April 25, 2005

Ivy League Student: I Support the Iraqi Resistance 'Unconditionally'

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.--{U.S. Constution, Article. III, Sec. 3}
A Brown University student is speaking out about the war in Iraq. Guess which side she supports? Liz Sperber in Brown University's The College Hill Independent:
UNCONDITIONALLY-that's the way I support the Iraqi Resistance these days. While I do not offer political support to all groups involved in the anti-imperial struggle in Iraq, I work to support its collective purpose: forcing the troops out now. Forcing because the United States won't leave any other way.
Nice. Even though we say we want to leave, and last time I checked by 'we' I mean EVERY POLITICIAN IN THE US, somehow this self-described student of African-Studies knows what our real motivations are.

Check out the three publications she lumps together. At least she gets that part right:

In this vein, it is clear that those reports in the Anglo-American media that cite a decline in insurgent attacks are relying on coalition force press releases. These reports have been directly contradicted by recent articles in Al Jazeera, the Washington Post, and even the New York Times ...
BINGO!!
The first step towards adopting such a plan of action is understanding why supporting Iraqi resistance groups is the imperative flipside of our support for US troops-even if we don't know, understand, or agree with the politics of the resistance groups themselves.
Um, excuse me Liz, but there is a word for someone who adheres to the enemies of the United States or gives them aid and comfort: traitor.

Ok, I know I've been pretty fast and loose with that term in the past. But what else do you call an American citizen who wants our side to lose?

We are in a shooting war, dearest. Even though the reason you say you want to support them is so you don't have to go to war, so what? And if my grandfather had wished Hitler a speedy victory before he got drafted?

"You know," says my grandfather, "I may have a few political qualms with Hitler, but I must say that these days I pretty much support him UNCODITIONALLY. I mean, if that's what it takes to drive the Yankee Imperialists out of Europe, so be it."


Oh, and look to the right to see the cartoon that was published with the editorial. Click it for the full size version. Now click here for a comparison. Ms. Sperber's freedom fighters are none other than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq. That is a cartoon representation of the murderous group with Eugene Armstrong shortly before they cut off his head.

Ms. Sperber ought to take a gander at this post which shows her allies at work on Mr. Armstrong. Just keep scrolling down Ms. Sperber and then compare that to Abu Ghraib.

It just gets worse from here. This poor girl obviously has been paying attention in class, because she spouts off typical Chomskyian drivel. I'll skip to the treasonous portions:

Thus, while the ostensible savagery of targeting of civilians does help the US government label the freedom fighters of the present as terrorists, the simultaneous media censorship omnipresent throughout the war in Iraq blinds us to the equally if not more savage violence perpetrated by our state against the Iraqi civilians.
She then goes on to repeat the lies of Giuliana Sgrena [see the lies she propogates here for instance] and the blood libel she, other leftists, and the terrorist supporting Arab press (e.g, al Jazeera, al Arabiya) have repeated.
In Fallujah, for instance, where reporters were prohibited for several months beginning in November 2004,
Not true, as we reported here the AP had a photographer embedded with the terrorists in Fallujah. His name is Bilal Huessein.
65 percent of buildings were leveled to the ground and anywhere between 600 to 3,000 civilians were murdered, mostly by carpet-bombing, the increasingly favored technique employed in Iraq as manpower begins to dwindle. All of these conditions must be recognized when we consider our relation to the Iraqi resistance.
For a more thorough examination of left-wing lies about the Fallujah campaign, see this post.

She then goes on about Iraqi self-determination, nowhere indicating that all polls from Iraq indicate that the Iraqis themselves don't want the U.S. to pull out immediately. Pull out, yes, but not now. All polls in the U.S. also agree that we should leave--but not yet.

If you couple the lies that she believes coming out of the left-wing media, than her conclusions are inescapable. If the U.S. really is as bad as al Jazeera reports it to be, then isn't it one's moral obligation to fight the evil Zionist crusador forces?

Rather, if we support the Iraqis right to self-determination, it must be because we identify a common, equal humanity between us; because we recognize that US occupation of Iraqi land and the US-sanctioned torture, rape, murder, and theft are unjust. That, in addition to the plight of our soldiers, which many of them argue is worsening every day, is why we must demand troops out now. For no other reason. Accordingly, since the Iraqi resistance is the force working to regain Iraqi sovereignty, we support them-unconditionally.
That, Ms. Sperber, is treason.

The rest is just nonsense. Ms. Sperber would have us believe that Abu Ghraib was the worst of crimes while every day Geneva Convention violations by 'the resistance' (such as using children as combatents, intentionally murdering non-combatents, using the civilian population as human shields, not wearing uniforms, murdering colloborators, political assasinations, etc) are just minor incidents that are part and parcel to war.

Let me repeat these words: Ms. Sperber, you are a traitor.

Hat tip to John Little who innocently points out that you can contact Ms. Traitor at utnow@brown.edu">outnow@brown.edu.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:28 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 979 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Yeah, I've known a couple "Brown Girls" as they call themselves. One of them even forced her "husband" to take HER name. I mean, why doesn't he just cut them off and hand them to her in a pickle jar?

