+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,272

    ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bush

    ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bush Administration (1/31/2006)

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    CONTACT: [email protected]

    ALBUQUERQUE —The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico today demanded an explanation from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for investigating a federal employee who published an editorial critical of the Bush administration in a local newspaper.

    In her letter to the weekly Alibi, Laura Berg, a clinical nurse specialist, criticized the Bush administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War, noting that, “as a VA nurse working with returning…vets, I know the public has no sense of the additional devastating human and financial costs of post-traumatic stress disorder.” She urged readers to “act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit.”

    In September 2005, VA Information Security employees seized Berg’s office computer because they claimed “government equipment was used inappropriately…during government time for drafting an editorial letter.” No evidence was recovered to support that belief.

    “The VA had no reason to suspect Laura Berg used government resources to produce her editorial,” said ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson. “She signed the letter as a private individual. From all appearances, the seizure of her work computer was an act of retaliation and a hardball attempt to scare Laura into silence.”

    In a November 9th memorandum to Berg, Mel Hooker, Chief of Human Resource Management Service at the VA, conceded that no evidence was found implicating the use of Berg’s work computer in the writing of the editorial. However, he justified the investigation by saying “the Agency is bound by law to investigate and pursue any act which potentially represents sedition.”

    Simonson added: “The reference to ‘sedition’ is shocking. Even if Laura had used the office computer it would change nothing. None of her actions -- her criticism of the government, or her appeal for a change in the heads of government -- approach an act of unlawful insurrection. Is this government so jealous of its power, so fearful of dissent, that it needs to threaten people who openly oppose its policies with charges of ‘sedition’?”

    ACLU attorneys George Bach and Larry Kronen plan to submit a request under the Freedom of Information Act for all documents related to the VA’s actions towards Berg. They have asked Hooker for a public apology “to remedy the unconstitutional chilling effect on the speech of VA employees that has resulted from these intimidating tactics.”
    http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/2...s20060131.html

    (1)http://progressive.org/mag_mc020806

  2. #2
    umdkook Guest

    Re: ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bush

    so what is your view of this??? are you trying to bash the ACLU over this??

    just asking cuase usually the ACLU only gets negative attention in this forum...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,272

    Re: ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bush

    George Bush is Criminaly Insane!!
    Hope that answers your question.
    I agree with the ACLU on most issues. One of the few org. left dedicated to defending our civil liberties.
    I will write a letter of support to the ACLU on this issue.

  4. #4
    umdkook Guest

    Re: ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by Phinnly Slash Buster
    George Bush is Criminaly Insane!!
    Hope that answers your question.
    I agree with the ACLU on most issues. One of the few org. left dedicated to defending our civil liberties.
    I will write a letter of support to the ACLU on this issue.
    ahah well obviously, we didnt need this article to tell us that!!!!!

    i also agree with them on most issues, which is why i was curious as to why you posted it without the typical headline that comes with ACLU articles....they usually include something like "liberal scum at it again" or something like that haha.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bu

    LIBERAL SCUM AT IT AGAIN

    I think we would be remiss if we didn't mention the OTHER important stuff these 'people' have been working on this week...

    1) Making sure that the "new" photos of prisoner abuse could be released...so that the MSM scum could run OLD pictures that they had already shown. I think we ALL need to see the suicide jumpers from the WTC...or the crash area photos from Pennsylvania...or, wait--I KNOW! How about the cartoons that the entire Islamic world is using as an excuse to burn stuff...how about THAT? Are we not able to handle those images?

    2) Fighting to defeat anti-child molester bill 'Megans Law'

    3) Fighting to defeat anti-child molester bill 'Jessicas Law'

    4) Attempting to protect domestic terrorists, and their accomplices by proposing legislation disallowing almost ANY kind of spying on them.


    It seems--ON PAPER--that the system is working in the above case. Mistakes will be made in the name of protecting us, and that is when this otherwise utterly useless, godless, perverse organization can earn a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars we give them.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,272

    Re: ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bu

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone
    LIBERAL SCUM AT IT AGAIN
    Not much to say on the subject hey pwrone.
    More proof that your buddy, dubbya, is nothing but a lying treasonous dirt bag.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bu

    Quote Originally Posted by Phinnly Slash Buster
    Not much to say on the subject hey pwrone.
    More proof that your buddy, dubbya, is nothing but a lying treasonous dirt bag.
    And so is Pwrone apparently.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bu

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone
    LIBERAL SCUM AT IT AGAIN

    I think we would be remiss if we didn't mention the OTHER important stuff these 'people' have been working on this week...

    God forbid YOU would ever admit that FREEDOM OF SPEECH is a right that should be protected. I noticed from the story that it wasn't CONSERVATIVE SWINE jumping to the aide of this woman. NO, CONSERVATIVE SWINE only squeal that the rest of the country should fall in line with their thinking under their treasonous leader.

    Now you are truly anti-American.

    Lady Mod

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bu

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    God forbid YOU would ever admit that FREEDOM OF SPEECH is a right that should be protected. I noticed from the story that it wasn't CONSERVATIVE SWINE jumping to the aide of this woman. NO, CONSERVATIVE SWINE only squeal that the rest of the country should fall in line with their thinking under their treasonous leader.

    Now you are truly anti-American.

    Lady Mod

    I KNOW you are not squealing about free speech...liberals have raised the condemnation of it to an art form. Only liberals want to silence any opposing point of view. The above was an error, soon to be corrected...OR there is more to the story.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bu

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone
    The above was an error, soon to be corrected...OR there is more to the story.

    It better get corrected, the woman did nothing wrong. The Conservative Swine, led by the head pig in Washington is taking away everything good about America.

    Comments on the story as run in the newspaper:

    http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/38858.html

    Comments

    By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 02/02/2006 8:29 pm )
    Thanks, Steve, for the URL.

    So here is the damning quote: "We need to wake up and get real here, and act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit. Otherwise, many more of us will be facing living hell in these times."

    Steve's reference to the OED definition speaks for itself. After all, a true compliment is to refer to someone as a forceful speaker or advocate. One could probably look through literature to see someone acting forcefully to do any number of things without promoting violence. Did Martin Luther King act forcefully to end segregation?

    If Berg had said "we need to remove the government by force", that's different.

    Whether this travesty can be laid at the feet of rhetorically-challenged bureacrats at the VA or worse, i.e, thugs repressing speech, they need to be brought back to reality. At minimum, I'd revolk their passing grade to English 101 or force them to hire a competent editor.

    By Maria Leyba (Submitted: 02/02/2006 7:05 pm )
    When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.----Thomas Paine

    By Michael Tincher (Submitted: 02/02/2006 6:10 pm )
    This is one of the great statements of civil responsibility and the consequences of denying it. -- Pastor Nemoellor come out of the Nazi death camps to say, “They came after the Jews, and I was not a Jew, so, I did not protest. They came after the trade unionists, and I was not a trade unionist, so, I did not protest. Then they came after the Roman Catholics, and I was not a Roman Catholic, so, I did not protest. Then they came after me, and there was no one left to protest." -- These things begin with a whisper, Laura Berg's letter was not more and, in deed, less than can found any day on any comment board like this one. If her intimidation goes unchallenged the enemies constitutional government by law will be embolden. These things historically end in blood. The apologists will cry "excess, overstatement, madness." When they came for the VA nurse, I was not a nurse....

    By David Lopez (Submitted: 02/02/2006 5:14 pm )
    Thanks, Steve.

    By Steve van Dresser (Submitted: 02/02/2006 4:44 pm )
    Khalil, Laura's letter is posted here:

    http://www.alibi.com/editorial/section_display.ph p?di=2005-09-15&scn=news#12767

    I didn't see anything suggesting the violent overthrow of the government system; just for throwing out the current criminals.

    By Franco manning (Submitted: 02/02/2006 4:08 pm )
    Good posts, Messrs. Dawes and Gunter.

