NationStates Jolt Archive

I just received a newsletter from Congressman John Sullivan (R. OK), which states that Congress has passed legislation criminalizing protests at military funerals. I am glad that Congress has acted and hope the Senate passes it also. Those who gave their life for our country deserve respect, especially at their funerals.

Below is the quote from the newsletter.


Paying Respect to America's Fallen Heroes in Uniform

"Across the country, there have been reports of groups actively protesting at military funerals and services. Our servicemen and women, who have already given the ultimate sacrifice, deserve to be honored with dignity and their families given the chance to pay their respects in peace. This week my colleagues in the House and I passed H.R. 5037, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act of 2006. This legislation establishes criminal penalties for those who choose to disrupt the burial of a fallen American service member and establishes time and space boundaries for those protesting funerals at national cemeteries. It is sad and frustrating that this legislation is even necessary, but these families and their soldiers deserve to have their respect and dignity protected during their time of loss."

Good.

why only military funerals?

Because Congress doesn't have any legitimate authority to legislate conduct at non-military funerals?

why only military funerals?

Because civilians don't deserve respect.

'tis a good thing

This is good.

Because Congress doesn't have any legitimate authority to legislate conduct at non-military funerals?
what authority does it have any legitimate authority to legislate conduct at military funerals?

what authority does it have any legitimate authority to legislate conduct at military funerals?
I would assume on account of the fact that they are military funerals.

We've seen this before and I still feel that it is wrong to protest any funeral especialy against someone who died so you can protest in the proper place.
If my, or my cousin's, or any of my buddies funerals were protested (most are in the Army) I would (or would want) the family to sue the hell out of them for emotional assult and causing purpusful emotional trama. Thats if I didn't break their nose.

I would assume on account of the fact that they are military funerals.
...and? The soldier is not in service anymore, is he?

Once again congress passes legislation based on subjective, public, opinion. Yes, protesting at funerals, especially at those for who served this country, is wrong and unjustifiable, though our opinions on the rudeness of the action has absolutely no bearing to its legality. Be objective, ye government, please.

why only military funerals?

Because right now, those are the only funerals that are being protested. :rolleyes:

Have they forgotten the whole “peaceably assemble” thing?

Because right now, those are the only funerals that are being protested. :rolleyes:
Except for gay people. :rolleyes:

what authority does it have any legitimate authority to legislate conduct at military funerals?

Yes. Congress makes the laws for the United States. The Constitution gives it that authority.

Yes. Congress makes the laws for the United States. The Constitution gives it that authority.

Surely he was speaking generally. The Congress, technically, can do anything they want if it is passed. If they want to repeal the Constitution and impose slavery, they can. Does that give them the right to? No.

Yes. Congress makes the laws for the United States. The Constitution gives it that authority.
So it might as well protect gay funerals?

Surely he was speaking generally. The Congress, technically, can do anything they want if it is passed. If they want to repeal the Constitution and impose slavery, they can. Does that give them the right to? No.
I actually think funerals should be protected. But not just military funerals.

There's no reason why this Act should be passed as is. Non-military funerals deserve the same treatment as military funerals. It's not like military funerals are the only ones getting protested anyway, since funerals for homosexuals have been protested at as well. If Congress is going to prevent protests at military funerals, why not those for gays too?

Not to mention, the bill designates a set amount of space around the funeral that no protests may be conducted in. What happens when this radius extends outside the property of the cemetary? It ends up taking away peoples right to peacably assemble on public property.

I think this is a bad precedent because it exclusively protects one subset of citizens while excluding others who have had the same treatment.

Have they forgotten the whole “peaceably assemble” thing?
Try Godhatesfags.com or whatever it is.
If running around screaming 'YOUR SON IS IN HELL BECAUSE HE FIGHTS OF BUSH THE FAG PIMP!' counts as peacable assembly, then we need to redefine what peacable is.
Those people give psuedochristians everywhere a bad name.

I think this is a bad precedent because it exclusively protects one subset of citizens while excluding others who have had the same treatment.
Which is perfectly natural because some are more equal than others.

Yes. Congress makes the laws for the United States. The Constitution gives it that authority.

uhhhhh, doesn't the First Amendment have something to say on the subject?

Which is perfectly natural because some are more equal than others.

Please clarify.

Which is perfectly natural because some are more equal than others.

How, exactly?

How, exactly?

Please clarify.
We have this book in Europe, it's called Animal Farm. Are you familiar with it?

We have this book in Europe, it's called Animal Farm. Are you familiar with it?

I'm in Europe, and I've read it. Rather good satire on totalitarianism and Stalinism. One book doesn't make the case for some being more equal than others. Especially not the military.

I'm in Europe, and I've read it. Rather good satire on totalitarianism and Stalinism. One book doesn't make the case for some being more equal than others. Especially not the military.
Who says it's satire?

Who says it's satire?

It uses animals on a farm to discuss totalitarianism and Stalinism. I believe that covers the required points for a Satire. Otherwise Orwell would have written a political essay; instead he used animals as metaphors. Thus, satire.

It uses animals on a farm to discuss totalitarianism and Stalinism. I believe that covers the required points for a Satire. Otherwise Orwell would have written a political essay; instead he used animals as metaphors. Thus, satire.
Would you recognise Satire if it, along with its' siblings, Cynicism, Parody, and Sarcasm, bit you in the face?

If the protest is being held on public property, then Congress has no right to stop it. That is unless we've been busy repealing the First Amendment so troublesome to the delicate and often frail sensibilities of Republicans, Veterans, and right-wing pundits.

If this stops even one single protest being held on public property, then I say it's nothing less than tyrrany and should be stopped.

We have the right to protest soldiers, alive or dead.

*spits on Audie Murphy's grave*

Would you recognise Satire if it, along with its' siblings Cynicism, Parody, and Sarcasm, bit you in the face?

What the hell is your problem? Animal Farm is a satire. It can sort of be seen as a parody, as well as a cynical and sarcastic look at the hypocrisy of Stalinism and its perversion of Communism.


But really - why the attack?

Would you recognise Satire if it, along with its' siblings, Cynicism, Parody, and Sarcasm, bit you in the face?

Actually, he's right. Don't make the mistake of believing a "satire" must be funny. Comedy is born of tragedy. Imitation is not always flattery.

If the protest is being held on public property, then Congress has no right to stop it. That is unless we've been busy repealing the First Amendment so troublesome to the delicate and often frail sensibilities of Republicans, Veterans, and right-wing pundits.

If this stops even one single protest being held on public property, then I say it's nothing less than tyrrany and should be stopped.

We have the right to protest soldiers, alive or dead.

*spits on Audie Murphy's grave*
I don't think this bill will pass, or if it does that it will hold up in court. It's a bill designed to placate the people who see Fred Phelps and his merry band of assholes and wonder what their local Congressperson is doing about it. This is the kind of crap you see in an election year when Senators and Representatives try to hold on to their seat: short-sighted, feel-good legislation.

This is acceptable in the sense that protesting at ANY funeral is probably a violation of "peaceable assembly."
It's inacceptable in that it singles out one group for this protection.

Overall it's bad in that I've never heard of it happening before, so a law in response to (I'm totally guessing here) <15 incidents in 5 years is a (relative) waste of our legislature's time...and, to paraphrase the words of that hot conservative lawyer on The West Wing, "every extra law we have restricts freedom a little more." (Ignoring the other problems with that statement, of course.)

Yes. Congress makes the laws for the United States. The Constitution gives it that authority.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

-- U.S. Constitution, Amendment I


Stop spitting on it. It's done more for you than any veteran ever has.

What the hell is your problem? Animal Farm is a satire. It can sort of be seen as a parody, as well as a cynical and sarcastic look at the hypocrisy of Stalinism and its perversion of Communism.


But really - why the attack?
Everyone knows that Animal farm is a satire. Everyone who has read it knows the rule saying that some animals are more equal than others, even if all are equal.

No reason to feel attacked. Mocked a little, but not attacked. Unfairly, too, because there was no way you should have known that I made the original remark, that some animals are more equal than others, in a sarcastic spirit.

So, you have my insincere apologies.

This is acceptable in the sense that protesting at ANY funeral is probably a violation of "peaceable assembly."

I wasn't aware that the Westboro Baptist Church used violence.

Everyone knows that Animal farm is a satire. Everyone who has read it knows the rule saying that some animals are more equal than others, even if all are equal.

No reason to feel attacked. Mocked a little, but not attacked. Unfairly, too, because there was no way you should have known that I made the original remark, that some animals are more equal than others, in a sarcastic spirit.

So, you have my insincere apologies.

...

Right...

Interesting so this would protect people like Lt. William Calley.....

...Don't make the mistake of believing a "satire" must be funny...
Do many make that mistake? I didn't.

Do many make that mistake? I didn't.

Some do. If you didn't, cool.

I wasn't aware that the Westboro Baptist Church used violence.
I don't know of any of the specific cases. I'm referring to the fact that there are many kinds of peace. I think that coming to mourn your dead son or husband or friend or whatever (I generalize as male given the fact that it's a bill about dead soldiers) and finding people leading a protest qualifies you as having been attacked. Not deliberately, perhaps, but attacked nonetheless.

This is coming from somebody who hates and argues against the Iraq war about as strongly as is possible, and has done so since before we knew for sure it would happen.

Try Godhatesfags.com or whatever it is.
If running around screaming 'YOUR SON IS IN HELL BECAUSE HE FIGHTS OF BUSH THE FAG PIMP!' counts as peacable assembly, then we need to redefine what peacable is.
And what if it's someone quietly holding a sign saying "war is wrong"
What if an anti-war sign is erected on someone's private property that happens to fall within the boundaries.
Heck, what if it's someone protesting for the war and military.

Once again, a poorly thought-through knee-jerk response to gain public brownie points.

I don't know of any of the specific cases. I'm referring to the fact that there are many kinds of peace. I think that coming to mourn your dead son or husband or friend or whatever (I generalize as male given the fact that it's a bill about dead soldiers) and finding people leading a protest qualifies you as having been attacked. Not deliberately, perhaps, but attacked nonetheless.

I'm not saying it isn't offensive, or cruel, or emotionally distressing. But it's still "peaceable assembly," and a manifestation of freedom of expression.

This is coming from somebody who hates and argues against the Iraq war about as strongly as is possible, and has done so since before we knew for sure it would happen.

And this is coming from someone who thinks Fred Phelps and a couple hundred pounds of feces differ only superficially, if that. But he and his gang of worthless filth have as much right to free speech as the rest of us.

I wasn't aware that the Westboro Baptist Church used violence.

Peaceful does not necessarily mean to be without physical violence.

Veterans have earned the right to be laid to rest peacefully and in an honorable manner.

I'll never understand why people feel the need to protest the burial of our soldiers who, nothing less than ironically, protect the very freedom of speech those protestors are abusing.

This specific law will become part of a veteran's benefits package and possibly will lead the way to further legislation providing protection for all funerals.

As for whether it violates freedom of speech, or the freedom to assemble, those rights are to be used responsibly. When those freedoms are abused to the extent shown here, should something not be done? The protestors do nothing to the deceased. They do, however, greatly affect the family of the deceased.

As for whether it violates freedom of speech, or the freedom to assemble, those rights are to be used responsibly. When those freedoms are abused to the extent shown here, should something not be done?
Unless by "responsibly" you mean "peaceably," no, nothing should be done.
But as I've said, I don't think protesting funerals counts as peaceably.

Peaceful does not necessarily mean to be without physical violence.

What else does it mean?

Veterans have earned the right to be laid to rest peacefully and in an honorable manner.

Everyone should be laid to rest peacefully and in an honorable manner. But it is not a right, not on the level of freedom of expression.

I'll never understand why people feel the need to protest the burial of our soldiers who, nothing less than ironically, protect the very freedom of speech those protestors are abusing.

It really doesn't matter what you do and do not understand; the relevant factor is that these protesters disagree with you, and they have the right to express their opinion.

This specific law will become part of a veteran's benefits package and possibly will lead the way to further legislation providing protection for all funerals.

And make the abridgement of freedom of speech even more egregious.

As for whether it violates freedom of speech, or the freedom to assemble, those rights are to be used responsibly.

They are to be used at the discretion of those who possess them. Nobody else has the right to decide what is and is not responsible.

When those freedoms are abused to the extent shown here, should something not be done?

You and I may think it is abuse. But we have no right to force that opinion on the protesters, any more than they have the right to force me to stop "abusing" freedom of speech when I advocate equal rights for gays.

I dont think you're quite aware of how these protests are being peformed.

Peaceably doesnt not mean "without physical violence." Threatening another's life is legally assault - which is not peaceful by any means, but allows that assault does not require physical violence to occur, merely that one feels threatened.

As for who determines what is and isnt abuse, that's what we have Congress and the Judicial system for, no? Congress represents the general population (theoretically), no? So if such a large portion of Congress believes this to be an abuse of the freedom of speech and/or assembly, would that not then define this as abuse by most people's standards - which is what laws are based on, the majority opinion

Which is perfectly natural because some are more equal than others.

Yes, and the pigs and the humans are indistinguishable from each other.

In response to those quoting Animal Farm, arguing that veterans should not be singled out for this protection:

Who ever said the civilian population deserved the same honors and death benefits that veterans receive? I'm pretty damn certain there are many benefits veterans receive for their service that civilians dont.

(Not that civilians dont deserve this protection, nor am I saying that veterans are better than civilians, just stating that they're different.)

In response to those quoting Animal Farm, arguing that veterans should not be singled out for this protection:

Who ever said the civilian population deserved the same honors and death benefits that veterans receive? I'm pretty damn certain there are many benefits veterans receive for their service that civilians dont.

(Not that civilians dont deserve this protection, nor am I saying that veterans are better than civilians, just stating that they're different.)
Veterans recieve extra governmental services, just as some jobs provide better health insurance than others. I'm not aware that there are any distinctions for soldiers in a court of law (except the possibly urban legend that on military bases you can drink at age 18).

I'm a pacifist but having someone protest at a loved ones funeral is one of the few things that would drive me to violence.

Veterans recieve extra governmental services, just as some jobs provide better health insurance than others. I'm not aware that there are any distinctions for soldiers in a court of law (except the possibly urban legend that on military bases you can drink at age 18).

Ahhh, but veteran's benefits are indeed protected by law, whereas many of the civilian population's aren't.

And you're missing my point - whether deliberately or not, you missed the point.

I dont think you're quite aware of how these protests are being peformed.

Peaceably doesnt not mean "without physical violence." Threatening another's life is legally assault - which is not peaceful by any means, but allows that assault does not require physical violence to occur, merely that one feels threatened.

The threat of violence is not peaceable, no. But violence is not being threatened, either, except perhaps against gays, and protecting them does not seem to meet Congress's approval.

As for who determines what is and isnt abuse, that's what we have Congress and the Judicial system for, no? Congress represents the general population (theoretically), no? So if such a large portion of Congress believes this to be an abuse of the freedom of speech and/or assembly, would that not then define this as abuse by most people's standards - which is what laws are based on, the majority opinion

But not rights. The majority does not have the right to criminalize certain thoughts and opinions, nor does it have the right to criminalize their expression. That is the whole idea behind the Bill of Rights, that the majority is capable of tyranny.

I'm a pacifist but having someone protest at a loved ones funeral is one of the few things that would drive me to violence.


And so I believe that if at all, this new law should cover all funerals.

And so I believe that if at all, this new law should cover all funerals.

Exactly. The same people showed up at Matthew Sheppards funeral......

Because right now, those are the only funerals that are being protested. :rolleyes:

Fred Phelps and his ilk aren't that selective. Gay funerals are a big favorite of theirs I should think.

Besides, legislating protests will mean what next? No more protests outside of stores. Then no more outside of government buildings. Then no more protests at all. Laughable? No, not really. Taking away your rights bit by bit until you have none left is certainly one of the ways of tightening government control.

EDIT: They may not mean to now, but it will certainly pave the way for anyone who wants to.

Boo sucks to outmoded paternalistic hierarchical systems and the mouth-breathing, wind-bag throwbacks who insist everybody must venerate them as they do!

Wow, go congress. For once we agree on something.

That's absolute bullshit. They ignore horrible protests at homosexuals funerals, and then they pass a law when the same thing happens to soldiers? At least ban protesting funerals outright if you're going to do anything.

I dont think you're quite aware of how these protests are being peformed.

Peaceably doesnt not mean "without physical violence." Threatening another's life is legally assault - which is not peaceful by any means, but allows that assault does not require physical violence to occur, merely that one feels threatened.

As for who determines what is and isnt abuse, that's what we have Congress and the Judicial system for, no? Congress represents the general population (theoretically), no? So if such a large portion of Congress believes this to be an abuse of the freedom of speech and/or assembly, would that not then define this as abuse by most people's standards - which is what laws are based on, the majority opinion

Go read City of Boerne v. Florese it is not in the purvue of Congress to decide what is, and is not, a substantive right. Congress can only act to protect those rights once defined by the judiciary.

So...under law....no, it is not the job of Congress to interpret the constitution, it is the job of the courts. As much as you want to say "but congress represents the people and they read it for the people"...that's not their job. The role of constitutional review falls to the courts, not to congress.

I'm a pacifist but having someone protest at a loved ones funeral is one of the few things that would drive me to violence.

The problem is...one is an exercise of the first amendment. The other is assault.

anyone that protest at any funeral is just an asshole

i dont care if you dont like the person or what they did.

if you protest a funeral you should be shot so that you can join the person whos funeral it is your protesting

Let's ban funerals too while we're at it.

It's bad enough that these dead people come to our country, steal our land and monopolize the courts and media. And they never do a lick of work too, instead just leeching off our tax dollars!

anyone that protest at any funeral is just an asshole

i dont care if you dont like the person or what they did.

if you protest a funeral you should be shot so that you can join the person whos funeral it is your protesting

Because being an asshole is the functional equivilant of being a murder? It is my theory that anyone who uses the word "asshole" to refer to another person on an internet forum should be executed. Please arrive at the designated area on time. We will provide the blindfold, but you must bring your own cigarettes.

*spits on Audie Murphy's grave*
I think that's a rather unsettling and unnessary way to make a point.



Stop spitting on it. It's done more for you than any veteran ever has.
"For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag."

The Constitution of the United States -- or that of Canada, or of any other country -- is nothing more than a dusty scrap of paper in a glass case without good people willing to defend it and the freedom it guarantees with their lives.

Fred Phelps and his ilk aren't that selective. Gay funerals are a big favorite of theirs I should think.

Besides, legislating protests will mean what next? No more protests outside of stores. Then no more outside of government buildings. Then no more protests at all. Laughable? No, not really. Taking away your rights bit by bit until you have none left is certainly one of the ways of tightening government control.

EDIT: They may not mean to now, but it will certainly pave the way for anyone who wants to.

Just for the record, this doesnt remove the right to protest. Simply gives the family a fair amount of space within which to honor and grieve the deceased.

...and? The soldier is not in service anymore, is he?
Oh, Jesus. Do NOT go there!

The problem is...one is an exercise of the first amendment. The other is assault.

Protesting the war in Iraq might be an exercise of the first amendment. Publicly insulting the fallen soldier and his family is an abuse of that first amendment.

I just received a newsletter from Congressman John Sullivan (R. OK), which states that Congress has passed legislation criminalizing protests at military funerals. I am glad that Congress has acted and hope the Senate passes it also. Those who gave their life for our country deserve respect, especially at their funerals.



You all have no idea what this is about. This is all about ONE FAMILY headed by one very cruel man that calls itself a church acting out in very vicious ways. I am not for acts of congress to protect a nation from one family of 30 people, no matter how ridiculous they are. Eventually the old fuck will die and the kids will move on, and that will be the end of that.

I suggest you google "Fred Phelps" and learn what this is really about. These congressmen have capitalized on one lunatic and his family for political gain and you all fell for it.

He's old. His kids will be deprogrammed after he dies. This doesn't require an act of congress. It's one lunatic. ONE.

That is unless we've been busy repealing the First Amendment so troublesome to the delicate and often frail sensibilities of Republicans, Veterans, and right-wing pundits.

The man who is protesting these funerals is a right wing fundementalist christian and his premise, however ridiculous it is, is that God is punishing American for tolerating faggotry by involving them in a war where thousand of their sons will die.

I know....its a bit much.

Interestingly enough, Fred Phelps, the so-called chistian minister who is protesting these funerals because they are "God's retribution against faggotry" is accused by two of his own children of sodomy.

Let's ban funerals too while we're at it.

It's bad enough that these dead people come to our country, steal our land and monopolize the courts and media. And they never do a lick of work too, instead just leeching off our tax dollars!

I think you have confused this issue with feminism.

The man who is protesting these funerals is a right wing fundementalist christian and his premise, however ridiculous it is, is that God is punishing American for tolerating faggotry by involving them in a war where thousand of their sons will die.

I know....its a bit much.

As much as I cannot stand him, it is his right.

I repeat:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

-- U.S. Constitution, Amendment I

"For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag."

"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire

No, it isn't the soldier. It is the eternal vigilance of We the People who uphold and protect the Constitution. The soldier is only there to make war at the whim of the President.

Surely he was speaking generally. The Congress, technically, can do anything they want if it is passed. If they want to repeal the Constitution and impose slavery, they can. Does that give them the right to? No.

Congress can not repeal the Constitution. Any changes to the Constitution must be approved by the states. Me thinks if you are an American you need to take a government course,

Which is perfectly natural because some are more equal than others.

Some have given the ulltimate sacrifice for their country.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

-- U.S. Constitution, Amendment I


Stop spitting on it. It's done more for you than any veteran ever has.

Congress can pass just about any law. It is up to the court to decide if the law is Constitutional or not.

Without the veterans, we would not have a Constitution. Veterans have fought to protect and preserve it.

uhhhhh, doesn't the First Amendment have something to say on the subject?

Actually, the government can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want regardless of the constitution. They don't HAVE to obey the Amendments. They can make a law that totally restricts your freedoms, and civil rights. It's just the fear of political suicide keeps most politicians from doing so. As americans keep becoming more and more apathetic, you'll see more and more of our rights infringed upon.

I always said, it's the government's job to enforce their laws. It's the people's job to enforce their rights.

Interesting so this would protect people like Lt. William Calley.....

If I'm not mistaken Calley received a Dishonorable Discharge. That makes him inelligible for any veterans benefits.

"For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag."
So tell me, soldiers fighting to protect freedom of speech, killing to protect the freedom of the press, dying to, well, protect the constitution...

Has that happened in your lifetime?

(except the possibly urban legend that on military bases you can drink at age 18).

Not an urban legend. A military base is federal property and not subject to state laws, only federal laws. It is state law that sets the drinking age.

It's one lunatic. ONE.

And Hitler was one lunatic. Just ONE. :rolleyes:

Without the veterans, we would not have a Constitution. Veterans have fought to protect and preserve it.

300 years ago, you would have been correct. 200 years ago, you would have been correct. Now? Soldiers are tools of the government. And the government has not seen the need to protect the Constitution in the last 100+ years in a situation that would have produced veterans save perhaps for WWII.

