Posts Tagged ‘1st Amendment’

The Memo

Monday, March 5th, 2012

So this whole Koran-burning thing has really chapped my ass. My need for Gold Bond on my bottom doesn’t spring from the Afghans’ reactions to the burning as those were pretty predictable. I mean, let’s face it: anytime you take a bunch of mostly illiterate, gun-toting cavemen with cell phones who see no problem with molesting little boys, honor killings, throwing acid on little girls, and executing women for having the audacity to get gang-raped by their male relatives and then add the figurative and literal fire of religious fervor and extremism, you can pretty much guarantee that the resulting actions will be laced with a liberal dose of backstabbing violence. No, my problem with the reaction to the debacle is OUR reaction.

The first mistake we made was allowing the trash men to get their hands on these things. Of course, they could have been burning cookbooks that were written in Arabic and most of the local nationals working on Bagram wouldn’t have known the difference between Betty Crocker and the seventh Surrah since, as I said before, most of them are illiterate so they think that anything in Arabic is the Koran. Since it was used to write messages, it should have been kept as evidence or intelligence. Either way it should have been treated as classified material. At the very least, it should have been completely destroyed before being tossed in the burn pile.

The second mistake we made was the immediate pro-extremist, anti-Joe sycophancy from our apologist in chief. Our guards saw contraband Korans that had already been desecrated by extremist messages scrawled by their owners (which, by the way, is desecration anyway), seized those books, and disposed of them. Why the hell should we apologize? I don’t see any of them apologizing for burning the Korans that were destroyed when the World Trade Center went down. What do we do next? Apologize for collecting intelligence or killing bad guys? No. Screw that. We don’t need to apologize for helping secure our personnel. And what is the end result of Obama apologizing? Well, a bunch of US personnel getting fragged by their Afghan counterparts. And our response to that? Pretty much nothing. They just killed our guys and the president’s response is to say that the apology avoided violence. Really? Tell that to the widows and orphans and next of kin. You know what we should have done? What the Pashtun understand: exponential measured response. They kill one of ours, we level a town. War is ugly; if you’re going to do it, make it so ugly that nobody ever wants to bring it to your doorstep again. Presenting a weak response to the Pashtuns is just inviting more violence on our guys, not discouraging it.

The last thing we did wrong was this:

So now, our troops cannot even get their hands on a Koran unless they are Muslim. Can Muslims get a Bible? You bet. Book of Mormon? Why not. But Korans are hands-off because apparently the Army doesn’t mind restricting the first Amendment rights of most soldiers as long as it appeases the enemy. And yes, I do consider radical Islam the enemy and anyone that doesn’t is a fool. You cannot appease an enemy that is fueled by radical religious  fervor without surrendering to them; you either defeat them or you are defeated by them. Does this policy say that US service members on Bagram cannot own or purchase a Koran? Nope. But it does border dangerously close on violating the establishment clause in the Constitution by providing protected/preferential treatment to one religion over another. Oh, and it really does nothing to protect our troops or prevent more violence form the religious zealots that pervade the forces with which we are supposedly in cooperation over there. If you want to prevent the bad guys from killing our guys because of a holy book, make the bad guys hole-y men.

Bloggers Beware

Monday, January 17th, 2011

This is going to shock some of you, but I don’t just read the news that fits my outlook on life. I don’t just read the right sided view or the left sided view: I read several different sources. AS a result of this, I read this VERY interesting and, quite frankly, disturbing article at Salon:

This local ABC report out of southwest Missouri suggests a law enforcement response to the mass shooting in Arizona that has, until now, been conducted behind the scenes:

CHRISTIAN COUNTY, Mo. — A local blogger who was critical of Rep. Billy Long during last year’s congressional campaign has been interviewed by the FBI about his encounters with the congressman.

Clay Bowler, who lives in Christian County, says he was shocked to find an agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at his doorstep. Accompanying the agent was Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott.

The agent asked Bowler if he was a threat to Long, a notion Bowler finds laughable.

Long, an auctioneer and former talk radio host, is a freshman member of the new Congress. The blog in question, Long is Wrong, is now behind a password wall. Though Long is a Republican, the blog apparently attacked him from the right.  While Bowler apparently “confronted” Long at some campaign events, there’s no suggestion in the ABC article that he ever threatened the candidate.

