Foolish democrat needs lessons on Obama and Ayers

[newbieshooter]

hi folks,

A forum member and I recently got into a discussion about Obama and Bill Ayers.

I admit I'm pretty foolish when it comes to this Obama-Ayers thing, since most of the liberal Obamamania media I read ignores the issue.

However, here's what I have been told (by the liberal media):

-Obama was a young child when Ayers was involved in his radical terrorist plots
-many years later, Obama served on some nonprofit board with a bunch of Republicans and this Ayers fellow
-Obama has gone on record to condemn Ayers' radical terror plots, and
-Obama has no substantive relationship with Ayers.

In my mind, it seems like there's nothing to be concerned about.

However, I want to get the full story, because ignorance is for fools.

So, enlighten me about the connection between Obama and Ayers and why I should be concerned.

Thanks!

Oh yes, this is a serious question - I would appreciate serious responses instead of just name-calling.

Of course, I expect some name calling, but I also expect some substance too :-)

[Morel42]

Search the forums.. Please.. It's been done to death

[adymond]

It's been done many times, but here's a quick run down.

1. Ayers bombed the pentagon and several police headquarters.
2. Group Ayers helped to found went on to kill armored car gaurds while committing a robbery.
3. Ayers was acquitted do to illegal wiretaps.
4. Ayers stood on a flag while saying "Guilty as hell, free as a bird. What a great country."
5. Ayers becomes involved in education.
6. Ayers works to help develop radical educational cirriculum (Afro-centered coming of age ceremonies are a great example).
7. Obama helped to fund those organizations that helped promote the message of people like Rev. Wright (the church he was recently a minister at recieved larg sums of money from the foundation Obama and Ayers sat on the board for).
8. Obama and Ayers sit on several boards for at least 7-10 years.
9. Ayers hosts a dinner party to help introduce some political newcomers, Obama being one of them.
10. Ayers was quoted in 2001 as saying he did not regret anything and that he just wishes he had done more.
11. A tape surrfaced of a former member of the Weather Underground who detailed a plan to form re-education camps in the SW US where an estimated 25,000,000 US Citizens would need to be eliminated. The plan was allegedly developed by Ayers and Dhorn.

Now here's my take. I don't care how old Obama was or how long ago it was. I don't care if he renounced his terrorist actions. By associating with Ayers AT ALL he legitimizes what Ayers did. I ask it this way.

If when you were 8 years old Mr. Smith molested children on at least 3 occasions, he was subsequently acquitted because evidence was found in an area that was not covered in the search warrant, he went on to become involved in education and "reformed," would you then sit on the board with that man (who says he was guilty publicly) for ANY organization? Would you let that man watch your children (not saying Obama did this)? Would you in any way associate with that man? The rules should be consistant. I would not and will not tolerate those that would.

[d90king]

For what it's worth.... TWU also plotted to bomb FT DIX and part of their perverted plan was to have two explosions with nail bombs, so that they would be able to kill the rescue workers too. Remember they were going to bomb a DANCE so innocent women would have also been killed.

[1861]

yep , a couple of wonderful individuals

[Eugene V. Debs]

2. Group Ayers helped to found went on to kill armored car gaurds while committing a robbery.

Not true. The Weather Underground dissolved before this happened. Three former members subsequently formed the May 19 Communist Organization, who then joined with the Black Liberation Army who committed the aforementioned robbery.

I don't think you can hold Ayers responsible for this any more than you can hold any activist responsible for acts committed by a splinter organization.

He did participate in bombings this is true, but out of the many bombings perpetrated by the organization, not one fatality resulted due to advance warnings of the targets and the bombs being set to go off at non-busy times.

That's not to say the bombings were right or wrong, but I think it deserves to be noticed as I think most people would agree that morally speaking, killing humans is worse than destroying property, even if you believe the latter to be "despicable" itself (to quote ole Barry).

[drk]

ya its ok to set of bombs that could have killed people, but didn't. I can drive drunk/ fire random shots / burn down my neighbors house and as long as no one gets hurt, its ok /sarcasm

[Eugene V. Debs]

ya its ok to set of bombs that could have killed people, but didn't. I can drive drunk/ fire random shots / burn down my neighbors house and as long as no one gets hurt, its ok /sarcasm

Did I say it was okay?

Are you honestly arguing a the moral culpability of a person who bombs a place but takes measures to ensure no one is hurt in the process is the same as a person who plants a bomb in a train station at rush hour to ensure the maximum amount of casualties?

If so, might as well throw out the entire concept of mens rea and hundreds of years of our common law tradition going back to England in 1145 and arguably before under the Saxons. I think it's sound legal and moral reasoning, so I'd just assume stick with it.

[drk]

Exploding bombs where anyone may be is not "ok". calling in a warning is not sufficient to remove culpability. yes, i am arguing that if you explode a bomb in a location that you can not guarantee that no one will be you are committing a crime. I think you need to read up on mens rea. This man did have a guilty mind. Committing an act to intimidate or instill fear is a criminal act. Maybe it is less severe then bombing a packed train station filled with nuns and orphans; but a person could still reasonably have been killed.

If you think any lawyer, judge, or jury will accept your legal argument then you truly are foolish. I'm not even sure what kind of moral argument you are trying to make. Please explain you legal and moral justification to these terrorist acts.
Please expand on your common law justification, I have never heard it. Common Law does not say "no harm no foul"

[Eugene V. Debs]

Exploding bombs where anyone may be is not "ok".

How many times do I have to tell you I never said it was "okay" before you keep beating down that strawman?

calling in a warning is not sufficient to remove culpability.

Did I say there was NO culpability?

yes, i am arguing that if you explode a bomb in a location that you can not guarantee that no one will be you are committing a crime.

This is not the question I asked. We're up to your third strawman argument in this relatively short post already.

I think you need to read up on mens rea. This man did have a guilty mind. Committing an act to intimidate or instill fear is a criminal act. Maybe it is less severe then bombing a packed train station filled with nuns and orphans; but a person could still reasonably have been killed.

If you think any lawyer, judge, or jury will accept your legal argument then you truly are foolish. I'm not even sure what kind of moral argument you are trying to make. Please explain you legal and moral justification to these terrorist acts.
Please expand on your common law justification, I have never heard it. Common Law does not say "no harm no foul"

1. I'm not gonna explain my legal or moral justification to these acts because I never said there was one. Strawman number four.

2. Are you familiar with the different types of homicide charges? 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter? The distinction between all of these is mental intent. Now, there is a loophole which would apply in this case, known as the "felony murder rule", which is basically that if a homicide is committed in the commission of certain felonies (and often with "depraved indifference" as to the consequences of his/her actions), even if there was no specific intent to kill, then the perpetrator may be convicted of first-degree murder. Terrorism is such a felony under Federal law and yes it is likely that if someone were inadvertently killed during one of those bombings that Ayers could have been convicted of 1st degree murder, but even this rule does take into account the question of intent and mental state and being charged with it would not necessarily preclude an affirmative defense of intent though you would be right to presume such a defense would likely fail.

Now, I will be happy to continue discussing this if you directly address my arguments and questions and cease with strawman arguments and/or misrepresenting my statements. If not, we should cease debate on the issue.