulter should, too.

Good to see that you can admit your mistakes, though. Well, I actually looked up some of the things Al-Timimi was charged with.. I wish I could get a complete list. I'm sure it's out there somewhere..


from:

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,15100853%255E1702,00.html

Charges against Al-Timimi included soliciting others to wage war against the United States, counselling others to engage in conspiracy to levy war against the United States, attempting to aid the Taliban, counselling others to attempt to aid the Taliban, counselling others to violate the Neutrality Act and counselling others to use firearms and explosives in furtherance of crimes of violence.

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.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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.

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.

What you are doing is one step below circular logic and is baiting at its most transparent and worst.

Now that was a bit general, so I'll break it down the way you are conversing on this thread -- person X is a simily of you:

Person X: Boby is a thief
Person Y: Why?
Person X: Because Boby is a thief in the same way Jon is.
Person Y: What way is that?
Person X: You tell me, you are the one who thinks Jon is a thief.

Now you see how the conversation quickly degrades into an attempt by Person X to bait and confuse Person Y in an attempt on Person X's part to avoid making any claim or statement and put all the burden on Person Y.

A good way to avoid this would be to provide reasoning for statements one posts on this forum. So to avoid further semi-sidetracking I'll restate the question in the hopes you will answer it so we may return to this debate productively.

In what way has Ann Coulter commited treason against USA?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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]

Originally posted by 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.

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]

Originally posted by 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.

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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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]

Originally posted by Diogenes
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]

Originally posted by RandFan
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.

[shanek]

Originally posted by crimresearch
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]

Originally posted by Grammatron
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?

http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/hobbes.gif

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

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
It doesn't follow.

Why not?

Originally posted by RandFan
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.

Originally posted by RandFan
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.

Originally posted by RandFan
1.) This isn't about Coulter.

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

Originally posted by RandFan
2.) Your argument is Tu Quoque.

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

Originally posted by RandFan
3.) It is demonstrable that Coulter did not say the same thing.

I beg to differ.

Originally posted by RandFan
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.

Originally posted by RandFan
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]

Originally posted by Thanz
I am not denying that you HAVEN'T shown it - I am denying that you HAVE shown it.
[B] 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]

Originally posted by Garrette
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]

Originally posted by RandFan
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]

Originally posted by RandFan
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]

Originally posted by RandFan
Article 3 says nothing about foreign nationals.

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

Originally posted by RandFan
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.

Originally posted by RandFan
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


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

I wish you could do the same.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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]

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?

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]

Originally posted by Grammatron
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.

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

Prove it.

Originally posted by Grammatron
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]

Originally posted by Grammatron
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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]

Originally posted by RandFan
...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]

Originally posted by Garrette
...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]

Originally posted by Garrette
No, not because of that, but it is part of the context.

How would that get you off being prosecuted for treason?

Originally posted by Garrette
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?

Originally posted by Garrette
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]

Originally posted by Kodiak
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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?

[Garrette]

Originally posted by CFLarsen:
How would that get you off being prosecuted for treason?
By demonstrating that your actions don’t amount to treason in a legal sense. I quote Article 3 from the US Constitution:
Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Coulter’s comments did not do this. If you believe otherwise, please demonstrate it.

It is possible there has been further legislation defining specific acts as treason, but I have done no search for it. If you think something else applies, please provide it.

As Diogenes pointed out, it is possible that Coulter violated another law with her comments. I don’t know and don’t care to find out. Have at it if you like.


Claus, this is, I think, why people have been confused about your argument. In this response, it seems as if you think Coulter committed treason as opposed to thinking that she should be charged with it merely to maintain consistency vis a vis al-Timimi's conviction.

As one who has in the past admired your precision, I am surprised.

To be clear, my comments in this post address whether or not Coulter’s comments legally amount to treason, not whether they are analogous to al-Timimi’s comments which is an entirely separate issue.


Originally posted by CFLarsen:

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

You can get prosecuted if the prosecutor wants to prosecute you. Guilt is determined based on evidence that you met the standards as outlined above.

Allow me:

There is a difference between:

1) I think Muslims should convert or die

and

2) I am advocating that you go kill Muslims who do not convert


Further, there is a difference between:

3) I think Muslims in other countries the US ought to invade should convert or die

and

4) I am advocating that you go kill Muslims in the US who do not convert

Your argument mightstand if Coulter said #4, but she did not. She said #3.


Originally posted by CFLarsen:

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

Who said it isn’t relevant? It’s absolutely critical, except that you misrepresent it.

Her non-blanket statement that non-converting Muslims in countries the US ought to invade is exactly what demonstrates that she is not guilty of treason.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You don't think that forcing a group of Americans to convert to a specific religion undermining American authority? A basic freedom, namely the right to believe in what god you want?

Can you provide evidence that she specifically called for FORCE to be used in converting any Americans?

