'Assassination' schedule announced for Congress

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 3 2007, 09:35 PM) [snapback]370489[/snapback]</div>

Isn't making death threats like that against public figures illegal, even "as a joke"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 3 2007, 06:35 PM) [snapback]370489[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

 

It will be interesting to see if the Department of Homeland Security takes this seriously and now much they drag their feet to investigate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 3 2007, 06:35 PM) [snapback]370489[/snapback]</div>

Isn't Hal Turner is a white supremacist? Do you really lump him in with all "neocons"? Do you think the "neocons" in Congress want to be assassinated, or want segregation to return? I think you're engaging in a bit of guilt by association, but the problem is, when there is NO association, there is no guilt (even if the concept was valid, which it is not).

Making a threat like that is probably illegal, and the Justice Department / DHS should investigate it as a possible domestic terrorist plot. White supremacist, like all fringe groups, should be watched closely using all the survellience tools the courts allow ... wiretaps, library records, etc.

But should some in the "left" continue to censor Hal Turner through DOS attacks on his web sites? Is engaging in prior restraint of his legal views, even if offensive, a good practice for the left to engage in?

We can't verify the quote because of his site being down. So we can't see the context of it, if its a quote of a quote, etc. Has the left inadvertently destroyed the evidence that could be used to foil his plot?

Do a Google search for "hal turner free speech" and see if you want people accusing you of censorship by prior restraint because SOME of your views coincide with those conducting the DOS attacks. I know which side the ACLU would be on. Which side are you on?




One of the problems we have

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 4 2007, 01:40 AM) [snapback]370590[/snapback]</div>

I have to agree with fshagan. Turner's hardly a neocon, as a brief query of his name on the anti-defamation league website reveals. http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_in_the_...ism_in_the_News
*EDIT: note, above link is an example for a story about Turner from Oct 2005, not the one starting this thread

 

Making death threats against anybody is illegal, whether it is a public figure or not. If the guy is making death threats, then he is not "legally expressing his views."

 

Death threats are definitely uncalled for, but out here in SoCal there is a radio show that practices what they call "political human sacrifices" which means they turn a 50,000 watt am station (which can reach almost 1/10th of the population of the United States) into a hammer that beats up on politicians that support illegal alien amnesty.

Remember:
1. A person CAN be illegal!
2. There is no such thing as an illegal IMMAGRANT,
3. All "Immigrants" are legal; it is Aliens (not the Spielberg variety) that are illegal.
4. The United States did NOT steal the southwest from Mexico (in fact at the time
most "Mexicans" on this side of border (just like the ones south of the border today)
WANTED to be in the United States! (because Mexico was just as corrupt then as it is now)
5. Mexico routinely beats, captures, imprisons and deports other "immigrants" (illegal aliens) entering from ITS southern border.

Illegal aliens are not a benefit to this country and while their lives may be better here than in their home country (a failing of Mexico that is rarely reported) their status as illegals means that they are ripe for abuse.

After living through the "Day without a Mexican" last year I can safely say I would like many more like that! No traffic, no lines at the hospitals, proper student to teacher ratios and all my service needs were still met.

Not all Mexicans of course, those that actually go through the arduous process to become citizens are welcome and I don't think they should be screwed by the millions of illegals taking the easy way. Illegals hurt legal Mexican immigrants the most since the illegals take those entry level jobs for less money thereby depriving the legal immigrants of an opportunity to make a living.

Also, enforce CURRENT immigration law against ALL businesses which hire the illegals, this will make it so that the illegals will leave on their own, no tr

 

I disagree with everything in the above post by Devil's Advocate except the fact that Mexico is as bad as the U.S.

However, given the user name I'm not sure I need to reply point by point. Presumably, someone advocating for the devil does not actually believe the points he is making.

 

Actually, he's missing the whole point - the argument isn't about immigration policy; the argument is about whether you can make death threats against people you disagree with. Even as a staunch free speech defender, I don't think so.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jan 4 2007, 02:08 PM) [snapback]370815[/snapback]</div>

Don't be shy; how do you *really* feel about this issue?