    By Rita Serrano (Submitted: 02/02/2006 4:04 pm )
    Here's more from the same site:

    In a November 9th memorandum to Berg, the VA’s Human Resource Chief, Mel Hooker, conceded that no evidence was found implicating the use of Berg’s work computer in the writing of the editorial. However, he justified the investigation by saying that “[the] Agency is bound by law to investigate and pursue any act which potentially represents sedition.”

    Simonson described the reference to ‘sedition’ as “shocking".

    “Even if Laura had used the office computer, neither that fact, nor her criticism of the government, nor her appeal for a change in the heads of government approach an act of unlawful insurrection,” Simonson said. “Is the government so jealous of its power, so fearful of dissent, that it needs to threaten people who openly oppose its policies with charges of ‘sedition’?”

    ACLU attorneys George Bach and Larry Kronen plan to submit a request under the Freedom of Information Act for all documents related to the VA’s actions towards Berg. They have asked Hooker for a public apology “to remedy the unconstitutional chilling effect on the speech of VA employees that has resulted from these intimidating tactics.”


    By Robert Windsor (Submitted: 02/02/2006 3:55 pm )
    T Cantu: Not as long as we can flip off all the Kerry/Lieberman bumper stickers in return (although I would probably have to keep my middle finger continuously extended in this town). ;-)

    By Steve van Dresser (Submitted: 02/02/2006 3:54 pm )
    I would think that the word "forcefully" implies with vigor rather than violently. In the "Oxford Dictionary of English", forceful is defined as "strong and assertive; vigorous and powerful". Urging people to act forcefully seems to me to be a far cry from advocating the violent overthrow of the government.

    By Rita Serrano (Submitted: 02/02/2006 3:11 pm )
    In her letter to the weekly Alibi, Berg, a clinical nurse specialist, criticized the Bush administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War.


    By T Cantu (Submitted: 02/02/2006 2:31 pm )
    Is flipping the bird to anyone with a bush/cheney bumper sticker acting forcefully?

    By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 02/02/2006 2:21 pm )
    If anyone knows where this woman's letter is posted, please put the URL here. We need to see what was said.

    Heck, acting forcefully to remove President Bush may simply involve working 80 hour days writing letters and registering voters who would vote against Mr. Bush! Its open to interpretation, without seeing the original. The more recent court cases listed below would undoubtedly not consider her speech to be an incitement to violence or overthrow unless it was explicitly so.

    Actually, I thought of adding a link to Tom Paine's writing to this, and wonder what the VA would think of that.

    By Dave Heath (Submitted: 02/02/2006 2:08 pm )
    DG "Patriotism" was good too, when it was red, white, and blue, but lately it's been an all red word. Maybe we need a new one like Patriolution.



    By R. Pino (Submitted: 02/02/2006 1:59 pm )
    Wrong, James,

    New York Times v. Sullivan does touch on the effect of Sedition Laws even though it does not directly deal with those laws. It broadened what was considered acceptable free speech.


    By R. Pino (Submitted: 02/02/2006 1:43 pm )
    It is a difficult question; however, to fully understand it the following precedents should be considered and not just Schenck and/or Debs:

    Cases

    Schenck v. U.S. (1919). Congress passed laws during World War I against distributing material that would interfere with the war effort. Charles Schenck, general secretary of the American Socialist Party, was convicted under this law for distributing leaflets urging draft-age men not "submit to intimidation" but to "petition for repeal" of the draft law.

    New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). During the civil rights era, the New York Times printed an ad asking for donations to help peaceful protesters at Alabama State College. L.B. Sullivan, police commissioner of Montgomery, sued the Times for libel saying that the ad had false material that damaged his reputation.

    New York Times Co. v. U.S. (1971). During the Vietnam War, the New York Times received a top-secret Defense Department 7,000-page history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. It started publishing excerpts, and the government sued to have the newspaper stop publishing the excerpts.

    Yates v. U.S. (1957). In 1939 with World War II looming, Congress passed the Smith Act, which made it a crime to advocate overthrowing the government by violence. In the 1950s, 14 leaders of the American Communist Party were convicted under the Smith Act.



