UPDATE, JUNE 4, 2006
Not long ago, it became known that a former U.S. Marine is suing leftist filmaker Michael Moore. The plaintiff alleges that Mr. Moore improperly used the Marine's comments in his film "Farenheit 911".
In light of the above mentioned legal action, I decided to recycle this post once again. I believe this Marine's lawsuit may represent the thin end of a wedge through which public opinion may be moved toward acceptance of the idea that those who openly preach hatred of our country should be made to pay for the harm they have caused others.
I understand fully that the Marine's complaint doesn't seem to address the relationship between clearly seditious speech and violence directed at our soldiers in the Middle East. However, I believe the mere fact that Moore is being sued by an American soldier will serve to nurture the valid perception that he and those like him have a direct connection to needless American and Iraqi deaths.
We may be approaching a time when these foul smelling individuals--thousands of them-- will be forced to leave our country in order to preserve their opulent lifestyles.
Remember, you heard it here first.
UPDATE, FEBRUARY 14, 2006
In the light of Al Gore's outrageous comments in Jetta, Saudi Arabia, and the Gary Busey / Billy Zane movie, recently released in Turkey which depicts American soldiers as heartless monsters, I thought it would be a good time to trot out this oldy but goody.
As far as this voter is concerned, Mr Gore's speech is clearly seditious. That same applies to the film mentioned above. Gore, Busey, and Zane knew full well that their less-than-truthful words and depictions are likely to incite violence toward our soldiers. I believe there's a better than even chance their acts were calculated to do that very thing.
First published in September of 05
Many have put forth the idea that there is a direct correlation between deaths of American soldiers in Iraq and people like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. I happen to be one who holds to that line of reasoning.
As far as I'm concerned, Moore and Sheehan have become rich by causing the deaths of our men and women overseas. These people and others like them are sitting on money which rightly belongs to the widows and orphans of American soldiers. Ms Sheehan has recently signed a lucrative deal with a firm which promotes public speakers. Moore's wealth has been estimated at forty million dollars.
How to get it?
What could be more American than a lawsuit directed at these seditious, gold-digging leaches?
Here's how you do it:
Any legal action would be best commenced by parties who have no assets, someone like the impoverished wife and family of a soldier killed by enemy combatants in Iraq. It's important that the parties bringing the law suit have no assets as this will limit if not exclude entirely the possibility of a countersuit. In other words the complainants would be able to strike their opponent without being hit in return. If I'm not mistaken, this is a legal strategy often used to good effect by scheister lawyers. Also, a poor family would present a sympathetic figure which the public would immediatly side with.
Next, you would have to secure the credible, unimpeachable testimony of at least one--more would be better-- Iraqi insurgent who would be willing to state that he has certain knowledge of Iraqis who carried out terrorist acts which resulted in the deaths of Americans. He would have to further state that these acts would not have been commited but for the fact that encouragement to commit them came from the defendent.
Lastly, you would have to pick your target. Cindy Sheehan would be best because she is a weak link in the following respects: One, she is likely to soon have considerable assets, but not so much that she could mount much of a legal defense on her own. Two, her views have been so stridently ridiculous that those who would be willing to help underwrite her defense would be lukewarm in their enthusiasm. In other words, many would keep their distance because of the insane nature of her pronouncements.
Addendum: It almost goes without saying that legal action should be commenced at the federal level in a red state. Obviously we wouldn't want this thing to end up in front of the ninth circuit.
Voila! You now have the makings of a legal strategy which has a pretty fair chance of success in my opinion. Of course the weight of my opinion is somewhat lessened by the fact that I'm not a legal professional. Maybe our pal Saije--who is a legal pro--might grace us with her thoughts on this one.
You would have to secure funding through some sort of organization set up to procure donations which would be used to pay for qualified, motivated legal counsel. The witnesses referenced above could likely be obtained through advertisements in Iraqi newspapers. although one possible hold up might be a lack of incentives to testify. I'm sure there are ways to work around that.
If you succeed in steamrolling Sheehan, Michael Moore and the rest--lots of them-- are set up like dominoes. If you lose...well, you can't lose. Any way it cuts, leftism comes out on the short end. The sight and sound of Sheehan and others on Court TV trying to defend their idiocy day after day would be a public relations disaster for the left since, as we know, their views and beliefs don't weather close scrutiny. And just imagine Sheehan's embarrasment over the source of her newly aquired wealth.
Of course, there are those who take the opposite view. They claim to believe that the President and Donald Rumsfeld are to blame for the deaths of American soldiers. Accordingly they have commenced legal actions of their own. They have even attempted to start an "Impeach George Bush" movement. As far as I know, their attempts to sue the President and Secretary of Defense have gone nowhere. The impeachment thing isn't working for them either.
Anyway, that's what I've got. It's really no more than a passing thought that has been rattling around in my brain for some time now, but I believe it's an idea which has some merit. It's a safe bet I'm not the first to think of it.
Let us know what you think.
Addendum September 21, 2005: Any attempt to sue Michael Moore et al might best be attempted in a year or two after the situation in Iraq has quieted down. At that time, the plaintiffs might have better luck procuring the testimony of potential witnesses. Since I'm not an attorney, I don't know if timeliness would then become an issue. Complaints must be filed within a certain time frame. However, if it could be shown that the plaintiffs were unaware that they had been damaged before the later filing date, that might be a mitigating factor. I'm going to repost this one every now and then. I believe that, over time, the idea might come to be seen as viable.
PS. You know the drill by now. Comments are always one hundred percent open on this blog and so on and so forth...