| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Ted Kennedy's Speech: Treason or disagreement? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 6 2004, 11:18 AM (2,089 Views) | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 13 2004, 05:55 PM Post #151 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Getting back to treason, and yes this one is a TREASONOUS STATEMENT: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=38001 Berkeley lecturer urges 'uprising' against U.S. Muslim scholar declares at rally 'you haven't seen radicalism yet! A University of California at Berkeley lecturer speaking at an anti-war rally Saturday called for a Palestinian-style intifada, or uprising, against the United States in response to American actions in the Middle East. Hatem Bazian, a native Palestinian with a Ph.D. in Islamic studies, stirred up the San Francisco crowd, asking three times, to resounding affirmations, "Are you angry?" The comments at the outdoor rally held at United Nation's Plaza were caught on a digital camera's movie format by a reader of the popular weblog Little Green Footballs. An estimated 2,000 to 3,000 people attended the "emergency" action organized by the radical anti-war group International A.N.S.W.E.R. in response to the increased fighting in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. The International A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition is an umbrella group tied to the World Workers Party, a Marxist organization that supports authoritarian regimes and communist dictatorships. The lecturer in Berkeley's Near Eastern Studies and Ethnic Studies Departments continued: "Well, we've been watching intifada in Palestine, we've been watching an uprising in Iraq, and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don't have an intifada in this country? Because it seem And we know every – They're gonna say some Palestinian being too radical – well, you haven't seen radicalism yet!" On his website, Bazian says he teaches courses on Islam, Islamic law, Sufisim, Arabic, and politics of the Middle East at U.C. Berkeley as well as at San Francisco State University, Berkeley Graduate Theological Union and Diablo Valley College. He also provides "guidance to the community on issues pertaining to Islam and Muslims in the Bay Area." Bazim, his website says, was chairman of the U.C. Berkeley Graduate Assembly and from 1995-1999 was coordinator of the Graduate Minority Students Project of the Graduate Assembly, "through which he spearheaded statewide efforts to defeat proposition 209," which sought to eliminate affirmative action programs in California. He is co-host and assistant producer of the radio program "Islam Today" in the Bay Area and was a translation consultant for the San Francisco Chronicle on stories relating to Islam, Muslims and world politics. Vietnam will be 'child's play' At the rally Saturday, Bazian said the Vietnam War will be regarded as "child's play" compared to the U.S. experience in Iraq: "And the people in Iraq understand who's the foreigner in the country. It's not the Arabs who are coming to help. Even if more Arabs who come to help, they understand who's helping and who's opposing them. The – it took the British three years to unite the Iraqis against them. And it took less than a year for the – for the Bush administration to unite all the Iraqis. And they need to understand: what took place in Vietnam will be child's play to what will take place in Iraq ... ." A Berkeley student at the rally expressed support for Iraqi attacks on U.S. troops, charging "the occupation is a source of tremendous violence against Iraqis." "In light of that, you know, I think we've got to support the resistance; we've got to say that we support attacks against the occupying forces," he said. 'So I mean – and you can imagine what kind of an inspiring thing that is for people in Palestine, for people in Bolivia, for people in Argentina, Colombia, all over the world, facing down the barrel of a US-supplied gun. Seeing the people of Iraq fight back, that's what we need." An unidentified speaker encouraged attacks on U.S. troops worldwide: "We stand here – we stand here recognizing that the war on Iraq is illegal, that the war on Iraq is illegal, and that resistance, that resistance against this war is protected by international law. It is legitimate, and that we – and we in this movement support the resistance against American imperialism by any means necessary." Let's see... we have a calling for an uprising against our government. We also have support for attacks on US troops. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 13 2004, 07:01 PM Post #152 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Could be treasonous (a lawyer might be able to get this guy off). Bazaian is Palestinian, and is calling for an intifada, but nowhere in the article does he state a “Palestinian style intifada.” An “uprising” does not necessarily mean through violent means (does include, protests, demonstrations, strikes). Realistically (historically) though, we are talking about someone advocating a violent act toward the gov’t.
Looks like treason to me.
Looks like a treasonous statement too. I hope a copy of the digital recording was sent to the FBI, and the person taking the footage got lots of pictures of the crowd too. The underlined part is my doing. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Adrian | Apr 14 2004, 02:26 AM Post #153 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
Okay. I don't want to lawyer this up too much but there are two essential factors in a case such as this: criminal intent and ability to carry out the crime. In the cases of calling for a "regime change" and calling Bush a Nazi it's doubtful (to say the least) that the demonstrators really wanted to overthrow the governmet or to subvert the troops. No crime. Now handing out "kill your commanders" flyers in front of a recruiting station, that's criminal intent (and kind of silly, if you think about it). Now this professor calling for an infadah may be a case of ability to carry out the crime. The judge may rule that the chances of anyone taking him seriously are so small (it's not like we have a huge fundementalist Moslem commuity that would be that responsive) that he dosen't have the ability to carry out the crime (one guy carrying out an infadah is just a nut throwing molotov cocktails and rocks). But it's a borderline issue, I agree. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Apr 14 2004, 05:59 AM Post #154 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Official Administrative Post: Adrian, are you claiming to be a practicing attorney? If so and you are claiming this is a "legal opinion", then I will ask you to "lawyer it up" more. It's so simplistic it's a bit confusing. If you are not claiming this as a "legal opinion", but instead your opinion of the law, then never mind. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 14 2004, 07:50 AM Post #155 |
|
Admiral
|
Hey, where is Anova when you need him?
