In other news, a man was recently sentenced to 38 months in prison for making a joke in his local tavern. The incident, which happened about a year ago, involved a visit by George Bush to a midwestern town. The man in question said something to the effect of "America needs to see another burning bush" (Biblical reference). He was overheard by the bartender, who reported him to the FBI.

Do all you Bush supporters understand yet what it is that you are supporting? Just asking.

:ph34r: :ph34r: We are :ph34r: :ph34r: watching you :ph34r: :ph34r:

Hmmmm....a little lesson in common sense:

If you go into an airport and start making jokes about bombs you will be noticed, detained, and possibly arrested.

If in a crowded location and you say there's a fire you will be noticed, detained, and possibly arrested. If people die in a stampede, you will be charged.

If you make jokes about killing *any* president (Burning Bush for example) you will be noticed, detained, and possibly arrested.

Moral: If you are stupid enough to do these things, you deserve what you get.

'Nuff said.

/JD

Good point, Jack, however that quote could be read two ways. Undoubtedly, the man in question meant it as he wished Bush would "burn", but here is the important part. A. it is open to interpretation B. he did not say anything that could be considered a direct threat to Bush. He didn't say, "I wish George Bush would burn" or "Somebody should get Bush" or anything similar. Detaining or arresting somebody based on an offhanded comment is WAY too similar to last years movie Minority Report being that you are being labeled a criminal before a crime. If he needs to be questioned for security reason, fine. If people can't see that throwing somebody in jail for saying something offhanded which IS his right to freedom of speech, then it's truly wrong. If you say something that could be considered questionable, then I think you should expect to be questioned. I still think you have a resonable expectation however to NOT be thrown in jail for it. Where's the crime in that case???!!! The Constitution is being ripped to pieces by this Jack Ass named Bush. Hell, he's running around telling anybody that will listen that "America will declare war on anybody HE sees fit to declare it on". I don't know if it is true, but supposedly that is quoted from Bush himself. Many pro Bush people have started to use the phrase "Imperium Americanum" equating the US to a modern Roman Empire. European countries are really starting to hate the US. They are pleasant to our face because they feel they have to, but as if the rep of the US was not bad enough, they are starting to consider us a new evil empire...and it's all thanks to Bush Junior.

Sorry I went off on this rant, but it's my opinion. Take it or leave it.

I'll take it Darkwolven :)

I wonder who put the guy in jail, was it by jury? A little more info on that case would be good I think. Maybe redkitty can post some more specific details about it.

As for other countries hating us, that's their problem. If they cannot see and understand that people are people, no matter where they live, well.....I don't plan on changing the world - it's not too high on my agenda; I have a family to think of that comes first and also that little thing called life ;)

Nice rant by the way :D :) :D People often have conflicting opinions or bring out other points :D

/JD

Good question. I assume it was a court case, but was it a jury or judge? If he contests it, he definitely will get a jury hearing. The whole thing probably was spearheaded by government investigators though since the FBI was called. Since the FBI are a governmental body, that just goes to show how wrong it is IMO. Since when does the US governement start taking personal interest in offhanded jokes or comments about the president when no criminal action was taken? Is it that freedom of speech stops when you make a rude or offensive joke about the President of the US no matter where you are? I find this disturbing to say the least. It used to be that the President was held in check by an elaborate checks and balances system. This system is eroding away fast. Not necessarily Bushes fault, but he certainly without a doubt is taking advantage of it.

I agree about family. I have my own as well, and I certainly don't plan on changing the world myself, but we must try as a world community. That is what the central idealism of groups like the ACLU is all about. As for "other countries", I disagree with your comment. It's not their problem, it's ours. Every nation has a responsibility to the world as a whole. The US, being a super power, just has more responsibilty than everyone else. The moment that responsibility is disregarded, the country teeters on the brink of anarchism, or worse yet, terrorism. The US [we] can't just go around doing whatever the hell we feel like and expect every other nation to not care or get upset. The international laws and treaties are there for a reason. I for one absolutely think that something should be done with Saddam, but I'm not convinced rushing off to war is the answer. I also feel that the UN was certainly faltering on their responsibility. I mean Saddam was ordered to allows weapons inspectors in 7 or 8 times before Bush starting toying with the idea of war on Iraq.

Thanks. I guess I am a bit idealistic in that I was taught to revere the Constitution in school. At least that was the final outcome. I get pretty disturbed when I see something that I feel breaks Constitutional law, at least in my opinion.

Cheers!