The local sheriff casts some light on what may be going on here:

Arnott confirmed to KSPR News that Bowler isn’t the only local person who’s been scrutinized in the wake oflast weekend’s shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Gifford (D-AZ) during a meet-and-greet with constituents in Tucson, Ariz.

Arnott said U.S. Capitol police canvassed members of Congress to come up with a list of people across the country who might be considered potential threats to members of Congress.

Asked if there is some new initiative in place, a spokesperson at the FBI’s national office in Washington told me: ”We wouldn’t comment on anything like that.”

Asked if the sheriff’s comments were accurate, a spokesperson for the Capitol Police said: ”We don’t discuss anything that has to do with security of members of Congress. I’m not sure why anyone is talking about that.”

Clearly, if a threat is made against a member of Congress, the authorities are obliged to follow up. But if the line separating sustained political criticism from threats has not been crossed, willy-nilly visits by the FBI could have a real chilling effect on the democratic process.

The New York Times recently reported that “studies of assaults on public figures have found that attackers have almost never telegraphed their intentions to their targets or to the authorities ahead of time.”

Yeah, that is SO no bueno that that I cannot even begin to describe it. If the guy did make real, viable threats then okay, check him out. But from what I can see the evidence is more pointing toward a new politician trying to quell dissent using police muscle and that’s not cool. We not only have a right, but a responsibility to question the policies and practices of our elected officials if we feel that those policies and practices are counter to the best interests of the constituency or the country as a whole. Should we be making threats or plans for physical violence when we don’t like our elected officials? No. Although the Founding Fathers certainly kept that in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights, I am pretty sure they didn’t want that to be option number 1 when a check mark in a ballot booth will do quite nicely. By the same token, do the police have a right to come and question you? Sure they can. And you can and should lawyer up every time because what you say can and WILL be used against you.

Don’t believe me? Well, let a defense attorney and a cop educate you….

I can tell you right now, you will get NO benefit from talking to the police. Get a lawyer and the police can talk to him/her. If they don’t have warrant, they don’t have a right to search your domicile. The old argument that “if you don’t have anything to hide, you shouldn’t mind us searching your stuff” is no argument at all. You need only demand your 4th Amendment Rights be respected and upheld.

Demand your 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment Rights. Lawyering up doesn’t make you a criminal anymore than demanding your 2nd Amendment Rights makes you a murderer. I respect the police and I believe that they usually have people’s best interests at heart but they have a job to do and they get rated on how well they do their job by how many cases they close.

Oh, and here is more on the story at Politico.

Regarding Guns At Protests

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

Guns at protests. Okay, I think it’s time that this subject was broached here on The Sniper. I’m kind of tossed on this issue and before anyone jumps down my throat for either being a) a stark raving mad gun nut or, b) a Big Brother-esque gun grabbing government stooge, hear me out.

In America we have the right to bear arms and, depending on the state, the right to open carry, concealed carry, or both. Now, I know a lot of people would say that based on those rights it is every person’s right to carry regardless of where they are in public which, according to the letter of the law, is true in most cases. That being said, it might not be a very good idea to carry them at protests where the President is nearby. If the intent is to show the Chief Executive that we the People have a right to bear arms, well, I think the Constitution covers that pretty well despite the groaning and gnashing of teeth to the contrary from the far and not so far left. So that point is made moot by redundancy. If the reason is that the guy just always carries (which some people do), I have less of a problem with it. This is more than likely not the case for the guys toting rifles as most people don’t carry a 5.56mm air cooled, magazine fed, semi automatic rifle around with them on a daily basis. This latter group is demonstrative of those that wish to intimidate or even possibly bring harm to others.

This isn’t a very good idea.

I know that some people would make the argument that guns should never be present at a protest, especially when the President is near, and there are some people that would counter that guns already are present… they’re just in the hands of the police and Secret Service… and those people would be right. The police do carry guns at protests. The Secret Service does carry guns at protests… and sniper rifles, grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons, Stinger AA missiles, etc. There is, however, one glaring difference between the police/Secret Service and the guy toting the AR-15 in a crowded protest : the police and Secret Service would be there no matter who the President was, what political party he is in, or whether he was a liberal, conservative, or moderate. The guy in the crowd would not. Oh, and there is one other glaring difference: the guy with the gun in the crowd can be absolutely certain that there is a set of crosshairs on his head or chest at any given moment at that protest… the cops and Secret Service guys can never be certain.

