Rand Paul calls for Jailing People Who Attend "Radical Political Speeches"

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Honestly, I don’t disagree with him. I want people planning the violent overthrow of our government jailed or deported.

I mostly agree with you here, but do you believe we should be deporting and arresting citizens for the act of listening or "attending" however that is defined in the context of a rally or demonstration?

That seems exceptionally oppressive and very far outside the bounds of democracy IMO.

Rand:
"But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison."

It seems as if he has little faith in the average citizens' moral compass and would prefer to simply arrest anyone in "attendance' when violent rhetoric toward the government is spoken.

His words were careless and his sentiment fiercly dictatorial IMO.

Originally posted by Indigo5

It seems as if he has little faith in the average citizens' moral compass and would prefer to simply arrest anyone in "attendance' when violent rhetoric toward the government is spoken.

I just do not see why what he is saying is so controversial to many of you. Granted, it would really suck if our government started rounding up a million people at a time because a couple guys at a rally somewhere got up and started screeching about violently overthrowing the government.

But Im pretty sure that in this country you can ALREADY get yourself branded a "domestic terrorist" and held in jail for life without trial (thanks Obama) for plotting the violent overthrow of our government. I remember when various applications would have on them "have you ever plotted the overthrow of the government" or something much like it as one of the first couple questions on the application.

My foster father (military lifer, submarine service) had told all of us from the time we were little that we better know the difference between "reform" and "overthrow" legally. A lot of people are taking the statement by the founders that it could be necessary and might be desirable to hold a revolution from time to time, as condoning the violent overthrow of the government and really, I dont think they intended that AT ALL. Its our Constitution and government that make us a nation at all. You dont want those "overthrown violently." By anyone. You might want to clean house, and toss every single sitting politician and judge out on their butts and get new blood in there, but I dont want some rich group of corporatists doing to America what they are doing to Libya, or what they did to Nigeria, or some South American countries.

I want to stay a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and the reason our government is working so poorly is not the fault of the structure itself. Its the fault of the people. Who let flashy ads tell them who to vote for, not their own reasoned judgment, their own research, or debate in the town square with other informed citizens.

There is nothing wrong with "the government." There is something wrong with the American people. They need to turn off the TV, get out, get active in local politics, and start making better judgments about who they choose to lead us.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander


But Im pretty sure that in this country you can ALREADY get yourself branded a "domestic terrorist" and held in jail for life without trial (thanks Obama)

Contrary to popular partisan ATS belief, nothing about that statement of yours originated with the current POTUS. In fact, it originated under the previous POTUS and a Democratic majority in Congress, while championed by many who now pretend to be libertarians.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


So he had to sign it because someone else "originated it?" And what evidence do you have for us that this is all someone elses doing, and he is just the poor guy who got stuck authorizing it?

From what I can tell, his administration DID put it together, all on its own. Obama is the executive, is he not? And only he can issue an executive order. So how is this someone elses doing?

nymag.com...

The Obama administration is putting together an executive order that will make indefinite detention without trial for some Guantánamo detainees official. The order also allows detainees and their lawyers to challenge the basis for continued incarceration. The White House has said all along that this order for prolonged detention, preferably within the U.S., was one of its strategies for closing down the military prison.This week, Congress is set to vote on banning the transfer of detainees to the United States for trial and roadblocks to repatriation or resettlement elsewhere for other detainees. The order calls for a more adversarial system than the one under the Bush administration, where detainees could challenge their incarceration periodically. But the defense bill, if passed in the Senate, "would effectively force the administration to conduct only military commissions and at Guantánamo Bay, which would also have to remain open to house those held indefinitely." That's probably one too many "indefinitelys" for anyone hoping the president would make good on his promise.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Indigo5

It seems as if he has little faith in the average citizens' moral compass and would prefer to simply arrest anyone in "attendance' when violent rhetoric toward the government is spoken.

But Im pretty sure that in this country you can ALREADY get yourself branded a "domestic terrorist" and held in jail for life without trial (thanks Obama) for plotting the violent overthrow of our government.

"plotting the violent overthrow of our government"....yes, those individuals should be arrested or deported.

"attending a speech"...those individuals should not be arrested in a free democracy.

You seem to confuse or amalgamate the two very different scenarios/people.

It is not an inconsequential distinction.....it is one of the pillars that differentiates us from military dicatorships.

Its our Constitution and government that make us a nation at all. You dont want those "overthrown violently." By anyone.

Agreed. USA style democracy is an ever changing canvas representing the people's will, for better or worse.

It was the anger and fear of the American people that allowed erosions of our privacy rights immediately after 9-11.

The few voices who pointed out the fear mongering and draconian measures were quickly branded as unpatriotic and disloyal, idealogical agents of terrorists!....who could be opposed to the "Patriot" act after all.

Since then the act has been reeled back modestly, but certainly not enough.

Originally posted by Indigo5


"plotting the violent overthrow of our government"....yes, those individuals should be arrested or deported.

"attending a speech"...those individuals should not be arrested in a free democracy.

You seem to confuse or amalgamate the two very different scenarios/people.

Not hardly. The way you are laying it out, only the person talking should be arrested for plotting the violent overthrow. So if 5 guys go somewhere to listen to one guy tell them what they were going to do, you think only the one guy who actually talked should get in trouble?

I dont. I think if 5 guys go somewhere to plot the violent overthrow of the US government, they should ALL be able to be tried for it, even if only one was talking. If you attend a speech entitled "overthrowing the government violently" I dont think you should be surprised if you go to jail. I wouldnt be. And its the same if its one guy, or 20 guys, or 50 guys, if you go somewhere specifically to listen to speeches on how the government should be violently overthrown, Id say you were behaving treasonously.

And Im surprised that people seem to think its okay or legal to do so now. Its not.

www.law.cornell.edu...

§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
How Current is This?
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

A whole country, Libya, is being torn apart violently right now, and lots of innocent people are dying, because a small minority of people, very likely backed and instigated by economic interests from outside the country, decided they wanted to violently overthrow that country. I dont want that happening to MY country. It should be, and is, very clear that a small band of people DO NOT have the right to violently overthrow a government supported by the majority of the population.

If they want to persuade the majority into changing things, fine. If the majority tries to change things, and the entrenched powers refuse and the situation devolves, fine. In a government of the people, by the people and for the people, the people ARE the government. And so any band of politicians who barricaded themselves in and used violence against the majority populace and refused their wishes would be, under this same law, the criminals plotting the violent overthrow of the government.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Indigo5


"plotting the violent overthrow of our government"....yes, those individuals should be arrested or deported.

"attending a speech"...those individuals should not be arrested in a free democracy.

You seem to confuse or amalgamate the two very different scenarios/people.

Not hardly. The way you are laying it out, only the person talking should be arrested for plotting the violent overthrow. So if 5 guys go somewhere to listen to one guy tell them what they were going to do, you think only the one guy who actually talked should get in trouble?

This is a strange debate. 5 guys meeting with a 6th man giving orders does not equal....attendees of a speech.

One is a conspiracy to commit violence or overthrow the government.

The others are guilty of being present at a rally? due to thier ability to hear? Not a court in the land...

Official membership and advocacy is a different matter.

Rand Paul wants to round up attendees. That is something Muamar Ghadaffi would do.

Speak of the devil.

A whole country, Libya, is being torn apart violently right now, and lots of innocent people are dying, because a small minority of people, very likely backed and instigated by economic interests from outside the country, decided they wanted to violently overthrow that country.

Whoa...You are aware that Muamar Ghadafi seized power via his own violent coup in 1969? That he abolished the constitution and has ruled as an autocrat not subject to free elections for the past 42 years?

Weird comparison.

Yes innocent people are dying in Libya...
Libya: Gaddafi’s forces attack civilians and ambulances
m24digital.com...

Small Minority?
If the revolution only represents a small minority then why has the Ghadaffi refused to hold elections for the last half century?

Believe me if Pres. Obama..Bush..Nixon or any of them had abolished the constitution, cancelled all elections and remained in power for 40 years a revolution would be more than warranted and welcomed by the vast majority of US citizens and any laws forbidding the same would have been rendered null and void once the constitution was abolished.

You are comparing apples to hyenas here.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Whoa...You are aware that Muamar Ghadafi seized power via his own violent coup in 1969? That he abolished the constitution and has ruled as an autocrat not subject to free elections for the past 42 years?

Whoa....you are aware that we also seized power during a violent overthrow in America too? And abolished monarchy?

To each their own. His majority population did not rise up for change is the point. A small minority did, against the majority who no matter how he gained power, did not side with the "rebels" even though they would have been better off in terms of not getting bombed to dust by the first world if they did.

And Rand Paul may have been too broad and sloppy in the way he phrased things, but yes, I still agree that if you go to hear a speaker and you know the topic is about "we should" or "how to" of "lets" violently overthrow the US government, your butt should be arrested. Not just yours, of course, but anyone who would support the violent overthrow of the nation.

Originally posted by Indigo5

If the revolution only represents a small minority then why has the Ghadaffi refused to hold elections for the last half century?

You need to actually read a little bit about how their system works. Its not ours, (although one could argue its not all that different since we get to choose from two corporate approved candidates that have the "approval" in the form of funding from them and its a stretch to say we really have free elections here, with the way the media works to influence them) but its also not a flat out refusal to allow people to participate.

There is voting, its just not a democracy like ours, and we have supported many countries who do not allow voting including Saudi Arabia, our bestest friend.

His people had one of the better qualities of life in the region, period, and thats just a flat out fact, which is why they did not revolt or side with the rebels. Their non democracy functioned better in terms of meeting the peoples needs, and giving them a good life than many of the democracies we have been forcing down peoples throats do.

Yet another plan courtesy of your loving Tea Party has now come to rise. To those who blacked out on me for saying that they are Nazi's! What do you have to say for yourselves now? This is the proof right from the Golden Child of the entire racist and Nazi movement.

Ladies & Gentlemen, The American Nazi Party is here and it is the Tea Party! You voted these douchebags in and now must deal with any and all consequences of any action they do. No more distinctions will be made from here on out. You have no one to blame but yourself.

YOU ARE EITHER WITH AMERICA OR YOU ARE AGAINST IT, NO OTHER ALLEGIANCE MEANS JACK SQUAT!

To protest is an inaliable and fundamental right of every American and those that back this plan have already willingly and gladly forfieted their rights lock, stock and barrel. I, like the rest of the sane and intelligent people will still gladly enjoy my right to protest and will not ever conceede that to anyone ever!

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Indigo5

Whoa...You are aware that Muamar Ghadafi seized power via his own violent coup in 1969? That he abolished the constitution and has ruled as an autocrat not subject to free elections for the past 42 years?

Whoa....you are aware that we also seized power during a violent overthrow in America too? And abolished monarchy?

To each their own. His majority population did not rise up for change is the point.

When government soldiers started shooting, beating and gang raping protestors in the streets and looking around saying..."see nobody wants to protest anymore" is about the same time they lost the right to claim that the majority was not interested in change.

It is strange that you would support Muamar Ghadaffis actions and insane ramblings about how the rebellion is a small minority of youths that "have been given Hallucinogenic Drugs by al qaeda".

Not sure we have much to discuss given the severe difference in views. I will exit the debate at this point.