well this should be massively unpopular: No, I don't believe Palin should be indicted on this matter

[cali]

No, I don't think she put out a hit on anyone. No, I don't think she was talking literally when she used the language she employed about reloading. Such political language actually isn't anything new. She was speaking metaphorically. Do I recoil from such language? Absolutely. Do I find it detestable? To be sure. But do I think she is criminally implicated in the shooting of Giffords and others? Nope, sorry. She bears a share of moral responsibility, I believe, but that's different from criminal responsibility.

unrec wildly to your hearts' content.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

1. AHA, but what about PUBLICALLY indicted.. not crminally!??

Let the indictments flow from every corner of the US and the WORLD!

[cali]

3. you betcha.

[Goblinmonger]

2. I agree with you. n/t

[emilyg]

59. So do I.

[sadbear]

4. As long as she's indicted in the court of public opinion

That's good enough for me.

[OregonBlue]

9. Indicted in the court of public opinion is good with me. Stick a fork in her, she's done.

[Cirque du So-What]

5. No argument from me

Her rhetoric is definitely reprehensible but not criminal. However, I hope her political ambitions receive the 'death sentence' in the court of public opinion.

[Seedersandleechers]

15. Political ambitions?

If she had any I doubt she would have quit her job as governor. Not enough money in serving her people in that way. JMO.

[Cirque du So-What]

23. OK, I'll rephrase

Instead of 'political ambitions,' I'll say 'celebrity' and all the lucrative opportunities that affords.

[Enrique]

6. if you mean literally indicted, I agree with you

but is anyone saying that?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

22. yep.

there are.

[timtom]

63. Cali, I almost have to reluctantly agree with you on this one

for the sake of reality.

HOWEVER...I keep thinking of that guy a few years ago in a bar who made a joke about a burning bush and got a 3-year prison sentence for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6283725

Driven by emotion as I am right now, I am a firmly grounded supporter of quid pro quo in this case.

So, yes. I would truly like to see Palin do some jail time.

[digitaln3rd]

44. Sadly, true.

What's worse is that I bet most of the people calling for it are also fans of Mike Malloy, who does pretty much the same thing as they're protesting.

[cali]

11. yes. lots of people here are saying that.

[walldude]

21. Yeah I did. But it won't happen..

If a Muslim organization had done the exact same thing, they would be on trial right now. Had a mobster done the same thing they would be on trial right now.
And they did this on purpose. They purposefully used this rhetoric knowing damn well that on the fringes of their movement there are lunatics with guns just waiting for their marching orders.
They thought this stuff was funny. It was humorous to use "reloading, targeting, hunting and killing" as metaphors for taking over political seats.

Yeah real fucking funny. Almost as funny as the DU'ers who are blaming this on "Assange lovers" and the "far left".

[Enrique]

27. is that really true about a Muslim or a mobster?

i'm asking seriously, is there really a comparison? Are there cases where someone was indicted for doing something comparable to Palin's campaign?

[underseasurveyor]

50. Comparable to palin's campaign?

:shrug:

But charles manson didn't directly kill anyone either and where is he? Is palin comparable to manson? She maybe even more dangerous given the media access she has along with the likes of beck, limbaugh, coulter, etc. helping to incite and rile up the overly medicated and unbalanced masses.

[cali]

28. baloney.

and I haven't seen ANY DUer blame this on Assange or the far left.

[walldude]

39. Here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=151734&mesg_id=152894

The others have been removed. Including my responses.


And as far as "baloney" goes, you think if a Muslim organization put out a "target" list and someone on that list got shot people would just say "but they didn't mean it" or "it was just a metaphor"? Really? Ok then. I guess I'm just an idiot who is full of.. baloney.

[hlthe2b]

7. She should be shunned... The Amish knew a thing or two ...

about dealing with sociopaths in their midst, even if they do take it rather too far.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. I and Voltaire agree...

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

She and others should be held responsible for creating an atmosphere conducive to such violence by their irresponsibile use of the language of violence. They should be removed from positions of responsibility.