Please reply only if you will address the specific question with a specific answer. In other words:

DO NOT quote her calling for invading other countries or killing muslim leaders UNLESS you have EVIDENCE this would involve the use of force to make Americans convert to a different religion.

DO NOT try and avoid the question by replying with a question along the lines of "What do you think she meant when she said all Muslims should convert?" as my opinion is irrelevant. You have made a specific claim that she called for a group of Americans to be FORCED to convert to a specific religion, it should therefore not be a problem for you to link to a QUOTE from her supporting this claim.

Or is this to be yet another thread where you make claims, ignore questions asked of you to back up those claims and demand answers from everyone else while refusing to provide any yourself?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Or is this to be yet another thread where you make claims, ignore questions asked of you to back up those claims and demand answers from everyone else while refusing to provide any yourself?


I think we have a winner...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yes! He finally gets it, after many tries... So disingenuous.

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.al-Timimis does.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by RandFan
So disingenuous.

al-Timimis does.

He has claimed she advocated action against American troops (which appears to be a reference to the *forced* conversion to Christianity which he has been asked to provide evidence for) and that this was "precisely" what al-timini was convicted of.

He also appears to think what she did was "the very same" that "she is advocating the same as" and that she did "exactly the same" as al-Timini. Presumably, as she has done EXACTLY the same, he can show clear evidence where she called for FORCE to be used against US individuals? If he cannot, or will not, do so then I think it is clear his position is not based on evidence. Again.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why not? It doesn't work that way Claus. When you make a claim it is up to you to explain how and why.

But she doesn't need to want to kill American soldiers. Using the definition you provided, all she needs to do is feel:[/b] How and why do you say this? It makes no sense.

She is not just talking about killing their leaders. Those Muslims who aren't killed must be converted to Christians. "Their leaders" is how we infer WHO she is talking about. {sigh} We know she is talking about killing foreign nationals because she says this. It's called inference Larsen.

We have been discussing Coulter for 4 pages now. Have you not discussed Coulter? Only because you are trying to derail the discussion. It was YOU who introduced Coulter as a red herring. We have simply been trying to get you to admit that your argument doesn't fly. We want to see if you will go 14 pages again by arguing fallacy.

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

2.) Besides, you have not established that they have done the same thing.

I beg to differ. You can beg all you want it won't help your argument.

Again, we have to go with what he was convicted for. You have agreed to that. That is a lie. On the contrary I have said that it is impossible to know what he really said. His conviction is the point of controversy. Did he do what he was accused of? How do we know with out his words?

But you accepted the conviction. No I didn't at all. Pay attention. I have said that I am troubled by this. My only point is that Coulter did not commit a treasonous act.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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? It is implicit in her statement that she is talking about non-American Muslims which is why she says "their leaders" their country". Otherwise she would be saying invade America. Right?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"Yes you are"? What kind of argument is that? Do you mind if I decide what I am saying? You might be right. I don't have the time to go back and check. I will appologize and withdraw the statement since I choose not to take the time to check.

Sorry.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Now you are moving the goalposts: It speaks of enemies. Again, I have to go back three pages to resolve this. I will withdraw it.

Probably. However, we do have Coulter's words. But you are saying that Coulter said the same thing as al-Timimi said. How do you know that without knowing what al-Timimi said?

Irrelevant. Two people doesn't have to have anything to do with each other to be convicted of treason. We are dealing with al-Timimi and whether what he said was protected free speech and or treasonous (it could be both but I'm not sure if constitution protects treasonous speech). You have derailed the thread and put the focus on Coulter. We can't determine whether or not al-Timimi is guilty of Treason or if his free speech rights have been violated by focusing on Coulter.

To determine whether or not al-Timimi has commited treason or not or whether his free speech rights have been violated or not we need to focus on al-Timimi and what HE said.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Darat
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. You are absolutely correct. I think Larsen could start a thread and THAT would be valid. And it doesn't really matter that it is only concerning matters of law. I bring up Clinton a lot because I think some people are inconsistent with their judgments of Bush. They apply rules inconsistent between the two.

The problem is that we have not determined whether or not al-Timimi committed Treason and whether or not his free speech rights were violated. Discussing Coulter will not resolve that issue.

Fact: It is logically possible that Coulter could BE guilty and al-Timimi could be innocent. Discussing Coulter will not resolve the issue of al-Timimi.

However, let's assume that we decide to forgo al-Timimi and only focus on Coulter then there is another problem.

Larsen's Argument:
(P1) Person A was convicted of X
(P2) If the law is consistent then person B should also be convicted of X.

Before we can determine (P2) we have a hurdle to cross.

Are the actions of person B the same as person A?

This is inescapable. We can't look at the results only of person A and then compare those results to the actions of person B. To do so is illogical and backward.

The problem I have come to realize is that Larsen does not have a grasp of simple logic or he is being obtuse. I can't see any other explanation. I'm open to one if anyone can figure him out.

