McCain and Palin Have Gone To Far. They Need to be ARRESTED!

[berni_mccoy]

There are several videos now capturing crowd reactions to McCain/Palin recent campaign events.

They have been incited to believe that Obama is a terrorist by the stump speeches given by McCain and Palin.

They have become a mob that is ready to lynch Obama. There is no other way to put it. And those who incite the mob are breaking the law.

It is not free speech.
It is not the truth.
They are not mincing words or speaking coded language.

They are speaking directly to their core supporters, not with the intent of winning over independents who they know will be repulsed by this tactic. They are speaking directly to their supporters to incite hatred and anger. And this is illegal. If one of their supporters should, God forbid, harm Obama, then McCain and Palin would be guilty of that crime as well.

They need to be stopped BY LAW ENFORCEMENT. NOW!

[BklynChick]

1. I agree with you. What can we do to help in that effort? To whom would we write letters? I want

to something, but I don't know what to do. I can't help but think if there was a loud public outcry about this, they would have to stop.

[berni_mccoy]

5. A number of DUers have called the Secret Service already. I'd like to see Local Law enforcement

involved... and calling the Senate Ethics committee is good too, but I doubt they will be able to act (other than censure McCain).

[BklynChick]

6. on the phone w/Senate Ethics Committee right now. Anyone have number for secret service?

[grannie4peace]

14. i called the secret service-- google them---their phone # is posted

[grannie4peace]

2. i called the senate ethics committee this a.m.

1 202 224 2981 & complained

[BklynChick]

3. thank you I'm gonna call right now. but what can they do? If anyone has other ideas, numbers pleas

post them

[grannie4peace]

11. they said we can file complaints but that they cannot control the campaigns

but they would see what they could do. fax # is 1 202 224-7416, complaints must be written.... i'm slow at writing , if someone could get a good framework, i could use some help :):)

[CADEMOCRAT7]

60. I called just now, they said there is nothing they can do.

We need to keep trying. At the very least, we are on the record stating our concerns and holding McCain accountable.

[Whisp]

79. they'd sure do something if someone yelled out Kill Him and meant McCain.

thats bs they can't do anything.

[ladjf]

4. I agree.

[Viking12]

7. STOP IT!

If I see this anti-free speech bullshit on DU one more time my head is going to explode. Using your standards, half the people that post here should be arrested. Just because the RWnuts want to shred the Constitution doesn't mean we should jump on the bandwagon.

McCain/Palin are disgusting, horrible, and grossly unethical. That doesn't make them criminals. Counter bad speech with more and better speech, not fascist tendencies.

[berni_mccoy]

10. NO! What they are doing is NOT Protected by Free Speech. They are inciting a Mob

into believing Obama is a terrorist. That could bring harm to Obama.

[Viking12]

21. You clearly have no idea what the legal defintion of incitement is.

Fortunately, there are very well-defined criteria that need to be met before one can be convicted of incitement.

[Jennicut]

12. Fascism is one thing, inciting a crowd to hurt someone is another

I think some of us are just worried because we have seen assignations in this country before because of fear and hatred. I don't think they should be arrested but prominent Rethugs need to calm this down fast because its getting out of control. McCrap opened a can of worms and he won't be able to shut it. I don't think even he expected the level of hatred as he is so out of touch with everything.

[Phredicles]

13. Oh please. If it's legally acceptable for the MkKkrash campaign to incite

this sort of murderous rage, then it's perfectly okay to yell 'Fire!' in the proverbial crowded theater.

I'm sure your head won't explode if you just leave it stuck firmly in the sand...

[onenote]

58. I prefer to leave my head firmly stuck in the Constitution

And, no, there is no similarlity between what McCain/Palin are doing and yelling fire in a crowded theater, at least not from a constitutional perspective.

But those bad guys, William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan -- they didn't know what they were doing, I guess.

[xiamiam]

15. I agree with you but..as paid public servants, inciting people to hatred seems a little more than

just unethical..isn't that what hitler did?..

