Jim, no....what I meant was that I believe specifically that incitement to riot ought to be punished very severely, including added punishment if people die in the rioting (because the person(s) who incites the riot is complicit in their deaths), but I'm not sure it rises to the level of sending them to Gitmo—because it is not treason. That's why I drew the distinction between civil disobedience, a time honored right, and criminal incitement to riot. But I think that it is possible to punish the latter in civilian prisons without resorting to military tribunal.57Coastie wrote:Do I correctly read this, Chris, as saying your answer to my question to Right2Carry is "Yes?"The Annoyed Man wrote:Jim, we have a long and honored tradition of civil disobedience in the U.S., and I would not want to see that change necessarily. On the other hand, there is a difference between going limp when a cop tries to arrest you, and calling for rioting that everyone knows will likely result in the injuring and/or killing of large numbers of people, not to mention millions or billions of dollars in property loss/damage. I'm not sure if a domestic terrorism charge is appropriate, but I am most definitely certain that a charge of inciting to riot should be a 10 year prison term if convicted; and if anyone dies in the rioting, then a charge of accessory to murder is entirely appropriate as well, with additional minimal terms of 10 years for every person killed in the rioting. In the Rodney King riots, 53 people died during the rioting and thousands more were injured, and property damage exceeded $1 billion. Somebody deserves to spend the rest of their lives in prison for that. I don't know if the locus of the rioting can be traced down to the actions of a small number of people in a small number of areas, then those people are deserving of an enormous criminal burden for their actions.57Coastie wrote:I notice that the House passed the $642 billion defense budget yesterday, retaining the provision, over the administration's objection, permitting the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens suspected of terrorism.Right2Carry wrote:...This is why I believe that anyone threatening or participating in riots should be charged with domestic terrorism.
Do we ship them off to Guantanamo? Just askin'.
Jim
There is only one possible exception to this standard in my mind, and that is if the rioting is the opening salvo in a general popular uprising against a tyrannical government. In such a case, it isn't "rioting" anymore so much as it is "revolution." But that is the scenario which all rational humans pray never comes to pass because the cost would be more than most want to bear.
I do not necessarily disagree with your position in general, Chris, until you get to making treason an exception to your harsh ideas on punishment. No need to quote Jefferson to me, I am a great fan of his and know him well.
Jim
I realize that my views of punishment may seem harsh to you, but leniency toward crime, particularly that of MURDER and accessory to it, has not particularly worked. In fact, it has made things worse. And at some point victims and their survivors, not to mention society, are no longer receiving justice.
And I'm not excepting treason. However, would a judge who shared Thomas Jefferson's views (and those of the other founders as well) have judged that Thomas Jefferson was a traitor, or a patriot? That's the distinction I am trying to draw. Certainly, he was a traitor in the eyes of King George. But if King George had been a just king, the colonists may well have never felt the necessity of rebellion. Ditto our own government. When it is no longer a legitimately elected government—for instance if a sitting president suspended elections with the cooperation of a corrupt congress—then rebellion is the DUTY of the citizens, and it is neither rioting nor treason.
Does that make some kind of sense to you?