[Pathwalker]

12. She's morally culpable. n/t

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Barack_America]

14. "unrec wildly to your hearts' content."

Thank you, I shall.

[RainDog]

16. I hope this becomes the media moment when Palin becomes so toxic

that she is no longer a useful idiot.

and I hope this is the time that public sentiment moves against the right in all sorts of practical and useful ways to make the tea baggers and all who exploit them (Palin, Armey, the Koch bros) the equivalent of the KKK in people's eyes - and we're well on our way to that happening.

I do want public officials to consider the impact of the speech they use because it is their responsibility. I hope Americans call out the irresponsible right - like Palin, Beck, Limbaugh - and boycott their shows so that they become financial liabilities and are sacked. - This is when we will know that the pendulum has swung - when these people are shunned as indecent.

I agree that she is not legally liable. But she is responsible for her words and her words are irresponsible and indicate she is unfit for national public office. Hope this becomes exceedingly clear to all but her most devoted followers (i.e. clear to the media outlets that just want to make a buck.)

[Celeborn Skywalker]

17. I don't think she should be indicted.

And while I agree that such language is commonly used metaphorically, it seems to be too coincidental that the use of that type of "metaphor" has been used so much more frequently in the past couple of years.

I personally think Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, etc., should be shunned by the mainstream, both public and the media, but I doubt that will happen.

[X_Digger]

18. Agreed. n/t

[purrFect]

19. well, that's just a cop out. She won't be held legally liable, but lets hope she will be held...

morally liable, at the very least, and held up to blistering criticism and ostracism at best.

[Texasgal]

20. regardless of whether Palin is

complicit in this direct assault, can not agree that her nasty rhetoric and those of her followers have a some responsibility here? Words DO have consequence. Kinda like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater?

[devilgrrl]

24. I agree with you Cali - I think Bill Kristol should be indicted for unleashing her on the nation!

eom

[Davis_X_Machina]

29. Under which statute, pray tell? n/t

[devilgrrl]

32. Under satire...

which obviously went right over your head.

[Texasgal]

35. Wayyy over!

Geesh. Sometimes I really wonder.. ya know?

[devilgrrl]

37. Totally!

:crazy:

It shocks me when I run into people who seemed to have lived in cave the past 10 years.

[Davis_X_Machina]

41. Forgive me for having rushed to the conclusion...

...that a word might actually have a particular meaning.

[devilgrrl]

49. I'm sorry that you are unaware that it was Bill Kristol that introduced Palin to John McCain...

and you therefore didn't get the joke.

[Davis_X_Machina]

52. How is that a crime, though?

[underseasurveyor]

54. Please tell me you're kidding.

Or that's an attempt at sarcasm..... please.

[Davis_X_Machina]

55. I'm a language teacher...

...where words like 'indictment' mean things.

[devilgrrl]

57. I'm glad you know words - shame about the humor deficiency.

:eyes:

[Davis_X_Machina]

61. I'm not sure...

...calling for people to be indicted, in the wake of this terrible crime, falls within any reasonable ambit of humor.

Such calls are being made here, and not in a humorous context.

[devilgrrl]

65. Oh no... that will get me to lose sleep!

:eyes:

[underseasurveyor]

60. Sarcasm and context count for something too

I mean really, to take seriously and literally that kristol should be 'indicted' for introducing palin..... it's HUMOR.

Wishful thinking in a, I'm not really serious about that, manner.

There's more to language than just words and the literal meaning of those words.

[devilgrrl]

64. Mind blowing isn't it?

:crazy:

[underseasurveyor]

67. Here's to you ~n~ me devilgrrl

Since we don't have a big ugly stick up our butt :toast:

That must really hurt ;-)

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

25. Sarah sickens me however I do believe that she is

almost being used as a distraction. The hate rhetoric is coming from everywhere on the right, from the hardline Christian groups putting out a hit list on federal judges, to Ted Nugent's exclamation for Pelosi and Obama "to suck on this" while waving an automatic rifle around, to the rantings of cable and news hosts, and even some of the statements coming from republican "officials".