[grannie4peace]

17. i'm sorry---we are not inciting riots!!!

[Viking12]

19. A bunch of dickheads yelling epithets is not a riot either

[berni_mccoy]

22. No, but it's definitely a mob.

[grannie4peace]

36. comparing the two is like apples to oranges

[The Stranger]

18. The question is whether McCain/Palin's speech creates a clear and present danger.

And waiting until something happens to make that danger manifest will be too late.

[Viking12]

24. ah yes, the "bad tendency" rule

If we arrested people because their speech might cause something to happen we'd have a pretty full jail.

[berni_mccoy]

26. They've incited an ANGRY mob into believe Obama is a terrorist.

What do angry people do to terrorists?

[Viking12]

28. So making people angry should be illegal?

Jeebus, come back to the surface.

Ed: Spelling

[BuyingThyme]

40. The point here seems to be that it should be illegal for black people to run for president.

[taddles]

You seem to conveniently forget that the guy who yelled "KILL HIM"

Is being investigated by the FBI. Threatening a candidate is a felony and inciting people to threaten that candidate is also a felony. Your uninformed whining about free speech is getting pathetic.

[jberryhill]

57. "uninformed whining about free speech"

Please name the Constitutional Law professors you had in law school. One of mine was Joe Biden. He "uninformed" me something terrible, I guess.

[taddles]

85. My apologies to you and Viking if I came off as shrill.

I'm not advocating that McCain and Palin be arrested for the words of others.

[jberryhill]

88. It's okay - It's "Silly Season" again

I have had every expectation that this race would come down to a simple proposition of hate in the end.

Sen. Obama pre-loaded for this dynamic with the "campaign of little things" part of the inauguration speech.

One remarkable talent of crazy people is that they make other people crazy too. It's always a hazard of confronting hate. It's infectious.

Downthread, there is a guy calling for "public flogging" of the Republican ticket. If a repuke said that, we'd go nuts.

[Viking12]

89. Apology accepted.

The tactics employed by the Republicans can be infuriating and cause temporary irrationality. It takes a big person to apologize.

[The Stranger]

27. Then complain to the Supreme Court.

I didn't come up with the rule.

[Viking12]

29. ..and, thankfully, the Supreme Court abandoned that rule 80 years ago.

[The Stranger]

87. Nonsense.

It was issued by Holmes over 80 years ago, not abandoned over 80 years ago. And it has gone through various different formulations, but still forms the basis for the Dennis v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio opinions.

[grannie4peace]

37. amen!!!!!!

[ceejdre82]

98. I agree...

doing McCain bashing on an all democratic site is one thing....calling someone a domestic terrorist and creating hate and anger in front of thousands of people is only going to cause some very dangerous trouble later.

[taddles]

41. Inciting violence IS NOT FREE SPEECH.

grow the fuck up, read a fucking book. There are limits on free speech and the McCain Palin crew are fast approaching them. This is not free speech and if you would bother to read the fucking constitution you might understand that.

[Viking12]

46. Wow, what a literate retort.

I expect to see this kind of crap on FreeRepublic, but not here.

[taddles]

48. Please, your ignorant high horse shit is weak.

[Viking12]

53. LOL. I guess I was bedazzled by all of the relevant Court cases you cited

Oh, wait you didn't cite anything. You just called me a bunch of names.

Why don't you start with Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969). When you're finished reading that I'll provide you with a long list of other court cases that argue well why your tendencies are bullshit.

[jberryhill]

59. Another thing these people don't understand is against whom these cases are normally brought

It's pretty ironic - they don't knew the history of "incitement" cases in the political context.

[Viking12]

90. Precisely. Under the doctrine advocated by many posters here, 1/2 of DU would be in jail

[BlooInBloo]

63. You're on your own, tiger. And you might want to learn the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment, too.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/223346.php

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-dangerous-p.html

[Viking12]

96. WTF does the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." have to do with any of this?

[progressivebydesign]

74. Inciting riots IS against the law and NOT protected by the First Amendment. n/t

[alwysdrunk]

91. McCain incited a riot? Really?

I must have missed those highlights.

