Jennings Warns of “Aggressive Efforts” to Hush Anti-War Celebs

MRC ~ Cyber Alert ^ | 04-16-03

[P-Marlowe]

If these idiots want to pretend to be politicians instead of actors, then I must consider that any money I give them in the form of purchasing tickets to their movies is essentially a campaign contribution to their cause.

So if I don't support their cause, why would I want to advance it by buying a ticket to one of their stupid movies?

Whatever happened to actors and celebrities shilling for legitimate causes, like cancer research and multiple sclerosis? Whatever happened to actors and celebrities entertaining the troops instead of putting them in danger by rooting for their enemies?

Where's Bob Hope and Dorothy Lamour when you need them?

[P-Marlowe]

What a fag this guy is.

Actually, since he has "partnered" with SS, it appears that he is a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

[ZULU]

You MUST write for the New York Times.

This is a different thread and what is being discussed here are not Muslims, but traitors of whatever faith who provide aid and comfort to an enemy who is killing American soldiers.

Read Aticle III, Section III.of the document you are so found of referring to. It defines treason, and the above individuals fit the description therein.

[dirtboy]

You MUST write for the New York Times.

Nice ad hominem attack.

This is a different thread and what is being discussed here are not Muslims, but traitors of whatever faith who provide aid and comfort to an enemy who is killing American soldiers. Read Aticle III, Section III.of the document you are so found of referring to. It defines treason, and the above individuals fit the description therein.

And I suggest you read the 1st Amendment - it allows people to criticize the government. Even in time of war.

[dirtboy]

Here is what you are citing:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

So does criticizing the Iraq war rise to giving our enemies aid and comfort? It's a gray area - Saddam did make some political hay from the antiwar protests. Of course, his information minister also claimed that we had been driven from Baghdad as our tanks circled his building. So I really don't see that much, if any, aid to the enemy was given.

Now, let's look at that other part of the Constitution in question - the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

No grey area there, it's pretty enequivocal. I don't see any exemption for time of war, or not allowing criticism of this country going to war. The best way to deal with the Sarandons and Robbins of the world is to allow them to demonstrate just how stupid and hypocritical they are. Your demands that they be tried and shot for treason just give them gist for their victimhood mill, and you are behaving in just as incomprehensible a manner as they are - they are saying we don't have the right to boycott or criticize their speech, and you are saying they don't have the right to say what they are saying. Both of you are an affront to what our troops are fighting to protect.

[delinker]

<<"So far we've lost our focus on Afghanistan, it seems to me. And, and we have a terrible track record as far as our military leading to democracy. Look at Panama, look at Nicaragua. It's not, it's not in our best interest for some reason to keep it going.">>

....uh...,okay. Jeez Tim I didn't realize that you were privvy to State Department briefings concerning our current ops in the 'Stan.? And about 'our military not leading to democracy'....what about that whole deal about Germany and Japan?
Tim Robbins is such a fool LOL!!

[ZULU]

"Nice ad hominem attack."

Not really. Just a good analysis of your tactics.

"And I suggest you read the 1st Amendment - it allows people to criticize the government. Even in time of war. "

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an estblishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercize thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

I don't see anything there refering to a state of war.


"Article III

Section III

TREASON - WHAT AND HOW PUNISHED

1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhereing to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or in confession in open court.

2. The Congress shall have the power to declare the punishemnt of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of the blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained."


People who demonstrate against a war effort once American troops are committed in combat are de facto providing aid and comfort to the enemy and are therefore traitors. They should be hanged.

In World War 1 and World War 2 no one would have disputed this. Nor would it have been disputed during the Civil War.


No government can survive by not taking appropriate steps to assure subversive elements do not undermine its efforts to defend its interests.

[dirtboy]

People who demonstrate against a war effort once American troops are committed in combat are de facto providing aid and comfort to the enemy and are therefore traitors. They should be hanged.

First of all, even the Sedition Act did not call for the hanging of antiwar protestors. And, second, this country can withstand antiwar protests in a time of war.

In World War 1 and World War 2 no one would have disputed this. Nor would it have been disputed during the Civil War.

Go back and read your history - there were antiwar protests during the Civil War and WWI.

No government can survive by not taking appropriate steps to assure subversive elements do not undermine its efforts to defend its interests.

We've done just fine so far without your approach, thank you.

[CanadianBacon]

No thanks you can keep him, we've got too many clones up here already, we don't need the original back.

Frank_Discussion wrote:
DEPORT PETER JENNINGS!! SEND HIM BACK TO CANADA, Eh!
!

[dirtboy]

People who demonstrate against a war effort once American troops are committed in combat are de facto providing aid and comfort to the enemy and are therefore traitors. They should be hanged.

And let me elaborate what lies at the end of the road you wish for us to take - President Hillary, declaring a phony war and using that pretext to squash all dissent, including the shutting down of Free Republic and the jailing of Jim Robinson and BobJ. Of course, you would never comprehend your own culpability in the matter.

[ZULU]

"So I really don't see that much, if any, aid to the enemy was given."

Of course this is subject to interpretation and I understand your concerns and from whence you speak.

However, I have heard that troops at the front who view these demonstrations find them demoralizing and I believe that is part of the intent of the demonstrators. Also, these people are provided with far better coverage by the leftist media in this country - ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN - than the very many demonstration in support of the war. I have been at demonstrations in support of Bush and our troops where the number of participants numbered in the thousands and seen newspaper reports indicating only several hundred people were there. Further, instead of concentrating on the pro supporters, the papers devote an inordinate amount of the news article to a handfull of counter demonstrators.

Additionally, these demonstrations take police from needed duty elsewhere and they deliberately block traffic and harass law-abding citizens who are going about their daily business.

"No grey area there, it's pretty enequivocal. I don't see any exemption for time of war, or not allowing criticism of this country going to war."

True, but there is nothing there which can be interpreted to specifically protect freedom of speech during war time. The Courts have been most clear on the issue of limiting certain rights during time of war.

"The best way to deal with the Sarandons and Robbins of the world is to allow them to demonstrate just how stupid and hypocritical they are."

I agree with you there, but only up to the point where we have committed troops in battle and American lives are on the line. I remember the terrible damage done to national morale by these treasonous protestors during the Viet Nam War.

" Both of you are an affront to what our troops are fighting to protect."

During time of war, activities which undermine the morale of the troops are neither in the best interest of the troops or of the nation. The number of malcontents in any country are usually few unless there is something very wrong going on with the war effort. To allow a few of these malcontents to act out with impugnity is to encourage all them to act out and the impact of such actions will go far beyond the actual percentage of these people in the total population.

You can type a lot faster than me.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Jennings

[ZULU]

"Go back and read your history - there were antiwar protests during the Civil War and WWI."

I'm sure the response by the government was far less tolerant than today. The right of habeas corpus was suspended during the Civil War, German American clubs ceased to exist in WW1 and many German Americans were forced to Anglecize their names. Fred Astair is an example.

"And, second, this country can withstand antiwar protests in a time of war."

One of the worst experiences in recent American history was the viet Nam War. One of the reasons we lost that war, and there were many reasons, was because the national will to fight it had been destroyed by the countless war protests, teach-ins, and propaganda bombaring the American public from the leftist press. The scars of that war have lasted a long time and the target of those demonstrators was not just the government. Soldiers returning form that war were abused and shunned as though they were war criminals.

Even today, wives of men in service have received phone calls or letters from anti-war supporters telling them their spouses were killed, and soldiers in some parts of the Country, e.g. San Antonio, have been subjected to public attack when in uniform. We have people like the professor at Columbia who called for a thousand Mogdishus being defended as execizing freedom of speech.

The very same people who find this war so objectionable had no problem with Clinton's Bosnian War or his involvement in Haiti. They are, for the most part, highly selective, doctrinnaire leftists who hate America, loath Republicans and oppose any western state when it is in conflict with a third world nation.

[ZULU]

Hilary could never declare a war without some motion of support from Congress. Only Congress can declare a war, and this Congress in effect, if not in precise words, did so when it gave Bush authority to use force in Iraq.

And yes, I am concerned about military adventures without formal declarations of war. I think Bush should have gotten one.

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

I know it is always difficult to decide what to wear to the WHCP. Just look at all the trouble that the royal 'podness goes through. If you want to wear your mobile sauna, feel free. Perhaps some other disguise would be thermally more comfortable.

[FreeTheHostages]

"mobile sauna"

LOL, I think my sauna needs more holes, that's all. That would make it more wind resistant.

Beside, if Pod's going to "dress up," I'd actually prefer to have a paper bag over my head lest the casual observer mistake me for his date. (This IS Dupont Circle, y'know.)

[FreeTheHostages]

I'd agree with dirtboy and I'd go farther.

Zulu, the silliness and the radicalness of the anti-war movement has, if anything, swayed fence-sitters to a pro-Bush position. I think that the broadcast of the anti-war movement's rallies on CSPAN has been a blessing, for example.

What's wrong is the media broadcasting their voices like it's a majority voice and giving the troops the wrong idea. Can you gentlement both agree that for such bias, perhaps the media should be hanged? ;)

[ZULU]

"What's wrong is the media broadcasting their voices like it's a majority voice and giving the troops the wrong idea. Can you gentlement both agree that for such bias, perhaps the media should be hanged? ;)"

I'm always UP for a good hanging when traitors are involved.

Thanks to mainly FOX News, Talk Radio and the internet with forums like this one, people perhaps see these traitors for the vile wretches they are. (I'd still like to hang them - but realistically that would never happen today.)

[Dan from Michigan]

It's called BUSINESS.

[Jamten]

...only until the communist UN takes over this country.