Thursday, December 01, 2005

A Response to the Left

Due to the overwhelming responses to the November 26 posting:

http://therobb7.blogspot.com/2005/11/but-can-you-prove-it.html

I decided that since the subject matter was quite important, and since the volume of information that I have in my reply is considerable, it would be better to create a new post to continue the discussion.

The reader would be well-served to read the "comments" at the above link first before continuing here.

A reader named "s9" commented "We always knew the Army were a bunch of pansies who like to dress up in kinky boots and tight pants"

My response was "I wonder if s9 has ever called a current Army soldier a "pansy" to his face....."

It was a legitimate query to see if s9 had ever actually done something so bold. I'd be willing to pay good money to see the out come.

In fact, my nephew (Army) should be stateside around the first of next year. I could arrange a meeting ......

The next response by s9 puzzled me, however:

"Let's just say I'm a firm believer in the practical value of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military."

How did THAT enter the conversation?
Anyway, I digress.

When I asked for "irrefutable evidence, the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law, that pre-war intel was manipulated" was that too much to ask for????

The response from s9 was quite telling:

"While you're at it, why not ask Santa Claus for a pony?"

Apparently, no such evidence exists.

However, to their credit, s9 stated that any hard evidence "will require an investigation."

OK, fine.....but atleast wait unitl you have the actual evidence IN HAND before making accusations.


Now let us move on to what appears to be the larger bone of contention with s9.
On November 26, 2005 I made the following statement:

"I don't mind dissent, but something must be made clear:

Dissent that is used as propaganda by the enemy is sedition in the hands of the enemy."

The aforementioned reader, s9, took that to mean that I was calling " for the summary field execution of a decorated veteran and sitting member of Congress for treason."

s9 went on to say the following:

"You're the one who called the military ineffectual when you called out a decorated veteran and sitting member of Congress for sedition— or was it treason?— and left hanging in the wind whether the U.S. Armed Forces should now be preparing to perform a battlefield execution of an openly declared domestic enemy of the Constitution. "

First of all, let's dial down the rhetoric here.

I am NOT advocating a battlefield execution of a sitting member of Congress.

Critical speech, political organizing, or suspicious association between individuals may be considered as "sedition."

Though such behaviours may be common in a free society, in societies where sedition laws exist the acts and behaviours which qualify as sedition are highly subjective.

By "subjective" I mean that it is my opinion that Rep. Murtha's comments do not need to be aired publicly, but rather privately, in closed-door meetings with those who make the decisions (the President, Joint Chiefs, SecDef, etc.)

Let's consider my original statement in it's proper context.

Speech that endangers American lives can be restricted in wartime, censorship in wartime is standard for all countries, including all democracies, and speech has led to trials – and convictions – for treason, Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally being two obvious examples.

The subversive left and its liberal allies are far stronger and more dangerous to our security now than they were in the 1960's.

I do not think the Bush Administration could politically enforce censorship now. This means we are that much more vulnerable to our enemies both at home and abroad.

The WWII era slogan “Loose Lips Sink Ships” was designed to encourage American civilians to be discreet, that is to censor themselves lest they endanger the brave men and women defending them on the field of battle.

In other words, even if the government does not have the political strength to impose wartime censorship, citizens should exercise reasonable restraint in the way they conduct their criticisms of war policy.

Those who denounce their own democracy as a “fascist” and “terrorist” and maliciously “lying” and an “outlaw state,” are inviting others to hate us and attack us, and they must accept responsibility for their acts.

This confusion is more than dangerous. It is undermining the morale of our troops and encouraging our terrorist enemies to think that they can win this war if they kill enough Americans and Iraqis in the Middle East.

If Rep. Murtha and the left are successful in their seditious effort to force an American surrender to the terrorists in Iraq, we will be forced to fight them in our own country.

In that case tens of thousands of Americans may die, and the Cut-and-Run Caucus will be in serious need of soap and water.

I have no problem with critics of the war.

My complaint is with those in elected leaders squabling in public, where their comments can be used as propaganda by the enemy.

Bottom line: Our elected leaders need to show a united front in public, and save the disagreements for the boardroom...away from the cameras.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: For those of you that are late to the party, this post has been edited to clarify my OPINION.)

It is in the crucible of debate that ideas are forged that can stand the test of time.

I do not and have not ever claimed that my opinions are superior to anyone else's.

If I have conveyed that impression to any visitor, I honestly apologize.

I welcome comments to The Perspective because debating the issues keeps me sharp.

48 Comments:

Blogger s9 said...

Well, there's quite a lot there for me to provide you with a response. I'll have to divide my comments into multiple entries, and post them over the course of the day.

I'll start with this one...

TheRobb writes: I'll do better than that. I'll give you SEVEN investigations...

You're making a tautological argument.

Not one of these seven investigations ventured into the question of whether the administration mishandled, distorted or otherwise abused pre-war intelligence in the policy-making process. Not one. Without exception, they were all explicitly forbidden from looking for the hard evidence you are demanding we produce when you say "...But Can You PROVE It?"

Feel free to provide an honest response to the criticism I made of your demand for "irrefutable evidence, the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law, that pre-war intel was manipulated."

10:29 AM  
Blogger van.mojo said...

Dear TheRobb...

Your very first postulate about the Robb-Silberman Commission proves that you are incapable of either properly analyzing a document, or are simply being dishonest about your reading...

The Robb-Silberman Commissin Report (established by The White House, not Congress) in their introduction say specifically that:
...we were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. Accordingly, while we interviewed a host of current and former policymakers during the course of our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to learn about how the Intelligence Community reached and communicated its judgments about Iraq's weapons programs--not to review how policymakers subsequently used that information. They were prohibited from investigating political manipulation of intelligence. So they exonerated no one

I can only assume the rest of your post is also intellectually or ethically suspect...

mojo sends

11:39 AM  
Blogger van.mojo said...

And while we're at it...

You end your screed with some attempt at a distinction between war critics and "lefty's wh have declared war on America..." or some such blather...

I asked you once, and I ask you again... what, in your mind, is the politically correct form of war criticism as opposed to those you claim are making war on America?

I suspect the answer lies somewhere near "anyone who makes their criticism public" are the alleged traitors in our midst.

What do you propose we do with those people, TheRobb?

mojo sends

12:05 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

van.mojo writes: What do you propose we do with those people, TheRobb?

I'll be expanding my remarks on that subject when I get a little time.

1:39 PM  
Blogger therobb said...

Dear van.mojo,

What part of the following is intellectually or ethically suspect?

"Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments."

Without going any further, we need to remember some things:

1. Yes, I asked for evidence that would stand up in a court of law.
2. When someone stands accused of something, it is UP TO THE ACCUSER to bring forth evidence. Until it is PROVEN that wrongdoing has occurred, the accused is INNOCENT.

Therefore, you and everyone else who hates the President need to wait until you ACTUALLY HAVE THE EVIDENCE IN-HAND before making allegations.

If and when you actually get that evidence, THEN I will be more than happy to listen.

If it can be PROVEN that pre-war intel was manipulated, then AND ONLY THEN will I consider withdrawing my support for this Administration.

Now for your second question:

“What, in your mind, is the politically correct form of war criticism as opposed to those you claim are making war on America?”

The answer here is simple: MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD AT THE BALLOT BOX.

That’s how a representative republic works. I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. You are a smart person. You have passionate beliefs. You have a set of principles that you adhere to. Just like me, you have a website where you air your views. Great. That is the essence of democracy, and I applaud you for it.

The “politically correct” way to oppose this war is to find a candidate that most closely resembles your views and support them, campaign for them, get others to help you and then vote for that person. If you get them elected, keep in constant contact with them and hold their feet to the fire so that they will promote your values on Capitol Hill.

I enjoy the debate we are having here. It keeps my mind fresh. I also enjoyed reading your blog.

Thanks for the repartee.

7:32 AM  
Blogger s9 said...

TheRobb writes: What part of the following is intellectually or ethically suspect? "Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments."

Um, neither van.mojo nor I have been talking about the intelligence gathering and analysis phase, which were the subjects of the investigations you cited, and which were not the subject of Representative Murtha's remarks that provoked this discussion.

In other words, it doesn't matter for the argument at hand whether the analysts were telling the truth in these assertions (which, as an aside, is disputable).

Your dishonesty is manifest in your attempt to dodge the substance of our criticisms by obfuscating the argument with irrelevant facts. We have been talking about manipulation and distortion of intelligence in the policy-making process, not the gathering and analysis process.

