News and Views you don't have to lose:
Robertson's Call for Assassination of a Foreign Leader is a Crime
26 August 2005 Had he been a Democrat, he'd probably be hiring a criminal attorney.
The Federal Threat Statute: Fines and Prison for Threats to Kidnap or Injure
It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." (Emphases added.)
The interstate or foreign commerce element is plainly satisfied by Robertson's statements. Robertson's 700 Club is listed as broadcasting in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia, not to mention ABC Family Channel satellites which cover not only the United States but several foreign countries as well. In addition, the program was sent around the world via the Internet.
First, Robertson said he wanted to assassinate President Chavez. His threat to "take him out," especially when combined with the explanation that this would be cheaper than war, was clearly a threat to kill.
By Wednesday, Robertson was backing down: "I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'" Robertson claimed on his Wednesday show. "'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping." Under the federal statute, a threat to "kidnap" is expressly covered. Under the federal statute, a threat to "kidnap" is expressly covered.
Robertson's manner, his choice to return to the subject repeatedly in his discourse, and the seriousness with which he stated the threat, all strike me as leading strongly to the conclusion that this was a true threat. Only media pressure partially backed him off. And his "apology" is anything but a retraction.
Will Robertson be investigated or prosecuted by federal authorities? Will he be called before Congress? Will the President, or the Secretary of State, publicly chastise Robertson? Are those three silly questions about a man who controls millions of Republican votes from Christian conservatives?
A misdemeanor offense?
The broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: "Whoever willfully - (1) ... threatens ... a foreign official ..., [or] (2) attempts to... threaten ... a foreign official .. shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."
The text of this misdemeanor statute plainly applies: No one can doubt that Robertson "attempted" to threaten President Chavez.
Yet the statute was written to protect foreign officials visiting the United States - not those in their homelands. Does that make a difference?
By John W. Dean
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082705C.shtml
Non-intelligent design
When scientists and other members of the reality-based community declare that evolution is (a natural law) the only valid and provable account of our planet's history, intelligent design boosters don't cite the Bible. Instead, they earnestly insist that no one ought to claim a monopoly on truth, and that in the interests of intellectual and moral pluralism, "alternatives" to evolution should get a fair hearing in schools.
This week, Arizona Sen. John McCain became the latest Republican politician to urge that "all points of view" be presented to students studying the origins of life.
It's a tad ironic that conservatives and the religious right are now arguing that intelligent design should be taught on the grounds of intellectual pluralism. Needless to say, from the perspective of virtually all reputable scientists, evolution isn't just one theory among many, it's the only scientifically proven account of the origin and development of life on Earth. Denying evolution isn't merely "another perspective." It's like insisting that the sun revolves around the Earth, or that the moon is inhabited by little green guys. Whatever happened to truth?
If the right is sincerely dedicated to supporting pluralism and openness, surely they'd have no further objection to sex education classes that urge condom use, for instance, as long as abstinence-only arguments get equal time. And presumably they wouldn't mind if teachers tell kids that homosexuality is a legitimate form of human behavior, as long as teachers also explain that some people consider it a sin. Nor would conservatives have any basis to object to education about abortion rights, as long as their perspective is also represented.
Because if intelligent design must be taught just because a few crackpot scientists are on board with it, we'll also have to teach about the UFO landings at Roswell and the numerous Elvis sightings that occur each year.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082705H.shtml
University of California Sued over Creationism
A group representing California religious schools has filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints. The complaint centers on classes that incoming students are required to take to meet basic UC admissions standards.
Science, English, history and social science courses that Calvary offers were rejected by UC officials, and two biology textbooks produced by Christian publishers were deemed unacceptable, the lawsuit says.
The Calvary school lawsuit complains that in January 2004 a UC official informed Christian high schools that two Christian biology textbooks weren't acceptable, and that the schools' science course outlines were "not consistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community."
UC officials rejected a proposed Calvary course, "Christianity's Influence on American History," because the class outline "is not consistent with the empirical historical knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community" and its focus was "too narrow/too specialized," the lawsuit says.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20050827-9999-1n27school.html
In Silence a Challenge to Patriot Act
Highlighting concerns of civil rights groups, a lawsuit challenging the FBI's use of the USA Patriot Act filed by a member of the American Library Association is largely under wraps, the US public forbidden to know its details.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082705Z.shtml
SLAPPing Speech
August 24, 2005 -- Molly Ivins mentioned PR Watch's THE WEEKLY SPIN in her recent column
about "strategic lawsuits against public participation" (SLAPPs), in
which corporations file harassment lawsuits to silence their
critics. Ivins cites the experience of Consumers Union, publisher of
Consumer Reports, which "has already spent $10 million defending
itself against a lawsuit filed by Isuzu Motors Ltd. because, eight
years earlier, Consumer Reports rated the Isuzu Trooper 'not
acceptable' for safety reasons. And the case has not yet reached
trial. And that is the real menace of SLAPP suits. It's not that
corporations win them, but that they cost critics so much money that
the critics are silenced -- and so is everyone else who even thinks
about raising some question about a corporate product or practice."
