They should be arrested for Sedition and held indefinitely.

[LaydeeBug]

as I am pretty sure the Patriot Act allows for it.

It's time to fight fire with water. That is all

[Kelvin Mace]

1. Not a big fan of the Sedition Act

That is a VERY dangerous double-edged sword.

[LaydeeBug]

3. It's a dangerous sword, but the words would give them pause...after all...we need our own demands nt

[Kelvin Mace]

13. I was against the Sedition Act

when it was a threat being wielded against the anti-war activists under Bush the Lesser and Occupy protestors by GOP loons. It would be hypocritical of us to cheer for it now just because it is convenient.

[LaydeeBug]

16. Its not "convenient" and it isn't to punish constitutionally protected behavior

so you are engaging in a false comparison.

This isn't *convenient*. It's *true*

[onenote]

25. what non-constitutionally protected behavior has been engaged in by the repubs?

Politically stupid behavior. Yep. Bad policy behavior. Yep. But the Constitution doesn't allow legislators to be subjected to criminal penalties for voting for a bad law or against a good law (or for not voting at all).

[Kelvin Mace]

33. One man's principled stand is another man's sedition

I do not question that these people are subverting the Constitution, but go back and look how the Sedition Act was used in the past, it wasn't to bring corporations or right-wing individuals to heel, it was to punish anti-war protestors and unions.

Unless you bring back the Sedition Act, you will have a HARD time prosecuting people for these crimes, since you will have a hard time finding a specific statute that applies. The last person who wanted to bring back the Sedition Act was Newt Gingrich.

I am not claiming that any of this is fair, or that you are wrong to want people punished, but that the only tool I am aware of would be used against us the first time a Republican got back into the White House.

[North Carolina Knigh]

34. Agreed

The right tried the same argument when the Wisconsin democrats left the state to avoid voting during the Walker fiasco.

[Kelvin Mace]

35. Welcome to DU!

[onenote]

2. Pretty sure it doesn't

But you knew that.

[LaydeeBug]

4. Pretty sure it does, but you

should have known that, but whatevs. Your *concern* is noted.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-suspension-of-habeas-corpus-in-america/5311701

on edit to make 'and 'but'. Just sayin'

[el_bryanto]

11. I take it the "*" around concern is of significance?

That's to suggest onenote is a concern troll, right?

Well I'm not concerned - your fascistic plan has absolutely zero chance of being implemented thank goodness; I'm not interested in living in an oppressive police state, whether or not I might agree with them on other issues.

Bryant

[LaydeeBug]

18. You set up your *VERY* *OWN* straw man, how quaint.

[Lurks Often]

5. Yes, let's set a legal precedent for the Republicans to use the next time they are in power!

Because they WILL be in power again at some point in the next 10-20 years if not sooner.

[LaydeeBug]

7. Oh, well we should just capitulate and give them what they want, why wait 10-20 years?

Shew

[Lurks Often]

12. And maybe you should consider the long term consequences of your ideas n/t

[LaydeeBug]

19. Maybe they should. n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

6. You'd need to point out an act of sedition first. nt

[LaydeeBug]

9. Ok...

Here's the wiki definition:

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.

[Dreamer Tatum]

10. Thanks for the definition. The law requires more than a cut and paste, however. nt

[LaydeeBug]

20. You're welcome, and their ACTIONS provide for the definition, not the other way around.nt

[NuclearDem]

8. The treason/sedition/terrorism talk is really starting to jump the shark.

They're assholes who can't be trusted to govern responsibly and are engineering elections to keep themselves in power. Isn't that enough?

Besides, I'm against indefinite detention of anyone, even if they're assholes. But I guess that means I want the terrorists---er, I mean Republicans--to win.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. So you want to fire on Ft Sumpter to prove a point, huh?

Mid-terms are a little over 13 months away. Why not wait a bit before we suspend the constitution?

[LaydeeBug]

21. a *fire*? On Fort Sumpter?

Wow! whatever.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. If you criminalize opposition then, yes, you will be instigating the 2nd American Civil War.

Yes, they are obstructionist bags of ass. OK,I get it. But it isn't sedition or a coup, it is how the process is designed to work.

There have been 17 shutdowns in US history, sometimes it has even been Democrats fighting with Democrats. That's OK. The process was designed to allow us to shutdown the government for things like -- you know -- unpopular, unjust wars. We're allowed to do that without it being sedition.

But what you propose would be outlawing dissent. The label Democrat descends from "democracy." Democracy says we vote on policies. Voting assumes some people do not agree with the proposal at hand.

This is very dangerous talk. It may incite some to violence. Please, as a friend and sympathizer I beg you, please: consider your words carefully. Words lead to actions and actions have consequences.

[morningfog]

40. This is not how the process is designed. This

is not how it is supposed to work. It is not working. I am not in support of using the sedition act, but this is not how it is supposed to work.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. Nonsense. No member of congress can penalized for not voting for something.

No member can be held criminally liable for not bringing something to vote. This is by design.

[NCTraveler]

15. Who are they? nt.

[LaydeeBug]

22. teabaggers. nt

[NCTraveler]

24. Considering your op goes against what this country should stand for...

hell no. Don't think you were serious with your op anyway. At least I hope not.

[NuclearDem]

27. This OP is either brilliant satire (in which case, egg on my face)

Or we have a DUer actually advocating using the goddamn Patriot Act to throw people in prison indefinitely, in which case, I would like to point out that Free Republic is thataway.

[NCTraveler]

28. I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

That is why I am assuming they are not serious. Support for indefinite detention of political enemies is way out there in my book. Even bringing up the PA to do so. Don't get me wrong, some of them could probably use a little jail time.

[tkmorris]

17. Article 1, Section 6, US Constitution

In short, this aint happening. Nor should it.

[LaydeeBug]

23. that allows exception

but you already knew that.

[onenote]

26. Which exception do you think applies?

[dembotoz]

29. bad road to go down--remember the wisconsin 16 who fled madison to avoid

some votes

do not give the thugs a means to start throw our folks in jail

[fitman]

31. No one should be held indefinitely w/o trial

Don't want third world dictatorship courts in the USA.

[LaydeeBug]

37. The Patriot Act disagrees with you. nt

[The2ndWheel]

32. If all the people who could be guilty of sedition were thrown in jail...

Are we picking and choosing which seditious acts should be punished, or are all such acts punishable by indefinite detention?

[LaydeeBug]

38. Well why have laws if we aren't going to use them?

Holy cow, *THAT* third way bs?

[The2ndWheel]

39. Advocate for their use against every seditious act done by anyone, at any time then

Not just against those that you happen to disagree with at a particular time.

[Throd]

36. And sent to reeducation camp!

Can I get a Pol Pot avatar?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. ROFL MAO