That distinction is critical to the argument.

We've said this multiple times in different ways, and yet you continue to pretend we are not drawing this distinction. What other reason, besides intellectual dishonesty, might you have for insisting on evading the argument this way?

4:48 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

(Moving on with my responses to the original post.)

TheRobb writes: Critical speech, political organizing, or suspicious association between individuals may be considered as "sedition."

You keep using this word. I don't think it means what you think it means. I posted a definition copied from the OAD (abridged) into the previous thread. Did you see it? I don't think you comprehend it.

se·di·tion, n. Conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

If it doesn't incite rebellion, then it isn't sedition. When political messages are copied by the enemy and used as propaganda, this isn't sedition. As van.mojo says, you could make [a very weak] argument that it's treason, by providing aid [constructing propaganda] to the enemy.

By the way, is there a particular example of dissent being used by "the enemy" you would like to hold up as an example of sedition/treason?

TheRobb continues: Though such behaviours may be common in a free society, in societies where sedition laws exist the acts and behaviours which qualify as sedition are highly subjective.

Fortunately, the last time we had an unconstitutional law against sedition in the United States, the Congress repealed it in 1921.

Perhaps, you'd like to be living in some other country, where highly subjective laws against sedition are in force? I can recommend several inviting destinations for you to consider.

5:11 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

(Continuing...)

TheRobb writes: I have no problem with critics of the war. I have a problem with: ...leftists who have declared war on their own country in the midst of a war ...who recognize no responsibility to accept the results of the democratic process ...who feel no need to protect their fellow citizens from the monstrous enemy that is seeking to destroy them.

I'd like to know who are these anti-democratic leftists, and where is the declaration of war they've supposedly proclaimed.

I bet you can't name any names. You're probably thinking you get away with naming perfectly democratic leftists, who have never declared a war on the United States, and hope no one will notice your intellectual dishonesty if you just keep piling it higher and deeper with every post.

We have established that your intellectual honesty is open to question, you know. It would be nice if you were to take an interest in defending yourself against that charge.

5:31 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

(Continuing...)

TheRobb writes: I'd be willing to pay good money to see the out come.

Something tells me you'd be very disappointed with the "out come" if I'm the one who gets to pick.

5:40 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

(Concluding...)

TheRobb writes: I am NOT advocating a battlefield execution of a sitting member of Congress.

Why not?

Isn't this wartime?

Is the battlefield not global?

Are the combatants not limited to persons in the armed service of sovereign states?

Is there no fifth column among the American civilian population?

Are our enemies not aided and comforted when American troops are demoralized by lack of public support at home?

Did Rep. Murtha's dissent not demoralize or hurt American troops?

Is providing aid and comfort to the enemy on the battlefield not treason?

Is summary field execution not among the list of appropriate penalties for treason during wartime?

Feel free to step up and explain why you have constructed a logical argument in support of summarily executing a decorated veteran and sitting member of Congress on the charge of treason— yet you have stopped short of progressing to the inevitable conclusion to your train of arguments.

You were the one who dialed up the rhetoric— I just pointed at the threshold you've so far been afraid to cross. Afraid, as in wetting your panties like a terrorized little girl. That's why you got all panicky and hot, and now you don't want to correspond with me anymore. In the absence of an explanation from you, I think the answer is easily assumed that you're a coward who won't stand by your words when you're called on them.

Do you have another explanation for why you are not calling for the execution of a sitting member of Congress? I'd be delighted to see it. (Really, I would.)

3:20 PM  
Blogger therobb said...

At the following link: http://newsbusters.org/node/3091

Murtha flatly claimed that: "this mission is not something they can accomplish, not something they can do."

Gee, that's funny. Iraqis are electing a Parliament next week. They couldn't do THAT before.....

How can Murtha's comments be seen as "supporting the troops"?

Now for the subject of sedition. (sigh)

During WWII, FDR reinstated the Sedition Act. People were accused of sedition, but nobody was shot because of it.

Sedition does not necessitate execution.

I have already responded to your query about how to handle it. I'll restate it here...again....

van.mojo asked “What, in your mind, is the politically correct form of war criticism as opposed to those you claim are making war on America?”

The answer here is simple: MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD AT THE BALLOT BOX.

That’s how a representative republic works. I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. You are a smart person. You have passionate beliefs. You have a set of principles that you adhere to. Just like me, you have a website where you air your views. Great. That is the essence of democracy, and I applaud you for it.

The “politically correct” way to oppose this war is to find a candidate that most closely resembles your views and support them, campaign for them, get others to help you and then vote for that person. If you get them elected, keep in constant contact with them and hold their feet to the fire so that they will promote your values on Capitol Hill.

And as for your comment "Afraid, as in wetting your panties like a terrorized little girl." Do you treat ALL your toys that way?

6:47 AM  
Blogger s9 said...

TheRobb writes: During WWII, FDR reinstated the Sedition Act. People were accused of sedition, but nobody was shot because of it.

You must be talking about the Smith Act of 1940, not the Sedition Act of 1918. The former is not a blanket prohibition on sedition, and shouldn't be confused with the latter.

Besides, the Smith Act requires anyone charged with it to have knowingly agitated expressly for the violent overthrow of the United States government or one of the several States.

p1. The law was eviscerated in 1957 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Yates v. U.S..

p2. Representative Murtha has not agitated for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.

Your accusing Murtha of sedition is ridiculous. Ridiculous!

There is no way to interpret the Smith Act— even assuming it had not been dialed down by the Supreme Court— so it covers what Representative Murtha said or did. You look like a buffoon trying to pretend otherwise.

Why do you think van.mojo and I have been insisting that you must have meant treason and not sedition? It's because we can't believe you would be so mind-blowingly dumb.

In fact, I still can't believe you're that dumb.

I think you've known this all along— since we pointed out your mistake the first time— and now you're thrashing about wildly, looking for an intellectual hole in which to hide, where you won't have to complete the argument, which you've been making all along, about how the U.S. armed forces are witless pansies for not having Representative Murtha summarily executed for his treason.

TheRobb writes: The answer here is simple: MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD AT THE BALLOT BOX.

Ah, yes. What a patriot you are! Here you complain mightily about traitors— enemies of the United States during wartime— infiltrating the membership of the U.S. Congress, and your idea of what should be done with such traitors is a "get out the vote" message.

I'm sure Nguyen Ngoc Loan would have been impressed with your commitment to the war effort.

10:00 AM  
Blogger s9 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:08 AM  
Blogger s9 said...

TheRobb writes: And as for your comment "Afraid, as in wetting your panties like a terrorized little girl." Do you treat ALL your toys that way?

Allow me to repeat myself with emphasis added...

Do you have another explanation for why you are not calling for the execution of a sitting member of Congress? I'd be delighted to see it. (Really, I would.)

Try to remember— you are constructing an accusation of treason. Insisting on misusing the word "sedition" in place of "treason" does not change the substance of your argument.

10:11 AM  
Blogger therobb said...

Earlier I posted:

"People were accused of sedition, but nobody was shot because of it."

I noticed that, regardless of what law was in effect at the time, you didn't provide any evidence to the contrary.

Again, sedition does not necessitate execution.

And then you foisted this little gem on me:

"What a patriot you are! Here you complain mightily about traitors— enemies of the United States during wartime— infiltrating the membership of the U.S. Congress, and your idea of what should be done with such traitors is a "get out the vote" message."

If what Murtha has been saying is right, correct and the course of action for our military, then let's have a national referendum and let America vote on it.

If a majority of the American Electorate agrees with Murtha, then I will shut up and issue an apology.

Since over 100 million people voted in 2004, good luck getting that majority.

Think about it. People like Cindy Sheehan have been trying to gather support for anti-war candidates. So have online publications such as The Nation. These are "get out the vote" campaigns from people who truly believe they are correct.

I have no problem with that.

If the Left is correct on this issue, then do your best, get out the vote and prove me wrong at the ballot box.

Then you wrote "how the U.S. armed forces are witless pansies for not having Representative Murtha summarily executed for his treason."

I have never, will never, refer to our armed forces as "witless pansies".

That apparently is your job.

"This post has been removed by the author."

Uh-huh.....

11:25 AM  
Blogger drieux said...