Where US forces have gone, it has been at been the behest of the US Federal government. And the will of the US Federal government is often not that for which it's founding father's coined the term. "Liberty and justice for all."

No. The people who form the government today are nothing like the idealists that founded the country. They have power, and power corrupts. What they use an armed force for now are often as a tool to serve it's corruption.

The Constitution is to coin the term of the current president "Just a piece of paper". It would not use it's armed forces to protect it because there is no need to.

"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire

No, it isn't the soldier. It is the eternal vigilance of We the People who uphold and protect the Constitution. The soldier is only there to make war at the whim of the President.

The soldier is there to protect and preserve the Constitution and the country. Without the soldiers who served in the Civil War, WW I, WW II and other wars there would be no Constitution to give the citizens any rights.

Without the veterans, we would not have a Constitution. Veterans have fought to protect and preserve it.

Since when? The North Koreans were no threat to our Constitution, the North Vietnamese were no threat to our Constitution, Saddam Hussein was no threat to our Constitution, Osama bin Laden is no threat to our Constitution.

George W. Bush *is* a threat to our Constitution.

We're at war with the wrong people.

Without the soldiers who served in the Civil War, WW I, WW II and other wars there would be no Constitution to give the citizens any rights.

Prove it. Don't make allegations you cannot back up.

If we had never gotten involved in WWI or WWII, our Constitution and our nation would still be just fine. Europe would be a bit different - maybe, and that's a big maybe - but we'd be just fine.

Also, if you ask anyone who upholds the ideals of the Constitution, the Civil War was nothing more than the President of the United States enforcing his will against State's Rights.

I'm going to have to agree with Keruvalia here. This law would violate the constitution by limiting the freedom of expression, i.e. the right to peacefully assemble.

Plus, I don't see why the military should be granted special treatment. Why should they be "protected" while others are still open. Also, if these veterans did give their lives for the constitution, do you not think they would want it practiced?

Prove it. Don't make allegations you cannot back up.

If we had never gotten involved in WWI or WWII, our Constitution and our nation would still be just fine. Europe would be a bit different - maybe, and that's a big maybe - but we'd be just fine.

Also, if you ask anyone who upholds the ideals of the Constitution, the Civil War was nothing more than the President of the United States enforcing his will against State's Rights.

Civil War no, the South was a bunch of whiners, and our democracy wasn't doing it for them. They were never in the majority, so they decided to quit. And before you go "Well it's not fair to the South that they kept getting stomped on in congress", let me give you the definition of Democracy. Rule by the MAJORITY.

WWI probably not, but Britain was broke, and the Germans were damn close to France. We may or may not have been legitimately threatened, but I guarantee Germany would be a lot bigger.

WWII how can you not say we would be unaffected?! Once Britain would had fallen, where do you think Hitler would have turned to next? The only free nation left in the world. He even stated in Mein Kampf II that he was planning on invading the US. Sure the paper the constitution was written on might have been fine, but we'd all be speaking German, and saluting Hitler's son now if it wasn't for them.

let me give you the definition of Democracy. Rule by the MAJORITY.

Fortunately we're a Republic, not a Democracy. Equal protection, equal rights, even if you're in the minority.

Or would you like it if 52% of the country decided you should be a slave ...

Democracy doesn't work. It is tyrrany of the majority. We are all equally represented.

He even stated in Mein Kampf II that he was planning on invading the US. Sure the paper the constitution was written on might have been fine, but we'd all be speaking German, and saluting Hitler's son now if it wasn't for them.

You have so little faith in the ability of Americans to keep themselves free that you honestly believe if Hitler would have invaded the US, he would have won?

Sad.

WWII how can you not say we would be unaffected?! Once Britain would had fallen, where do you think Hitler would have turned to next? The only free nation left in the world. He even stated in Mein Kampf II that he was planning on invading the US. Sure the paper the constitution was written on might have been fine, but we'd all be speaking German, and saluting Hitler's son now if it wasn't for them.

You forget that by the time the American's got troops there the battle of britain had been won, and the Russians were set to advance in the east. If anything the US's involvement in Europe preventing further gain by the Russians after the war.

If you're going to argue for the US here, you probably should look at the Pacific theatre..

Since when? The North Koreans were no threat to our Constitution, the North Vietnamese were no threat to our Constitution, Saddam Hussein was no threat to our Constitution, Osama bin Laden is no threat to our Constitution.
I have to agree... Since WWII, where there arguably was a threat towards the nation and the constitution, no war has been fought to "protect the constitution" of the US.

300 years ago, you would have been correct. 200 years ago, you would have been correct. Now? Soldiers are tools of the government.
Utter and complete bullshit. I'm sure there are some who would obey an unlawful order, but I know many, many who would refuse. American military personnel swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

In its entireity:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the uniform code of military justice."

Most American military personnel take this oath very seriously indeed. Please note that the first allegiance is to the Constitution, and that everyone else ( President included ) is "according to regulations and the uniform code of military justice." This includes by reference the obligation to disobey "unlawful orders."

Anyone commissioned as an officer in any of the various uniformed services takes this oath at the time of commissioning ( in addition to having already taken the one above at the time of their enlistment ):

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter."

Officers in general take their oath of office even more seriously, if such a thing is possible.

So tell me, soldiers fighting to protect freedom of speech, killing to protect the freedom of the press, dying to, well, protect the constitution...

Has that happened in your lifetime?

Yes. (remember I'm old :) ) They have also died to protect the freedom and rights of people in other countries.

...Osama bin Laden is no threat to our Constitution.

Oh! Really? :rolleyes:

"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."


Therein lies the unfulfilled part of the oath.

Oh! Really? :rolleyes:

To our people and buildings? Once, yes. To our Nation, our Ideals, and our Constitution? No. If you think so, he's won.

1st, this is not an isolated incident, and Fred Phelps is certainly not the only person promoting these types of protest.

2nd, as I've already stated, they are not peaceably assembling and they are abusing their freedom of speech (slander, no?)

3rd, the protestors have lost no rights - they're still able to protest and still able to shout their insults, they simply must do so at a distance from the family so they may honor a member of their family who died serving his country (whether the war in Iraq is right or not, his country sent him so he went and so he died).

4th, it applies to military veterans only as another benefit and right they have earned through their service to their country. Not that civilians dont serve their country as well, but we can all agree it's a different kind of service.

To our people and buildings? Once, yes. To our Nation, our Ideals, and our Constitution? No. If you think so, he's won.

Ahhh, but the military is there to protect the people as well, no?

Prove it. Don't make allegations you cannot back up.

If we had never gotten involved in WWI or WWII, our Constitution and our nation would still be just fine. Europe would be a bit different - maybe, and that's a big maybe - but we'd be just fine.

Also, if you ask anyone who upholds the ideals of the Constitution, the Civil War was nothing more than the President of the United States enforcing his will against State's Rights.

You sir have a very strange view of history. If you think the axis powers would have stopped with Europe and all of the Pacific you are wrong. If you think the Civil War was not fought in part over Constitutional issues, you are wrong.

Ahhh, but the military is there to protect the people as well, no?

Not really, no. The military is there to protect the Constitution and the Ideals that this nation is founded upon. (See the above oath mentioned by Eutrusca)

The people, by virtue of the 2nd Amendment, are to protect themselves.

I have to agree... Since WWII, where there arguably was a threat towards the nation and the constitution, no war has been fought to "protect the constitution" of the US.

Right, because the USSR was no threat, whatsoever, to the US?

You sir have a very strange view of history. If you think the axis powers would have stopped with Europe and all of the Pacific you are wrong.

If you think Hitler would have won had he invaded the US, then you are wrong.

If you think the Civil War was not fought in part over Constitutional issues, you are wrong.

*shrug* If you say so.

Right, because the USSR was no threat, whatsoever, to the US?

Actually ... it wasn't. We know that now. We didn't then, but we know it now.

Not really, no. The military is there to protect the Constitution and the Ideals that this nation is founded upon. (See the above oath mentioned by Eutrusca)

The people, by virtue of the 2nd Amendment, are to protect themselves.

I know the oath, I've taken it a time or two myself.

There is not a single military member that does not feel their duty to their country is protect the Constitution as well as the People. Without the People, the Constitution is a piece of paper. Without the Constitution, the People are nothing more than people.

Actually ... it wasn't. We know that now. We didn't then, but we know it now.

And China's not a threat now?

Therein lies the unfulfilled part of the oath.
Bullshit.

And China's not a threat now?

Not really, no.

Therein lies the unfulfilled part of the oath.

What you are forgetting is the freedoms granted by the Constitution are not absolute freedoms. States, Congress and the Courts have placed some restrictions on them. For example, the freedom of assembly. You may have to get a pemit in some places to assemble and having to do so is completely legal and Constitutional.

Bullshit.

Then explain, sir, why an administration that is constantly clipping off little bits of our Constitution and constantly making attempts to subvert its ideals or amend it to give harm to its citizens is still in power.

There is not a single military member that does not feel their duty to their country is protect the Constitution as well as the People.

We don't need it. We have the 2nd Amendment, which allows us self-protection as well as the formation of civilian police forces (governed by civilians with civilian oversight).

We simply do not need the protection of the US Military. Protect the Ideals from the enemies of the Constitution, but leave governance and vigilance to the people.

4th, it applies to military veterans only as another benefit and right they have earned through their service to their country. Not that civilians dont serve their country as well, but we can all agree it's a different kind of service.

Suuuure. Martin Luther King, Coretta Scott King - civilians, that, by your nice little piece of reasoning, don't deserve a peaceful funeral. Lynndie England? Military, thus she does.

What a piece of work is man... :rolleyes:

What you are forgetting is the freedoms granted by the Constitution are not absolute freedoms. States, Congress and the Courts have placed some restrictions on them. For example, the freedom of assembly. You may have to get a pemit in some places to assemble and having to do so is completely legal and Constitutional.

Indeed. Remember, "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

The families of the deceased veterans have the right to quietly honor their family member. In order to allow both the families and the protestors to have their rights, a line has been drawn allowing the protestors to protest - only doing so far enough away that the family may honor their fallen member peacefully.

In this situation, the protestors are the ones imeding the rights of the families and so they are the ones who become minimally restricted. If anything, it's more of an inconvenience than anything.

What a piece of work is man... :rolleyes:

How noble in reason ... *sigh*

Not really, no. The military is there to protect the Constitution and the Ideals that this nation is founded upon. (See the above oath mentioned by Eutrusca)

The people, by virtue of the 2nd Amendment, are to protect themselves.

They most certianly have a duty to protect American citizens. That is why President Carter sent the military to try to rescue the Americans in Iran and why President Reagan sent the troops to Grenada. :rolleyes: That is why the military has been used to evacuate American citizens from foreign countries in times of crisis. :eek:

The families of the deceased veterans have the right to quietly honor their family member.

By what right is that given?

When you join the military, you become a publicly owned figure. You belong to the government and the people of the United States and, thus, are subject to the same ridicule, parody, elation, and protest as any celebrity or politician.

So I ask again, by what is that right given?

Suuuure. Martin Luther King, Coretta Scott King - civilians, that, by your nice little piece of reasoning, don't deserve a peaceful funeral. Lynndie England? Military, thus she does.

What a piece of work is man... :rolleyes:

Have you read the rest of my posts? Nowhere have I stated that civilians dont deserve peaceful funerals. If I have implied that, I apologize. I believe everyone should be allowed a peaceful funeral.

However, at this point in time, nowhere else is the abuse of the families intering their loved ones so prevalent as at the funerals of veterans - who as a whole deserve better.

By what right is that given?

