(San Francisco) Here we have a group openly taking action to restrain the ability of the U.S. military to do its job in a time of war. I would deem the action as conduct leading to resistance to the constituted authority of the United States government. My dictionary (Webster's) defines this conduct as sedition.
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Anti-war activists delivered more than 15,000 signatures to San Francisco City Hall on Monday in hopes of including on the Nov. 8 ballot an initiative opposing military recruiting at the city's public high schools and colleges.
And, from an AP
The San Francisco initiative is part of a larger "counter-recruitment" battle being fought over the Pentagon's recruitment efforts and exclusion of openly gay recruits being waged around the country.
Clearly, the whole purpose of the effort is to impede, or completely deny, recruiting by the U.S. military in high schools and colleges. Now, I'm not a legal scholar but, if this "counter-recruitment" plan doesn't meet the definition of sedition, it sure seems to be cozying up to it.
Companion post at Interested-Participant.
Ok, lets make them a deal- No Federal recruiters/ no Federal money.
Put that on the table and see how strong their convictions are.
Posted by: KurtP on July 15, 2005 09:06 PM
Forget the legal definition of "sedition," always something problematical. There is a such thing as de facto treason. The government may choose to prosecute this crime on rare occasions, but as a private citizen I have no constraint on applying the title (and no shortage of opportunities).
This is not to say that all those who disagree with everyone of my views on the role of government are traitors. Hardly. I do believe that those who because of their brain wiring must criticize every aspect of our republic, bar none, with never a vacation, are suffering from a lifestyle whose personal positioning is indeed treasonous.
Posted by: Elliot Essman on July 19, 2005 01:38 PM