Culpable

Bloggie, what they think is not at issue here…I’m sure they mean exactly what they say. I am just suggesting prudence in our rhetoric until more facts reveal themselves. If there is a direct line of causation, then it will come to light, like Nojo suggests. I’m sure the FBI is checking around…

@Also sprach Tommmcatt: Did you watch the video?

@blogenfreude: And I could have said it better, that’s true. Fixed.

@blogenfreude:

Yes, and while I’m glad that he is taking responsibility for his actions, I have to say that all of those things he did back in the day, crazy as they are, are perfectly legal. Mind you, I’m not being an apologist for any of them. My point is that to jump on a casual connection- which is what that murderer had with the phone number in his pocket-as some kind of proof of a direct link between Operation Rescue and this killer may be as irresponsible as some of the things these people have said and done. I’m not condoning their actions or their speech, but I am supporting their right to the legal expression, in word and deed, of their ideas. If they supported this man in terms of direct, personal encouragement then they should be indicted. But if what happened was the airing of their vile point-of-view which, in combination with other influences, confirmed the sick ideas that that guy had, then unfortunately my opinion is that legally these people did nothing more than exercise their constitutional rights.

I’d love to see Cheney hang for his crimes- but if someone kills him tomorrow, should I be called to account legally for saying that? I don’t think so. Outrage, among its other uses, feels good. It is precisely because our outrage feels good that we cannot afford to let our it overrule our good sense, lest we become the thing we hate.

I know that we are reasonable people who can disagree and remain friends, so I’ll shut up about it now. We are not, after all, in disagreement about the substance of what this sick man did, or what those evil people continue to do. We are simply disagreeing about whether or not that connection is a strong enough to for legal action to be the correct action, even though we both agree it is the moral one.

I saw this interview the other night and was impressed with his candor and sincerity. He was very very clear on the point that the Pat Robertsons out there know exactly what their rhetoric is capable of causing. Indeed, as professional snake-oil salesmen, they expect people to take their words literally and then go forth and conquer.

@Also sprach Tommmcatt: Yeah, right now I’m looking at a distinction between legal culpability (Cheney), and moral culpability (the bastards). One is a documented criminal conspiracy to subvert the laws against torture. The other is documented incitement, but I’m as yet unclear where the incitement crosses the line into something actionable.

The gentleman recanting for his previous rhetoric is commendable, but I don’t know that it has bearing on the legal questions. Again, we’re looking at the difference between shaming in the town square, and prosecuting in the courtroom.

@Also sprach Tommmcatt: I’d love to see Cheney hang for his crimes- but if someone kills him tomorrow, should I be called to account legally for saying that?

So true. I can imagine lots of the stuff that’s been posted on Stinque could be dredged up and held against us if the world started spinning backward and leftists in US America took up arms and became violent again.

@nojo: Reminds one of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, and whether shouting so is done with false intentions. I can believe that the violent wing of the “pro-life” movement truly believes there is a fire in the theater in re the cancellation of Blastocyst-American potential lives.

Whereas I don’t for a minute believe that ilk like Cheney truly believe the outrageous lies they spew forth on topics like national security or the “bigness” of (certain) financial concerns disqualifying them from failure.

Actually, this guy is pathetic and, if he was really sorry, would throw himself off a bridge. Around 5:30, though, he tells some real important truths about Cheney trying to incite people to assassinate Obama. Clearly, he wants to destabilize the country, eliminate Obama, create a crisis and restore the junta to finish looting the states and, finally, bomb Iran and send the armed forces to garrison the country and loot it. No doubt he has BushCo working with their Saudi colleagues to organize another attack on the US. The plan is probably some combination of spectacular attack with tens of thousands of deaths, followed by a Fox-led neonazi insurrection and assassination of Obama and Biden, followed by a quick, near bloodless coup by Cheney collaborators in the Pentagon who will appoint Cheney plenipotentiary.

@FlyingChainSaw: It only takes two people talking about something to form a conspiracy. And it only takes a third to form a conspiracy theory.

@Pedonator: It is clear that Cheney is all but shouting, ‘Kill Obama! Kill the mooslim traitor!’

@FlyingChainSaw: I’d be more inclined to believe Cheney is conducting a Black Flag propaganda operation, casting a glamour on us, through the media, to reinforce the illusion of informed debate (and contain the parameters of such debate).

After all, Obama seems to be mostly in agreement with Cheney’s imperial executive objectives, especially when it comes to issues of detainee prisoner rights, state secrecy, plans for eternal war, and fervent support for the Ponzi-economy oligarchs.

That doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to see him dead.

@Pedonator: After all, Obama seems to be mostly in agreement with Cheney’s imperial executive objectives, especially when it comes to issues of detainee prisoner rights, state secrecy, plans for eternal war, and fervent support for the Ponzi-economy oligarchs.