When you join the military, you become a publicly owned figure. You belong to the government and the people of the United States and, thus, are subject to the same ridicule, parody, elation, and protest as any celebrity or politician.

So I ask again, by what is that right given?

Peacefully Assemble.

That is why the military has been used to evacuate American citizens from foreign countries in times of crisis. :eek:

A fine use for them. We don't, however, need them to be doing what they're doing now.

My fellow Americans are dieing for nothing and I, for one, do not appreciate it.

You might, but I don't.

Peacefully Assemble.

Excellent answer!

Now apply it to everyone, not just veterans.

Actually ... it wasn't. We know that now. We didn't then, but we know it now.

Please don't say we do. Maybe you think that, but not everyone thinks that "Now we know the USSR was not a threat."

Please don't say we do. Maybe you think that, but not everyone thinks that "Now we know the USSR was not a threat."

My God, Celt ... how long has it been since you've taken a Civics or History class? We know a great many things now that we didn't know then.

Then explain, sir, why an administration that is constantly clipping off little bits of our Constitution and constantly making attempts to subvert its ideals or amend it to give harm to its citizens is still in power.
Because it's the legally elected government of America, and it has yet to do anything blatantly unconstitutional? Ya think??

Military action isn't based on opinions and politics, it's based on a rational evaluation of any given situation.

Should the President suspend without a "clear and present danger," for example, the right of the people to peaceably assemble, there would be immediate confrontation with the military. It probably would not involve force, at first, but should the Supreme Court intervene and the President refuse to comply with their constitutionaly based decisions, all bets would be off.

Excellent answer!

Now apply it to everyone, not just veterans.

Have you not read my posts?

Protestors still have the right to peacefully assemble. They've just been moved to a distance that allows family members to peacefully assemble as they've also that right.

Everyone wins, no?


And that's before we even get into the slander and the fact that the protestors are hardly peaceable.

Should the President suspend without a "clear and present danger," for example, the right of the people to peaceably assemble, there would be immediate confrontation with the military.

And that's what this Bill, which has passed the House, is doing. It is suspending without a clear and present danger the right of the people to peaceably assemble.

No military confrontation ...

My God, Celt ... how long has it been since you've taken a Civics or History class? We know a great many things now that we didn't know then.

Ahh, but at the time, were the men and women in uniform not protecting the People? Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but one must look at what was known and believed then.

Peacefully Assemble.
And how, exactly, will this law abridge that freedom?

And that's what this Bill, which has passed the House, is doing. It is suspending without a clear and present danger the right of the people to peaceably assemble.

No military confrontation ...

Once again... IT DOES NOT KEEP THE PROTESTORS FROM ASSEMBLING. Rather it protects the right of the family members to Peacefully Assemble.

Then explain, sir, why an administration that is constantly clipping off little bits of our Constitution and constantly making attempts to subvert its ideals or amend it to give harm to its citizens is still in power.

That is only your opinion sir. Also, you must remember that we are at war and some restrictions have been legally placed on our freedoms in times of war. I sir do not see where the "administration" has placed any restrictions on my freedoms or the freedoms of any other American citizen even though we are at war.

Everyone wins, no?


No ... because of the text of the bill. It stops people from assembling on National Property. National Property belongs to us all. You, me, even Fred Phelps.

It would be like Congress passing an act to stop protests on the National Mall in Washington.

Why are people on board with this?

And how, exactly, will this law abridge that freedom?

Woah, I'm on your side on this Eut... lol

I just received a newsletter from Congressman John Sullivan (R. OK), which states that Congress has passed legislation criminalizing protests at military funerals. I am glad that Congress has acted and hope the Senate passes it also. Those who gave their life for our country deserve respect, especially at their funerals.

Below is the quote from the newsletter.


Paying Respect to America's Fallen Heroes in Uniform

"Across the country, there have been reports of groups actively protesting at military funerals and services. Our servicemen and women, who have already given the ultimate sacrifice, deserve to be honored with dignity and their families given the chance to pay their respects in peace. This week my colleagues in the House and I passed H.R. 5037, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act of 2006. This legislation establishes criminal penalties for those who choose to disrupt the burial of a fallen American service member and establishes time and space boundaries for those protesting funerals at national cemeteries. It is sad and frustrating that this legislation is even necessary, but these families and their soldiers deserve to have their respect and dignity protected during their time of loss."Those who volunteer to go and kill innocents in foriegn countries do not deserve my respect. No one forced them to murder innocents.

And that's what this Bill, which has passed the House, is doing. It is suspending without a clear and present danger the right of the people to peaceably assemble.

No military confrontation ...
Once again: how will this law abridge the right of citizens to peacefully assemble?

Those who volunteer to go and kill innocents in foriegin countries do not deserve my respect. No one forced them to murder innocents.
"Innocents" is a totally unwarranted assumption on your part.

Once again... IT DOES NOT KEEP THE PROTESTORS FROM ASSEMBLING. Rather it protects the right of the family members to Peacefully Assemble.
Exactly.

No ... because of the text of the bill. It stops people from assembling on National Property. National Property belongs to us all. You, me, even Fred Phelps.

It would be like Congress passing an act to stop protests on the National Mall in Washington.

Why are people on board with this?

Read it again. It says "Demonstrations at cemeteries under the control of National Cemetery Administration and at Arlington National Cemetery"

Last I checked, that had nothing to do with the National Mall.

Once again, this bill protects the rights of the family members to peaceably assemble while allowing protestors to still assemble.

Those who volunteer to go and kill innocents in foriegn countries do not deserve my respect. No one forced them to murder innocents.

Apparently you havent been to Iraq or talked with many people who have been.

Suuuure. Martin Luther King, Coretta Scott King - civilians, that, by your nice little piece of reasoning, don't deserve a peaceful funeral. Lynndie England? Military, thus she does.

What a piece of work is man... :rolleyes:

No Lyndie England does not and will not. The nature of her discharge from the military makes her ineligible for veterans benefits. To be eligible for full veterans benefits you must have an Honorable Discharge. A Dishonorable Discharge makes you ineligible for any veterans benefits. A Bad Conduct Discharge will make you ineligible for all or some veterans bebefits. Even administrative discharges under other than Honorable conditions can make you inelligible for benefits.

My God, Celt ... how long has it been since you've taken a Civics or History class? We know a great many things now that we didn't know then.
Jeeze. The USSR was a threat. They used a fifth column to steal military and commercial secrets at every opportunity. They constantly sought to place their own puppet governments in place all over the world. They repeatedly attempted to undermine the government of the United States. Shall I go on?

Suuuure. Martin Luther King, Coretta Scott King - civilians, that, by your nice little piece of reasoning, don't deserve a peaceful funeral. Lynndie England? Military, thus she does.

What a piece of work is man... :rolleyes:

Yes they all deserve a peacefull funeral. All people do. However Lyndie England does not and will not veterans benefits. The nature of her discharge from the military makes her ineligible for veterans benefits. To be eligible for full veterans benefits you must have an Honorable Discharge. A Dishonorable Discharge makes you ineligible for any veterans benefits. A Bad Conduct Discharge will make you ineligible for all or some veterans bebefits. Even administrative discharges under other than Honorable conditions can make you inelligible for benefits.

Also, you must remember that we are at war

And there's the rub ...

A state of perpetual war should allow a state of perpetually curtailed freedom?

I submit that we are not at war. We have no true objective, no true plan, no identifiable enemy, and no clear field of battle. This "War on Terror" is a ruse for those in power to gain more power, to cow the people by way of nationalism, and to blanket any wrongdoing with a nice teflon coating because "we are at war".

No ... I cannot and will not accept it. This is Berlin, 1932. This is China, 1945.

I'm sorry you can't see that.

Suuuure. Martin Luther King, Coretta Scott King - civilians, that, by your nice little piece of reasoning, don't deserve a peaceful funeral. Lynndie England? Military, thus she does.

What a piece of work is man... :rolleyes:

Yes they all deserve a peacefull funeral. All people do. However Lyndie England does not and will not veterans benefits. The nature of her discharge from the military makes her ineligible for veterans benefits. To be eligible for full veterans benefits you must have an Honorable Discharge. A Dishonorable Discharge makes you ineligible for any veterans benefits. A Bad Conduct Discharge will make you ineligible for all or some veterans bebefits. Even administrative discharges under other than Honorable conditions can make you inelligible for benefits.

In its entireity:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the uniform code of military justice."

Most American military personnel take this oath very seriously indeed. Please note that the first allegiance is to the Constitution, and that everyone else ( President included ) is "according to regulations and the uniform code of military justice." This includes by reference the obligation to disobey "unlawful orders."

So essentially, soldiers are obligated to protect the freedoms and laws of the people, and are expected to defend it against all enemies, including unlawful orders?

Sorry...all this talk is a wee bit confusing.

"Innocents" is a totally unwarranted assumption on your part.

Even the President has admitted to 30,000+ civilian casualties and getting him to admit anything is like pushing a truck up a hill with a rope while pulling teeth from an angry mule.

You saying all those 30,000+ civilians were enemy combatants?

And, uh, again, for the record:

This bill doesnt apply to just military members. It applies to all funerals at national cemetaries.

And, uh, again, for the record:

This bill doesnt apply to just military members. It applies to all funerals at national cemetaries.

Okay.

I'm still wondering why it should be prohibited.

Even the President has admitted to 30,000+ civilian casualties and getting him to admit anything is like pushing a truck up a hill with a rope while pulling teeth from an angry mule.

You saying all those 30,000+ civilians were enemy combatants?

Nice way to take it out of context. Are you saying that those 30K civilians were all killed directly by US soldiers who went over their specifically to kill them?

Right, because the USSR was no threat, whatsoever, to the US?
And when did soldiers from the US battle soldiers from the USSR directly, in a battle in which the constitution of the US was at stake?

And Hitler was one lunatic. Just ONE. :rolleyes:
Godwin!!!

We can close this thread now.

Thhhhhhhhhb.

Although I support banning protests at military funerals, the act should be extended to all funerals. Soldiers are not the only ones who deserve respect.

Okay.

I'm still wondering why it should be prohibited.

Because certain idiots have taken it upon themselves to blatantly harass grieving families to get their names in the paper.

Because certain idiots have taken it upon themselves to blatantly harass grieving families to get their names in the paper.

If they directly threaten, harass, assault, or attack family members I will be all for arresting their asses.

But for peaceful demonstrations...I dunno...It's bad taste, certainly, but 'tis a right.

If they directly threaten, harass, assault, or attack family members I will be all for arresting their asses.

But for peaceful demonstrations...I dunno...It's bad taste, certainly, but 'tis a right.

None of the demonstrations at the funerals have been "peaceful" though. They've all been directly harassing the families and, as it has been mentioned, preventing their right to peacably assemble.
They can still protest, just not in the cemetary.

None of the demonstrations at the funerals have been "peaceful" though. They've all been directly harassing the families and, as it has been mentioned, preventing their right to peacably assemble.
They can still protest, just not in the cemetary.

Ours is a world of compromise, it is...*shrugs*

Nice way to take it out of context. Are you saying that those 30K civilians were all killed directly by US soldiers who went over their specifically to kill them?

I don't recall any suicide bombings or IEDs in Baghdad before we showed up.

Be the cause direct or indirect, our presence is a clear and present danger to the people of Iraq.

Thhhhhhhhhb.

Although I support banning protests at military funerals, the act should be extended to all funerals. Soldiers are not the only ones who deserve respect.

Reading the text of the bill, the law affects only National Cemetaries (which is all Congress has power over) but does provide a strong urge for the States to follow. Note that the bill does not single out military personnel. Rather, it affects all burials at a National Cemetary.

Please, before people start ranting and raving about how our rights are being crumpled - do a bit of research (not directed at you Ravea)

None of the demonstrations at the funerals have been "peaceful" though. They've all been directly harassing the families and, as it has been mentioned, preventing their right to peacably assemble.
They can still protest, just not in the cemetary.

Legally, they can still protest within the 500' radius, they just have to get permission from the Cemetary.

I don't recall any suicide bombings or IEDs in Baghdad before we showed up.

Be the cause direct or indirect, our presence is a clear and present danger to the people of Iraq.

Which isn't what the poster said. He said "volunteered to go over to kill innocents". Nice Red Herring you've got there.

I recall them finding thousands of bodies of people who "disappeared" during Saddam's regime, etc.. He was a clear and present danger to the people of Iraq.

Fair enough. Funerals deserve to be a peaceful time and should therefore be respected no matter whom the deceased is.

However, at this point in time, nowhere else is the abuse of the families intering their loved ones so prevalent as at the funerals of veterans - who as a whole deserve better.

Two words: Matthew Shepherd.

*snip*

All very fine and well, but really, what is a soldier, but the gun wielding arm of the government? A soldier does what his government says. Government says go here, soldier goes there. The government says fight this war, the soldier fights that war.

Not quite a public servant, but nonetheless, a tool of the government. As for the idea of illegal orders, well, what are the boundaries of an illegal order? And furthermore, are these boundaries enforced without having to suffer the embarrasment of a media exposure first?

For every soldier who would say "I can't do that." do you not think the government would be incapable of finding replacements who had no qualms doing it within the armed forces? If a tool does not perform as it is supposed to, it gets fixed....or replaced.

My Lai and other such incidents happened not only because the higher ups wanted such things to happen (victory by bodycount), but because they had people who could do so as well. Were they a minority? Who knows, but the number is assuredly not small.

The ideals of the Constitution are all very fine. But in the end, they are just that. Ideals. Can you guarantee that every single soldier, or the majority of the armed forces for that matter, would place the Constitution before an executive backed order?

You would no doubt affirm that is so, but again, I point to the example I have laid out. Pragmatically, the army is a branch of the government, answerable to it's various heads and ultimately the executive office. The mechanics of the system are already there where should the office require something, the armed forces must comply or be restructured until it will.

So all in all, the armed forces are a tool of the government. They have always been. The only time when they're not is in a coup. Then they become the government.

Two words: Matthew Shepherd.

So, one person. There are far more veteran funerals being protested.

All very fine and well, but really, what is a soldier, but the gun wielding arm of the government? A soldier does what his government says. Government says go here, soldier goes there. The government says fight this war, the soldier fights that war.

Not quite a public servant, but nonetheless, a tool of the government. As for the idea of illegal orders, well, what are the boundaries of an illegal order? And furthermore, are these boundaries enforced without having to suffer the embarrasment of a media exposure first?

For every soldier who would say "I can't do that." do you not think the government would be incapable of finding replacements who had no qualms doing it within the armed forces? If a tool does not perform as it is supposed to, it gets fixed....or replaced.

My Lai and other such incidents happened not only because the higher ups wanted such things to happen (victory by bodycount), but because they had people who could do so as well. Were they a minority? Who knows, but the number is assuredly not small.

The ideals of the Constitution are all very fine. But in the end, they are just that. Ideals. Can you guarantee that every single soldier, or the majority of the armed forces for that matter, would place the Constitution before an executive backed order?

You would no doubt affirm that is so, but again, I point to the example I have laid out. Pragmatically, the army is a branch of the government, answerable to it's various heads and ultimately the executive office. The mechanics of the system are already there where should the office require something, the armed forces must comply or be restructured until it will.

So all in all, the armed forces are a tool of the government. They have always been. The only time when they're not is in a coup. Then they become the government.

Google for LOAC and UCMJ. As far as I know, every AF member receives yearly LOAC and UCMJ training. I'm fairly certain it's similar in the other branches of service.

How can you say military members arent public servants? Do they not weild weapons and suffer injuries serving what Congress has determined is the public good? Remember, Congress declares war, not the President. The Military falls under the Legislative branch, not the Executive.

And China's not a threat now?

From a nuclear standpoint? About as much a threat as your neighbour owning a mortar piece. He can take potshots at your house, but you can do the same and burn down the neighbourhood along with him, you and everybody else. And he's rather attached to his house.

So from that standpoint, no.

From a conventional armed forces standpoint?

To the US, no. They just don't have the projection power and aren't interested in force projection beyond their territory anyway. To Taiwan? Not likely unless they wanted to restart scenario #1.

From an economic standpoint?

Not yet, but US forces have no business competing in that sector either way. Unless it's just them spending money.

It probably would not involve force, at first, but should the Supreme Court intervene and the President refuse to comply with their constitutionaly based decisions, all bets would be off.

Are you so certain of that? We have seen the administrations lack of consideration for dissent, and that if there is, the source of dissent is removed (replacing generals with yes men).

Remember, one doesn't kill a frog by dropping it in boiling water. You slowly turn up the heat until it's dead.

Jeeze. The USSR was a threat. They used a fifth column to steal military and commercial secrets at every opportunity. They constantly sought to place their own puppet governments in place all over the world. They repeatedly attempted to undermine the government of the United States. Shall I go on?

Switch the names around and it doesn't look all that different does it? They did call it the Cold WAR after all. Can't have a war with only one side.

Either way, where does the US armed forces fit into this? Fighting somebody elses war because of idealogical differences? To be honest, the only real way the USSR was a threat to the US Constitution was the fact that they could participate in the "Global Thermonuclear War" game. Other than that? War's by proxy. Stuff that hurt plenty of people but utlimately resulted in the same kind of diddly squat we saw in the trenches of the Great War.

A couple thousand dead here, a propped up dictatorship gained there. A year or so later, a popular revolt removes it.

The Military falls under the Legislative branch, not the Executive.

So the title Commander in Chief is a hollow one then I take it?

And I did not quite put the military down as a public servant in the context of public service. Generally, save for extreme emergency situations, the normal function of an army is to defend from invaders and/or invade other countries. That and provide martial law when required, but I digress.

So essentially, soldiers are obligated to protect the freedoms and laws of the people, and are expected to defend it against all enemies, including unlawful orders?

Sorry...all this talk is a wee bit confusing.
If a military person executes what he should reasonably have known was an unlawful order, he or she can be court martialed.

If they directly threaten, harass, assault, or attack family members I will be all for arresting their asses.

But for peaceful demonstrations...I dunno...It's bad taste, certainly, but 'tis a right.
No ... it ... is ... not! Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that you may "peacefully assemble" in any particular place. All it says, as has been pointed out here repeatedly, is that "the right of the people to peaceably assemble shall not be infringed." If you want to get technical, Congress could pass a law saying that there were only certain specified places where people could peaceably assemble, or ( as in the instant law ) preclude said "peaceable assembly" from being held in certain places and/or circumstances. "Protestors" aren't the only ones with rights, you know.

The soldier is there to protect and preserve the Constitution and the country. Without the soldiers who served in the Civil War, WW I, WW II and other wars there would be no Constitution to give the citizens any rights.

Yes, we MUST honor those who helped protect our rights by....taking away our rights!

When the irony of your poposition hits you, let me know.

All very fine and well, but really, what is a soldier, but the gun wielding arm of the government? A soldier does what his government says. Government says go here, soldier goes there. The government says fight this war, the soldier fights that war.

Not quite a public servant, but nonetheless, a tool of the government. As for the idea of illegal orders, well, what are the boundaries of an illegal order? And furthermore, are these boundaries enforced without having to suffer the embarrasment of a media exposure first?

For every soldier who would say "I can't do that." do you not think the government would be incapable of finding replacements who had no qualms doing it within the armed forces? If a tool does not perform as it is supposed to, it gets fixed....or replaced.

My Lai and other such incidents happened not only because the higher ups wanted such things to happen (victory by bodycount), but because they had people who could do so as well. Were they a minority? Who knows, but the number is assuredly not small.

The ideals of the Constitution are all very fine. But in the end, they are just that. Ideals. Can you guarantee that every single soldier, or the majority of the armed forces for that matter, would place the Constitution before an executive backed order?

You would no doubt affirm that is so, but again, I point to the example I have laid out. Pragmatically, the army is a branch of the government, answerable to it's various heads and ultimately the executive office. The mechanics of the system are already there where should the office require something, the armed forces must comply or be restructured until it will.

So all in all, the armed forces are a tool of the government. They have always been. The only time when they're not is in a coup. Then they become the government.
There are no "guarantees" in life, much less in politics.

Soldiers are not the mindless automations you make us out to be. We are required by law, under punishment up to and including death, to disobey any unlawful order. Ever hear of the Nuremburg trails? That pretty well established the precedent which generated this injunction against obeying an unlawful order. By necessity, each man or woman must decide for themselves whether a particular order is or is not lawful. And all it would require is one commander within the military to stand up on his hind legs and say, "This is an unlawful order. We cannot obey this." Most of the military would follow him if any reasonable person could agree that such an order was indeed unlawful.

Just because you don't approve of an order does not mean that it is therefore unlawful.

And I'm not going to get into My Lai, except to say that the only reason you remember it is that it was an exception to the general rule.

The Military falls under the Legislative branch, not the Executive.
Well, not quite, but I see what you're driving at.

There are no "guarantees" in life, much less in politics.

Soldiers are not the mindless automations you make us out to be. We are required by law, under punishment up to and concluding death, to disobey any unlawful order. Ever hear of the Nuremburg trails? That pretty well established the precedent which generated this injunction against obeying an unlawful order. By necessity, each man or woman must decide for themselves whether a particular order is or is not lawful. And all it would require is one commander within the military to stand up on his hind legs and say, "This is an unlawful order. We cannot obey this." Most of the military would follow him if any reasonable person could agree that such an order was indeed unlawful.

Just because you don't approve of an order does not mean that it is therefore unlawful.

And I'm not going to get into My Lai, except to say that the only reason you remember it is that it was an exception to the general rule.

In that case, what do you think of the RAF(?) medic, who refused to go to Iraq because it was a war deemed illegal by the UN?

I think he made the right choice - 2 years in jail, rather than several years in jail after war crimes trials.

Just for the record, this doesnt remove the right to protest. Simply gives the family a fair amount of space within which to honor and grieve the deceased.


And the families of civilians don't have a right to a "fair amount of space within which to honor and grieve the deceased" as well because...?

Switch the names around and it doesn't look all that different does it? They did call it the Cold WAR after all. Can't have a war with only one side.

Either way, where does the US armed forces fit into this? Fighting somebody elses war because of idealogical differences? To be honest, the only real way the USSR was a threat to the US Constitution was the fact that they could participate in the "Global Thermonuclear War" game. Other than that? War's by proxy. Stuff that hurt plenty of people but utlimately resulted in the same kind of diddly squat we saw in the trenches of the Great War.

A couple thousand dead here, a propped up dictatorship gained there. A year or so later, a popular revolt removes it.
So what? It's the USSR we were talking about, not the USA. Trying to figure out "who started the arms race" will only result in more argument since facts have so little impact on some posters.

So where were all these "popular revolts" of which you speak? Poland, Hungary, the former Yugoslavia, Checzoslavakia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, East Germany, not to mention all the "stans," none of them were able to support a "popular revolt" until the USSR was on the verge of collapse. And some of the former "client states" of the former USSR still remain. Cuba for example. ( And don't go telling me that Cuba is a shining example of some "people's republic." It just is not so, regardless of what certain mindless twits on here try to tell us. )

In that case, what do you think of the RAF(?) medic, who refused to go to Iraq because it was a war deemed illegal by the UN?

