Why You Don't Turn Your Revolution Over to the Army 101

When protestors filled the square to protest and bring down the Mubarak, the army did nothing. They had nothing to lose. If Mubarak remained in power, the status quo would just have continued. If Mubarak went down, the people who brought him down would just hand over the government to the army.


There was no downside to this for the army. Mubarak is out, the army is in. And the thought that the army was interested in establishing democracy is rapidly diminishing.


In the square, before Mubarak left, the army had no reason to intervene. It just would have hurt them.


Now, with all the power, they have found plenty of motivation to use force to against the demonstrators. They don't want anyone to challenge their power. So, they will use force against anything and anybody they disagree with.


I hate to say it, but the next 'leader' of Egypt is most likely going to have 'General' or 'Field Marshall' before his name. And he will be totalitarian kleptocrat. 


And we will, probably, support the regime. You know, to provide stability in the region.


Arab Spring, my butt...

Let's Draw Mohammed Day, the Sequel, part II

Not really that much in the news this morning. Nothing about the nuclear reactors in Japan. Have to go looking for that some more. It amazes me how something that important gets cut for the latest scandal – in this case the budget stop gap measure passed by congress last night.

I got a link to an article[1] on who’s saying what about Terry Jones from the New York Times.

All-in-all, quotes in the article are pretty free speech positive. 

The one discordant note came from Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe, Director of the World Evangelical Alliance. Mr Tunnicliffe asks Jones if he will, “...go to Afghanistan and look a widow in the eye and explain your compulsion to pull off a publicity stunt? Will you meet with the families of the U.N. workers and explain to them your provocative actions?”

This is pretty pointless, as it wasn’t Jones that made the Afghanis riot, set fires and kill people. It always amazes me when someone can’t see that the appeasement isn’t the answer. There can be no appeasement with crowds like these. They have been stirred up – in this case by Karzai – and they don’t know what they really want. They are just angry and are venting.

Why, Mr. Tunnicliffe are you not asking Karzai if he will explain his ‘compulsion’ to set his own populace to riot?

As usual, (at least, I think it is usual), the comments after the article say a great deal more than the article. 

There seems to be a recurring theme that Jones shouldn’t have done this, because he’s a Christian. And Christians just don’t do that. Upset people, I mean. They are supposed to be all love and no fire. I wonder if the ones believing this has read any of the Bible. The Christian church was founded on conflict. Jesus was killed as much for what he said, as for who he was. Should the early Christians have stood silent, because they didn’t want to set the Romans off on yet another pogrom?

Bradley Beck, from Spokane, Washington asks: “What is it that keeps Jone's actions from rising to the level of fighting words, speech and acts not protected by the Constitution?”

This question seems to reflect a trend in this debate – How can we criminalize Terry Jones speech, so we can shut him up? Is this what we really want? To criminalize all speech the majority doesn’t like?

Mark E White of Atlanta, brings up another common thread in the ongoing discussion, "In addition to the harm Jones wrought to life, limb and humanitarian causes, his stunt put American soldiers at risk."

Mark, Terry Jones didn’t put our soldiers at risk.[2] The response of the Afghan people put them at risk. Once we accept that speech can be limited on the basis it might provoke someone to do something, we agree to prior restraint of speech. The SCOTUS held, in Near v. Minnesota, (full text here) that prior restraint of speech was unconstitutional. So, we don’t get to shut Terry Jones up for what effect his speech might have.

Janet from NYC, like many others, asks if Terry Jones expression was ethical. Janet, ethics are great. I am all for acting in an ethical manner and I agree with you that what Jones did was unethical. The problem with ethics is that they are entirely subjective. And one man’s ethics are another man’s anathema. So, how do we reconcile the two? We can’t and we don’t have to.

To the posters that likened Terry Jones’ speech to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. This concept is built upon the reality that doing so will result in a threat of immediate harm. How did Jones’ speech produce a threat of imminent harm? How did he know that the Afghanis would riot? Was he supposed to read their minds? What if his act set off riots of Muslims in Indonesia or the Philippines? Should he have known that, too? Where does it stop? 

Forgetting, for the moment, that prior restraint of speech is unconstitutional, what would you have Jones do? Sit down and consider all the possibilities, however unlikely, that would result from his speech. Then, realizing what he was doing might provoke someone somewhere to do something many people would consider ‘bad,’ self-censor? No man has it within his power to know how his actions will be received in all places and by all men. The end result would be that no one could say anything because someone, somewhere, might get their feelings hurt.

The constitution protects rights. It does not protect anyone from getting their feelings hurt.

“If we have an intelligence comminity [sic] worthy of that name, they need to quietly apprehend these type of publicity addicts immediatly [sic] and provide them with an all expense vacation in Gitmo. I know this sort of thing the Nazies [sic] did, but we are at war.”

The poster of this statement has, obviously, adopted the Lindsey Graham model of ‘free speech’. We’re in a war, damn it, we want to bring liberty and rights to these Afghanis. And if we have to do it by giving up some of our rights, that should be just fine. No, thanks. That’s not the America I want to live in.

The ‘intelligence comminity’ [sic] you speak of existed, and still exists, in some parts of the world. Perhaps you recognize their names: KGB; Gestapo; SAVAK; et cetera. Do you really think bringing back this type of organization is a good idea?

The CIA has no mandate to operate domestically and has absolutely no arrest authority. Doing what you want is ‘extraordinary rendition’ – which the Bushies gave us and Obama has failed to condemn. Kidnapping people who disagree with the government in the middle of the night, shipping them off to Gitmo, where they will be held indefinitely without trial and, as an added bonus, tortured.

I am sad that I have seen the day that some people, (it seems like many, but I have no idea how many feel this way or the other), are willing to give up their constitutional right to free speech, because some nutjob pastor in Florida did something that upset a bunch of people with really poor impulse control in Afghanistan. Free speech is one of the cornerstones upon which our liberties rest. Do we really want to lose it to silence some completely inconsequential person who did something that upset some people thousands of miles away?

I don’t. You may feel otherwise. See, that’s a free exchange of ideas. Nobody gets killed. Nothing gets burned. 

[1] The video at this URL is interesting. It just shows a bunch of people running around seemingly without purpose. Then some guys in green uniforms show up and start firing their AK’s up into the air. How do they get away with that? Those bullets have got to come down somewhere. Apparently, ammunition must as cheap as human life in Afghanistan...

[2] It is arguable that George Bush and Barack Obama put our troops at risk when they sent them to fight a war with no strategy, no goals, makeshift tactics and absolutely no exit strategy. And I think it is a good argument.

Birthers....

Donald Trump is making noises like he wants to run for president, (of the United States, not Hair Club for Men). The ‘Donald’ has chosen to, not so subtly, attack Obama on the issue of where he was born.

This birther nonsense was somewhat amusing when it first came up. Something that the conspiracy theorists could spend a couple of days or even weeks discussing. Unfortunately, it didn’t stop at the level of conspiracy theorists. It went mainstream through an increasingly large number of venues. Until, now, it has almost become the ‘in’ thing to do for republicans who are/might/don’t have a hope of running for president.

So, we need to really look at what is being said and why it makes no sense…

Obama isn’t a 'Natural Born Citizen' of the United States of America

If Obama isn’t a natural born citizen of the US, then he isn’t a citizen, at all. No one out there is saying, after being born in Kenya or wherever spot they’ve picked this week, Obama came to the United States and became a naturalized American citizen.

So, if he isn’t a ‘natural born citizen,’ then he isn’t a citizen at all. Unless someone has a ‘long form’ naturalization document that shows Obama was naturalized. It’s probably in Hawaii with his long from birth certificate.

The democrats picked Obama for some nefarious reason

In the 2008 presidential election, one candidate was sure to win the presidency. The candidate that wasn’t George Bush. 

McCain was ‘Bush, only older.’ Abandoning his record of being a maverick and hewing to the straight and narrow of hard line republicanism, McCain become an older Bush. Who was 100% un-electable. Even after he played the sex card by appointing an entirely unqualified, (not under-qualified, entirely unqualified), Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate.

This left the democrats with a golden opportunity. They could have run Mr. Ed the Talking Horse and won. The field was wide open and victory all but assured.

So, they pick a guy who isn’t a citizen to run? I mean, did they think the Internet had been turned off? That they didn’t know his lack of citizenship wouldn’t be found out? Is anyone really that dumb?

Putting logic aside, supposing the dems had looked around for their surefire winner in 2008 and the man most likely to lead the country out of mess left by the previous eight years of republican administration. And they couldn't find someone who was as qualified as Obama and a 'natural born citizen' of the US? 

Obama brought nothing to the table the dems couldn’t have found elsewhere. Obama’s political history is incredibly lite. He, basically, had done nothing important or controversial before 2008.[1] He wasn’t brilliant. It doesn’t even look like he has that good a grasp of politics in Washington, D.C. So, why did the dems chose him, rather than someone else with the same, or better qualifications, about whom there was no question they were a ‘natural born citizen’ of the US. 

Knowingly electing a person who isn’t a citizen, in an election where the dems were almost guaranteed to prevail makes less sense than anything I can think of. And I can think of some pretty nonsensical stuff.

Getting Rid of Obama

Assuming for the moment that Obama is not a ‘natural born’ citizen of the United States. Just for the sake of argument.

What do we do now?

There is no vetting process to determine whether a person is qualified to be president. You don’t have to go down to the county courthouse, your notarized long form birth certificate in hand, to get the blessing of the county clerk’s office before you can run.[2]

In fact, giving someone the power to accept or reject anyone’s candidacy on any grounds would bring our electorial system to it’s knees. The voters are the ones that make the decision whether someone is qualified or unqualified for office. (and, as we’ve seen, sometimes we voters don’t make really good choices).

Once you’ve armed yourself with incontrovertible evidence that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States, what do you do with it?

The only way to remove a sitting president, other than through the elective process, is to impeach them.

But, Obama can’t be president, because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ of the US. [In fact, taking the rhetoric to its illogical conclusion, you would have to argue that Obama isn’t even a citizen.]

So, articles of impeachment are issued in the House. The alleged crime? Obama not being a 'natural born citizen' of the US. Which means he can’t be president. Which means you can’t impeach him. If articles of impeachment issue from the House of Representatives against Obama, the HOR is admitting that he is president. Since the issue is whether or not Obama is really president, the impeachment would settle the issue. He must be the president, or they couldn’t impeach him.

So, what is the outcome of all the controversy among the birthers? What are they actually going to do, if they find proof that Obama is not a ‘naturally born’ citizen of the US, but of Kenya or Indonesia? 

Absolutely nothing. 

Because, constitutionally, the only way to unseat a sitting president is to impeach them or to have them lose an election.

And the ‘birther’ nonsense, like the muslim nonsense, is much better used as a weapon to turn bigoted people against the dems than it would be used to remove Obama from office. [Which they can’t do, anyway.]

Not to be cynical, but I am beginning to find this whole nonsense kind of amusing… in a boring sort of way.

  

[1] I’d never heard of Obama before he started his run for president. And I am hard core news junkie. I read 4 newspapers a day on the web. I follow political websites on both sides of the political spectrum. If there had been anything controversial about Obama before he was nominated for president, I would have known about it.

[2] Which is interesting, since you do have to bring a legal 'presence' document, (usually a certified birth certificate), when you apply for a driver's license...

The Ugly American and Altruism in Africa...

Slate.com reported that the CEO of domain registrar GoDaddy.com, Bob Parsons, shot an elephant in a sorghum field in Zimbabwe. (As in ‘hunting,’ I guess) As is predictable, there were a few people who took exception to Bob killing the elephant. So, Bob tried to spin it and claimed he killed the elephant because it was destroying the villages crops. Also, that he, magnanimously, let the villagers eat the meat.

I am not sure there is anything illegal about hunting marauding elephants in sorghum fields in Zimababwe. I am not even sure that killing some elephants is a bad idea. I wouldn’t do it, but, then, I am not in Africa and starving because an elephant is destroying my crops.

The problem I have with Parsons is his attempted impersonation of Teddy Roosevelt. 

This happens up here where I live all the time. Out-of-state hunters show up, bursting with excitement and ready to embark on their week of killing to prove whatever it is they have to prove. 

One time I was sitting in the airport in Minneapolis-St. Paul waiting for a connecting flight to Missoula. I saw a large bush moving towards the gate. As it got closer, I realized it wasn’t a bush. It was three overweight businessmen from New Jersey decked out with every piece of camo clothing and accessory that Cabelas sells. Instantly, I knew  they were on their way to Montana to kill something. It looked like they got up that morning and were so excited to go hunting that they felt they had to wear camo to the airport so they wouldn’t have to change clothes after they touched down in Missoula. 