Some quotes:

"We are praying you will stick to your resolve to liberate our country from a dictatorial tyranny over 30 years which has caused the deaths of nearly 2 million men and women, sons and daughters." -Letter to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair from Iraqi Exiles

?In 1991 Saddam killed 500,000 people when they rose against him. Nobody demonstrated against him then. But now the United States wants to get rid of the dictator, people are demonstrating against it.?
-one of the Iraqi liberation soldiers the U.S. is training at "Camp Freedom" in Hungary

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
-President Bill Clinton in 1998

?I am surprised to hear of all the anti-war demonstrations in the West. I wish that the demonstrators could spend just 24 hours in the place I have come from and see the reality of Iraq. Fourteen lost years of my life. Nothing but bread for food ? darkness, filth, beatings, torture, killings, bitterness and humiliation.?
-Rafat Abdulmajeed Muhammad, jailed for selling a roll of film to an British journalist

"Iraq under Saddam?s regime has become a land of hopelessness, sadness, and fear. A country where people are ethnically cleansed; prisoners are tortured in more than 300 prisons in Iraq. Rape is systematic . . . congenital malformation, birth defects, infertility, cancer, and various disorders are the results of Saddam?s gassing of his own people. . . the killing and torturing of husbands in front of their wives and children . . . Iraq under Saddam has become a hell and a museum of crimes."
?Iraqi Safia Al Souhail, Advocacy Director of the International Alliance for Justice

"Of course they have no credibility. If they had any, they certainly lost it in 1991. I don't see that they have acquired any credibility."
-Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, on the Saddam regime


I would not exactly call 12 years (91-03) a rush to war... :huh:

This from Condoleezza Rice:

In 1989 South Africa made the strategic decision to dismantle its covert nuclear weapons program. It destroyed its arsenal of seven weapons and later submitted to rigorous verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Inspectors were given complete access to all nuclear facilities (operating and defunct) and the people who worked there. They were also presented with thousands of documents detailing, for example, the daily operation of uranium enrichment facilities as well as the construction and dismantling of specific weapons.

Ukraine and Kazakhstan demonstrated a similar pattern of cooperation when they decided to rid themselves of the nuclear weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles and heavy bombers inherited from the Soviet Union. With significant assistance from the United States warmly accepted by both countries disarmament was orderly, open and fast. Nuclear warheads were returned to Russia. Missile silos and heavy bombers were destroyed or dismantled once in a ceremony attended by the American and Russian defense chiefs. In one instance, Kazakhstan revealed the existence of a ton of highly enriched uranium and asked the United States to remove it, lest it fall into the wrong hands.

Iraq's behavior could not offer a starker contrast. Instead of a commitment to disarm, Iraq has a high-level political commitment to maintain and conceal its weapons, led by Saddam Hussein and his son Qusay, who controls the Special Security Organization, which runs Iraq's concealment activities. Instead of implementing national initiatives to disarm, Iraq maintains institutions whose sole purpose is to thwart the work of the inspectors. And instead of full cooperation and transparency, Iraq has filed a false declaration to the United Nations that amounts to a 12,200-page lie.

For example, the declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad, its manufacture of specific fuel for ballistic missiles it claims not to have, and the gaps previously identified by the United Nations in Iraq's accounting for more than two tons of the raw materials needed to produce thousands of gallons of anthrax and other biological weapons.

Iraq's declaration even resorted to unabashed plagiarism, with lengthy passages of United Nations reports copied word-for-word (or edited to remove any criticism of Iraq) and presented as original text. Far from informing, the declaration is intended to cloud and confuse the true picture of Iraq's arsenal. It is a reflection of the regime's well-earned reputation for dishonesty and constitutes a material breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which set up the current inspections program.

Unlike other nations that have voluntarily disarmed and in defiance of Resolution 1441 Iraq is not allowing inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted access" to facilities and people involved in its weapons program. As a recent inspection at the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist demonstrated, and other sources confirm, material and documents are still being moved around in farcical shell games. The regime has blocked free and unrestricted use of aerial reconnaissance.

The list of people involved with weapons of mass destruction programs, which the United Nations required Iraq to provide, ends with those who worked in 1991 even though the United Nations had previously established that the programs continued after that date. Interviews with scientists and weapons officials identified by inspectors have taken place only in the watchful presence of the regime's agents. Given the duplicitous record of the regime, its recent promises to do better can only be seen as an attempt to stall for time.

Last week's finding by inspectors of 12 chemical warheads not included in Iraq's declaration was particularly troubling. In the past, Iraq has filled this type of warhead with sarin a deadly nerve agent used by Japanese terrorists in 1995 to kill 12 Tokyo subway passengers and sicken thousands of others. Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people. Iraq has also failed to provide United Nations inspectors with documentation of its claim to have destroyed its VX stockpiles.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree....

/JD

Sorry, I don't have a reference for that incident, I was quoting from memory. In fact, I came back on the board intending to delete that part of my last post. I'm not saying the story wasn't true, mind you, I just don't keep files on this stuff and I'm too tired right now to dig it up.

I'm going to quote from memory again, but this one is easy to check out, It was in the mainstream news recently. In reply to a reporter's question, Bush said "You don't get to decide when we go to war, I get to decide that!" (I think that's an exact quote).