    By R. Pino (Submitted: 02/02/2006 1:35 pm )
    James,

    Please see New York Times v. Sullivan here:

    http://www.casp.net/times-2.html

    Caselaw invalidates MOST of the teeth in the sedition law.


    By David Gunter (Submitted: 02/02/2006 1:30 pm )
    James Matise,
    Thanks for the excellent info.

    And to Dave Heath:
    All the people I've heard speaking against Bush are trying to save the government of the United States from a tyrant. What's the word to use for that?

    "Patriotism" works rather well in my book.

    By James Matise (Submitted: 02/02/2006 1:18 pm )
    By the way, R.Pino, New York Times v. Sullivan had nothing to do with sedition. It was what established the "actual malice" standard for libel and defamation against public officials and allowed the free reporting of civil rights campaigns in the South.

    By Dave Heath (Submitted: 02/02/2006 1:16 pm )
    Thanks ES.

    I hope Michael, Yoko, Paul, or whoever now owns the rights to the words below don't mind me posting them here.

    "You say you want a revolution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change the world
    You tell me that it's evolution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change the world
    But when you talk about destruction
    Don't you know that you can count me out
    Don't you know it's gonna be all right
    all right, all right

    You say you got a real solution
    Well, you know
    We'd all love to see the plan
    You ask me for a contribution
    Well, you know
    We're doing what we can
    But when you want money
    for people with minds that hate
    All I can tell is brother you have to wait
    Don't you know it's gonna be all right
    all right, all right
    Ah

    ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

    You say you'll change the constitution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change your head
    You tell me it's the institution
    Well, you know
    You better free you mind instead
    But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
    You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
    Don't you know it's gonna be all right
    all right, all right
    all right, all right, all right
    all right, all right, all right "

    cont...

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bush

    By James Matise (Submitted: 02/02/2006 1:12 pm )
    There IS a sedition law on the books today. Read here:

    Summarized from Wikipedia:

    The Espionage Act of 1917 imposed a maximum sentence of 20 years on anyone who caused or attempted to cause "insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refuasl of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States." The Sedition Act of 1918 went further, criminalizing "disloyal, scurrilous", or "abusive" language against the government.

    Schenck v. United States challenged the Espionage Act (The plantiff was arrested because he was sending mail telling young men to refuse to sign up for the draft). The Supreme Court upheld the Espionage Act and set down the "clear and present danger" test, saying that free speech is not protected if it causes a clear and present danger to the government, much like dangerous speech, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, is not protected.

    Debs v. United States was a similar challenge to the Sedition Act. Eugene Debs was arrested and convicted of sedition for giving speeches urging, among other things, young men to resist the draft. the court upheld the conviction for the same reasons as above, but when the act expired in 1921 his sentence was commuted.

    In 1940, Congress passed the Smith act, which was meant to replace the Sedition Act of 1918.

    Smith Act, passed in 1940, made punishable the advocacy of "the propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force and violence." It was mostly aimed at quelling Communist speech.

    The Supreme Court upheld the Sedition Act in 1951 in its 6-2 ruling on Dennis v. United States, but the Court later changed its interperetation in 1957 in Yates v. United States, ruling that the Act was aimed at "the advocacy of action, not ideas."

    The 1957 ruling and later rulings have all but reversed the Smith Act, but the Court has never explicitly overturned Debs v. United States.

    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_t he_United_States_Constitution )

    This is basically where the law stands today. Legally, the constitution does not protect speech aimed at inciting violent action against the government.

    This, it seems, is where she got in trouble with the letter:

    "She urged people to "act forcefully" to remove an administration she said played games of "vicious deceit." "

    The phrase, "act forcefully" to remove an administration could be construed as a call to arms against the government.

    Now, she was never charged with it, so it's obvious her letter did not meet the "clear and present danger, advocating action against the government" tests.

    Please do not construe these legal clarifications with agreement with the laws or where I stand on "sedition." I do not think the government should have in any way acted as it did with the letter this woman wrote.


    By Eric Scott (Submitted: 02/02/2006 9:25 am )
    Dave Heath, the word is revolution.

