Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

And, just why is this man not in Federal custody at this moment? ...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
TeaBagsAreForCups Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 09:15 AM
Original message
And, just why is this man not in Federal custody at this moment? ...


The Smith Act
The Smith Act (54 Stat. 670) of 1940 proscribed, among other things, the advocacy of the forcible or violent overthrow of the government. The act became the analogue of the New York Criminal Anarchy Act sustained in GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925). New York had passed that law in 1902, shortly after the ssassination of President WILLIAM MCKINLEY. Between the occupation of Czechoslovakia and the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact of 1939, the House of Representatives drafted the Smith Act because of a fear that there might be a repetition of the anarchist agitation that had occurred in 1900 or the antipathy toward alien radicalism that had surfaced in 1919. Congress was also worried about Nazi or Communist subversion after war broke out in Europe.

Under a 1956 amendment to the Smith Act, if two or more persons conspire to commit any offense described in the statute, each is subject to a maximum fine of $20,000 or a maximum term of imprisonment of twenty years, or both, and is ineligible for employment by the United States or its agencies for five years after conviction. The Smith Act, as enacted in 1940, contained a conspiracy provision, but effective September 1, 1948, the Smith Act was repealed and substantially reenacted as part of the 1948 recodification, minus the conspiracy provision. On June 25, 1948, the Federal general conspiracy statute was passed, effective September 1, 1948, which contained the same provisions as the deleted conspiracy section of the original Smith Act except that the showing of overt acts was required and the maximum penalty became five years' imprisonment instead of ten (18 U.S.C.A. § 2385). The general conspiracy statute became operative, with respect to conspiracies to violate the Smith Act, substantially in the same manner and to the same extent as previously.

The conspiracy provisions of the Smith Act and its provisions defining the substantive offenses have been upheld. An intent to cause the overthrow of the government by force and violence is an essential element of the offenses. The advocacy of peaceful change in U.S. social, economic, or political institutions, irrespective of how fundamental or expansive or drastic such proposals might be, is not forbidden.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/10334/Smith-Act.html

The Alien Registration Act or Smith Act (18 U.S.C. § 2385) of 1940 is a United States federal statute that makes it a federal criminal offense for“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 - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

- SNIP -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act

Sedition
In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

- SNIP -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Restoration of what?
Oh yeah, rule by a white male.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevenmarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. Oh hell I thought it was another Restoration Hardware, I could use an extra gallon of Silver Sage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
2. Oh! oh!...Me, me!!! Let me...!
ahem...

"Because he's an angry white Conservative?"

Did I win! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. You hit BINGO on the fifth number
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. An ignorant peckerwood, Methinks.
His low IQ will save him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. peckerwood??? is that kinda thing ok here now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoNothing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. I'm sorry, but the correct answer is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Would this include questioning?
I'm not saying he should be arrested and tried for advocating violence to overthrow the US. The OP asked if he should be in custody and I assumed that meant for questioning as to his motives.

From the site you linked: The convictions of the indicted members were reversed and the case was remanded to District Court for a retrial.

These were "indicted members" which I assume were citizens already arrested.

We have had a number of incidents where someone was "detained for questioning":
President Obama target game gets feds' attention

I wonder if I had taken a gun to a Bush rally, if I would at least be questioned by the SS as to why I brought a gun to a Bush rally...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoNothing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Yes.
The government is free to ask any questions they want, and you are free to decline to answer them. But if they want to take you into custody, they have to place you under arrest, and that means they need probable cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. "Because he's an angry white CHRISTIAN Conservative?"
fixed that for you. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Thanks!
...then I didn't win...:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
butterfly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. And because he said so..
same thing concerning the mosque issue,because angry white so called christian said MOVE then you move because their word is the last and only word you see they are the REAL AMERICANS every one else is an AMERICAN when they say so...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
5. IOKIYAR.
Fucking ridiculous. FUCKING ridiculous, the double standard is.

Newt Gingrich, John Edwards. Similar situations. One is "disgraced", his career ruined. The other is still a prominent and sought after voice; and, amazingly enough, considered a viable presidential candidate for 2012.

IOKIYAR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. really? which staffer did Gingrich have a kid with while running for president,
and lie about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Uh, Newtster cheated on and divorced his first wife when she had cancer.
Edited on Mon Sep-13-10 12:48 PM by HughBeaumont
Oh, and also cheated on THAT mistress who became his wife, while he was still married to the mistress/wife. So really, it's WORSE since Newt did it twice in different decades, but the impact to both men's careers was vastly different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Uh....who are you, the morality police? who cares who cheated on who, the difference
Edited on Tue Sep-14-10 12:08 PM by crazyjoe
for me is John Edwards put us all at risk, imagine if he had won the primary and then this came out ?!?
Hello vice president Palin.
And your sticking up for him? Please, cry me a river....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
6. Same reason Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and various other radical groups haven't been arrested
It's called freedom of speech, and it is a right in this country. You may not like it, you may disagree with what the person is saying, but the fact of the matter is that we all have the right to speak our mind without fear of prosecution.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
7. Here's the defense
Edited on Mon Sep-13-10 10:02 AM by jberryhill
"advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability"

Now, read the sign.

What these guys say, if pressed, is along the lines of "if government doesn't respond to the demands of the people, then people will get fed up and start shooting".

That is distinct from saying "I will start shooting", "I intend to start shooting next Wednesday", or "You should start shooting."

His defense is that he is pointing out what will happen, as if it would occur spontaneously, and that his is not specifically "advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability" of violent opposition to the government.

They walk that line all the time over at Freeperville. They continuously talk about how "someone" will do these things.

And of course, there are nuts out there who believe that someone is them, but the language is carefully chosen in the type of message described above.

In short, he says it "is coming", not "I'm bringing it" or "You should bring it." He is further not expressly stating it is a good idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
9. Okay I have a solution.
Let's just imprison everyone who burns a Koran or holds up a Tea Party protest sign. In fact, why don't we round up EVERYONE you disagree with? Let's shut down the media and arrest all the conservative blowhard pundits. We should jail EVERYONE who says mean things about Islam, or blacks, or Democrats, or vegans, or homeless people. Let's just put them all in camps and be done with it.

Happy now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
18. the same reason bush, cheney, rumsfeld, ashcroft, bybee, yoo, and the rest
of the asshole klan can torture and start illegal wars and not go to jail.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC