Free Speech?

[CFLarsen]

By demonstrating that your actions don’t amount to treason in a legal sense.

But that wouldn't be up to Coulter to decide if there was treason.

Coulter’s comments did not do this. If you believe otherwise, please demonstrate it.

I did, on page 1:

Ann Coulter feels hatred towards at least some parts of the US, namely the Muslims (not to speak of the Democrats!). She wants to - forcibly - convert Muslims to Christians and to kill Muslim leaders.

An enemy is someone you feel hatred towards.

It is possible there has been further legislation defining specific acts as treason, but I have done no search for it. If you think something else applies, please provide it.

We should definitely stick with the Constitution.

As Diogenes pointed out, it is possible that Coulter violated another law with her comments. I don’t know and don’t care to find out. Have at it if you like.

That is irrelevant to the point I am making.

Claus, this is, I think, why people have been confused about your argument. In this response, it seems as if you think Coulter committed treason as opposed to thinking that she should be charged with it merely to maintain consistency vis a vis al-Timimi's conviction.

I don't. I don't even think al-Timimi committed treason. I am asking why they are treated differently.

As one who has in the past admired your precision, I am surprised.

Yet, I have repeatedly made it clear that I do not think Coulter has committed treason.

To be clear, my comments in this post address whether or not Coulter’s comments legally amount to treason, not whether they are analogous to al-Timimi’s comments which is an entirely separate issue.

But that is the issue I am talking about. If you don't want to talk about it, don't talk about it.

There is a difference between:

1) I think Muslims should convert or die

and

2) I am advocating that you go kill Muslims who do not convert

Where's the difference? That you tell me to go do something? There's an action?

3) I think Muslims in other countries the US ought to invade should convert or die

and

4) I am advocating that you go kill Muslims in the US who do not convert

Your argument mightstand if Coulter said #4, but she did not. She said #3.

And in my opinion, she said #4 as well.

Who said it isn’t relevant? It’s absolutely critical, except that you misrepresent it.

Her non-blanket statement that non-converting Muslims in countries the US ought to invade is exactly what demonstrates that she is not guilty of treason.

She is also talking about those Muslims on the plane. Those were Saudis, mostly. Not Iraqis or Afghanistanians (?).

 

[CFLarsen]

Can you provide evidence that she specifically called for FORCE to be used in converting any Americans?

Please reply only if you will address the specific question with a specific answer. In other words:

DO NOT quote her calling for invading other countries or killing muslim leaders UNLESS you have EVIDENCE this would involve the use of force to make Americans convert to a different religion.

DO NOT try and avoid the question by replying with a question along the lines of "What do you think she meant when she said all Muslims should convert?" as my opinion is irrelevant. You have made a specific claim that she called for a group of Americans to be FORCED to convert to a specific religion, it should therefore not be a problem for you to link to a QUOTE from her supporting this claim.

You don't decide what evidence I can use.

Or is this to be yet another thread where you make claims, ignore questions asked of you to back up those claims and demand answers from everyone else while refusing to provide any yourself?

It would be easy for you to decide what evidence I can use, and then later claim that I haven't been able to provide evidence.

It doesn't work that way, though.

 

[RandFan]

Man guilty of terror recruiting

Al-Timimi allegedly encouraged Masoud Khan, Randall Royer, Yong Kwon, Muhammad Aatique and Khwaja Hasan "and others to conspire to levy war against the United States".

The key is not simply advocating the killing of Americans but an action against the US.

Of course concluding that Coulter was advocating that the US kill american muslims in an effort against the United States is the pinacle of ignorance.

 

[CFLarsen]

So disingenuous.

Not at all. I had repeatedly made it blatantly clear, but only after a while does he get it.

 

[CFLarsen]

He has claimed she advocated action against American troops (which appears to be a reference to the *forced* conversion to Christianity which he has been asked to provide evidence for) and that this was "precisely" what al-timini was convicted of.

He also appears to think what she did was "the very same" that "she is advocating the same as" and that she did "exactly the same" as al-Timini. Presumably, as she has done EXACTLY the same, he can show clear evidence where she called for FORCE to be used against US individuals? If he cannot, or will not, do so then I think it is clear his position is not based on evidence. Again.

Forcing US soldiers to convert is not "force"?

 

[CFLarsen]

It is implicit in her statement that she is talking about non-American Muslims which is why she says "their leaders" their country".

I disagree. She also talks about the Muslims who were on the planes. They were not "leaders".

 

[CFLarsen]

But you are saying that Coulter said the same thing as al-Timimi said. How do you know that without knowing what al-Timimi said?

No, I am saying that what she said amounts to the same thing.

We are dealing with al-Timimi and whether what he said was protected free speech and or treasonous (it could be both but I'm not sure if constitution protects treasonous speech).

That's a discussion worth having.

You have derailed the thread and put the focus on Coulter. We can't determine whether or not al-Timimi is guilty of Treason or if his free speech rights have been violated by focusing on Coulter.

