PDA

View Full Version : If a NY Times editorial advocated the overthrow of the government...


banyon
06-10-2007, 08:25 AM
...by violent or nonviolent means, would you support having the government shut them down?

banyon
06-10-2007, 09:02 AM
Any thoughts?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-10-2007, 09:04 AM
I'd imagine that this is tied in with truer feelings of freedom of the press, but I'm not sure what caused the origin of the thread :)

banyon
06-10-2007, 09:08 AM
I'd imagine that this is tied in with truer feelings of freedom of the press, but I'm not sure what caused the origin of the thread :)

Since I don't post as much these days, I try to make up for it by being more mysterious. :p

WoodDraw
06-10-2007, 09:12 AM
I'm with Hamas on wondering where this came from..

I voted do nothing. If a newspaper advocates the overthrow of a government and everyone says you're crazy than it just hurts them. If they advocate it and everyone says hey that's not a bad idea than we probably have bigger problems than a newspaper.

Constitutionaly though, I'm not sure the government can shut them down. They can hold them responsible for the consequences, but in general the media can say as they please against the government, whether stupid or not.

PunkinDrublic
06-10-2007, 09:13 AM
No, IMO you can't regulate this kind of free speech. There are plenty of anarchist organizations that exist in the U.S whose platform is overthrowing our government.

banyon
06-10-2007, 09:18 AM
I'm with Hamas on wondering where this came from..

I voted do nothing. If a newspaper advocates the overthrow of a government and everyone says you're crazy than it just hurts them. If they advocate it and everyone says hey that's not a bad idea than we probably have bigger problems than a newspaper.

Constitutionaly though, I'm not sure the government can shut them down. They can hold them responsible for the consequences, but in general the media can say as they please against the government, whether stupid or not.

You are correct, but I'm more interested in what people think should be done, not what is currently legal.

banyon
06-10-2007, 09:19 AM
No, IMO you can't regulate this kind of free speech. There are plenty of anarchist organizations that exist in the U.S whose platform is overthrowing our government.

But if you apply for a federal job, or even state bar admission, you will be asked about whether you have ever belonged to any organization which advocated this.

HolyHandgernade
06-10-2007, 09:23 AM
You are correct, but I'm more interested in what people think should be done, not what is currently legal.

You mean like a lynch mob?

-HH

PunkinDrublic
06-10-2007, 09:26 AM
But if you apply for a federal job, or even state bar admission, you will be asked about whether you have ever belonged to any organization which advocated this.

The violent overthrow of the government. If you advocated the peaceful overthrow of the government you could be in the clear.

HolyHandgernade
06-10-2007, 09:26 AM
But if you apply for a federal job, or even state bar admission, you will be asked about whether you have ever belonged to any organization which advocated this.

How does that violate their free speech?

-HH

WoodDraw
06-10-2007, 09:28 AM
But if you apply for a federal job, or even state bar admission, you will be asked about whether you have ever belonged to any organization which advocated this.

Freedom of speech is the freedom from prior restraint, not future consequences. Yes you can say as you please, but the government is within its right to not employ you based on your wanting to overthrow them and all.

unlurking
06-10-2007, 09:47 AM
I'm with Hamas on wondering where this came from..

I voted do nothing. If a newspaper advocates the overthrow of a government and everyone says you're crazy than it just hurts them. If they advocate it and everyone says hey that's not a bad idea than we probably have bigger problems than a newspaper.

Constitutionaly though, I'm not sure the government can shut them down. They can hold them responsible for the consequences, but in general the media can say as they please against the government, whether stupid or not.

Excellent take.

Mr. Laz
06-10-2007, 10:07 AM
tough ..... but you can't shut them down for either.



"The true test of a free society in terms of freedom of speech is not whether popular and “responsible” speech is protected from government assault but instead whether the most vile and despicable speech receives such protection."

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-10-2007, 11:42 AM
tough ..... but you can't shut them down for either.



"The true test of a free society in terms of freedom of speech is not whether popular and “responsible” speech is protected from government assault but instead whether the most vile and despicable speech receives such protection."

And the constant demonization of the ACLU is a good indicator that many people don't really care about it.

Direckshun
06-10-2007, 11:47 AM
Why the NYT?

Why not Fox News?

patteeu
06-10-2007, 12:49 PM
This is a hard question, for me, when it comes to advocating the violent overthrow of the government. My first inclination would be that they shouldn't be shut down, especially if no one heeds their call. However, if we were in the midst of an actual revolutionary war, I'm not sure I could maintain that position.

It would be easy to say they shouldn't be shut down under any circumstances because Freedom of the Press is such a bedrock freedom, but the true test only comes when we believe that violent revolt is a real possibility.

banyon
06-10-2007, 03:06 PM
This is a hard question, for me, when it comes to advocating the violent overthrow of the government. My first inclination would be that they shouldn't be shut down, especially if no one heeds their call. However, if we were in the midst of an actual revolutionary war, I'm not sure I could maintain that position.

It would be easy to say they shouldn't be shut down under any circumstances because Freedom of the Press is such a bedrock freedom, but the true test only comes when we believe that violent revolt is a real possibility.

Apparently not just you, as no ordinarily right-leaning posters have voted either.

stevieray
06-10-2007, 04:06 PM
tough ..... but you can't shut them down for either.



"The true test of a free society in terms of freedom of speech is not whether popular and “responsible” speech is protected from government assault but instead whether the most vile and despicable speech receives such protection."

Don Imus?

|Zach|
06-10-2007, 04:08 PM
Don Imus?
Don Imus is free to say whatever he likes.

SCChief
06-10-2007, 04:19 PM
Don't shut them down for either, but they should suffer the consequences of it. If they actually incite violence, they should be held accountable. Just as if they actually lie about something, they should face charges for such.

What brought this on? Argentina's "President" shutting down the opposition TV channel?

Cochise
06-10-2007, 04:19 PM
I voted yes since it appears that sedition is still illegal... it's still in the United Sates Code anyway.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002385----000-.html


§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

banyon
06-10-2007, 04:28 PM
Don't shut them down for either, but they should suffer the consequences of it. If they actually incite violence, they should be held accountable. Just as if they actually lie about something, they should face charges for such.

What brought this on? Argentina's "President" shutting down the opposition TV channel?

Venezuela, but yes, you guessed correctly. :thumb:

Mr. Laz
06-10-2007, 04:38 PM
Don Imus?
Dixie Chicks?

stevieray
06-10-2007, 04:43 PM
Dixie Chicks?

another good example?

|Zach|
06-10-2007, 04:46 PM
They also have the right to say whatever they please.

Mr. Laz
06-10-2007, 05:02 PM
another good example?
actually, probably not ..... neither had government censorship


it was all free market repercussions


big difference between a government shutting someone down for saying something and public condemnation that results in loss of job or loss of sales.

stevieray
06-10-2007, 05:09 PM
actually, probably not ..... neither had government censorship


it was all free market repercussions


big difference between a government shutting someone down for saying something and public condemnation that results in loss of job or loss of sales.

i hear ya...your quote made me think of Imus, but not in relation to the thread.

mlyonsd
06-10-2007, 07:10 PM
The sad thing is this question will probably come true someday. I'm guessing within the next hundred years.

Mr. Kotter
06-10-2007, 07:42 PM
Advocating VIOLENT overthrow of the government is illegal. Period. Now, whether the government CHOOSES to respond....or whether the SPECIFICS of a situation warrants a response, is entirely another question.

While the government can't engage in prior restraint, it can adjudicate consequences. Also, there is a distinction between anarchist organizations which no one (in significant numbers) pays real attention too, and the NY Times which is deemed a "credible" and "influential" media source in the minds of many. The two organizations and groups would warrant different consequences depending on what the court decided....was the "likely consequences" of such speech, especially as it pertained to promoting, and the likelihood, of significant "social disorder" or other subversive activities which are illegal.They also have the right to say whatever they please.Not really. Unless you mean to say they can say it, but may suffer consequences. Treason, espionage, sabotage and sedition (depending on circumstances") are NOT protected as free speech under the first amendment....

They can be considered acts which may lead to significant social "disorder," are subversive activities in promoting VIOLENT overthrow of the government, which from a source such as the NY Times.....would likely invoke some significant consequence. Shut down, after one such incident? Probably not. However, repeated violations (especially during "wartime") would likely bring significant consequences.

SCChief
06-10-2007, 08:14 PM
Venezuela, but yes, you guessed correctly. :thumb:

That's what I get for posting from Vicodin-land!

lol

Logical
06-10-2007, 08:43 PM
Advocating VIOLENT overthrow of the government is illegal. Period. Now, whether the government CHOOSES to respond....or whether the SPECIFICS of a situation warrants a response, is entirely another question.

While the government can't engage in prior restraint, it can adjudicate consequences. Also, there is a distinction between anarchist organizations which no one (in significant numbers) pays real attention too, and the NY Times which is deemed a "credible" and "influential" media source in the minds of many. The two organizations and groups would warrant different consequences depending on what the court decided....was the "likely consequences" of such speech, especially as it pertained to promoting, and the likelihood, of significant "social disorder" or other subversive activities which are illegal.Not really. Unless you mean to say they can say it, but may suffer consequences. Treason, espionage, sabotage and sedition (depending on circumstances") are NOT protected as free speech under the first amendment....

They can be considered acts which may lead to significant social "disorder," are subversive activities in promoting VIOLENT overthrow of the government, which from a source such as the NY Times.....would likely invoke some significant consequence. Shut down, after one such incident? Probably not. However, repeated violations (especially during "wartime") would likely bring significant consequences.

Please quote in the constitution support for your assertion in bold. You can find laws which do not trump the Bill of rights that support that statement but I really doubt the constitution does, especially given the way the founding fathers wrote in their private papers.

Silock
06-10-2007, 08:47 PM
Advocating VIOLENT overthrow of the government is illegal. Period. Now, whether the government CHOOSES to respond....or whether the SPECIFICS of a situation warrants a response, is entirely another question.

While the government can't engage in prior restraint, it can adjudicate consequences. Also, there is a distinction between anarchist organizations which no one (in significant numbers) pays real attention too, and the NY Times which is deemed a "credible" and "influential" media source in the minds of many. The two organizations and groups would warrant different consequences depending on what the court decided....was the "likely consequences" of such speech, especially as it pertained to promoting, and the likelihood, of significant "social disorder" or other subversive activities which are illegal.Not really. Unless you mean to say they can say it, but may suffer consequences. Treason, espionage, sabotage and sedition (depending on circumstances") are NOT protected as free speech under the first amendment....

They can be considered acts which may lead to significant social "disorder," are subversive activities in promoting VIOLENT overthrow of the government, which from a source such as the NY Times.....would likely invoke some significant consequence. Shut down, after one such incident? Probably not. However, repeated violations (especially during "wartime") would likely bring significant consequences.

Damn... pretty much nailed it right there.

Silock
06-10-2007, 08:53 PM
Please quote in the constitution support for your assertion in bold. You can find laws which do not trump the Bill of rights that support that statement but I really doubt the constitution does, especially given the way the founding fathers wrote in their private papers.

The Supreme Court has regularly upheld the doctrine of "harm" when it comes to limiting free speech. Look up Brandenberg versus Ohio. That basically came down to the government not being able to limit free speech unless it's going to cause harm and/or incite lawlessness.

So, for a nonviolent overthrow, there's nothing they could legally do. For violent overthrow, they'd have to prove that the NY Times was going to actually cause what it was supporting. Depending on the reaction to the article, and whether or not people actively took to the streets, that might or might not be hard to prove.

Logical
06-10-2007, 08:56 PM
The Supreme Court has regularly upheld the doctrine of "harm" when it comes to limiting free speech. Look up Brandenberg versus Ohio. That basically came down to the government not being able to limit free speech unless it's going to cause harm and/or incite lawlessness.

So, for a nonviolent overthrow, there's nothing they could legally do. For violent overthrow, they'd have to prove that the NY Times was going to actually cause what it was supporting. Depending on the reaction to the article, and whether or not people actively took to the streets, that might or might not be hard to prove.

I disagree, they can write it, broadcast it, and shout it on the street corners completely legally. Until they actually facilitate it they have done no harm.

