Atlanta Jewish Times advocates assassinating POTUS

[Typhoon]

From a poster at the other board:

Atlanta Jewish Times | Assasinate the US President for the benefit of Israel

Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

Yes, you read "three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?

Another way of putting "three" in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives...Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?

You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.

Original

Hmmmm.

[monster_gardener]

From a poster at the other board:

Atlanta Jewish Times | Assasinate the US President for the benefit of Israel

Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

Yes, you read "three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?

Another way of putting "three" in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives...Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?

You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.

Original

Hmmmm.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Col. Typhoon.

Perhaps it's unconstitutional* but even the old Black Panthers had the common sense to be circumspect when asked by William F. Buckley about why not advocating the offing of the "Chief Pig" since they advocated "offing pigs" in general

Why? See below:

UPDATE: Adler has told JTA that he "regrets" the column and plans to publish an apology. Oh, and the Secret Service says it will "make all appropriate, investigative follow-up in regard to this matter," according to ABC News.

*1st. Amendment Freedom of Speech/Press: for that matter IIRC the Democratic-Republicans published a political cartoon with Washington on a guillotine..........

[Demon of Undoing]

Lot of sympathy for the cause, but that's kinda treason.

[Enki]

Lot of sympathy for the cause, but that's kinda treason.

If the Mossad assassinates the President we would be at war with Israel.

[Demon of Undoing]

Lot of sympathy for the cause, but that's kinda treason.

If the Mossad assassinates the President we would be at war with Israel.

And I would agree to it.

[Enki]

Lot of sympathy for the cause, but that's kinda treason.

If the Mossad assassinates the President we would be at war with Israel.

And I would agree to it.

It would last all of a day.

Either God would wipe us out in a fiery hellstorm, or we would wipe them out in a fiery hellstorm.

[Azrael]

Lot of sympathy for the cause, but that's kinda treason.

If the Mossad assassinates the President we would be at war with Israel.

And I would agree to it.

It would last all of a day.

Either God would wipe us out in a fiery hellstorm, or we would wipe them out in a fiery hellstorm.

I don't know . . . given how powerful the Israeli lobby is, who would give the order to push the button on Israel?

They got away with the Lavon Affair, they got away with attacking the USS Liberty and who knows what else. Who knows how much they could get away with.

[Demon of Undoing]

That is actually something to consider. I'm not entirely sure that many in some quarters wouldn't seek to give the aggressors at least rhetorical cover.

[crashtech]

Lot of sympathy for the cause, but that's kinda treason.

If the Mossad assassinates the President we would be at war with Israel.

And I would agree to it.

It would last all of a day.

Either God would wipe us out in a fiery hellstorm, or we would wipe them out in a fiery hellstorm.

And the Arabs would STILL hate us.

[Dioscuri]

"Andrew Adler" is clearly a moron, but NOT because the idea occurred to him; he's a moron in thinking that Israel would be in any position to dictate terms to Biden after they've just told Biden that they killed the president. This reminds me of the recent flare-up regarding the use of the term "Israel-Firster".

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... nk/251704/

I found this controversy interesting because the antisemitism police (Abe Foxman et al) went ballistic over the use of a term that would seem at face value to be merely accurate: A person who believes that Israel is of absolute and overriding importance such that its "security needs" deserve to be placed ahead of almost any other consideration, is an "Israel-Firster." Is this not something that many pro-Israel people (many of them not even Jews) actually believe? It begs the question (which I've never seen asked): What is Israel NOT more important than? I predict that an American's answer to this question becomes increasingly uncomfortable the more of a Zionist he believes himself to be. We are, after all, a people for whom "goy = who cares?" has been a resource of humor for well over a century. Mr. Adler presents a legitimate quandary: if you truly believe that the malice/fecklessness of the President is certain to result in the deaths of your people, wouldn't some "unspeakable" options HAVE to be on the table? For a large and growing proportion of Israelis, Israel being a Jewish state is more important than it being a democratic one, since the prospect of West Bank Arabs voting is held to be tantamount to the death of every Jew in Israel. American Zionists evade this problem, reliably repeating that Israel is democratic to its core, which will be true until it isn't.

