yiggy said:
wow dude u guys are like psychologist or something now?!?!
Watch the personal attacks kid. Do you want to discuss this, or do you want to have a pissing contest and waste everyone's time, and see the thread close? Let's discuss this civilly, or what the fuck is the point?
yiggy said:
if u do further reading, you will see he has never participated in an attack or the planning of an attack. simply claiming to be part of a terror organization is not enough to be imprisoned IMO.
I disagree with you here. He did more than claiming to be part of the organization (although I disagree with your IMO there, I think I do anyways. If he claims to be a part of a terrorist organization that's attacked US soil, why isn't that enough for imprisonment? Hell, their main means of attack is suicide bombings, so it's not even like we could go after the actual people committing the attacks. Is Osama the only one you think should be arrested?). He did more than claim to be part of the organization, he
"Gadahn is also charged with providing material support to terrorists, which carries a penalty of up to 15 years in prison."
What do you need to see someone doing to arrest them? Actually catch them the minute they're getting their pilots ready? Arresting suppiers/logistical officers/spies is all gravy imo. I really find that your stance of
'he just showed support, that's all he did' to be you being stubborn and not accepting some key pieces that clearly indicate he's doing more than providing moral support.
yiggy said:
my point is that if this guy can be indicted for this shit whats to keep the govt from eventually charging anyone who dislikes the USA for treason??!?!?
I will give you this - that was a very landmark situation you did bring up, as treason charges are, well, fucking rare. And if that's your point, your main question, I guess all I could really say in response would be: nothing. I don't think it's entirely far fetched that we could see more and more rights stripped away, to the point we're in a messed up facsist police state. But I don't think this is, in any way, shape, or form, setting precedence for such a scenario. I think the patriot act worked towards that scenario much more than this did.
yiggy said:
as i said, itd be one thing if he was claiming to have been part of a planned attack but being propaganda for higher level al qaeda is, IMO, not a good enough excuse to charge someone with treason.
IMO it is, but we can agree to disagree I guess (in all honesty, I don't think you know the definition of treason too well. Go wiki/dicitonary it and you'll see how this guy is clearly treasonous against our country).
And, once again, he wasn't just a propaganda machine, he also provided material support / aid, he is very clearly treasonous (is that a word?).
yiggy said:
again this logic would mean that our country was never founded because in the late 1700s colonists were considered terrorist and commited "treason" by wanting to overthrow the govt.
different situation, i know, but you get my point.
That's such a stretch that I'm not gonna bother to explain into great detail here, because it's such a different situation that it's not good for a comparison. However, your argument is flawed, because it assumes that
'this logic would mean that our country was never founded', because it would've been treasonous at the time to do so. But, as history very cleary shows, the patriots were treasonous, and they did overthrow their rulers, and we now have america because of it. So, no, this logic would not have prevented our country from having been founded, as we were treasonous when we took control of america. I do fail to see how you think the colonists would've been considered terrorists, but again, this example is so far fetched for a comparison that I don't want to know why you'd think they were terrorists, it's just a bad analogy for what we're discussing here.