I think he made the right choice - 2 years in jail, rather than several years in jail after war crimes trials.
He made his choice, but no one followed his lead. I admire his courage, just not his decision-making ability.

He made his choice, but no one followed his lead. I admire his courage, just not his decision-making ability.

I had a debate about the RAF doctor on another forum - we came to the conclusion that he was incorrect in his assumption because he refused to serve in the occupation of Iraq, which I believe is supported as legal due to our still being there legally at the request of the new, elected Iraqi Government.

Any comments on this conclusion?

And the families of civilians don't have a right to a "fair amount of space within which to honor and grieve the deceased" as well because...?

Not only the military-worshippers here can't answer this, they also don't give a, to use the healthy lingo of the army, flying fuck.

I had a debate about the RAF doctor on another forum - we came to the conclusion that he was incorrect in his assumption because he refused to serve in the occupation of Iraq, which I believe is supported as legal due to our still being there legally at the request of the new, elected Iraqi Government.

Any comments on this conclusion?
Sounds reasonable to me.

Soldiers are not the mindless automations you make us out to be. We are required by law, under punishment up to and including death, to disobey any unlawful order. Ever hear of the Nuremburg trails? That pretty well established the precedent which generated this injunction against obeying an unlawful order. By necessity, each man or woman must decide for themselves whether a particular order is or is not lawful. And all it would require is one commander within the military to stand up on his hind legs and say, "This is an unlawful order. We cannot obey this." Most of the military would follow him if any reasonable person could agree that such an order was indeed unlawful.

Soldiers aren't a different species Eut. They're human just like you and me. And like the rest of humanity, soldiers will comprise a fair mix of types. That includes people who lack the ability or will to think on the consequences of their actions. It will also include people who are for all intents, bastards who don't give a whit about unlawful orders unless they get caught.

Unlawful orders happen. And they get acted on. If those in the military branch refuses to follow through, then another will be found who will. Can you say this does not happen? Politicians don't mind about the blood being spilled by these unlawful orders, or even about the travesties of justice. Why should they? They're not the ones spilling the blood or will get their asses in the line.

But they form the body in which the direction of the military must take.

It does not retract from the tool comparison. That is how a pragmatic politician will see the armed forces. As a tool to use when it is conveniant. When it does not perform to spec, it will be replaced by one that will.

And if law were everything to a soldier, we wouldn't see soldiers breaking the law at all. But that doesn't happen does it?


Just because you don't approve of an order does not mean that it is therefore unlawful.

Didn't dispute that.


And I'm not going to get into My Lai, except to say that the only reason you remember it is that it was an exception to the general rule.

As I understand it, the victory by bodycount was a prevalent mentality among a large portion of the leadership. That meant a lot of shoot now and forget questions.

An exception? Not common perhaps, but I doubt it was a single exception.

So what? It's the USSR we were talking about, not the USA. Trying to figure out "who started the arms race" will only result in more argument since facts have so little impact on some posters.

That and there aren't that many facts on who started it in the first place.


So where were all these "popular revolts" of which you speak? Poland, Hungary, the former Yugoslavia, Checzoslavakia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, East Germany, not to mention all the "stans," none of them were able to support a "popular revolt" until the USSR was on the verge of collapse.

You do realize that these countries you mentioned were all sitting right next to the Soviet Union and were de-facto Soviet provinces right?

If we want a better example, we should look at places like Vietnam, Laos, Iran, and the various states which didn't sit right next to the USSR. These were all examples of wars by proxy since even actual military presence was called military advisors IIRC and not soldiers.

It's fairly common knowledge that the Shah of Iran was backed by the US, only to be taken down by a popular revolt. Batista also was backed by the US, only to have Castro come to power. Likewise, the Soviet Union attempted to annex Afghanistan, only to face defeat at the hands of US equipped rebel groups. And then there's the stalemate of Korea.

So we see it on the cosmic scale, a representation of the trench warfare nearly a 100 years ago. Back and forth fighting all through the cold war with neither gaining very much to show for it save for uncountable lives ruined or lost.

When you join the military, you become a publicly owned figure. You belong to the government and the people of the United States and, thus, are subject to the same ridicule, parody, elation, and protest as any celebrity or politician.

Obviously you know little or nothing about the military. How very sad. :mad:

When you join the military, you become a publicly owned figure. You belong to the government and the people of the United States and, thus, are subject to the same ridicule, parody, elation, and protest as any celebrity or politician.

Obviously you know little or nothing about the military. How very sad.

Because right now, those are the only funerals that are being protested. :rolleyes:

Not true Phelps and his little bastards show up and protest any funeral of a well known gay person. They did it in Lenexa when a local journalist who was homosexual died.

This is a free speech issue, Congress has no authority to regulate behavior period. As long as the protestors stay within the bounds of the law (i.e. not throwing things or attacking mourners) they are perfectly within their rights. Of course they're also dicks but that has no bearing on the issue.

This new "law" (it isn't one because it's illegal) is in direct contravention of the Constitution and as such is not valid. I have half a mind to show up at a military funeral to protest this new decree.

But then again someone will probably do it for me.

A fine use for them. We don't, however, need them to be doing what they're doing now.

My fellow Americans are dieing for nothing and I, for one, do not appreciate it.

You might, but I don't.

Finally, we get to the reason you feel the way you do. You are anti-Iraq war. Nothing wrong with that but you could have come out with why you feel so anti-military at the start. Yes, they are dying and doing so for a very noble cause, the freedom of an oppressed people in Iraq and a war against terrorism in Afghanistan.

And the families of civilians don't have a right to a "fair amount of space within which to honor and grieve the deceased" as well because...?

For the last time, PEOPLE, READ THE BILL

It DOES NOT identify only the funerals of veterans. It, in fact, includes ALL funerals at National Cemetaries because that is the only area in which Congress has jurisdiction. It DOES in fact urge all States to pass similar legislation concerning their cemetaries.

Not true Phelps and his little bastards show up and protest any funeral of a well known gay person. They did it in Lenexa when a local journalist who was homosexual died.

This is a free speech issue, Congress has no authority to regulate behavior period. As long as the protestors stay within the bounds of the law (i.e. not throwing things or attacking mourners) they are perfectly within their rights. Of course they're also dicks but that has no bearing on the issue.

This new "law" (it isn't one because it's illegal) is in direct contravention of the Constitution and as such is not valid. I have half a mind to show up at a military funeral to protest this new decree.

But then again someone will probably do it for me.
So the family of the deceased doesnt have the right to peacefully assemble? Gotcha.

I had a debate about the RAF doctor on another forum - we came to the conclusion that he was incorrect in his assumption because he refused to serve in the occupation of Iraq, which I believe is supported as legal due to our still being there legally at the request of the new, elected Iraqi Government.

Any comments on this conclusion?

Piggybacking sorry, but to extend this to its logical conclusion. If I kill a man and tell his neighbor that he now has possession of the deceased house and that neighbor invites me to stay I am staying in that home legally?

Sorry our initial invasion of Iraq was illegal (at least America's was, I'm not exactly well versed in British law) because it violated the UN Charter, The Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Charter to which we are signatories. Since these were treaties made with the authority of the United States and since they were ratified they along with the Constitution and all laws pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land.

To claim because our newly installed goverment has "invited" us to stay and therefore we are there legally is poppycock. We killed or criminalized any goverment official who would have told us to leave. George W., probably most of his staff, and the Joint-Chiefs committed war crimes and deserve to be impeached (where applicable) and tried or court-martialed as such.

No ... because of the text of the bill. It stops people from assembling on National Property. National Property belongs to us all. You, me, even Fred Phelps.

It would be like Congress passing an act to stop protests on the National Mall in Washington.

Why are people on board with this?

Perhaps because we respect our fallen military members who have paid the ultimate price so we and others can be free. We respect those who have given their life so the people of Iraq can proudly hold up their purple fingers.

So the family of the deceased doesnt have the right to peacefully assemble? Gotcha.

Sure they do, but there right doesn't trump the protestors right to peacably assemble. This issue really has been dealt with before its no different than protests and counter-protests both groups (even if they have opposing viewpoints) have the right to assemble and express their beleifs.

This is really simple, Phelps and his little monkeys are assclowns but their assclowns exercising their legal right.

So the title Commander in Chief is a hollow one then I take it?

And I did not quite put the military down as a public servant in the context of public service. Generally, save for extreme emergency situations, the normal function of an army is to defend from invaders and/or invade other countries. That and provide martial law when required, but I digress.

Reread the Constitution. The Congress decides how much money the armed forces receive, decide how much we get paid, how many members of each force are authorized, what actions the military is allowed to participate in. Commander-in-Chief is like being a 6-star General - that doesnt give him ultimate power to wield the Military as he sees fit, only that he's the one who gives the actual order to go AFTER Congress tells him he can.

The Military is NOT a part of the Executive branch.

How do you figure that defending against invaders is not in the public interest? Please, you cannot be that dense or so extremely against the Military that you'll create a double standard just so you can argue against them...

Sure they do, but there right doesn't trump the protestors right to peacably assemble. This issue really has been dealt with before its no different than protests and counter-protests both groups (even if they have opposing viewpoints) have the right to assemble and express their beleifs.

This is really simple, Phelps and his little monkeys are assclowns but their assclowns exercising their legal right.

It's not trumping it, read the f'n bill already. It simply moves it. That allows everyone to protest and allows the family to assembly peacefully. Both sides win.

No they don't and neither do the American people, regulated free speech, free speech assigned to specefic "freedom ghettos" is not free speech. If Phelps wants to assemble his legions of evil right next to a funeral he has a legal right to. This bill is not a law no matter what Congress says, because it contradicts the Constitution.

I'm sorry guys but that is simply the truth. Free speech isn't "free when convenient" or "free when you agree with it" it is FREE.

Godwin!!!

We can close this thread now.

It took y'all long enough to catch that. :D

Reread the Constitution. The Congress decides how much money the armed forces receive, decide how much we get paid, how many members of each force are authorized, what actions the military is allowed to participate in. Commander-in-Chief is like being a 6-star General - that doesnt give him ultimate power to wield the Military as he sees fit, only that he's the one who gives the actual order to go AFTER Congress tells him he can.

To sum it up in business terms, the CiC is the CEO and Congress are the beancounters?


How do you figure that defending against invaders is not in the public interest?

I don't. But I think I will concede you on this point. We are getting to the hair splitting part that serves no real purpose.

No they don't and neither do the American people, regulated free speech, free speech assigned to specefic "freedom ghettos" is not free speech. If Phelps wants to assemble his legions of evil right next to a funeral he has a legal right to. This bill is not a law no matter what Congress says, because it contradicts the Constitution.

I'm sorry guys but that is simply the truth. Free speech isn't "free when convenient" or "free when you agree with it" it is FREE.

Ahh, but your rights only extend until they interfere significantly with my rights. "right to swing your fist..." In this case, the rights of the protestors are trampling the rights of the families, and the protestors are hardly peacefully assembled.

Moving them a distance away from the funeral is hardly a trampling of the protestor's rights.

To sum it up in business terms, the CiC is the CEO and Congress are the beancounters?Something along those lines. Think of Congress as the Board, and the CiC as the CEO. Without the Board, nothing would be authorized, the CEO cannot overrule the Board, but the Board has put the CEO in charge of implementing what they've decided as policy. Does that make more sense? lol



I don't. But I think I will concede you on this point. We are getting to the hair splitting part that serves no real purpose.So...it's not in the public interest to be free from invasion...? I know you dont want to split hairs, but you are. You're saying that the Military doesnt serve the public interest and then admit that the military serves to keep the US from being invaded.

I hate to say it but the people who show up to funerals to protest are protected by the Constitution. They are only exercising their first ammenment rights.

Yes, I feel they are misguided scum that have the morals and empathy of sewer rats, but I will fight for their right to have their say.

To say that we went to war in Iraq for any noble purpose is bull. In fact we were told lies and blatant fabrications to get us to go to war and that is unforgivable. If we were to hold our leaders up to the same standards we hold others they would be on trial for war crimes as we speak. Their lies have led to the deaths of thousands of innocents and they should be held accountable. Will they, No. They will live out their lives as free, rich men.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

-- U.S. Constitution, Amendment I


Stop spitting on it. It's done more for you than any veteran ever has.
I agree. How the fuck did some random dude who fought in Vietnam against the Viet Kong protecting my right to free speech?

Same with the soldiers in Iraq. How were they threatening free speech and the like? I mean, it was proven that there were no WMD's or links to terrorism there, so really, I don't see the threat to the American way of life there.

That nullfies the argument of "These people were protecting your right to free speech".

And if it's about respect issues, the 1st amendment gives you the right to protest PEACEFULLY. As long as violence doesn't break out, I don't see the problem with this.

As much as I hate to say it they have the right to protest. If we start picking and choosing when free speech and right to assemble are truly free or not we will lose it all.

As much as I hate to say it they have the right to protest. If we start picking and choosing when free speech and right to assemble are truly free or not we will lose it all.
and don't the funeral attendees have a right to assemble peacefully also?

Now if the protesters were only standing on the side holding signs, then that's one thing, but to shout demeaning sloagans and interrupt the assembly of the funeral attendees, that's something else.

As much as I hate to say it they have the right to protest. If we start picking and choosing when free speech and right to assemble are truly free or not we will lose it all.
Yes. You're entirely right.

and don't the funeral attendees have a right to assemble peacefully also?

Now if the protesters were only standing on the side holding signs, then that's one thing, but to shout demeaning sloagans and interrupt the assembly of the funeral attendees, that's something else.
That's bull. As long as they're not inciting to use violence or using actual violence they have every right to protest. Sure, it's despicable what they do, but they have every right to.

"Innocents" is a totally unwarranted assumption on your part.Not so, by innocents I mean anyone not connected with war. I don't have to assume innocence, it's a given.

For the last time, PEOPLE, READ THE BILL

It DOES NOT identify only the funerals of veterans. It, in fact, includes ALL funerals at National Cemetaries because that is the only area in which Congress has jurisdiction. It DOES in fact urge all States to pass similar legislation concerning their cemetaries.

If it does urge all States to pass similar legislation concerning their cemetaries, including civilian ones, then I'm on the fence about it. The free speech issues are too many for me to agree, but not many enough for me to disagree. If it were unequal, I'd still fight it.

That's bull. As long as they're not inciting to use violence or using actual violence they have every right to protest. Sure, it's despicable what they do, but they have every right to.
I don't have the right to beat them with a beer bottle but I would if it was at my mother's funeral. I'd pay the fines/jail time for that cause.

Apparently you havent been to Iraq or talked with many people who have been.Of course I haven't. It's just a pity the military hasn't followed my example. Then the uncounted tens of thousands of Iraqis murdered wouldn't be dead.

I don't have the right to beat them with a beer bottle but I would if it was at my mother's funeral. I'd pay the fines/jail time for that cause.
I would too. But still, they should have the right to.

I would too. But still, they should have the right to.and this is an example of misuse of the right.

had the protesters used more common sense and common curtisy, the bill wouldn't be in exsistance. but because those idiots had to be as obnoxious, people will complain and if enough people complain then bill like that will be passed.

you want to keep your rights, then use them responsibly. Just because the Constitution allows for free speech it is NOT a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

I would too. But still, they should have the right to.
I firmly believe that everyone has the right to insult me enough that I'm obligated to beat them with a beer bottle.

and this is an example of misuse of the right.

had the protesters used more common sense and common curtisy, the bill wouldn't be in exsistance. but because those idiots had to be as obnoxious, people will complain and if enough people complain then bill like that will be passed.

you want to keep your rights, then use them responsibly. Just because the Constitution allows for free speech it is NOT a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

Once there is one "misuse" there will be others, than we wont be able to say anything bad about the president or military. It is all or nothing. With freedom comes excess. You don’t have to agree with them (and I don’t) but at least you have the right to do so. But we can’t start placing restrictions on speech and still call it free. We are already losing a fight with the FCC on what deems free speech, and I sense dire consequences.

and this is an example of misuse of the right.

had the protesters used more common sense and common curtisy, the bill wouldn't be in exsistance. but because those idiots had to be as obnoxious, people will complain and if enough people complain then bill like that will be passed.

you want to keep your rights, then use them responsibly. Just because the Constitution allows for free speech it is NOT a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.


So free speech should only be free if they say things in a nice way?

A "misuse of the right" of free speech is, by definition, the inciting of violence or the use of slander. Short of that, we are all free to say what we want to say on public property. We are even free to be obnoxious idiots if we want, no matter how unfortunate the circumstances (and I think it in the poorest of taste what the Westboro Baptist people do), and the protection of THAT right also protects YOUR right to express what you feel about the situation.

unfortunatly, misuse will bring up loud protest. as in protest about this bill. but on the other hand, this bill is a product of those who are protesting to those excercising their right to protest.

someone won't be happy, either way. however, the whole incident starts with idiots not showing restraint or intelligence when protesting.

I blame them.

So free speech should only be free if they say things in a nice way?

A "misuse of the right" of free speech is, by definition, the inciting of violence or the use of slander. Short of that, we are all free to say what we want to say on public property. We are even free to be obnoxious idiots if we want, no matter how unfortunate the circumstances (and I think it in the poorest of taste what the Westboro Baptist people do), and the protection of THAT right also protects YOUR right to express what you feel about the situation.
no, but Rights are not a free ticket to do what ever you want. there is an unspoken responsibility with that right. abuse that right or ignore those unspoken responsibilities and someone will write them down. Making a law out of what was once a gentleman's agreement.

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater was not against the law until idiots started doing it. then guess what...

those idiots protesting at funerals ignored social graces and curtisies that were once an unspoken agreement and now, someone is going to do something about that.

and guess what. know the phrase a few rotten apples spoils the whole batch? that's what's happening, so next time you want to excercise your right, do so responsibly and you can enjoy that right without ending up with laws to define what you can or can't do.

I agree that those Westboro Baptist people are to blame for this, but you can't hold the government accountable since their job is also to maintain order. and they are doing so in the way they know how. don't like it. then do the right thing and protest by writing civil letters to your representatives. but also realize they probably are getting letters in support of what they are doing.

no, but Rights are not a free ticket to do what ever you want. there is an unspoken responsibility with that right. abuse that right or ignore those unspoken responsibilities and someone will write them down. Making a law out of what was once a gentleman's agreement.

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater was not against the law until idiots started doing it. then guess what...

those idiots protesting at funerals ignored social graces and curtisies that were once an unspoken agreement and now, someone is going to do something about that.

and guess what. know the phrase a few rotten apples spoils the whole batch? that's what's happening, so next time you want to excercise your right, do so responsibly and you can enjoy that right without ending up with laws to define what you can or can't do.

I agree that those Westboro Baptist people are to blame for this, but you can't hold the government accountable since their job is also to maintain order. and they are doing so in the way they know how. don't like it. then do the right thing and protest by writing civil letters to your representatives. but also realize they probably are getting letters in support of what they are doing.

What is this unspoken responsibility? Where do we draw that line which says "It is ok to say THIS, but anyone who says THAT is going to far and their rights must be taken away"? We draw the line when the speech in question violates the LAW... that is, that it incites violence.

Yelling FIRE causes violence and physical harm. While the stuff the Westboro people do is vile and unpleasant, they do not incite violence. No one listening to them punches mourners or attacks the government that "supports homosexuality". If they did, that would be cause to shut them down... but they do not advocate such violence and so they are nasty and distasteful, but legal.

There can be no definition of "responsible use" of freedom of speech. The very idea is ridiculous. Who gets to decide what is right and proper? How is speech free if it is regulated? And the letters that the Congress gets urging limitations of free speech are more dangerous than what the Westboro people do. Legislation should be what is right, not what is popular, and freedoms ennumerated by law should protect everyone, not just those whose messages we like.

Laying blame is tricky. Yes, the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church is what incited this legislation, but sadly the legislation itself is wrong. And if we allow it to pass because it seems the nicer thing to do, we throw ourselves headlong into a situation which opens up the gates for all sorts of other restrictions of our freedoms simply because our behavior, though protected, offended someone.

Please clarify.

It's called sarcasm.

What is this unspoken responsibility? Where do we draw that line which says "It is ok to say THIS, but anyone who says THAT is going to far and their rights must be taken away"? We draw the line when the speech in question violates the LAW... that is, that it incites violence.

Yelling FIRE causes violence and physical harm. While the stuff the Westboro people do is vile and unpleasant, they do not incite violence. No one listening to them punches mourners or attacks the government that "supports homosexuality". If they did, that would be cause to shut them down... but they do not advocate such violence and so they are nasty and distasteful, but legal.

There can be no definition of "responsible use" of freedom of speech. The very idea is ridiculous. Who gets to decide what is right and proper? How is speech free if it is regulated? And the letters that the Congress gets urging limitations of free speech are more dangerous than what the Westboro people do. Legislation should be what is right, not what is popular, and freedoms ennumerated by law should protect everyone, not just those whose messages we like.

Laying blame is tricky. Yes, the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church is what incited this legislation, but sadly the legislation itself is wrong. And if we allow it to pass because it seems the nicer thing to do, we throw ourselves headlong into a situation which opens up the gates for all sorts of other restrictions of our freedoms simply because our behavior, though protected, offended someone.
you already admitted that free speech is already regulated. if speech leads to violence then it's not allowed. such as yelling "Fire" in any crowded area. but then does one have to wait till violence erupts before a law is made?

seems to me that this is only a preventative measure. no protests in any national cemetary. not no protest at all, but like yelling fire in a crowded theatre, it exempts protest at any national cemetary.

thus those idiots now can stand outside the boundaries and protest their hearts out.

because they abused their right, they threaten that right for everyone else.

Rights are granted by the Government (they wrote the constitution and they can amend it) and guess what. that Government can take away those Rights. don't like it. then don't vote those people back into office.

Once a line has been drawn, in can be moved. There should be no limitations to free speech what so ever. I agree that they should keep protesters out of the cemetery grounds, and that should fix many of the problems.

you already admitted that free speech is already regulated. if speech leads to violence then it's not allowed. such as yelling "Fire" in any crowded area. but then does one have to wait till violence erupts before a law is made?

seems to me that this is only a preventative measure. no protests in any national cemetary. not no protest at all, but like yelling fire in a crowded theatre, it exempts protest at any national cemetary.

thus those idiots now can stand outside the boundaries and protest their hearts out.

because they abused their right, they threaten that right for everyone else.

Rights are granted by the Government (they wrote the constitution and they can amend it) and guess what. that Government can take away those Rights. don't like it. then don't vote those people back into office.

You by definition can not, ever, abuse a right.

Either you have the right to do it, or you do not. If it is my right to do X, then if I do X, no matter how many times I do X, no matter how you or anyone else feel about me doing X, it is still my right.

It is either my right to do something, or it is not. If it is my right, then that right by definition can not be abused.

FYI the federal government can not, as a matter of course, amend the constitution. Ever.

You by definition can not, ever, abuse a right.

Either you have the right to do it, or you do not. If it is my right to do X, then if I do X, no matter how many times I do X, no matter how you or anyone else feel about me doing X, it is still my right.

