It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
They got in trouble BECAUSE they broke the law! If you get caught, you pay the price. It's as simple as that.
Originally posted by charles1952
Shamatt,
I'm curious. Are you upset because they were arrested, or are you upset that they were not let go? As an example, I was pulled over for speeding while doing 73 in a 70 zone. I couldn't argue with the guy, because, technically, I was breaking the law. But I have to admit I was hoping he wouldn't write me a ticket for it. (But he did.)
Is that the situation here, in your estimation?
charles1952
Originally posted by Shamatt
Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
Originally posted by Shamatt
Ha!
Well, fair enough. You live there, if you are happy with it then I am happy for you. Well, actually I don't care. You won't see what you won't look at any way.
If you don't live here, then why the hell are you bitching about it? Are you just trying to start trouble? Are you just trying to ruffle feathers? I think you can get off your soap box now especially since you have proven beyond a doubt that you don't have a damn clue about our laws.
I don't give a damn about your laws, it is the fact that a significant portion of your population seems to act as though it were bereft of any kind of morality, or even a modicum of love or compassion for their common man.
Call me a loony lefty hippy whatever, but this is, even if you can't see it, and example of what is wrong with America. The way the US acts at home and abroad is a disgrace, and that is all I have to say about it. America is not the world, this is a planet we share.
Byee
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Point of all this is....the U.S. is more than willing to be a peaceful partner in the region and the concept and cries for the U.S. to leave the region forever are fantasy given the oil resourses and the strategic nature of the geography. So rather than waste time and blood fighting a SUPERPOWER....why not simply work with it and reap the benifits...both monetary and political...that come for any country that is an ally of the U.S.
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
By the way....there are MILLIONS of Muslims...former citizens of the Middle East...who are American Citizens....who live here...pay taxes...vote...and contribute to the strength of this nation that is a cross section of every race, creed and color from every corner of the world. They came tro this country for freedom and love this country. I know this for a fact....there is not another country on Earth that would welcome them with such open arms as the United States has done....reguardless of our faults. Split Infinity
Originally posted by charles1952
I'm not looking at this as a religious or personal matter. You don't believe it was disruption; the police, District Attorney, jury and judge thought it was. The Irvine 10 have at least two competent lawyers. There's nothing you can do about it now except perhaps send them encouragement e-mails (You don't need the prison address, they're not going to serve any time) or money to fund their appeals (if they make them).
Lots of people may not like the decision, but that doesn't make it wrong.
The contention here is that if it wasn't for the religious elements at play in this case (muslim and jewish), the conviction would probably be way less (and probably non-existent), as it is in the vast majority of similar cases, highlighting this specific case as an example of Islamophobia.
Yes, there would be. Any lawyer prosecuting a case involving a free speech defense will raise the "free speech is not absolute" line. And it's quite true. I don't know what the DA's reasoning was, but his conclusion is absolutely correct. Raising that argument has nothing to do with religion, it's simply competent lawyering.
Heck, one of the Deputy DA's arguments was that "Freedom of speech is not absolute, because some members of the audience became frightened and unsettled during the disruption". Would there be a similar argument if the defendants were not muslim
Originally posted by charles1952
1.) The conviction was way less. A misdemeanor with no jail time? That's nothing.
Originally posted by charles1952
Yes, there would be. Any lawyer prosecuting a case involving a free speech defense will raise the "free speech is not absolute" line. And it's quite true. I don't know what the DA's reasoning was, but his conclusion is absolutely correct.
Heck, one of the Deputy DA's arguments was that "Freedom of speech is not absolute, because some members of the audience became frightened and unsettled during the disruption". Would there be a similar argument if the defendants were not muslim
Originally posted by Shamatt
reply to post by SplitInfinity
OK. So lets look at it from the other direction. Lets say we are in the middle east discussing this. We think that those heathen American soldiers should get out of our sacred country. This is our land, this is muslim land for muslim people and these Americans should get the hell out. If they want our oil they can buy it on the open market, same as everyone else, they are not welcome here. And I may just be an ant biting the ankles of a giant, but as long as I can make them sting, even if only a little, I will.
Now I am just playing devils advocate here. But see the other side of the coin? It is the classic case of an unstoppable force meeting an unmovable object. And someone needs to stop and look at all the death and destruction this is causing, the human rights abuses - on both sides - the cost of this, not just finacial, but moral and spiritual cost too.
If America were what it would like to see itself as, it would be the bigger party and put this right. Change is possible. There are 360 degrees in a circle, the US could choose to turn it's policy any which way it wanted to. It is after all a super power.
1.) The conviction was way less. A misdemeanor with no jail time? That's nothing.
I'm not sure I understand....you had an expectation of jail time for first-time offenders of a class C misdemeanor?
That is even beyond what I was saying.
It may be roughly similar, religious students protesting at an indoors speech, but that's where it ends.
And yeah, forget most such cases being dismissed, most never even reach the court. Most are never even arrested...the maximum is them being escorted away. As an example of a similar:
rabbibrant.com...
The people in question were never charged (although they were forcibly removed, unlike this case, where the students voluntarily got up and left), and the group that organised this (and many other protests regularly all over the US, including California), the "Jewish Voice for Peace", gave a press release when the "Irvine 11" were convicted, noted that they were never convicted, showing this as a clear sign of the rise of islamophobia in the country.
Ok, I'm sure that was said, but I'm equally sure that wasn't the basis for bringing the charges. The law requires at least a disruption of the meeting, just fear wouldn't have done it.
But I just gave you the deputy DA's reasoning. He said "members of the audience became frightened and unsettled during the disruption".
It wasn't the members of the audience that disrupted the meeting, their internal feelings had nothing to do with it. Besides, I don't know that anyone had a fear of Muslims. But even if they did, in those circumstances, a certain level of fear would be reasonable and expected.
So if some members of the audience were islamophobic (had an irrational fear of muslims), then freedom of speech is okay to curtail?
I'm sorry, but that is just restating your opinion. This case can be explained perfectly well without bringing religion into it at all.
It certainly has everything to do with religion.