There seems to be a vested interest in keeping conservative believers in a panicked frenzy, and convincing certain groups that they are oppressed.

No matter how anyone on the right, and the "neutral" media spins it, the hate speech is coming from one side and the victims are on the other. Always.

[Fire1]

26. If you collectively combine her rhetoric with that of limbaugh,

Beck and the rest of these minions from 2008 to the present, it all adds up to sedition. Imo, she meant it literally. Every last word and there is nothing to convince me otherwise.

[cali]

31. OK, but unless you have EVIDENCE that she meant it literally

and was inciting people to go out and kill, you haven't got a thing- legally speaking.

[Fire1]

47. The fact that she felt it necessary to erase her "hit list" from

her website or twitter or whatever, is enough to call her motives into question along with other inflammatory statements she and other baggers have made that needs no interpretation. Limbaugh actually quoted Malcolm X in one of his rants, saying "we need to stop them, by any means necessary."

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

46. That's patently false. disgusting attack.

[Arctic Dave]

33. Is she criminally responsible? Maybe not, but I hope it doesn't stop

people from sueing her into destitution. May Sarah make several lawyers rich defending her in court.

[spanone]

36. she may have not been in the movie, but she was at least the set designer

palin is what she is. she's cunning and obviously opportunistic. she frames everything she does so she has plausible deniability....

i hope she's indicted in the hearts of the american people.....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

38. I don't think she could be indicted.

To prosecute for something like incitement you need evidence of more specific intent to incite someone to commit a specific act. Palin's comments (and Beck's, and all those other right-wing mouth-breathers), while odious and utterly irresponsible, are not sufficiently specific. And I doubt that she actually intended to get anybody to actually try to kill Gifford or anyone else -- the RW venom we've been hearing lately is the typical bullshit ultra-macho chest-thumping of frightened little people who want to seem brave, powerful and important. There are probably a few of these scumfucks who'd like to see a few Democrats taken out, but for the most part they are just loudmouths, not much different from the angry, Cheeto-stained losers typing hateful blog posts on their old Dell 386 computers in their parents' basements.

Unfortunately, regardless what Palin might have intended by her ridiculous gun-porn, there will always be unstable characters who take that shit literally and act on it. Henry II didn't actually intend for Thomas Becket to be assassinated, either, but when the King asks rhetorically, "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" somebody's gonna do it. (And that could have been an indictable offense, if it hadn't been the King, since it was directed at a specific target.) Queen Sarah asked the question and some nutjob answered.

She and her ilk are, however, morally culpable. Her punishment should be, and I hope will be, banishment from politics and public life forever. I'm thinking that would hurt her worse than criminal prosecution, too. Prosecuting her would make her a martyr for the Cheeto-fingers gang; I'd rather see her fall into the memory hole.

[The Wielding Truth]

40. I think that she knew that her words were dangerous but she did not stop.

I really don't think that it matters to the majority of them,including Sarah. She is oblivions to the consequences of her words or actions.

I think that she would do almost anything to get her way and promoting physical violence is fine with her. Look at what she has done with her life. Anything to be in the spotlight. Her lies are innumerable and her inconsistencies are too. She has been living on the edge of reality for a long time and she has been promoting her uneducated ideas. She is not innocent. She is not to be excused when 17 people have been shot because of the climate she fosters and 6 of them are dead.

This is a case of assassination and political calling by her rhetoric. It may not be possible to indite but there should be a legal stop to this abandon of consequence by those who wish to manipulate others who will under their directions will suppress the truth and rights of others.

[Warpy]

42. I think she needs to be thoroughly condemned outside the courtroom

whenever and wherever we can. So should her compatriots at Pox News, every last hate filled one of them. Oh, and Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest of the hate spewers on AM radio.

I don't want to live in a country where policy is decided by a bunch of college dropouts on radio spitting hate at people who are too ignorant to know the difference.

Hate has consequences. Yesterday's mass murder was a milder one.

