and good to have you back calling shows again, mike

does this mean you have dropped out of law school??

cuz that wouldnt be such a bad thing

The Question, How would you feel about prosecuting someone who said somethingthat ends up killing a lot of American soldiers.

My Answer, I feel very strongly that someone who shouts “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in an unarmed country should indeed be heald to account for the thirty-two-hundred American soldiers killed.

“I understand the meeting, whose resolutions I am considering, to be in favor of suppressing the rebellion by military force—by armies. Long experience has shown that armies can not be maintained unless desertion shall be punished by the severe penalty of death. The case requires, and the law and the constitution, sanction this punishment. Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wiley agitator who induces him to desert? This is none the less injurious when effected by getting a father, or brother, or friend, into a public meeting, and there working upon his feeling, till he is persuaded to write the soldier boy, that he is fighting in a bad cause, for a wicked administration of a contemptable government, too weak to arrest and punish him if he shall desert. I think that in such a case, to silence the agitator, and save the boy, is not only constitutional, but, withal, a great mercy.

If I be wrong on this question of constitutional power, my error lies in believing that certain proceedings are constitutional when, in cases of rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety requires them, which would not be constitutional when, in absence of rebellion or invasion, the public Safety does not require them—in other words, that the constitution is not in it’s application in all respects the same, in cases of Rebellion or invasion, involving the public Safety, as it is in times of profound peace and public security. The constitution itself makes the distinction; and I can no more be persuaded that the government can constitutionally take no strong measure in time of rebellion, because it can be shown that the same could not be lawfully taken in time of peace, than I can be persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick man, because it can be shown to not be good food for a well one. Nor am I able to appreciate the danger, apprehended by the meeting, that the American people will, by means of military arrests during the rebellion, lose the right of public discussion, the liberty of speech and the press, the law of evidence, trial by jury, and Habeas corpus, throughout the indefinite peaceful future which I trust lies before them, any more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so strong an appetite for emetics during temporary illness, as to persist in feeding upon them through the remainder of his healthful life.

When I was listening to this, one thing that stood out was when they were talking about the consequences of words. If that’s the case, what do they think should be done with President Bush himself, who sent our sons and daughters off to war, based on those infamous 16 words in the SotU speech, when he knew that they were dubious at best? Is he responsible for those 3,000 deaths and tens of thousands of injured? And do they advocate repercussions for him as well?

Of course, we all know that the answer’s no, but I would have liked to see how they spun that.