    By Rachel Alarid (Submitted: 02/02/2006 9:04 am )
    Why shouldn't the government be allowed to investigate potential threats to our safety and freedom?

    Because having and voicing a different opinion from the adminstration the last I heard was not a potential threat. Besides, that is what the background check is supposed to do.


    By Dave Heath (Submitted: 02/02/2006 8:46 am )
    Hmmmm ... I had to look that one up.

    Se·di·tion

    1.) Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
    2.) Insurrection; rebellion.
    3.) the crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction.

    4.)an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government

    Sedition was Word of the Day on November 6, 2001.

    #########################################

    I don't see those definitions matching what's going on. All the people I've heard speaking against Bush are trying to save the government of the United States from a tyrant. What's the word to use for that?






    By andy kissner (Submitted: 02/02/2006 8:07 am )
    Well one would have to ask why the average person should be concerned about : domestic wire tapping, the Patriot Act, a DNA data base, warrant less, undisclosed search and seizure, non disclosure of those "arrested" or "detained" as potential "enemies of the State", continuing erosion of freedom of speech, secret prosecution of those detained, application of torture to encourage "truthful disclosure"... are we all brain dead or just scared out of our minds?

    Let me add an idea or two. Let's "nationalize" the oil industry and pass universal health care. In addition let's limit pharmaceutical patents to 6 years and allow generic production in the 7th.


    cont...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bush

    By James Dawes (Submitted: 02/02/2006 8:05 am )
    Why shouldn't the government be allowed to investigate potential threats to our safety and freedom? Didn't the attacks on 9/11 teach us anything?

    If the Veteran's Administration had been on its toes back then, it would have been able to track the 9/11 terrorists through all the letters they wrote criticizing the government -- and stop them cold!


    By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 02/02/2006 7:56 am )
    Thanks, Mr. Gunter, for the note. I didn't realize there were WW I Sedition Acts. Then again, the ACLU in part grew out of WW I speech restrictions, so I'm not surprised.

    One must remember that nothing keeps history from repeating itself except constant citizen vigilance.

    By E.B. Baca (Submitted: 02/02/2006 7:49 am )
    VA is short for Yutzes!

    By R. Pino (Submitted: 02/02/2006 7:20 am )
    Sedition laws were struck down in New York Times v. Sullivan many, MANY years ago. This isn't even a reasonable response or issue.

    By David Gunter (Submitted: 02/02/2006 7:15 am )
    Not only was Adam's Sedition Act allowed to expire during the next administration, the Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed in 1921.

    So what laws exist on the books governing sedition today?

    Why is this an AP news wire story and not something covered more in-depth by our local press?

    (Web editor - the new posting tools are a terrific improvement
    . Thanks!)


    By Eli Chavez (Submitted: 02/02/2006 7:01 am )
    My name is Eli Chavez, George W. Bush is a Liar and a Coward, and George W. Bush has USED and ABUSED our G.I.'s to Invade and Occupy Iraq. I will continue to speak out against Bush who has Ordered NSA to eavesdrop on United States Citizens. George W. Bush, turned his back on All American's when he failed to provide Water and Food to American's for days in New Orleans after the Hurricane. George W. Bush, Million's of American's will fight to protect our CONSTITUTION from being Destroyed by any Foe External and Internal.. Eli Chavez, Independent

    By David Lopez (Submitted: 02/02/2006 6:40 am )
    What is really sad is that the VA is so afraid of losing funding if they dissent with the President that they would go this far with the poor nurse.

    It is the Executive Branch that should apologize for harboring that culture of fear, with the VA as well as all the agencies controlled by this branch.

    We The People have the right to question our Government in any forum, the Daily Alabi, the FreeNewMexican, or on a soapbox on the Plaza.

    By Eric Scott (Submitted: 02/02/2006 6:38 am )
    David O'Neill, 1939.

    Are we condemned to repeat it?


    By Hector Sanchez (Submitted: 02/02/2006 6:27 am )
    "Absolute power (as when you control all three branches of govt.) corrupts absolutely.." It's been shown to be true over and over.

    This Administration, like many before it (but the previous violators didn't own the Congress and the Courts) hates to be criticized and will not stop until dissenters are squashed.

    If things continue down our current path, I fear 1.) violence in the streets within 5 years, 2.) Lots of folks emigrating to law abiding countries where free speech is respected, and 3.) a secession movement by some states. I'll probably be part of all at least two of these.

    We learned nothing from the Nazis rise to power, I guess.


    By Rachel Alarid (Submitted: 02/02/2006 6:26 am )
    As long as the letter was not written on stationary letterhead, and was not written as if speaking on behalf of the agency there was no reason to investigate an employee for sedition. At best they could write her up for using a computer for personal purposes, but at that point they would have to site the entire building.

    An employee can not do the following: Hold a political office, run for office, can not campaign on government time and on government phones, faxes, computers. A government employee can belong and contribute to a national party, but they are to refrain from campaining for said candidates on federal property. This appears to be a biased employer who was going to use this employee as an example.


    By Michael Tincher (Submitted: 02/02/2006 5:59 am )
    This administration has developed a new paradigm for American governance. It doesn't need The Alien and Sedition Acts in place to find ways of interpreting of existing statute to justify action. It creates a justification, acts and then stonewalls attempts at redress. The goal is accomplished outside of the law. There is no defense against this behavior without a congress willing to demand its rightful place in power, without a judiciary willing to do the same and a media that 'goes along to get along.' But ultimately, an executive willing to precipitate a constitutional crisis can push this paradigm deep into our civil protections. (Fear of reprisal prevents further analysis!)

    By David ONiell (Submitted: 02/02/2006 5:53 am )
    1984. Or maybe 1939.

    By Jeff Carr (Submitted: 02/02/2006 4:56 am )
    This is an outradge. This should have been the headine in every paper in the country.

    By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 02/01/2006 7:29 pm )
    Sedition? The Alien and Sedition Acts passed under President John Adams were abandoned under President Thomas Jefferson. That's President #2 and #3. Ancient history, eh? Well, maybe not.

    Although it is hard to know what to say about this specific incident without the New Mexican reprinting the letter in question, the fact that an American was accused of "sedition" sounds suspect on its face. Another reason to send a check to the ACLU to keep these people honest.

    Before anyone flames me for criticizing the VA bureaucracy in this context, let me say that I've seen liberal bureaucrats behave as total fools too. In fact, I've testified against them in court.

    By Rita Serrano (Submitted: 02/01/2006 4:43 pm )
    The government's action to investigate a citizen who who wrote a letter to a newspaper as a serious violation of the First Amendment. Since it's not the government's policy to apologize to anyone, I would hope that the ACLU files a lawsuit against the Dept of Veterans Affairs. The next three years will be unbearable for the citizens with dick and dubya on the war path.


    By g apodaca (Submitted: 02/01/2006 4:02 pm )
    Its getting worse. be carful what you call the idiot in chief

    By Andy Hopkins (Submitted: 02/01/2006 3:51 pm )
    Pity the poor Bill of Rights, assaulted by the Bush Administration on all fronts.

    .

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bu

    The nyt, probably the most liberal (and therefor most anti-American) rag ever published, printed 3 pics of A-G prisoner abuse. This scandal was "asked and answered" a year ago, so why print them AGAIN? Is it ONLY to incite violence? Of course they want Americans to be killed, that goes without saying, but to be so blatant about it...

    The only way a near-criminal act like this can go by is because they KNOW that the other media flunkies won't point out the obscene disconnect between a policy of not printing the cartoons "because that would be insensitive to Islamics and might incite them" and then printing something far more inciteful simply because it shows Americans in a bad light.

    So, to be clear...and let's be REAL clear:

    The cartoons were NOT printed because they show Islam in a bad light("who would riot and murder over these?") and these pictures WERE printed because they show America in a bad light. I wonder if this almost incomprehensible act of ___________ is covered under 'sedition'...I can guarantee the framers NEVER could have forseen the kind of rats that we have running around here now. Back then, they only brought plague.