The 4000 years of Jewish survival is greatly attributable to the phenomenon of the self-fulfilling prophesy: We are the Chosen, and if we live by the commandments of God, our reward shall be "more life," namely progeny in an unbounded future. Such a prophesy is all the more powerful when it is separated from a specific region and a specific set of institutions and embodied instead in a Book. For Israelis, the Blessing has again fixated upon the Land, and the Land is promptly turning into a blood milkshake. We come then to the vexed issue of whether Israelis or Palestinians are "more" responsible for 60 years of peace fails. The Zionist line is clear: "Peace would so easy if only the Palestinians would ... [X]." And yet the more you read this line being repeated endlessly by Israeli governments, by AIPAC, and by the Zionist center-right, you can't help but detect an underlying meaning: "Peace would be so easy if only the Palestinians COULD ..." -- "if only the Palestinians WERE CAPABLE OF ..." which of course means they are not capable. No need to bother attaching a determinate reason for this incapacity, it's effectively innate (though decent modern people would never actually SAY this). If your opponent is incapable of making peace, you (who are of course capable) are absolved of having to try. And sure enough, the Palis have obliged, I mean, we can't say they're incapable, but the fact remains that they haven't. WHY haven't they? Well, how much can you expect of an Arab? Self-fulfilling prophesies: very effective. Israel has been most skillful in making the outline of a peace deal just impossible enough to convince "world opinion" that it's possible. Peace has failed for decades because there is no peace to be achieved. Either "Israel Belongs To Us" or it doesn't. That right there is a true and genuine IDEA. It defines clear terms and it forces a choice. The whinging lefties in Tel Aviv can't compete with such clarity. Just ask the question to their faces, "Do you believe Israel belongs to the Jews, or not?" and their mumbling some decades-old crap about "universal rights" will give you your answer. Understand, I am not taking a side. I am only taking ideas seriously. I believe the Settlers take their Idea seriously too. A simple axiom to aid our thinking on such matters.

THE AXIOM OF SERIOUSNESS:

An idea is only serious to the extent that it can effectuate the removal of obstacles to its verification. Therefore, the ultimate seriousness of any idea is measurable only according to the logic of war.


The Blessing, as we know, is also a Curse. If one follows this sort of thing, there has been an unmistakable rise of apocalyptic anxiety among Jews regarding Iran; Teheran=Wannsee has become the rhetorical tool of choice, since Iran=Amalek lets the mask slip (who's initiating the violence here?). The atmosphere has become so feverish that for a moment we actually seemed to be imposing sanctions without any expectation that Iran could ever be forced to change course, but solely because Iran Delenda Est. Then we sort of caught ourselves, but it has still become quite clear that Israel already sees war with Iran as inevitable. Self-fulfilling prophesy is very much in play here. A recent op-ed by David Mamet brought an even darker tone to the situation, alleging that the West is setting up Israel as a collective human sacrifice to assuage the brute passions of the Muslim horde. Expect the meme: Israel=Sacrifice to appear with increasing frequency. The prospect of an Iranian Bomb will be likened to a knife held above Israel's fair and helpless throat. In his book, Mamet states without hedging: The World will always hate the Jews. This is another Idea I believe must be taken seriously. It is already very widespread in Israel: We should do whatever we please because the goys will hate us no matter what. Is that hatred not part of the meaning of being Chosen? Wanting to enjoy the good parts of being Chosen and then expecting to be treated like everyone else when the bad pops up is like hoping to eat your cake and genuflect it too.

In any case, this is the new prophesy that has taken hold of the Jewish Soul: War with Iran, bearing the brunt of the world's hatred, and being sacrificed. The long history of veritable Jewish prophesies indicates to me that there is some realistic possibility of these things occurring. Israel seems intent upon speeding toward this destination. The only thing that can dissuade them is impossible: how could it ever be verified that Iran never becomes capable of building a bomb? The means of building a bomb is simply information. Information cannot be stopped. Any modernized country that wants one can make one. There is no way around this. It is a necessity that must be confronted.

There is one thing I can tell you to a certainty: the Jews are not stronger than Information. They think they are. I foresee a realistic possibility of this whole affair ending very, very badly, by a world-historical standard of "bad," for everyone involved.

[Enki]

They say the world hates the Jews and so therefore they should act in ways that are hateful?

If they brazenly killed the President of the United States the United States would turn on them, or maybe collapse in a civil war.

Maybe we'll have that final battle at Har Meggido after all.

There is one thing I can tell you to a certainty: the Jews are not stronger than Information. They think they are. I foresee a realistic possibility of this whole affair ending very, very badly, by a world-historical standard of "bad," for everyone involved.

I have been trying to say this for some time. Israel CANNOT stop Iran from getting the bomb, and the very attempt to stop them will be the thing that convinces Iran that they need one and must use it upon Israel.

[YMix]

Andrew Adler should get a free colon examination from the Secret Service.

[Enki]

Andrew Adler should get a free colon examination from the Secret Service.

No doubt he has earned himself his own government task force.

[Typhoon]

Andrew Adler should get a free colon examination from the Secret Service.

No doubt he has earned himself his own government task force.

Considering the case of Yitzhak Rabin it is the least that they should do.

Does not advocating the assassination of a POTUS lead to criminal charges?

[monster_gardener]

Andrew Adler should get a free colon examination from the Secret Service.

No doubt he has earned himself his own government task force.

Considering the case of Yitzhak Rabin it is the least that they should do.

Does not advocating the assassination of a POTUS lead to criminal charges?

Thank you Very much for your post, Typhoon.

Does not advocating the assassination of a POTUS lead to criminal charges?

Yes, sometimes/often but it's complicated....... not a smart thing to do unless you WANT police attention and prison time which some do: see link and below...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatenin ... ted_States

Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States". The United States Secret Service investigates suspected violations of this law and monitors those who have a history of threatening the President. Because the offense consists of pure speech, the courts have issued rulings attempting to balance the government's interest in protecting the President with free speech rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. According to Stalking, Threatening, and Attacking Public Figures, "Hundreds of celebrity howlers threaten the President of the United States every year, sometimes because they disagree with his policies, but more often just because he is the President."[1] The United States Attorneys' Manual states that the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section has supervisory authority over Section 871 cases.[2

The prototype for Section 871 was the British Treason Act 1351, which made it a crime to "compass or imagine" the death of the King. Convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 871 have been sustained for declaring that "President Wilson ought to be killed. It is a wonder some one has not done it already. If I had an opportunity, I would do it myself.";[3] and for declaring that "Wilson is a wooden-headed* son of a bitch. I wish Wilson was in hell, and if I had the power I would put him there."[4] In a later era, a conviction was sustained for displaying posters urging passersby to "hang [President] Roosevelt".[5] There has been some controversy among the federal appellate courts as to how the term "willfully" should be interpreted. Traditional legal interpretations of the term are reflected by Black's Law Dictionary's definition, which includes descriptions such as "malicious, done with evil intent, or with a bad motive or purpose," but most courts have adopted a more easily-proven standard. For instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a threat was knowingly made if the maker comprehended the meaning of the words uttered by him. It was willingly made, if in addition to comprehending the meaning of his words, the maker voluntarily and intentionally uttered them as a declaration of apparent determination to carry them into execution.[6] According to the U.S. Attorney's Manual, "Of the individuals who come to the Secret Service's attention as creating a possible danger to one of their protectees, approximately 75 percent are mentally ill."[2

Frequency

The first prosecutions under the statute, enacted in 1917, occurred during the highly charged, hyperpatriotic years of World War I, and the decisions handed down by the courts in these early cases reflected intolerance for any words demonstrating even a vague spirit of disloyalty.[7][8] There was a relative moratorium on prosecutions under this statute until the World War II era. The number increased during the turbulent Vietnam War era. They have tended to fall when the country has not been directly embroiled in a national crisis situation.[9]

The number of reported threats rose from 2,400 in 1965 to 12,800 in 1969.[10] According to some reports, President George W. Bush received about 3,000 threats a year, while his successor Barack Obama received about four times that many.[11] This figure has been disputed by Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, who says that Obama receives about as many threats as the previous two Presidents.[12]

According to the U.S. Attorneys' Manual, "Media attention given to certain kinds of criminal activity seems to generate further criminal activity; this is especially true concerning Presidential threats which is well documented by data previously supplied by the United States Secret Service. For example, in the six-month period following the March 30, 1981, attempt on the life of President Reagan, the average number of threats against protectees of the Secret Service increased by over 150 percent from a similar period during the prior year." For this reason, the agency recommends considering the use of sealed affidavits to keep news of threats from leaking to the press.[2]

This is not the first time a Jewish gentleman has made threats. Check out this Grouchy Marxist grumbling about putting the Nix on Nixon

In a 1971 interview, Groucho Marx told Flash magazine, "I think the only hope this country has is Nixon’s assassination." U.S. Attorney James L. Browning, Jr. opined, "It is one thing to say that 'I (or we) will kill Richard Nixon' when you are the leader of an organization which advocates killing people and overthrowing the Government; it is quite another to utter the words which are attributed to Mr. Marx, an alleged comedian ."