So why exactly is this "TheRob" hiding behind the skirts of girls like lynde england, given his firm commitment to being so pro-war, and so anti-left, in a time where the so called 'right wingers' are suppose to think that we are 'at war' more so than when they were backing impeaching clinton, and openly offering aid and comfort to the enemy, that would lead to 9/11/2001.

and please, 'theRob', save me the hearts and flowers skank, I served. What IS your excuse.

12:12 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

TheRobb writes: "This post has been removed by the author."

It was a duplicate of post that follows it. I'd restore it for you, but you'd have to grant me administrative access to your blog...

12:40 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

TheRobb writes: ...Again, sedition does not necessitate execution...

You're really going to stick with this all the way down, aren't you? Okay, but don't say I didn't warn you...

The Smith Act of 1940 was designed to root out the communists. It was only ever used to prosecute people for being socialists. It was rendered impotent by the U.S. Supreme Court when it decided that merely being a socialist was not a crime, and that you could only charge somebody under the antisedition clauses of the Smith Act if they agitate for a specific plan to overthrow the U.S. government by force. Nobody of any note has been charged with it since. (I'll let van.mojo decide whether he wants to speak with authority about whether anybody has been charged with it at all— I'm not going to do the search for you.)

So basically, what you're telling me— by accusing Rep. Murtha of sedition and citing the Smith Act of 1940 as the relevant law— is that you think Murtha is a commie. Is that it?

Your real problem with Murtha has nothing whatsoever to do with him giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, and instead has everything to do with the more important need to expose communists in the U.S. government?

I see. That explains a lot. While the rest of us are supposed to be devoting the full resources of the nation toward the total defeat of evil terrorists worldwide, you want us to spend all our time hunting communists?

At long last, TheRobb, have you no sense of decency? Have you no shame?

1:58 PM  
Blogger therobb said...

"drieux said...
So why exactly is this "TheRob" hiding behind the skirts of girls like lynde england,"

Ummm, welcome to The Perspective. I don't know what an ugly chick with a penchant for naked Iraqis has to do with the subject at hand, but thanks for participating.

"when they were backing impeaching clinton"

I was actually appalled at how his attourney-client privileges were being attacked.

Again, thanks for your input, though...

"and please, 'theRob', save me the hearts and flowers skank, I served. What IS your excuse."

Since the only woman I mentioned in a previous comment was Ms. Sheehan, am I to deduce that you are referring to her as "the hearts and flowers skank"???

Families of those who serve also are making sacrifices. I am among them.

And yes, I do thank you sincerely for your past service to America.

1:59 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

You still haven't explained why you are not calling for Murtha to be executed for treason. It's the logical consequence of every other argument you've made here. What's holding you back, if it isn't cowardice?

2:00 PM  
Blogger therobb said...

I see that I need to repeat myself here for s9:

"If what Murtha has been saying is right, correct and the course of action for our military, then let's have a national referendum and let America vote on it.

If a majority of the American Electorate agrees with Murtha, then I will shut up and issue an apology."

Still waiting for that vote......

2:03 PM  
Blogger therobb said...

s9 spewed the following:

"why you are not calling for Murtha to be executed for treason. It's the logical consequence of every other argument you've made here."

Just as sedition does not nessitate execution, neither does treason.

Have you ever heard of GOING TO JAIL?

2:07 PM  
Blogger drieux said...

why is theRobb afraid of being honest with actual veterans posting on his list?

why is theRobb still in the rear with the beer, hoping that by playing cute with veterans who have served to protect him, that this will excuse his attacks on veterans?

why is theRobb afraid of trying to use a little of that christian honesty he alledges he believes in?

could it be that he can not cope with the fact that while he wants to believe that the nation is 'at war' that it is OK for him to hide away, play acting like he cares about veterans?

Gosh, what will it take to help theROBB learn to be honest?

2:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rep. John Murtha is simply pandering to the extreme left, as all yall liberals...excuse me...Progressives...say.

John Murtha says that we have lost. The fool does not realize that victory is only weeks away, the final election in Iraq that will make it a permanent Democracy. Also known as Victory.
Too bad you progressives cannot fathom the idea of an American success that doesnt involve John Kerry and Cindy Sheehad.

It is a crying shame the victory to the left means making Bush look bad at all costs...even the lives of our troops. You all are Disgusting...

(and just before you go off on a rant i did not just call John Murtha a traitor, or a troop killer, he is just simply wrong.