[RandFan]

I am very interested in this issue. I'm troubled by what happened to al-Timimi and I would like to have a discussion about this. It is impossible to come to any conclusion about al-Timimi by focusing on Coulter because logically;[list=1] Coulter could be innocent and al-Timimi could be guilty.

Coulter could be guilty and al-Timimi could be innocent.

Focusing on Coulter will not resolve any issues because she was not charged with treason nor was she found guilty of treason. The only thing we can infer from Coulter is that the government does not think her actions rise to the level of treason.
[/list=1]

If anyone is interested I would love to discuss al-Timimi and free speech issues. Does anyone have an argument as to why al-Timimi's right to free speech was violated?

[Garrette]

I am interested.

I'm trying to do a bit of research, first, though, so as to speak from only a limited amount of ignorance.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by RandFan
....
If anyone is interested I would love to discuss al-Timimi and free speech issues. Does anyone have an argument as to why al-Timimi's right to free speech was violated? I have ideas about why it wasn't.. Would that serve the same purpose?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by RandFan
If anyone is interested I would love to discuss al-Timimi and free speech issues. Does anyone have an argument as to why al-Timimi's right to free speech was violated? First of all, I find the limitations on speech in the USA to be somewhat dishonest in general. There is the classic "yelling fire in the crowded theatre" example, which I understand has been dealt with by defining "speech" to not include this event. Similarly with obscenity.

I like to think that Canada learned from this and that is why our constitution states that the rights are subject to reasonable limits, prescribed by law, that are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. That way, we can have a law against falsly yelling "fire" without the gymnastics of saying it isn't speech.

Anywhoo, Timimi may have been caught in some anti-muslim hysteria following the horrific attacks of 9/11. Without knowing more about the case it is hard to discuss specifics, but I think that at its highest the case against him was that he was essentially recruiting soldiers for the Taliban on American soil. I can see a legitimate gov't interest in preventing people from recruiting soldiers to fight against Americans abroad. As any recruitment will involve speech, there is no way to do this without restricting speech. I think the key factor is when professing your beliefs about your religion and the actions of the us crosses the line into this sort of recruitment activity.

Thoughts?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Garrette
I am interested.

I'm trying to do a bit of research, first, though, so as to speak from only a limited amount of ignorance. Cool, I'm doing some research also. It appears that the case hinged, at least in part, on an email that the defense tried to keep out of trial. I would be interested to know what the email says. I have 2 full days of paperwork for my job and 1 day to do it in. I'm going to have to focus more on that but will try and do the research during breaks. At least I'm in the office all day.

Thanks Garrette.

P.S. I just hate it when important threads are derailed. But to be honest I'm part of the derail. My apologies.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I have ideas about why it wasn't.. Would that serve the same purpose? Absolutely, of course, please.

Thank you. :)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by RandFan
Absolutely, of course, please.

Thank you. :) Well, Thanz touched on it with the old " yelling fire in the theatre " scenario..


Free speech doesn't include the right to incite others to commit crimes.. ( And yes, Annie babe, is not free to do this either.. :D )

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Thanz
First of all, I find the limitations on speech in the USA to be somewhat dishonest in general. There is the classic "yelling fire in the crowded theatre" example, which I understand has been dealt with by defining "speech" to not include this event. Similarly with obscenity.

I like to think that Canada learned from this and that is why our constitution states that the rights are subject to reasonable limits, prescribed by law, that are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. That way, we can have a law against falsly yelling "fire" without the gymnastics of saying it isn't speech. Yeah, I think this is a good point. Clearly there are times when speech should be regulated. I worked WITH right-wingers and people I normally would oppose to keep a prohibition of child pornography on the books in California. I don't think images of children engaged in sexual intercourse to be protected speech. The ACLU agreed that producing such material was and should be illegal but that owning such material should not be kept illegal. That was in 1991 if my memory serves me correctly.

Anywhoo, Timimi may have been caught in some anti-muslim hysteria following the horrific attacks of 9/11. And that is my concern. I'm wondering if "likelihood of harm" should be considered? Of course I have no idea. If Timimi was as you say caught in the hysteria then wouldn't that make the enforcement of the law arbitrary?

Without knowing more about the case it is hard to discuss specifics, but I think that at its highest the case against him was that he was essentially recruiting soldiers for the Taliban on American soil. I can see a legitimate gov't interest in preventing people from recruiting soldiers to fight against Americans abroad. As any recruitment will involve speech, there is no way to do this without restricting speech. I think the key factor is when professing your beliefs about your religion and the actions of the us crosses the line into this sort of recruitment activity. I think this is a valid line of reasoning. Like you I need to know more about the law. And was he truly recruiting soldiers or expressing his opinion that people should act if their conscience so dictates? If Timimi's intentions were more opinion and not to actively get people to go fight then I think it is protected. However that is a very fine line if at all. I'm simply ignorant on the subject.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Well, Thanz touched on it with the old " yelling fire in the theatre " scenario..


