June 27, 2005

Churchill Advocates Fragging

What more need be said about these two quotes from Hate-America-Firster Ward Churchill?

"For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal," he said. "But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?"

and

Later, in a question-and-answer period, Churchill was asked whether the trauma "fragging" inflicts on that officer's family back home should be considered, he responded: "How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?"

At a certain point, doessn't advocacy of a political position cross a line beyond which speech has no protection? And doesn't that "speech beyond the pale" include advocacy of mutiny and murder within the armed forces of the United States?

UPDATE -- The story on WND seems to have been lifted without attribution from the blog "Pirate Ballerina." To download the audio, click here. (Hat Tip -- Lone Star Times)

Posted by: Greg at 09:54 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 2 kb.

1 RWR - I'm terribly sorry, but I believe the First Amendment is as absolute as the second.

That doesn't make that howling bigot and complete cretin Ward Churchill into anything noble, I just don't think you can silence him by force of law.

Rather, by force of popular opinion this idiot should be silenced. If nothing else, for fear of my soul I would refuse to hire this low-life, and hope that others do the same. He is evil and malignant, and his views promote hatred and violence.

How do I feel about Eichmann's family? I don't know them, so I cannot help but have the same generic feelings toward them as I do for any other human being I don't know...specifically, I wish them well and hope they have good lives. Being related to Eichmann does not make them evil. His position on this is as heinous as any other bigot's...specifically, that he clearly wishes harm and bad feelings to come to someone he doesn't know. He is openly prejudiced and this sick bastard is using his prejudice and bully pulpit to expand the hatred.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 28 06:40:31 2005 (lkCzp)

2 I wonder what Ward would think about had he been that officer? Would his family mourn him?

The little turd.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 28 07:30:36 2005 (SALCs)

3 I'm raising the question of incitement. At what point is the line crossed, especially in regards to mutiny and murder during time of war? Hell, I'll ask outright -- do his words constitute treason, or at least sedition?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 28 12:24:27 2005 (7abSD)

4 I'll readily admit they constitute sedition...but sedition isn't illegal. Those laws went away a while ago.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 28 15:28:38 2005 (r/FBF)

5 Interestingly enough, there exists this little bit of Federal law.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/115/sections/section_2387.html

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 28 17:53:35 2005 (a81lw)

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 28 17:55:24 2005 (a81lw)

7 Good points, and you'd have a good case for one of them if there were any soldiers in the audience...though he'd have an EXCELLENT case for First Amendment protection.

The second one requires for us to be in a state of war, but the 'war on terror' notwithstanding, we are not at war. War requires that a declaration of war be made, and we're not likely to do that.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 29 00:10:47 2005 (r/FBF)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
9kb generated in CPU 0.0044, elapsed 0.0124 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0091 seconds, 36 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]