I support the right to bear arms. I support the right to free speech. I think that they both support each other and help defend each other. I don’t think, however, that the two are always compatible in certain situations. I myself would go to a protest. I would (and fairly often do) go shooting and even carry on occasion, but I wouldn’t mix the two for myriad reasons with the foremost being this: I don’t want to be a Secret Service sniper’s hiccup away from having a .308 round in my chest. If you want to bring your firearm to a protest and there are no laws against it I suppose that’s your right… I’ll get my point across with a pithy sign.

Atheists Want God Stricken From Inaugural Oath, Thor Stricken From “Thursday”

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama wants to conclude his inaugural oath with the words “so help me God,” but a group of atheists is asking a federal judge to stop him.

California atheist Michael Newdow sued Chief Justice John Roberts in federal court for an injunction barring the use of those words in the inaugural oath.
Okay, now that’s just stupid and I’ll tell you why. The Oath of Office for the President of the United States is as follows as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The “So help me God” part is thrown in there by whoever is taking the oath on their own volition. SO, if you try to have those words stricken, then you are trampling on the First Amendment rights of whoever is taking the oath in the first place. You don’t have to like it, but you don’t get to tell people what they can and cannot say.
The National Archives says that George Washington added the words “so help me God” when he took the oath at his 1789 inaugural, and most presidents have used it since.
They don’t HAVE to say it, but if they choose to do so it is their right to do so… a right protected by the Constitution itself. Now, I don’t particularly care if they say it or not, but it’s not my place to tell them that they can’t say it nor is it anyone else’s.
And just how far do we let this kind of frivolous litigation continue before we cross over from the completely ridiculous to abjectly and almost criminally absurd? Will we have to change the word Thursday because it refers to Thor who was a Norse god? Or how about Saturday or Friday? Will we have to ban the word atheist itself because it is derived from the ancient Greek word “theos” meaning “God”?
Come on folks, a little common sense here. Besides, do we really want to risk pissing off Thor?

He looks angry enough already.

Please Tell Me This Isn’t The Blatant 1st Amendment Violation That It Appears To Be On The Surface

Wednesday, April 18th, 2007

Let me preface this by saying that what happened at VT was a tragedy and I sympathize with the families and friends of all of the victims. But arresting a student at the University of Colorado for “making comments that classmates deemed sympathetic toward the gunman [at VT]” is a blatant 1st Amendment violation of the highest order.
During a class discussion Tuesday of Monday’s massacre at Virginia Tech, Max Karson “made comments about understanding how someone could kill 32 people,” university police Cmdr. Brad Wiesley said.

Several witnesses told investigators Karson, who turns 22 on Thursday, said he was “angry about all kinds of things from the fluorescent light bulbs to the unpainted walls, and it made him angry enough to kill people,” according to a police report. Witnesses “said they were afraid of him and afraid to come to class with him,” Wiesley said.
This is a knee jerk reaction. If the same guy had made the same comments last week, nothing would have happened to him. But since the massacre, school officials have taken it upon themselves to overreact in the other direction. That’s a slippery slope.
Does the guy need to have his head examined? Really good possibility of that… in fact, if it was my call I would say most definitely yes. But I don’t have the right to make anyone undergo a psyche eval anymore than the University of Colorado has a right to arrest a guy for his opinion no matter how whacko it is. If that was the case, they would have locked up all of the Klansmen a long time ago and with much better reasons.
If the story is as cut and dried as it seems… if the guy really was just talking and not going off on violent rants accompanied by disorderly conduct, then the 1st Amendment just took a very palpable hit. Rest assured that attacks on the Second Amendment will follow suit very quickly with even more fervor.
Don’t let zealots selfishly use a tragedy to further their political agendas. And yes, I understand that I may be accused of the same thing… the irony isn’t lost on me.
Meanwhile, protesters are actively encouraging U.S. soldiers to murder their commanders. What color was Colorado again… blue or red?


For some reason this crap (encouraging murder) is tolerated but personal opinion is not?