[OT] WBC and one state's response

For those interested in the "protest at funerals" issue, you might be intere
sted
in what one (US) state is doing about it.  See:

http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/loc..._095193329.html

I think some other states either have already passed such bills or are
considering them.  Interestingly enough (as discussed in this article), ther
e
were some "union issues" in getting this bill progressed in Illinois.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

According to my sources, as of April 17, bills criminalizing protests at
funerals were either under consideration or had been passed in thirty-two
states, and already had the force of law in nine (Arkansas, Indiana,
Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Virginia and
Wisconsin).   At the national level, S-2452 and HR-5037 have been introduced
into the Senate and House respectively; I don't know where they stand.

However, as the WBC website states, they have expanded their protests to
include hospitals and rehabilitation centers serving the military.

As the number of states in which laws such as these are enacted
proliferates, I suspect their emphasis will shift more toward their efforts
to demoralizing those who have been seriously injured in the Middle East
wars by rejoicing in their injuries and away from demoralizing the families
of those who have already been killed in the service of their country in
those wars.

-Chuck Stevens

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Wq94g.132937$BL7.65413@fe09.news.easynews.com...
> For those interested in the "protest at funerals" issue, you might be
> interested in what one (US) state is doing about it.  See:
>
> http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/loc..._095193329.html
>
> I think some other states either have already passed such bills or are
> considering them.  Interestingly enough (as discussed in this article),
> there were some "union issues" in getting this bill progressed in
> Illinois.
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>

In article <Wq94g.132937$BL7.65413@fe09.news.easynews.com>,
William M. Klein <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>For those interested in the "protest at funerals" issue, you might be
>interested
>in what one (US) state is doing about it.  See:
>
> http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/loc..._095193329.html
>
>I think some other states either have already passed such bills or are
>considering them.  Interestingly enough (as discussed in this article), the
re
>were some "union issues" in getting this bill progressed in Illinois.

It is my hope, Mr Klein, that there are some 'Constitution issues' when
such things reach a court challenge.  Instead of seeing restrictions on
speech being changed I would much rather folks consider seeing changes in
restrictions on 'reasonable grounds for a sound thumping'.

DD

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:e2rbu8$1nb0$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
> According to my sources, as of April 17, bills criminalizing protests at
> funerals were either under consideration or had been passed in thirty-two
> states, and already had the force of law in nine (Arkansas, Indiana,
> Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Virginia and
> Wisconsin).   At the national level, S-2452 and HR-5037 have been
> introduced into the Senate and House respectively; I don't know where they
> stand.
>
> However, as the WBC website states, they have expanded their protests to
> include hospitals and rehabilitation centers serving the military.
>
> As the number of states in which laws such as these are enacted
> proliferates, I suspect their emphasis will shift more toward their
> efforts to demoralizing those who have been seriously injured in the
> Middle East wars by rejoicing in their injuries and away from demoralizing
> the families of those who have already been killed in the service of their
> country in those wars.

Don't you have treason laws in the US?

Surely attempts to demoralize the troops during a state of War must be
treason? In the U.K. it still carries the death penalty, although it is
extremely unlikely it would be carried out.

I reckon the approach would be to ask this family (nicely) to cease and
desist. If they didn't, offer them a choice:

a. Beheading.
b. Submersion three times by the tide.
c. Hanging, drawing and quartering.
d. Shut the XXXX up.

I suspect that 'd' would be the elected option. If it wasn't, and they want
to be martyrs, martyr them. The world would be a better place without this
lot.

It's not that I'm vindictive or bloodthirsty, it's not that I don't think
they have a right to their opinion, or even to voice it.

I just can't abide bad manners...

Pete.





>
>    -Chuck Stevens
>
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:Wq94g.132937$BL7.65413@fe09.news.easynews.com... 
>
>

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4bekolF118mmaU1@individual.net...
>
> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
> news:e2rbu8$1nb0$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com... 
>
> Don't you have treason laws in the US?
>
> Surely attempts to demoralize the troops during a state of War must be
> treason? In the U.K. it still carries the death penalty, although it is
> extremely unlikely it would be carried out.

'Twould indeed be nice if such laws could be applied in this case.  But
remember that pretty much the entire adult contingent of the Phelps clan
makes their living as lawyers, and I think it likely that at least some of
their resources have come from successful lawsuits against those they deem
have persecuted them for their religious practices.  This is an area in
which the prosecution must have an absolutely airtight case or the Phelps'
will almost certainly turn it around.

> I reckon the approach would be to ask this family (nicely) to cease and
> desist. If they didn't, offer them a choice:
>
> a. Beheading.
> b. Submersion three times by the tide.
> c. Hanging, drawing and quartering.
> d. Shut the XXXX up.
>
> I suspect that 'd' would be the elected option. If it wasn't, and they
> want to be martyrs, martyr them. The world would be a better place without
> this lot.

I keep thinking some group of rogue veterans is going to succeed in blowing
up the compound and everything and everyone in it.  The one attempt that has
been made was not successful (I think it put some dents in their van), and
they've made a lot of hay over that attack on their website as well.

> It's not that I'm vindictive or bloodthirsty, it's not that I don't think
> they have a right to their opinion, or even to voice it

Alas, that's not the way it works here.

> I just can't abide bad manners...

Everyone has the right to behave as boorishly as they like.  And good
manners are difficult to legislate ...

-Chuck Stevens

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
> news:e2rbu8$1nb0$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com... 
>
> Don't you have treason laws in the US?