Free speech doesn't include the right to incite others to commit crimes.. ( And yes, Annie babe, is not free to do this either.. :D ) Yes, as someone else has already pointed out her actions could indeed rise to some level of offense (legally speaking). That is "could" but her actions have not been demonstrably shown to be the same as al-Timimi or even treasonous. Furthermore not being a lawyer it is very difficult to apply her actions to the law without knowing the subtleties and precedent if any of that law. Not to mention any and all other points of legality that I am ignorant of.

I think what needs to be shown is the actual words of al-Timimi to make a decision.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yes, as someone else has already pointed out her actions could indeed rise to some level of offense (legally speaking). It was you. Cool.

Well, I actually looked up some of the things Al-Timimi was charged with.. I wish I could get a complete list. I'm sure it's out there somewhere..


http://www.thecouriermail.news.com....55E1702,00.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charges against Al-Timimi included soliciting others to wage war against the United States, counselling others to engage in conspiracy to levy war against the United States, attempting to aid the Taliban, counselling others to attempt to aid the Taliban, counselling others to violate the Neutrality Act and counselling others to use firearms and explosives in furtherance of crimes of violence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Thank you BTW.

You know if Larsen would simply have done the same thing he could have come off looking so much better. A little effort goes a long ways.

The problem I have with the last line is that it says "others". Not being an attorney or scholar I can't be certain but I don't think advocating that the U.S. us firearms and explosives to achieve her ends really qualifies. Do you?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Garrette
By demonstrating that your actions don’t amount to treason in a legal sense.

But that wouldn't be up to Coulter to decide if there was treason.

Originally posted by Garrette
Coulter’s comments did not do this. If you believe otherwise, please demonstrate it.

I did, on page 1:

Ann Coulter feels hatred towards at least some parts of the US, namely the Muslims (not to speak of the Democrats!). She wants to - forcibly - convert Muslims to Christians and to kill Muslim leaders.

An enemy is someone you feel hatred towards.

Originally posted by Garrette
It is possible there has been further legislation defining specific acts as treason, but I have done no search for it. If you think something else applies, please provide it.

We should definitely stick with the Constitution.

Originally posted by Garrette
As Diogenes pointed out, it is possible that Coulter violated another law with her comments. I don’t know and don’t care to find out. Have at it if you like.

That is irrelevant to the point I am making.

Originally posted by Garrette
Claus, this is, I think, why people have been confused about your argument. In this response, it seems as if you think Coulter committed treason as opposed to thinking that she should be charged with it merely to maintain consistency vis a vis al-Timimi's conviction.

I don't. I don't even think al-Timimi committed treason. I am asking why they are treated differently.

Originally posted by Garrette
As one who has in the past admired your precision, I am surprised.

Yet, I have repeatedly made it clear that I do not think Coulter has committed treason.

Originally posted by Garrette
To be clear, my comments in this post address whether or not Coulter’s comments legally amount to treason, not whether they are analogous to al-Timimi’s comments which is an entirely separate issue.

But that is the issue I am talking about. If you don't want to talk about it, don't talk about it.

Originally posted by Garrette
There is a difference between:

1) I think Muslims should convert or die

and

2) I am advocating that you go kill Muslims who do not convert

Where's the difference? That you tell me to go do something? There's an action?

Originally posted by Garrette
3) I think Muslims in other countries the US ought to invade should convert or die

and

4) I am advocating that you go kill Muslims in the US who do not convert

Your argument mightstand if Coulter said #4, but she did not. She said #3.

And in my opinion, she said #4 as well.

Originally posted by Garrette
Who said it isn’t relevant? It’s absolutely critical, except that you misrepresent it.

Her non-blanket statement that non-converting Muslims in countries the US ought to invade is exactly what demonstrates that she is not guilty of treason.

She is also talking about those Muslims on the plane. Those were Saudis, mostly. Not Iraqis or Afghanistanians (?).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Can you provide evidence that she specifically called for FORCE to be used in converting any Americans?

Please reply only if you will address the specific question with a specific answer. In other words:

DO NOT quote her calling for invading other countries or killing muslim leaders UNLESS you have EVIDENCE this would involve the use of force to make Americans convert to a different religion.

DO NOT try and avoid the question by replying with a question along the lines of "What do you think she meant when she said all Muslims should convert?" as my opinion is irrelevant. You have made a specific claim that she called for a group of Americans to be FORCED to convert to a specific religion, it should therefore not be a problem for you to link to a QUOTE from her supporting this claim.

You don't decide what evidence I can use.

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Or is this to be yet another thread where you make claims, ignore questions asked of you to back up those claims and demand answers from everyone else while refusing to provide any yourself?

