On 8/16/10 15:02 , SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago

judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.



Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken critic
with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

xxxx
What gives me the willies is someone with a microphone advocating
bloodshed concerning gun laws.
NO Second Amendment advocate wants to hear or read this kind of language.

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be
killed,"

He was WAYYYY out of bounds and he has to take responsibility for
broadcasting that about principals of the court.


Not disputing that he was way out of bounds. Nor that he did not
represent the Second Amendment in the spirit in which it was intended.

The point is that the government went after him, a loud and
outspoken critic of the government, with criminal charges.

That's a very troubling situation, and close scrutiny is not only
warranted, but required.

Further, the issue of his FBI involvement raises deeply
concerning questions about the very nature of the case, and the
actions of the government in not only this pursuit, but in his
actions that brought this pursuit in the first place.

Make no mistake. I'm no fan of Turner. And have told him directly
a number of times.

But I get shivers when I read about this pillory, the very loud
and public government action against him while using him for their
covert surveillance, and the nature of the publicity that surrounds
him.

Eternal vigilance, here. When the government goes after its
critics, nothing is as it seems.

On 8/16/10 15:08 , DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 3:37 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:

Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.

Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken
critic with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.


Apparently Turner was an FBI informant trying to flush out anti-
government types with his inflammatory rhetoric. I wonder why they
REALLY threw one of their own overboard?



That's the question, isn't it.

Eternal vigilance.

On 8/16/10 15:10 , SMITH29 wrote:
DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.
I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you make
death threats to? Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten to
rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! Why the hell can't I threaten to
kill
a federal official? I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own
them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

xxxx
To say they " deserve to be killed " over a ruling is to go off the end
of reasonable speech. And Federal Judges no less?
He advocated an act of violence against three officers of the court.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
Sorry, I see jail time for this blabber mouth.



And just who gets to define the term 'reasonable.'

On Aug 16, 4:15*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:08 , DEFCON 88 wrote:





On Aug 16, 3:37 pm, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:

Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.

* * Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken
critic with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

* * And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

Apparently Turner was an FBI informant trying to flush out anti-
government types with his inflammatory rhetoric. I wonder why they
REALLY threw one of their own overboard?

* *That's the question, isn't it.

* *Eternal vigilance


Maybe he knew too much about the Communist coup of our government?

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:02 , SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago

judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.



Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken critic
with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

xxxx
What gives me the willies is someone with a microphone advocating
bloodshed concerning gun laws.
NO Second Amendment advocate wants to hear or read this kind of language.

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be
killed,"

He was WAYYYY out of bounds and he has to take responsibility for
broadcasting that about principals of the court.


Not disputing that he was way out of bounds. Nor that he did not
represent the Second Amendment in the spirit in which it was intended.

The point is that the government went after him, a loud and outspoken
critic of the government, with criminal charges.

That's a very troubling situation, and close scrutiny is not only

warranted, but required.

Further, the issue of his FBI involvement raises deeply concerning
questions about the very nature of the case, and the actions of the
government in not only this pursuit, but in his actions that brought
this pursuit in the first place.

Make no mistake. I'm no fan of Turner. And have told him directly a
number of times.

But I get shivers when I read about this pillory, the very loud and
public government action against him while using him for their covert
surveillance, and the nature of the publicity that surrounds him.

Eternal vigilance, here. When the government goes after its critics,
nothing is as it seems.

xxxx
Sounds like he had become a loose cannon on the deck of the good ship
" Whistle Blow "

On 8/16/10 15:21 , DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:15 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:08 , DEFCON 88 wrote:





On Aug 16, 3:37 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:

Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.

Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken
critic with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

Apparently Turner was an FBI informant trying to flush out anti-
government types with his inflammatory rhetoric. I wonder why they
REALLY threw one of their own overboard?

That's the question, isn't it.

Eternal vigilance


Maybe he knew too much about the Communist coup of our government?


I doubt that. I doubt that he knew his ass from his appetite. But
your question still stands.

What really happened here.

I'd also be interested in knowing who issued the burn notice.

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:10 , SMITH29 wrote:
DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.
I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you make
death threats to? Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten to
rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! Why the hell can't I threaten to
kill
a federal official? I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own
them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

xxxx
To say they " deserve to be killed " over a ruling is to go off the end
of reasonable speech. And Federal Judges no less?
He advocated an act of violence against three officers of the court.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
Sorry, I see jail time for this blabber mouth.



And just who gets to define the term 'reasonable.'

xxxx
And just who gets to decide who can decide who gets to make the
definition? This can go on and on and on to infinity.

In this case I decided I felt it was beyond reasonable speech and was an
advocation for violence against officers of the court.
You are supposed to say " Yes your honor and no your honor " and treat
them with respect to the court. Going beyond that protocol can be
hazardous to your freedom and your bank account.
It's basically just plain old common sense.

DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:15 pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:08 , DEFCON 88 wrote:





On Aug 16, 3:37 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.
A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.
Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken
critic with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.
And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.
Apparently Turner was an FBI informant trying to flush out anti-
government types with his inflammatory rhetoric. I wonder why they
REALLY threw one of their own overboard?
That's the question, isn't it.

Eternal vigilance


Maybe he knew too much about the Communist coup of our government?

xxxx
Used to the drift would be to Hitler. ( Goodwin )
Now I see a trend towards reference to Communism which is a far greater
threat than Hitler is today. I think this is good.

--

On 8/16/10 15:33 , SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:10 , SMITH29 wrote:
DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.
I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you
make
death threats to? Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten to
rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! Why the hell can't I threaten to
kill
a federal official? I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own
them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

xxxx
To say they " deserve to be killed " over a ruling is to go off the end
of reasonable speech. And Federal Judges no less?
He advocated an act of violence against three officers of the court.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
Sorry, I see jail time for this blabber mouth.



And just who gets to define the term 'reasonable.'

xxxx
And just who gets to decide who can decide who gets to make the
definition? This can go on and on and on to infinity.

In this case I decided I felt it was beyond reasonable speech and was an
advocation for violence against officers of the court.
You are supposed to say " Yes your honor and no your honor " and treat
them with respect to the court. Going beyond that protocol can be
hazardous to your freedom and your bank account.
It's basically just plain old common sense.



A man must consider what a rich realm he abdicates when he
becomes a conformist. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson


In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a
question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
~Bertrand Russell


Just because something is tradition doesn't make it right.
~Anthony J. D'Angelo, The College Blue Book



p

DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 1:43 pm, wrote:


[...]


"Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be
killed," Turner posted on his website in June 2009.



I dunno, that sounds like merely an opinion to me. He never personally
threatened to kill the judges. But then again I guess when the
government considers itself to be a god, it can railroad anyone who
doesn't bow down before it.

He also published personal information. I think he'll win on appeal.
"You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride"