Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Stating the potential for violence and inciting it are two different things.

True, but his choice of words do not help his cause;
- "it becomes the duty of the people to alter or abolish that government by whatever means necessary to secure liberty and ensure peace"
- "American Revolutionary Army"
- "we may have passed the point at which non-violent revolution becomes impossible.
“The time to sit idly by has passed. To remain neutral is to be complicit, just doing your job is not an excuse, and the line in the sand has been drawn between the people, and the criminals in Washington, D.C. While some timid souls will say that it is too early, that we can solve this problem through democratic means provided by government, that current levels of taxation are reasonable for the services provided, and that the crimes of this government are merely a tolerable nuisance, it may already be too late"
- "drastic action"
- "we will see you on the front lines of freedom on July 4th, 2013 for this, The Final American Revolution"

That and his rhetoric about the government abuses , not following democratic means etc. looks framed in such a way as to make more peaceful means seem unreliable.

True, but all of the inciting he actually did did not mention violence, he asked for people to go to their state capitols and demand change. He didn't ask them to do it in a violent manner. That, coupled with his use of the word may, gives him all the legal protection he needs.

I do agree that it is arguable either way. But using inflammatory language and hoping nothing bad comes out of it is hardly a sensible, or reasonable thing to do. I'd almost get the impression that he'd welcome a charge of treason so he could claim he was the victim of a witch hunt

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I do agree that it is arguable either way. But using inflammatory language and hoping nothing bad comes out of it is hardly a sensible, or reasonable thing to do. I'd almost get the impression that he'd welcome a charge of treason so he could claim he was the victim of a witch hunt

I wonder if he would welcome it while waiting for his court date, sitting in Supermax.

Bradley Manning him.

 Easy E wrote:
Bradley Manning him.

No one should be forced to play for the New York Giants. It is cruel and unusual.

I was wondering about that...