Posted by: Editor at April 25, 2005 04:50 PM (adpJH)

2 Sperber really should go and help the freedom fighters (they could surely use it). She'd certainly look snazzy as a headless, armless and legless half-torso ala Margaret Hassan. To the point: if I believed the shit these clowns believe, it would be my living duty to overthrow the US government immediately. But no, instead of taking her words to the street, she feels complete sitting at her desk munching organic potato chips. Unbelievable.

Posted by: Sean the INFDL at April 25, 2005 05:40 PM (pskKC)

3 I'll buy her the ticket.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 25, 2005 06:02 PM (JQjhA)

4 So let me get this straight... Are you questioning her Patriotism?

Posted by: GekkoBear at April 25, 2005 06:06 PM (X0NX1)

5 GekkoBear- Now THAT was funny!

Posted by: Marty at April 25, 2005 06:48 PM (scBDL)

6 Rusty - check out -http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2005/04/zarqawi_escapes.html Drudge ABC - breaking news on Zarqawi

Posted by: Dan at April 25, 2005 06:49 PM (Y4RaK)

7 A real patriot.

Posted by: Carlos at April 25, 2005 07:08 PM (8e/V4)

8 check out this North Carolina Wesleyan Poli Sci prof's site... http://faculty.ncwc.edu/Jchristensen/ This is what pisses me off about college's and university's...

Posted by: Mr. K at April 25, 2005 07:53 PM (0l6O3)

9 This is sad, the treason, the acceptance of these criminals as freedom fighters.The funny part is how they will work towards a feminist non violent revolution with these reasonable folks after the US is defeated. Say her treasonist dreams come true.I would gladly buy the ticket for her visit to the Sunni triangle. Watching her head come completly off after starting her feminist revolution would be some consolation. Just a crackpot, and a stupid one.

Posted by: Brad at April 25, 2005 08:22 PM (HoSBk)

10 " who adheres to the enemies of the United States or gives them aid and comfort: " Its not a disjunction. Its a conjunction. Adherence and aid and comfort are both required. I have no idea if mere advocacy rises to that.

Posted by: actus at April 25, 2005 08:35 PM (0HUw1)

11 This is a perfect example of why we shouldn't try to censor the Left. They do a great job at outing themselves. Let them speak.

Posted by: Carlos at April 25, 2005 10:03 PM (8e/V4)

12 Actus, you are correct. We cannot convict her for what she is. We also could not convict O.J. for what he is.

Posted by: RicardoVerde at April 25, 2005 10:03 PM (3DOby)

13 actus, it may take an overt act of aid and comfort. But the act itself need not be treasonous to support the conviction. Haupt v. U.S. 330 U.S. 631 (1947)

Posted by: Robin Roberts at April 25, 2005 10:47 PM (xauGB)

14 I would love to help her on her way to meet Allah as quickly as possible. Come to Mosul and see the sights Ms Sperber, I have a 5.56mm round with a 9mm base of the skull chaser just for you. jihadus terminatus maximus

Posted by: Mac at April 26, 2005 04:58 AM (m+gEn)

15 Goddammit, there is absolutely nothing else than this kind of boring yap yap yap yap blaa blaa blaa to do on school computers, so I'm back until banned (forgot my sun tan lotion, so with my still sort of pale skin I'd be fried if I went outside into the over 100 Fahrenheits and direct sunshine for the 2 hours I have to waste). So whats up?...hmm, treason and terrorists, same old. Oh well... they do have every right to defend their country against foreign invaders, you have no right to judge them for defending their lands and killing your guys who are killing their guys. Thats just war. Terroristsupporting people in your country? Of course, there will always be people who support everything targeted against the big, bad empire hogging the oil and ores of poor, defenceless, Allah/commie-loving countries. Just the way they see things, have them shot if you can, ignore them if you don't want to agree with them.

Posted by: A very bored Finn at April 26, 2005 05:47 AM (cWMi4)

16 Oh yeah, early morning in GMT-6...

Posted by: A very bored Finn at April 26, 2005 06:15 AM (cWMi4)

17 Another Bright Star produced by the Ivy. Odds are she will be spit out the bottom of the amature porn industry within 2 years.

Posted by: filthy allah at April 26, 2005 07:44 AM (yBHNA)

18 Hey Finn, you idiot, the terrorists in Iraq are fighting using illegal tactics. Thus putting themselves outside the Geneva Convention obligations.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 26, 2005 08:10 AM (JQjhA)

19 Not only is Finn an Idiot who does not understand the situation, Finn is now Hitler. Good Job Hitler!

Posted by: Filthy Allah at April 26, 2005 08:22 AM (yBHNA)

20 This is where she is wrong. Saddam used sovereignty as a cover for his regime. The Iraqi people never benefitted from any "sovereignty". The Iraqis, for the first time in , well, EVER, finally have an opportunity to determine their own future. The panty wearing "resistance" are trying to keep the old status quo. They SUPPORT Saddam. Those who support the "resistance" support Saddam and every other dictatorship! Every Iraqi will tell you they're GLAD Saddam is gone. Ignoring facts is the only way people like this stupid little student can keep their argument. Jebus, when will they ever get it straight?

Posted by: Oyster at April 26, 2005 10:48 AM (fl6E1)

21 Good one Oyster!

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 26, 2005 11:04 AM (JQjhA)

22 Was the limbless torso they found actually Margret? I thought they said that the DNA did not match. Last I heard was that they believed she was dead (due to a video), but did they ever recover her body (or parts)? Sorry for getting off the topic.

Posted by: Butch at April 26, 2005 12:50 PM (Gqhi9)

23 " who adheres to the enemies of the United States or gives them aid and comfort: " Its not a disjunction. Its a conjunction. Adherence and aid and comfort are both required. While it may be construed as such in a highly dubious legal sense, I read this logically as: adheres to the enemies of the United States OR gives them aid and comfort. If either of the two phrases is true, then the whole sentence is true. If your reading is correct then the sentence should read : adheres to the enemies of the United States AND gives them aid and comfort. Lawyers, they're only useful when you rip the throat out of a treasonous bitch.

Posted by: nobody important at April 26, 2005 01:31 PM (SHPL6)

24 "While it may be construed as such in a highly dubious legal sense, I read this logically as:" "highly dubious" meaning what would be necessary for a conviction. I have no idea how you get the 'or.' Neither in plain english nor in the obvious way that such a serious crime would require a level of intent (adherence to the enemy).

Posted by: actus at April 26, 2005 02:28 PM (CqheE)

25 I got it from your quotation: " who adheres to the enemies of the United States or gives them aid and comfort" So I checked and this is the actual text fron the Constitution: Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. So, your quote is inexact, but your interpretation of the actual text might be plausible (to a leftist). However, I wouldn't intepret it in the same manner as you. I read it as saying that by adhering to our enemies you are giving aid and comfort to them. I still see no conjunction, merely a subordiniate clause modifying the previous, more germaine one. One could also argue, that those who support the terrorists are engaging in a proxy war against the US. In addition, the final part of this text in mentions overt act, which could describe the open (overt) publishing of such support.

Posted by: nobody important at April 26, 2005 02:47 PM (SHPL6)

26 "So, your quote is inexact, but your interpretation of the actual text might be plausible (to a leftist)." Its also the one that the courts have had for a looong time. I think you'll have a hard time finding a case of mere adherence. You'll find it stated as requring the knowing and willing giving of aid and comfort, but if the 6th circuit of 1920 was not too leftist for you in 1920, I can offer: " It is well settled that one cannot, by mere words, be guilty of treason" and, "Treason is 'adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.' Both adherence and giving aid are necessary. To 'favor or support' is, very likely, to 'adhere'; but it does not carry the idea of giving aid and comfort, unless by a rather remote implication. Hence it may well be said that adherence by words only is an offense quite distinct from treason." Wimmer v. US, 264 F.11 (6th Cir, 1920). Adherence is required, and in that adherence, so is aid and comfort. Giving aid without adherence won't do. Adherence without aid won't do either. Those who stand for rule of law are well served by knowing it.

Posted by: actus at April 26, 2005 07:46 PM (0HUw1)

27 Yay! I'm now Hitler I guess, thanks for the promotion Filthy Allah.

Posted by: A Hitler-Finn at April 27, 2005 12:58 AM (cWMi4)

28 Well anyway, the terrorists aren't responsible for their actions. Doing bad things that will get one killed with about 100% chance in the name of some god or cult leader, and not even considering those things one does are bad counts as mental illness. Genuinely crazy people aren't responsible for their actions, so neither are the insane guerillas fighting with dirty tactics and acting out their twisted-enough-to-be-a-mental-illness beheading fantasies.

Posted by: Der Führer Finn at April 27, 2005 02:26 AM (cWMi4)

29 I'll go work on my tan. Too quiet in here at... oh, about 3 am.

Posted by: Mr. Finn at April 27, 2005 02:47 AM (cWMi4)

30 Enough of this Finn, the things you're saying sound crazy, you should seek out help Immediately. No Seriously, don't protect these asses they're not crazy and the sure as hell are responsible for their actions. The killings have a purpose, they know what there doing and they believe it's their call from God. It's called religous fundamentalism.. Nice weather over here too, I'm outta here!

Posted by: A very bored Swede at April 27, 2005 06:59 AM (a9tRx)

31 Yes, religious fundamentalism, the organized form of insanity, guess despite their insanity they should be stopped just because they are organized nutters. Ha en bra dag, min svensk vän.

Posted by: Mr. Finn at April 28, 2005 12:55 AM (cWMi4)

32 Holy shit. Even if you don't agree with Miss Sperber, HOLY SHIT. What's wrong with you idiots (those who made the nutty ad hominems)? Sure, it sounds like its all in good fun to joke about decapitating and shooting her. But shit. Not cool.

Posted by: dude at April 29, 2005 01:16 AM (Y9pq4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
38kb generated in CPU 0.0695, elapsed 0.1862 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.1756 seconds, 268 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.