OTOH IMVHO sometimes the Secret Service over reaches

In 1996, pastor Rob Schenck told then President Bill Clinton, "God will hold you to account, Mr. President," referencing a recent veto of a ban on partial-birth abortions. The pastor was detained by Secret Service agents who, according to reports, accused him of threatening the President's life.[

Justification

Among the justifications that have been given for the statute include arguments that threats against the President have a tendency to stimulate opposition to national policies, however wise, even in the most critical times; to incite the hostile and evil-minded to take the President's life; to add to the expense of the President's safeguarding; to be an affront to all loyal and right-thinking persons; to inflame their minds; to provoke resentment, disorder, and violence;[3] and to disrupt Presidential activity and movement.[32][33][34] It has also been argued that such threats are akin to treason and can be rightly denounced as a crime against the people as the sovereign power.[3] Congressman Edwin Y. Webb noted, "That is one reason why we want this statute – in order to decrease the possibility of actual assault by punishing threats to commit an assault ... A bad man can make a public threat, and put somebody else up to committing a crime against the Chief Executive, and that is where the harm comes. The man who makes the threat is not himself very dangerous, but he is liable to put devilment in the mind of some poor fellow who does try to harm him."

Throw me in the Briar Patch syndrome:

Prisoners are sometimes charged for threatening the President though they lack the ability to personally carry out such a threat. The courts have upheld such convictions,[36] reasoning that actual ability to carry out the threat is not an element of the offense; prisoners are able to make true threats as they could carry out the threat by directing people on the outside to harm the President. Sometimes prisoners make such threats to manipulate the system; e.g., a case arose in which an inmate claiming to be "institutionalized" threatened the President in order to stay in prison; there was a case in which a state prisoner threatened the President because he wanted to go to a federal institution.[37]
[edit]

One Case:

Watts v. United States

In the case of Watts v. United States (1969), the United States Supreme Court ruled that mere political hyperbole must be distinguished from true threats. At a DuBois Club public rally on the Washington Monument grounds, a member of the assembled group suggested that the young people present should get more education before expressing their views. The defendant, an 18-year-old, replied:
“ They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J. ”


According to court testimony, the defendant in speaking made a gesture of sighting down the barrel of a rifle. The audience responded with laughter and applause, which the Court of Appeals would later view as potentially ominous: "t has not been unknown for laughter and applause to have sinister implications for the safety of others. History records that applause and laughter frequently greeted Hitler's predictions of the future of the German Jews. Even earlier, the Roman holidays celebrated in the Colosseum often were punctuated by cheers and laughter when the Emperor gestured 'thumbs down' on a fallen gladiator."[48]

The boy was arrested and found to be in possession of cannabis, but a Court of General Sessions Judge suppressed the cannabis because he found that there had been no probable cause for the Secret Service agents to believe the defendant's words constituted a threat to the President.[48] This did not prevent a federal court from convicting him for threatening the President. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed his conviction, but the Supreme Court reversed, stating, "We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was 'a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President.' Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise." In a concurring opinion, William O. Douglas noted, "The Alien and Sedition Laws constituted one of our sorriest chapters; and I had thought we had done with them forever ... Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution."[49]
[edit]

Guidance from Other cases............

