You know, it really is sad seeing people in this thread feigning confusion about the outrageousness of anything closely approximating 'truth squads'
under color of law by people in positions of government power.
First, let me make something very clear. I actually make an effort to deny ignorance.
Let's begin with:
But a review of McCain’s own truth squads shows he has a district attorney from New Mexico and the South Carolina attorney general ready to respond
to misleading ads from Obama and Democrats in their respective states.
Maybe this will avoid the predictable accusations of partisanship in reference to my post.
If the above is true, I find those facts equally appalling.
I also want to fix something I stated earlier. This does not appear to be just Obama supporters, but according to the reports includes people from
Obama's actual campaign apparatus that have organized this:
The KMOV report said the Obama campaign asked members of Missouri's law enforcement to target anyone who "lies" or issues misleading
television ads. Formation of the Obama "Truth Squad" was the result, the report said.
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
On Wednesday, Obama’s Missouri campaign announced U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill would lead a group of Democratic lawmakers, prosecutors and one
sheriff “who will be proactive in letting voters in the Show-Me State know the truth in the face of the distortions by the McCain campaign,”
according to a news release.
The group includes prosecutors from St. Louis, Dunklin, Lafayette, Cass, Clay, Ripley, Audrain and Jackson counties volunteering to be surrogates for
Obama on their own time.
In a conference call Saturday with reporters from battleground states, Obama national campaign manager David Plouffe said those who spread lies and
mistruths about the Illinois senator have to be “held accountable,” but did not elaborate how.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
...what the Truth Squad is supposedly doing is to address the defamation of Barack Obama. What part of that is unconstitutional, illegal or immoral?
What exactly is the problem? You all can express indignation, but if you can't articulate what exactly you are outraged about, I still don't
get your position.
Oh, I don't think I've had any problem articulating exactly what I'm outraged by. The issue appears to be one with respect to your comprehension of
It appears what you and others would like is to turn the clock back a few hundred years and return to the implementation of
to hear political libel cases.
The 16th and 17th century criminal statutes protecting nobility from criticism in England eventually evolved into various categories of political
libel (see slander and libel for the modern incarnation of this law). Cases of political libel and eventually damages actions were handled by the
infamous Star Chamber until its abolition in 1641. By the end of that century, many elements of the common law of libel had been established.
Modern slander and libel law evolved since then to mostly eradicate the use of libel laws to intimidate active political participants during a
No longer exists in most English speaking jurisdictions
In most developed countries, a combination of discouragement to vexatious litigation, general recognition of chilling effects, and sometimes formal
definition of a strategic lawsuit against public participation, serve to limit politically-motivated libel suits.
Recognizing the chilling effect of such laws, American courts reformed libel law to protect free speech on matters of public interest, where
plaintiffs bear onus of proving falsehood, fault and damage. All statements of opinion are immune from liability. This includes almost all political
See also, Chilling effect (term)
The rabid and blind support I see from Obama people who seem to have no problem with this stuff is an indication there is no difference from that and
the blind and rabid support Bush received from his proponents.
In other words, it just looks like if Obama wins, we are in for four more years of THE SAME nonsense-- just with a little "D" attached to it.
reply to post by Animal
Originally posted by Animal
I just saw your link on LiveLeak. The story says the prosecutors in Missouri are going to put pressure on anyone who releases anything the 'violates
Missouri election ethic laws'. I am curious, why would disallowing anything that violates law be a bad thing? Is it because it is Obama's supporters
doing it? Personally I think that this is a non-issue.
Well, that's a curious thing, considering I can find NO Missouri government entity with the authority to do anything close to what is implied by
The Missouri Ethics Commission
The Missouri Ethics Commission is given the statutory authority to investigate complaints made against elected and appointed officials...The
commission has jurisdiction to review complaints alleging violations of: the requirements imposed on lobbyists; the financial interest disclosure
requirements; the campaign finance disclosure requirements; any code of conduct promulgated by any department, division, or agency of state
government, or by state institutions of higher education; the conflict of interest laws; and the provisions of the constitution or state statute or
order, ordinance or resolution of any political subdivision.
The commission shall not investigate complaints alleging conduct which allegedly occurred previous to the period of time allowed by law for criminal
prosecution or conduct which is not criminal in nature which occurred more than two years prior to the date of the complaint. The commission may
refuse to investigate any conduct which is the subject of civil or criminal litigation. The commission shall also not accept any complaint alleging
conduct, other than failure to file the appropriate financial interest statement or campaign finance disclosure report, by any candidate for public
office within sixty days prior to the primary election at which such candidate is running, and until after the general election.
According to Missouri State Law, the Commission shall dismiss any complaint lacking any basis in fact or law which is frivolous in nature. Any person
who submits a frivolous complaint shall be liable for actual and compensatory damages to the alleged violator for holding the alleged violator before
the public in a false light. A finding by the Commission that a complaint is frivolous or without probable cause shall be a public record.
So, in fact, this doesn't really look like a promising avenue for the Truth Squaders, does it?
But that isn't really their point is it? The mere mention by these government officials that they might pursue action under color of law is the
actual point, isn't it?
What a VILE and UNACCEPTABLE practice.
And shame on all of you who claim to be looking for something different than the nonsense of the last eight years.
Why aren't more of you denying ignorance, rather than embracing it?
[edit on 28-9-2008 by loam]