We can determine what al-Timimi was convicted for, and go with that.

 

[RandFan]

Not at all. I had repeatedly made it blatantly clear, but only after a while does he get it.

I will withdraw that point. I apologize.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Forcing US soldiers to convert is not "force"?

I assume you would agree that for this question to have ANY validity, she would actually have to have advocated this?

Accordingly I will not reply to it unless and until you can show that she has done so.

 

[CFLarsen]

You are absolutely correct. I think Larsen could start a thread and THAT would be valid. And it doesn't really matter that it is only concerning matters of law. I bring up Clinton a lot because I think some people are inconsistent with their judgments of Bush. They apply rules inconsistent between the two.

The problem is that we have not determined whether or not al-Timimi committed Treason and whether or not his free speech rights were violated. Discussing Coulter will not resolve that issue.

Fact: It is logically possible that Coulter could BE guilty and al-Timimi could be innocent. Discussing Coulter will not resolve the issue of al-Timimi.

However, let's assume that we decide to forgo al-Timimi and only focus on Coulter then there is another problem.

Larsen's Argument:
(P1) Person A was convicted of X
(P2) If the law is consistent then person B should also be convicted of X.

Before we can determine (P2) we have a hurdle to cross.

Are the actions of person B the same as person A?

This is inescapable. We can't look at the results only of person A and then compare those results to the actions of person B. To do so is illogical and backward.

The problem I have come to realize is that Larsen does not have a grasp of simple logic or he is being obtuse. I can't see any other explanation. I'm open to one if anyone can figure him out.

But we can look at the results: That al-Timimi was, in fact, convicted. Then, we can look at what Coulter did.

 

[RandFan]

I disagree. She also talks about the Muslims who were on the planes. They were not "leaders".

That is NOT the point. Her words, "their leaders" helps us understand who it is that she is talking about. She can't be talking about Americans because she says that "their leaders" are NOT Christian. Bush is Christian so we can logically exclude American Muslims. This is NOT a debatable point but please, go on for 11 pages doing so. Afterwards we will debate the merits of the flat earth argument.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You don't decide what evidence I can use.



It would be easy for you to decide what evidence I can use, and then later claim that I haven't been able to provide evidence.

It doesn't work that way, though.

And it would be easy for you to, as usual, refuse to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to back up your claims.

You have claimed, several times, that Coulter has advocated FORCE being used to make people convert. You have provided no evidence of this. Until you do, you are no different from a man who claims to have a perpetual energy machine but will not show it to anyone.

 

[CFLarsen]

I assume you would agree that for this question to have ANY validity, she would actually have to have advocated this?

Accordingly I will not reply to it unless and until you can show that she has done so.

Just answer the question. No need for diversions or conditions.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But we can look at the results: That al-Timimi was, in fact, convicted. Then, we can look at what Coulter did.

And it appears that everybody except you concludes that Coulter did something different from al-Timini. Therefore nobody else expects the outcome to be the same.

 

[CFLarsen]

That is NOT the point. Her words, "their leaders" helps us understand who it is that she is talking about. She can't be talking about Americans because she says that "their leaders" are NOT Christian. Bush is Christian so we can logically exclude American Muslims. This is NOT a debatable point but please, go on for 11 pages doing so. Afterwards we will debate the merits of the flat earth argument.

Why are people so determined to decide what I can debate or not?

If you don't want to debate a point, then don't. Stay out of it. But please refrain from deciding what other people may or may not debate.

You do not decide what people can debate here. Do you understand that?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Just answer the question. No need for diversions or conditions.

Evasion noted.

 

[RandFan]

No, I am saying that what she said amounts to the same thing.

But you can't logically say that with out knowing what he said. To continue to make such statements is irrational.

What if al-Timimi said that Muslims should become Buddhists and live peaceful lives?

That's a discussion worth having.

AND THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD!

We can determine what al-Timimi was convicted for, and go with that. [/B]

It is logically possible that al-Timimi's conviction was wrong and politically motivated and that his words were not anything close to treason and that he didn't advocate anything.

Your logic is topsy turvey. I'm sincerely sorry you don't get that.

 

[CFLarsen]

And it appears that everybody except you concludes that Coulter did something different from al-Timini. Therefore nobody else expects the outcome to be the same.

Fine with me.

 

[CFLarsen]

Evasion noted.

You are the one evading my question by erecting conditions.

 

[CFLarsen]

But you can't logically say that with out knowing what he said. To continue to make such statements is irrational.

(sigh)...we can go with what he was convicted for. Treason.

What if al-Timimi said that Muslims should become Buddhists and live peaceful lives?

What if, what if...

AND THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD!

Nobody is stopping you from debating that.

It is logically possible that al-Timimi's conviction was wrong and politically motivated and that his words were not anything close to treason and that he didn't advocate anything.

What if, what if...

Your logic is topsy turvey. I'm sincerely sorry you don't get that.

I can live with that.