You don't even want to get me wound up on that.  When the protests in
this country over Vietnam crossed the line from dissent into treason
(aid and comfort to the enemy), a decision was made *not* to prosecute
them.  Since then, prosecutions for treason are few and far between -
not because it doesn't exist, but because it's not prosecuted.

Not sure if you've heard of Ann Coulter - yes, she's unashamedly
right-wing, but she's also quite scholarly.  Her book "Treason" was a
real eye-opener - very well researched.  It also showed, using
now-declassified intercepted Soviet cables, that nearly every one of the
people that Joseph McCarthy identified as a "loyalty risk" (and that was
what he did - vetted personnel for administration positions) actually
*was* receiving communications from the USSR.

> Surely attempts to demoralize the troops during a state of War must be
> treason? In the U.K. it still carries the death penalty, although it is
> extremely unlikely it would be carried out.

That's the problem - an unenforced law is a weak and impotent law.

--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

In article <80173$4452d627$45491dc8$10985@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

[snip]

>Not sure if you've heard of Ann Coulter - yes, she's unashamedly
>right-wing, but she's also quite scholarly.  Her book "Treason" was a
>real eye-opener - very well researched.  It also showed, using
>now-declassified intercepted Soviet cables, that nearly every one of the
>people that Joseph McCarthy identified as a "loyalty risk" (and that was
>what he did - vetted personnel for administration positions) actually
>*was* receiving communications from the USSR.

Mr Summers, Senator McCarthy did a bit more than classify people as
'loyalty risks' or vet personnel for administration positions; you might
be interested in researching the accusations he made of one Senator Stuart
Symington, who told him 'The American people have had a look at you for
six ws. You are not fooling anyone.'

DD

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:57:41 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>Not sure if you've heard of Ann Coulter - yes, she's unashamedly
>right-wing, but she's also quite scholarly.  Her book "Treason" was a
>real eye-opener - very well researched.  It also showed, using
>now-declassified intercepted Soviet cables, that nearly every one of the
>people that Joseph McCarthy identified as a "loyalty risk" (and that was
>what he did - vetted personnel for administration positions) actually
>*was* receiving communications from the USSR.

So what legal definition did she use to define the USSR as "the
enemy"?

In the absence of a declared war, anybody could be considered "the
enemy", including people of opposition parties.    Before we can
reinstate treason in practice we need to come up with a new way of
defining "the enemy".

But even before - we haven't punished Red Cross workers who have given
"aid and comfort to" people in states defined as "the enemy".    Heck,
we've had soldiers assisting people in occupied Germany before it
surrendered in WWII.    That wasn't considered treasonous.

I'm not sure a better definition will be sufficient.   Our culture has
changed so that Heresy is no longer persecuted the way it once was.
Both Treason and Heresy are big in Muslim countries, but not in
Christian countries anymore.

Note:    A friend at my work just got back from his 2nd charitable
trip to India in two years, supplying medical supplies and care to the
needy.   This was a Christian enterprise, paid for by his church. I'm
not aware of such outreach programs by other communities (including
Islamic).     A change of emphasis over the centuries from conversion
by the sword to doing good has significant.

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:57:41 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
>
> So what legal definition did she use to define the USSR as "the
> enemy"?

To be as old as you are, and not accept that the USSR was our enemy - I
just don't know what to say to that.  Perhaps you've forgotten...  ;)

> In the absence of a declared war, anybody could be considered "the
> enemy", including people of opposition parties.    Before we can
> reinstate treason in practice we need to come up with a new way of
> defining "the enemy".

It's actually quite easy.  In the government's eyes, anyone trying to
overthrow it or defeat it militarily (either force-on-force, or
guerrilla tactics) is the enemy.

> But even before - we haven't punished Red Cross workers who have given
> "aid and comfort to" people in states defined as "the enemy".    Heck,
> we've had soldiers assisting people in occupied Germany before it
> surrendered in WWII.    That wasn't considered treasonous.

"The enemy" is an entity, not people - and health care is specifically
addressed in the Geneva Convention and the other generally accepted laws
of war.  Combatants (both lawful and unlawful) are viewed as
representatives of one of the aforementioned "enemies", and are fair
game.  However, if we capture them alive, or they surrender, we *must*
take them in, feed them, and offer them the same medical care we provide
for our own troops.

With this distinction, "aid and comfort" to citizens of "the enemy" is
not treasonous; neither is the American Red Cross caring for a wounded
soldier of "the enemy".  Quartering "the enemies" troops, though, would
be, as would spying for "the enemy" or sabotaging our equipment.

Not sure that the WBC pukes qualify under this definition, as they're
attempting to demoralize the troops; although, psychological
demoralization during a time of war *could* be stretched to apply -
although sedition.  Had our country been zealously prosecuting traitors
over the years, it might work - however, in the current environment, I
don't think it would fly.

--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

On Mon, 01 May 2006 21:42:48 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
 
>
>To be as old as you are, and not accept that the USSR was our enemy - I
>just don't know what to say to that.  Perhaps you've forgotten...  ;)

I don't remember the legal definition that was used that would allow
us to know who we could legally talk with, much aid.
 
>
>It's actually quite easy.  In the government's eyes, anyone trying to
>overthrow it or defeat it militarily (either force-on-force, or
>guerrilla tactics) is the enemy.

We don't have privy to who these are.   A clear definition is needed -
such as declaring war.

Posted Via mcse.ms Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mcse.ms