Regarding the original topic, making death threats is repugnant and counterproductive and ranks down there with protesters' flinging invective at Armed Services Personnel in an airport.

It's only about the person who's doing these things...and their 15 minutes of fame, garnered at the expense of others.

Sickening.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jan 4 2007, 05:22 PM) [snapback]370953[/snapback]</div>

Some of Turner's own words (from http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/turner_own_words.htm)
March 17, 2006: To my knowledge, mine is the only web site in the world that talks about killing Supreme Court justices and members of Congress in THIS piece....I actually use the term "patriotic assassination!"

March 13, 2006: I think a vigilante execution of the federal prosecutor would send the right message to other U.S. Attorneys

February 6, 2006: We Christians would do well to adopt the Muslim strategy. When someone sues to remove the Ten Commandments from a public area, attack, beat and maybe even KILL them.

Turner will probably keep spouting off until one of his fans kills someone, like the Benjamin Smith - Matthew Hale case here in Illinois. Of the judge in that case, Turner said that Lefkow was “worthy of being killed.†After that Judge was murdered in an unrelated cause (i.e., unhappy medical patient lawsuit) Turner defended his statement. "If I say some politician should be assassinated, that's an opinion. If I say, `Let's go kill so-and-so,' that's solicitation of murder. It's a very fine line, and sometimes people can't distinguish."

So he's probably well aware of what he can say that won't get him prosecuted and walks that line. Nothing remotely mainstream about the guy. He broadcasts his radio show from his living room.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 4 2007, 06:37 PM) [snapback]370988[/snapback]</div>

Oh, I agree that there's no doubt about his intent. And I'm sure the local prosecuters are watching him, and if he ever does something they can indict him for, will do so. There's plenty of groups keeping tabs on the guy, from the ADL to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Though I'm not with you on the Judges abusing power thing. Given this wacko's views on judges, I'm sure they'd be happy to indict him if a prosecuter could provide sufficient evidence. That Freedom of Speech, you know, it feels like a pain when someone's spouting this nonsense, but it's the price you pay.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 4 2007, 11:54 AM) [snapback]370882[/snapback]</div>

Mexico is not as "bad" as the U.S.--Mexico IS INFINITELY WORSE!!!!! I don't see 3,000,000 Amercians trying to get illegaly enter Mexico every year!

I did get a little off topic though, but the problem is YOU people (this applies equally to many so called Republicans, open border crowds) don;t understand that to some this is an invasion and a declaration of war!

I think we should just vote them out of office and not kill them (this isn't an Islamic republic yet).

If this guy is seriously making these threats then he prbably needs counseling (the liberal ideal) or some good old GOP jail time. But he may (or at least should) be using it a hyperbole (sp) to illustrate a point.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jan 4 2007, 06:17 PM) [snapback]370998[/snapback]</div>

I'm sorry, I'm a little slow today...and the point is...?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jan 4 2007, 07:17 PM) [snapback]370998[/snapback]</div>

Oh the guy's seriously making these threats. Immigrants, blacks, jews being his most favored targets. But he's careful to say it's his Opinion (i.e., therefore protected under freedom of speech); for example, from his site (which I won't link to, cause, ya know, just no point in linking to a hate site. That only helps em.):

>>I was a guest on the largest radio station in Los Angeles at 6:30 PM EST Today
"The John and Ken Show" on KFI 640 AM !
They wanted to talk about my OPINION that we may have to assassinate members of the United States Congress if they BETRAY the nation by granting citizenship, Amnesty or even a "path to citizenship" to millions of law breakers here illegally. I will re-air the segment during my show tonight.<<

His radio show is on rented shortwave radio, once a week, and a webcast. He site periodically goes down from time to time due to lack of funds or internet attacks. He got his start in local Republican politics and has appeared on the Fox shows of Sean Hannity and Geraldo Rivera (though possibly not for some time now). His website has previously offered links to ways to make a bomb.