In Las Vegas, a local doctor was sued for his allegation that a city hospital violated the state's cost-containment law.
In Baltimore, members of a community group faced a $252 million lawsuit after circulating a letter questioning the property-buying practices of a local housing developer.
In West Virginia, an environmental activist was sued for $200,000 for criticizing a coal-mining company for activities that were poisoning a local river.
In Pennsylvania, a farmer was sued after testifying to his township supervisors that a low-flying helicopter owned by a local landfill operator caused a stampede that killed several of his cows.
In Washington state, a homeowner found that she couldn't get a mortgage because her real-estate company had failed to pay taxes owed on her house. She uncovered hundreds of similar cases, and the company was forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes. In retaliation, it sued the woman for slander and dragged her through six years of legal harassment before a jury found her innocent.
In Missouri, a high-school English teacher was sued for $1 million after complaining to a weekly newspaper that an incinerator burning hospital waste was a health hazard.
SOURCE: AlterNet, August 19, 2005
http://www.prwatch.org
Thomas Friedman is a famous columnist on the New York Times. Friedman's latest bark is about free speech, which his country's constitution is said to safeguard. He wants the State Department to draw up a blacklist of those who make "wrong" political statements. He is referring not only to those who advocate violence, but those who believe American actions are the root cause of the current terrorism. The latter group, which he describes as "just one notch less despicable than the terrorists", includes most Americans and Britons, according to the latest polls.
Friedman wants a "War of Ideas report" that names those who try to understand and explain, for example, why London was bombed. These are "excuse makers" who "deserve to be exposed".
The "excuse makers" would also include the CIA, which has warned that "Iraq [since the invasion] has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of 'professionalised' terrorists'." Onto the Friedman/Rubin blacklist go the spooks!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082305K.shtml
SPINNING Nuclear Energy
Despite securing up to $13 billion in federal subsidies in the
recently passed energy bill, according to estimates by Public
Citizen, the nuclear industry continues its PR offensive. The major
industry group Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is "soliciting help
from PR agencies to assist in removing all major legislative and
regulatory impediments to a nuclear renaissance," an $8 million PR campaign
reports PR Week.
http://prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=240184&site=3
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. MY NEWSLETTER has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is MY NEWSLETTER endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsViewsnolose
26 August 2005 Had he been a Democrat, he'd probably be hiring a criminal attorney.
The Federal Threat Statute: Fines and Prison for Threats to Kidnap or Injure
It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." (Emphases added.)
The interstate or foreign commerce element is plainly satisfied by Robertson's statements. Robertson's 700 Club is listed as broadcasting in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia, not to mention ABC Family Channel satellites which cover not only the United States but several foreign countries as well. In addition, the program was sent around the world via the Internet.
First, Robertson said he wanted to assassinate President Chavez. His threat to "take him out," especially when combined with the explanation that this would be cheaper than war, was clearly a threat to kill.
By Wednesday, Robertson was backing down: "I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'" Robertson claimed on his Wednesday show. "'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping." Under the federal statute, a threat to "kidnap" is expressly covered. Under the federal statute, a threat to "kidnap" is expressly covered.
Robertson's manner, his choice to return to the subject repeatedly in his discourse, and the seriousness with which he stated the threat, all strike me as leading strongly to the conclusion that this was a true threat. Only media pressure partially backed him off. And his "apology" is anything but a retraction.
Will Robertson be investigated or prosecuted by federal authorities? Will he be called before Congress? Will the President, or the Secretary of State, publicly chastise Robertson? Are those three silly questions about a man who controls millions of Republican votes from Christian conservatives?
A misdemeanor offense?
The broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: "Whoever willfully - (1) ... threatens ... a foreign official ..., [or] (2) attempts to... threaten ... a foreign official .. shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."
The text of this misdemeanor statute plainly applies: No one can doubt that Robertson "attempted" to threaten President Chavez.
Yet the statute was written to protect foreign officials visiting the United States - not those in their homelands. Does that make a difference?
By John W. Dean
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082705C.shtml
Non-intelligent design
When scientists and other members of the reality-based community declare that evolution is (a natural law) the only valid and provable account of our planet's history, intelligent design boosters don't cite the Bible. Instead, they earnestly insist that no one ought to claim a monopoly on truth, and that in the interests of intellectual and moral pluralism, "alternatives" to evolution should get a fair hearing in schools.
This week, Arizona Sen. John McCain became the latest Republican politician to urge that "all points of view" be presented to students studying the origins of life.
It's a tad ironic that conservatives and the religious right are now arguing that intelligent design should be taught on the grounds of intellectual pluralism. Needless to say, from the perspective of virtually all reputable scientists, evolution isn't just one theory among many, it's the only scientifically proven account of the origin and development of life on Earth. Denying evolution isn't merely "another perspective." It's like insisting that the sun revolves around the Earth, or that the moon is inhabited by little green guys. Whatever happened to truth?
If the right is sincerely dedicated to supporting pluralism and openness, surely they'd have no further objection to sex education classes that urge condom use, for instance, as long as abstinence-only arguments get equal time. And presumably they wouldn't mind if teachers tell kids that homosexuality is a legitimate form of human behavior, as long as teachers also explain that some people consider it a sin. Nor would conservatives have any basis to object to education about abortion rights, as long as their perspective is also represented.
Because if intelligent design must be taught just because a few crackpot scientists are on board with it, we'll also have to teach about the UFO landings at Roswell and the numerous Elvis sightings that occur each year.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082705H.shtml
University of California Sued over Creationism
A group representing California religious schools has filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints. The complaint centers on classes that incoming students are required to take to meet basic UC admissions standards.
Science, English, history and social science courses that Calvary offers were rejected by UC officials, and two biology textbooks produced by Christian publishers were deemed unacceptable, the lawsuit says.
The Calvary school lawsuit complains that in January 2004 a UC official informed Christian high schools that two Christian biology textbooks weren't acceptable, and that the schools' science course outlines were "not consistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community."
UC officials rejected a proposed Calvary course, "Christianity's Influence on American History," because the class outline "is not consistent with the empirical historical knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community" and its focus was "too narrow/too specialized," the lawsuit says.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20050827-9999-1n27school.html
In Silence a Challenge to Patriot Act
Highlighting concerns of civil rights groups, a lawsuit challenging the FBI's use of the USA Patriot Act filed by a member of the American Library Association is largely under wraps, the US public forbidden to know its details.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082705Z.shtml
SLAPPing Speech
August 24, 2005 -- Molly Ivins mentioned PR Watch's THE WEEKLY SPIN in her recent column
about "strategic lawsuits against public participation" (SLAPPs), in
which corporations file harassment lawsuits to silence their
critics. Ivins cites the experience of Consumers Union, publisher of
Consumer Reports, which "has already spent $10 million defending
itself against a lawsuit filed by Isuzu Motors Ltd. because, eight
years earlier, Consumer Reports rated the Isuzu Trooper 'not
acceptable' for safety reasons. And the case has not yet reached
trial. And that is the real menace of SLAPP suits. It's not that
corporations win them, but that they cost critics so much money that
the critics are silenced -- and so is everyone else who even thinks
about raising some question about a corporate product or practice."
In Las Vegas, a local doctor was sued for his allegation that a city hospital violated the state's cost-containment law.
In Baltimore, members of a community group faced a $252 million lawsuit after circulating a letter questioning the property-buying practices of a local housing developer.
In West Virginia, an environmental activist was sued for $200,000 for criticizing a coal-mining company for activities that were poisoning a local river.
In Pennsylvania, a farmer was sued after testifying to his township supervisors that a low-flying helicopter owned by a local landfill operator caused a stampede that killed several of his cows.
In Washington state, a homeowner found that she couldn't get a mortgage because her real-estate company had failed to pay taxes owed on her house. She uncovered hundreds of similar cases, and the company was forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes. In retaliation, it sued the woman for slander and dragged her through six years of legal harassment before a jury found her innocent.
In Missouri, a high-school English teacher was sued for $1 million after complaining to a weekly newspaper that an incinerator burning hospital waste was a health hazard.
SOURCE: AlterNet, August 19, 2005
http://www.prwatch.org
Thomas Friedman is a famous columnist on the New York Times. Friedman's latest bark is about free speech, which his country's constitution is said to safeguard. He wants the State Department to draw up a blacklist of those who make "wrong" political statements. He is referring not only to those who advocate violence, but those who believe American actions are the root cause of the current terrorism. The latter group, which he describes as "just one notch less despicable than the terrorists", includes most Americans and Britons, according to the latest polls.
Friedman wants a "War of Ideas report" that names those who try to understand and explain, for example, why London was bombed. These are "excuse makers" who "deserve to be exposed".
The "excuse makers" would also include the CIA, which has warned that "Iraq [since the invasion] has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of 'professionalised' terrorists'." Onto the Friedman/Rubin blacklist go the spooks!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082305K.shtml
SPINNING Nuclear Energy
Despite securing up to $13 billion in federal subsidies in the
recently passed energy bill, according to estimates by Public
Citizen, the nuclear industry continues its PR offensive. The major
industry group Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is "soliciting help
from PR agencies to assist in removing all major legislative and
regulatory impediments to a nuclear renaissance," an $8 million PR campaign
reports PR Week.
http://prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=240184&site=3
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. MY NEWSLETTER has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is MY NEWSLETTER endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsViewsnolose
posted by T. Scott Brineman at 6:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home