HHKRepublican2 of FreeRepublic.com

2:24 PM  
Blogger drieux said...

"who feel no need to protect their fellow citizens from the monstrous enemy that is seeking to destroy them."

why did the rob say this and is still in the rear with the beer? could it be that he hasn't been able to work out whether he can be honest?

2:27 PM  
Blogger therobb said...

Dear drieux,

You said "Gosh, what will it take to help theROBB learn to be honest?"

You made this and other accusations against me, but I am at a loss to see evidence of my dishonesty.

I have stated my opinion.

I have stated my beliefs.

You have done the same.

We are both entitled to do so.

However, if you're going to bring the accusation against me, then bring the evidence.

By the way, I don't drink beer.

2:45 PM  
Blogger drieux said...

so why are you hiding behind the skirts of women who served? while attacking a combat veteran who is willing to be honest?

what is the problem here 'theRobb'?

scared of the reality check when it comes to your warRhetoric about "who feel no need to protect their fellow citizens from the monstrous enemy that is seeking to destroy them."

could it be that you are becoming aware that YOU are your own enemy?

Come now, let us reason together?

Or are you hoping that continuing your process of running away will justify your warRhetoric???

Or is that the REAL BUG here - you like warRhetoric, but just do not have the moral courage to follow your rhetoric into action? And hope that blaming the so called left is all that you need to do????

3:44 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

p1. The Smith Act of 1940 doesn't allow for the death penalty for violations of its antisedition provisions. It also doesn't have a "time of war" clause for enhanced penalties, like treason does.

p2. Arguments about Murtha's sedition are a distraction from why you think Murtha isn't deserving of the maximum penalty for his treason. You should be willing to answer that, before we talk about your fantasies about communists in Congress.

Let's review the bidding, shall we?

A) You are unwilling to call for the summary field execution of traitors during a time of war.

B) You are unwilling to criticize the U.S. armed forces for refusing to execute traitors on the battlefield during a time of war.

C) You are unwilling to enlist yourself in the U.S. armed forces where you might be ordered to carry out the field execution of traitors in a time of war.

Yet, you're quite enthusiastic about constructing the argument and agitating for someone else to carry out the summary field execution of a decorated veteran and sitting member of Congress. Heavens forbid anyone ask why you're not interested in doing it yourself.

And you wonder why we keep thinking you don't have any stones?

3:48 PM  
Blogger AMM said...

I will be more than happy to criticize the extreme left who has worked against our troops. I have three sons serving in the military and loose talk puts my sons at risk.

Loose talk by some members of the House and Senate are used by Al Jazeera to give aid and comfort to our enemies. More than once I have seen talking points brought up on the House and Senate floor used in declarations by al-Sadir or Al-Zarqawi.

I also spend a lot of time talking to our troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as they hit US soil. The majority of them support the mission and believe that the Politicians should leave military planning up to the Military Commanders

5:18 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

amm writes: I will be more than happy to criticize...

Fine. Feel free to decide whether you want to join TheRobb in calling your sons out for being weak, effeminate liberals.

After all, they are allowing a traitor, in a time of war, not just to live, but to sit as a member of Congress on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, aren't they? Why are your sons and their rest of their comrades in the U.S. Armed Forces unable to find and kill the enemy in the global war on terror? And it's so convenient— isn't it?— that your sons are unable to do what must be done. If they can't do it, then why should anybody expect that you can do it for them?

Weak. You're both weak, witless pansies.

6:44 PM  
Blogger AMM said...

Charges for traitors isn't up to the Military. Speaking up as a member of the public would be in my realm. Stretching the name calling of our troops was started by the liberals on this thread.

7:13 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

AMM writes: Charges for traitors isn't up to the Military.

It is during wartime, homer— look it up.

Or perhaps, you'd like to jump in bed with the anti-war movement who were all bent out of shape about what Nguyen Ngoc Loan did in that famous film clip from Viet Nam?

Oh, the horror! What will you say to your heroic sons in the military when they find out you're a sniveling anti-war hippie?

7:51 PM  
Blogger drieux said...

AMM - so why are you hiding behind your sons?

is there a reason for that?

or are you still feeling guilty that americans suppported the impeachment of President Clinton while he had the same level of congressional authorization as now - and you feel guilty for having enobled the enemy back then with your aid and comfort....

or are you just one more of these folks trying to work out why you think we are more at war now than before and hope that by hating americans this will compensate for your lack of actions to date.