[Crooked Moon]

93. thank you

i'm glad to see someone not going off the deep end over this.

[onenote]

8. not in the USA

Sorry, while they should and must be held accountable politically, there is no way in hell that they have committed anything approaching a criminal offense. And that's a good thing, because if they can be held accountable based on the crazies that listen to them, then we've started down a slippery slope where speech will be significantly chilled.

In the US, the crime of "incitement" to the extent it exists, is very narrow, thanks to some very smart and progressive justices of the Supreme Court, including William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, Hugo Black etc, all of whom participated in the unanimous decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, where the conviction of a KKK leader for "advocacy" of violence was overturned. The court made it clear that in order constitute a criminal act, speech must be directed to inciting or producing "imminent" lawless action and must be "likely" to incite or produce such action.

If there is a case for incitement here, and I'm not saying there is, it woudl be against the idiot who yelled "kill him" not against palin or mccain. But, again, they should be called out politically, but not legally.

[jberryhill]

25. The lack of understanding of relevant First Amendment principles around DU is disquieting

These people are just like right-wing "lock 'em up" types.

[Viking12]

33. It's disgusting isn't it.

[jberryhill]

35. It's understandable

As an attorney, I frequently hear from people who are upset by something that someone else has done, but who have a hard time understanding that every time one can say "I'm upset that someone did X" does not necessarily translate into a cognizable cause of action.

Unarmed people blowing off steam about someone who is hundreds of miles away is of course not an imminent threat to public order, but most people really don't know what the law is.

[taddles]

52. Please enlighten us

Please explain when it is ok to threaten a presidential candidate in a public forum? Please explain when it is ok to incite people to make such threats. I guess the FBI's investigation into the man who yelled "kill him" is just cause they have nothing better to do this weekend.

[jberryhill]

54. You think every investigation results in an arrest, or even a conviction?

The FBI and Secret Service investigate all sorts of things. If, in your mind, the fact that authorities are "investigating" something means that a crime has been committed, I hope you never get near actual law enforcement.

See my post below on the specifics of the "Kill him!" statement. That statement itself is not even a particularized statement of intent to perform an act. Go ahead and quote the report on that quote in full context, and explain why you believe, apart from the fact the statement does not reflect a present intent on the part of the speaker, that it refers to Obama and not Ayers.

Now, before the RNC convention, there was a spoof video by the RNC Welcoming Committee that showed the use of a molotov cocktail. That video was used as a basis for search warrants to find materials for making them, and people here went nuts when the search was executed.

But, yes, the FBI and the Secret Service will investigate rumors, ambiguous statements, all sorts of stuff. What part of that do you need explained?

If you really believe that an investigation amounts to an offense having been committed, then I'll hope to see you around the next time some anti-war protesters or code pinkers are arrested.

You would lock up Cindy Sheehan for calling Bush a terrorist at a rally, yes?

[berni_mccoy]

30. What would happen to a dark-skinned person in an airport if someone yelled: "He's Got a Bomb!"...

pointing at that person?

That is essentially what McCain/Palin are doing.

[jberryhill]

38. Hardly

Do you want everyone on DU who has called Bush a terrorist to be locked up?

Cindy Sheehan is going to have to make room in her cell for Sarah Palin, is that it?

[Viking12]

34. Another voice of reason. Thank you.

[symbolman]

9. In another thread I urged everyone to write or call Congress

And demand that McCain be Censured for his part in all this.. I believe that Senate Rules MUST Forbid calling another sitting Senator a "terrorist sympathizer".. Someone here posted the number for the Ethics Committee as well..

I'd say, write, call All the Senators and Congressmen & women and get the ball rolling on Censure.. Even the Threat may back McCain down..

[The Stranger]

16. If anything happens to Obama, all hell will break loose.

It will make the 1960's look like a picnic.

[demokatgurrl]

76. With that I agree 100 percent. They don't want to see

what's unleashed as a result of their words and actions, if Obama is harmed. Hell, I don't even want to see it.

[Billy Burnett]

20. Pretty much the way the world thinks about the USA threatening and endangering everyone.

:(

[NYC_SKP]

23. Agreed, Distracting us from National Security Concerns is Treason.

I'll concede the hate speech part, too.

Combined with the fact that our economy, and as a consequence our national security, are negatively impacted, I believe we've got enough evidence to charge Palin and McCain with conspiracy to commit domestic terrorism.

Lock em up!

[onenote]

67. another constitutional scholar. NOT.

[NYC_SKP]

92. LOL, who switched your coffee for decaf? Your one note is "sour" today...

Just kidding...

But you're right, I'm part of that very small number among DU members who are NOT constitutional scholars!

Have a great weekend!

[meow2u3]

31. Threats against Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates are a Federal felony

covered under US code, Title 18, Section 879.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/41/sections/section_879.html


Section 879. Threats against former Presidents and certain other persons

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or
inflict bodily harm upon -
(1) a former President or a member of the immediate family of a
former President;
(2) a member of the immediate family of the President, the
President-elect, the Vice President, or the Vice President-elect;
(3) a major candidate for the office of President or Vice
President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate;
or (emphasis is mine)
(4) a person protected by the Secret Service under section
3056(a)(6);

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
(b) As used in this section -
(1) the term "immediate family" means -
(A) with respect to subsection (a)(1) of this section, the
wife of a former President during his lifetime, the widow of a
former President until her death or remarriage, and minor
children of a former President until they reach sixteen years
of age; and
(B) with respect to subsection (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this
section, a person to whom the President, President-elect, Vice
President, Vice President-elect, or major candidate for the
office of President or Vice President -
(i) is related by blood, marriage, or adoption; or
(ii) stands in loco parentis;

(2) the term "major candidate for the office of President or
Vice President" means a candidate referred to in subsection
(a)(7) of section 3056 of this title; and
(3) the terms "President-elect" and "Vice President-elect" have
the meanings given those terms in section 871(b) of this title.

[jberryhill]

45. Ah, good a statute...

Now, please quote the actionable threat made by Palin or McCain, with the date, time and place.

The closest comment so far is the guy who shouted "Kill him!" The "him" in that statement is ambiguous, because in the context it was quoted, the proximate reference of the object pronoun "him" was Ayers.

But let's assume that we get past the defense of "I was referring to Ayers" even if the unidentified person became identified, and the unrecorded quote was verified by witnesses, and assume it was Obama.

Is shouting "Kill him!" a threat made by that person?

It is an imperative statement, presumably made to Palin, referring to a person who was hundreds of miles away and in no imminent danger from a crowd which had already passed through security in order to attend the event. Putting that aside, does the statement reflect an intent on the part of that person to "willfully threaten" an individual?

Can you distinguish between:

"Kill him!"

"I would like someone to kill him."

"I hope someone kills him."

"I will kill him."

As a "threat", any statement must be evaluated in the totality of circumstances constituting the context, but considered alone, these statements are significantly distinguishable.

[blue-kite]

55. Then McCain/Palin are not guilty then...?

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or
inflict bodily harm upon -

They themselves are not threatening to kill, kidnap or inflict harm...

I agree with the idea that they are called out politically.

The GOP appears close to imploding. The democratic base is near-fully activated. Independents more and more supporting Obama.
This ridiculous rhetoric of the GOP ticket only serves to strengthen Obama.

[Overseas]

32. MEDIA BOYCOTT of their events would be a big help too.

The corporate media has expressed some concern about being vilified in those hateful rallies too.

So if they would just boycott those hate rallies and refuse to give them the coverage they crave, perhaps that would help them moderate their disgusting tactics.

Or even if the corporate media told the truth about those rallies-- "Desperate about their falling poll numbers, Senator McCain and Governor Palin tried once again to stir up hatred in the crowd at their rally in Wisconsin today. They are playing that dangerous game because they have nothing to say about the issues."

[BuyingThyme]

39. Nonsense.

These are ugly evil people, but they have every right to be so.

[ObamaKerryDem]

42. Not when they're threatening someone elses' safety, they don't..

I mean, I'm all for free speech and for them to speak their mind about the campaign is one thing. But this hate speech--and yes, it is HATE SPEECH--crosses the line as when you infringe on someone elses' right to safety, you forfeit or cancel out that right..

Senator McCain, SHAME ON YOU! You ought to fucking KNOW BETTER. :grr: Palin, as well, though she IS a shame in and of herself....

[BuyingThyme]

44. I support people's right to hate.

[jberryhill]

51. What? No thought crime?

Whodathunkit.

[Viking12]

47. FYI, hate speech is not illegal nor should it be.

[jberryhill]

50. A lot of folks here think it is...

I'm puzzled by that. I assume they might be used to voluntary contractual arrangements, such as college codes of behavior, and they think it reflects the status of First Amendment law generally.

[onenote]

69. of course, a lot of those same people would be guilty of it, if it was illegal

Since many many people openly espoused hatred for chimpy, cheney and their gang. Hey, there was even a time when some DUers (mostly all now chewing on granite pizzas) espoused considerable hate for Hillary, using some very very bad words to do so.

[jberryhill]

49. When Cindy Sheehan called Bush a terrorist, was that also "hate speech"?

Does "hate speech" depend on whether you agree with the viewpoint of the person speaking, or did I miss your "lock up Cindy Sheehan" posts?

[ObamaKerryDem]

61. I've never heard Cindy Sheehan or her sympathizers actually threaten Bush's LIFE, though..

That's the difference.

[jberryhill]

65. And you heard Palin do this? Or McCain?

Since you are so sensitive to "difference", then perhaps you can explain the difference between two very simple sentences:

"Kill him!"

"I am going to kill him."

Identify which statement is an imperative sentence expressing a desire of the speaker for another to act, and which one is a statement of present intent to act on the part of the speaker.

[ObamaKerryDem]

68. No, but by invoking such sentiments from their supporters..

then failing to do anything about it when they yell such things right in front of them, they are enabling them, therefore making them at least partly responsible if, God forbid, something ever happened to Obama. Not saying they should be arrested, but they SHOULD be made to publically denounce this. As elected officials, they ought to know better and yes, they must be held to a higher standard. For them to sit back and let this be said on their behalf with no further comment is an outrage..

But yes, it IS further helping our campaign so I guess they can dig their own hole..

[onenote]

70. Sheehan refers to chimpy as a terrorist

and no one yells anything, so she's okay. But palin says Obama pals around with terrorists, and a dickwad in the audience yells "kill him" and they're guilty of a crime?

So if in response to Obama saying that mccain is too erratic to lead the nation someone yells kill him, Obama should go to jail?

Don't think so.

[ObamaKerryDem]

75. I didn't say that.

McCain/Palin are not neccessarily guilty of CRIMES...but they are certainly guilty of a lack of judgment, therefore contributing to a potential crime--yes, CRIME, because last time I checked, threatening someone and/or actually acting on it is a fuckin' CRIME--from one of their nutbag supporters. And they, unlike Sheehan, are ELECTED OFFICIALS. They ought to know better. But if something were to happen to Obama, some blood would be on their hands because they are not exactly doing anything about it. Now would or should they go to jail for it? Not necessarily, but they should be shamed for it nonetheless..IMHO.

[onenote]

80. i agree fully that they can and must be called out politically for this

Not because they are inciting anything, but because they aren't condemning their shit for brains supporters.

[jberryhill]

77. I absolutely agree with you on the moral and political aspects of it

My issue is with the assertions here about the legal aspects of it.

Not every moral issue translates neatly into a legal one.