Yeah, this is trivial compared to the absolute flood of lies coming out of this administration, but please note that this is an elected official speaking to a citizen (alright, Shrub wasn't elected, but he does play one on TV). I won't debate the constitutional issues involved either. I'm more frightened knowing that the guy with his finger on the button has the emotional mindset of a two year old.

Found here: *http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aber...ws/4602545.htm

Posted on Mon, Nov. 25, 2002

Man who threatened Bush: Drought will worsen if he's persecuted
CARSON WALKER
Associated Press

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - A Portland, Ore., man who threatened President Bush told a federal judge Monday that South Dakota's drought will worsen if he doesn't get credit for mistakes in his criminal record.

Richard Humphreys also told U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol that if he shows mercy in sentencing, God will show mercy to him.

Humphreys, wearing a prison uniform and a scruffy beard, was scheduled to be sentenced Monday for remarking about a "burning Bush" during the president's March 2001 trip to Sioux Falls.

But after a two-hour hearing, Humphreys' lawyer was given until next week to argue why his client should get less time in prison and not more. Sentencing now is scheduled for Dec. 6. Humphreys could get up to five years in prison.

He was arrested in Sioux Falls and indicted for threatening to kill or harm the president.

In September, a federal jury took just over an hour to convict him.

Humphreys has said the comment about a "burning Bush" was a prophecy that offers First Amendment protection.

He calls himself prophet Israel Humphreys. He said a similar reference he made in a Christian Internet chatroom was a joke and that neither can be viewed as a threat on the president.

During a 45-minute address to Piersol Monday, Humphreys said he was wrongfully imprisoned for two years and that other charges against him such as disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and making terrorist threats should not be weighed against him in the current case.

He said many of the marks on his record are from being harassed by local law enforcement who put him on a "police haters list" and interfered with his church teachings.

"It's not the evilness of the person before you but the county that was evil," Humphreys told Piersol, who listened expressionless. "I think you're a wise enough man to look at some of this and say this is church business."

Humphreys said that because he's a prophet, South Dakota will suffer if he is persecuted.

"The Bible says that if you mistreat a prophet, you will have drought," he said.

Humphreys also said Piersol's eternity could be affected by the sentence. "God says what mercy you show will be showed toward you," he told the judge.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Hack said Humphreys gets in trouble with the law wherever he goes and deserves a longer sentence.

"This is an individual who uses religion as a shield," Hack said.

Humphreys' lawyer, William Delaney, said his client has a history of mental illness "and shouldn't be punished for that."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and here: *http://www.kezi.com/content/contentID/1390

(Sioux Falls, South Dakota-AP) -- A Portland, Oregon man who threatened President Bush is sentenced today to more than three years in prison.

U-S District Court officials in South Dakota say Richard Humphreys might get credit for the 20 months he's already been in custody.

Humphreys made a remark about a "burning Bush" during the president's March 2001 trip to Sioux Falls. He had said the comment was a prophecy that offers First Amendment protection.

Humphreys was arrested and indicted for threatening to kill or harm the president.

In September, a federal jury convicted him. Outside the courthouse today, Humphreys said he plans to appeal.

During his trial in September, Humphreys testified that he had been arrested 25 times. He says the indictment on the threat charge in South Dakota resulted from government profiling.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmmmm..... this obviously was not the first time this guy was in trouble..... <_< :blink: <_<

You all can draw your own conclusions....

/JD

Btw- I could not find anything to substantiate this: Can you please show me where that was found? :)

OK, the guy is obviously a nutter if he is calling himself a "prophet", but still not reason to imprison him because of a comment. He could even say, "I'm going to shoot that Bastard Bush" and I would say he was within his rights up to the point of actual criminal action like actually going after the Pres or sending a letter saying as much to the White House. I know this is a very grey area of law, but there HAS been precedence already. I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it, the crime is the intent of ACTION, not general babble public statements. Where does intent become a criminal reality and whose interpretation do we base it on? Just because I say I'm going to do something, doesn't mean I actually do it, which is why I believe it is not a crime to say somebody should die. If I say to somebody, "You asshole, I wish you would die!" will that get me thrown in jail? Now saying, "I'm gonna kill you asshole" could be harrassment, but not intent to KILL unless I actually do something. You probably will be questioned about it, true. People say that everyday to people they hate and get away with it. Now say that about the President of the US and the rules seem to change. That's why I think this whole situation is screwed up.

RE:[Bush] "I declare war"
Actually, I read that elsewhere as well a few weeks ago in a live journal, only worded slightly differently, so I can believe it. Either it is an elaborate hoax, or he actually said it if within two weeks I read essentially the same thing in two totally different corners of the web. Hmm...I'd like a source too, but for right now I believe it. I know you can't believe everything you read, especially on the web, but it's a pretty interesting coincidence for me though...

BTW, I really like the thoughtful responses in this thread.

@redkitty
Ok, lets start giving examples and proof, too many people spout off without proof, so lets see it. And the "I don't have to" won't cut it, if you can say it then prove it.