2:52 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

TheRobb and AMM, I think it's time I stopped visiting this thread to see if you're willing to explain yourselves.

You've had plenty of time and opportunity to explain why you think the military shouldn't be meting out the maximum penalty for treason during wartime to a decorated veteran and a sitting member of Congress on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. It's clear that you can't or won't— and it doesn't matter which, really. (Both are equally damning.)

I think I've explained how I came to the conclusion that you were disrespecting the military— by implying that they're not doing their jobs, either because they can't or won't do what's required to keep enemies of the Constitution from being elected and serving out their terms in Congress. You have met the challenge of my arguments with nothing but hand-waving and distractions from the subject.

You, sirs, are cowards— full of big talk right up to the point where somebody calls you on your rhetoric and you discover you can't defend it. That's when you slink away and hide.

If you children ever decide to represent, you'll know where to find me.

4:20 PM  
Blogger therobb said...

OK, last time:

s9 said: "You've had plenty of time and opportunity to explain why you think the military shouldn't be meting out the maximum penalty for treason during wartime"

The reason for my "silence", not that I own you any explanation, is that I have what's known as a LIFE.

I have a job. That takes up time.

I have children to raise. That takes up time.

I have marriage to nurture. That takes up time.

I only play Whack-A-Lib in my spare time.

One thing about this discussion bothers me:

Why is it so important to have someone declare Rep. Murtha worthy of death?

Whether or not he is guilty of sedition or guilty of treason, the fact still remains that he...is...wrong.

You have gone to great lengths to prove that he is guilty of treason.

You have also gone to great lengths to impugn me, my faith (in another thread), my nephew in the army, and even the mother of who has two sons in Iraq.

Earlier I commented:
"People were accused of sedition, but nobody was shot because of it."

I noticed that, regardless of what law was in effect at the time, you didn't provide any evidence to the contrary.

Again, sedition does not necessitate execution.

If it makes you happy, I will say that perhaps Mr. Murtha should offered some down-time at a tropical resort...Club Gitmo, for example.

If you can prove to me that sedition ALWAYS necessitates execution, then I will formally apologize to you.

The burden of proof now rests with you.

7:49 PM  
Blogger van.mojo said...

Please see 18 USC 2831. It provides the penalty of death or imprisonment. So if you want to argue for imprisonment, it would require you to stipulate that we are not really "at war."

If we are at war... then the penalty is death. The end.

mojo sends

9:32 AM  
Blogger therobb said...

Again, why is it so important to have someone declare Rep. Murtha worthy of death?

Again, whether or not he is guilty of sedition or guilty of treason, the fact still remains that he...is...wrong.

You have gone to great lengths to prove that he is guilty of treason.

And you have continued to cite 18 USC 2831.

Show me where any US citizen has been executed pursuant to that code.

"The end"???

Aww, c'mon...you mean you don't wanna play?

10:53 AM  
Blogger van.mojo said...

Look TheRobb...

It's very simple.

You laid out the series of allegations amounting to treason.

You are the one telling us this is a time of war.

The law is fairly clear. Treason during wartime calls for the death penalty. Why don't you support our nation's laws, TheRobb? Why won't you support the use of our law to put down traitors?

Or is it possible you might be overreaching on some of your descriptions of a. the nature of offenses or b. our actual current conditions of belligerence.

Or you could just dance some more... but you've got to come with an answer sooner or later...

mojo sends

11:19 AM  
Blogger therobb said...

I am simply asking you to give me two answers:

1)Why is it so important to have someone declare Rep. Murtha worthy of death?

You have continued to cite 18 USC 2831.

2) Can you show me where any US citizen has been executed pursuant to that code?

Answer those two questions. Why? It would go a long way towards allowing you to understand MY final answer on this topic.

Please. Just answre those two questions.

11:31 AM  
Blogger s9 said...

A little birdie told me to check back.

I'll have more when I get a little bit of time later this afternoon, but for now: van.mojo, I think you meant to cite 18 USC 2381, not 18 USC 2831. Did you make a mistake in hand transcription?

In fact, I would suggest that TheRobb's broadside against the Congressman is less a specific charge under 18 USC 2381, and more a loosely constructed application of unspecified clauses scattered throughout chapter 115 as well as bits and bobs from all over the rest of US Code.

Not that I expect he's ever bothered to read the law before spouting off about it...

2:32 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

TheRobb writes: 1) Why is it so important to have someone declare Rep. Murtha worthy of death?

Maybe you should have thought about that before you set about making an argument to that effect.

I think both van.mojo and I would not still be haranguing you about it, if you had only formed an answer to this question to give to us when we started posing it to you.

Why is it so important for you to make the argument that Representative Murtha is giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States during wartime?

TheRobb writes: 2) Can you show me where any US citizen has been executed pursuant to that code?

It took me less than ten minutes with Wikipedia to find a historical example of a U.S. military commander performing a summary execution in the field on charges of treason.

Consider the case of General Winfield Scott, who commanded the U.S. Army in the Battle of Churubusco, where he had the entire Saint Patrick's Brigade hanged for treason right there on the battlefield.

TheRobb writes: Answer those two questions. Why? It would go a long way towards allowing you to understand MY final answer on this topic.

I answered one of your two questions, but it only reinforces my argument to you. The other of your questions is only a restatement of the question we have been putting to you all this time. You're not producing anything to resemble an explanation of your views on this topic.

2:58 PM  
Blogger therobb said...

s9 wrote:

"I answered one of your two questions, but it only reinforces my argument to you."

No, because the other questoin needs to be answered.

"The other of your questions is only a restatement of the question we have been putting to you all this time."

Then you should have no problem stating it.

"You're not producing anything to resemble an explanation of your views on this topic."

That's because I am still waiting for an answer from you to the question:

Why is it so important to YOU to have someone declare Rep. Murtha worthy of death?

3:19 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

TheRobb writes: You have also gone to great lengths to impugn me, my faith (in another thread), my nephew in the army, and even the mother of who has two sons in Iraq.

I've been slow to impugn you, but there are some boundaries that I simply can't let you cross unchallenged. You've shown no respect for those boundaries, so you shouldn't be surprised when I impugn you for it.

I may have impugned your faith— I'm not sure. If you're a dominionist, which I strongly suspect you are, then yeah— I'm going to impugn your faith. Those Youth Evangelism Conference people you're hooked into are dominionists. I don't think dominionism is compatible with either Christianity or the American political system, and I'm fairly quick to challenge anyone who thinks otherwise. I make no apologies for my position on that.

And if you think I'm the one impugning your nephew and neighbors in the U.S. Army, you are seriously missing the point. I'll keep saying it until you get it straight: you're the one impugning the U.S. Army. I'd be a lot less aggravated by your nonsense, and a whole lot more polite with you, if you were to apologize for doing that and make an effort to never do it again.

3:27 PM  
Blogger therobb said...

I just posted a comment to your article about dominionism at mojowire.

Read that first and then perhaps you and I might realize we're a lot closer than we both think (in matters of faith).

3:40 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

TheRobb writes: Why is it so important to YOU to have someone declare Rep. Murtha worthy of death?

Because I'm trying to prove the point— to an audience of people not speaking up in this thread— that people like you lack the brains to articulate what you really mean and/or lack the courage to mean the words you actually use.

Some folks are worried sick that folks like you might really be both smart and brave enough to pose a threat to the American political system. I'm trying to figure out whether that's true.

I'm still inclined to think you're not brave enough. I can't believe anybody could be this stupid.

4:10 PM  
Blogger therobb said...

Courage here is not the issue.

As a result of our discussion, I am editing my original post to clarify my position.

I invite you to re-read it.

Thank you for your contributions to the debate.

6:22 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

The delta is a little difficult to pick out with precision, because I don't remember exactly what was there before the change. You've opened lots of avenues for thought, so I'll need more time to contemplate.

One thing you've said that I hadn't noticed before...

TheRobb writes: In other words, even if the government does not have the political strength to impose wartime censorship, citizens should exercise reasonable restraint in the way they conduct their criticisms of war policy.

Now that is a really fascinating statement. I could probably write a 3000 word essay unpacking it. OMG. Is that really an argument you want to defend?

12:03 PM  
Blogger s9 said...

I probably won't return to this topic until Monday.

10:52 AM  

<< Home