It would be easy for you to decide what evidence I can use, and then later claim that I haven't been able to provide evidence.

It doesn't work that way, though.

[RandFan]

Man guilty of terror recruiting (http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,15100853%255E1702,00.html)

Al-Timimi allegedly encouraged Masoud Khan, Randall Royer, Yong Kwon, Muhammad Aatique and Khwaja Hasan "and others to conspire to levy war against the United States". The key is not simply advocating the killing of Americans but an action against the US.

Of course concluding that Coulter was advocating that the US kill american muslims in an effort against the United States is the pinacle of ignorance.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
So disingenuous.

Not at all. I had repeatedly made it blatantly clear, but only after a while does he get it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
He has claimed she advocated action against American troops (which appears to be a reference to the *forced* conversion to Christianity which he has been asked to provide evidence for) and that this was "precisely" what al-timini was convicted of.

He also appears to think what she did was "the very same" that "she is advocating the same as" and that she did "exactly the same" as al-Timini. Presumably, as she has done EXACTLY the same, he can show clear evidence where she called for FORCE to be used against US individuals? If he cannot, or will not, do so then I think it is clear his position is not based on evidence. Again.

Forcing US soldiers to convert is not "force"?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
It is implicit in her statement that she is talking about non-American Muslims which is why she says "their leaders" their country".

I disagree. She also talks about the Muslims who were on the planes. They were not "leaders".

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
But you are saying that Coulter said the same thing as al-Timimi said. How do you know that without knowing what al-Timimi said?

No, I am saying that what she said amounts to the same thing.

Originally posted by RandFan
We are dealing with al-Timimi and whether what he said was protected free speech and or treasonous (it could be both but I'm not sure if constitution protects treasonous speech).

That's a discussion worth having.

Originally posted by RandFan
You have derailed the thread and put the focus on Coulter. We can't determine whether or not al-Timimi is guilty of Treason or if his free speech rights have been violated by focusing on Coulter.

We can determine what al-Timimi was convicted for, and go with that.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not at all. I had repeatedly made it blatantly clear, but only after a while does he get it. I will withdraw that point. I apologize.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Forcing US soldiers to convert is not "force"?

I assume you would agree that for this question to have ANY validity, she would actually have to have advocated this?

Accordingly I will not reply to it unless and until you can show that she has done so.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
You are absolutely correct. I think Larsen could start a thread and THAT would be valid. And it doesn't really matter that it is only concerning matters of law. I bring up Clinton a lot because I think some people are inconsistent with their judgments of Bush. They apply rules inconsistent between the two.

The problem is that we have not determined whether or not al-Timimi committed Treason and whether or not his free speech rights were violated. Discussing Coulter will not resolve that issue.

Fact: It is logically possible that Coulter could BE guilty and al-Timimi could be innocent. Discussing Coulter will not resolve the issue of al-Timimi.

However, let's assume that we decide to forgo al-Timimi and only focus on Coulter then there is another problem.

Larsen's Argument:
(P1) Person A was convicted of X
(P2) If the law is consistent then person B should also be convicted of X.

Before we can determine (P2) we have a hurdle to cross.

Are the actions of person B the same as person A?

This is inescapable. We can't look at the results only of person A and then compare those results to the actions of person B. To do so is illogical and backward.

The problem I have come to realize is that Larsen does not have a grasp of simple logic or he is being obtuse. I can't see any other explanation. I'm open to one if anyone can figure him out.

But we can look at the results: That al-Timimi was, in fact, convicted. Then, we can look at what Coulter did.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I disagree. She also talks about the Muslims who were on the planes. They were not "leaders". That is NOT the point. Her words, "their leaders" helps us understand who it is that she is talking about. She can't be talking about Americans because she says that "their leaders" are NOT Christian. Bush is Christian so we can logically exclude American Muslims. This is NOT a debatable point but please, go on for 11 pages doing so. Afterwards we will debate the merits of the flat earth argument.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You don't decide what evidence I can use.



It would be easy for you to decide what evidence I can use, and then later claim that I haven't been able to provide evidence.

It doesn't work that way, though.

And it would be easy for you to, as usual, refuse to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to back up your claims.

You have claimed, several times, that Coulter has advocated FORCE being used to make people convert. You have provided no evidence of this. Until you do, you are no different from a man who claims to have a perpetual energy machine but will not show it to anyone.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
I assume you would agree that for this question to have ANY validity, she would actually have to have advocated this?

Accordingly I will not reply to it unless and until you can show that she has done so.

Just answer the question. No need for diversions or conditions.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But we can look at the results: That al-Timimi was, in fact, convicted. Then, we can look at what Coulter did.

And it appears that everybody except you concludes that Coulter did something different from al-Timini. Therefore nobody else expects the outcome to be the same.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
That is NOT the point. Her words, "their leaders" helps us understand who it is that she is talking about. She can't be talking about Americans because she says that "their leaders" are NOT Christian. Bush is Christian so we can logically exclude American Muslims. This is NOT a debatable point but please, go on for 11 pages doing so. Afterwards we will debate the merits of the flat earth argument.