If, however, McCain had made his "that one" reference on the floor of the Senate, he would have been disciplined.

People make fun of Biden for praising McCain before criticizing his positions, but that's normal for Senators.

[Ganja Ninja]

43. I don't know about that.

But the attacks don't seem to be working or may even be backfiring on them. The more rabid they become the bigger Obama's lead in the polls. The nut jobs at their rallies are the only people they have left.

[jberryhill]

56. Bingo

The tenor of these rallies, with cowards shouting their cowardly things, is backfiring on them bigtime, and will contribute to an Obama landslide.

[Az_lefty]

72. Yep, Obama is the one coming across as positive and attracting swing voters...

McKrazy is just driving people away...

[daggahead]

62. I said this in another thread ...

We need more of these videos from other McPlain mobs ... Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio ... anywhere there is a McPlain rally.

All you have to do is grab a video camera, put on an Obama shirt and roll film.

[unblock]

64. speech would need to incite "imminent lawless action", otherwise it's constitutionally protected.

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

Imminent lawless action is a term used in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to define the limits of constitutionally protected speech. The rule overturned the decision of the earlier Schenck v. United States (1919), which had established "clear and present danger" as the constitutional limit for speech. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it is likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned.

The doctrine states that speech that will cause, or has as its purpose, "imminent lawless action" (such as a riot) does not have constitutional protection. As of 2008, "imminent lawless action" continues to be the test applied in free speech cases.

[rucky]

66. McCain/Palin are only successul in bringing themselves farther out

of the mainstream. They deserve every slip in the polls, and their rabid fans deserve the own personal hell they're creating for themselves over the next 4-8 years.

They don't scare me a bit. This is a sign of suffering for them, and that's fine by me.

[jberryhill]

81. It's the campaign death rattle

Poppy Bush's last campaign speech was a hoot, on the eve of the election, he was carrying on like it was the end of the world. Given his curious style of emoting, he looked like a loon.

[CADEMOCRAT7]

71. Focus on abuse of power and holding accountability.

We can argue legality here, and go back and forth on inciting violence versus free speech. What is important is that we are on the record holding McCain and Palin accountable for being reckless when in a "place of power" at these rallies.
It is a continual pattern of abusing power. This is what we have suffered through for the last eight years. This is what Palin is under investigation for and the report is due out soon.
They are reckless with power, and this is dangerous. There is responsibility that comes with power. The people who have had power, and abused it, have done great harm. McCain and Palin are already showing the amount of harm they are capable of with their recklessness. We need to point this out.

[xiamiam]

73. good point..reckless abuse of power...and influence..nt

[jberryhill]

82. Ties in with the theme Obama hit of intemperate comments like 'Bomb Iran" etc. /nt

[CADEMOCRAT7]

97. Exactly ! n/t

[Generator]

78. I'd prefer public flogging

But I'm old school.

(oh snap they get a relative virtual flogging when they go in the dustbin of history 11/4-God just go away already)

[jberryhill]

84. Aha - see - now you have made a "threat of bodily harm" to a candidate!

DU'ers - arrest this man immediately, he has threatened physical harm to a candidate.

[workinclasszero]

83. Palin and McCain rallies are becoming more like nazi brownshirt hate fests everyday

F'in lynch mobs for sure. How dare McCain and Palin call Senator Obama a terrorist! Those two assholes are asking for violence against Senator Obama!

Its a damn shameful day in America when two people representing one of the major parties stoop so low as these two shitbags.

SHAME!

[ceejdre82]

99. simple and well said!!!!

[Rocknrule]

86. But in Bush Amerika, the law doesn't apply to Republicans

:argh:

[mscuedawg]

94. McCain Rallies: Domestic Terrorism....alive & well in the US of A

[nini]

95. I think their secret service guys should turn to them and say

"You're under arrest for threatening a presidential candidate". Are't those guys supposed to be protecting ALL the candidates even if they are not assigned directly to them?

Fuck them.. they are evil, vile, American hating pieces of shit.