Silock
06-10-2007, 09:05 PM
I disagree, they can write it, broadcast it, and shout it on the street corners completely legally. Until they actually facilitate it they have done no harm.

That's why I said they have to prove it. It's much like threatening the life of the President, but a little harder to prove. It's not 100% certain to be protected speech.

patteeu
06-10-2007, 09:34 PM
Apparently not just you, as no ordinarily right-leaning posters have voted either.

Are the right leaning posters the only ones who recognize that we can't pretend we live in a completely free utopia that will always right itself regardless of the practical situation on the ground?

I'd vote for not shutting them down in either case if there was a caveat that if we found ourselves in the middle of open warfare, we'd all lose a heck of a lot more freedoms than the freedom of the press. Given the poll options, my vote is "other".

listopencil
06-10-2007, 10:18 PM
Please quote in the constitution support for your assertion in bold. You can find laws which do not trump the Bill of rights that support that statement but I really doubt the constitution does, especially given the way the founding fathers wrote in their private papers.


Just because a law trumps the Bill Of Rights doesn't mean that law isn't going to be enforced. Shoot, many actions by our Federal government appear (to me, anyway) to break the spirit if not the letter of some of our founding documents. I guess it depends on which ideals you hold most sacred if not all of them. Frankly I'm disgusted by it but I can live with enforcing sedition law.

Logical
06-10-2007, 10:19 PM
Just because a law trumps the Bill Of Rights doesn't mean that law isn't going to be enforced. Shoot, many actions by our Federal government appear (to me, anyway) to break the spirit if not the letter of some of our founding documents. I guess it depends on which ideals you hold most sacred if not all of them. Frankly I'm disgusted by it but I can live with enforcing sedition law.

This is true, does not make it right. Unfortunately we cannot trust our government to do what is right on many issues.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 07:15 AM
Please quote in the constitution support for your assertion in bold. You can find laws which do not trump the Bill of rights that support that statement but I really doubt the constitution does, especially given the way the founding fathers wrote in their private papers.It's in the case law for the First Amendment...Supreme Court decisions handed down over the years, regarding sedition. If you wish to search it, Schenck vs. the U.S......as it pertains to the "clear and present danger" rule, and (in the language of later rulings) "where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

This is true, does not make it right. Unfortunately we cannot trust our government to do what is right on many issues.


What is "right"....depends greatly on one's interpretation of what the founders intended, what the Consititutions says, and what the courts have decided the Constitution says. That you or I disagree with it, is of little real consequence.

BucEyedPea
06-11-2007, 08:43 AM
I said "other" due to not enough data...but I am inclined to agree that it is sedition and illegal. Even in our early republic some of our Founders were shocked and shook at Shay's rebellion. Adams felt that those who rebel against the laws of the republic should be put to death. Then there was the rebellion of the southern states (certain pov's considered it a rebellion).

Jefferson wrote this:
"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. …God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Most revolutions wind up worse than their former govts though.
The American one was more unique, imo at least in the first 120 years.
Then there is the question of what if there is an internal coup in our govt but we never know of it but don't like what it's doing?

OTOH....one just needs to take a look at when the concepts in the Declaration of Independence would ever apply. So it's not an absolute to me. No matter who's in power, they will protect their turf though.

Does anyone know that quote by Churchill...that goes something like:

In any known conflict, only 2% are involved, another 3% or some small number really know what went on, 5% watch and the rest don't even know what happened? I can never find it on the web.

banyon
06-11-2007, 09:04 AM
I said "other" due to not enough data...but I am inclined to agree that it is sedition and illegal. Even in our early republic some of our Founders were shocked and shook at Shay's rebellion. Adams felt that those who rebel against the laws of the republic should be put to death. Then there was the rebellion of the southern states (certain pov's considered it a rebellion).

Jefferson wrote this:
"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. …God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Most revolutions wind up worse than their former govts though.
The American one was more unique, imo at least in the first 120 years.
Then there is the question of what if there is an internal coup in our govt but we never know of it but don't like what it's doing?

