Treason "Death To America"

1. 82

   Sharlee01posted 14 months ago

   Vidio  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss4vf_njbjc
   
   
   "Death to America" chants in Dearborn echo across social media, draw local
   
   "Dearborn — Video that captured chants of "death to America" and "death to Israel" by some attendees of a Dearborn rally on Friday went viral over the weekend, underscoring tensions over U.S. support for Israel's six-month-long assault against Hamas in Gaza.
   
   The chants were denounced by Dearborn's mayor and other locals as they drew national attention Monday. They were initiated by an unidentified person in the crowd and have since become one focus of videos being shared worldwide and reported by international media.
   
   The rally was held on the International Day of Al-Quds, an annual pro-Palestinian event held on the last Friday of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan to express support for Palestinians in their decades-old land dispute over the creation of a Jewish state. People gathered in front of the Henry Ford Centennial Library on Michigan Avenue in Dearborn holding Palestinian flags and yellow signs that read "Money for jobs and education not for Israel's occupation." They chanted in unison, "Free, Free Palestine" and "End the occupation now."
   
   The Detroit News -  "The event was organized by Tarek Bazzi, a local activist, who spoke out against what he called Israel's "satanic actions" and "the United States government providing funds that allow the atrocities." He quoted the Black Panther movement and Malcolm X talking about oppressive U.S. actions in other countries and, during Bazzi's brief pause, a man from the crowd shouted three times in Arabic, "Death to America." Several in the crowd can be heard echoing his chant in response each time."
   https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ … 247053007/
   
   §2381. Treason
   Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
   
   (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
   
   Historical and Revision Notes
   Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§1, 2 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §§1, 2, 35 Stat. 1088).
   
   Section consolidates sections 1 and 2 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
   
   The language referring to collection of the fine was omitted as obsolete and repugnant to the more humane policy of modern law which does not impose criminal consequences on the innocent.
   
   The words "every person so convicted of treason" were omitted as redundant.
   
   Minor change was made in phraseology.
   
   Editorial Notes
   Amendments
   1994—Pub. L. 103–322 inserted "under this title but" before "not less than $10,000".
   
   §2382. Misprision of treason
   Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
   
   (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
   
   Historical and Revision Notes
   Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §3 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §3, 35 Stat. 1088).
   
   Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative.
   
   Editorial Notes
   Amendments
   1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000".
   
   §2383. Rebellion or insurrection
   Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
   
   (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
   
   Historical and Revision Notes
   Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §4 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §4, 35 Stat. 1088).
   
   Word "moreover" was deleted as surplusage and minor changes were made in phraseology.
   
   Editorial Notes
   Amendments
   1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000".   
   https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?pat … ion=prelim
   
   So, do we just look the other way, or arrest and charge anyone who is outwardly yelling "Death To America"? 
   
   We have laws, should we be following them?

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Castlepalomaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Death to America is an anti-American political slogan widely used in North Korea, Iran,,Afghanistan,Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Pakistan, with some reasoning. Originally used by North Korea since the Korean War, Ruhollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader of Iran, popularized the term.He opposed the chant for radio and television, but not for protests and other occasions. For the very few that use death to American in protest and should be decourage by follow protesters because it can be easily miss translated. Much like the freedom fest in Canada over the mandated vaccines.  It actually was the best love fest Id ever seen compare to a mistaken hate fest to opposition. If everyone has a point, I must have one too.
      
      Iranian protesters burning the flag of the United States along with a US Dollar in Tehran, November 2018. More War are cause for countries that refuse the American centro banking system
      
      It's just fabric and paper.
      
      The literal meaning of the Persian phrase "Marg bar Âmrikâ" is "Death to America." In most official Iranian translations, the phrase is translated into English as the less crude "Down with America. The chant "Death to America" has come to be employed by various anti-American groups and protesters worldwide.
      
      War and murder needs to be avoided at all cost. Killing doesn't stop killing and war solve nothing.  Majority of Americans are slowly getting it, except the very few wealthy who continues to most profit from it.
      
      I'm more on the side of free speech, or we will have nothing and pretend to be happy.

      replyreport
   2. 62

      Willowarborposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Why isn't this free speech? I'm not sure that the phrase " death to America"  meets the requisites to be considered treason.  Speech becomes treason when it rises above just words or simply communication alone. 
      
      Those who say "death to America" Should be arrested?   How about someone who says "I think the world would be a better place if America ceased to exist?".   Or " I wish America would cease to exist"   or  "America's demise would be preferable".  Or "America should go extinct"  or what if I say "America should go quietly into the night"
      
      Plug in any synonym for "death" or "cease"... Don't they all carry the same connotation?     I can say it bluntly or I can say it slightly more civilly sounding.   Should I be arrested for all?