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 14 2004, 08:42 AM Post #156 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
What is to say that they don't start small? After all, the guy said, "Well, we've been watching intifada in Palestine, we've been watching an uprising in Iraq, and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don't have an intifada in this country?" You bomb a few police stations, maybe a city hall or two? Most people with the ability to make a few kitchen explosives can do this. That sounds like ability to me. Aside to 24, this does sound like he is talking about a Palestinian-style intifada. After all, what other kind is there, a Polish intifada (where they serve sausages)? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 14 2004, 09:52 AM Post #157 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Ha Ha funny funny. :rolleyes: I was simply pointing out a distinction with the use of the word intifada. He didn't specifically advocate an intifida like the one going on in Palestine (or any specific tactics to be used). He seemed to be making a distinction between action and country in this comment: "Well, we've been watching intifada in Palestine, we've been watching an uprising in Iraq, and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don't have an intifada in this country?" Regardless, as I previously stated in my other reply, he was probably advocating a violent uprising here in the US. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Apr 14 2004, 04:12 PM Post #158 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
Sitting on the sidelines. I’ve been busy trying to find a job since graduation. I thoroughly believe that the political rhetoric has become poisonous and treasonous. If I were to state that I thought that England would be better off without PM Blaire, I am stating an opinion with which one can agree or disagree with. If I state that Blaire should be killed I am no longer in the safe ground of political opinion and any attempt for me to enter the UK should be met with detention questioning and possible charges. If I called on others to commit the act, I should be tried for inciting violence and conspiracy. Words have meanings, and using words have effects. Calling for violent action against this country or its agents should not be tolerated as “free speech”. We have laws and mechanisms by which we can rid ourselves of officials who act against the will of the people. This is not just the civilized approach, it is the framework by which the debate must be constrained. Hope I didn’t let you down Fes, ANOVA |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Adrian | Apr 14 2004, 06:33 PM Post #159 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
Sorry Witchita, Just my opinion on the law. Not a practicing lawyer. I just didn't want to throw too many complications into the mix. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| anon_persona | Apr 14 2004, 07:43 PM Post #160 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
1) "Bush is the worst president ever." 2) "I hate Bush." 3) "We'd be better of with Bush dead." 4) "I wish Bush were dead." 5) "I want someone to kill Bush." 6) "I want to kill Bush." 7) "I'm gonna kill Bush." 8) "I want to rise against our government." 9) "I want to start a revolution in this nation." 10) "I want to start a revolution against our government." 11) "I want a regime change." 12) "I want a regime change, even if by force." 13) "I want a forcible regime change." Just for fun, which statements should lead to: a) nothing b) detention for questioning (or to "cool down in the tank") c) a misdemenor (days to months in jail) d) a felony (months to years in prison) I don't think we need to get really legal, because it's just a judgment based on our morals. I'm even having a tough time. Here's a try: 1-3a, 4-6b, 7c, 8-12a, 13a If you only "want" something I guess I'm more inclined to let you off. Does anyone else feel this way? What's the difference between advocating something and merely having a desire for its occurance? And how actively do you have to advocate it to start getting in trouble? I do not have the answers at this time. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Apr 14 2004, 10:11 PM Post #161 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
No problem. It wasn't that I disagreed with you - I just couldn't tell if you were saying a specific charge probably couldn't be proven or no charge could be proven. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 15 2004, 08:00 AM Post #162 |
|
Admiral
|
Anova, Are you kidding? Thanks for dropping by with that excellent post. I particularly liked this segment:
Very well said.
And I would submit that we would all be much better off if we took this approach even here at SisterTrek.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Adrian | Apr 15 2004, 01:55 PM Post #163 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
I totally agree, nice post Anova. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Apr 15 2004, 02:37 PM Post #164 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
^^^ Thanks, the both of you.
Those calling for the use of force should be investigated further. I can't answer with more specificity becuase, there are contextual questions that need to be answered about each statement. (nothing is said in a vacum). finally, it also depends on the postion of the individual making the statement. A statement is less likely to be acted upon if the orator lacks autority. ANOVA |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:13 PM Jul 11