OTOH....one just needs to take a look at when the concepts in the Declaration of Independence would ever apply. So it's not an absolute to me. No matter who's in power, they will protect their turf though.

Does anyone know that quote by Churchill...that goes something like:

In any known conflict, only 2% are involved, another 3% or some small number really know what went on, 5% watch and the rest don't even know what happened? I can never find it on the web.

Not enough data? It's a friggin hypothetical question! And you are the one who often complains about DC being too much like a legal deposition. :p

Nightwish
06-11-2007, 10:23 AM
...by violent or nonviolent means, would you support having the government shut them down?
I voted "Other." I definitely do not support having the government shut them down, as you specifically asked in the opening post. If their owners shut them down, or if organized citizens (lobbies, pickets, strikes, whatever) forced them to shut down, that's another story. I'm all for freedom of the press, but I'm also all for the citizens doing what they feel inspired to do, within the law, to curb or influence the press, and if the press cannot survive the ordeal, too bad for them.

Nightwish
06-11-2007, 10:39 AM
I voted yes since it appears that sedition is still illegal... it's still in the United Sates Code anyway.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002385----000-.html
For the sake of argument, let's assume that our constitutionally elected government had ushered in an administration that then threw out the Bill of Rights, threw out the Constitution, and declared there would be no further elections, that Democracy was out the window (none of which is probable, but all of which is possible)? Would you advocate a strict adherence to the US Code, or would you favor breaking that law for the greater good? Laws which protect our government are only as good as the character of the government they protect.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 11:07 AM
For the sake of argument, let's assume that our constitutionally elected government had ushered in an administration that then threw out the Bill of Rights, threw out the Constitution, and declared there would be no further elections, that Democracy was out the window (none of which is probable, but all of which is possible)? Would you advocate a strict adherence to the US Code, or would you favor breaking that law for the greater good? Laws which protect our government are only as good as the character of the government they protect.

Checks and balances, and separation of powers makes your scenario highly unlikely if not impossible in our system---short of a coup de tat, or some pseudo Civil War (in which case, of course adherence to the US Code that is out the window on one side, opens it up to anarchy.)

BucEyedPea
06-11-2007, 11:53 AM
Not enough data? It's a friggin hypothetical question! And you are the one who often complains about DC being too much like a legal deposition. :p
Nonsense, I qualified my "other."

No need to be a full legal deposition on it...just some basic data.
I gave it.

Basically, any gov't in power will consider this seditious and protect it's turf—even so called free ones. One pays the price for it if taken too far. Who would advertise it in a public paper anyway?

I know ya' have the goofy smiley but I think you mean it somewhat. :p

BucEyedPea
06-11-2007, 12:06 PM
For the sake of argument, let's assume that our constitutionally elected government had ushered in an administration that then threw out the Bill of Rights, threw out the Constitution, and declared there would be no further elections, that Democracy was out the window (none of which is probable, but all of which is possible)? Would you advocate a strict adherence to the US Code, or would you favor breaking that law for the greater good? Laws which protect our government are only as good as the character of the government they protect.



This is a hypothetical scenario where I say we would have a right to apply our Declaration of Independence ...there comes a time in the "course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

Yep! To me rights do not come from earthly govts...but a higher source, natural and inalienable.

But beware, whatever comes to power that may oppress, will still fight you, jail you and punish you. That must always be kept in mind. You just better win.

I'd rather pull a Gandi. That works too. Yep! He ended the British Empire.

banyon
06-11-2007, 02:05 PM
Nonsense, I qualified my "other."

No need to be a full legal deposition on it...just some basic data.
I gave it.

Basically, any gov't in power will consider this seditious and protect it's turf—even so called free ones. One pays the price for it if taken too far. Who would advertise it in a public paper anyway?

I know ya' have the goofy smiley but I think you mean it somewhat. :p

Nah, I really didn't mean it, ergo the smiley.

I'm not one of those people who goes usin' smileys all willy-nilly. **cough-go bo-cough, cough-Radar Chief*** :)

Logical
06-11-2007, 02:12 PM
Checks and balances, and separation of powers makes your scenario highly unlikely if not impossible in our system---short of a coup de tat, or some pseudo Civil War (in which case, of course adherence to the US Code that is out the window on one side, opens it up to anarchy.)