It is either my right to do something, or it is not. If it is my right, then that right by definition can not be abused.

FYI the federal government can not, as a matter of course, amend the constitution. Ever.
True, but then one must take the consiquences for such actions.

A pilot was arrested when he asked the person searching him for guns... "why are you worried about me carrying a gun when I can just fly the plane into the ground?"

he was asking a valid and honest question but because he wasn't thinking or using discretion, he made was can be considered a threat.

a 13 yr old girl, objecting to going on an ocean cruise with her parents wrote in a letter to her boyfriend "I wish I had a bomb, I wanna sink this boat" and left that letter out where others can see it, because she wanted to get kicked off the ship so she can stay with her BF. bad judgement on her part got her landed in jail for a bomb scare.

wanna try calling in a false 911 call? it's your right under freedom of speech. hey, no one gets hurt right.

To use your freedom with no requard to the results of your excersicing your freedom is abuse. Those Church Idiots abused the right to protest and so the results are now, another area where the right to protest is now illegal.

don't blame the government, blame those idiots.

They still have the right to protest, they are just limited to where they can do it, this is not hampering the freedom of speech. The government can only take what we let them, if we let them take away the right to protest because we don’t like, we will lose all right to protest.

They still have the right to protest, they are just limited to where they can do it, this is not hampering the freedom of speech. The government can only take what we let them, if we let them take away the right to protest because we don’t like, we will lose all right to protest.
right.

Something along those lines. Think of Congress as the Board, and the CiC as the CEO. Without the Board, nothing would be authorized, the CEO cannot overrule the Board, but the Board has put the CEO in charge of implementing what they've decided as policy. Does that make more sense? lol

Somewhat, but the army is the companies private security force no? Even with checks and balances, it's still under the government system and serves the will of the government and it's policies.


So...it's not in the public interest to be free from invasion...? I know you dont want to split hairs, but you are. You're saying that the Military doesnt serve the public interest and then admit that the military serves to keep the US from being invaded.

Let's just say that the use of the armed forces aren't always for public interest, or public good for that matter shall we? As opposed to more localized public services, the armed forces is dual purpose so far as applications go.

I have to agree... Since WWII, where there arguably was a threat towards the nation and the constitution, no war has been fought to "protect the constitution" of the US.
That's a very short-sighted argument. Without question, international Communism poised a lethal threat to the American Constitution, and the defense of it would have been very poorly served indeed had not U.S. foreign policy after WWII been focused on the containment and, eventually, ideological defeat of Marxism-Leninism -- via both military and non-military means.

Of course I haven't. It's just a pity the military hasn't followed my example. Then the uncounted tens of thousands of Iraqis murdered wouldn't be dead.

Yeah, because Saddam and his cronies didnt murder any of the Iraqi people...

Somewhat, but the army is the companies private security force no? Even with checks and balances, it's still under the government system and serves the will of the government and it's policies.



Let's just say that the use of the armed forces aren't always for public interest, or public good for that matter shall we? As opposed to more localized public services, the armed forces is dual purpose so far as applications go.

And yet...the people responsible for the current usage of the Military have been reelected...

They still have the right to protest, they are just limited to where they can do it, this is not hampering the freedom of speech. The government can only take what we let them, if we let them take away the right to protest because we don’t like, we will lose all right to protest.
What good is the freedom of speech when it is no longer free?

"You may protest only in a room where no one else can hear you"

We do not have to right to be not offended

I find these protesters to be detestable but I find it even more detestable that freedom is being restricted just because some dont like what they have to say

What good is the freedom of speech when it is no longer free?

"You may protest only in a room where no one else can hear you"

We do not have to right to be not offended

I find these protesters to be detestable but I find it even more detestable that freedom is being restricted just because some dont like what they have to say

Once again, the families have the right to peacefully assemble as well. This law allows both groups to exercise their rights.

Once again, the families have the right to peacefully assemble as well. This law allows both groups to exercise their rights.
The family did not have the right to not be offended by others specaily when that requires limiting the speach of everyone else in the area

And yet...the people responsible for the current usage of the Military have been reelected...

That doesn't detract from what I've said does it?

What good is the freedom of speech when it is no longer free?what... now there's a fee??? :D

"You may protest only in a room where no one else can hear you"think about it... they gotta enter and leave the cemetary... and most cemetaries only have ONE public access road in. you can line the street outside for blocks around and protest.

We do not have to right to be not offendedhmmm... don't we have a right to be happy? Persue happiness I believe alot of people are bandying about in those equality threads... the family has a right to say goodbye to their loved ones in the manner that they see fitting that would make them happy.

I find these protesters to be detestable but I find it even more detestable that freedom is being restricted just because some dont like what they have to sayI think the problem was more that people were comming out to protest against the protesters (again viable and constitutionally legal) but in the end all it makes is alot of noise. (especially if it's those bikers reving their engines.) so this measure is to allow family and friends their right to peacefull assembly as well as defining an area outside where protesters can still get their point across as morners and well wishers enter and exit from the cemetary.

because no one wanted to compromise, the government stepped in and put their foot down. you wanna complain, then take it up with the protesters and the complainers of those protesters. the Government is only keeping the peace.

That's a very short-sighted argument. Without question, international Communism poised a lethal threat to the American Constitution, and the defense of it would have been very poorly served indeed had not U.S. foreign policy after WWII been focused on the containment and, eventually, ideological defeat of Marxism-Leninism -- via both military and non-military means.
No. NO war after WWII have been fought to protect the constitution. No soldiers have died after 1945 to protect the constitution. They might have died to stop the spread of communism to other countries or to secure american interests abroad, but at no time was the constitution of the US under such a direct threat that people had to fight to protect it.

And communism was never a threat. The Soviet Union might have been a threat to the US, but the fear and hatered of communism was so firmly rooted in the american consciousness that the ideology itself wasn't particularly viable in the US.

So no. I do not believe that the constitution would have been lost had not soldiers fought in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq.

No. NO war after WWII have been fought to protect the constitution. No soldiers have died after 1945 to protect the constitution. They might have died to stop the spread of communism to other countries or to secure american interests abroad, but at no time was the constitution of the US under such a direct threat that people had to fight to protect it.

And communism was never a threat. The Soviet Union might have been a threat to the US, but the fear and hatered of communism was so firmly rooted in the american consciousness that the ideology itself wasn't particularly viable in the US.

So no. I do not believe that the constitution would have been lost had not soldiers fought in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq.the US Constitution was threatened in WWII? please explain.

I understand Democracy was threatened, but the Constitution?

the US Constitution was threatened in WWII? please explain.

I understand Democracy was threatened, but the Constitution?
Heh, I'd rather not. ;)

You see, I'm a bit uncertain about whether or not one could say that the constitution itself was threatened in WW2, so I'm not saying it was and I'm not saying it wasn't.

I am, however, certain that no war have been fought to protect the constitution since that time. And that's the reason why I wrote what I did, and why I'm only looking at the post-1945 period.

Heh, I'd rather not. ;)

You see, I'm a bit uncertain about whether or not one could say that the constitution itself was threatened in WW2, so I'm not saying it was and I'm not saying it wasn't.

I am, however, certain that no war have been fought to protect the constitution since that time. And that's the reason why I wrote what I did, and why I'm only looking at the post-1945 period.
Ahhh... Understood and no problem. nothing wrong with being safe.

I think it's sad that Congress had to make this act. I mean, by all means, protest against war, but at a soldier's funeral? What are you doing? That's juts gonna upset people and it's gonna make the whole peace movement look like a buncha douchebags.

Yeah, because Saddam and his cronies didnt murder any of the Iraqi people...Don't fall into that trap. Just remember that Saddam didn't murder any Americans.

While we're talking about remembering, how about the fact that the USA gave weapons and resources/Training to Saddam and his "cronies" to murder Iranians during the Iran/Iraq war.

Don't fall into that trap. Just remember that Saddam didn't murder any Americans.

While we're talking about remembering, how about the fact that the USA gave weapons and resources/Training to Saddam and his "cronies" to murder Iranians during the Iran/Iraq war.
They also sold weapons to the Iranians to murder Iraqis in the same war. Lots of profit to be made in war!

They also sold weapons to the Iranians to murder Iraqis in the same war. Lots of profit to be made in war!Also lots of American hypocrisy. There's no more profit left in selling them arms, so lets just steal their oil.

Also lots of American hypocrisy. There's no more profit left in selling them arms, so lets just steal their oil.
And after those convenient 9/11 attacks, people will follow you blindly because they're terrified of terrorists

And after those convenient 9/11 attacks, people will follow you blindly because they're terrified of terroristsYour right there! I'm terrified of Bush and Blair and what future acts of terrorism they may be capable of. What plans do they have for Iran? They can't send in conventional forces because of their continuing terrorist activities in Iraq, so what will they do in Iran? Is it possible, they will use nuclear weapons.

Your right there! I'm terrified of Bush and Blair and what future acts of terrorism they may be capable of. What plans do they have for Iran? They can't send in conventional forces because of their continuing terrorist activities in Iraq, so what will they do in Iran? Is it possible, they will use nuclear weapons.
If not, I really can't see how they could win against Iran. They're all shiites and will fight America instead of each other. Plus, the first thing they'll do is cut off the oil pipeline, which will completely screw up America's economy. I can't really see how they could win without nukes.

What good is the freedom of speech when it is no longer free?

"You may protest only in a room where no one else can hear you"

We do not have to right to be not offended

I find these protesters to be detestable but I find it even more detestable that freedom is being restricted just because some dont like what they have to say
Here is how we view this dilemma in Europe.

Article 10 Freedom of expression

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include
freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and
ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of
broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and
responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions,
restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial
integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or
rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in
confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the
judiciary.

If there is disagreement on whether the right is being curtailed too much, a court decides. Not the legislative, or head of state. Proportionality is an issue, and so is equality before the law.

Once again, the families have the right to peacefully assemble as well. This law allows both groups to exercise their rights.
They probably also have the right to exercise their religion, yesno?

From a strict Constructionist view, what Congress has done is unconstitutional:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment.

However, from a personal view, funerals are no place for political ideas to be expressed - they are personal events for people. If those who were closed to the deceased wish to use the funeral of their loved one as a soapbox, then that is their choice. The fact that a Republican has come out as backing this bill does not surprise me.

From a strict Constructionist view, what Congress has done is unconstitutional:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment.

However, from a personal view, funerals are no place for political ideas to be expressed - they are personal events for people. If those who were closed to the deceased wish to use the funeral of their loved one as a soapbox, then that is their choice. The fact that a Republican has come out as backing this bill does not surprise me.
Again, what about the right of the family to peacefully assemble?

Quoting an old Chief Justice: "My right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

The right of the protestors to protest is valid - until it begins interrupting the right of the families to peacefully assemble. And in this instance, it's quite a trampling of the family's rights.


This bill does not only apply to Vets. So using the argument that the Military hasnt protected our freedoms is a red herring used to throw people off from the fact that this bill protects all funerals at any National Cemetary and strongly encourages States to provide the same protection within their respective borders.

How many of you detractors have actually read the bill?

....How many of you detractors have actually read the bill?
Not me, at least. I still find it fascinating how many were quite o.k. with it, believing that it was special protection for military funerals only.

Anyway, can people protest at military or gay graves? Like, after the funeral?

Not me, at least. I still find it fascinating how many were quite o.k. with it, believing that it was special protection for military funerals only.

Anyway, can people protest at military or gay graves? Like, after the funeral?

The restriction is that protests may not be mounted within 500' of a funeral for an hour before and an hour after the funeral without permission of the cemetary director.

That's it. It simply protects the funeral service, nothing more, nothing less.