Courts have held that a person is guilty of the offense if certain criteria are met. Specifically, he must intentionally make a threat in a context, and under such circumstances, that a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by persons hearing or reading it as a serious expression of an intention to harm the President. The statement must also not be the result of mistake, duress or coercion.[50][51][52][53][54][55] A true threat is a serious threat and not words uttered as a mere political argument, idle talk, or jest.[56] The standard definition of a true threat does not require actual subjective intent to carry out the threat.[57]

A defendant's statement that if he got the chance he would harm the President is a threat; merely because a threat has been conditional upon the ability of the defendant to carry it out does not render it any less of a threat.[7] It has been ruled that taken together, envelopes containing ambiguous messages, white powder, and cigarette butts that were mailed to the President after the 9/11 anthrax outbreaks conveyed a threatening message.[58] The sending of non-toxic white powder alone to the President has been deemed to be a threat.[59] A broad statement that the President must "see truth" and "uphold Constitution" or else the letter writer will put a bullet in his head count as not expressly conditional as it does not indicate what events or circumstances will prevent the threat from being carried out.[60] However, the statement "if I got hold of President Wilson, I would shoot him" was not an indictable offense because the conditional threat was ambiguous as to whether it was an expression of present or past intent.[61]

The posting of a paper in a public place with a statement that it would be an acceptable sacrifice to God to kill an unjust President was ruled to not be in violation of the statute.[62] The statute does not penalize imagining, wishing, or hoping that the act of killing the President will be committed by someone else.[63] Conversely, the mailing of letters containing the words "kill Reagan" and depicting the President's bleeding head impaled on a stake was considered a serious threat.[64] An oral threat against the President unheard by anyone does not constitute a threat denounced by statute.[8]

Since other statutes make it a crime to assault or to attempt to kill the President, some question has arisen as to whether it is necessary to have a statute banning threats. As the Georgetown Law Journal notes, "It can be argued that the punishment of an attempt against the life of the President is not sufficient; by the time all the elements of an attempt have come into existence the risk to the President becomes too great. On the other hand, the punishment of conduct short of an attempt runs the risk of violating the established principle that intent alone is not punishable ... While ordinarily mere preparation to commit an offense is not punishable, an exception may perhaps be justified by the seriousness of the consequences of an executed threat on the President's life."[9]

Good deeds are sometimes punished: YOU CAN LOSE YOUR JOB if you report a threat against the President...............

Psychiatric matters

According to the U.S. Attorney's Manual, "Of the individuals who come to the Secret Service's attention as creating a possible danger to one of their protectees, approximately 75 percent are mentally ill."[2] The Secret Service notes, "These are probably Secret Service's most serious cases because it must be determined whether the person making the threat really wants to hurt [Secret Service protectees] or whether they may have some medical problems of their own, for which they need help."[65] It is not uncommon for judges to order psychological evaluations of defendants charged under this statute in accordance with United States federal laws governing offenders with mental diseases or defects. Psychiatrists divide people who threaten the President into three classes: Class 1 includes persons who have expressed overt threatening statements but have made no overt action, Class 2 comprises individuals who have a history of assaultive behaviors toward authority figures, and Class 3 includes person who are considered dangerous and typically have been prosecuted under Section 871.[66]

Dilemmas related to patient confidentiality sometimes arise when a mentally ill subject makes a threat against the President. The termination of nurse Linda Portnoy was upheld after she reported such a statement to the Secret Service. The court noted that the patient was restrained and unable to act on his threats, so he wasn't an immediate safety risk. It also considered the patient's psychiatrist, not Portnoy, the appropriate person to assess the gravity of his threats.[67] In a study found that in those who threaten the President, the primary differentiating variable related to lethality was "opportunity and happenstance".[68] Conversely, a defendant's writings in his anger management workbook threatening to kill the President upon the defendant's release from the penitentiary were ruled to have fallen within the dangerous patient exception to psychotherapist-patient privilege.[69]

Federal law provides that the director of the facility in which a person is hospitalized due to being found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty only by reason of insanity of a Section 871 violation shall prepare annual or semiannual reports concerning the mental condition of the person and containing recommendations about the need for his continued hospitalization; a copy of the reports shall be submitted to the Director of the United States Secret Service to assist it in carrying out its protective duties.[70] The Ninth Circuit ruled that it is constitutional to hold a presidential threatener beyond Section 871's prescribed five year statutory maximum if he is found to be dangerous and mentally ill. It is possible under federal law to hold some presidential threateners indefinitely.[71]
[edit]

*Woodrow Wilson is a wooden hearted son of a bitch.......

[Demon of Undoing]

That's what I meant by near- treason. This wasn't an idle boast by a blockheads in a bar. It's damn near incitement to do something that's illegal to even declare. Not like we'll watch Israel any closer because of it, but this guy better not have any unpaid parking tickets or overdue library books.

[Parodite]

I think what they guy said, mentioned as possible script, is itself not crazy. It was crazy writing it down no doubt, especially given that the USA are and have been such supporting allies. You don't tell your best friend: "Hey, maybe one day in the future I might need to kill you to save my family!". Yea... duhhhu. What an durian.

But in abstraction and hypothetically... he is right. The USA would also kill any president abroad if they are convinced it will save 10.000's US lives @home. I would also kill 1 to save 10.000. It is the right thing to do, if no alternative is available. But the idea that killing a USA president at any time could be good for Israel.. is itself kind of...outlandish to say the least. It is even crazier than mad!

Other side of this story is of course that these crackpots are good food for those that looooove depicting Israel as crazy evil Zionist enitity that deserves harm and shame by the world community. Our own Azari eats this kind of news at breakfast.

[cincinnatus]

Andrew Adler should get a free colon examination from the Secret Service.

No doubt he has earned himself his own government task force.

Considering the case of Yitzhak Rabin it is the least that they should do.

Does not advocating the assassination of a POTUS lead to criminal charges?

what an durian...he should have just made it a movie and called it art, not a commentary advocating an evil act.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/

[Parodite]

But Cinc, didn't the USA go to war to whack a president of another country without proof this Wacko having plans to kill 10.000 Americans @home? This Israeli crackpot is just scription a near insane scenario. The USA did the real thing.

[cincinnatus]

But Cinc, didn't the USA go to war to whack a president of another country without proof this Wacko having plans to kill 10.000 Americans @home? This Israeli crackpot is just scription a near insane scenario. The USA did the real thing.

Libya?

My point isn't a defense of the durian's position. Demon is correct that is borders on treason...no, it is treason. Another country's "security" more important than the one you live in?

My point was he could have gotten away with it if he'd made a movie that dramatized his idea instead of writing an opinion piece about it.

[Parodite]

But Cinc, didn't the USA go to war to whack a president of another country without proof this Wacko having plans to kill 10.000 Americans @home? This Israeli crackpot is just scription a near insane scenario. The USA did the real thing.

Libya?

Was thinking of Iraq.

My point isn't a defense of the durian's position.

Yes I understood.

Demon is correct that is borders on treason...no, it is treason. Another country's "security" more important than the one you live in?

There are Jews for whom Israel IS the homeland, even though they conveniently reside in other nations as citizens. So indeed a case can be made that it is a treasoneous idea. But assume it was written by an Israeli citizen. The idea would still be crazy, but as said the USA went to whack Saddam because it believed that would save thousands of lives @home, and is hence identical as idea.

My point was he could have gotten away with it if he'd made a movie that dramatized his idea instead of writing an opinion piece about it.

Indeed.

[Azrael]

Andrew Adler should get a free colon examination from the Secret Service.

No doubt he has earned himself his own government task force.

Considering the case of Yitzhak Rabin it is the least that they should do.

Does not advocating the assassination of a POTUS lead to criminal charges?

Yes, but considering the strength of the Israel lobby, they might make an exception.

[Azrael]

Andrew Adler should get a free colon examination from the Secret Service.

No doubt he has earned himself his own government task force.

Considering the case of Yitzhak Rabin it is the least that they should do.

Does not advocating the assassination of a POTUS lead to criminal charges?

what an durian...he should have just made it a movie and called it art, not a commentary advocating an evil act.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/

Yeah, I guess that would have been a smarter thing to do. I bet someone is already working on such a screenplay.

[Parodite]

Yes, but considering the strength of the Israel lobby, they might make an exception.

I don't think "the Israel lobby" is as powerful as you and some others claim, or want to believe. What they are good at though... is SCARE PEOPLE...

The scary-scheming-Jew tric always works.

[Zack Morris]

Lot of sympathy for the cause, but that's kinda treason.

If the Mossad assassinates the President we would be at war with Israel.

No we wouldn't. The military has veered considerably to the right ever since Vietnam, when liberals began to shun it. There are too many influential people in this country now who believe that the Jews are actually God's chosen people and that Israel's existence is absolutely necessary to fulfill God's plans. The US would simply cite 'doubts' about the theory that Mossad agents carried out the assassination and the whole thing would be swept under the rug.

I wonder to what degree the US Secret Service has already been infiltrated by the Israelis?