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

         The incident of someone shouting "Death to America" on American soil raises concerns about their intentions and allegiance. While it's uncertain if it's an act of treason, the reaction might differ if a figure like Trump uttered it. To openly express such hatred for one's country suggests a troubling mindset, warranting consideration for inclusion on a terrorist watch list or mental health evaluation. Non-citizens should face deportation if found culpable. Additionally, the semantics of "death" versus "cease" both imply destructive intent, with the former possibly exaggerated for effect. However, regardless of wording, the underlying message remains the same: hostility towards America.
         
         In my view, I think if we allow this form of hate of America, we will ultimately be dealing with terrorists here on American soil.
         
         I've reached a point where I'm no longer surprised by the extremes people will go to, or the rhetoric they'll employ, all in the name of protest. The current cause embraced by this group fails to earn my respect.

         replyreport
         1. 62

            Willowarborposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I suppose it comes down to if you support free speech or the idea that we should have some sort of entity rooting out people's intentions behind their words. Of course one would wonder the intentions of anyone saying the phrase and I'm sure those intentions would vary.  Some say "death to America" and their intention is to aim it at policy, not people. And I have no doubt that there are people who hate all things American.  Should we curb all speech that expresses  hate with America? 
            
            Who should determine if our neighbors have proper allegiance to America?
            
            Wouldn't this abridge free speech?
            
            Free speech specifically includes the right to use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
            
            Speech by adults as free citizens does not lose First Amendment protection because it is considered hateful. This is because hate speech in and of itself is protected speech. Although there are three instances in which hate speech loses its first Amendment protections.
            
            Treason though requires an overt action though.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

               It boils down to whether we prioritize free speech or endorse policing people's intentions behind their words. It's natural to question the motives of those uttering certain phrases, like "death to America," knowing that intentions vary. Some use it to criticize policies, not people, while others harbor genuine hatred. The question then arises: should we censor all speech expressing anti-American sentiments?
               
               In my perspective, dwelling on why some harbor such animosity towards America is somewhat futile; it's already happened, and time and ideologies march on. Undoubtedly, there are those who harbor deep antipathy towards America for various reasons. Personally, I find chants like "death to America," often heard in some nations, deeply unsettling. Allowing such expressions of hostility within our borders is disconcerting. Yet, here we are, witnessing this unsettling evolution of acceptance.
               
               This kind of rhetoric does signal a shift from the values cherished by previous generations. The principles we uphold today differ significantly from those of our predecessors. Delving into the reasons behind this divergence is a complex and potentially contentious matter. Each generation brings its own set of values, shaped by unique experiences and societal influences. To unpack this further would be a daunting task, perhaps even unwise on my part, as it opens a Pandora's box of cultural, social, and historical complexities.

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  Willowarborposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  "This kind of rhetoric does signal a shift from the values cherished by previous generations."
                  
                  Our previous generations spat on, threw eggs and feces at returning Vietnam soldiers.
                  
                  We've always had hateful, ugly people among us.  We also had a number of that generation who sympathized with the Viet Cong during the war. The right to free speech protecting them as it does in the current day.
                  
                  
                  https://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/ … /31788595/

                  replyreport
                  1. 82

                     Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                     It's disheartening how history often repeats itself. Previous generations witnessed appalling treatment of returning Vietnam soldiers, with some even resorting to hurling insults and objects at them. Sadly, this reality persists, with individuals feeling entitled to judge and protest in what they perceive as objective ways. As Trump once remarked, "There are good people on both sides," highlighting the complexity of human behavior during protests.
                     
                     People express their emotions differently, but some cross a line, displaying inappropriate conduct during protests. My own encounter with disrespectful Vietnam protesters left a lasting impression on me. When my husband returned from Vietnam, our joyous reunion quickly turned sour as we faced cruel remarks from strangers at a restaurant, branding him a "murderer."
                     
                     That experience shaped my perspective on those who resort to extreme language to convey their opinions. I believe such individuals are tainted by a skewed mindset. The English language offers ample words to articulate thoughts and emotions without resorting to hurtful rhetoric. It's a matter of choosing words wisely, recognizing that inflicting pain on others is never justified.

                     replyreport
                     1. 62

                        Willowarborposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        Wise words, I agree!  And we have those among Us that can hurl some pretty ugly words. Our constitution protects them regardless. But none of us want to see protest devolve into violence or imposition on another. Young people, now and then seem to not fully understand the complexities of the issues in which they decide to take up protest.  Some are misinformed, some are uninformed and some just want to be part of a movement that may look "cool" to them. Those folks should feel the full weight of the law when other's rights are violated.   I appreciate you sharing.

                        replyreport