Sedition

[CSM]

I just wonder why this isn't enforced:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2388
§ 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war


Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.

Seems to me that a lot of protesters, talking heads and left-wingers could be charged with violating this. It seems pretty clear to me.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002388----000-.html

 

[archangel]

I just wonder why this isn't enforced:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2388
§ 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war


Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.

Seems to me that a lot of protesters, talking heads and left-wingers could be charged with violating this. It seems pretty clear to me.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002388----000-.html

because the US has not declared a war since WWII...all we seem to do is declare "Police Actions" this way our wonderful Congress can stay subserviant to the "Left wing" radicals and spinless "right Wing" cronies!

 

[no1tovote4]

The US is not at war. There has been no declaration of war. Officially this law would not come into effect unless the Congress issued a declaration of war.

You can notice how careful the Media is about this as well. It wasn't the Viet Nam War, it was the Viet Nam Conflict and it was a Police Action. It wasn't called the Gulf War by the Media until after it was over, but when reporting this one it is the "Iraqi Conflict". This is due to the fact that Congress hedged their bets and gave their power of declaration over to the President.

 

[Gunny]

The US is not at war. There has been no declaration of war. Officially this law would not come into effect unless the Congress issued a declaration of war.

You can notice how careful the Media is about this as well. It wasn't the Viet Nam War, it was the Viet Nam Conflict and it was a Police Action. It wasn't called the Gulf War by the Media until after it was over, but when reporting this one it is the "Iraqi Conflict". This is due to the fact that Congress hedged their bets and gave their power of declaration over to the President.

If Congress gave their power of declaration to the President, then it currently resides with Bush, right? Has he not declared war?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Relying on semantics seems wrong, when our armed forces are putting their lives on the line in these "conflicts" just as they would in a "declared" war. The risks are the same, so the punishment for sedition should be the same. I agree with CSM.

 

[no1tovote4]

If Congress gave their power of declaration to the President, then it currently resides with Bush, right? Has he not declared war?

What they gave him was a blank check to enter into conflict with no declaration. Face it, without that declaration it is impossible to be guilty of sedition.

 

[no1tovote4]

Relying on semantics seems wrong, when our armed forces are putting their lives on the line in these "conflicts" just as they would in a "declared" war. The risks are the same, so the punishment for sedition should be the same. I agree with CSM.

We are talking law here. There is nobody better at parsing words than a lawyer. Anyway, it is clear and direct. The US cannot be at war without a declaration, therefore legally we are not currently at war.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I did not argue that it was not clear that the law applies only to wars, or that what we are currently fighting is being called a "conflict". I argued that it is wrong to apply such semantics when our armed forces are fighting and risking their lives in every way the same as in a war. I think it is safe to assume that sedition laws are for the protection of our forces while they fight on behalf of the United States. Our servicemen and women are doing just that. Therefore, they should receive every protection we have, and people who undermine that effort should be punished. Period.

 

[no1tovote4]

I did not argue that it was not clear that the law applies only to wars, or that what we are currently fighting is being called a "conflict". I argued that it is wrong to apply such semantics when our armed forces are fighting and risking their lives in every way the same as in a war. I think it is safe to assume that sedition laws are for the protection of our forces while they fight on behalf of the United States. Our servicemen and women are doing just that. Therefore, they should receive every protection we have, and people who undermine that effort should be punished. Period.

We should work to get the law changed to include all legal conflict approved by the Congress. This would then be included and people could be convicted of sedition.

 

[CSM]

We are talking law here. There is nobody better at parsing words than a lawyer. Anyway, it is clear and direct. The US cannot be at war without a declaration, therefore legally we are not currently at war.

True enough...it bothers me greatly that the Congress has refused to declare war on several occassions, including Korea in the 50s....and one of the reasons I vehemently oppose letting the UN decide when and where the US will fight.

If we are going to enter into armed conflict, there needs to be a declaration of war, particularly when as much blood and treasue is being committed as there is currently.

 

[no1tovote4]

True enough...it bothers me greatly that the Congress has refused to declare war on several occassions, including Korea in the 50s....and one of the reasons I vehemently oppose letting the UN decide when and where the US will fight.

If we are going to enter into armed conflict, there needs to be a declaration of war, particularly when as much blood and treasue is being committed as there is currently.

I agree 100%

 

[dilloduck]

I agree 100%

count me in------there must be a bunch of strange law that kicks in when war is declared because ALL the politicians seem to resist the idea of a Declaration of War.

 

[Abbey Normal]

We should work to get the law changed to include all legal conflict approved by the Congress. This would then be included and people could be convicted of sedition.

Sounds like a plan.

 

[ekrem]

didn't say President bush some days ago in front of white-clothed soldiers that america is a nation at war again ?

I know saying this and laws on the other hand are different shoes.

 

[Gunny]

True enough...it bothers me greatly that the Congress has refused to declare war on several occassions, including Korea in the 50s....and one of the reasons I vehemently oppose letting the UN decide when and where the US will fight.

If we are going to enter into armed conflict, there needs to be a declaration of war, particularly when as much blood and treasue is being committed as there is currently.

I completely agree. Well said.

 

[pegwinn]

Hmmm, as noted we are not fighting a legally declared war. Question is, do you need to declare war if you are the defender? WE were attacked. Per the President, our presence in Iraq is a result of that attack. We should be considered at war by default. The law should kick in. Can you imagine the horrors in California?

 

[Gunny]

Hmmm, as noted we are not fighting a legally declared war. Question is, do you need to declare war if you are the defender? WE were attacked. Per the President, our presence in Iraq is a result of that attack. We should be considered at war by default. The law should kick in. Can you imagine the horrors in California?

I'm willing to let California secede. Or just scrape what's there off and give it to the Israeli's.

Of course, that would create an insurgent movement of Californio's attacking israelis with pink panties.

 

[pegwinn]

I'm willing to let California secede. Or just scrape what's there off and give it to the Israeli's.

Of course, that would create an insurgent movement of Californio's attacking israelis with pink panties.

Having once been the innocent victim of being attacked by pink panties, I can say that therapy would be in order.

It was horrible, horrible.

The panties in question where still warm from where she originally kept em. Somehow or other she got the idea I was paying for dinner.

I bear the scars to this day.......















:funnyface

 

[CSM]

Having once been the innocent victim of being attacked by pink panties, I can say that therapy would be in order.

It was horrible, horrible.

The panties in question where still warm from where she originally kept em. Somehow or other she got the idea I was paying for dinner.

I bear the scars to this day.......















:funnyface

I aint afeered of much...but pink panties........*aaaarrrrrrrrgggggg*!!!!!