Protesters Have Right to Speak

County Press ^ | 4-16-03 | William W. Lawrence

[Tribune7]

Here's the link

[Tribune7]

Here's the link

It's a good article.

[Zavien Doombringer]

The U.S. Sedition Act Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the military or naval forces of the United States or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. - not maybe but SHALL BE U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 2381

But they have a right to open their foul mouths and spew anti-American venom. Our young GIs are serving to insure that right.

Obviously, they don't have that right! Prosecute the traitors!!!

[Wolverine]

They have the right to dissent, I have the right to hold them accountable...thru my nonpurchase of their products/services or entertainment access to my personal media receptors.

[Zavien Doombringer]

The Sedition Act
(May 16, 1918), law passed by Congress during World War I providing for punishment of persons who interfered with the war effort, spoke disloyally of the U.S. Constitution or federal government, or hindered the production of war materials. Eugene V. Debs, leader of the U.S. Socialist party, was imprisoned under this act. Congress repealed the law in 1921.

[Jeff Head]

Obviously the info I got was way out of date. Apparently Section 2381 was repealed and replaced with Treason and it reads pretty good as relates to some of this activity. All of Chapter 115 of Title 18 deals with this stuff.

But section 2388 deals with much of the sedition, and it reads as follows:

Sec. 2388. - Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or

Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so -

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).

(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States

So, words like De Genova used at Columbia, calling for ourt service people to carry out further acts like the Muslim Sgt. who fragged his onw in the 101st, would seem to be actionable under this current law.

Here is a link to the current law:

U.S. Code, Section 18, Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Thanks for getting me off my duff and further researching this.

[netmilsmom]

Thanks!

[Jeff Head]

Title 18, Section 2387 works too.

[Poohbah]

Title 18 Section 2381 is actually the statute regarding Treason, which I quote in full:

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Your citation looks like the source threw two sections of Section 2388, "Activities affecting armed forces during war" into the blender with the ram (punitive section) from Section 2381.

[wjcsux]

When the left speaks out against us, it is "conscience", when we speak out against them, it is "hate speech".

[Zavien Doombringer]

You are welcome :)

Under this section, wouldn't "harm" have to be proven? On the other hand, Jane Fonda did cross that line in Viet Nam I was too young to remember any of that - but my dad served and he refuses to this day, watch any movies made by her. I was 14 when HBO finally came to our house. Barbarella came on, hokey movie to begin with, but my dad saw what we were watching, I don't have to tell you what happened next, but we got a new TV the next day...

[Jeff Head]

Zavien Doombringer already pinged and pointed this out to me, thanks. My source was an old 2381 ... way old and my bad for not following up before posting.

I corrected it in my last posts, with citation of Ttile 18, Chapter 115, and particularly sections 2388 and 2387 in my post number 26 and in post number 28.

Final point is this ... what De Genova and other protestors have been doing in this regard, calling for rebellion in the ranks and fragging, is disgusting, sickening and patently illegal. I wish some DA or someone would take them to task legally on it.

[Poohbah]

I wish some DA or someone would take them to task legally on it.

Notice where they do this--in the most liberal enclaves, where they will NEVER get prosecuted.

[Jeff Head]

willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty

Under section 2388, by calling for our own personnel to "frag" their own officers, I believe that De Genova's and other's publically advocated words fall into this category.

[Lady Eileen]

Good point.

[Zavien Doombringer]

I believe that De Genova's and other's publically advocated words fall into this category.

Areed, but what to do about it. The liberal media would play it up like censorship!

[Jeff Head]

Yep, Columbia, San Fran, etc.

Still illegal. Perhaps Federal charges could be brought. I know that if someone advocated killing like this in any way that the liberals would term "hate speech" ... it would not matter where they lived or who supported them. All claims to 1st amendment free speech rights would vanish in the wind in such an instance.

It is unacceptable, disgusting, sickening, despicable and maddening that these maggots can utter the same against our service personnel and not be brought to task for it.

Would that we had public officials who would forget politics for a moment and show allegiance to those putting their lives on the line for real freedom of speech and go after these traitors.

Oh well, one can dream I suppose.

[Jeff Head]

Yep ... see my post 37. Would that we had a leader who would push right through that clamoring like Bush did in Iraq. I wish he (Bush) would take this bull by the horns and instruct Ashcroft to press it home like he did the Iraqi situation with the UN, the French, etc.

[Moonman62]

I was a youngster just before World War II while Jews were being pushed into Nazi gas chambers. Even back then, American hero Charles Lindbergh,a leading member of the America First Committee, was able to fill Madison Square Garden with war protesters.

There's a big difference with today's protesters who belong to the Blame America First Committee.

[Poohbah]

The next fun part will be getting a jury together.

Maybe the charges can be filed in upstate New York, and the Fresno/Modesto area. (I was in Lemoore, CA for a job last year, right before the primary--calling a candidate a "liberal" there was fightin' words!)