Why are people so determined to decide what I can debate or not?

If you don't want to debate a point, then don't. Stay out of it. But please refrain from deciding what other people may or may not debate.

You do not decide what people can debate here. Do you understand that?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Just answer the question. No need for diversions or conditions.

Evasion noted.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, I am saying that what she said amounts to the same thing. But you can't logically say that with out knowing what he said. To continue to make such statements is irrational.

What if al-Timimi said that Muslims should become Buddhists and live peaceful lives?

That's a discussion worth having. AND THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD!

We can determine what al-Timimi was convicted for, and go with that. [/B] It is logically possible that al-Timimi's conviction was wrong and politically motivated and that his words were not anything close to treason and that he didn't advocate anything.

Your logic is topsy turvey. I'm sincerely sorry you don't get that.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
And it appears that everybody except you concludes that Coulter did something different from al-Timini. Therefore nobody else expects the outcome to be the same.

Fine with me.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Evasion noted.

You are the one evading my question by erecting conditions.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
But you can't logically say that with out knowing what he said. To continue to make such statements is irrational.

(sigh)...we can go with what he was convicted for. Treason.

Originally posted by RandFan
What if al-Timimi said that Muslims should become Buddhists and live peaceful lives?

What if, what if...

Originally posted by RandFan
AND THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD!

Nobody is stopping you from debating that.

Originally posted by RandFan
It is logically possible that al-Timimi's conviction was wrong and politically motivated and that his words were not anything close to treason and that he didn't advocate anything.

What if, what if...

Originally posted by RandFan
Your logic is topsy turvey. I'm sincerely sorry you don't get that.

I can live with that.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why are people so determined to decide what I can debate or not? You can and will debate anything you want. My statement was a figure of speach meaning that it is not "reasonable" to debate it. My example of a flat earth was the give away. I'm sorry you didn't figure it out. We COULD debate that the earth is flat but that would not be a reasonable debate. Likewise claiming that Coulter meant American's when she clearly states "their leaders" are muslim and Bush is Christian is unreasonable.

If you don't want to debate a point, then don't. Stay out of it. But please refrain from deciding what other people may or may not debate.

You do not decide what people can debate here. Do you understand that? Duh, that was implicit in my post. THAT is why I said: "...but please, go on for 11 pages doing so."

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
(sigh)...we can go with what he was convicted for. Treason. But was the conviction correct? How do we know unless we know what he said.

What if, what if... A valid logical operator. If his actions were not treasonous then he should not have been convicted.

Nobody is stopping you from debating that. You have derailed this thread. The thread is not about Coulter.

What if, what if... Again, "what if" is a valid logical operator. You are dismissing it without knowing the truth. If we knew the truth you would have every right to dismiss it. Since we don't, you don't.

[RandFan]

Page 6. We are getting there.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are the one evading my question by erecting conditions.

Only someone as fundamentally dishonest as you would call being asked to provide evidence for your claims "erecting conditions".

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
But was the conviction correct? How do we know unless we know what he said.

That's not the point. He was convicted. Whether it was correct is another discussion.

Originally posted by RandFan
A valid logical operator. If his actions were not treasonous then he should not have been convicted.

But irrelevant.

Originally posted by RandFan
You have derailed this thread. The thread is not about Coulter.

Then stop discussing her, if you feel this way.

Oh, wait...you want me to stop discussing her?

Originally posted by RandFan
Again, "what if" is a valid logical operator. You are dismissing it without knowing the truth. If we knew the truth you would have every right to dismiss it. Since we don't, you don't.

I could call it a red herring....but I won't. ;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
Page 6. We are getting there.

Emphasis on "we". It takes more than one, you know...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Only someone as fundamentally dishonest as you would call being asked to provide evidence for your claims "erecting conditions".

But that's not what you did. You erected a condition before you wanted to answer my question:

Forcing US soldiers to convert is not "force"?

Just answer the question. No conditions. Is that really so hard?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That's not the point. He was convicted. Whether it was correct is another discussion. On what basis do you say that it is not the point. It is THE point.

But irrelevant. I would act surprised but what is the point? It is relevant because IT IS exactly what we are talking about. Was al-Timimi's rights violated?

Then stop discussing her, if you feel this way. I admitted that I was part of the derail. I have taken responsibility for my actions.

Oh, wait...you want me to stop discussing her? I want you to learn logic. I also want a Porsche. Neither are likely to happen.

I could call it a red herring....but I won't. ;) It would be fallacious to do so since it is central to the entire debate. Coulter isn't central to anything except a side issue that you raise that has been thoroughly rebutted and is no longer an issue except that you are incapable or unwilling to accept that fact.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But that's not what you did. You erected a condition before you wanted to answer my question:

Forcing US soldiers to convert is not "force"?

Just answer the question. No conditions. Is that really so hard?

Just provide the evidence. No conditions. Is that really so hard?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I refer you to Coulter's words.

I'm not going to do your homerwork for you.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Emphasis on "we". It takes more than one, you know... I concede this point. It is a flaw in my character. I don't like to let bad logic have sway. I might be a fool but I am an honest one and I pride myself in the correct use of logic and my logic is correct on this issue.

[RandFan]

I have to logg off now. I'm way behind in my paperwork. I appologize. I will log on in about 6 hours.

Bye.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

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

Prove it.


If you asking me to prove that if you read the law everything will become obvious to you, I am happy to ablige. Just let me know when you finish reading the law.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
If you asking me to prove that if you read the law everything will become obvious to you, I am happy to ablige. Just let me know when you finish reading the law.

You clearly have problems following your own posts.

Oh, well.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You clearly have problems following your own posts.

Oh, well.

Prove it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Prove it.

:hb:

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Prove it.

Claus is above such lowly concepts as "proof" and "evidence". Whatever he says should be accepted as gospel truth in order that he does not have to bother himself with such trivialities.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
:hb:

Evasion and "argument by animated gif" noted.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But that's not what you did. You erected a condition before you wanted to answer my question:

Forcing US soldiers to convert is not "force"?

Just answer the question. No conditions. Is that really so hard? The problem, Mr. Larsen, is that your question is of the "when did you stop beating your wife" variety: it assumes facts not in evidence. You may as well have said: "Shooting US soldiers in the head is not 'force'?" and it would have just as much validity. In order to make your question a valid one, you must provide some evidence that she has advocated this.

[CFLarsen]

Oh, well. Nothing new.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oh, well. Nothing new.

Indeed.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oh, well. Nothing new.


http://www.pixielake.com/Pixies/troll.jpg


Enjoy your nap...

[Garrette]

All quotations originally posted by CFLarsen:
But that wouldn't be up to Coulter to decide if there was treason.
I neither said nor implied that it was.

I did, [Demonstrate that Coulter had advocated others to convert or kill American Muslims] on page 1:
Ann Coulter feels hatred towards at least some parts of the US, namely the Muslims (not to speak of the Democrats!). She wants to - forcibly - convert Muslims to Christians and to kill Muslim leaders.
An enemy is someone you feel hatred towards.
She can feel all the hatred she wants, which you’ve failed to demonstrate despite your contention otherwise; hatred does not constitute treason nor raise her comments to the level that they are analogous with what we know of al-Timimi’s comments.

We should definitely stick with the Constitution.
Okey doke.

I don't. I don't even think al-Timimi committed treason. I am asking why they are treated differently.
Yes, I understand this as your stated position. I have clarified it on this thread.

But though you continue to state that it is your position, your actual comments indicate that you expect us to demonstrate treasonous behavior as opposed to analogous behavior.

This may mark the first time of which I’m aware that your impressive command of the English language is falling short. (That last sentence is meant sincerely and not as an insult, but I’m not sure how to phrase it better because my command of the English language is failing me, too)

Yet, I have repeatedly made it clear that I do not think Coulter has committed treason.
See above comment.

But that is the issue I am talking about.
Then you’re making a poor job of it.

Stop insisting that Coulter’s remarks demonstrate hatred of American Muslims and start insisting that they are analogous to al-Timimi’s remarks.

To do that, though, you’ll have to talk about Timimi’s remarks, too.

If you don't want to talk about it, don't talk about it.
Excellent advice. I’ve followed it throughout my time here at JREF.

Where's the difference? That you tell me to go do something? There's an action?
Yes. Exactly.
The difference is both obvious and real.
It is also both semantic and legal.

And in my opinion, she said #4 as well.
As I surmised. Now we’re getting somewhere.
Unfortunately, the somewhere may be the end of the debating road because I categorically disagree with you and do not know how to explain my position any more clearly than I and others have already done.

She is also talking about those Muslims on the plane.

I must have missed that in the transcript, but I’ll grant it for debating purpose.


Those were Saudis, mostly. Not Iraqis or Afghanistanians (?).

Great. That means they weren’t Americans. Ergo, she could say “Claus Archibald Larsen, I would like you in your capacity as an American citizen to go kill those Muslims. I am inciting you to do so,� and she would still not be guilty of treason.

[Garrette]

And that, Claus, marks the end of my participation in the Coulter discussion on this thread as I, too, feel it is a de-rail.

If, however, you would like to continue discussing it, please start a new thread and I'll join as I can.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Page 6. We are getting there.

Somehow, I don't think it'll qualify you for the million...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Somehow, I don't think it'll qualify you for the million... :D Aren't you the one that pushed Claus over the hill?