If the President did not actually have control of the troops I would agree with you. In our original system he did not. That is no longer the case.

Now whether the military would revolt against him if he were to act as if he was a dictator is another thing. But to say Congress could stop him under the current setup is not in my opinion factual.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 03:57 PM
If the President did not actually have control of the troops I would agree with you. In our original system he did not. That is no longer the case.

Now whether the military would revolt against him if he were to act as if he was a dictator is another thing. But to say Congress could stop him under the current setup is not in my opinion factual.

Under our current Constitution, the President IS commander in chief. Congress and the Courts could, and would, stop him....in the scenario envisioned here. To suggest otherwise, is cynicism taken to an absurd extreme.

Logical
06-11-2007, 06:52 PM
Under our current Constitution, the President IS commander in chief. Congress and the Courts could, and would, stop him....in the scenario envisioned here. To suggest otherwise, is cynicism taken to an absurd extreme.
What are they going to use to stop him if the troops are unquestioningly willing to follow his orders? They have no enforcement branches to bring the military under control, and they cannot provide direction to our troops. I am pretty sure I can find a post where you yourself wrote that. War Powers Act gives him what is it 90 days of war making power without their consent.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 07:22 PM
What are they going to use to stop him if the troops are unquestioningly willing to follow his orders? They have no enforcement branches to bring the military under control, and they cannot provide direction to our troops. I am pretty sure I can find a post where you yourself wrote that. War Powers Act gives him what is it 90 days of war making power without their consent.

You are VASTLY overestimating the power of the President and the willingness of the military to follow illegal orders--illegal orders DO NOT have to be followed...and you underestimating the resolve of the American people, including leadership in Congress, to stand up to such lame ass wild-eyed attempt that you are hallucinating about here.

Logical
06-11-2007, 08:46 PM
You are VASTLY overestimating the power of the President and the willingness of the military to follow illegal orders--illegal orders DO NOT have to be followed...and you underestimating the resolve of the American people, including leadership in Congress, to stand up to such lame ass wild-eyed attempt that you are hallucinating about here.

So you would be willing to support Armed insurection against the President and the Military if they attempted an illegal takeover of the US government. I thought you would.;)

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 09:11 PM
So you would be willing to support Armed insurection against the President and the Military if they attempted an illegal takeover of the US government. I thought you would.;)

Fugg, yeah I would! Did you really harbor any doubts? I'll lead a friggin' Brigade if I needed to....:cuss:

:)

Logical
06-11-2007, 09:12 PM
Fugg, yeah I would! Did you really harbor any doubts? I'll lead a friggin' Brigade if I needed to....:cuss:

:)

Serious question, how many troops in a brigade?

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 09:23 PM
Serious question, how many troops in a brigade?
Depends on the particular unit....but it's 3 Battalions, plus support. Between 4-5,000 troops, IIRC.

go bowe
06-11-2007, 10:35 PM
...by violent or nonviolent means, would you support having the government shut them down?no...

that little thingy they call the first amendment would keep the government from shutting down a newspaper, no matter how offensive it may be to some people...

but various lunatic outer fringe publications have been calling for the violent overthrow of our government for like forever...

and they're still in business (well some of them at least)...

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-11-2007, 11:41 PM
You are VASTLY overestimating the power of the President and the willingness of the military to follow illegal orders--illegal orders DO NOT have to be followed...and you underestimating the resolve of the American people, including leadership in Congress, to stand up to such lame ass wild-eyed attempt that you are hallucinating about here.

"Illegal" is a highly subjective term regarding the military.

Fishpicker
06-11-2007, 11:45 PM
illegal orders DO NOT have to be followed

how about Lawful orders?

banyon
06-12-2007, 10:47 AM
no...

that little thingy they call the first amendment would keep the government from shutting down a newspaper, no matter how offensive it may be to some people...

but various lunatic outer fringe publications have been calling for the violent overthrow of our government for like forever...

and they're still in business (well some of them at least)...

go bo, you didn't play fair.

the question is should they do it. If your answer is yes, then it can be done legally with a constitutional amendment.