Conservatives Join Terrorists

[affrayer]

Source: The Raw Story

A group of prominent Republicans may have actually committed a crime last month when they traveled to Paris to speak to an Iranian opposition group that the US has deemed to be terrorists.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, former national security adviser Fran Townsend and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey all attended a forum organized by supporters of Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK).

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/leading-conservatives-call-obama-terrorist-group/

---

In 1980 the conservatives, in what was referred to as the "October Surprise," handed the Iranians advanced missile technology that was reversed engineered to create the basis of IEDs now used by terrorists to kill American soldiers.

That act was completely illegal just as their support for the very same terrorists who attacked our embassy back then is now. The USSC has already ruled on this matter: "The Supreme Court has ruled that any "advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization" is a crime." And the Patriot act also piles onto the legal issue: http://gawker.com/5723432/rudy-giuliani-and-john-bolton-are-terrorists-now">In today's New York Times, attorney David Cole points out that the Patriot Act makes it a (thought) crime to help, want to help, or in any way nod approvingly toward a group that has been designated a terrorist entity by the State Department.

Can there be any doubt that these criminals are guilty of high crimes? It makes you wonder when conservatives talk about the "rule of law" and the Constitution just what the heck they are referring to?

[Champion Jack]

1. Round 'em up and put 'em UNDER the jail

[affrayer]

2. Question

Just where and from who do you think the Iranians learned to build shape charges that can piece even our best armor?

http://defense-update.com/features/du-2-05/IED-1.htm

[SoapBox]

3. They are members of the Radicalized Republicans....

and should be treated as Terrorists themselves.

[Frisbee]

4. Maybe we shouldn't close Gitmo after all...

Keep it open and house only repukes suspected of being or aiding terrorist there. Filing charges optional, of course.

[DeSwiss]

5. They're Republicans.....

...and thus they're immune from the pesky little laws meant for us peons. And our current chief law enforcer doesn't have the guts to arrest these slimy traitors. Besides it's not like they're growing medical marijuana. They're not illegal aliens. They sure ain't no war protesters. And they haven't criminally embarrassed the U.S. with the truth like some people have.

- And above all, they're not brown enough......

K&R





{Point of information: I've loved to be proven wrong!}

on edit: spelling

[affrayer]

7. And another thing...

Besides it's not like they're growing medical marijuana. They're not illegal aliens. They sure ain't no war protesters. And they haven't criminally embarrassed the U.S. with the truth like some people have.

- And above all, they're not brown enough......

Did you notice the near perfect vacuum the so called "left wing media" treated this story? It's like they don't care...I wonder how they would have treated the same story if it was Carter or Clinton that had gone?

[DeSwiss]

11. We have no media.....

...save the few independent outlets in the US that one finds on the Internets and the foreign sources whose agendas aren't always clear, nor are they always pristine.

The so-called "media" we have is little more than propaganda instruments for TPTB. All one has to do to confirm this is to do what "Deep Throat" told Bob Woodward to do: "follow the money." http://mapper.nndb.com/">The Boards of all the major media and news outlets serve as a Who's Who of Connective Tissue of this cancerous tumor we call TPTB. They are all connected to each other - and to every major corporation - investment banking - and eventually to just about every governmental agency (particularly those who carry guns and have enforcement powers) that we have. Like a global spider's web. Where they play the parts of the spiders and we're the lunch.

"When Ben Bagdikian first published `The Media Monopoly' in 1982, some 50 corporations controlled most of the major media outlets in the United States: 1,787 daily newspapers; 11,000 magazines; 9,000 radio stations; 1,000 television stations; 2,500 book publishers and seven major movie studios. But the time the fourth edition was released in 1993, the number was down to about 20 corporations, and it is still dropping." ~Molly Ivins, columnist Ft. Worth Star Telegram, from the Introduction to ``Adventures in Medialand'' by Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon.

[affrayer]

12. There is a possible solution...

Go here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D">Fox News Bias

There are over 280 videos proving beyond any doubt that FAUX News is not a news organization at all. The point? Right now FAUX News is protected by the First Amendment which means they can tell any lie they want and as long as there is no proof it was done because of "malice" it's all perfectly legal. And political partisanship is not seen as malice. However, if we can strip away the First Amendment protections from FAUX News, it will be put out of business in no time at all.

The problem is that doing this "might" be a slippery slope in which once the ball is rolling who knows where it will stop. But I say with what we have now, why should we care?

But for now I sit here watching the republicans act in total secrecy while claiming transparency. It is insanity's finest hour!

[Ian David]

6. Let's start calling our senators to have these assholes sent to Gitmo. n/t

[Bragi]

8. This law is reprehensible and shoudn't be applied to anyone

Unless we wish to appear hypocritical, I don't think progressives should advocate the application of bad laws on their enemies.

This particular law makes it illegal to meet with any group that may support terrorist organizations, even if the goal is to convince them to abandon violence. It is an assault on freedom of speech and association.

[affrayer]

9. You have an argument!

Unless we wish to appear hypocritical, I don't think progressives should advocate the application of bad laws on their enemies.

But before you go any further you should read the article and then "think." Ask yourself one question, why did the USSC rule on this law? The answer is that under the Bush Jr administration they used this law to accuse anyone they wanted to of terrorism. All they needed was a paper trail of $1 going through some Muslim charity or any kind of support which may or may not have provided funds for an organization like Hamas, and they descended on that person.

So we have the classic republican Texas Two Step!

When they are running the government they have one set of standards for themselves and when the democrats are in charge, another. Since the rule of law is predicated on "one law for all," one must question just what you mean by hypocritical?

[Bragi]

10. My point was/is this

We should not use laws, or call for the use of laws, that repress free speech and free assembly.

In this case, if we call for the use of laws that we know are bad so as to silence our political enemies, then we are actually giving those laws legitimacy. Which we shouldn't do.

Not a huge point, but I guess I raised it because I have noted a tendency here to demand that our political enemies be subjected to legal sanctions that we would oppose if applied to our political friends.

- B

[affrayer]

13. I'd like to agree with you but...

We should not use laws, or call for the use of laws, that repress free speech and free assembly.

We have laws as to "time, place and manner" that curtail free speech and have had them since the beginning. It's always been the legal rule that even our most sacred rights are shaped in terms of the public good. Now is making the prevention of cooperation with terrorist organizations part of that public good? The USSC has already determined that is the case. So we are long passed civil disobedience. You might argue that it is still a righteous path for the common yeoman but let me remind you, the republicans that violated this law were and are all "statesmen" with access to the highest offices in the land.

If the republican leadership wants to change this then let them use the legislative process and not criminal activity.

In this case, if we call for the use of laws that we know are bad so as to silence our political enemies, then we are actually giving those laws legitimacy.

Hold on there...while republicans are no friends of mine, I haven't lumped them in with Iranian terrorists yet! There is good reason to protect the political speech of American opponents but I think it is a whole different matter protecting foreign interests of terrorists.