[Ikonoklast]

43. She can use whatever rhetoric she is legally allowed to use.

And we can use that very same rhetoric she employed against her, and everyone like her that does the same.


May they be hoist with their own petards.


Palin has already been indicted by the Court of Public Opinion, the trial has yet to be held.

But, knowing the type of person she is, she will be need to plead the Fifth, for her own words will support her indictment.

[Unvanguard]

45. Obviously she shouldn't be indicted. Just criticized. n/t

[JI7]

48. is anyone saying she should be legally charged for this ?

[Davis_X_Machina]

66. Yes.

Here. On DU.

Missed this one.

[Nye Bevan]

71. Many many more.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x151533

[Davis_X_Machina]

72. You're named after one of my heroes.... n/t

[Fleshdancer]

51. leaders don't get to choose the level of mental health of their followers

Whether we like it or not, there is a responsibility to becoming a leader. When you make the decision to stand on a podium and use violent rhetoric because you think it's folksy, then you need to understand that there may be great consequences. If she can't understand this or take any responsibility for her words, then she needs to stop.

[dorkulon]

53. I agree.

This bugged me when Kieth Olbermann, a guy with a list of "Worst Persons in the World," accused Bernie Goldberg of putting out a "hit list." Now, if one of us shoots someone Kieth has cited as a "Worst Person," should Kieth go to jail? Of course not.

[stray cat]

56. Agreed. But I would like to see anyone promoting hate speech alienated by society

[Bjorn Against]

58. I actually agree with you...

I think we need to be extremely careful about prosecuting people for speech, as disgusting as Palin's ad was it is hard to prove that it was meant as an incitement to violence. It may have been, but it may have just been meant as political rhetoric as well and unless someone can prove intent then there is probably not a legal case.

That being said Palin still needs to be held accountable for this even if that does not mean legal accountability. In other words she needs to be pushed off to the fringes and made politically toxic, if we don't ever allow her to move on from this her political career will be destroyed. No one wants to be associated with someone who may have incited an act of mass murder, I think you are going to see a number of Republicans throwing Palin under the bus very soon because they know she is toxic as a result of this.

[Pancho Sanza]

62. Pleased to recommend a post of rational sanity.

:D
I guess I should add, I do NOT like Sarah Palin or anything about her, if I knew a way, I'd alter her taste buds so all food would taste like catshit, but I'm not much for imprisoning anybody for First Amendment 'violations'.

[Hugabear]

68. Oh come on...you don't think that she knows her audience?

Palin and her ilk have been going around telling their followers that the government, especially "liberals", are their enemy. They've painted Obama and anyone who supports "liberal" policies as a socialist or communist. They are deliberately crafting an atmosphere of hatred, and then Palin goes and directs that hatred and vitriol towards a very specific list of targets, places a rifle scope on their districts, then tells her followers to "help us prescribe the solution."

No, she might not have directly said "I want you go to out and attack these people", but she had to have known very damned well that her vitriol and propaganda could easily be taken in a violent context by some of her followers.

[Urban Prairie]

69. Palin desperately needs to continue to ramp up her rightwinger rhetoric

to keep her name in the media limelight and maintain, if not add to her large amount of admirers/followers. Yesterday's horrific tragedy "should" become a huge setback that prevents her from making even more vitriolic, and incendiary tweets and Facebook posts vs Dems and progressives/liberals at the very least, IMO.

Now she may have to tone it waaay down, at least for a while...or until this incident gradually disappears from the national headlines, and the vast majority of "attention-span challenged" Americans eventually move on to the next national headlines-grabbing disaster or incident.

[Exilednight]

70. What she did is just as wrong as someone yelling fire in theatre.

Just because she didn't intend for anyone to act on her words, or was speaking metaphorically, her words still mattered. She posted no disclaimer saying "don't take me literally", or "I am speaking metaphorically".

If I were watching a great movie and yelled out "this theater is on fire", I am pretty sure I would be held responsible if people were crushed while trying to escape because they mistook my words to be literal.