One of them struck up a conversation. He was obviously excited. I tried not to laugh. Then I went back to playing Tetris on my laptop.

No doubt these three terrorized the Bitterroot Mountains for a week and then went home. After spending a pot of money – for which we are eternally grateful – they, undoubtedly, put back on their business suits and went back to Jersey where they amazed their office mates with stories of daring do over the water cooler. Their bloodlust now satisfied, they were able to return to riding their $5,000 lawn tractors over the ‘velt’ that was their front lawn in Piscataway.

I really don’t have anything against these people. In fact, before he died, my father was one of these people. [Associating my Dad with this group, probably maligns them unnecessarily.] But, they, like Bob Parsons, shouldn’t try to spin it into anything other than what it, actually, was - a blood sport. They came to Montana a to kill deer and elk. Bob went to Zimbabwe to kill an elephant. 

It wasn’t an attempt to help villages save their crops or supplement their protein. He could have spent half as much as he did on the hunt and, most likely, fed the entire village for a year and helped them grow more crops. He went to Zimbabwe to kill an elephant. 

So, Bob, like the moving bush in the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, your adventure was about yourself. It was not altruistic. So, quit trying to spin it. 

A Couple of Asides...

Things appear to be looking up (?) in Japan as thousands turned out to see the debut of two Pandas at a Zoo in Tokyo. Ah, that’s sweet. Now can we get back to what’s happening with those nuclear reactors? You know, the ones that leaking radiation into the Pacific and irradiating the neighborhood…

Meanwhile, in Florida, things were really ‘looking up’ for Clara Chapman of Plant City. She was swallowed up by a large sinkhole in her backyard. Fortunately, she had her cell phone and was able to dial it and throw it up in the air. Once clear of the sinkhole, the phone called 911. Police and Firefighters responded and pulled her out of the sinkhole. 

Verizon, I think this is one of the places you should send your, “Can you hear me, now,” guy.

The Federal Reserve Act - Wilson's Other Legacy

In my post about seditious speech, I was going to comment how President Woodrow Wilson managed to turn the country from isolationism, (Wilson was elected in 1916 on a promises to keep the US out of the war), to rabid support of the first world war - in about 6 months.

And how he managed to keep the war popular, even though it was fought in the middle of the 1917–1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. (Which is thought, by some, to have originated at an US Army base in Kansas.) According to the Centers for Disease Control up to 50 million people died in the pandemic worldwide.

Yet, as I know one of my friends would want me to say, Wilson should also be known for the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.

See here for a picture of the announcing passage of the Federal Reserve Act.

Standby for further updates...

Kentucky Senator Goes for the Fear...

I got an email today from Rand Paul. Paul is the junior senator from Kentucky. And he is a reactionary.

The mail came via the Gun Digest. I enter a lot of sweepstakes, so I guess I must have signed up for their newsletter, (when entering sweepstakes, you often have to subscribe to newsletters), and then they, apparently, sold my email address to Rand Paul.

I can’t duplicate the email - it wasn’t anywhere on line that I could find. The Sourthern Colorado Patriots web page contains the entire text of the email. No dramatic graphics, but the basics are there. I know nothing about the politics of this group and my citation of their website should not be construed to be an endorsement.

According to Mr Paul, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is leading the UN in a ‘global gun grab.’ [‘gun grab’? That sounds like a party game.] Supposedly, Hillary is cooperating with the UN to disarm Americans vis an UN Small Arms Treaty.

Or, is she?

As the NRA points out, the Secretary of State cannot sign treaties. Only the president can sign treaties. Then the senate would have to ratify the treaty. Then the treaty would have to survive a constitutional challenge. After that, the content of the treaties would have to codified. These laws would, again, have to stand constitutional challenges. And so on and so on.

Here, the NRA discusses what the UN might try to do with international arms treaties. Not much there, either. There isn’t even a draft treaty in place, so no one can say how the treaty will affect private firearms ownership in the US. 

I hate spam, generally, and fear mongering spam, specifically. 

The purpose of BS like this is to scare people. And to get people to send money to the politicians who say that they will save us. (Although I have to wonder how many donations Mr. Paul will get by soliciting people who don't live in Kentucky). This email goes beyond usual in that it resuscitates the myth that the UN is going to come in and take over the country. This is pure tripe.

The email neglects to mention that the Supreme Court, (SCOTUS is how you’ll see me abbreviate it), has markedly expanded firearms ownership rights in the last 3-4 years. That SCOTUS in Heller vs D.C. and McDonald vs. Chicago have laid out, in no uncertain terms, that firearms ownership is an individual, not collective, right, (i.e.; the individual right to bear arms is not dependent upon the collective right to bear arms for such things as a militia) It has struck down laws in D.C. and Chicago that outlaw a particular type of firearm; e.g.; handguns.

We have a president who came into office after clearly stating the need for ‘sensible’ firearms control. And, three years later, he has failed to bring one firearms control measure to congress. Even when he had a democratic majority in both houses. 

Despite the strident calls from the Brady Center, et cetera, Obama hasn’t even tried to push firearms control. The bill introduced to limit magazine capacity, introduced by Senator Frank Leutenberg of New Jersey hasn't gone anywhere, despite being introduced during the drama after Congress person Gabriella Giffords was shot while holding a public meeting in Arizona. 

The one thing that Obama has done is to nominate Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. The ATF is the primary agency for the creationg, (‘codifying’), and enforcing firearms laws in the United States. 

I couldn’t find a lot of biographical data, but the general consensus, (and one that I agree with), is that Traver was a bad choice for ATF director - because, prior to being appointed to direct the ATF, he was special agent in charge of the ATF office in Chicago and is known to have supported Chicago’s draconian firearms laws. Before they were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in McDonald vs. Chicago.

Or, I guess, I should say that Obama tried to appoint Traver. Traver’s nomination was rejected by the senate, (led by democrats), and returned to the White House.

So, Dr. Paul, I suggest you stop putting out this fear mongering propaganda. We have enough real problems, without you creating more by inventing non-existent “global gun grab” by the UN.

If I were a citizen of Kentucky, you could count on the fact I wouldn’t vote to re-elect you.

What's Old is New Again...

In 1917, The State of Montana passed a law outlawing sedition.[1]

Caught up in the hysteria of World War I, Montana’s citizens sought to control the expression of thoughts that criticized the government, the way the war was being fought and, even, the uniforms the soldiers wore.

Almost two hundred people were arrested and seventy-nine persons were convicted of sedition under this law. Most of them for careless remarks made in haste in public venues. Nineteen were fined up to $20,000, ($275,000 in today’s dollars). All of them served an average of 19 months in prison. More than half of the men prosecuted were foreign born.

When congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917[2], the parts of the law dealing with seditious speech were almost identical to the Montana Act. Twenty more people were arrested in Montana under the federal statute but, fortunately, none were convicted.

It took until the Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg vs. Ohio, (full text here), in 1969 to finally close the door on laws relating to seditious speech. That’s around fifty years, give or take...

Most people would have thought the speech that brought on these prosecutions in 1917 was protected against infringement by the first amendment to the constitution. At the time, the constitution was held to only protect the right of citizens to free speech in a very limited way. In most instances, the law was interpreted narrowly as not applying to the states. It is in this atmosphere that the anti-seditionists operated.

Besides, nobody actually liked the people being prosecuted. After all, half of the people persecuted were foreigners and none of them supported the position held by the majority. So, why should we care about what happened to them?

In 2006, all seventy-nine people convicted of sedition under the 1917 law were pardoned by Montana governor Brian Schweitzer. 

So, what does what happened in Montana in 1917 have to do with today?

Plenty.

When presidents, members of congress and soldiers take office, they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Apparently, some of them either didn’t understand that oath, weren’t serious when they took the oath or have forgotten about the oath.

Terry Jones, the pastor who burned the Koran in March has been attacked, savagely, by some politicians for his actions. 

Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Majority Leader in the current congress, and Lindsey Graham, (check out the picture on this web page, he looks like someone who is on a year long Quaalude bender), congressman from South Carolina seem to be among the people who have forgotten the oath they swore to uphold the constitution and have traded it for jingoist screeds.