  14. #14
    umdkook Guest

    Re: ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bu

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone
    LIBERAL SCUM AT IT AGAIN

    I think we would be remiss if we didn't mention the OTHER important stuff these 'people' have been working on this week...

    1) Making sure that the "new" photos of prisoner abuse could be released...so that the MSM scum could run OLD pictures that they had already shown. I think we ALL need to see the suicide jumpers from the WTC...or the crash area photos from Pennsylvania...or, wait--I KNOW! How about the cartoons that the entire Islamic world is using as an excuse to burn stuff...how about THAT? Are we not able to handle those images?

    2) Fighting to defeat anti-child molester bill 'Megans Law'

    3) Fighting to defeat anti-child molester bill 'Jessicas Law'

    4) Attempting to protect domestic terrorists, and their accomplices by proposing legislation disallowing almost ANY kind of spying on them.


    It seems--ON PAPER--that the system is working in the above case. Mistakes will be made in the name of protecting us, and that is when this otherwise utterly useless, godless, perverse organization can earn a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars we give them.
    lets use your twisted logic to help us understand more issues in teh US.
    -if you are against the Patriot Act, its becuase you are fighting the "anti-terrorist bill"...wow youre not against terrorists??? shame on you.
    hmm maybe it has something to do with the fact that the bill goes too far in some places, is vague enough in others to allow extreme infringements on regular citizens rights, and does not even come close to anything that would really serve us in any way.

    -if you dont support shunning a Hamas run governement, then you must be against Israel...you dont like Jews?? shame on you.
    hmm well maybe you just dont think a whole country should be punished for a few bad apples who have yet to show what their stance is on terrorism, now that they the terrorists are in charge and its called war now rather than suicide bombing.

    -fighting to keep the right to abortion in all cases...you support impregnated rape victims as well as mothers who will die if they continue the pregnancy??? shame on you.
    hmm well maybe here you just dont want the government telling u what you can and cannot do with your own seed. or maybe you dont want your wife to die just so your 1 month old fetus can continue to live, if it even does.

    -fighting to defeat Bush's legislation against genetic testing and stem-cell research is like killing future people who will have diabetes and other foreseeably curable diseases by using stem cell research to find a cure...you support the death of our future children??? wow, shame on you...

    my point is just becuase you dont support a seemingly good bill or law like the patriot act, meant to protrct us, or Jessica or Megans law, meant to protect kids from repeat molestors, it doesnt mean you are against these issues and support teh criminals on teh other side. it just means you do not agree with the process or protocol involved with these laws/bills.

    dont you see the difference?? some think it goes to far to take away the "rights" of molestors who have paid their debt, thats why they are out of jail, their sentence was served and they were deemd "normal".
    you cant just attack someone or a group becuase of a one sentence summation of what you think their goals are.


    just becuase a group or a person is against a certain law or bill, it doesnt just mean they are COMPLETELY against what it stands for and staunchly support the opposing side.
    dont fight the ACLU, fight the legal system for allowing rapists and child molestors to get out of jail in the first place if they in fact are still dangerous. its not the ACLU, its the laws and penal process that are wrong.
    Last edited by umdkook; 02-17-2006 at 08:55 AM.

  15. #15
    umdkook Guest

    Re: ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bu

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone

    The cartoons were NOT printed because they show Islam in a bad light("who would riot and murder over these?") and these pictures WERE printed because they show America in a bad light. I wonder if this almost incomprehensible act of ___________ is covered under 'sedition'...I can guarantee the framers NEVER could have forseen the kind of rats that we have running around here now. Back then, they only brought plague.
    the cartoons were printed here, dont know why everyone keeps getting this wrong..

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of ‘Sedition’ Over Criticism of Bu

    None of the major papers in this country printed any of the cartoons. Also, none of the points mentioned in your previous post had anything to do with my views, though they seemed to be directed towards them.