[varwoche]

How about these words, spoken by Michael Schwartz, chief of staff for Oklahoma GOP Senator Tom Coburn...? Schwartz: I'm a radical! I'm a real extremist. I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!
article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2281&ncid=742&e=5&u=/thenation/20050411/cm_thenation/20050425blumenthal)

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
:D Aren't you the one that pushed Claus over the hill?

If by that, you mean I am the one who exposed Claus for what he is, I will take it as a compliment...but I would say that it is Claus and Claus alone who is responsible for the ruination of his reputation on this board.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
If by that, you mean I am the one who exposed Claus for what he is, I will take it as a compliment...but I would say that it is Claus and Claus alone who is responsible for the ruination of his reputation on this board. Fair enough. You know, I think I was under the impression that he went south but now I think he was always that way and like you said he has now been exposed.

[Questioninggeller]

When is violent speech still free speech?
USA Today
By Jonathan Turley
Tue May 3, 6:32 AM ET

It is perhaps the first legal rule that children learn: "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me." It is not just a catchy phrase, but a fair reduction of a legal principle: Words alone are generally not actionable as forms of assault or crimes.


Last week, a jury in Alexandria, Va., offered a new addendum to this childhood axiom. Muslim scholar Ali al-Timimi was convicted of, among other crimes, incitement - encouraging followers to train with terrorist organizations and to engage in violent jihad. He now faces life in prison in a case that even the U.S. attorney called "unusual" based on speech. His appeal may now help define when violent speech crosses the line from free expression into criminal advocacy.

Violent speech is generally protected by the Constitution. However, the line between controversial and criminal speech has proved evasive for courts. Speech is not protected if it advocates "imminent" violent or unlawful conduct. Speech can be calculated to incite people, but not if it incites people in the wrong environment. Thus, screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is actionable, but not necessarily doing so in a park.

Such contradictions reflect a long history of how we deal with violent or inciteful speech. Under the Sedition Act of 1798, Congress made it a crime to "excite" people against the government or otherwise bring the government into "contempt or disrepute." This law was used by President John Adams against critics, despite its flagrant violation of the First Amendment and condemnations by framers such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

An ally in the KKK

Al-Timimi, the Islamic extremist, was relying on an unlikely ally in free speech: an Ohio Ku Klux Klan grand dragon. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, a KKK leader was prosecuted for giving a speech at a farm outside of Cincinnati in which he warned that "if our president, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might be some revengeance taken."

Clarence Brandenburg was convicted under a state law of criminal statements that proclaimed the "necessity or propriety" of acts considered violent or unlawful.

Later, in reversing the conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government could not "forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such actions."

The decision reflected the court's understanding that political passion often drifts toward violent expressions. Thus, conservative columnist Ann Coulter is allowed to suggest "we should invade (Muslim) countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." More recently, Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn's chief of staff is allowed to proclaim, "I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!"

The question of what constitutes advocacy of an "imminent lawless action" has remained a maddening ambiguity. This is precisely the ambiguity that al-Timimi stepped into during social gatherings in Virginia in the weeks after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Al-Timimi is the spiritual adviser to many Muslims across the country. He has worked with the government, including White House chief of staff Andrew Card, and he has been invited to speak on Islam to the U.S. military. He is the perfect conflicted individual for the conflicted area of violent speech.

On one hand, al-Timimi publicly denounced violence and called for tolerance in some speeches. However, privately, a darker image emerged. Five days after the 9/11 attacks, al-Timimi called for a "holy war" and "violent jihad." On Sept. 16, al-Timimi met in an apartment with a few young men and encouraged them to go abroad to join the jihad. Within days, some members were on their way to Karachi, Pakistan, to join Lashkar-e-Taiba - a group later put on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. Al-Timimi is quoted by former converts (who are now cooperating with the prosecutors) as referring to U.S. forces as "legitimate targets" if they attack Muslims in Afghanistan. (None actually fought, but a few did go abroad for training.)

Intent of al-Timimi's words

The difficult question in the case is whether al-Timimi's statements to supporters not only advocated violent or unlawful conduct (which is protected), but encouraged imminent violent or unlawful acts. Notably, many of his comments have a future element to them. His reference to "legitimate targets" is premised on the possibility of a future U.S. intervention.

Conviction in these cases risks being overturned based on unpopular speech rather than a real imminent threat. Judge Leonie Brinkema allowed the jury to hear inflammatory statements made by al-Timimi on the morning of the Columbia shuttle disaster. Al-Timimi wrote in an e-mail to followers that "there is no doubt that Muslims were overjoyed because of the adversity that befell their greatest enemy" and called the disaster a "good omen." The relevance of such statements is questionable, but the potential prejudicial impact could not be more clear.

We have come a long way since John Adams chased down critics for sedition. We have learned that we have more to fear from the suppression of speech than from its expression.


Full:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050503/cm_usatoday/whenisviolentspeechstillfreespeech