Mr. Reid and Mr. Graham have openly advocated that Terry Jones receive some kind of governmental sanction for his burning of a  Koran. Reid wasn’t sure what they could do, but thought they might need to hold hearings on the subject. At the time they made their statements, neither man seemed to know what sanctions would be appropriate. Thank God.


Or, Terry Jones might be swinging by his neck from the tree of political expediency.

On the TV news program, Face The Nation, Mr. Graham said: “I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war."

Later in the program, Mr. Lindsey stuck his foot in his mouth, again, by saying: “But General Petreaus understand [sic] better than anybody else in America what happens when something like this is done in our country and he was right to condemn it and I think Congress would be right to reinforce what General Petreasus said.”

So, Mr. Reid and Mr. Graham think that Terry Jones expression of burning the Koran might be criminal and that he should be sanctioned. Mr. Graham believes that free speech does not apply during ‘war’ and that the word of Gen. David Petreaus is enough to sanction Mr. Jones for exercising his constitutionally protected right to free speech. Where did we get these guys?

Neither seems too worried about protecting or defending the Constitution of the the United States because “we’re in a war” and the Afghanis are tearing themselves apart over the mutterings of some old guy from Florida. 

The war we are in, is you know, a war on terror, created by the republicans to keep their corporate masters raking in the big bucks on defense contracts. That ‘war’. The ‘long war’, now playing in Iraq and Afghanistan; coming soon to Libya.

And Terry Jones is a real wack-job who nobody takes seriously, so we can infringe on his rights without worrying about it. Marginalize away!

Talk about the tyranny of the many over the liberties of the few.

Andrew Sullivan said, in a piece published by The Atlantic, that during war, assaults on the constitutional rights of the citizens are common. Then he goes on to posit, because this is a ‘permanent war’, the civil liberties given up for this war with be gone forever.

That’s a sobering thought.

My conclusion here is that Terry Jones’ speech is being attacked by people who don’t believe in the right of everyone - including, and especially, unpleasant people - to free expression. They think free speech should be limited to things they want to hear. Right.

Just like the citizens of Montana criminalized speech they didn’t want to hear in 1917 by passing the Sedition Act; Reid and Graham want to stifle Jones' speech. In fact, they are tripping all over themselves re-defining Terry Jones’ civil rights so they can criminalize his speech.

The other thing that comes to mind when discussing these two guys is do they really care/know/appreciate what they are saying. Or are they just saying it so they can get attention? In other words are they just pandering to their base without any intent to actually act upon what they say? I would say this is more likely what is happening here. They are bullshitting to the republican crowd. Preaching to the choir. 


And it is beyond frightening. Because, despite the fact these two guys are looney tunes, a lot of people listen to them and believe what they are saying. And would love to act upon it.

And how do we know they aren’t serious? I mean how do you tell? Or do I have to wait until the guy from Homeland Security comes knocking on my door for saying that Lindsey Graham’s picture looks like he is on a year long Quaalude bender?

After all, I am just one guy, in a high and lonely place, sitting in the glow of a computer monitor, spewing (seditious?) speech... Who gives a damn about me?

The ultimate irony about all this is that Graham[3] is a hard line republican. The republican party has spent the last ten years telling us how evil muslims are. Including their most recent attempt to convince us the muslims among us are all terrorists; the hearings held by congressman Peter King, (King’s picture looks like he’s got something stuck up his... ...well, you get the idea), chairman of the Committee on Homeland security.

Now, Graham are upset because Terry Jones said something bad about muslims. And he wants to send Jones to jail. I can't stop laughing.

[2] The actual text of the law is as follows: "Whenever the United States shall be engaged in war, any person or persons who shall utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, violent, scurrilous, contemptuous, slurring or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the constitution of the United States, or the soldiers or sailors of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the army or navy of the United States or shall utter, print, write or publish any language calculated to incite or inflame resistance to any duly constituted Federal or State authority in connection with the prosecution of the War shall be guilty of sedition."

Clement Work’s book Darkest Before Dawn: Sedition and Free Speech in the American West is well written work about a time when we all but abandoned our constitutional rights - voluntarily.

[2] You know, the one they are trying to use to persecute Julian Assange and Bradly Manning with.


[3] I, originally, stated both Reid and Graham were republicans. Mr. Reid is a democrat. Which begs the question: What is the difference between democrats and republcans?