Author Topic: Five years for Graham's Assassination Threat on Assad?  (Read 294 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Five years for Graham's Assassination Threat on Assad?
« on: April 13, 2018, 11:09:16 pm »
Senator Graham's Tweet:

Will Assad pay a big price?

President Trump must deliver on his threats and big price should include destruction of air power and intelligence operations, and making Assad a target. 

When it comes to Assad’s #Syria, it’s now time to cut off the head of the snake.

There’s not much wiggle room in the verbiage here.  An elected Senator with the power to vote on war powers resolutions and Declarations of War is encouraging a sitting President with the power to engage in limited military action to make “Assad a target”, finishing with the lightly cloaked metaphoric call for assassinating a foreign leader,… jihadie-style no less, beheading and all; explicitly that is to chop the head off of the leader the Nation whose Army is singularly most responsible for putting down the Armies of head-choppers brutalizing Muslims, Christians, and anyone else that doesn’t submit to their particular Medieval outlook. 

It’s worth noting that the bellicose Lindsey Gram, like John McCain, Marco Rubio and some notable other Congressionals would be among those most affected by the Trading With The Enemy clauses of any Official Declaration of War they would have made had they been doing their jobs.  Omission of that consideration has allowed these warmongers the leeway to provide aid, comfort, and training to the same monsters that the War on Terror was waged to target.  And this is why Senator Graham’s language is so instructive here, it’s entirely about Assad.  Not evidence, not facts, not tests, nor testimony, no sir.  He wants somebody dead and he wants it now, or that is to say he’s wanted it for seven years based on the volume of words he’s wasted thus far and he’s twisted himself into this snake-like hissing pretzel to tell us about it once more.

At issue is Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), which reads: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."  The global reach of Tweet satisfies the transmission component and the threat component is pretty clear as well.   There’s also the issue of whether the statement constitutes a ‘true threat’, a term described as, “a threatening utterance, i.e., a statement that is not just hyperbole, not just a joke, and not a comparably non-threatening threat-like statement.” (Sherry F. Colb,  “The Supreme Court Considers “True Threats” and the First Amendment”, Dec 10, 2014

‘In the Supreme Court’s last case addressing the question of true threats, Virginia v. Black, it used some language that supports Elonis’s position. It said that “intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.”’

The intent of intimidation is key here, whether directed toward ‘a person or group of persons’, and Senator Graham threatened the Syrian Air Force in addition to the Syrian Intelligence Services and President Assad in his Tweet.  It’s worth noting here again that the US is not at war with the Syrian government, or even officially in a Congressionally Declared War with ISIS, or al Qaeda’s other spawn in Syria, but why would that temper calls for wider non-war wars?

In this respect Senator Graham is as consistent as any of his bellicose peers who’ve been calling for Assad’s removal since early 2011 with accusations as spurious long the way as they’ve been of late, and more specifically they’ve been calling for Assad’s removal and the instillation of ‘moderate rebel’ factions of head-choppers that’d presumably be more amenable to their own feudalistic, warmongering regime changers particular Medieval outlook.  This same unbridled animosity driving Graham was readily apparent during a Senate Hearing a few months ago wherein one Commander of Centcom told the Senator that Assad had won the war in Syria.  General Joseph Votel commented that he didn’t think it was too strong a statement when the Senator asked him about it directly.  The visibly frustrated Senator Graham was initially more interested in the ‘credible opposition to Assad’ than he was with the General’s mission statement about defeating ISIS.  When asked if it was STILL our policy that Assad must go, the visibly uncomfortable General rebutted, “I don’t, ah,… I don’t, ah,  know that that’s, ah, our particular policy at this particular point.  Our focus remains on the defeat of ISIS.”

Further proof that Graham’s unhinged hatred of Assad has been directing his policy making came a year ago last April:  Graham gave a presser following what was a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria where he pressed uneffectively for a new world war.  Again the regime changers knew without need for testing and fact finding that Assad was guilty, babies had died and someone needed to hurt for it fast,…  63 hours later, President Trump launched 59 cruise missiles killing some Syrian people that had nothing to do with the initial incident while he conferenced over chocolate cake with Chinese President Xi (Mattis would later admit they had no evidence for the strike).  Senator Graham was impressed (as were the other warmongers - neocons and neolibs both - plus most of the hashtag #fakenews outlets who’ve spent years Never-Trumping their ratings into the gutter) but the carnage wasn’t enough:  Graham wanted to send a message to Russia and Iran, adding that these military strikes were, ‘the first step in a long journey’,… of attacking provably innocent foreign countries with contrived casus belli. 

Graham is consistent on this at least and he represents perhaps the most confounding part of the tedious national debate surrounding America’s involvement in war for the sake of war and why death threats have become so common-place on Twitter that our jingo-addicted hawks have taken to using it without too many people looking at it twice.  Words like wars need reason for their own sake and without them madness and violence abound.  Unfortunately, communication like this Senator’s Tweet-threat have become the norm in our common discourse while civil rights violating, deeply politically biased companies like Twitter exercise deeply invasive control of content and information on platforms pretending to maintain impartiality; platforms that afford deeply immoral and even criminal content so long as it fits some corporate angle.  At what point do their actions qualify as aiding and abetting.

Furthermore, it’s not out of any desire to protect, per say, any of the individuals that Senator Graham threatened that should outrage Americans.  Protecting anyone who hasn’t done anything wrong should be humanity’s default position as well as Senator Graham’s default position if he was half the moralist his words paint him into being.  What’s truly outrageous about Senator Graham’s threat is that it’s from a sitting member or the ‘most deliberative body on the planet, many of whom’ve rashly and unaccountably been pushing America into one conflict after another while playing both sides in most cases. 

The threat’s kind of just the dark tip of the evil iceberg.  Can someone so openly involved in so much evil be held accountable in Washington while so many of his conspirators in Congress would probably be forced to prevent him from facing jail time for a violent animus that he’s been such a party to normalizing in Washington circles?  Fiends like Graham that would allow him to face time might find themselves next on the head-chopping block.
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi