Violent fantasies seem very much like a tea bagger hobby.
Individuals/organizations that threaten the use of violence to influence public opinion have no place in a democracy. And the trick with the Germans, is that they have a strong tradition of a civil service that defends democracy. The bureaucracy there isn't politicized, there's the idea of an independent public interest that supercedes that of any one party. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Whereas Americans generally have a hard time telling the difference between nonpartisan and bipartisan. The brainless should not be in banking -- Willem Buiter
Whereas Americans generally have a hard time telling the difference between nonpartisan and bipartisan.
Jesus, ain't that the truth. Of course the recognition that there is an independent public interest implies that society does in fact exist.
And for the neo-liberals in charge (don't think that Democrats are exempt from this) society is like Santa Claus. It only exists if you believe in it. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
It is also true that waterboarding is torture. Truth got in the way of what Resident Bush's regime wanted to do?
And that's precisely why the Bush administration argued that a legal basis for this treatment existed because the individuals against whom it was used fell under the category of "unlawful combatants" and thus were not afforded the protections provided by the Geneva Conventions. Note that even where the Bush administration intended to break the spirit of the law, they were forced to find a basis for their actions in the word of the law. This shows how having a law that is independent of the political process it regulates constrains action.
The point being that if there was a constitutional provision to ban organizations that employ political violence or the threat of it, groups like the teabaggers wouldn't have Republican congressperson speaking at their rallies. They would be marginalized. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Tea bagger knuckle-draggers can persuade themselves that shooting the Pres is a patriotic thing to do.
It's really a constitutional issue - the constitution explicitly frames violence as a legitimate tool of policy.
This is one of the key differences between the US and Europe. I don't think Lisbon, for all of its flaws, suggests that armed overthrow of Brussels is in any way a good potential plan.
This shows how having a law that is independent of the political process it regulates constrains action.
How has the MCA to remove jurisdiction to military tribunal, circumscribe civil litigation, and define "enhanced interrogation techniques" constrained lawful treatment of persons ("alien unpriviledged belligerents") in US custody, actually? Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Why would there be any doubt that if the hypothetical constitutional provision existed, they would have used it as an enemies list? Remember that they added, for example, green activists and advocates of non-violence on terrorist watchlists after 9-11. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
"advocacy of violent overthrow of the government" is a good phrase to google.
From Yates:
"[T]hat indoctrination of a group in preparation for future violent action, as well as exhortation to immediate action, by advocacy found to be directed to "action for the accomplishment" of forcible overthrow, [directed] to violence "as a rule or principle of action," and employing "language of incitement," ... is not constitutionally protected when the group is of sufficient size and cohesiveness, is sufficiently oriented towards action, and other circumstances are such as reasonably to justify apprehension that action will occur. (p. 321)"
http://www.answers.com/topic/yates-v-united-states Align culture with our nature.