But... until someone gets killed because of him, he'll probably continue living his minor ugly little existence in his home rather than a jail cell.

And frankly, he's not even worth this many words.

 

So this guy is different than these guys?:
http://newsfeeds.com/archive/talk-politics...n/msg00011.html
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13698
or is what this group is doin g is OK since some here believe the group is right?

It sounds like this guy might need to do some time, but why is he saying these things? How deep does this opinion run?

Shouldn't we try and negotiate with people who want to kill us and try and understand their position?!

According to the post above this guys show reaches about as many people as I can by leaning my head out the window and yelling, but because he is preaching against illegal aliens he is getting play. (I don't know this guy and he MAY be a stark raving racist, in which to hell with him.) but just because you have opinions that some consider racist, illegals are ILLEGAL (even the Mexican ones) does not make you a racist.

Pinto: the point is that there are people out there that see the illegals as a planned invasion of the United States. If you don't understand how dangerous both the act of the illegals and the opinions above are then you are in a dreamland.

It is a fact that Mexico routinely ignores a large segment of its population knowing that the those ignored Mexicans will cross the border and send money back, thus proping up Mexico's corrupt government.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jan 4 2007, 09:08 PM) [snapback]371052[/snapback]</div>

Well, one big difference is that ELF's guidelines explicitly include not harming animals of any kind (yep, that even includes humans). Not that I agree with them, having myself learned to ski (badly, having no talent) at Vail and other colorado ski resorts. Nonetheless, that's a pretty much a chasm of a difference between them and someone saying people should be killed. And Turner not only says that, but says it with glee (see below). So yeah, he's a stark raving racist, using his puny show to pay his bills. Oh, and I missed the point earlier that he got his start in radio being a regular call-in guest on Sean Hannity's show. Enough said on this nitwit. I'm done. You can go play advocate with somebody else now.

Hal Turner's musings:
June 5, 2005: "These filthy Israeli scum deserve to be annihilated…
October 27, 2005: "What I want to say to Black Americans...the time is rapidly approaching where we're going to play cowboys and n***ers."
January 11, 2006: Following a Moscow synagogue stabbing of nine Jews:, I just want to take a moment to publicly applaud this action.
April 1, 2006: [on immigrants]....These people are sub-human. I would love it if folks who do have such weapons, used them on the crowds on April 10 [at immigration rallies]. I advocate machine gunning these invaders to death at their rallies!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 4 2007, 07:39 AM) [snapback]370703[/snapback]</div>

If you're referring to my post, I said his "legal views", which is not the same as his ... maybe illegal ... other post which may or may not have called for a schedule of assassinations. Since his site has been taken down by DoS attacks, I cannot verify for myself what he actually said. I suspect you are making a distinction between legal, protected speech and speech that can be censored, and do not approve of the DoS attacks against his site.

But to my original point, my opinion of what he said, like yours, is a layman's opinion. In this country we have a legal system that protects citizen's rights by having a law enforcement agency arrest the person, a District Attorney charge the person, sometimes a grand jury indict them, then a trial by jury (or optionally, at the accused's discretion, a judge). While you and I may agree to call the FBI on such a site should we run across it, do we really want cyber-vigilantism "taking care of" people with offensive views by exercising actions that are, in effect, prior restraint?

But perhaps you agree with Newt Gringich:

From http://www.politetalk.com/forums/index.php?topic=77.0

I can't help but see the cyber-vigilantism practiced by the left to silence the views of people who oppose them, even the offensive, ugly views expressed by people like this and folks like Fred Phelps, as anything but hypocrisy in action. There's plenty of that to go around, of course, and my observation is not meant to demean anyone here. But one of the purposes of free speech is to provide the "disinfectant of sunlight" by making views known, and plain to see for everyone.

You will be unable to find any "neo-cons" on the national stage supporting his views. Linking his views to them is unacceptable.