Similar Threads

  1. Old Man Bush Accused Of Helping To Bump Off Kennedy
    By dchristie in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-14-2013, 05:15 PM
  2. Old Man Bush Accused Of Helping To Bump Off Kennedy
    By dchristie in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-14-2013, 05:15 PM
  3. Sincere criticism needed
    By Livelonger in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-10-2009, 03:40 PM
  4. Bush Defends Rumsfeld
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-02-2006, 03:51 PM
  5. U.S. Detentions Draw British Criticism
    By Button in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-12-2006, 05:47 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, 2001, abandoned, abused, accused, aclu, act, acted, action, actions, acts, adam, adams, add, administration, admit, affairs, age, agree, agreement, aide, alien, allowed, amendment, american, another, anti, apologize, apology, appeal, appears, arms, art, article, assaulted, ation, attacks, attempts, attention, authority, azi, bad, base, basically, behalf, bet, better, bill, blatant, blood, blue, bombing, book, books, brain, buddy, building, bur, bus, bush, buster, called, campaign, camps, cannot, car, cartoons, case, caused, cell, cer, chairman, charles, cheney, cher, citi, citizens, civil, civil liberties, cli, close, college, commissioner, communist, completely, con, concerned, conservative, constant, continue, costs, countries, country, courts, coward, crash, creates, criminals, crisis, critical, cry, culture, cure, current, dam, david, day, days, dea, dead, death, death camps, debt, deep, defeat, defending, defends, definition, demand, dennis, department, des, destroyed, destroying, destruction, devastating, dick, didn, difficult, director, dirt, display, dna, documents, doesn, don, dona, dont, dow, ear, earn, eme, employees, ended, entire, equipment, eric, error, espionage, eugene, excellent, extended, extreme, face, facing, fall, false, fear, federal, fee, files, financial, find, first amendment, folks, forces, forum, fra, future, games, general, george, george bush, george w. bush, give, goal, gonna, good, govt, great, group, guarantee, had, haha, handle, hard, hates, hats, head, heads, hell, hey, hire, his, hooker, horizon, html, huma, human, hurricane, ial, idiot, images, important, incident, include, industry, institution, inter, internal, invade, involved, ion, islamic, isn, israel, issue, issues, jail, jealous, jeff, jefferson, jews, john, judiciary, justify, katrina, kerry, kids, killed, kind, kiss, kro, larry, last, laura, law, lawsuit, leaders, legal, legally, letter, letters, liberal, liberals, liberty, light, line, listed, live, living, local, long, looming, losing, lying, mad, mail, making, marti, martin, mea, meet, mega, mel, mention, mexico, million, millions, mind, month, more, movemen, movement, nam, national, nazi, need, net, new york times, newspaper, normal, note, november, nurse, nyt, obscene, office, officials, only, ordered, org, organization, original, orleans, overthrow, owns, page, paper, part, party, passed, pastor, patents, patriot, paul, peaceful, pen, pennsylvania, people, person, personal, peter, photos, pictures, pig, place, played, point, policies, policy, poor, pos, post, posted, posting, posts, potential, power, powerful, presiden, printing, prisoner, private, pro, process, production, property, protect, protected, protecting, public, published, punished, push, question, quote, rape, rapists, rats, read, real, reality, reason, reasonable, reasons, rebellion, recovered, red, regular, related, release, released, remember, replace, reporting, research, response, ress, rest, rio, rita, robert, run, sad, safe, safety, sane, sca, scared, scott, scum, search, secretary, section, sen, sense, sensitive, september, serve, served, service, set, shocking, short, shouldn, shows, sign, signed, simply, site, smith, smoke, son, soo, sounds, speaker, speaking, speaks, star, states, steve, stop, story, submit, sued, suicide, support, supreme, supreme court, system, talk, teach, ted, test, testing, text, the new york times, thea, they, thought, threaten, threats, thugs, time, times, today, tools, top, tor, total, touch, town, track, trade, tribute, trouble, unchallenged, unconstitutional, union, united, united states, urged, url, van, veteran, veterans, vic, vicious, view, viola, viole, violence, violent, wait, water, ways, week, wikipedia, wire, woma, won, working, world, worse, wow, write, writing, wrong, year, years, york, young

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •