Trending Topics:

Publisher of the ‘Atlanta Jewish Times’ suggests Mossad should assassinate Obama

News
on 393 Comments

Wow. John Cook reports at Gawker:

Andrew Adler, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, a weekly newspaper serving Atlanta’s Jewish community, devoted his January 13, 2012 column to the thorny problem of the U.S. and Israel’s diverging views on the threat posed by Iran. Basically Israel has three options, he wrote: Strike Hezbollah and Hamas, strike Iran, or “order a hit” on Barack Obama. Either way, problem solved!

Here’s how Adler laid out “option three” in his list of scenarios facing Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu (the column, which was forwarded to us by a tipster, isn’t online, but you can read a copy here):

Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?

Another way of putting “three” in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?

You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.

Cook asked Adler about it directly:

A nervous Adler told me over the phone that he wasn’t advocating Obama’s assassination by Mossad agents. “Of course not,” he said.

But do you think Israel should consider it an option? “No.”

But do you believe that Israel is in fact considering the option in its most inner circles? “No. Actually, no. I was hoping to make clear that it’s unspeakable—god forbid this would ever happen. I take it you’re quoting me?”

Yes. “Oh, boy.”

Read the whole story here.

Update: The JTA is reporting that Adler has apologized.

adamhorowitz
About Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

393 Responses

  1. annie
    annie on January 20, 2012, 2:52 pm

    unreal, completely out of the water

    • Duscany
      Duscany on January 21, 2012, 1:25 am

      Adler isn’t advocating that anyone assassinate Obama. He’s basically saying (from his Israel-Firster perspective) that we are pushing Israel into a corner by not letting her attack her enemies and when nations are forced into a corner they do crazy things. So in order to prevent that we better let Israel bomb whomever she needs to bomb.

      Adler is obviously not the brightest light in the marquee but I suspect that even Israeli Firsters know that a hit on Obama won’t help Israel.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 21, 2012, 6:50 am

        Do you think they would do it at high noon, wearing IDF uniforms in the middle of a town square?

      • Theo
        Theo on January 21, 2012, 11:34 am

        The question here is not how bright Adler is or would assassinating Obama help the cause of Israel or not, but did he commit a federal crime by advocating in writing the killing of our president?
        Should he be a moslem or even a christian, the FBI would have already knocked on his door to ask him a few questions.
        May a bloody zionist say just anything without having to worry about the law?

      • Duscany
        Duscany on January 21, 2012, 7:06 pm

        Adler didn’t commit a crime because he didn’t advocate the killing of our president. What he said was that Israel was in such a corner that they might have to consider killing the American president in order to survive.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 23, 2012, 3:12 pm

        Duscany, what if a mainstream Arab-American newspaper, say in Detroit area, printed and distributed an OP-ED by its editor in chief/owner that the Palestinian people were such a corner they might have to consider killing any sitting POTUS to survive? Even if that’s not a crime, what’s important here is that, given that scenario, the whole MSM would be raising alarm bells, and Fox News would be leading the charge for somebody to “teach him a lesson he’d never forget,” at minimum, and all the bugles would be sounding the charge such an Arab American editor/owner was a traitor and wanted to harm America.

      • pjdude
        pjdude on January 22, 2012, 1:17 am

        Israel doesn’t need a reason or excuse to do crazy things. it does crazy things for SH**s and giggles

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 11:40 am

        Duscany,

        You wrote:

        “Adler is obviously not the brightest light in the marquee but I suspect that even Israeli Firsters know that a hit on Obama won’t help Israel.”

        This is wrong — I don’t think you understand how Israel Firsters of Andrew Adler’s type think.

        When Adler wrote this —

        “Give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”

        — he was expressing the belief that assassinating Obama would shift the balance of power and policy in favor of those who share his brand of Israel Firstism.

        And, who knows, he might be right: the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir played a key role in helping to derail the Mideast peace process, probably forever. That was precisely the objective that Yigal Amir had in mind and he may have succeeded in achieving it.

  2. pabelmont
    pabelmont on January 20, 2012, 2:58 pm

    Why (for safety from Iran, or for any other purpose) did this editor consider (or fail to recommend?) hitting Hamas and Hezbollah? Just because there hasn’t been a juicy war for a while adn he’s getting antsy?

    ADAM: Ask him for a fuller explanation.

  3. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka on January 20, 2012, 3:03 pm

    “Another way of putting ‘three’ in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?”

    I don’t think 7 million in the correct tally. I think they only count 3/5ths of the Christians and Arabs. Maybe I’m thinking of something else.

  4. Les
    Les on January 20, 2012, 3:05 pm

    Let us guess how many media outlets will ignore this.

    • ToivoS
      ToivoS on January 20, 2012, 7:17 pm

      The Guardian has it on their front page right now.

      • annie
        annie on January 20, 2012, 9:00 pm

        “Secret Service investigating Jewish newspaper column that discussed Obama assassination”
        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/20/secret-service-investigating-jewish-newspaper-column-that-discussed-obama/

        Uproar after Jewish newspaper publisher suggests Israel assassinate Barack Obama
        http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/uproar-after-jewish-newspaper-publisher-suggests-israel-assassinate-barack-obama-1.408429

      • ToivoS
        ToivoS on January 20, 2012, 11:35 pm

        OMG if foxnews picked this up then that means, gasp, choke, the story will be free game for the horrible leftist msm outlets like NBC, CNN, NYT to also mention it. I wait in anticipation.

      • annie
        annie on January 20, 2012, 11:42 pm

        cbs already covered it. this aint going bye bye. it’ll get scuffled but it’s not benign.

        ;)

        an example, here’s market watch

        ATLANTA, Jan. 20, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — AJC today expressed its total revulsion that Andrew Adler, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, called for the assassination of President Obama in a recent column in the paper.

        He has since apologized, according to news reports, and promised to publish a retraction.

        “The suggestion by anyone, in this case a Jewish newspaper publisher, that Israel should consider assassinating President Obama is shocking beyond belief,” said Dov Wilker, director of AJC Atlanta.

        “While we acknowledge Mr. Adler’s apology, we are flabbergasted that he could ever say such a thing in the first place. How could he even conceive of such a twisted idea?” said Wilker. “Mr. Adler surely owes immediate apologies to President Obama, as well as to the State of Israel and his readership, the Atlanta Jewish community.”

        SOURCE American Jewish Committee

        wrt “How could he even conceive of such a twisted idea?”

        why do you think many americans do not think obama should visit israel? hello. mossad is a side show compared to their fruitcakes. hundreds of thousands of israelis attended the anniversary of the death of Meir Kahane and their government protects these freaks. sorry..that’s the reality.

      • ToivoS
        ToivoS on January 20, 2012, 11:54 pm

        I linked to the Haaretz story (from Annies link above) and they quote ADL Abe Foxman:

        The ideas expressed in Mr. Adler’s column reflect some of the extremist rhetoric that unfortunately exists — even in some segments of our community — that maliciously labels President Obama as an ‘enemy of the Jewish people.’

        I love this: ” even in some segments of our community”. Duh, Abe, haven’t you noticed what is going on in some of your segments of your community. Do you recall Kahane? How about the Dr Baruch Goldstein from Brooklyn who murdered 29 Palestinians in Hebron? The US Zionist community is a perpetual source of terrorists. Isn’t it only natural that they might just target the President of the US if he is not sufficiently Zionist. For sure, these Zionist fanatics killed the one Israeli PM (Rabin) that was trying to make peace with the Palestinians. If they can get away with that, what stops them from going after the President of the United States.

        Sorry Abe Foxman, I do not believe your sense of shock. Any casual observer can see where the policies that you promote are heading, even if you cannot control the words and actions of every individual that belongs to your movement and are inspired by your own hateful statements.

      • James
        James on January 21, 2012, 12:15 am

        just a formality……….

      • James
        James on January 21, 2012, 12:16 am

        re – ss investigation…

        just a formality……….

        nothing ever happens with reverse terrorism…………

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976 on January 21, 2012, 6:17 pm

        Perhaps the interesting thing in Adler’s remarks is his claim that if this thought about assassination/terrorism has occurred to little old him it must also have occurred to those in the highest positions in Israel. So that is the degree of stop-at-nothing ruthlessness that some of Israel’s supporters attribute to Israel or at least to its leadership. And is it only ‘some’? There are many Zionist voices denouncing Adler and saying that they would not contemplate such a horrible thing themselves. I’m sure they’re sincere in what they say. But we should notice what they don’t say. They aren’t really able to add ‘Israeli governments are not like that. They set themselves moral limits, they respect the rule of law’ perhaps because they scarcely believe it in their own hearts.

    • dahoit
      dahoit on January 21, 2012, 12:44 pm

      I saw nothing in the NYTs about it,though I just look at their headlines,of which 99% are irrelevant nonsense,and move on to some other sites.It’s possible it was on page 92? at the bottom in smaller print.

      • dahoit
        dahoit on January 21, 2012, 12:45 pm

        I think Dr.Paul’s campaign saw it though,and it can’t hurt him!
        Reaffirmation indeed.

  5. eljay
    eljay on January 20, 2012, 3:10 pm

    >> To all the Netanyahus out there, what do you do? How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?

    Seeing as how the question was directed at “the Netanyahus out there”, it should have been phrased “How far would you go to save the ‘Jewish state’?”, because there’s no evidence to suggest that Bibi or anyone of like mind actually gives a sh*t about non-Jewish Israelis.

    (Hell, even “humanist” Zionists have proposed excising non-Jewish Israelis from their own nation if their demographic threatens the permanent-majority status of Jewish Israelis in the “Jewish state” of Israel.)

  6. Dan Crowther
    Dan Crowther on January 20, 2012, 3:13 pm

    lets hope this gets as strong a condemnation from our “how dare we discuss threats of violence against israel” crowd…..

    This guy should be on his way to jail, right?

    • Hostage
      Hostage on January 22, 2012, 1:35 am

      This guy should be on his way to jail, right?

      Even the proverbial act of shouting fire in a crowded theater could result in a fine if it triggers a response from the Fire Department. The statute regarding threats to the President allows fines and/or imprisonment up to a maximum of five years. When someone makes a statement like this, the Secret Service has a legal obligation to respond and to assess if the person might have the interest and ability to mount an attack against the President. Imposing a fine for causing that sort of disruption and red tape wouldn’t be any more unreasonable than fining an individual for transmitting a false alarm or complaint or making casual remarks or jokes about bombs on an airplane.

  7. justicewillprevail
    justicewillprevail on January 20, 2012, 3:22 pm

    If he was Muslim he would be arrested.

    • annie
      annie on January 20, 2012, 3:40 pm

      no kidding, but alas..he’s not.

      • Dan Crowther
        Dan Crowther on January 20, 2012, 3:47 pm

        if he was muslim, he’d be on his way to gitmo and no one would ever hear another word from him

  8. Kathleen
    Kathleen on January 20, 2012, 3:23 pm

    Holy shit just came right out and said it. Hello FBI…investigate this guy

    “Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

    Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?

    Another way of putting “three” in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?

    You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.”

  9. Philip Munger
    Philip Munger on January 20, 2012, 3:24 pm

    Has anyone called the Secret Service or Atlanta office of the FBI yet? Or would that be anti-Semitic?

    • Abierno
      Abierno on January 20, 2012, 3:44 pm

      Is this not incitement? In a country wherein the political rhetoric during the last
      election cycle was “over the top,” and wherein in the 60’s experienced a series of
      political assassinations which have never been fully explained – John F. Kennedy,
      Robert Kennedy as well as of black political leaders – Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, and Malcolm X, this call for Mossad/Israel to assassinate a sitting black
      president needs to be taken very seriously. Given the context, it should not be
      possible to “walk back” this seemingly serious proposal.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 20, 2012, 4:26 pm

        “Is this not incitement?”

        No, it isn’t.

      • kalithea
        kalithea on January 21, 2012, 2:31 am

        Since when??? There’s a veiled threat there; an ultimatum! That’s not incitement??? You bet it is!

      • Egbert
        Egbert on January 22, 2012, 7:37 am

        Title 18 of the United States Code (regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure) defines international terrorism as:

        “[T]he term ‘international terrorism’ means activities that . . . involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; [and] appear to be intended . . . to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or . . . to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and [which] occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.”

        My bold.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 10:16 am

        “Since when???”

        Since forever. He’s doing an analysis of what he thinks Israel’s three options are. It’s a stupid analysis, but it’s not incitement.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 10:33 am

        Woody Tanaka,

        You are one of the few people on the planet who doesn’t understand that that article constitutes incitement. The Israeli press and the American Jewish establishment instantly understood that the article is an example of outrageous incitement — that is why their condemnations of it have exceeded in ferocity any of the posts on Mondoweiss.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 11:36 am

        “You are one of the few people on the planet who doesn’t understand that that article constitutes incitement.”

        seanmcbride, If I’m one of the few people on the planet who can see that this article doesn’t constitute incitement, then so be it. If I’m correct (and here I am), I have no problem being a majority of one.

        “The Israeli press and the American Jewish establishment instantly understood that the article is an example of outrageous incitement — that is why their condemnations of it have exceeded in ferocity any of the posts on Mondoweiss.”

        No, it’s not incitement. It could be foolish speculation, an unreasonable discussion or even an asinine opinion (and I believe it was all three) but that does not make it incitement. Nowhere in the article does the author suggest that this should happen, wish that it happen or encourages that it be done. Ergo, no incitement.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 12:18 pm

        Woody Tanaka,

        Many of your posts consist of simple flat assertions, unsupported by any thoughtful analysis — I noticed the same pattern of “argument” in your exchanges on the question of whether Zionism helped to enable and inflame anti-Semitism during the pre-Nazi and Nazi eras of European history. (It did.)

        There are various methods of inciting violence against targets, some more subtle than others. Andrew Adler’s method wasn’t even subtle: he framed the issue of the Israeli government assassinating an American president as a reasonable and understandable policy option. This policy option is also obviously very much on the mind of Adler himself — he seems to think that murdering Barack Obama would produce positive results for Israel. Nowhere in his essay is there the slightest indication that he thinks that such an operation would be wrong, immoral, unethical or unpatriotic.

        Any pro-Israel militant reading that essay who shares the same psychology as Yigal Amir or Baruch Goldstein might draw the “correct” conclusion and “do the right thing.” This is the kind of incitement that helped set Yigal Amir in motion.

        Keep in mind that this incitement is occurring during a period when pro-Israel activists and militants have already been whipped up into a state of intense emotional excitement by relentless propaganda from the Israeli government claiming that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons with which it intends to “wipe Israel off the map.” The political soil has been well seeded to activate violence against any politician or pundit who opposes an American war against Iran. Why would the life of any single American president matter compared to the survival of a Jewish state?

        Are you an American citizen?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 8:12 am

        “Many of your posts consist of simple flat assertions, unsupported by any thoughtful analysis…”

        What more do you need than (1) it’s not a crime because we have the FIrst Amendment, and (2) there is no incitement, because that word has a meaning which is not met here??

        “(It did.)”

        Then you and your buddies can put the proof on the table.

        “There are various methods of inciting violence against targets, some more subtle than others. [blah blah Yigal Amir blah blah Baruch Goldstein]”

        Here is your problem: “Incitement” does not mean “write something that some unstable person might use as an excuse to commit violence.” You could say that his writing was “irresponsible,” and I might agree with you. (Probably not, because I think the writing is stupid, more than irresponsible. That’s giving the article more credit than it is worth.) But that does not turn it into “incitement” because you want to add it to an arsenal to establish that Zionists are bad.

        “Nowhere in his essay is there the slightest indication that he thinks that such an operation would be wrong, immoral, unethical or unpatriotic.”

        If true, so what? All that shows is that he wrote a wrong, immoral, unethical or unpatriotic piece. BFD. That’s not criminal, nor is it incitement.

        “Are you an American citizen?”

        Are you unable to read? Is that your problem? Because I’ve said a number of times that if you present your argument for why that information is relevant, I would continue with that part of this discussion. Yet you refuse to present any basis for the relevance of that information. Indeed, you don’t even acknowledge that I made that statement. Why? Do you not have a reason why it is relevant? Do you think that if you ignore my request for a proffer of relevance that I would simply let it slide? Do you think that I wouldn’t notice? Do you think I would simply give up and answer the question?

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 9:47 am

        Woody Tanaka,

        I doubt that you will find a single reputable authority in the United States or Israel (*especially* Israel) who won’t view that essay as an act of incitement. It has very much the look, feel and flavor of the incitement that preceded the Rabin assassination — much of the discussion about “rodefs” (as applied to Rabin) was conducted as abstract theorizing and scenario-building without a direct call to violence. Actually, this essay is much more direct about its intentions: Adler clearly is urging the assassination of Barack Obama — he isn’t merely speculating that it might happen.

        Every American I know has been outraged by this incident because Americans know in their bones, from numerous traumatic experiences (Lincoln, JFK, RFK, MLK, Reagan, Giffords, etc.), that assassinations and assassination attempts are always a grave threat in American politics.

        You come across to me as a person with absolutely no grounding in or understanding of American culture — am I right? I am curious to check my instincts on this matter. My instant instinct that Walid isn’t an American citizen and isn’t in sync with American culture was well-founded.

        The other reason I am asking you about your nation or nations of citizenship is that I am interested in how cultural factors affect our respective views on Mideast politics: nationality, region, religion, ethnicity, educational level, economic class, etc.

        I am an American citizen, Roman Catholic by upbringing, currently an agnostic and Anglo-Irish primarily by ethnicity. I view Mideast politics from the standpoint of American and Western interests and make no attempt to hide that fact. I have no emotional stake in the agendas of any of the local warring parties in the Mideast, and in fact I find the culture wars over identity politics there to be appalling and completely alien to me. I would love nothing more than for Americans to disengage completely from that mess.

        How about you? Where are you coming from on these issues? Are these top secret matters that you feel a need to conceal?

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 24, 2012, 10:26 am

        What more do you need than (1) it’s not a crime because we have the First Amendment, and (2) there is no incitement, because that word has a meaning which is not met here??

        You keep saying that it’s not a crime, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected Sheikh Rahman’s 1st amendment defense that Title 18 § 2385 was an unconstitutional burden on free speech and the free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment or that it criminalizes protected expression. No matter how many 1st Amendment restrictions the Courts have placed on the provisions of § 2385, the remaining ones have still proven sufficient to obtain convictions for advocacy, encouragement, inducement, or conspiracy to take violent action to overthrow the government. Adler isn’t simply expressing his own views on the subject or the actual views of the government of Israel. He is laying out a line of argument to persuade his readers that our government is a threat to the survival of the nation of Israel that could be eliminated through its overthrow (as defined in the statute) by ordering a hit on the President. He doesn’t ask his readers what they think. He repeatedly asks “all of the Netanyahus out there” what they would do? This appears to be an example of instigating and encouraging support for a criminal act or plan of action. The statute defines that as advocacy, not discussion.

        I’ve pointed out several times that there doesn’t have to be any incitement to commit violence present to convey a true threat. In the Planned Parenthood case, the Nuremberg Files website did not expressly urge viewers to commit violence against abortion providers. A reasonable person could perceive Adler’s message as being conveyed to effect a change in US policy or achieve a goal through intimidation.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 11:37 am

        ” U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected Sheikh Rahman’s 1st amendment defense ”

        And Rahman did more than Adler did here.

        “Adler isn’t simply expressing his own views on the subject or the actual views of the government of Israel. He is laying out a line of argument to persuade his readers that our government is a threat to the survival of the nation of Israel that could be eliminated through its overthrow (as defined in the statute) by ordering a hit on the President.”

        And even if true (I don’t believe it to be, as I don’t believe Adler was trying to persuade), so what? The First Amendment protects speech that advocates violence, so long as the speech is not directed to produce imminent lawless action and is not likely to incite or produce such action. Neither of these things exist here.

        “I’ve pointed out several times that there doesn’t have to be any incitement to commit violence present to convey a true threat. ”

        But there is no threat here at all, because no rational person would read this statement as a serious expression of an intent by Adler to take any action, given the entirety of the argument, the surrounding facts, etc.

        “A reasonable person could perceive Adler’s message as being conveyed to effect a change in US policy or achieve a goal through intimidation.”

        No, that is an absolutely unreasonable conclusion.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 11:47 am

        “I doubt that you will find a single reputable authority in the United States or Israel (*especially* Israel) who won’t view that essay as an act of incitement”

        I’m sure it won’t surprise you to know that the logical falacy of an appeal to authority is meaningless to me. So what. They’re wrong. I’m right. Not the first time.

        “Every American I know has been outraged by this incident…”

        Then you know very few people, because the overwhelming majority of Americans have never heard of this incident.

        “…Americans know in their bones…”

        I prefer to think using my brain, not my bones.

        “You come across to me as a person with absolutely no grounding in or understanding of American culture — am I right?”

        No. Not at all.

        “How about you? Where are you coming from on these issues? Are these top secret matters that you feel a need to conceal?”

        I told you from the beginning that it isn’t a matter of secrecy. And while you haven’t demonstrated relevance, you did give it a shot. So will say that I am an American citizen, Roman Catholic by upbringing, currently an agnostic atheist and mixed European ethnicity. I’m an educated Northeastern progressive.

        So what does that tell you? Maybe that you can’t make any assumptions about someone based on their view of the issues?

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 12:09 pm

        Woody Tanaka,

        You wrote:

        “But there is no threat here at all, because no rational person would read this statement as a serious expression of an intent by Adler to take any action, given the entirety of the argument, the surrounding facts, etc.”

        Terrorists and assassins driven by religious or ethnic nationalist extremism are typically *irrational* people who are easily influenced and set in motion by even low levels of incitement. There are many extremists in both Israel and the United States who fit this profile. Yigal Amir and Baruch Goldstein fit that profile. Anders Breivik, the Oslo mass murderer, was heavily influenced by the writings of Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer. Their minds are wide open to the arguments that Andrew Adler made in that article.

        Your comments on this topic continue to be incredibly shallow.

        Again, read Adler’s words carefully with a sensitivity to the agenda and emotions that are driving them:

        BEGIN QUOTE

        Give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

        Yes you read [the assassination option] correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?

        END QUOTE

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 1:13 pm

        “Terrorists and assassins driven by religious or ethnic nationalist extremism are typically *irrational* people who are easily influenced and set in motion by even low levels of incitement.”

        And the protections of the First Amendment are not limited to those things which won’t influence irrational people.

        “Your comments on this topic continue to be incredibly shallow.”

        No, you simply don’t understand what the issues are concerning the legality of the article.

        “Again, read Adler’s words carefully with a sensitivity to the agenda and emotions that are driving them:”

        Okay… [reading with sensitivity]… Yup. Still legal.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 24, 2012, 2:13 pm

        Woody Tanaka,
        Re: “Nowhere in his essay is there the slightest indication that he thinks that such an operation would be wrong, immoral, unethical or unpatriotic.”

        If true, so what? All that shows is that he wrote a wrong, immoral, unethical or unpatriotic piece. BFD. That’s not criminal, nor is it incitement.

        True, Woody, but I think Adler signals by such total omission an attitude by an establishment Jewish-American newspaper editor/owner all Americans should be very concerned about, to say the least. And we know he owns a popular newspaper in Israel too. I think to call Adler irresponsible is the least of it–imagine David Duke writing a piece for an establishment American newspaper that was published here and in Palestine, one that says the survival of the Palestinians people is at stake, so suggests any Palestinian leader or leaders worth his, her, their salt should be, if he, she, they are not already considering it’s time to murder the US POTUS so somebody can replace him that is more concerned about the survival of the Palestinians as a people as instituted in the forced non-state of Palestine, and which non-enforced state comes complete with diaspora Palestinian support?

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 3:25 pm

        Citizen,

        You wrote:

        “And we know he owns a popular newspaper in Israel too.”

        Do you have a cite for that? That would be an important fact to take into account in interpreting his behavior.

        By now the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal should have published in-depth profiles of Adler. They are not doing their job.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 24, 2012, 3:36 pm

        I too don’t think Walid or Woody have a real grasp of the average American mentality. For the record, I am also Roman Catholic in upbringing–I was an altar boy in my grade school youth, and I also am currently an agnostic, and my ethnicity is primarily Irish and secondly, German; the majority is Irish. I am 1% Scot in ethnic origin, and there’s some additional ambiguity about my relatives who came from the Austo-Hungarian Empire–as to whether they were also German or Hungarian.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 24, 2012, 3:41 pm

        Yes, Hostage. It’s all about the US law and how it intersects with power politics.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 4:26 pm

        “I too don’t think Walid or Woody have a real grasp of the average American mentality.”

        LOL. Well, my mentality is what you get from being born, raised and living almost every day of your life in America.

        But then again, I’m educated, I’m not reflexively paranoid, I don’t hate foreigners, I despise bigotry, I don’t particularly care about the personal lives of celebrities, I am well-read, I’m not afraid of new ideas, I believe religions are nonsense, I don’t shit my pants on the mention of the word “socialism,” I don’t believe in UFO, angels, or conspiracy theories, I find people like Sarah Palin and Ron Paul to be living cartoons characters, I enjoy art (and, no, Thomas Kinkade doesn’t count), I’m not afraid of science and I am not unthinkingly jingoistic.

        Well, maybe I don’t have an average American mentality.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 4:31 pm

        “I think Adler signals by such total omission an attitude by an establishment Jewish-American newspaper editor/owner all Americans should be very concerned about, to say the least.”

        And that’s your prereogative. I think he’s a crank who wrote a stupid article.

        “imagine David Duke writing a piece for an establishment American newspaper that was published here and in Palestine, one that says the survival of the Palestinians people is at stake, so suggests any Palestinian leader or leaders worth his, her, their salt should be, if he, she, they are not already considering it’s time to murder the US POTUS so somebody can replace him that is more concerned about the survival of the Palestinians as a people as instituted in the forced non-state of Palestine, and which non-enforced state comes complete with diaspora Palestinian support?”

        My opinion would be the same: he’s a crank. The Secret Service should do their due dilligence and do an investigation and, if nothing more comes of it, we should go about our business.

      • patm
        patm on January 24, 2012, 5:25 pm

        Well, maybe I don’t have an average American mentality.

        Love you, Woody. Perhaps we could elope some day.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 6:55 pm

        Woody Tanaka,

        Ok — thanks for the info. For some reason that comment didn’t reach me in email via Disqus and I didn’t see it (which makes me wonder about how many other comments have slipped through the cracks). We profile out quite similarly, which is interesting.

        Bottom line: you don’t think this incident is important — fine. I think it could be quite important in terms of revealing the mindset behind a significant pattern of incitement against Barack Obama by pro-Israel activists and militants. The Rabin assassination is only one of quite a few successful predictions I’ve made about Mideast politics, and this incident is triggering ominous forebodings for me. I always listen to my gut instincts. You are under no obligation to pay them any mind.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 7:13 pm

        Citizen,

        Thanks for sharing! There appears to be a significant faction of ex-Roman Catholics here of Western or Northern European descent.

        Some folks here might see something sinister in that — I can’t entirely blame them, given the problematic history of Catholic/Jewish relations over many centuries.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 24, 2012, 7:46 pm

        And Rahman did more than Adler did here.

        You are loosing your narrative. Rahman challenged the constitutional validity of the statute on the basis of the First Amendment and said that his conviction on this charge rested solely on his political views and religious practices. The Court ruled that the State could criminalize elements of speech that encouraged, induced or conspired to advocate action. The Court said the statute did not impermissibly burden the expression of protected speech, as it was properly “directed at advocacy [of overthrow of the government by force], not discussion.”

        The First Amendment protects speech that advocates violence, so long as the speech is not directed to produce imminent lawless action and is not likely to incite or produce such action. Neither of these things exist here.

        That is incorrect. In Virginia v. Black the Supreme Court cited Watts and said:

        The protections the First Amendment affords speech and expressive conduct are not absolute. This Court has long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution. See, e.g., Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571—572. For example, the First Amendment permits a State to ban “true threats,” e.g., Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (per curiam)

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1107.ZS.html

        That is exactly what Title 18 § 871 Threats against President does. In Mr. Adler’s case there are dozens of news reports from mainstream Jewish media sources and spokesmen for Jewish community organizations who read the article and concluded it actually is a call for Israel to act on the option he outlined and assassinate the President in order to save the nation of Israel and obliterate its enemies. So, many reasonable readers in the target audience do think it is a carefully worded true threat, not just idle talk, political hyperbole, or a joke.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 8:00 pm

        Hostage,

        This, by you, bears repeating:

        “In Mr. Adler’s case there are dozens of news reports from mainstream Jewish media sources and spokesmen for Jewish community organizations who read the article and concluded it actually is a call for Israel to act on the option he outlined and assassinate the President in order to save the nation of Israel and obliterate its enemies. So, many reasonable readers in the target audience do think it is a carefully worded true threat, not just idle talk, political hyperbole, or a joke.”

        Mainstream Jewish sources for the most part are making no effort to deny the threatening nature of Adler’s remarks.

        Your expertise in First Amendment law is impressive — is it an academic specialty of yours? I’ve learned a great deal from your comments — thanks for sharing.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 25, 2012, 5:42 am

        Your expertise in First Amendment law is impressive — is it an academic specialty of yours?

        I’m not an expert in First Amendment Law. It’s just a subject that I’ve been interested in since the late 60s. I was in the military and became fascinated in some of the cases involving service members, the anti-war and civil rights movements, and some of the things the government had criminalized. Many of the cases and verdicts struck me as being very petty and vindictive, counter-intuitive, and unconstitutional. So, I started obtaining copies of the opinions from libraries and reading them. My interest in international law was job related and the government provided my initial training and education.

        The internet, Pacer, and all of the legal blogs have made it much simpler to follow legislation, cases, read filings, oral arguments, and occasionally chat or comment on issues related to international law with people like Profs. John Quigley, M. Cherif Bassiouni, Kevin Jon Heller, or William Schabas.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 25, 2012, 9:56 am

        “You are loosing your narrative. Rahman challenged the constitutional validity of the statute…”

        No, I’m not. My point is that even with a statute which can be constitutionally valid, when applied to actual threatening conduct, what Adler did here did not fall within that definition. You seem to think that I am making a facial challenge to the statute. I’m not.

        The First Amendment protects speech that advocates violence, so long as the speech is not directed to produce imminent lawless action and is not likely to incite or produce such action. Neither of these things exist here.

        “That is incorrect.”

        Take it up with the 9th Cir., and the USSC…

        Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 48 Ohio Op. 2d 320 (1969), makes it clear that the First Amendment protects speech that advocates violence, so long as the speech is not directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is not likely to incite or produce such action.

        Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058, 1071-1072 (9th Cir. Or. 2002)

        “…there are dozens of news reports from mainstream Jewish media sources and spokesmen for Jewish community organizations…”

        media sources and spokesmen are not the arbiters of the question.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 25, 2012, 1:38 pm

        Take it up with the 9th Cir., and the USSC…

        I already discussed the 1969 Brandenburg decision, but it doesn’t deal with the subject of true threats at all. We are discussing statutes about publishing threats to assassinate the President. A threat against the President was the subject of the decision in Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969). After several assassinations and attempted assassinations the Congress adopted a statute to ban the act of threatening to assassinate the President.

        I cited the subsequent 2003 Supreme Court decision in Virginia v. Black et al. (01-1107) 538 U.S. 343 (2003) which said the First Amendment allows States to ban true threats. That opinion cited the decision in Watts as one of the controlling authorities on the subject.

        FYI, the second case that you are citing above, Planned Parenthood, is another case I’ve already discussed. An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the use of “Wanted” style posters on the Nuremberg Files website to list personal information about abortion providers by anti-choice groups was a true threat and NOT protected by the First Amendment.

        media sources and spokesmen are not the arbiters of the question.

        Well the Secret Service is investigating reports of a threat. The Courts actually use a single prong test, based upon how an ordinary observer interprets the speech. Even in the portion of the Brandenburg decision that you cited, the “producing” language addresses a situation in which the speaker’s intent to bring about the harm is clear to the reader, but not necessarily from the express language of the speech. In the case of a true threat to intimidate, there’s no need to show an intent to carry out the threat. Adler has admitted he had no intention to kill the President, just get people interested enough to change the administration’s policy. The only problem with that line of defense is, that it’s illegal to threaten to kill the President for that purpose too.

        In Adler’s case the intended audience has responded overwhelming that they believe he was engaged in advocacy calling for Obama to be assassinated or suggesting that he should be assassinated. So, a Prosecutor could use that sort of evidence to oppose a request for dismissal if this went to trial.

        I don’t personally think that will happen. I agree with David Samel’s assessment of the situation.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 25, 2012, 2:27 pm

        “I already discussed the 1969 Brandenburg decision, but it doesn’t deal with the subject of true threats at all.”

        And as I noted a number of times, the speech in this case did not constitute a true threat, given the totality of the circumstances, so the “true threat” line of cases is irrelevant. All that leaves is, at most, speech that arguably advocates violence, which is protected per Brandenburg.

        “The Courts actually use a single prong test, based upon how an ordinary observer interprets the speech.”

        And no ordinary observer could interpret this speech as an intent to convey an actual threat.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 25, 2012, 6:07 pm

        And as I noted a number of times, the speech in this case did not constitute a true threat

        Well CNN and other sources have reported that the Secret Service is investigating and that they are not taking the threat so lightly. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120122/assassinate-obama-editorial-draws-ire-secret-ser

        It isn’t up to you to decide whether other people feel threatened or not when someone suggests they should be assassinated. I guess that you’ve never heard the expression “Tell it to the Judge”, but a dispute over a material fact won’t as a rule prevent a case from going to trial.

    • bangpound
      bangpound on January 20, 2012, 3:52 pm
    • American
      American on January 20, 2012, 4:17 pm

      I imgine someone has already gotten incensed and reported it , but I sent it to the FBI in Atlanta in case not.
      Maybe though I should have mailed it to the First Lady’s WH office ….LOL!

      • Philip Munger
        Philip Munger on January 20, 2012, 4:36 pm

        LOL?

        Actually, this is not at all funny. We’re getting into some scary shit here.

        I’m not jumping on you for your comment, though. All this pushback coming out of Netanyahu’s office – he’s the instigator – is a threat to not just the president, but to the United States.

      • American
        American on January 20, 2012, 6:34 pm

        I know it is serious.
        But I like to imagine Mrs Obama storming into the Oval office with that assassinate Obama publication in her hand saying ”those zionist people you suck up to are threatening to make me a widow and my children fatherless!!!!…Get Rid of Them! Now! Do you understand me Barack???
        Maybe you aren’t married and don’t get where the real seat of power would be in that scenario.

      • dahoit
        dahoit on January 21, 2012, 12:42 pm

        Yeah,aint it remarkable how the Israelis use this backbone free gumby turkey for a rug?

  10. Pamela Olson
    Pamela Olson on January 20, 2012, 3:34 pm

    How many people has Israel assassinated in the name of “preserving the Jewish state”? What’s one more [insert Hebrew slang for a member of the less melanin-challenged races here]?

    • Ellen
      Ellen on January 20, 2012, 6:40 pm

      Lots. Just look at what happened to the US State Dept. “Arabists” in the late 1950s. I know this sounds like hyperbole, but historians can seek it out. Make your own conclusions.

      • Charon
        Charon on January 20, 2012, 8:51 pm

        Any links for that, Ellen? Not that I don’t believe it, I just never heard that before and would like to read up on it. Dunno how to throw it into google. Tried “State Department Arabs 50s Israel” and only got stuff about the Suez crisis mainly.

      • tree
        tree on January 22, 2012, 12:40 am

        I think Ellen’s confusing actual assassinations with career assassinations-i.e., State Department employees who had their careers deep-sixed for saying or doing things that powerful Zionists disapproved of. Hostage and American got into a discussion of this another thread.

        However, there was one American diplomat that was the subject of an Israeli assassination attempt in 1980, John Gunther Dean.

        Dean, whose memoir is titled Danger Zones: A Diplomat’s Fight for America’s Interests, was American ambassador in Lebanon in August 1980 when a three-car convoy carrying him and his family was attacked near Beirut.

        “I was the target of an assassination attempt by terrorists using automatic rifles and antitank weapons that had been made in the United States and shipped to Israel,” he wrote. “Weapons financed and given by the United States to Israel were used in an attempt to kill an American diplomat!” After the event, conspiracy theories abounded in the Middle East about who could have planned the attack, and why. Lebanon was a dangerously factionalized country.

        The State Department investigated, Dean said, but he was never told what the conclusion was. He wrote that he “worked the telephone for three weeks” and met only official silence in Washington. By then Dean had learned from weapons experts in the United States and Lebanon that the guns and ammunition used in the attack had been given by Israelis to a Christian militia allied with them.

        “I know as surely as I know anything that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, was somehow involved in the attack,” Dean wrote, describing how he had been under sharp criticism from Israeli politicians and media for his contacts with Palestinians. “Undoubtedly using a proxy, our ally Israel had tried to kill me.”

        Dean’s memoir, to be published in May for the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Memoir Series by New Academia Publishing under its Vellum imprint, has been read and approved for publication by the State Department with only very minor changes, none affecting Dean’s major points. Its underlying theme is that American diplomacy should be pursued in American interests, not those of another country, however friendly. A Jew whose family fled the Holocaust, Dean resented what he saw as an assumption, including by some in Congress, that he would promote Israel’s interests in his ambassadorial work.

        http://www.thenation.com/article/us-envoy-writes-israeli-threats

        Although he survived the actual assassination attempt, his career was assassinated in 1988, for suspecting the Israelis of killing the Pakistani President.

        Dean’s suspicions that Israeli agents may have also been involved in the mysterious plane crash in 1988 that killed President of Pakistan, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, led finally to a decision in Washington to declare him mentally unfit, which forced his resignation from the foreign service after a thirty-year career. Later he was rehabilitated by the State Department, given a distinguished service medal and the insanity charge was confirmed to be a phony by a former head of the department’s medical service.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gunther_Dean

  11. radii
    radii on January 20, 2012, 3:38 pm

    If you want to contact the people at that paper, as I did to tell Adler he needs to turn himself into the Secret Service and the staff that they must resign or are complicit, here are their emails:

    [email protected],
    [email protected],
    [email protected],
    [email protected],
    [email protected],
    [email protected]

  12. justicewillprevail
    justicewillprevail on January 20, 2012, 3:40 pm

    I trust he will resign immediately.

    • goodman
      goodman on January 20, 2012, 6:32 pm

      Oh, he will resign alright and move to a settlement in the occupied West Bank where he can murder and steal with impunity, protected and funded by an Apartheid regime that is enabled (militarily, diplomatically, financially) by a subservient US government. Coddling and funding zio-supremacists for so long and ignoring their crimes only reinforces their supremicist thinking. With time, the Adlers of this world develop an acute case of self-entitlement and a sense that they can say and do anything anywhere with impunity.

    • Ellen
      Ellen on January 20, 2012, 6:42 pm

      Resign? He owns the newspaper. He has apologized, but the crime has been committed. And that he would actually write something like that to his readers his horrific.

      • marc b.
        marc b. on January 21, 2012, 9:07 am

        Resign? He owns the newspaper.

        for anyone living in/near a large metropolitan area, check out the give-away local papers. whenever i am in the city, or traveling, i read the community news. regretably many of the give-aways directed at the local jewish communities that i have come across have a similar tone to this sheet of toilet paper published by adler, equal parts persecution-complex, paranoia, bad ‘history’, and narcissism.

  13. American
    American on January 20, 2012, 3:42 pm

    I am not surprised some US Pro Israels would go that far, I am surprised he was dumb enough to send it out to people.
    I imagine he will get a visit from the Atlanta FBI.

    • Shingo
      Shingo on January 20, 2012, 4:02 pm

      I imagine he will get a visit from the Atlanta FBI.

      And if he’s arrested, he’ll get a presidential pardon and Israel will make him into a national hero.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 20, 2012, 4:25 pm

        He won’t be arrested. There is enough to investigate, but there is no crime in what he wrote.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on January 20, 2012, 6:31 pm

        Of course not, I was being sarcastic. I don’t even think it’s illegal to endorse the murder of a US president.

      • Ellen
        Ellen on January 20, 2012, 6:43 pm

        Yes, the is a crime. Public calls to assassinate the President of the United States is a federal crime.

      • Philip Munger
        Philip Munger on January 20, 2012, 9:24 pm

        That is correct, and that is what they should investigate, along with his contacts in the weeks leading up to the provocative column.

      • Rusty Pipes
        Rusty Pipes on January 20, 2012, 9:35 pm

        Did Ann Coulter even get investigated much less prosecuted for advocting the assassination of Supreme Court Justice Stevens?

      • annie
        annie on January 20, 2012, 9:49 pm

        the creme brulee? i doubt it.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 20, 2012, 10:25 pm

        There probably is enough evidence here to prosecute and convict. It is a crime to convey “any threat”. That’s because threats are also intended to intimidate and alter the victim’s behavior. So it is against the law to try to engender fear in the victim, even if there is no intent to cause physical harm.

        In Virginia v Black the Supreme Court explained “true threats”:

        the First Amendment permits a State to ban “true threats,” e.g., Watts v. United States, 394 U. S. 705, 708 (per curiam), which encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals, see, e.g., id., at 708. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protects individuals from the fear of violence and the disruption that fear engenders, as well as from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur. R. A. V., supra, at 388. 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.

        In this case it is a federal offense to simply convey “any threat” in a newspaper in accordance with US CodeTitle 18, § 871:

        Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00000871—-000-.html

        It is perfectly alright to try and change or effect national policy through an editorial, but you can’t do it by conveying a true threat.

      • ToivoS
        ToivoS on January 21, 2012, 12:28 am

        Hostage, thanks again for your legal council. This Adler guy must be prosecuted. Not that he will, but if not it means that our justice system has two different standards — one for our local Zionists and another for those who support Palestinians.

        The example I have in mind is Dr. Sami Amin Al-Arian, the U of Florida professor that raised funds for Palestinian charities. He has been in jail for about 10 years and faces life in imprison. What are the factual bases for the indictment against him: well he sent money to Palestinian charities. That is it.

        Now we have this Adler guy calling for the assassination of the president of the US. DOJ, please give us some justice! Indict this terrorist or, if not, maybe you should review some of your other cases. If you think it is not a crime for Jews to advocate the assassination of our President then maybe you should review those cases where Muslims sent charity funds to their people.

      • kalithea
        kalithea on January 21, 2012, 2:33 am

        Quit absolving him already!!!

      • Djinn
        Djinn on January 21, 2012, 9:21 pm

        But he didn’t *call* for the President to be assassinated, he wrote that within inner circles it would have been discussed. ALL nations have plans covering all sorts of scenarios, even those that are very very unlikely to ever come to pass. Despite the US polity laboring under the Zionist yoke, I guarantee there are plans somewhere that detail options for the US assassination of Israeli figures and military strikes against Israel. Agree that this would be taken FAR more seriously we’re it said by an Arab or Muslim but it’s not absolving Adler to point out that HE personally did not say the President SHOULD be assassinated. I can’t see that he committed any more of a crime than I would had I said that certain nutty militia groups in the US have probably mulled over the same scenario.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 22, 2012, 9:03 am

        ALL nations have plans covering all sorts of scenarios, even those that are very very unlikely to ever come to pass.

        Conducting a hit on an official of another government, like Adler described, would be an offense under Title 18 §1116 Murder Or Manslaughter Of Foreign Officials, Official Guests, Or Internationally Protected Persons. Conspiring to violate or attempt to violate the statute would also be a punishable offense.
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00001116—-000-.html

      • Djinn
        Djinn on January 22, 2012, 11:53 pm

        Of course killing someone is a crime in most countries, doesn’t mean governments don’t have plans to do it, and occasionally actually do it. Spookland tends to involve a fair bit of ignoring the law.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 23, 2012, 2:30 am

        Spookland tends to involve a fair bit of ignoring the law.

        This law was actually the result of the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations and Hart-Schweiker and Church Committee hearings in the Senate. The folks in Spookland have mandatory congressional oversight and United States Foreign Intelligence Courts. Former CIA officers have complained about those procedures (just before meeting their own suspicious end in things like “canoeing accidents” ;-)

      • Djinn
        Djinn on January 23, 2012, 3:11 am

        Accidents happen all the time, even to members of foreign governments.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 10:18 am

        “Yes, the is a crime. Public calls to assassinate the President of the United States is a federal crime.”

        And he didn’t all for the assassination of the President. He said what he though Israel’s three options. Nothing more. It was a stupid analysis, but he didn’t say they should do it. He just said that he thinks they’re thinking about it.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 10:20 am

        There is no threat here, true or otherwise. If you think so, you need to get your reading glasses checked.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 11:05 am

        Woody Tanaka,

        Are you an American citizen? (Just curious — I am an American citizen if anyone else is curious and I take a dim view of anyone who threatens the lives of American presidents or who tries to legitimize, mainstream or normalize such threats.)

        Why do you think it is that all the major American Jewish establishment organizations have a very different take on this story than you do? They are making no effort to spin the story in an innocuous direction or to downplay the seriousness of the offense here.

        The New York Times and Washington Post so far have censored a story that has been reported in the major world media and which has stimulated more than 5,000 comments on a single article on CNN. Why do you think that is?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 11:40 am

        “Are you an American citizen?”

        What would it matter if I were or were not? Would that have any material effect in the manner you view my opinion? If so, why?

        “Why do you think it is that all the major American Jewish establishment organizations have a very different take on this story than you do?”

        LOL, because they have public relations considerations. Further, the only point I’m making is that it is not incitement. If they’re saying that this is a stupid or misguided statement or whatever, I would join them. But it’s still not incitement, as that word has an actual definition which this column does not meet.

        “The New York Times and Washington Post so far have censored a story that has been reported in the major world media and which has stimulated more than 5,000 comments on a single article on CNN. Why do you think that is?”

        Because they probably don’t think it’s worth reporting. Ask them. Probably because they see that there’s no story there: “Man makes irresponsible theoretical speculation about whether the Israelis should think about killing Obama” isn’t much of a story.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 23, 2012, 12:18 pm

        There is no threat here, true or otherwise. If you think so, you need to get your reading glasses checked.

        Why shouldn’t the President feel personally intimidated when, as Abe Foxman admits, members of the Jewish community openly talk about the possibility of having him murdered as a desirable or acceptable solution to their perceived problems?

        A true threat doesn’t require any intent to do physical harm, an intent to intimidate the victims in order to alter their behavior or to make them feel endangered or disrupt their lives is sufficient.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 12:27 pm

        Woody Tanaka,

        Really — you won’t answer a direct question about whether you are an American citizen? Why are you so defensive about such a simple and banal question? And especially in a forum which is dedicated to vigorous discussion about international and nationalist politics? Most of us here are upfront and honest about our respective nations of citizenship. Why in the world wouldn’t we be?

        Your non-answer strongly implies that you aren’t an American citizen. Of which nation, then, are you a citizen?

        I am asking this question because you are taking such a bizarre and cavalier attitude towards an article that has inflamed the anger of the vast majority of Americans who have read it. Your “arguments” so far to explain your peculiar attitude have been completely empty of content.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 12:40 pm

        Hostage,

        Andrew Adler asserted that the Israeli Mossad is almost certainly thinking about the option of assassinating Barack Obama, and Adler made this assertion in an approving manner. There is no hint in the article, published in a Jewish newspaper, that he disapproves of this policy.

        Woody Tanaka is doing his level best to defend Adler and to minimize the gravity of his offense — which is raising really big questions in my mind about Woody Tanaka.

        Here is precise quote by Adler under discussion:

        BEGIN QUOTE

        Give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

        Yes you read [the assassination option] correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?

        END QUOTE

        Keep in mind that these sentiments were published in a climate of hysteria about Iran and its (non-existent) nuclear weapons. Many pro-Israel activists and militants are boiling over with rage about the failure of Obama to go to war against Iran immediately. Publishing this essay is like throwing a lit match on a pool of gas.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 23, 2012, 12:48 pm

        I’m making is that it is not incitement. If they’re saying that this is a stupid or misguided statement or whatever, I would join them. But it’s still not incitement, as that word has an actual definition which this column does not meet.

        Article II of the U.S. Constitution says that The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America, not an “Executive branch”. When a person discusses the acceptability or desirability of killing the President and coercing his replacement into waging a war on Iran with Israel, then by strict definition, he is violating an existing statute that prohibits advocating the overthrow of the Government. The response is about half and half. Many people object on the basis of a possible threat to the life of the President, while others are more upset by an Israel-firster encouraging or supporting a treasonable objective.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 1:02 pm

        “Why shouldn’t the President feel personally intimidated when, as Abe Foxman admits, members of the Jewish community openly talk about the possibility of having him murdered as a desirable or acceptable solution to their perceived problems?”

        Because no one with a the ability to think reasonably would feel intimidated by uninformed speculation by the editor of a newspaper so small that to call it a small newspaper is to overstate its importance.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 1:04 pm

        “When a person discusses the acceptability or desirability of killing the President and coercing his replacement into waging a war on Iran with Israel, then by strict definition, he is violating an existing statute that prohibits advocating the overthrow of the Government.”

        Adler did not discuss “the acceptability or desirability” of doing this. He engaged in uninformed speculation as to whether the Israelis were considering it as an option. If you don’t see the difference between them, then that is your problem.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 1:13 pm

        “Really — you won’t answer a direct question about whether you are an American citizen?”

        Why is it relevant? If you can show it is relevant, then I would be happy to discuss the issue further. You just have to demonstrate how my citizenship is in any way relevant to my analysis of whether Adler’s statement constitutes a crime or incitement.

        “Why are you so defensive about such a simple and banal question?”

        I’m not defensive about anything. I just want to see you twist yourself in knots trying to come up with some type of relevance to my citizenship to the analysis of this issue.

        “And especially in a forum which is dedicated to vigorous discussion about international and nationalist politics? Most of us here are upfront and honest about our respective nations of citizenship. Why in the world wouldn’t we be?”

        The issue isn’t my citizenship. The issue is whether you can show that that citizenship is relevant in any way to the discussion. How would it matter in the analysis of this issue if I were a US citizens that would be different if I were a citizen of Greece or Japan or Peru?

        “Your non-answer strongly implies that you aren’t an American citizen.”

        Actually, that is nothing more than your inference. I’ve implied nothing by my challenge to you to come up with a claim of relevance of that information.

        “Of which nation, then, are you a citizen?”

        Again, I’d be happy to discuss this further, but first, what is the relevance of that information? Do all Americans hold the same opinion about everything?

        “I am asking this question because you are taking such a bizarre and cavalier attitude towards an article that has inflamed the anger of the vast majority of Americans who have read it.”

        False. First, I’m saying nothing more than that it is neither a crime nor incitement. Second, I am taking no more cavalier an attitude than is appropriate for an article in a nothing of a newspaper.

        “Your ‘arguments’ so far to explain your peculiar attitude have been completely empty of content.”

        Well, that simply says more about your reading comprehension than anything else.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 1:21 pm

        “…and Adler made this assertion in an approving manner. There is no hint in the article, published in a Jewish newspaper, that he disapproves of this policy.”

        “Woody Tanaka is doing his level best to defend Adler and to minimize the gravity of his offense…”

        You really need to improve your reading and or thinking skills. I’m not defending Adler or minimizing anything. I am simply pointing out that what he’s done here is neither criminal nor does it constitute incitement. His opinions and ideas may be abhorrant, but he is absolutely entitled to express his ideas, stupid as they are. Anything else you might be reading into my position is borne or your particular lapses into irrational thinking.

        “…which is raising really big questions in my mind about Woody Tanaka.”

        That’s good to hear. I would be worried if the likes of you had no issues at all with my take on the issue.

      • American
        American on January 23, 2012, 1:53 pm

        Woody,

        I think we can see Adler’s two step in his wording. While it may not have been a direct threat, it listed assassination of Obama as a “Option” that Israel could/would and probably ‘has’ considered.
        Taken on top of the well known fact of Israel’s long history of political enemy assassinations it puts his ‘speculating’ into the should do category if all else fails.
        I am sort of delighted that this idiot said what he did, whether he gets prosecuted or not, because it does reflect the extremist tactics of the hard line uber zios….and exposed it to some of the public that might not have realized just how crazy they are.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 2:07 pm

        Woody Tanaka,

        What the Secret Service, FBI, DHS, etc. will probably be interested in with regard to the publisher of Atlanta Jewish Times:

        1. all connections to Israelis
        2. all connections to Jewish extremist organizations
        3. all connections to Jewish organizations
        4. all connections to Mossad
        5. all connections to the Israeli government
        6. all past writings
        7. all past remarks on Israel
        8. all past remarks on American politicians
        9. all past remarks on American presidents

        What do you think?

        So far you haven’t expressed any curiosity about reading Andrew Adler’s other writings, to develop more context on how to interpret this particular essay, which on its face is a blatant attempt to mainstream and legitimize the assassination of Barack Obama by the Israeli Mossad.

        You rely heavily on simple flat repetitive assertions in discussions because, frankly, you seem to lack the curiosity or energy to dig very deeply into anything.

        My reading comprehension is sufficiently capable to have noticed this pattern over several months now.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 2:11 pm

        Woody Tanaka,

        Instead of wasting so many empty words on evading the question of your nation or nations of citizenship, you could have simply used one or a few words to answer the question.

        If you are unwilling to divulge your nation or nations of citizenship in discussions with others about international politics, will you at least answer this question: why are you so determined to hide that information?

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 2:35 pm

        Woody Tanaka,

        The Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta seems to be taking this incident more seriously than you are.

        According to JTA, “the damage done to the people of Israel, the global Jewish people, and especially the Jewish Community of Atlanta is irreparable.”

        http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/01/23/3091312/atlanta-jewish-times-publisher-resigns-over-obama-assassination-column

        But you think the story is no big deal.

        The New York Times and Washington Post think the story is of so little consequence that they haven’t yet deigned to mention it, several days into the controversy.

        By the way, I have consistently defended Andrew Adler’s right of free speech in expressing these views — that isn’t the issue.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 23, 2012, 3:32 pm

        You really need to improve your reading and or thinking skills. I’m not defending Adler or minimizing anything. I am simply pointing out that what he’s done here is neither criminal nor does it constitute incitement.

        Well there are still laws on the books and Adler wasn’t discussing a concept, he was discussing the assassination of President Obama. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2385.html

        FYI, the 1st amendment doesn’t give you an unqualified right to encourage a criminal act in violation of the three statutes I mentioned earlier, Title 18, US Code, Sections 2385 (Advocating Overthrow of the Government), 2383 (Rebellion or Insurrection), and 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy).

        For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected Sheik Omar Amad Ali Abdel Rahman’s 1st amendment defense and ruled that the state could criminalize speech (under section 2384 Seditious Conspiracy) that encouraged or induced violent actions like a conspiracy to commit an assassination.

        That was before 9/11 and the Patriot Act.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 4:03 pm

        “What do you think?”

        I think you overestimate the importance of this article. If anyone does an investigation, it would be Secret Service. And if you think that they are going to inquire into “all connections to Jewish organizations,” “all past writings,” and “all past remarks on Israel” (to name a few) you’re nutty.

        “So far you haven’t expressed any curiosity about reading Andrew Adler’s other writings, to develop more context on how to interpret this particular essay,”

        Why should I? He’s one crank in a nation of a hundred million cranks, 99.9999% of them harmless.

        “…which on its face is a blatant attempt to mainstream and legitimize the assassination of Barack Obama by the Israeli Mossad.”

        Says you. I see nothing in the article to suggest an attempt (let alone constitute a blatent attempt) that he is in favor of this step, let alone that he is trying to mainstream it or legitimize it.

        “You rely heavily on simple flat repetitive assertions in discussions because, frankly, you seem to lack the curiosity or energy to dig very deeply into anything.”

        I’m actually giving this story more than the attention it deserves, under any rational analysis.

        “My reading comprehension is sufficiently capable to have noticed this pattern over several months now.”

        I have no doubt that you notice many patterns in many things, often (especially!) when they aren’t even there.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 4:05 pm

        “Instead of wasting so many empty words on evading the question of your nation or nations of citizenship, you could have simply used one or a few words to answer the question.”

        No empty words and no evasion. As soon as you can tell me what the relevance of my citizenship is, I’d be happy to discuss it further. Yet, you strangely refuse to do so. I wonder why…

        ” you are unwilling to divulge your nation or nations of citizenship in discussions with others about international politics, will you at least answer this question: why are you so determined to hide that information?”

        I am more than happy to divulge this information, as soon as you give a reason why it is relevant in any way. Which leads to this question: Why are you so deteremined to not answer the questions regarding the relevancy of my citizenship???

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 4:12 pm

        “The Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta seems to be taking this incident more seriously than you are.”

        Yes, they have fund-raising concerns and I don’t.

        “But you think the story is no big deal.”

        Correct. It is not. “Man makes bone-headed comment about President; apologizes; resigns” isn’t much of a story.

        “The New York Times and Washington Post think the story is of so little consequence that they haven’t yet deigned to mention it, several days into the controversy.”

        And that’s either because (a) it’s a non-story, or (b) there’s a vast conspiracy afoot to cover it up because it cast Israel in a bad light. Which do you think is true?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 4:13 pm

        “I think we can see Adler’s two step in his wording. While it may not have been a direct threat, it listed assassination of Obama as a “Option” that Israel could/would and probably ‘has’ considered.”

        So what? That’s his opinion. Big deal. It may make his opinion stupid, but it’s not a crime, and it’s not incitement, which is all I’m saying here.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 4:16 pm

        “Well there are still laws on the books and Adler wasn’t discussing a concept, he was discussing the assassination of President Obama.”

        And there is nothing criminal in discussing whether the Israelis have or are considering the assassination of President Obama.

        “FYI, the 1st amendment doesn’t give you an unqualified right to encourage a criminal act in violation of the three statutes ”

        He didn’t “encourage” anything. He discussed it.

        “that encouraged or induced violent actions like a conspiracy to commit an assassination.”

        None of which Adler did here.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 23, 2012, 4:18 pm

        He engaged in uninformed speculation as to whether the Israelis were considering it as an option. If you don’t see the difference between them, then that is your problem.

        I don’t see the difference because the author said that he had entertained this Tom Clancy-type scenario too. He shared that information with his readers, while presenting the scenario as a viable option, if not the only viable option.

        I’m not suffering from a reading comprehension problem. Past experience with all of these statutes illustrates that, even in the instances where the Courts have ruled that the 1st amendment provides a defense against portions of the statutes, they have applied the remaining provisions to affirm criminal convictions handed down by the lower courts. That was before the Patriot Act and 9/11.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 4:54 pm

        “I don’t see the difference”

        I know. That’s your problem.

        ” the author said that he had entertained this Tom Clancy-type scenario too.”

        And there is nothing criminal or incitement in doing so.

        “He shared that information with his readers, while presenting the scenario as a viable option, if not the only viable option.”

        Which is wholly protected by the First Amendment.

        “I’m not suffering from a reading comprehension problem.”

        I think that you are looking for a way to make this into something more than what it is. That’s a thinking problem.

        “Past experience with all of these statutes illustrates that, even in the instances where the Courts have ruled that the 1st amendment provides a defense against portions of the statutes, they have applied the remaining provisions to affirm criminal convictions handed down by the lower courts. That was before the Patriot Act and 9/11.”

        But there would have to be some non-protected conduct to which those criminal statutes apply. Here, this entire article is absolutely, clearly and unequivocally protected speech.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 23, 2012, 7:34 pm

        Because no one with a the ability to think reasonably would feel intimidated by uninformed speculation by the editor of a newspaper so small that to call it a small newspaper is to overstate its importance.

        True threats are not protected by the First Amendment. No reasonable reader would conclude that Adler was engaging in jest or political hyperbole, much less that you can confess you’ve been sitting around thinking about scenarios for carrying-out a specific individual’s murder in a way that doesn’t intimidate the intended victim. There are many examples of a President being murdered by a lone assassin and the provisions of the statutes that I mentioned prohibit publication, even in a small newspaper. So Adler’s statement that he’s personally been thinking of scenarios represents an implicit threat directed by the speaker toward Obama. That’s different than a case where a speaker encourages third parties to engage in unlawful conduct.

        The Watts line of cases, dealing with true threats against an individual, do not depend on either incitement or the production of imminent violent action (ala Brandenburg). I’ve repeatedly pointed out that an intent to cause physical harm isn’t even necessary, just an intent to intimidate or cause lingering disruption, engendered by fear, is sufficient.

        Neither Watts nor Brandenburg make words of incitement a necessary condition for the state to criminalize the speech of a clever but effective speaker. That’s why it ruled the First Amendment protects a speaker unless the speaker’s advocacy is “directed to [either (a)] inciting or [(b)] producing imminent lawless action”. Producing would cover a situation in which the speaker’s intent to bring about the harm is clear, but not necessarily from the express language of the speech. In Brandenburg the Court only required that the evidence clearly show that the speaker intended to bring about the harm. In any event imminent lawless action is not relevant to the doctrine of true threats.

        The case involving the Nuremberg Files website followed the Watts decision. It did not expressly urge viewers to commit violence against abortion providers. It simply provided the inspiration and engendered fear in line with the true threats doctrine.
        *Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Cybercrime/planned-parenthood.html
        *Watts v United States http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=394&invol=705
        *Brandenburg v. Ohio http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0395_0444_ZO.html
        *The Nuremberg Files: Testing the Outer Limits of the First Amendment. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/lawjournal/issues/volume61/number3/vitiello.pdf

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 23, 2012, 11:40 pm

        And there is nothing criminal in discussing whether the Israelis have or are considering the assassination of President Obama.

        I think it’s perfectly legal to discuss what Israelis think. But in this case, the author crossed that line when he asked the Atlanta audience what they would be willing to do. Then told them you’ve got to believe that the option of overthrowing the US government by assassinating the President is on the table. So he employed Netanyahu as a rhetorical device to persuade the audience to accept his own proposition about the overthrow of the US government by violence.

        Netanyahu has not said that the President is deemed unfriendly or that he wants or needs Obama’s permission to obliterate Iran. On the contrary, Netanyahu has stated that Israel won’t act unilaterally; that it reserves the right to defend itself; and that it has the capability to defend itself if it is ever attacked. See the Iran Threat Statements at the Israeli MFA http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/The+Iranian+Threat/Statements+by+Israeli+leaders/Iran-Statements_Israeli_leaders-March_2011

        Netanyahu and FM Lieberman have stated that today US-Israeli security cooperation is stronger than it has ever been. Netanyahu even referred to that as Obama’s badge of honor. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4125667,00.html

        The statute in question, 18 U.S.C. § 2385 is properly directed at advocacy or persuasion to overthrow the government by assassination, not discussion. The Court cited that fact in dismissing Sheikh Rahman’s claim that it was an unconstitutional burden on free speech and the free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment. Rahman argued that the statute was facially invalid because it criminalizes protected expression and that it was overbroad and unconstitutionally vague. Rahman also contended that his conviction violated the First Amendment because it rested solely on his political views and religious practices. The Court noted that despite First Amendment restrictions on laws, States could still outlaw encouragement, inducement, or conspiracy to take violent action. The Court ruled:

        In Dennis, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Smith Act, which made it a crime to advocate, or to conspire to advocate, the overthrow of the United States government by force or violence. See 18 U.S.C. § 2385; Dennis, 341 U.S. at 494. [*41] The Dennis Court concluded that, while the “element of speech” inherent in Smith Act convictions required that the Act be given close First Amendment scrutiny, the Act did not impermissibly burden the expression of protected speech, as it was properly “directed at advocacy [of overthrow of the government by force], not discussion.” See id. at 502.

        http://uniset.ca/other/cs4/189F3d88.html

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 24, 2012, 12:27 am

        Which is wholly protected by the First Amendment.

        That’s not what the Court said in Watts, Planned Parenthood, or United States Of America v. Omar Ahmad Ali Abdel Rahman, et al. You keep acting as if this was only a discussion. But it is a persuasive speech entitled What would you do? It is actually addressed “to all the Netanyahus out there”. The readers in Atlanta were asked to believe the author’s premise, that Obama is deemed unfriendly by Israel; that Israel cannot obliterate Iran and save its citizens without assassinating the President of the United States. The author sums up “With this in mind, I again ask you Prime Minister Netanyahu, what would you do? That’s not discussion, that’s subtle advocacy of an overthrow by violence.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 11:26 am

        Woody Tanaka,

        You wrote:

        “I think you overestimate the importance of this article. If anyone does an investigation, it would be Secret Service. And if you think that they are going to inquire into “all connections to Jewish organizations,” “all past writings,” and “all past remarks on Israel” (to name a few) you’re nutty.”

        I think you are ignorant of the current state of the art of information and intelligence systems in the post-9/11 era. Answering all those questions would take less than an hour and would require little human effort. And several agencies other than the Secret Service are deeply interested in people like Andrew Adler.

        As for your assumption that there is no need to look into Adler’s other writings to get a handle on where he is coming from, or that he can be safely dismissed as a harmless crank without looking carefully into the matter, you are indeed a fool. Governments do not make these kind of easy and lazy assumptions about assassination threats.

        You really do tend to blather on, Woody, without much grounding in the real world. And once you dig yourself into a hole you usually continue digging even deeper, in the emotional defense of your ego. You are unable to admit to errors.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 11:39 am

        Woody Tanaka,

        You wrote:

        “I have no doubt that you notice many patterns in many things, often (especially!) when they aren’t even there.”

        My pattern recognition abilities are fairly good. I predicted the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin a few weeks before it occurred on the basis of an article I read in the Jewish Press. The article reported (as I recall, without looking it up) that Jewish militants had vandalized Rabin’s car while he was in New York. There was something about the vibe and aura of the incident that led me to feel intuitively that Rabin’s enemies were closing in on him. I get the same vibe now from much of the hysterical anti-Obama incitement that has been going on in militantly pro-Israel circles (see, for instance, Pamela Geller’s hate screeds). The Andrew Adler article brought all of these concerns to a head. There is a political and cultural CONTEXT for Adler’s incitement to assassinate Barack Obama that you are not paying attention to.

        With regard to your habit of making flat assertions unsupported by thoughtful analysis or command of the facts, your record here speaks for itself.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder on January 24, 2012, 11:49 am

        Sean, I respect you, as you know. But if you accept my basic impressions Woody is quite OK, and you are hunting the wrong person.

        Basically I think you are correct concerning the above. But would someone look into the matter as closely as you would like to? I somehow doubt. We should ask Pat Lang, but he may answer cryptically.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder on January 24, 2012, 11:50 am

        Sean, I respect you, as you know. But if you accept my basic impressions Woody is quite OK, and you are hunting the wrong person.

        Basically I think you are correct concerning the above. But will someone look into the matter as closely as you would like to? I somehow doubt. We should ask Pat Lang, but he may answer cryptically.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 11:55 am

        “True threats are not protected by the First Amendment. No reasonable reader would conclude that Adler was engaging in jest or political hyperbole, much less that you can confess you’ve been sitting around thinking about scenarios for carrying-out a specific individual’s murder in a way that doesn’t intimidate the intended victim”

        And nothing here constitutes a threat. No reasonable person could see this article as a serious expression of intent to harm the president.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 11:55 am

        Pat Lang isn’t necessarily at the top of the food chain on these matters, and he wouldn’t disclose what he knows in any case.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 12:10 pm

        “You keep acting as if this was only a discussion. But it is a persuasive speech entitled What would you do?”

        You keep acting as it if was akin to what Rahman did. It’s not.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 12:16 pm

        “I think you are ignorant of the current state of the art of information and intelligence systems in the post-9/11 era. Answering all those questions would take less than an hour and would require little human effort. And several agencies other than the Secret Service are deeply interested in people like Andrew Adler.”

        I’m sure Jack Bauer is chomping at the bit to go after him.

        “As for your assumption that there is no need to look into Adler’s other writings to get a handle on where he is coming from, or that he can be safely dismissed as a harmless crank without looking carefully into the matter, you are indeed a fool.”

        I’m not saying to dismiss him as a crank without looking into him. I’m saying investigate, confirm he’s a crank, and then dismiss him as a crank.

        “You really do tend to blather on, Woody, without much grounding in the real world.”

        So you say.

        “And once you dig yourself into a hole you usually continue digging even deeper, in the emotional defense of your ego. You are unable to admit to errors.”

        Nonsense. I am more than happy to admit when I’m wrong. But I’m not wrong here. So there you go.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 12:22 pm

        “My pattern recognition abilities are fairly good. I predicted the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin a few weeks before it occurred on the basis of an article I read in the Jewish Press.”

        Too bad you didn’t let the Israelis know. They could have stopped it.

        ” There is a political and cultural CONTEXT for Adler’s incitement to assassinate Barack Obama that you are not paying attention to.”

        No, I’m just not running around in a tizzy, like you are. Even with that CONTEXT, this article is neither criminal nor an incitement.

        “With regard to your habit of making flat assertions unsupported by thoughtful analysis or command of the facts, your record here speaks for itself.”

        LMAO. Here, I thought I was just being a smart ass.

      • patm
        patm on January 24, 2012, 12:25 pm

        With regard to your habit of making flat assertions unsupported by thoughtful analysis or command of the facts, your record here speaks for itself.

        Sean, this statement is false. I appreciate that you are anxious about the possibility of an Obama assassination, but your attack on Woody is not going to save him or any other President from a determined assassin. Obama must have known the risks he took when he decided to run for the job. How could he not?

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder on January 24, 2012, 12:48 pm

        Pat was an afterthought, I have a bad conscience concerning him, I promised something I didn’t keep. I hate to admit.

        Strictly Germany was on my mind. Suddenly Germans, media and politics realized that our BND was blind on the “right eye”. Otherwise it wouldn’t have been possible for a group of Neo-Nazis to target Turkish Germans for a decade without anybody connecting the dots. Our secret service even partly sponsored the group.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 1:07 pm

        Woody Tanaka,

        You wrote:

        “I’m sure Jack Bauer is chomping at the bit to go after him.”

        Thanks for verifying what I suspected was your level of understanding of state-of-the-art information and intelligence systems, which go far beyond Google.

        You know, if you had defended Adler’s right of free speech (which I also defend) while acknowledging, along with every major Jewish organization I’ve noticed, that this speech is extremely dangerous in the current political environment, you would be on reasonably solid ground. But you didn’t do that.

        If you were actually smart, I could put up with you being a smart ass — I like people with big egos if their self-esteem is warranted.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 1:35 pm

        Regarding the car vandalism incident I mentioned:

        TITLE “Secret police knew of plot to kill Rabin”

        AUTHOR Patrick Cockburn

        PUBLICATION The Independent

        DATE November 13, 1995

        URL http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/secret-police-knew-of-plot-to-kill-rabin-1581696.html

        BEGIN QUOTE

        One right-wing activist boasted to Israeli television last month of how he had stripped a hood ornament from Rabin’s car when hundreds of protesters surrounded the vehicle outside the parliament.

        He said: “Just like we got the ornament, we can also get Rabin.”

        END QUOTE

        The current atmosphere of incitement against Barack Obama by pro-Israel militants like Andrew Adler, Pamela Geller and Orly Taitz reminds one a great deal of a similar campaign against Yitzhak Rabin in the months leading up to his assassination.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 2:55 pm

        “Thanks for verifying what I suspected was your level of understanding of state-of-the-art information and intelligence systems, which go far beyond Google.”

        Thanks for verifying that you have no sense of humor.

        “You know, if you had defended Adler’s right of free speech (which I also defend) while acknowledging, along with every major Jewish organization I’ve noticed, that this speech is extremely dangerous in the current political environment, you would be on reasonably solid ground.”

        Oh, please, you make it sound like I defended the guy. I’m saying what he said wasn’t criminal and it wasn’t incitement. Nothing more.

        “If you were actually smart…”

        Actually, I’m very smart. Scientifically tested and proven. And it’s quite impressive, if I do say so myself.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 3:24 pm

        Woody Tanaka,

        By focusing on the free speech issue (an issue on which I agree with you wholeheartedly), and by ignoring the larger political and cultural implications of this incident, you have convinced me that you can’t see the forest for the trees.

        You wrote:

        “Actually, I’m very smart. Scientifically tested and proven. And it’s quite impressive, if I do say so myself.”

        Sorry: you’re not as smart as some other people here, including Philip Weiss, Jeffrey Blankfort and some others (including Jerome Slater). They don’t brag about their IQ: they demonstrate their knowledge of complex issues and their analytical ability in making sense of large tangled collections of facts. They know how to navigate through that morass to the points that matter most.

        Any word yet on your nation or nations of citizenship, ethnicity, religion, etc? Did I explain the nature of my interest to your satisfaction? Feel free to ask me any time about why I am bogged down in draining and unrewarding arguments about Mideast politics — which is really a nightmare. I’ll be happy to explain where I’m coming from and to divulge all the cultural biases with which I am afflicted.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 4:11 pm

        “By focusing on the free speech issue (an issue on which I agree with you wholeheartedly), and by ignoring the larger political and cultural implications of this incident, you have convinced me that you can’t see the forest for the trees.”

        I’m not igoring those issues, I’m saying that you’re making more of this article than it is worth, even considering those “larger political and cultural implications.”

        “Sorry: you’re not as smart as some other people here, including Philip Weiss, Jeffrey Blankfort and some others (including Jerome Slater).”

        Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know what their IQ scores are. But, even so, so what? That a few people are smarter than me does not change the level of my intelligence one whit.

        “They don’t brag about their IQ”

        I didn’t brag about my IQ — it ain’t bragging when it’s true… Is Usain Bolt bragging when he says he can run fast? Is Hasheem Thabeet bragging when he says that he’s tall? It’s simply a fact. Nothing more.

        (Besides, you were the one who brought it up, I guess on the assumption that I would be insulted by a claim of not being smart. But why would I be insulted by a clearly false statement? Would Albert Pujols be insulted is someone said that he wasn’t a good baseball player or Mark Zuckerberg be insulted if someone said he didn’t have a lot of money?? No. They’d be amused and pity the person making the false statements.)

        “Any word yet on your nation or nations of citizenship, ethnicity, religion, etc? Did I explain the nature of my interest to your satisfaction? ”

        I answered about 4 1/2 hours ago, to the very post you’re talking about. You can look for it by searching for “atheist”

  14. American
    American on January 20, 2012, 4:25 pm

    I remember when Bush Jr was President and the FBI visited and questioned a female student here at UNC for having some kind of ‘poster’ on her dorm room wall. Something about the Iraq war and Bush, don’t remember exactly what was on the poster.
    Probably some pro Iraq war conserative saw it and reported her.

  15. pabelmont
    pabelmont on January 20, 2012, 4:38 pm

    Is this really any diffrent from writing a novel in which that sort of thing happens? I read a novel in which disaffected people crashed an airplane into Capitol Hill or the like, 8 years before 9-11 (as I recall). I love thrillers! Guess the FBI doesn’t read them.

  16. smd341
    smd341 on January 20, 2012, 5:19 pm

    Not surprisingly they’ve gotten a lot of calls. Here is one Jew who will be requesting his resignation immediately.

  17. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on January 20, 2012, 6:29 pm

    When you see something like this you are looking at the tip of the iceberg — there are probably many other pro-Israel activists out there thinking the same thing, with some of them possibly willing to act on their malevolent urges. The Israeli government now seems to believe that it has the right (the divine right, mandate and obligation in some cases) to murder anyone in the world it pleases.

    • eljay
      eljay on January 20, 2012, 7:04 pm

      >> The Israeli government now seems to believe that it has the right … to murder anyone in the world it pleases.

      Well, the politicos do keep insisting that there is “no light” between Israel and America…

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      Jeffrey Blankfort on January 20, 2012, 7:11 pm

      This explains why Obama has not paid a visit to Israel. It is not the Mossad that Obama, Israel’s great benefactor, needs to fear but Jews like this human excrement in Atlanta who exist in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands, in Israel, and who would be considered heroes, like Baruch Goldstein, if they did the job. They exist in such numbers and in the Israeli military that it would be impossible to protect him.

      • dahoit
        dahoit on January 21, 2012, 12:36 pm

        Then who stuck the note in the wailing wall?His double?

      • anonymouscomments
        anonymouscomments on January 21, 2012, 3:08 pm

        That was before he was more fully deemed a threat to Israel and anti-Israel by right wing nutters and even MSM (of course this is despite the fact that his record is utterly obsequious to Israel).

        The Israeli hatred for Obama has changed very significantly since then.

      • Antidote
        Antidote on January 21, 2012, 3:47 pm

        I suppose Jeffrey mean since Obama’s election and subsequent tensions, esp. with Netanyahu. But yes, he seems to have had plenty of enemies in Israel long before that. From July 2008:

        ____

        Israel got to see Barack Obama in the flesh this week. Israel has sled into an ugly conservatism in the last few years and right-wingers are pretty vocal here. To them Obama is the devil incarnate (Israel’s right wing think George W. Bush is the best American president ever). One talkbacker on the website for leftish newspaper “Haaretz” wrote, in response to Obama’s quote that he thinks Palestinians should get their own independent state (a notion anyone with brains intact should applaud), wrote “This Obama guy scares me. He reminds me of Jimmy Carter”. Yup, Carter is also hated here. He’s too fond of Palestinians, caring about their rights. Not like Saint Bush who hates them and like the average Israeli right winger considers every Arab a terrorist. Carter, who engineered the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt (and for which he won a Noble Peace Prize) is a crucifix in front of our right-wing vampires.

        Anyway, yesterday before he took off to Germany he visited The Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, the only remaining relic of the ancient Temple of David, and the most sacred spot for Jews. As customary, he placed a note in the cracks of the stones. It is believed that a wish or a prayer stuffed in the cracks gets fulfilled by God. Obama, in what seems like a last minute improvisation, wrote a small prayer on his hotel stationary (nice product placement). Journalists then promptly stormed the wall and ransacked his note and had it reprinted in “Maariv” (it’s a big faux-pas from a Jewish traditional point of view and I’m quite certain that if Obama were Jewish no mainstream reporter would’ve dared violate his privacy so bluntly).

        But, although this whole thing – the note, the reprint – might’ve been staged it made me like Obama all the more. Not only for his respect for tradition but also for his great handwriting and his touching prayer: “Lord – Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will.”

        http://cinemascopian.com/2008/07/25/obamas-wailing-wall-note-exposed/

        Well, at least the prayer was addressed to the Lord, not the Lobby.

  18. goodman
    goodman on January 20, 2012, 7:18 pm

    Why not? They have gotten and continue to get away with ethnic cleansing, theft, and murder all along, and most of the “civilized” world still treats them as respectable members of the world community, thereby reinforcing and rewarding their behavior, instead of treating them as the racist gangsters and thieves they are.

  19. RoHa
    RoHa on January 20, 2012, 8:09 pm

    I like the first comment.

    “Really working to NOT dispel that whole Jews-secretly-control-the-world trope, are you Adler?”

    And the rest of that and most of the following comments are trying to figure out what use Israel is to the US.

  20. lyn117
    lyn117 on January 20, 2012, 8:18 pm

    Do you suppose he’s an “Israel-firster?”

    I hope I’m not being anti-semitic

    • annie
      annie on January 20, 2012, 8:21 pm

      lol…couldn’t help it.

    • annie
      annie on January 20, 2012, 9:03 pm

      lyn, he said he was ‘pro israel to the max’. i think that was @ fox news up there.

  21. Brooks
    Brooks on January 20, 2012, 10:06 pm

    The FBI better watch out or THEY will be branded as anti-semitic for investigating this criminal “Israel Firster”! Netanyahu must be gloating! First our criminal traitorous Congress gives him those utterly disgusting standing ovations, then he gets to slap Obama in the face on just about any world stage he choses, and now THIS!! And where the HELL is the FBI anyway if we have US embedded Mosad agents that can be suggested for doing this job?!? Are we afraid to investigate them too? Why the hell are they in this country at all?

  22. Mikesailor
    Mikesailor on January 20, 2012, 10:58 pm

    Perhaps the publisher read Victor Ostrovsky’s book : ‘By Way Of Deception’. In it, Ostrovsky describes how, during his Mossad training, his instructors held the Kennedy assassination as a prime example of a political murder performed correctly. Although never admitting the Mossad was behind the ‘hit’, one must wonder at the coincidences. After Kennedy told the Israelis that Dimona should be declared and Israel should join the NPT, he was assassinated and the much more ‘pliable’ Lyndon Johnson inaugurated. How ‘pliable’ was Johnson? He scotched all mention of Dimona and the NPT, and even when the Israelis attacked the Liberty, he attempted a ham-handed cover-up which remains to this day as the ‘official’ explanation. Where do you think the US policy toward Israeli nuclear weapons i.e. ‘ambiguity’ arose; with such policy remaining to this day? And investigation of the role of the Zionist gun-runner, Jack Ruby, is anathema to the main-stream media. Interesting, isn’t it?

    • on January 21, 2012, 12:18 am

      the Kennedy assassination ..who was it good for…

      think most that have looked into it…know who benefited

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      Jeffrey Blankfort on January 21, 2012, 1:08 pm

      You beat me to it, Mikesailor. When I reread these lines:

      “Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies,”

      it occurred to me that this may have been the thinking behind the JFK assassination, not only because of Kennedy’s steadfast opposition to Israel obtaining nuclear weapons but because he supported Res. 194, the Palestinian right of return, and through brother RFK at the Justice Dept., was seriously attempting to get the American Zionist Council, AIPAC’s name at birth, to register as a foreign agent which the AZC’s lawyers were able to stymie until JFK was out of the way. Had the AZC/AIPAC been forced to register as a foreign agent–which it was then and remains as much so today–it not would have been able to function as it does today in the nation’s capitol and in the halls of Congress.

      These were three red lines that Israel could not allow to be crossed and it is worth noting that no president since has attempted to cross even one of them. Cui bono? You got it.

      MW readers should check out Grant Smith’s Foreign Agents: “The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal” available at IRmep, WRMEA, or online. Two years ago, Smith presented 360 pages of evidence at a two-hour meeting with the Justice Dept.’s Foreign Agents Registration unit, requesting that it re-open the case to get AZC-now-AIPAC to register begun by RFK in 1963 but in Israeli Occupied Washington, even though members of the unit seemed sympathetic, it didn’t stand a chance. The paper trail, however, hasn’t gone away. See Smith’s Israel Lobby Archive at irmep.org/ila/

      • American
        American on January 21, 2012, 2:08 pm

        Not to get into conspiracy theories but it seems to me Israel had more incentive to assassinate Kennedy(s) than Castro or Russia. Oswall and Sirhan look like simple minds, susceptible to not knowing who they were being run by.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 22, 2012, 8:56 am

        Ruby said that he killed Oswald to show the world that “Jews have guts”.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 22, 2012, 10:16 am

        It’s also possible that Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald to silence the patsy and protect the conspirators.

      • Antidote
        Antidote on January 24, 2012, 2:47 am

        I’m too tired to spin a conspiracy theory but it would be very easy to suspect West German chancellor Konrad Adenauer to have a motive, opportunity and the ability to take out Kennedy whom he regarded as a major threat to the security of Germany and Europe during the Berlin Crisis and Bay of Pigs fiasco. Adenauer was sweating bullets, and there was no love lost between the two of them. Adenauer would have preferred Nixon to win the election and deal with the Soviets, and Kennedy much preferred Berlin mayor Willy Brandt. But that doesn’t prove a thing.

        There is evidence, however, that Menachem Begin tried to blow up Adenauer with a letter bomb in 1952, but killed a postal worker instead

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/15/germany.lukeharding

        There is

  23. on January 21, 2012, 12:12 am

    while this guy stated this out right

    rush limbaugh implied it after obama won the election…

    I also know others who have stated that there is more than one way to get rid of obama…

    so he is not the first to suggest it…many gop people beleive in it too…

    pretty sad the political state the US is in today

  24. Taxi
    Taxi on January 21, 2012, 12:58 am

    Now that the cat’s outta the bag, the zionists here at home and Natanyahu over there in occupied Palestine had better assign the mossad and ALL their other secret service agencies to fiercely protect Obama’s life cuz if anything happens to him… well, be my guest and guess the rest.

    • Brooks
      Brooks on January 21, 2012, 12:39 pm

      I’d love to agree with you, but there are 500 “bought and paid for” members of Congress who would see to it that any assasination of a President who was seen as the least bit anti-Israel would become a cause for re-escalating the war on terror and a cause to attack another Muslim nation, despite a cost that we simply cannot afford and the loss of thousands more of our brightest and youngest citizen soldiers.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort on January 21, 2012, 5:52 pm

        No need to exaggerate, Brooks. The number is closer to 494. And many of those are not bought and paid for, just frightened into keeping their mouths shut.

  25. Chaos4700
    Chaos4700 on January 21, 2012, 2:51 am

    You know when kids in high school make light of assassinations against the sitting President, the Secret Service has actually, literally been called in and the child gets arrested.

    I’ll bet this guy, on the other hand, will continue to have a designated seat in local Democratic fundraisers no matter what he says. Because of the Lobby he’s a part of.

    • Antidote
      Antidote on January 21, 2012, 4:20 pm

      “You know when kids in high school make light of assassinations against the sitting President, the Secret Service has actually, literally been called in and the child gets arrested.”

      Educational value. It’s like arresting kids for shoplifting or damaging school property by applying graffiti to desks or walls, then let banksters steal billions from investors and taxpayers and ruin entire countries and continents – those who’ve learned their lessons in school won’t object bailing them out while being thrown out of their houses and going to war as long as the President supports it. And it’s perfectly ok for the President to make light of drone attacks and smoking people out of their caves etc.

  26. Sin Nombre
    Sin Nombre on January 21, 2012, 7:56 am

    It would be interesting for someone to peruse the back copies of this Atlanta paper to see the nature of what else this Adler guy has written or printed. Hard to believe only milk and honey have flowed from his word processors previously.

    In any event laudable, candid reaction too from Abe Foxman: “The ideas expressed in Mr. Adler’s column reflect some of the extremist rhetoric that unfortunately exists — even in some segments of our community…”

    • Scott
      Scott on January 23, 2012, 1:21 pm

      It would be interesting for someone to peruse the back copies of this Atlanta paper to see the nature of what else this Adler guy has written or printed.

      Jamie Kirchick is getting right on it.

  27. Jabberwocky
    Jabberwocky on January 21, 2012, 7:57 am

    Arrest him and send him to Gitmo under the NDAA.

    Perhaps he was thinking of the successful JFK hit as elaborated in Final Judgement.

  28. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on January 21, 2012, 8:50 am

    “Jewish publisher is an idiot – but his hatred is shared by many”

    Haaretz
    Chemi Shalev
    January 21, 2012

    http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/jewish-publisher-is-an-idiot-but-his-hatred-is-shared-by-many-1.408466

    “Andrew Adler’s suggestion in the Atlanta Jewish Times that Israel assassinate President Obama is a blot both on Israel and on American Jews.”

    BEGIN QUOTE

    I know, and most of you know, that Adler’s crazy and criminal suggestions are not the ranting of some loony-tune individual and were not taken out of thin air – but are the inevitable result of the inordinate volume of repugnant venom that some of Obama’s political rivals, Jews and non-Jews included, have been spewing for the last three years.

    Anyone who has spent any time talking to some of the more vociferous detractors of Obama, Jewish or otherwise, has inevitably encountered those nasty nutters, and they are many, who still believe he is a Muslim, who are utterly convinced that he wants to destroy Israel, and who seriously debate whether he is more like Ahmadinejad than Arafat or – and I heard this one with my own ears – more like Hitler than Haman.

    END QUOTE

    Extremist Israel Firsters like Andrew Adler helped incite the Yitzhak Rabin assassination and the Baruch Goldstein massacre.

    He is not an “idiot” — he’s an evil fanatic.

  29. DaveS
    DaveS on January 21, 2012, 9:59 am

    Adler obviously is a schmuck, but I disagree with the conclusion that he has committed a crime. He was musing (with approval) that Netanyahu might be discussing this option. While Hostage is correct in saying that conveying a threat to the Prez is a crime, I don’t think this qualifies. In the case he cites, Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court held that cross-burning cannot be prohibited across the board. There must also be proof of intent to intimidate. Hostage quotes but does not emphasize the following language: the State may criminalize “those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual.” Did Adler really come close to doing this? He did not threaten to take action himself, and he clearly was not speaking as an agent of Netanyahu or Mossad, that is, conveying an actual threat of theirs to kill Obama.

    And frankly, I hope Adler is not prosecuted. What about someone who speculates that Ahmadinejad might be plotting against Obama, or even that Obama and Bush and/or other POTUSes should be arrested, shipped off to the Hague for trial, and sentenced to life, or death, for their crimes. Sure, there may be differences between what Adler has done and my hypotheticals, but would the line of illegality be drawn so exactly that these examples are on one side and Adler on the other? I hope this idiot suffers infamy and humiliation for his column, but jail time? I’m not on board.

    • Hostage
      Hostage on January 21, 2012, 11:49 am

      While Hostage is correct in saying that conveying a threat to the Prez is a crime, I don’t think this qualifies.

      I tend to agree. I was just opining that if the Justice Department is inclined to make an example of him, like the defendants in the Holy Land Charities case, I think there’s enough evidence here to prosecute him and get a conviction.

      I also had the “Nuremberg Files” case in mind. In that instance the true threat was political hyperbole – placing bulls-eyes on photos of abortion providers. Adler is doing something very similar here. He is making the case that Obama is a life-threatening individual who is interfering with Israel’s right to obliterate its enemies and save the lives of millions of Jews, Christians, and Arabs, i.e he is portraying the President as a pursuer (rodef) who may be killed without a formal court ruling.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 21, 2012, 12:16 pm

        P.S. The last part should have read he is portraying the President as someone akin to a pursuer (rodef) who may be killed without a formal court ruling.

        The reference to Netanyahu green lighting Mossad is superfluous. There are many Jews who would answer the author’s question How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike? by citing The King’s Torah (Torat Hamelech). It advises that you should kill a Gentile who is a threat or who interferes in saving the lives of Jews. http://www.forward.com/articles/123925/

      • Danaa
        Danaa on January 21, 2012, 1:28 pm

        Hostage, this is getting so better! now I got me the real talmudic inscriptions (prescriptions? proscriptions?) to chew on.

        Obama as “rodef” beats Obama as mere “ocher Israel”.

        And here we were – worrying about the Sharia™ taking over the Law of the Land!

      • Danaa
        Danaa on January 21, 2012, 2:00 pm

        Sharia™ – credit to Avi G. Shouldn’t be forgetting my attributions. Wouldn’t want to get into any copyright violations either ….. not with so many attorneys around…

    • Danaa
      Danaa on January 21, 2012, 12:22 pm

      I love it when lawyers argue about the merits. It’s so talmudic!

      And I want Hostage to answer too…

      BTW, my own oh-so-non-lawyerly take is that Adler was voicing a common theme heard on the streets of Israel (and in the privacy of homes) all too often (“they should just take him out” is a common refrain among the “commoners”). That this would be picked up by the American die-hard supporters is hardly a surprise. That it made it’s way into actual print is. Somebodies must be feeling pretty confident about sitting pretty, so the “commoners” were allowed a peep?

      • DaveS
        DaveS on January 21, 2012, 1:01 pm

        Haha, Danaa. At my twice monthly poker game (all Jewish, btw, obviously not by design), we often talk about talmudic betting. I agree that it’s surprising that someone actually published this sentiment that no doubt is heard often on the streets of Israel and, probably to a lesser extent, on the streets of the US, but there are an awful lot of idiots out there with public platforms.

        When something terrible happens, like the Giffords shooting in Arizona, or the Rabin shooting, people always point to the poisonous atmosphere created by the pontifications of lunatics like this. There surely is some truth to that, but punishing speech – even vile, hateful speech – is a bad road to walk down. Of course, publicly calling for the US/Israel to attack Iran, or Afghanistan or Iraq, Lebanon or Gaza, etc. in the past, contributed to a climate in which military action took hundreds of thousands (or more) lives. One doesn’t get prosecuted for that speech, one gets promoted.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 21, 2012, 3:36 pm

        Of course, publicly calling for the US/Israel to attack Iran, or Afghanistan or Iraq, Lebanon or Gaza, etc. in the past, contributed to a climate in which military action took hundreds of thousands (or more) lives. One doesn’t get prosecuted for that speech, one gets promoted.

        Time works changes and there is no statute of limitations. Bush had to cancel plans for a book tour in Europe because he admitted he personally authorized torture. So you can get prosecuted for that sort of speech.

        The real question is whether at any time there was intent and an attempt or conspiracy to destroy part of a national group. There isn’t any doubt that using high explosives and white phosphorus (shake n’ bake) in sustained attacks on built-up civilian areas, like Fallujah Iraq, deliberately killed members of the national group and caused serious bodily injury to members of that group. The Army issued false statements afterward denying that it had ever used those weapons and tactics. That’s evidence of a guilty or wrongful purpose. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1091.htm

        The EU Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia made it a crime for Tony Blair to engage in:

        *public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin during the run-up to the war in Iraq;
        *public condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) during his testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry into the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
        http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/combating_discrimination/l33178_en.htm

      • DaveS
        DaveS on January 21, 2012, 5:09 pm

        Hostage, my point was not about Bush being prosecuted for war crimes and/or crimes against humanity, and you are way out of my league with your command of international law. I was talking about media figures who openly declared support and encouragement to Bush and Obama to prosecute these wars. And I was not suggesting criminal accountability for voicing such opinions. I was making the very non-lawyerly observation that public support for war that kills 100,000’s is unquestionably a non-criminal act while public support for the killing of one human being – POTUS – is at least arguably criminal.

        But on the legal question, is what Adler wrote significantly worse than anyone who might have said, following the famous shoe-throwing incident, that Bush was lucky to get off so easy; considering what he had done, plenty of Iraqis would have loved to kill him, and if he returns there, that might very well happen. Personally, I am morally repulsed by Adler and quite sympathetic to this latter viewpoint, but I think it’s very difficult, though perhaps not impossible, to cast one statement as criminal and the other as lawful. Of course, as we learned from the Holy Land charity prosecution, selective enforcement of the law can be more important than the law itself.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 21, 2012, 11:30 pm

        I think it’s very difficult, though perhaps not impossible, to cast one statement as criminal and the other as lawful.

        I agree. I’m not in favor of memory laws (Holocaust denial) or the EU Framework. Incitement to commit genocide requires proof of intent, which is usually impossible to establish. In one recent case, two Rwandan government officials were acquitted of incitement and conspiracy to commit genocide after 12 years in custody. They were actually held for thirty three months after closing arguments while the Court was considering the matter – and there wasn’t even a written judgment published in their case then, just a press release. Twelve years is an awfully long time to be in custody when the result is an acquittal. http://www.unictr.org/tabid/155/Default.aspx?id=1231

        So, I would not prosecute Adler either. I was just trying to explain that the law is frequently capable of non-obvious, or novel applications that can work in favor of a prosecutor or plaintiffs.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 21, 2012, 2:45 pm

        And I want Hostage to answer too…Adler was voicing a common theme heard on the streets of Israel (and in the privacy of homes) all too often (“they should just take him out”

        Okay. I think he sounds like the sort of person who owns a “Kahane was right” t-shirt. I have to believe that when the publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times asks “How far would you go?,” that he already knows his audience includes people, like the ones you just described.

        More importantly, all of the national-religious readers will answer: Our sages didn’t mention Netanyahu or the Mossad. Any able bodied Jew has an obligation to kill a Gentile who puts the lives of the nation of Israel at risk.

        So, from my perspective, the whole business about Netanyahu green lighting Mossad is irrelevant in the overall context in which the statement was made. Adler’s remarks conveyed a true threat to the President, because they were addressed directly to a Jewish posse comitatus who literally believe that stuff like the Torat Hamelech is part of their Bible. The Secret Service has to react to all of these situations on that basis, and the criminal offense is the disruption that fear of violence engenders.

    • W.Jones
      W.Jones on January 21, 2012, 12:25 pm

      David Samel,

      Yes, I value free speech alot, so it seems he was not making an actual threat. He was not saying if person X does Y, then the person would be harmed.

      But it is tough. He is emphasizing how much the harm is an “option”, and the harm seems to be a big part of the article. So it may not be enough of a threat to be illegal, but still seems like a veiled threat.

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      Jeffrey Blankfort on January 21, 2012, 6:01 pm

      David, Adler writes this as an admitted die-hard supporter of Israel who views Obama not through the eyes of a “loyal American” but of an Israel-Firster and any form of government action against him would send a much needed message to those of his brethren who share his sentiments–and to judge from the comments on Jewish press websites they are legion–to watch their step.

      One can imagine how this will play in Atlanta’s black community.

  30. ramzijaber
    ramzijaber on January 21, 2012, 10:24 am

    If he were moslem, or arab, or arab-american, or pro-palestinian…

    – he would have been sent to GITMO in a split second.
    – he would have been called a terrorist.
    – his family, relatives, and acquaintances would have been interrogated.
    – the paper would have been shut down.
    – it would be a HUGE story on MSM accusing arabs and moslems of wanting to destroy america.
    – the republican pres candidates would have been bumping into each other to use it right away to win more zionist christian votes.
    – nutnyahoo would have rubbed it in.
    – aipac would have linked it to a plot by iran and/or palestinians.
    – neocons would have screamed outrage.
    – … … …

    But, none of this happened because he’s not moslem or arab or pro-palestinian. He’s a zionist american jew.

    Pitiful.

    • DaveS
      DaveS on January 21, 2012, 12:46 pm

      Ramzi – I understand your point of view but am not sure what conclusion you reach. I agree that a “moslem, or arab, or arab-american, or pro-palestinian” who made almost identical remarks would be treated very differently, and much more harshly, both by the government and MSM, than Adler. btw, Adler has been denounced by prominent Jewish figures, such as Abe Foxman, though in your hypothetical, I’m sure the consequences would be much worse. But don’t you think all of the consequences you envision would be unfair and reprehensible? Suppose an Iranian-American wrote the following:

      One option being considered by Ahmadinejad is to give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Iranian agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Iran in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Islamic Republic obliterate its enemies.

      Yes, you read that correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Iran’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Iran’s most inner circles?

      Of course, this exercise doesn’t quite work because Biden would not be any more favorably disposed to Iran, but if someone wrote those paragraphs, should he be prosecuted at all? Wouldn’t AIPAC and the Prez candidates, etc. be hypocrites and worse for stirring up Islamophobia over it?

      Ramzi, if you think that Adler should be treated the same way as your hypothetical columnist, and that the differences would be enormous, I completely agree, but I think prosecuting Adler would set a terrible example, and a terrible precedent for criminalizing speech.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort on January 21, 2012, 6:24 pm

        David, if those words were written by a critic of the Iranian government, they would have been passed over without notice, but when an American Jew who believes that Obama has sold out Israel writes that Mossad might consider assassinating him that is quite different.

        Atlanta Jewry, BTW, had about as sorry a record in the Jim Crow period as did its counterparts in apartheid South Africa and the way they went after Cynthia McKinney showed that nothing has changed.

        I recall sometime in the 50s, when I was in my teens, a prominent Atlanta rabbi and his wife and daughter came to dinner at our home. After we had begun to eat, and the dinner table discussion turned to life in the South, the rabbi began spewing racist garbage from his mouth that would have brought smiles if not applause from the KKK.

        My father, who was very much involved in battling discrimination in the film industry, quickly interrupted him, and told him if he said one more word like that he would throw his butt out of the front door. The rabbi, who was a relative of a good friend of my parents, then shut up.

        That he was not just an ordinary member of Atlanta’s Jewish community, but a prominent religious leader should be seen as an indication that the Atlanta’s Jewish community was no less racist than their fellow non-Jewish white Georgians.

      • Antidote
        Antidote on January 22, 2012, 1:45 am

        Good points, David. Compare this piece by Goldberg, featuring the line:

        “Why aren’t the Iranians attempting to kill Israeli defense officials?”

        read the rest for context:

        http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/another-iranian-nuclear-scientist-assassinated-and-what-it-means/251215/

        With the IDF being the target, and Goldberg a dual citizen, this may be taken as a threat as well, and is fairly similar to Adler’s speculations on Netanyahu’s options. Yet no one would suspect Goldberg of incitement or sinister intentions. Who would suggest Goldberg should be investigated, or even apologize? What makes Adler’s case more suspect is the issue of dual loyalty and hysteria about Obama being anti-Israel.

        How would the interpretation and reaction change if a Muslim, Arab, Jihadist, Mullah or Hamas member published Adler’s text, verbatim? Or Goldberg’s? Would there be blood libel or incitement accusations?

        It’s hardly a secret that the Mossad (and not just the Mossad) is in the business of assassinations. According to Gale Encyclopedia on ME:

        “The Mossad’s main functions, and apparently also its main departments, are:

        information collection, utilizing a network of spies and other agents operating in stations around the world
        political action and intelligence liaison
        psychological warfare, propaganda, and dis-information
        research and assessment
        special operations, such as sabotage, assassination, and other activities, especially beyond Israel’s borders.

        A well-known example of special operations was the failed attempt to assassinate Khalid al-Mashʿal, head of the political bureau of HAMAS in Amman, Jordan. On 4 October 1997, Mossad agents injected Mashʿal with a toxic substance, but his life was saved when, in response to heavy Jordanian and U.S. pressure, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sent a physician to administer an antidote to the poison. The affair caused not only a sharp deterioration in Israeli – Jordanian relations but also
        an uproar in Israeli political circles.”

        http://www.answers.com/topic/mossad

        I suppose the uproar over Adler’s piece saved Obama?

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 22, 2012, 10:44 am

        Compare this piece by Goldberg, featuring the line: “Why aren’t the Iranians attempting to kill Israeli defense officials?”

        Okay. give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

        Adler’s suggestion would give aid and comfort to a foreign power that deems the Commander-in-Chief as an unfriendly and encourage that power to effect by force a treasonable object. Goldberg’s article doesn’t do that.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700 on January 22, 2012, 11:12 am

        Though it does give an insight into how both Adler and Goldberg think. Neither of them seem to find it shocking or appalling to resort to assassinations.

      • Antidote
        Antidote on January 23, 2012, 8:22 pm

        “Adler’s suggestion would give aid and comfort to a foreign power that deems the Commander-in-Chief as an unfriendly and encourage that power to effect by force a treasonable object. Goldberg’s article doesn’t do that.”

        Not sure Goldberg article doesn’t do that. Sure, the target is not the US Commander in Chief (Adler) but Israeli military leaders. The US Constitution defines treason as “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” How does Israel define treason? You’ll know better than I do. Surely it would be a criminal offense in Israel to assassinate military leaders, or an act of war executed by a foreign power (Iran) advocated by an Israeli citizen (Goldberg) to give “aid and comfort” to an enemy of Israel (Iran).

        I didn’t make this very clear in my comment above, but it was implied in my reference to Goldberg’s dual citizenship that my sentence above has dual implications. I am spelling out the ambiguity in capitals in the revised sentence:

        “Yet no one IN THE US OR IN ISRAEL would suspect Goldberg of incitement or sinister intentions” – and ask for an apology or send the Mossad after him for suggesting that Iran should assassinate Israeli defense officials in order to protect their scientists and nuclear program.

        Who on MW would be stunned or upset about Goldberg, as an Israeli citizen, IDF veteran and Zionist, advocating violence against IDF leaders so that Iran could develop its nuclear energy and/or weapons program? Who would accuse him of treason or incitement to murder? A few, perhaps, but only to be shut down immediately with 200 reminders of 2000 instances of the IDF having violated 20 000 paragraphs of international law.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 24, 2012, 12:41 am

        Antidote Goldberg is not making a persuasive speech to convince Israelis that overthrowing their own government by violence will somehow save the nation of Israel. He does ask “Why Iranians aren’t killing Israelis?,” but answers that they just don’t have the capability. It’s hasbara.

      • Antidote
        Antidote on January 24, 2012, 2:35 am

        fine, hostage. Nevertheless, if US foreign policy was different from what it is — say Ron Paulish — and Obama was seeking normal to friendly diplomatic relations, lifting sanctions and announcing that Iran no longer poses any threat to anyone — in such a political context Goldberg’s ‘hasbara’ may be taken to be playing down the Iranian threat (they’re incapable to do any harm to Israel) and would look like throwing Israel under the bus to Iranophobes. No?

    • Brooks
      Brooks on January 21, 2012, 10:42 pm

      Ramzi, you are so right… about EVERYTHING you said that would be done to him if he were a Muslim and said those same words! But I’ll bet, instead, he could have a standing ovation, or maybe a few dozen of them, from our traitorous members of Congress if AIPAC requested it for him!

      PS: I may have missed it, but I checked the NY Times and CNN many times for any mention of this incident during the past 30 hours, and I found none at all. Only Fox carried it – everyone else SUPPRESSED it, because, of course, the publisher is Jewish!

  31. Richard Witty
    Richard Witty on January 21, 2012, 11:16 am

    He should be arrested.

  32. Theo
    Theo on January 21, 2012, 11:40 am

    Amen, Ramzi

  33. dahoit
    dahoit on January 21, 2012, 12:32 pm

    Well,Adler knows Zionist Joe Biden is waiting in the wings.
    But these people are mad,how much higher do they want this feather(O) in the Zionist wind to fly?

  34. Shmuel
    Shmuel on January 21, 2012, 12:32 pm

    Danaa,

    I don’t know if you were in Israel during the period preceding Rabin’s assassination, but the “soil” (they called it “arugah” in Yigal Amir’s case) that peeks through here reminds me of that soil: apocalyptic, paranoid, hysterical, whipping itself into a frenzy.

    • Danaa
      Danaa on January 21, 2012, 1:53 pm

      Shmuel – “apocalyptic, paranoid, hysterical, whipping itself into a frenzy”..

      Sounds downright biblical…

      I was there about a year and a half before the Rabin “incident” (as some have already started referring to it) and things were already getting weird. But at that time, neither my interests nor my senses were as sharply tuned to political/psychological landscapes as they are now. It’s hard to believe, but once I saw people as – well, people – and my issues were species related – sort of generic. If the atmospherics were getting peculiar, would have assumed it was the new normal for a place I figured had another appointment with destiny, one I was not obliged to keep. Of course, what did I know about those types of appointments? they have a way of imposing themselves when one least expects it.

      I am a little envious BTW of your journeys through the not-so-holly land and am following your journals with rapt attention. Am ever so glad to see you continue to keep company with the angels (hidden though they are). I have been busy devil’s wrestling and can’t stop to either smell the flowers or partake of cuisines. Am not sure I’ll ever be able to visit the old country again – for any number of reasons – hence the envy (is that a sin? is it deadly?).

      Please do not hesitate going into more atmospheric details – and do feel free to telegraph (teleport?) the optics too.

  35. Abu Malia
    Abu Malia on January 21, 2012, 12:48 pm

    The overt hostility that has been emanating (from election to current) from the right wing part of the Jewish elite towards Obama can only be explained by racism. I don’t say this lightly but, it is the only theory that makes sense at this point. As a 37 year old black male who has spent all his adult live and some of my teenage years living in the US, racism (or accusing someone or some group as racists) is a serious business. This, after all is a problem that can have a devastating effect on my family by directly impacting my earning power, making me more likely to be locked up and so on and so on..

    Obama gets bitch-slapped by Nutty making him eat his own words with regards to settlement construction; he responded by giving Israel few dozen Bunker Busters and Instructing Susan Rice to run interference for them at the UN. He made the whole world know in a forceful language how strong the so-called “unbreakable bond” is. He is currently picking a fight with an enemy who has spent over a decade preparing just for this fight – yet on behalf of Israel. Heck, if Nutty insisted on an indecent proposal, do you have any doubt the cowardly Obama will deliver the beautiful Michelle in a black dress?

    What then, pray tell me, explains this visceral reaction to everything Obama? Could it be, (Phil cover your ears and eyes the gloves are coming off) that the leaders of the chosen people just cant stomach the POTUS is a black goy!

    P.S. Are they even capable of pulling this off?

    • traintosiberia
      traintosiberia on January 21, 2012, 6:12 pm

      Its the racism that can explain why the Red state/Republican/Rightingers on airwaves hate Obama .He has done and increased the scope of everything that Bush did and done “better”.

  36. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on January 21, 2012, 12:51 pm

    Pay close attention to how the following media outlets cover the story of the call by the Atlanta Jewish Times for the Israeli Mossad to assassinate Barack Obama, which should be a very big story:

    1. ABC News
    2. CBS News
    3. CNN
    4. Fox News
    5. Haaretz
    6. Jerusalem Post
    7. MSNBC
    8. New York Post
    9. New York Times
    10. Newsweek
    11. Time
    12. Wall Street Journal
    13. Washington Post
    14. Ynet News

    The Israeli press is openly discussing the story. How have the New York Times and Washington Post been covering the story? So far Google hasn’t produced any hits.

    • annie
      annie on January 21, 2012, 1:57 pm

      seanmcbride So far Google hasn’t produced any hits.

      that’s not true because i posted a fox news story on this thread yesterday. a few msn sources.

      http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/publisher-of-the-atlanta-jewish-times-suggests-mossad-should-assassinate-obama.html/comment-page-1#comment-417851

      scroll up for fox, also click on the ‘benign’ link and at the base of the page click “All 40 related articles ”

      here they are again

      https://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Andrew+Adler&ncl=d9qgfLKe4UH4eQMVtHLOkxm_PQteM

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 21, 2012, 2:04 pm

        Annie,

        I was referring to hits for the New York Times and Washington Post. I noted your post about Fox News yesterday. Have I overlooked their coverage?

        Also, this is curious:

        Google [site:atlantajewishtimes.com andrew adler]

        http://www.google.com/#q=site:atlantajewishtimes.com+andrew+adler

        turns up almost nothing.

      • annie
        annie on January 21, 2012, 2:08 pm

        you’re right, nyt and wapo nothing. not sure why you are searching by [site:atlantajewishtimes.com andrew adler]. if you search by “atlanta jewish times andrew adler” you get many many hits

      • annie
        annie on January 21, 2012, 2:10 pm

        you’re right, nyt and wapo nothing. not sure why you are searching by [site:atlantajewishtimes.com andrew adler]. if you search by “atlanta jewish times andrew adler” you get over 5 pages of hits.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 21, 2012, 2:12 pm

        Annie,

        I am using the Google site: operator to try to turn up other articles published by Adler in the Atlanta Jewish Times.

        The more general search you suggested turns up only 17 hits, most of them non-substantive and many of them in foreign languages.

      • annie
        annie on January 21, 2012, 2:19 pm

        seanmcbride, the way google works, after the first cluster there’s a link offering more of the same. here is what the top of the page looks like now:

        Uproar after Jewish American newspaper publisher suggests Israel …

        Haaretz – 6 hours ago
        NEW YORK – The owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew Adler, has suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu consider ordering …
        Highly Cited: Atlanta Jewish Times owner says sorry for Obama ‘hit’ column‎ The Guardian
        Blog: Pro-Israel Jewish American Columnist Suggests Assassination of US …‎ Al-Bawaba (blog)
        Andrew Adler, ‘Atlanta Jewish Times’ Publisher, Apologizes For …‎ Huffington Post
        Fox News – +972 Magazine – Independent commentary from Israel and the Palestinian territories
        all 79 news articles »

        you have to click on the part i bolded.

        I am using the Google site: operator to try to turn up other articles published by Adler in the Atlanta Jewish Times.

        good idea!

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 21, 2012, 2:32 pm

        Annie,

        As I scan down that list of 80 hits from Google News (as opposed to Google Web search), I am seeing very few items from the mainstream media outlets I listed above. This is what is is really grabbing my attention. Most of the items are from non-US media outlets.

        I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but one gets the impression so far that the American mainstream media, with a few exceptions, really don’t want to discuss or even mention this blockbuster story.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 21, 2012, 2:56 pm

        To be specific, these are some of the media outlets among Google News hits so far:

        1. +972
        2. ABC News
        3. Al-Bawaba
        4. American Muslim
        5. Arutz Sheva
        6. Atlanta Journal Constitution
        7. Daily Mail
        8. Eurasia Review
        9. Forward
        10. Fox News
        11. Gawker
        12. Haaretz
        13. Huffington Post
        14. Jerusalem Post
        15. Jewish Telegraph Agency
        16. MarketWatch
        17. Press TV
        18. The Guardian
        19. Ynetnews

        No CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, CBS News, New York Post, etc.

      • annie
        annie on January 21, 2012, 4:02 pm
      • patm
        patm on January 21, 2012, 4:29 pm

        CNN posted am update piece twenty minutes ago

        Jewish paper’s column catches Secret Service eye

        http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/21/us/jewish-president-threat/

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 21, 2012, 2:14 pm

        It strikes me as crazy that the New York Times and Washington Post haven’t acknowledged this story yet.

    • Abierno
      Abierno on January 21, 2012, 2:18 pm

      You omitted +972 which has an excellent article by Yossi Gurvitz.

    • dahoit
      dahoit on January 22, 2012, 9:09 am

      Well,it’s 9AM Sunday,and nobody has it on their website.Such is the power of owning the media.

  37. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on January 21, 2012, 12:52 pm

    According to Larry Derfner in +972, Andrew Adler is a Chabadnik:

    “Inciting to kill Obama: Another Judeofascist from Chabad”

    http://972mag.com/inciting-to-kill-obama-another-judeofascist-from-chabad/33492/

    BEGIN QUOTE

    Chabad is the largest, most energetic Jewish movement on earth, and it gives a place of honor to people like Andrew Adler, the Atlanta Jewish Times publisher who suggested that the Mossad kill Obama.

    Unfortunately, Chabad enjoys this heimishe image for bestowing yiddishkeit on Jews the world over, holding Passover seder for young Israelis traveling in the East, laying tfillin at the airport – strictly mitzvah-doers. The other side of Chabad – the violent, Jewish supremacist side – is less well-known. Maybe that will change now, though, with the op-ed by Chabadnik Andrew Adler, publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, who suggests that Israel assassinate Obama so it’ll be free to bomb Iran. (Disclosure: I wrote about Israel for the Atlanta Jewish Times in the 1990s, years before it was sold to this lunatic.)

    Among the most prominent Chabad rabbis in Israel is Yitzhak Ginsburgh, author of Baruch Hagever, a tribute to Baruch Goldstein, and of the opinion that if a Jew needed a liver transplant, Jewish law would allow him to cut out a gentile’s liver. Another revered Chabad rabbi here is Shalom Dov Wolpe, who has praised the murder of Yitzhak Rabin and called for the murders of Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni – and I’m sure that’s only a partial list.

    Yossi Gurvitz notes that a Chabadnik, Harry Shapiro, was convicted of planting a pipe bomb in a Jacksonville, Fla. synagogue when Shimon Peres was visiting. Further on the Florida-Chabad-”death-to-Peres” connection, I have an Orthodox Jewish friend in Fort Lauderdale who used to pray at a Chabad shul because it was close by, and he told me that after Rabin’s assassination, some of the congregants were jubilant, openly saying they wished Yigal Amir had gotten Peres, too.

    At a Jerusalem rally a month before the assassination, it was two students at a Chabad yeshiva who printed up the photomontages of Rabin in an SS uniform that were held aloft in the crowd. During Netanyahu’s first term, a Chabadnik in Safed was arrested for threatening to kill him. During the wild protests against disengagement from Gaza, Chabadniks were involved in much of the worst violence – closing the highway to Jerusalem by spreading oil and nails on it, commandeering a Palestinian house in Gaza, writing “Muhammad is a pig” on the walls and finally setting it on fire.

    I know that not every Chabadnik is like this, and if any Chabad leader comments on Adler’s op-ed, he’ll of course condemn it. Furthermore I know there’s a split within Chabad between the messianics and the mainstream – but it doesn’t matter. This is the largest, most energetic Jewish movement on earth, and it gives a place of honor to bloodthirsty Judeofascists like Ginsburgh, Wolpe, Adler and others.

    Remember that the next time a couple of grinning Chabadniks on the street invite you over for Shabbes.

    END QUOTE

    • Richard Witty
      Richard Witty on January 23, 2012, 9:05 pm

      Both Gurvitz and Derfner, recanted their accusation that Adler was a chabadnik.

      They acknowledged that they were relying on other reports which mistakenly named him as associated with chabad.

      I am more associated with chabad than Adler is.

      Now, its repeated though, and repeated of repeated, so its been heard from now three sources (the last two relying on the first), and must therefore be “reliable”.

  38. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on January 21, 2012, 12:56 pm

    Ok — here is how the game is being played: most of the stories on Andrew Adler are leading with titles emphasizing that he has *apologized* for calling for the Israeli Mossad to assassinate Barack Obama. Since an apology has been proffered, there is nothing more to discuss. Move along and forget about it. Erase this episode from your mind.

    • dahoit
      dahoit on January 22, 2012, 9:12 am

      It sure seems erased by the MSM minds today,that’s for sure.

  39. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on January 21, 2012, 2:07 pm

    This is what the US government needs to know about Andrew Adler:

    1. Who are his closest associates?

    2. Has he discussed this assassination scenario with any of them?

    The fact that he expressed this scenario with so much breezy confidence suggests that his views are being reinforced and supported by people around him.

  40. anonymouscomments
    anonymouscomments on January 21, 2012, 4:30 pm

    Adam/Phil/MW,
    I strongly suggest the title is tweaked, in the interest of being nuanced and avoiding misrepresentation.
    Publisher of the ‘Atlanta Jewish Times’ suggests Mossad should assassinate Obama

    He suggests Mossad might be considering such, in an outlandish last resort possible scenario. He does not explicitly suggest they SHOULD assassinate Obama. Just pointing this out, as some might consider this title biased, and a misrepresentation (and they would be correct I think). We should never leave articles open to easy attack, and though it would have been an oversight, I think a title change would be wise.

    • Avi_G.
      Avi_G. on January 21, 2012, 5:08 pm

      We should never leave articles open to easy attack, and though it would have been an oversight, I think a title change would be wise.

      Your concern is quite touching and the wording of your comment is quite humorous. Tell me, did you write that with a straight face or did you giggle a few times, thinking you were pulling a fast one on Phil, Adam and readers in general?

      Incidentally, what do you mean by “We”?

      • anonymouscomments
        anonymouscomments on January 21, 2012, 10:42 pm

        Actually after I wrote it, I felt weird about the “we”. But the reason I used the term, is that there is such a feeling of community here, not that I feel I have any right to say “we”. I actually went to change it but was unable and it seemed ridiculously presumptive (but we often do use use “we” here).

        Regarding the meat of my comment, I was entirely sincere. I myself am cautious (perhaps overly so) and when I went to share the article, I actually thought the title went farther than the article allowed.

        Call me overly cautious and a fan of ridiculous nuance when it comes to official published word.

        But I’ll have you note I am constantly defending the right of us commenters to say very controversial things, and I say them myself. And of course MW does itself, in a brave and awesome manner…. likely why we all are here (“we” again, crap).

        But I stand by my comment, just speaking my mind. Admittedly it does seem ridiculous given the insane nature of the article this post references. So the ridicule is fairly deserved, in retrospect.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 22, 2012, 8:46 am

        Call me overly cautious and a fan of ridiculous nuance when it comes to official published word.

        Haaretz comments that Andrew Adler’s suggestion in the Atlanta Jewish Times that Israel assassinate President Obama is a blot both on Israel and on American Jews. http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-publisher-s-anti-obama-diatribe-has-defamed-israel-1.408527

        The Jerusalem Post gave him the benefit of the doubt (not) and went with the headline Atlanta Jewish newspaper calls for Obama assassination
        http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=254592

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 22, 2012, 9:57 am

        Hostage,

        We’ve got a weird situation in which several Mondoweiss commenters are well to the right of the right-wing Jerusalem Post on Andrew Adler’s clear incitement to assassinate Barack Obama. They are trying to make excuses for Adler.

        By the way, in a search on Topsy this morning on “Mossad” (Topsy is by far the best search engine for uncovering the most influential tweets on Twitter for any topic), this article on Mondoweiss on which we are now commenting ranked #1.

      • Avi_G.
        Avi_G. on January 22, 2012, 10:34 am

        anonymouscomments,

        That’s all well and good, but surely, one can’t expect a headline or a title to be nuanced. If that were a possibility, there would be no need for the article.

        The nuance is in the article. And that is why I find it a bit odd that you stated: “[S]ome might consider this title biased, and a misrepresentation”.

        That is hardly the case, especially when the word “Suggests” is right there in the title of the article.

      • Djinn
        Djinn on January 23, 2012, 12:07 am

        Not sure anyone has made excuses of any sort, but would you *really* claim that someone who wrote about some right wing militia nuts having pondered assassination of the President had *themselves* advocated that action be taken?

        Pointing out that he did not say Israel SHOULD assassinate Obama has nothing to do with being left or right leaning politically. I fit most comfortably within an anarcho-syndicalism framework, not even remotely right wing, but can still read what was *actually* written. You can acknowledge that had any Muslim or Arab said this they would likely be in custody without wanting that kind of Orwellian draconian response applied to ANYONE.

    • anonymouscomments
      anonymouscomments on January 21, 2012, 5:17 pm

      BTW I do not ignore the fact that he rationalizes such… and even tries to put it in perspective, and explain why Bibi might consider such. But we are taking some liberty and being a little sensational to write that he suggests Mossad should assassinate Obama.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 22, 2012, 12:48 am

        BTW I do not ignore the fact that he rationalizes such…

        He does more than offer analysis. This was Op-Ed-as-theater. He breaks the fourth wall and asks his audience what they would do to save the nation of Israel? See the thoughts of Chabad Rabbi Manis Friedman for one possible response http://www.haaretz.com/news/chabad-rabbi-jews-should-kill-arab-men-women-and-children-during-war-1.277616

        Kahanists didn’t just vanish when Israel outlawed their political party and the US government froze their assets. They simply changed the names of their organizations and the same individuals kept right on raising money for them right here in the US.

        Like minded groups joined them and are suspected of being behind price tag attacks and other acts of terrorism. The new groups didn’t disappear when the Israeli Education Ministry halted the government funding of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva and completely shut down the Dorshei Yechudcha high school-age yeshiva ketana. US non-profit foundations continue to raise tax deductible donations in the U.S. to support them. So there are patrons and leaders of these terror groups living here in the US. MW and Max Blumenthal have written about their religious doctrines which label non-Jews permissible to kill, or Rodef, for the most inconsequential things, including providing the slightest moral support to Israel’s enemies, e.g. http://maxblumenthal.com/2011/07/inside-torat-hamelech-the-jewish-extremist-terror-tract/

      • Charon
        Charon on January 22, 2012, 1:37 am

        Hmmm… Not sure where you are seeing should bolded like that. Not in chrome or safari at least.

        ;)

    • Sin Nombre
      Sin Nombre on January 21, 2012, 6:49 pm

      anonymouscomments wrote:

      “He suggests Mossad might be considering such, in an outlandish last resort possible scenario. He does not explicitly suggest they SHOULD assassinate Obama.”

      No, this won’t fly. Read the whole thing. He starts by saying to his readers “You are Benjamin Netanyahu. You are responsible for 7 million Israeli citizens….”

      He then posits a looming war, saying “you cannot expect much help from the United States due [in addition to budget issues] to [that] administration’s never ending ‘Alice-in-Wonderland’ belief that diplomacy is the answer.”

      He then lays out the three options he sees, with #1 and #2 both involving high (indeed in the case of #2 “lethal”) costs to Israel.

      So he’s not just saying “oh, they may be considering #3.”

      At the *very* least he’s saying it’s an entirely reasonable option.

      And, read in its entirety, it is in fact simply impossible to say that it does not present #3 as the best option for Netanyahu given the grave responsibilities that author perceives he has and the cost of the other two options to the 7 million he represents.

      And in assessing threats or incitements you bet things are read in their entirety.

      Nor should people lose sight of the nature of this statement, in its fullness:

      This wasn’t a rant by an inflamed nut mad over some perceived slight or etc., just blowing off steam.

      Not was it even just a coolly considered, faux-clever call to assassinate Obama in *retribution* for something he did.

      This was a call—made openly in the belief that it would incite none of its readers which says something startling in and of itself—that Israel damn well ought to consider the assassination of U.S. government officials … purely and simply so as to manipulate the U.S. political system to go to war for Israel’s benefit.

      In other words, as just yet *another* tool to manipulate the U.S. political system for Israel’s benefit, even if that means war for the U.S. and U.S. deaths.

      There’s more than enough whitewashing that goes on with Israeli issues. Ethnic cleansing under the rubric of zoning codes or establishment of national parks, espionage under the rubric of routine lobbying, and on and on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

      Let’s get this thing clear right from the start then. And let’s not forget the words of Abe Foxman himself admitting that these words reflect rhetoric that indeed exists “in some segments of [the American jewish] community…”

      And in terms of the relative non-existence of the media coverage of this, lets not forget either the spectacular orgy the media enjoyed looking at other people’s violent rhetoric in the aftermath of the shooting of that poor Texas congressperson, and now consider their nearly utter disinterest in this instance despite it involving the President.

      • anonymouscomments
        anonymouscomments on January 22, 2012, 2:09 pm

        sin nombre-

        actually, i retract my criticism (which was nit-picky, and came off wrong). i would have put it slightly differently, but it is only a title.

        i think adler was a proponent of serious consideration of assassination, perhaps only as a veiled threat to help add more pressure to the administration, but i think he *tried* to *linguistically* walk a line. he clearly stumbled way over that line, and he should be given no free pass, or undue “benefit of the doubt”. i was also being too generous and did incorrectly frame the clear take away from adler’s column myself…

        -walking back quickly from my posts

      • Sin Nombre
        Sin Nombre on January 22, 2012, 3:01 pm

        anonymouscomments:

        “-walking back quickly from my posts.”

        And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how smart, classy people do things.

        (With me adding that by using the term “whitewash” in replying to your comment I did not mean to say that’s what I thought you were doing, and should have so indicated. As I clumsily alluded to I just thought looking at the entirety of what this Atlanta guy wrote made it quite a different thing than just reading the portion reproduced by Adam Horowitz at the start of this thread.)

    • Walid
      Walid on January 21, 2012, 8:59 pm

      “He suggests Mossad might be considering such, in an outlandish last resort possible scenario. ”

      No, he’s not sugesting anything of that kind. Only Woody T. and D. Samel contextualized what the guy in Atlanta wrote. He didn’t propose to kill Obama or ask the Mossad to actually kill him but theorized about it being one of the 3 options Israel could use to to stop Iran. This thing that everyone is interpreting to his liking is turning into another absurd runaway train like what happened the other day with Donald’s harmless comments. It’s a stupid and obscene theory by the Atlanta editor, but nothing more than that.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 22, 2012, 7:48 am

        He suggests Mossad might be considering such . . . No, he’s not sugesting anything of that kind.

        I think he/she is referring to this portion of the Op-Ed: Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?

        If words used in context have any meaning, then yes, he was suggesting that the idea has been discussed by the Israel government.

        Only Woody T. and D. Samel contextualized what the guy in Atlanta wrote.

        Actually, I also contextualized it by explaining that he is making the case that Obama is a life-threatening individual who is interfering with the nation of Israel’s right to obliterate its enemies and save the lives of millions of Jews, Christians, and Arabs, i.e he is portraying the President to his Jewish audience as a pursuer, or rodef, that they may kill without a formal court ruling. I also gave you links to another Chabadnik, Rabbi Manis Friedman, and the authors of the Torat Hamelech to establish that those doctrines are not old wives tales. I don’t think there is any difference between his actions and the fellow who burned a cross at a Klan meeting, or a website putting bulls-eyes on photos of abortion providers. None of those other acts were supposedly threats either.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 22, 2012, 3:44 pm

        “I don’t think there is any difference between his actions and the fellow who burned a cross at a Klan meeting,”

        You’re right, they are both inconsequential. We should really worry when the cross is being burned on someone’s front lawn to spook the hell out of him. People here are getting all excited about this thinking they caught the Zionists with their pants down. This Adler is a nobody except to anti-Zionist gladiators; even Foxman has disowned him.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 22, 2012, 8:57 am

        Major Jewish publications, organizations and leaders instantly got that Andrew Adler was advocating the assassination of Barack Obama as a legitimate and realistic policy option. It’s surprising that a few Mondoweiss readers are trying to spin Adler’s words to reduce their toxicity. Why are you trying to do that? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Do you know nothing about the Kahanist culture in which Adler is apparently embedded?

        Here is an example of how the mainstream Jewish community read and interpreted the Adler article:

        AUTHOR Douglas Bloomfield

        PUBLICATION The Jewish Week (New York)

        TITLE “The Dangerous Politics of Hate”

        URL http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/political_insider/dangerous_politics_hate

        In a joint appearance with freshman Republican Congressman Bob Turner, Hikind went on: “That’s a 100% reality. There’s no love lost between Netanyahu and the President of the United States. Should Obama get reelected, you think there’s been some rough spots between the United States and Israel in the last couple years, you haven’t seen anything yet.”

        Hikind’s volatile rhetoric was tame compared to a column in the Atlanta Jewish Times by its owner and publisher, Andrew Adler.

        He wants Israeli leaders to do more than pray; he wants them to send a Mossad hit team to assassinate the President of the United States, he wrote in a January 13 column.

        That was one of three options he presented for preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The others were a direct strike on Iran and attacks on Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran’s terrorist allies.

        Adler wrote, “give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”

        Yes, that’s right, Adler says the Mossad should murder the American president and that would motivate his successor to help Israel destroy its enemies.

        “Yes you read [the assassination option] correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?”

        Adler said it is fantasy to believe that diplomacy can keep Iran from going nuclear; the only realistic answer is force. He apparently considered presidential assassination realistic, at least until he ran into criticism.

        What’s up with the efforts here to put the most innocuous (and most untruthful) spin on Adler’s words? Weird.

      • Djinn
        Djinn on January 23, 2012, 3:42 am

        it’s surprising that a few Mondoweiss readers are trying to spin Adler’s words to reduce their toxicity.

        No whats surprising is that you think its fair to characterise a few people who can see that Adler expressly did not call for an assassination as an attempt to spin his words to render them less toxic. Did ANYONE say they weren’t toxic?

        Why are you trying to do that?

        oh I dunno, maybe because its a discussion thread and we disagree with you? You know the same reason you’re insisting on your own interpretation here (albeit without having to respond to sneering accusation of reading difficulties and insinuation of nefarious motives)

        Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

        Given you appear to think saying X has probably considered doing Y makes one agree with the action of Y which is patently false I’m not sure that’s a particularly stone you should be throwing.

        Do you know nothing about the Kahanist culture in which Adler is apparently embedded?

        Wouldn’t call myself an expert but would experiencing it up close and personal in Hebron be enough for you?

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 22, 2012, 9:02 am

        Walid,

        You and a few others here are not contextualizing Adler’s words — you are *decontextualizing* them. Larry Derfner at +972 is contextualizing Adler:

        “Inciting to kill Obama: Another Judeofascist from Chabad”

        http://972mag.com/inciting-to-kill-obama-another-judeofascist-from-chabad/33492/

        Do you really not get this?

      • Walid
        Walid on January 22, 2012, 3:28 pm

        ““Inciting to kill Obama: Another Judeofascist from Chabad”

        link to 972mag.com

        Do you really not get this?”

        +972 has since removed the Chabad reference; it was a mistake.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 22, 2012, 11:08 am

        Walid,

        If you want to *contextualize* Andrew Adler’s incitement to assassination, run Google searches on these topics and connect a few dots:

        1. Alex Odeh
        2. Amalek
        3. Baruch Goldstein
        4. Baruch Hagever
        5. Count Folke Bernadotte
        6. Earl Krugel
        7. Harry Shapiro
        8. Iran scientists assassinations
        9. Irgun
        10. Irv Rubin
        11. Israel assassinations
        12. Jewish terrorism
        13. King’s Torah
        14. Lord Moyne
        15. Meir Kahane
        16. Mossad assassinations
        17. rodef assassinations
        18. Shalom Dov Wolpe
        19. Stern Gang
        20. Yigal Amir
        21. Yitzhak Rabin assassination
        22. Yitzhak Shapira
        23. Yitzhak Ginsburgh

      • Danaa
        Danaa on January 22, 2012, 1:13 pm

        Walid, in some ways the Chabanicks Hostage is referring to (and the not so few similar minded individual and groups associated with the messianic “movements”) are not unlike the Salafis. No analogy is exact of course but there is a common thread.

        To my mind the commonality on a psychological level is extreme group self-absorption and its mirror twin – extreme self-righteousness.

      • Avi_G.
        Avi_G. on January 22, 2012, 2:09 pm

        Danaa,

        What the Salafis and the Habadniks have in common is that they are both fostered by the Israeli government. It’s no coincidence that the Salafis are popping up in Syria, Jordan and the Gaza Strip.

        Much like Israel used Hamas to counter Fatah, it is now using the Salafis — along with the United States — to counter the Arab Spring.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 22, 2012, 3:06 pm

        Danaa, Adler’s paper has a circulation of 3500 most probably distributed for free. I’m just saying that this story is being blown out of proportion. If anyone here believes that the evil Zionist empire is about to be taken down because of this story, he’s mistaken. I don’t think any of those extremists you are talking about are waiting for a signal to come out of Atlanta.

      • annie
        annie on January 22, 2012, 4:00 pm

        walid, with all due respect the coverage it is getting is what one would expect here. it’s simply not done, suggesting the assassination of an american president. why do you think everyone is wondering whether there might be a prosecution? because there’s little precedence that’s why.

        think of all the people who hated cheney with a passion and may have imagined the very worst for him…but did people express that explicitly? no. it’s just not done. it would be like mentioning bombing an airplane at the terminal gate (“just kidding”). you’re not even supposed to say it much less publish it. i don’t care how big a circulation one has. it’s not done.

        i don’t know what will happen, probably nothing. but the public reaction is normal.

        also, 2 days ago my mom said she had just heard about it on the evening news. and she doesn’t get cable. she watches SF’s kgo channel 5.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 22, 2012, 5:06 pm

        It only takes one Jack Ruby.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 23, 2012, 12:06 am

        “you’re not even supposed to say it much less publish it. i don’t care how big a circulation one has. it’s not done.”

        Agreed, Annie, but too much is being made of it for the wrong reasons. Adler has already apologized and called himself an idiot for having made it and now it’s being talked about in the Jewish-controlled press only to be milked. There are worse things American and Israeli Jews should be feeling bad about.

        BTW, Annie, you’ll be happy to kmow that Lebanon’s minute BDS movement succeeded this week in getting Lara Fabian to cancel her scheduled Beirut concert.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 1:31 pm

        Annie,

        If there were any prosecution in this case (there won’t be; the Justice Department isn’t that stupid), I would hope that all the progressives line up behind Adler because if the rights in the First Amendment mean anything, they mean that the government can’t criminalize your thoughts and ideas. This guy’s ideas were stupid and foolish, but the First Amendment protects stupid and foolish ideas, too.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 23, 2012, 2:43 pm

        if the rights in the First Amendment mean anything, they mean that the government can’t criminalize your thoughts and ideas. This guy’s ideas were stupid and foolish, but the First Amendment protects stupid and foolish ideas, too.

        The Constitution defines treason as a number of specific acts, namely levying War against the United States, or in adhering to an unfriendly power, giving them aid and comfort. That has always included persons who encourage acts of war or insurrection, like killing an officer of the government. The 1st Amendment doesn’t really decriminalize those acts.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 3:55 pm

        “The Constitution defines treason as a number of specific acts, namely levying War against the United States, or in adhering to an unfriendly power, giving them aid and comfort. That has always included persons who encourage acts of war or insurrection, like killing an officer of the government. The 1st Amendment doesn’t really decriminalize those acts.”

        And if Adler’s article constituted any of these things, you might have a point. Since it doesn’t, you don’t.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 23, 2012, 9:34 pm

        And if Adler’s article constituted any of these things, you might have a point. Since it doesn’t, you don’t.

        He is advocating the overthrow of the government by assassinating government officials and he is not limiting the means of accomplishing that task to third parties or the three options outlined in the article. He said that he believes that all options are on the table. That’s an unconditional threat.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 7:59 am

        “He is advocating the overthrow of the government by assassinating government officials…”

        No, he’s not. Nothing in this article suggests that he is in favor of that option, so the notion that he is advocating anything is a product of your poor reading comprehension. He’s discussing whether the Israelis have or should do that. That discussion, though stupid, is clearly protected, as it does not present a clear and present danger and because it is doing nothing more than discussing an idea and not inciting action.

        “…and he is not limiting the means of accomplishing that task to third parties or the three options outlined in the article. He said that he believes that all options are on the table.”

        And that is his right as an American under the First Amendment. He can discuss all he wants what he believes the Israeli government is or should be doing.

        “That’s an unconditional threat.”

        No, it isn’t.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 24, 2012, 11:05 am

        No, it isn’t.

        This conversation is getting pretty pointless. There are people, like Sheikh Rahman, sitting in prison today serving sentences for encouraging acts, including assassination of government officials, that have been criminalized by Title 18 § 2385.

        I happen to believe that since the attacks on the World Trade Center the precedents in case law, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Acts, and the recent National Defense Authorization Act have pretty much rolled-back some of First Amendment scrutiny that used to apply. The First Amendment is no defense against indefinite detention without charge or trial for proposing that it would be acceptable or desirable to assassinate government officials.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 1:01 pm

        “This conversation is getting pretty pointless.”

        I don’t disagree. I don’t think we have a fundamental disagreement on the law (although I believe the First Amendment is more expansive in its protections than you, as evidenced by your last sentence), but on whether this article falls into the protected or the not-protected category.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 24, 2012, 2:29 pm

        Woody, you have to admit Adler could not get away with presenting for discussion a 3rd Israeli option (Israel billed as speaking for the best interest of all Jews everywhere, and treated as such by the US government) of murdering POTUS in an American newspaper not limited to our fringe by force of US police power and current cultural taboo, as lately additionally enforced by Patriot Act nuance and government assumptions re who’s a hate group or terrorist group, to gain the alleged survival of a foreign state and its structurally dominant people–if it was done by a non-Jewish American in favor of the Palestinian people and America’s best humanist values.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 5:42 pm

        Citizen, your post really made no sense. You will have to restate it.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 24, 2012, 9:37 pm

        we have a fundamental disagreement on the law (although I believe the First Amendment is more expansive in its protections than you, as evidenced by your last sentence), but on whether this article falls into the protected or the not-protected category.

        No you seem to have a disagreement with the Supreme Court decision in Virginia v Black. It explained that “this Court has long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution. For example, the First Amendment permits a State to ban “true threats,” e.g., Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (per curiam). http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1107.ZS.html

        Here are a number of examples of Jewish newspapers which have reported that Adler was calling for an assassination or suggesting one, not just confining himself to the realm of ideas:

        Owner of Jewish weekly regrets calling for Israeli hit on Obama
        http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=2788

        Andrew Adler, publisher of ‘Atlanta Jewish Times’ had suggested Netanyahu deploy Mossad agents to assassinate US president.
        http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=254842

        Jewish newspaper owner suggests Israel consider ‘hit’ on Obama
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4178513,00.html

        Andrew Adler suggested Israel should assassinate U.S. President Barack Obama to counter Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
        http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/atlanta-jewish-times-publisher-resigns-over-obama-assassination-column-1.408849

        So a lot of reasonable observers have interpreted his remarks as advocating an assassination. The Secret Service has a statutory obligation to respond to reports of threats forwarded to its national reporting center, see for example the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000. The Jewish Daily Forward reports that the Secret Service is investigating Adler. http://www.forward.com/articles/150014/

        If Adler really is just a jerk, then I don’t think he should be prosecuted, but there is little here to prevent a case from going to trial.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 25, 2012, 9:40 am

        “No you seem to have a disagreement with the Supreme Court decision in Virginia v Black.”

        Oh, my god, how many times do I have to explain it to you. I know what the law is in this area. I know what it permits and what it cannot preclude. And what I am saying is that given all the facts in this case, this does not constitute a true threat. You can disagree. I don’t care.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 25, 2012, 11:13 am

        Woody Tanaka,

        Your comments on this subject have been entirely uninteresting and uninsightful from my point of view. For two examples of *smart* discussions about Adler see:

        1. J.J. Goldberg: “‘Taking Out’ Obama, and Our Slide Into Madness” http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/150128/

        2. Alison Weir: “Bush & Obama? Israeli assassinations and US Presidents” http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/news/opinion-a-analysis/item/1352-bush-obama?-israeli-assassinations-and-us-presidents#

        Weir remarks:

        BEGIN QUOTE

        Adler writes that it is highly likely that the idea “has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles.”

        Numerous Jewish leaders quickly condemned Adler, who has now apologized for the column, resigned, and put the newspaper up for sale. An Israeli columnist noted that the hatred being stirred up against Obama is similar to conditions in Israel that led to the murder of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish extremist.

        Many of those criticizing Adler claim that he had defamed Israel by suggesting that it would ever do such a thing. Abe Foxman, head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) proclaimed: “There is absolutely no excuse, no justification, no rationalization for this kind of rhetoric. It doesn’t even belong in fiction.”

        In reality, however, Adler’s expectation that Israel’s inner circles have explored such a course of action, and would be willing to undertake it, may be entirely accurate. The fact is that Israel has killed and plotted to assassinate people throughout the world; a number have been Americans. One alleged plot was chillingly similar to Adler’s suggestion.

        END QUOTE

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 25, 2012, 1:00 pm

        “Your comments on this subject have been entirely uninteresting and uninsightful from my point of view. ”

        And that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. It is clear to me that you are uninterested in the legal angle to this matter, so go discuss what you see as the political and cultural aspects of it.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 25, 2012, 1:59 pm

        Oh, my god, how many times do I have to explain it to you. I know what the law is in this area. I know what it permits and what it cannot preclude.

        It’s perfectly obvious that you don’t. You cited the Planned Parenthood case here: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/publisher-of-the-atlanta-jewish-times-suggests-mossad-should-assassinate-obama.html/comment-page-1#comment-419136

        It actually ruled that elements of speech on a website, that did not expressly urge viewers to commit violence against anyone, nonetheless constituted a true threat that was not protected by the First Amendment.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 25, 2012, 2:16 pm

        “It’s perfectly obvious that you don’t. ”

        No, it’s perfectly obvious that even after I set it out in plain terms you still are not able to get it.

        “It actually ruled that elements of speech on a website, that did not expressly urge viewers to commit violence against anyone, nonetheless constituted a true threat that was not protected by the First Amendment.”

        And I’ll try once more: In Planned Parenthood, under the totality of the circumstances, the Court found that the speech constituted a true threat, under the standard applicable to that question. Here, by contrast, the totality of the circumstances leads me to conclude that the speech did not constitute a true threat, under the standard applicable to that question.

        In other words: we agree that if the speech constitutes a true threat, it can be banned. We disagree on whether Adler’s speech constitutes a true threat.

        Get it, now?

      • tree
        tree on January 25, 2012, 2:17 pm

        Citizen, your post really made no sense. You will have to restate it.

        It was a bit over-qualified and under expressed but I got it. His point was that Alder got away with mentioning the “option” of killing Obama for the sake of Israel without facing legal consequence, but a non-Jew raising the same option for the sake of the Palestinians would not.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 25, 2012, 2:35 pm

        “It was a bit over-qualified and under expressed but I got it. His point was that Alder got away with mentioning the “option” of killing Obama for the sake of Israel without facing legal consequence, but a non-Jew raising the same option for the sake of the Palestinians would not.”

        Okay. Yeah, I think that that idea is frankly nonsense.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 25, 2012, 4:57 pm

        And I’ll try once more . . . under the totality of the circumstances,

        Correct. A number of Presidents and abortion providers have been killed in the past, and the State can ban speech that is intended to frighten or intimidate them.

        In Planned Parenthood, the respondents and the Court agreed that they had not explicitly advocated or incited any act of violence against anyone. The Court nonetheless ruled that their website was not protected by the First Amendment because a reasonable person could conclude that it was intended to threaten the plaintiffs directly. It was not necessarily intended to encourage or incite third parties to acts of violence. BTW, the respondents had requested summary dismissal, but it was denied because there was a dispute of material fact regarding the existence of a true threat and a trial was required to resolve the question.

        I’ve been pointing out all along that there is enough material here for a Prosecutor to go to trial.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 25, 2012, 5:44 pm

        So, I see you STILL don’t get it.

        “A number of Presidents and abortion providers have been killed in the past, and the State can ban speech that is intended to frighten or intimidate them.”

        The fact that some categories of speech can be subject to state action does not settle the question of whether this particular speech can be subject to state action. That is why the court asks whether this is a true threat or whether it is merely protected speech which advocates violence.

        In Planned Parenthood, the facts demonstrated that a true threat could be shown. Here, no one in his right mind would suggest that Adler intended that his column would frighten or intimidate Barak Obama (i.e., that it constitutes a true threat.) If you believe that it was, then you are being irrational.

        This is the last I am going to say about this matter. I don’t know how many other ways I can say it. Your constant citations to cases is pointless. My argument is not about the law, but about applying the law to these facts. If you can’t see that, that it not my problem, and frankly, I really don’t care anymore what you think about this point.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 25, 2012, 6:12 pm

        That is why the court asks whether this is a true threat or whether it is merely protected speech which advocates violence.

        Yes you dimwit, that happens at trial after the facts have been presented. I’ve been trying to explain to you that there is enough evidence for a Prosecutor to take this to trial.

        This is the last I am going to say about this matter

        Thank God please quit some more.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 26, 2012, 12:31 pm

        “Yes you dimwit, that happens at trial after the facts have been presented. I’ve been trying to explain to you that there is enough evidence for a Prosecutor to take this to trial.”

        No, no prosecutor worth his or his salt (nor any judge on a motion to dismiss) can look at this statement, even in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and find that it constitutes a true threat under the standards that define such, as a matter of law.

        So I suggest that we sit back and watch. And when this guy is not charged, you can come up with some incoherent explanation for why “he got away with it.”

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 26, 2012, 3:46 pm

        No, no prosecutor worth his or his salt (nor any judge on a motion to dismiss) can look at this statement, even in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and find that it constitutes a true threat under the standards that define such, as a matter of law.

        LoL! Using that logic Watts v United States would never have made it all the way to the Supreme Court. I stated from the outset here that I think Adler won’t be prosecuted, unless someone wants to send a message or set an example.

        If there is a disagreement over the existence of an implied threat directed at the President (versus incitement of third parties) then that would be decided at trial or on appeal, just like the dispute in Planned Parenthood.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 26, 2012, 7:38 pm

        “LoL! Using that logic Watts v United States would never have made it all the way to the Supreme Court.”

        What? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Not only are the facts of the Watts case different, but the question of law which was decided in Watts was unsettled prior to that decision.

        “If there is a disagreement over the existence of an implied threat directed at the President (versus incitement of third parties) then that would be decided at trial or on appeal, just like the dispute in Planned Parenthood.”

        Only if there is a reasonable basis for the jury to find a violation. This is basic Rule 12(b)(3)(B) stuff. This is Elementary Criminal Procedure, class 1, minute 1, stuff. (Don’t tell me you are one of those people who thinks that just because they read a Supreme Court opinion that they actually know anything about the law…) My point, as I said — repeatedly — is that there are no facts here which make out a violation of anything, under the settled law, no matter how you look at the evidence.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 27, 2012, 7:43 am

        What? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

        Supreme Court decisions are only binding on the parties to the cases that it hears on appeal and the facts in each case are different.

        The Supreme Court held that

        Petitioner’s remark during political debate at small public gathering that if inducted into Army (which he vowed would never occur) and made to carry a rifle “the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.,” held to be crude political hyperbole which in light of its context and conditional nature did not constitute a knowing and willful threat against the President within the coverage of 18 U.S.C. 871 (a).

        That situation had not stopped the United States from pursuing the case through the District Court and the Court of Appeals now did it?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 27, 2012, 10:13 am

        “Supreme Court decisions are only binding on the parties to the cases that it hears on appeal and the facts in each case are different.”

        LMAO. So I was right, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. United States Supreme Court decisions are binding on all courts in the federal system and, when they touch matters of federal law or federal constitutional law, are binding on all courts in the United States, state and federal. (This is Elementary Constitutional Law, class 1, minute 1, second 1.)

        “The Supreme Court held that…”

        FYI, What you quoted after that statement was not a quote from the Supreme Court, it was a quote from the syllabus, which is not part of the Court’s opinion.

        “That situation had not stopped the United States from pursuing the case through the District Court and the Court of Appeals now did it?”

        You are not making any sense at all. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Watts, it had not been decided by the Supreme Court whether statement such as those by Mr. Watts were protected by the First Amendment or were violative of 18 U.S.C. 871(a). So the matter was prosecuted and the Supreme Court finally said that it was protected speech. If the same case arose again, the US would not pursue the matter, because that legal issue was decided in Watts and, as such, is binding on all courts in the US.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 27, 2012, 12:57 pm

        LMAO. So I was right, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

        The parties to a Supreme Court case don’t always include the United States, e.g. copyright disputes. Landmark decisions in other copyright cases are seldom, if ever, enforceable in the federal courts against one of the states or a state agency as a result of residual immunity.

        Even when the decisions bind the United States, the facts in subsequent cases don’t always correspond exactly to the earlier decisions. Both the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit cited Watts, but nonetheless held that a true threat could exist in the absence of incitement directed at third parties or intent to cause imminent physical harm.

        FYI, What you quoted after that statement was not a quote from the Supreme Court, it was a quote from the syllabus, which is not part of the Court’s opinion.

        The Syllabus describes the Petitioners case. Here is what the Court did say: We agree with petitioner . . . the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The case is remanded with instructions that it be returned to the District Court for entry of a judgment of acquittal. In this case, you actually can read the Syllabus from the Reporter of Decisions for convenience.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 27, 2012, 1:20 pm

        PS that should have read: Both the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit cited Watts in subsequent cases, but nonetheless held that a true threat could exist in the absence of incitement directed at third parties or intent to cause imminent physical harm. So Watts has not prevented Prosecutors from subsequently pursuing cases where there’s no incitement or kept States from banning speech that is intended to intimidate.

      • Taxi
        Taxi on January 27, 2012, 1:54 pm

        Woody & Hostage,

        Man you guys are epic!

        I so admire your intellectual perseverance.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 27, 2012, 4:00 pm

        “The parties to a Supreme Court case don’t always include the United States”

        Irrelevant. The United States is bound by a decision of the Supreme Court even if it is not a party to it.

        “Landmark decisions in other copyright cases are seldom, if ever, enforceable in the federal courts against one of the states or a state agency as a result of residual immunity.”

        What?? Immunity and copyright are wholly irrelevant to the issues under discussion.

        “Both the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit cited Watts, but nonetheless held that a true threat could exist in the absence of incitement directed at third parties or intent to cause imminent physical harm.”

        correct. As I’ve repeatedly noted. A true threat can exist. It doesn’t always exist, but it can. There is a legal test to determine whether a particular statement is a true threat and the entirety of my point is simply that under that test, this statement by Adler doesn’t constitute a true threat.

        “So Watts has not prevented Prosecutors from subsequently pursuing cases where there’s no incitement or kept States from banning speech that is intended to intimidate.”

        Right, if the facts of a particular case warrant it. And, again, the facts of this case do not.

        “In this case, you actually can read the Syllabus from the Reporter of Decisions for convenience.”

        The syllabus is often misleading. Better to read the opinion.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 27, 2012, 4:01 pm

        “I so admire your intellectual perseverance.”

        LOL. For me, it’s OCD.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 27, 2012, 8:07 pm

        Irrelevant. The United States is bound by a decision of the Supreme Court even if it is not a party to it. . . . What?? Immunity and copyright are wholly irrelevant to the issues under discussion.

        I explained that decisions in a case are only binding on the parties to the particular case. If you want to enforce a precedent against a third party, you still have to take them to Court in a separate action and obtain a judgement against them. The Black v Virginia and Planned Parenthood cases illustrate that process isn’t guaranteed to work and doesn’t always produce uniform results.

        The 1999 Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank et al. case illustrates that Supreme Court decisions from earlier cases on trademark, patent, or copyright infringement are no longer enforceable against state parties, although states can still sue you for infringement of their trademarks, patents, or copyrights. The same thing applies to the laws on labor standards. See Alden v Maine http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-436.ZS.html

        FYI intellectual property rights statutes impose constitutional restrictions on your freedom of expression, in much the same fashion as the treason and sedition statutes operate.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 30, 2012, 12:31 pm

        “I explained that decisions in a case are only binding on the parties to the particular case.”

        Again, all you are doing is demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are mixing two concepts: when a decision is binding and when a judgment is enforceable. They are not the same thing, are in no way interchangable and, when you understand the difference, the statement “decisions in a case are only binding on the parties to the particular case” is clearly patent nonsense.

        You appear to be saying that “the decision is not binding” when you mean the “judgment is not enforceable.” When the Supreme Court issues an opinion on federal or constitutional law, it is binding on all courts. Someone who is not a party to that action cannot enforce the judgment the Court issues, but any subsequent case is bound by the Court’s reasoning.

        But in this case, the only thing we are concerned about is the precedent being binding. Any prosecution of Adler must be brought within the strictures of establised precedent, including precedent which sets out the difference between speech which constitutes true threats which are not protected, and speech that advocates violence, but is not directed to produce imminent lawless action and is not likely to incite or produce such action, and is therefore protected. Under the tests distinguishing the two, this speech is clearly the latter and, consequently, protected.

        Further showing your ignorance of law is your discussion regarding state immunity. That concept has absolutely, positively no application in this context, whatsoever. We are discussing when the state can bring criminal actions, which has nothing to do with whether a state is immune from being sued.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 30, 2012, 4:52 pm

        Woody I’ve tried to point out that the Watts line of cases directly controls true threats, not the Brandenburg line on incitement of violence by third parties.

        For example, the supremacy clause of the Constitution says that it is the supreme law of the land and that the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

        Nonetheless, in the 1870s the Supreme Court began to rebuff efforts to enforce the 2nd Amendment against the States. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1876);  Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886);  Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 14 S.Ct. 874, 38 L.Ed. 812 (1894).

        In District of Columbia v. Heller, U.S., 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment entitles people to keep handguns at home for self-protection. Several suits were subsequently filed against municipalities in Illinois. The US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit noted that they all had been dismissed on the ground that Heller only dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government, while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state. The Appeals Court ruled that the Supreme Court ruling in Heller regarding the 2nd Amendment did not apply to states and municipalities.

        So trial and appellate judges sometimes implement the Supreme Court’s holdings even if the reasoning in later opinions appears to undermined their rationale: “If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.”  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1356417.html

        Coincidentally, a radio shock jock Hal Turner threatened the lives of the appeals court judges. His counsel based his defense on the Brandenburg line of cases, despite the fact that he was charged under a federal threat statute aimed at pure speech, not incitement. Turner argued the 1st Amendment protected speech advocating the violent overthrow of the government. He was subsequently convicted in 2010. The government held that the words on the screen and the judges’ interpretation of them as a threat were sufficient to prove the crime charged. http://www.northjersey.com/news/North_Bergen_shock_jock_Turner_appeals_conviction_for_threatening_judges.html

        Whether or not Turner wins an appeal, he has already been dragged into court several times, convicted, and started serving his sentence.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 30, 2012, 5:17 pm

        “I’ve tried to point out that the Watts line of cases directly controls true threats, not the Brandenburg line on incitement of violence by third parties.”

        And I’ve tried to point out that Watts would only apply if the statement at issue could constitute a true threat. If the statement does not constitute a true threat, then that line of cases is irrelevant. In that case, then all you have is mere speech that advocates violence, which is protected.

        You seem to want to assume that the speech constitutes a true threat, so as to apply Watts, when I am saying that under the test for determinine whether speech is a true threat or not a true threat, it is clear that it is not a true threat. No one in his right mind would suggest that Adler intended that his column would frighten or intimidate Barak Obama (i.e., that it constitutes a true threat). That is what distinguishes this case from Turner or other similar cases: there, apparently (I am only tangentially familar with the case) there was enough evidence to show that Turner intended that his speech to be a threat.

        (The middle portion of your post is interesting, but irrelevant. My argument is based on the fact that the statement here does not constitute a true threat and, therefore, the case law on true threats would not apply.)

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 30, 2012, 6:06 pm

        You seem to want to assume that the speech constitutes a true threat, so as to apply Watts,

        No you just keep ignoring the statements from the Secret Service that they are investigating a possible violation of a federal threat statute. The Watts line of cases directly controls all such cases. In the 2010 Turner case that I mentioned above, the Prosecutor only needed an affidavit from an FBI agent supporting an allegation that he violated a threat statute for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause. The Courts eventually ruled that the words on the computer screen were pure speech and that the opinion of the judges that they had been threatened was all that was necessary to obtain a conviction.

        All I’ve been trying to illustrate is that a Prosecutor can take you to court and it’s a crap shoot whether or not you’ll obtain an acquittal at trial or on appeal in these cases.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on January 30, 2012, 6:23 pm

        “No you just keep ignoring the statements from the Secret Service that they are investigating a possible violation of a federal threat statute.”

        Nonsense. From day 1, I said that the Secret Service will investigate (as they should) and will see that this does not consitute a true threat. And that is the difference between Turner and this case (and the thousands of similar cases the Secret Service investigate every year.)

        “All I’ve been trying to illustrate is that a Prosecutor can take you to court and it’s a crap shoot whether or not you’ll obtain an acquittal at trial or on appeal in these cases.”

        And I’m saying that no prosecutor will act in this case and, if by chance, one does, no judge will deny a motion to dismiss.

  41. split
    split on January 22, 2012, 12:04 am

    Talking about overblown ego :) This schmocks can’t steal a pasport without being caugt ,…

  42. Citizen
    Citizen on January 22, 2012, 9:30 am

    I agree with dahoit’s comment above; this is Sunday, and there’s no mention of this incident in the mainstream media.

    The closest appearance was on CNN website yesterday: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/21/us/jewish-president-threat/index.html?eref=rss_latest&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+%28RSS%3A+Most+Recent%29

    • Citizen
      Citizen on January 22, 2012, 9:39 am

      That’s CNN online–International Edition, not US Edition. After all, why should it be of any interest to Americans, a mere call by a Jewish American publisher in Atlantic area to murder our President to assure Jewish survival?

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 22, 2012, 10:11 am

        Citizen,

        The largely deafening silence on the Andrew Adler affair demonstrates that the American mainstream media are essentially a propaganda and psychological warfare arm of the Israeli government and the Israel lobby. They are in the business of whipping up hatred and violence against those whom have been declared enemies by Israel (Iraq, Iran, Muslims, etc.) and of suppressing or censoring negative news about Israel — like incitement by a pro-Israel militant and publisher of an American Jewish newspaper to assassinate an American president.

        Their behavior has become so obvious and flagrant in promoting this extreme Israel First agenda that it should be difficult for most Americans to ignore it any longer.

      • patm
        patm on January 22, 2012, 10:26 am

        That’s CNN online–International Edition, not US Edition.”

        Yes, I missed that fact when I posted the url last night.

  43. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on January 22, 2012, 10:02 am

    Under the police state practices that neoconservatives and Likudniks are working tirelessly to promote in American society, Barack Obama might be well justified in detaining Andrew Adler without due process of any kind, torturing him and then executing him. And then he might repeat the process for all those close associates who were divulged by Adler under torture.

    My point here is that I strongly oppose these neocon policies and that one should be aware that they could be turned against them down the line. Once one begins to undermine the US Constitution and Bill of Rights using the Global War on Terror as a pretext, it’s a slippery slope to a full-blown police state and military dictatorship.

    Is Andrew Adler a potential Jewish terrorist, like Yigal Amir or Baruch Goldstein? Might he have connections to Jewish terrorists or Jewish terrorist groups? These are legitimate questions.

  44. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on January 22, 2012, 10:40 am

    There are **3,198* comments to date on this article on CNN:

    “Jewish paper’s column catches Secret Service eye”

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/21/us/jewish-president-threat/

    If you browse the comments, you will be amazed to discover (at least I was amazed) that CNN readers appear to be much more “anti-Semitic” than Mondoweiss readers! The level of hostility expressed towards Israel by most of the commenters is mind-boggling. Quite a few of the comments are in fact anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish by my definition of those terms.

    No wonder the New York Times, the Washington Post and other mainstream media outlets are trying to censor and black out this story. Just beneath the surface in American society there appears to be a raging inferno on these issues. If I were a pro-Israel activist reading these comments on CNN I would be alarmed.

    • seanmcbride
      seanmcbride on January 22, 2012, 11:52 am

      There are now **3,428** comments at the CNN website on this article — try sorting them by Most Liked to get the main drift of opinion on the story.

      So: we know that the story is highly newsworthy, as measured by the level of interest in it by CNN readers. So why aren’t the mainstream media as a whole covering the story forcefully and in depth? We know why.

      • patm
        patm on January 22, 2012, 12:41 pm

        Sean, it’s important to note that it was a CNN International online story, not a CNN U.S. story.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 22, 2012, 5:09 pm

        Sure, why should it be double printed in both editions; it’s not like Americans would be interested in a US publisher suggesting POTUS should be killed by Mossad to assure survival of a foreign country.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 22, 2012, 4:11 pm

        The count at CNN is now up to 4,459 comments — in hyper-overdrive mode, according to Walid.

        When is the last time you have seen an article anywhere on the net with more than 4,000 comments (rapidly approaching 5,000 comments)?

        The Atlanta Jewish Times really managed to strike a nerve.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 22, 2012, 5:31 pm

        “The Atlanta Jewish Times really managed to strike a nerve.”

        Sean, the one that struck a nerve was CNN. Threats against world leaders are a dime a dozen. If anyone is faning the flames, it’s Zionist leaders everywhere because it’s giving them the opportunity to express their dismay at what Adler did and make them coming out smelling like a rose. Even a Wiesenthal Center official is expressing his shock; these are the same good guys that are destroying the Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem. This is even better than a holocaust article.

      • American
        American on January 22, 2012, 10:29 pm

        The flag at the top says CNN – US. so is it international or US?

        I read the first 250 of the most recommended. What I saw is what I see in comment sections on Israel articles in the WP, NYT and other publications…..that is the comments that actually get the most recommends are ones on the US-Israel relationship and Israel’s war mongering in the ME and Palestine. The public has a better grip than we think on the basics and is concentrating more on the real problems with Us&Isr….cutting aid keep money at home, too many Israel Firsters politicians, no war for Israel and so forth. So even though Adler was the subject, commenters who were most recommended were those talking about the actual issues of Isr-I/P-US-Iran and how it impacts the US.

        JimmmyNelson
        cut aid to Israel!
        1 day ago | Like (123)

        Dolmance
        Israel has been manipulating US politics for years now, with a machine in place to destroy any politician of either party who even suggests that the US should have a say in their policies, despite the billions that American taxpayers shell out each year for their defense.
        1 day ago | Like (169) |

        Any American who puts Israel first before their own country should get the hell out and move to Israel. And every American should know how Israel treats Arabs, because to the Arabs everything Israel does looks like it’s “Made in America” and we take the heat for it.
        1 day ago | Like (108) | Report abuse

        Some funny ones:
        Pacman85
        if Israel planned to attack the US…the US would aid them
        1 day ago | Like (50) |

        gbresnahan
        US needs to unfriend Israel.

        I saw some that were anti semitic and some close to it and the usual insults between them and the zio activist….and actually there weren’t many hasbara agents on there. But none of those kind got recommends worth mentioning.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        NorthOfFortyNine on January 24, 2012, 1:38 am

        “The count at CNN is now up to 4,459 comments — in hyper-overdrive mode, “

        It is a libertarian (small ‘L’) uprising! :) -N49.

  45. DaveS
    DaveS on January 22, 2012, 11:20 am

    Re contextualizing and decontextualizing, I think that Hostage and others are putting Adler’s words into reasonable context. He clearly is trying to create a climate in which killing Obama is a viable option in order to save millions of poor Israelis who might die if Obama lives. His vile sentiments are worthy of condemnation and humiliation and ridicule. But I still think criminal prosecution is both extremely unlikely and extremely unwise. The “letter” of his screed is that Israel is contemplating this option (while the “spirit” goes further) but he is not conveying an actual threat, and it would be impossible to meet a reasonable doubt standard to prove that he is. Moreover, Ramzi and others are no doubt correct that similar speech from a Muslim/Arab/leftist perspective would be treated much more harshly. If free speech rights are eroded to the extent that Adler’s comments are punishable as a crime, how much worse would it be for those whose rights are less protected?

    • seanmcbride
      seanmcbride on January 22, 2012, 12:01 pm

      David Samel,

      By mainstreaming and legitimizing these murderous sentiments as reasonable, Andrew Adler is increasing the likelihood that an unstable personality like Yigal Amir will actually take a run at assassinating Barack Obama.

      I don’t think that Adler’s speech should be criminalized — he is exercising his right of free speech and I support that. But I think the mainstream media should be all over this story and *contextualizing* it: to what degree do Adler’s beliefs reflect attitudes among some factions within the Zionist world? How powerful are those factions? What might they be planning and plotting?

      But instead the mainstream media overall are *protecting* Andrew Adler for reasons that appear to be largely tribal and selfish.

      By the way, does anyone doubt for a second that a faction within the Israeli Mossad might try to assassinate Barack Obama or any other American president they considered to be an enemy?

      According to Victor Ostrovsky, Mossad seriously considered assassinating George Herbert Walker Bush in order to derail the peace process he and James Baker were promoting. Mossad had devised a false flag op to blame the assassination on Palestinians.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 22, 2012, 2:20 pm

        “I don’t think that Adler’s speech should be criminalized — he is exercising his right of free speech and I support that. ”

        Why then are you and the others into overdrive about this stupidity by Adler? Put aside David’s humouring and overly polite comments to the tribe and read the rest of what he’s saying:

        “… His vile sentiments are worthy of condemnation and humiliation and ridicule. But I still think criminal prosecution is both extremely unlikely and extremely unwise. … he is not conveying an actual threat, and it would be impossible to meet a reasonable doubt standard to prove that he is.”

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 22, 2012, 3:31 pm

        Why then are you and the others into overdrive about this stupidity by Adler?

        If the others includes me, I’ve made it clear that there are statutes that make it a crime to advise, or teach the desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of the government – especially the Commander-in-Chief. The 1st Amendment did not decriminalize treason. I just don’t think its very likely that Adler will be prosecuted for that offense.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 22, 2012, 3:35 pm

        Walid,

        Do you know very much about the patterns of incitement that culminated in Yigal Amir’s assassination of Yitzhak Rabin? There were few direct threats in the incitement — none were required — the dog whistle was loud and clear. Most of the sources of incitement were more obscure than the Atlanta Jewish Times.

        Mainstream Jewish organizations have been more in “overdrive” about this incident than Mondoweiss commenters. Your posts on this topic strike as incredibly shallow. (I am working in this exchange to be polite and civil but I am getting close to unloading on you. :))

      • Walid
        Walid on January 22, 2012, 4:48 pm

        “… Your posts on this topic strike as incredibly shallow. (I am working in this exchange to be polite and civil but I am getting close to unloading on you. :))”

        Maybe if you do, it would take your mind off that dibilitating obsession you have developed over Adler. Yes, I do know about the events that led up to Rabin’s assassination, but it’s a wrong example to butter me up with because I’ve always considered him a break-their-bones terrorist. I don’t approve of what Adler did any more than you do. The guy is a schmuck but the world isn’t about to stop turning because of him. I get more distressed with things like the IDF T-shirts inciting the killing 2 people with one shot or with rabbis telling the soldiers entering Gaza that they are on a holy mission to cleanse the land, or other ones peddling books that it’s OK to kill non-Jewish infants. Do you want my list of 23 Israeli issues that I find worse than Adler?

      • Walid
        Walid on January 22, 2012, 5:02 pm

        “If the others includes me”

        No, Hostage, it doesn’t. You are discussing completely different issues and not asking to have the guy thrown to the lions. I’m just saying he’s not worth all this fuss. I’d be curious how many good southern Christians harbor these same secret evil wishes towards the president because he’s not accelerating what he’s supposed to be accelerating. There has to be much more than those reading the 3500 newspapers that Adler passes out in Atlanta’s Jewish neighbourhoods that probably mostly all end up in bird cages.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 22, 2012, 5:13 pm

        But, Walid, Adler is an American, living in America, with a newspaper with at least 3000 plus American readers, in a metro area.

    • Avi_G.
      Avi_G. on January 22, 2012, 12:24 pm

      David Samel,

      You make a compelling argument. From a legal perspective, one concerning freedom of speech, I understand the rationale. But, I would also like to bring into this discussion one aspect that has so far remained unmentioned, and that is the Clear and Present Danger clause. My understanding is that once any form of speech crosses the line so as to pose an immediate and viable threat to individuals or society as a whole, then that speech is no longer protected.

      In prosecuting Adler, one could argue that given the present political climate — Israel’s agitation to instigate Iran or the US to start a war — Adler’s statement presents a clear and present danger.

      In your view, as an attorney, would that argument be legally valid? Could one make the case in a court of law?

      Another aspect I would like to throw into the mix/conversation is the fact that had Adler been Moslem or Arab, the DoJ would have found a way to indict him on criminal charges. After all, laws are open for interpretation. In addition, the PATRIOT Act has certainly diminished from prior case law’s standing.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 22, 2012, 3:05 pm

        I would also like to bring into this discussion one aspect that has so far remained unmentioned, and that is the Clear and Present Danger clause.

        The Supreme Court has developed a number of tests and that is one of the older ones which has fallen out of use. The test we have discussed for a true threat only requires that the target feels endangered or takes precautions and that there was intent to intimidate the victim.

        In any event the clear and present danger argument is probably a weakness in this particular case.
        *Justice Holmes introduced the clear and present danger test in Schenck v. United States, a case involving anti-war leaflets that urged young men to resist the draft during the war with Germany. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0249_0047_ZO.html
        *In Abrams v. United States Holmes wrote a dissenting opinion with regard to a similar case because nobody can suppose that the surreptitious publishing of a silly leaflet by an unknown man, without more, would present any immediate danger that its opinions would hinder the success of the government arms or have any appreciable tendency to do so. and that An intent to prevent interference with the revolution in Russia might have been satisfied without any hindrance to carrying on the war [with Germany] in which we were engaged. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0250_0616_ZD.html

        So, this stupid Op-Ed, without more, doesn’t present a danger of war with the State of Israel; an assassination carried out by one of its agents; or hinder carrying out our sanctions on Iran.

      • DaveS
        DaveS on January 22, 2012, 3:18 pm

        Avi – “clear and present danger” is a judicially created doctrine used to defend a law already enacted that restricts freedom of speech. Its origin was in a World War I era Supreme Court case holding that a law prohibiting speech agitating against the draft was constitutional. To paraphrase Adler, you read that correctly. It was a crime to publicly oppose the draft. The Supreme Court changed the standard for the better in the 1960’s to allow laws that prohibit speech that can lead to “imminent lawless action.” So incitement to riot could be criminal, even if the speaker who urges the riot doesn’t take part. But declaring in a newspaper that assassination is a viable option doesn’t meet that standard. The WWI case proves my point, that restrictions on free speech can lead to some awful results.

        I mostly agree with you “that had Adler been Moslem or Arab, the DoJ would have found a way to indict him on criminal charges,” though I would say “would have been much more likely to.” I’m not really sure they would prosecute, but they would have taken it far more seriously. The “authorities” conduct all these sting/entrapment operations to fabricate criminal plots and recruit the dreaded “Islamists” to join, then trumpet how they are keeping America safe but need to maintain their high level of funding. I would be shocked if they took this Adler incident as a sign to try the same thing among Jewish radicals, that is, recruit some hotheads in a fictional plot to kill Obama.

        The most dramatic contrast in how people are treated by the DoJ can be seen in the Holy Land Foundation case and Friends of the IDF. People who raise money for charities for Palestinians can spend decades behind bars on the theory that they make Hamas look good. People who raise tons of money for the IDF with thousands of deaths on its ledger get to hold their fundraisers at places like the Waldorf Astoria.

        I had been thinking that Adler at least suffered some negative consequences for his actions, with almost universal condemnation from anyone voicing an opinion. Now I’m not so sure. He was a rather obscure figure who has now plastered himself in news reports all over the world. While most of the world thinks he’s either nuts or evil, much of his target audience hails him as a hero. And as they say, even bad press is better than no press.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 22, 2012, 4:26 pm

        “But declaring in a newspaper that assassination is a viable option doesn’t meet that standard…

        I mostly agree with you “that had Adler been Moslem or Arab…”

        Got to love the mastery of the pastry chef how in having to deliver a bitter cake, he covers it with a thick layer of chocolate icing.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 23, 2012, 12:32 am

        Got to love the mastery of the pastry chef how in having to deliver a bitter cake, he covers it with a thick layer of chocolate icing.

        Walid, what Mr. Adler did borders on treason. There are several laws on the books which outlaw writing and publishing anything that says it would be desirable or acceptable to assassinate an officer of the US government; or to say it’s desirable or acceptable to kill anyone for political purposes. Despite our Bill of Rights, the United States has a higher percentage of its citizens in prison than most other countries. I provided an example where two men were acquitted by an international tribunal after being held for 12 years on suspicion of conspiracy and incitement. So, the liberal international establishment doesn’t offer much better protection for inflammatory speech or opinions.

        There is a familiar quote that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, if that’s what the Prosecutor wants. Well, the government can detain a terrorism suspect indefinitely nowadays without much formality. The Secret Service has the authority to detain a person on suspicion of threatening the life of the President too. There are cases in the past where they’ve done that for much less than what Mr. Adler said in this instance. For example, Rev. Rob Schenck was arrested on suspicion of threatening the President for saying “God will hold you to account, Mr. President” in connection with Clinton’s pro-choice views. The difference today is that the Congress has granted the government boundless discretion to label suspects “domestic terrorists” and the Supreme Court doesn’t show much interest in finding out why the government puts some citizens names on kill lists.

        So I still think it’s good legal advice to counsel against doing what Mr Adler did, because in today’s climate, the government might make one of the many possible charges stick.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 23, 2012, 2:40 pm

        “So I still think it’s good legal advice to counsel against doing what Mr Adler did, because in today’s climate, the government might make one of the many possible charges stick.”

        Hostage, I agree. What Adler did was obscene and my first post on this subject on the other thread said so. I’m not excusing what he did but simply saying that it’s being turned into an epic and making a star out of Adler and helping the Zionists to toot their horn. But the pastry chef I mentioned was not Adler.

        My short pseudo-witty post alluded to David having the quality of his faults (that’s a French untranslatable expression) in being overly diplomatic when he camouflaged his disagreement (partly quoted in part 1 of my post) with his compliment that I partly quoted in part 2.

        An enviable mastery of diplomacy by David I wish I had.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 23, 2012, 9:03 pm

        I’m not excusing what he did but simply saying that it’s being turned into an epic and making a star out of Adler

        You’ve just described half of the Supreme Court’s landmark 1st Amendment decisions, e.g. Watts v. United States.

        My short pseudo-witty post alluded to David having the quality of his faults (that’s a French untranslatable expression) in being overly diplomatic when he camouflaged his disagreement

        I understood that, but think that the overall context here would give a Prosecutor, with the inclination, enough ammunition. Briefly:
        *Adler is publishing a characterization of Obama for a Jewish audience that casts him in the role of a rodef. I don’t believe that Brandenburg requires explicit language of incitement, only evidence that the author intended third parties to impose the customary punishment used in cases involving a rodef.
        *Adler publicly confessed that he came up with a list of three scenarios on his own, including one that he outlined to murder the President. He implied that those weren’t the only scenarios when he said “You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.” <— I'm saying that should be construed as a true threat.
        *The Courts have ruled in other cases (Sheikh Rahman) that religious speech which encourages a seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government or assassinate government officials is not protected by the First Amendment.

      • Antidote
        Antidote on January 23, 2012, 9:36 pm

        “It was a crime to publicly oppose the draft.”

        The British government in India made it illegal to publish anything that would “directly or indirectly foment opposition to the prosecution of the war to its successful conclusion.” In reponse, Gandhi launched a campaign of civil disobedience. It was October 26, 1940.

        A follower of Gandhi, Vinoba Bhave, was jailed for public pacifism. Then Jawaharlal Nehru, president of the Indian Congress, made a second pacifist speech, at Gandhi’s request. Nehru was arrested and sentenced to four years in prison with hard labor.

        Lord Halifax drew up a draft of peace terms to offer to Hitler. Someone at the Foreign Office showed the draft to harold Nicolson, who thought it was pathetic – all about God. “I fear so much that we shall now have a peace offer from Hitler which will be difficult to explain away to our people,” he wrote in his diary. It was October 26, 1940.

        Halifax’s peace terms, which granted Austria and parts of Poland and Czechoslovakia to Germany found their way to Generals Halder, Beck, and Brauchitsch. One of Halifax’s stipulations, however — so Halder recalled later — was that Hitler himself was to be assassinated. That was too far for the generals to go, and the offer died.

        from: Human Smoke: the beginnings of World War II, the end of civilization
        By Nicholson Baker (2008)

    • Hostage
      Hostage on January 22, 2012, 1:06 pm

      But I still think criminal prosecution is both extremely unlikely and extremely unwise.

      I agree. There are other statutes that a Prosecutor might employ to get an indictment, but I don’t think the odds of that happening or him being convicted would be any higher.

      Before 9/11, some of these statutes were considered archaic, senescent, or dead letter law as a result of anti-war cases in the 1970s . They were still formally in effect but considered overly broad and weren’t actively enforced, e.g. Title 18, US Code, Sections 2385 (Advocating Overthrow of the Government), 2383 (Rebellion or Insurrection), and 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy). The Patriot Act broadened the definition of domestic terror, included assassinations, and renewed interest in these statutes. So, these days, your guess is as good as mine. The standard drill is to charge a defendant with the whole laundry list a offer a plea agreement to one of the lesser charges.

      TITLE 18 § 2385 Advocating overthrow of Government

      Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government;

      or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so;

      or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002385—-000-.html

      • Walid
        Walid on January 22, 2012, 3:55 pm

        “TITLE 18 § 2385 Advocating overthrow of Government

        Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States ”

        Great but also regrettable that no such law is peventing the US from doing to other governments what it doesn’t want want done to itself.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 23, 2012, 2:00 am

        Great but also regrettable that no such law is peventing the US from doing to other governments what it doesn’t want want done to itself.

        The same Constitution which defines the crime of treason as the act of encouraging or assisting someone to commit an act of war against the United States also delegates the necessary power to the Congress and Executive to declare and wage wars against any foreign enemy or domestic insurrection. So your line of argument is not an affirmative defense, like insanity, that might legally excuse a defendant’s violation of Title 18 § 2385.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 23, 2012, 1:30 pm

        “So your line of argument is not an affirmative defense, like insanity, that might legally excuse a defendant’s violation of Title 18 § 2385.”

        Hostage, take off your librarian hat for a second and try to read into what I’m trying to convey. I’m not pleading anything here but simply making an observation that while there is a law in place to safeguard the US against some form or other of insurgency, it’s regrettable that the same US has no compunction about itself effecting regime changes all over the world. In plain English, the US feels free to make the regime changes it wants in El Salvador, Guatamala, Chile, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Greece, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and so on, but no country is allowed to make a regime change to the US; that’s dirty pool and an affirmation of America’s unjust “loi du plus fort” that’s guiding it down a dark alley.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 23, 2012, 2:19 pm

        Hostage, take off your librarian hat for a second and try to read into what I’m trying to convey.

        Why bother? I’ve written at length about the responsibility of the US and its officials for wrongful acts of state including assassinations and related conspiracies, and wars of aggression in connection with attempts at regime change or to prop-up dictatorships. Here are a few examples:
        *Eisenhower’s invasion of Lebanon:
        *http://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/netanyahu-has-nothing-to-worry-about.html#comment-321527
        Eisenhower’s circumvention of the Geneva Accords on Vietnam and Kennedy’s assassination of Diem
        *http://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/netanyahu-has-nothing-to-worry-about.html#comment-321527
        Regan’s aggression against Nicaragua
        *http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/abbas-at-the-united-nations-a-game-changer-maybe.html#comment-369618
        *Bush aggression against Iraq and Egypt:
        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/abbas-at-the-united-nations-a-game-changer-maybe.html#comment-369552

        P.S. “A person stands a better chance of being tried and judged for killing one human being than for killing 100,000.”
        — José Ayala Lasso, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from “Establishment of an International Criminal Court” at the UN Treaty Organization
        http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/general/overview.htm

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 23, 2012, 3:18 pm

        Walid, I cannot argue with what you say in this comment. Americans have lost whatever soul the had historically, and they simply rush to copy Israel’s soul. They must actually think that supporting Israel right or wrong is what America was made for.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 23, 2012, 5:19 pm

        Hostage, I wasn’t doubting or questioning you; I have total respect for the valuable information you provide. On this issue here, you misread the nature of my post about America’s apparent sole prerogative to make regime changes in the world and you responded accordingly. As to what you wrote, although it did not address the isue I had raised, there’s still no argument from me on the essence of the information you provided.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 23, 2012, 5:38 pm

        “Americans have lost whatever soul the had historically, and they simply rush to copy Israel’s soul. ”

        It may seem odd but despite my never ending criticism of the US because of Israel, I still have a high respect for it. But Israel is dragging it down and making of it a sick old man. Maybe a day will come when Americans wake up and shake themselves loose from this evil body.

    • eljay
      eljay on January 22, 2012, 1:56 pm

      >> [Adler] clearly is trying to create a climate in which killing Obama is a viable option … sentiments are worthy of condemnation and humiliation and ridicule. But I still think criminal prosecution is both extremely unlikely and extremely unwise. The “letter” of his screed is that Israel is contemplating this option (while the “spirit” goes further) but he is not conveying an actual threat, and it would be impossible to meet a reasonable doubt standard to prove that he is.

      Good point. I agree.

  46. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on January 22, 2012, 12:07 pm

    Re Andrew Adler & Mossad: undisciplined outsiders with big mouths often reveal what disciplined insiders are really thinking and planning.

    • Walid
      Walid on January 22, 2012, 3:50 pm

      “Re Andrew Adler & Mossad: undisciplined outsiders with big mouths often reveal what disciplined insiders are really thinking and planning.”

      Are you implying that Adler is spilling the beans on some secret Israeli plot being brewed?

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 22, 2012, 4:58 pm

        Walid,

        Are you an American citizen?

        Most Americans get pretty riled up about incitements to assassinate an American president. That is why the CNN article on this incident has generated nearly 5,000 mostly scathing comments.

        I don’t get the sense that incitements to assassinate American presidents trouble you in the least.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 23, 2012, 12:50 pm

        “Are you an American citizen?”

        NO, I’m not American but I spent lots of time (years) in the States, so I feel very much at home there and with its people, so please don’t preach to me. I stopped liking Obama when he accepted the Nobel, but I like even less Israeli assassins plotting to kill anyone and this includes any Americans as well as their president. But there was no incitement by Adler. Those CNN numbers you are monitoring are playing tricks with your reasoning, Sean, there’s no doubt this Adler guy is a creep for having theorized about killing the president but he is not a lesser a creep for having also theorized about hitting Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran.

        David Samel has already explained why there was no incitement behind this story and so has Woody. You are inadvertently helping fuel this circus for the Zionists rushing to disavow this nobody.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 1:05 pm

        Walid,

        Of which nation or nations are you a citizen? Just curious — that little bit of data helps get the people in discussions about international politics into focus. I am a third-generation American.

        With regard to incitement, these are the two paragraphs in question:

        BEGIN QUOTE

        Give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

        Yes you read [the assassination option] correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?

        END QUOTE

        Adler seems to be enthusiastic about the idea, it stirs his blood (notice that strong push word “obliterate,” delivered with feeling), and he offers not a single objection to the policy proposal.

        The political context: hysteria in neoconservative circles about the urgent need for the United States to attack Iran immediately and rage at the American president who so far has been an obstruction to getting that war underway.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 23, 2012, 3:20 pm

        Walid, I doubt seriously you’ve ever lived among real average Americans. How did you support yourself while you were in USA? Where exactly in the USA did you live? Please be specific.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 23, 2012, 3:20 pm

        “Of which nation or nations are you a citizen?”

        Sean, twice blessed, Lebanese and Canadian.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 4:33 pm

        Walid,

        Thanks for sharing that info. You’re lucky to be the citizen of two such enlightened nations.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 23, 2012, 4:36 pm

        “Please be specific.”

        Why the doubt, Citizen? During younger years, spent full summers and other school holidays at a sister’s house in NYC. Likewise as an adult for most weekends and vacations spent there and all over east coast. Sister eventually moved and I lost the free NYC lodging. If I add up the time spent there, it was years although I was never a permanent resident there.

        I see you posted your question at the same time I posted that I was a Canadian. Maybe that answers your question.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 23, 2012, 7:16 pm

        Yea, it does Walid, you never experienced “fly over country” and had no regular or any interaction with everyday Dick and Jane from working & lower middle class families on Main St USA; and to boot, as an adult you were basically on vacation in USA. I figured as much from your original comment about Americans.

      • Taxi
        Taxi on January 24, 2012, 2:42 am

        Citizen,
        Sometimes an astute outsider CAN see the trees for the forest that you’re in – and Walid is clearly a well-read and keen observer, as his many posts on MW reflect. He brings a helpful perspective even though he may have never taken the 6am bus to work at a freezing Springfield-Illinois coat-hanger factory.

        I’m sure you don’t mean it, citizen, being a well-reasoned and fair man, but your line of ‘personal’ questions to Walid is borderline xenophobic.

        There is nothing politically local no more – thanks to the internet – the wondrous global village that we are live in informs us all equally regardless of our geography.

        The four corners of the world now share the same town-crier.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 24, 2012, 5:35 am

        “… you never experienced “fly over country” and had no regular or any interaction with everyday Dick and Jane from working & lower middle class families on Main St USA.”

        Citizen, no, summers of my youth were not on Main Street but for 2 days a week on East 31st in a shop that bordered being a sweatshop with many everyday seamstresses. You probably also figured wrong where and how I spent my US vacations. What part of the US are you in and where do you vacation?

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 24, 2012, 6:00 am

        Taxi, Walid’s honest general comment about the mindset of Americans on the issue he was discussing struck me as coming from someone who never really lived among, and as most Americans have done, still do. I couldn’t see or hear it coming from deep awareness of America’s “heartland.” I asked Walid those questions to get a better grasp of his actual personal experience in America among Americans. He gave me a sufficient follow-up response to answer to my satisfaction why he said what he did about Americans. I now have no doubt his generalization was true according to his experience.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 24, 2012, 6:32 am

        Thanks, Taxi.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 24, 2012, 6:36 am

        I now live in southern Florida. The main states I’ve lived in are Illinois, Ohio, and NY. I don’t vacation anywhere. I’ve only taken a vacation somewhere maybe a dozen times tops in my 69 years of life, the longest for a week–to visit my parents or brother or a sister. Oh, I forgot, once I visited Mexico for a few days with two buddies from our former army days. I never had a vacation or summer off in undergraduate school, nor in law school. Otherwise, any time off from work I used for practical matters.

      • Taxi
        Taxi on January 24, 2012, 6:57 am

        Citizen,
        Plenty of times I’ve talked to foreigners who turned out to know more about American culture, history and politics than your average American. And I humbly admit to personally being corrected about our history several times by a couple of foreigners.

        My overall impression is that foreigners know more about us than we know about them. Perk of being a hollywood superpower etc. But there is a downside to this too: foreigners end up even learning our language while we remain in the dark and monosyllabic about other countries.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 24, 2012, 7:23 am

        Taxi, why are you telling me this? I totally agree with your overall impression as you’ve stated it. Considering the plethora of avenues of opportunity to all Americans to learn about their own country and the world outside, Americans may be the biggest ignoramuses in history–worse, way too often in my experience they are rather proud of it, at least on the surface.

      • Taxi
        Taxi on January 24, 2012, 9:11 am

        Citizen,
        I’m just making sure you know where I’m coming from – for clarification that’s all.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 10:54 am

        Taxi,

        Of which nation or nations are you a citizen? Ethnicity? Religion? If these are problematic questions for you, as they are for Woody Tanaka, don’t hesitate to pipe up. :)

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 24, 2012, 1:51 pm

        Well, Taxi, no problem here since I am not in the least xenophobic– I can clarify it further, taking the liberty of quoting the keen Kathleen on another recent MW Article thread here:

        There is a new comment to Adelson’s millions come tipped with missiles aimed at Iran.
        Comment Link: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/adelsons-millions-come-tipped-with-missiles-aimed-at-iran.html/comment-page-1#comment-418912
        Author: Kathleen
        Comment:
        “Thanks for the alert about Moyers.
        Zbig rips it up on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning. Speaking about his new book “Strategic Vision.”
        Know the Mondo team and others will be very interested. I have never seen Willie Geist, Heileman listen so intently to anyone. Total silence… The MSNBC Morning Joe team really listened without interrupting. Whoa astounding

        Zbig :
        “I don’t think the (US) decline is inevitable. I think it is avoidable. But it is looming on the horizon. There is a lot of evidence for a relative decline and also an absolute decline in the American standing in the world.”

        He goes on to talk about how he is very interested in the US population being educated about world affairs. Public education about the world.

        Zbig :
        “The fact is we are a democracy we can only conduct a foreign policy that the public supports. The public in America is woefully ignorant about the world.”

        And the Israeli lobby, Israel bank on the American public either being kept in the dark about what is really going on in the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the situation with Iran. When have we ever seen Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett on any of these MSM outlets? Two highly qualified scholars who know a great deal about Iran and one a former CIA middle east analyst. Both who were in Bush 43’s administration.

        Zbig warns:
        “Iran could happen between now and election day. Perhaps in the last three weeks of the elections. Because at that moment if something happens the public opinion would support military action initially”

        And we know why this is so. Because MSNBC, CNN, FOX, NPR etc have helped set the stage for an attack on Iran. They have allowed unsubstantiated and inflammatory claims to be repeated about Iran on their programs that go unchallenged. Some of the host of these shows have not only allowed unsubstantiated claims about Iran to be repeated Terri Gross repeats them herself All of these outlets refuse to educate the public about Iran by having highly qualified experts on about Iran. Instead they keep recycling the very individuals who lied this nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq.

        Zbig:
        “I don’t want the US either stampeded into a war with Iran lets say by an Israeli attack to which the Iranians react probably more against us than against them. Or by a decision by the United States itself reminiscent of the decision to go into the pointless war with Iraq in 2003″

        This is a powerful interview with Zbig”

        And BTW, Taxi I don’t think my many comments over the years justify any fear whatsoever of me being an xenophobe:

        xenophobic – definition of xenophobic by the Free Online Dictionary …
        http://www.thefreedictionary.com/xenophobicxen·o·phobe (z n -f b , z n -). n. A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.

      • Taxi
        Taxi on January 24, 2012, 1:55 pm

        seanmcbride,

        I’m an American who was reared on international politics and mint bonbons.

        I’ve lived in London, Paris, Beirut, Dublin, New York and Los Angeles.

        I usually find personal questions intrusive, but you aksed so nicely my dear that I didn’t wanna be a grinch ’boutit.

      • Taxi
        Taxi on January 24, 2012, 2:15 pm

        Citizen,

        I don’t think you’re a xenophobe – perhaps I shouldn’ta used the word ‘xenophobe’ but I did find your tone and line of questioning a little pushy and unwelcoming of Walid – I have a soft spot for the bothayouz.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 2:29 pm

        Taxi,

        Thanks for the response, and I dig your cosmopolitan profile. :) You have great taste in world cities.

        When I ask this question, I am not trying to be intrusive. It strikes me as valuable — essential really — for participants in heated discussions about identity politics (ethnic, religious and nationalist conflicts in particular) to explain where they are coming from, in the quest for mutual understanding.

        Do you want to flesh out your religious and ethnic profile? (No need to provide real names, Social Security numbers, names of pets, favorite bars, etc. :))

        We are all approaching Mideast political controversies with a wild diversity of cultural backgrounds and biases. I try to keep my own biases in mind at all times and will freely discuss them with anyone who asks. My grounding and orientation by background and choice is largely European/American Enlightenment — and, yes, I know there is a lot of bad baggage with that tradition. But it’s my tradition and I’m sticking to it.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 24, 2012, 2:30 pm

        “I now live in southern Florida”

        Visited Florida often, a beautiful state; I have nieces and nephews living in Miami and Naples. More family elsewhere in Charlotte, Manhattan Beach and Seattle.

      • Taxi
        Taxi on January 24, 2012, 3:40 pm

        seanmcbride,
        Ethinicity? Let’s just say there are redheads, blondes and brunets in my family – we have brown, green and blue eyes in the mix – all shades between snowy to wheat colored skin – also freckles, moles and strawberry birthmarks are noted on both sides of my family. I have family members who’ve married Africans and Chinese and so I’m related by blood now to their kids and therefore also to their continental relations (thousands of them!). A portrait of my gathered family would look like the United Colors of Beniton on steroids.

        Religion? Naah. Prefer reading poetry for that faint peek at the mysterious unfathomable.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 7:23 pm

        Taxi,

        Sounds like you’ve got a wonderful family, and one that is on the cutting edge of trans-cultural and trans-ethnic integration — which is where I think human civilization is moving in general — towards the dissolution of traditional ethnic categories.

        This is one of several reasons why I think Zionism is on the wrong side of history — ethnic self-ghettoization is not where it’s at in the contemporary world. Let’s mingle, people, and share our best gifts.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 11:13 am

        Walid,

        You wrote: “Are you implying that Adler is spilling the beans on some secret Israeli plot being brewed?”

        No, that obviously wasn’t my assertion or implication — Adler is, as I clearly wrote, an OUTSIDER (presumably) — not in the Mossad loop. Sometimes zealots who are outside the loop give voice to sentiments and ideas that are held by zealots who are inside the loop. Dark dreams and imaginings that are moiling around in the minds of leaders of political groups sometimes leak into view from unexpected sources.

        The larger question: would Mossad run black ops (including assassination ops) against American presidents? According to Victor Ostrovsky, a Mossad insider, they took a close look at assassinating George H.W. Bush back when he and James Baker were promoting the Mideast peace process and the two-state solution. Is Ostrovsky credible? I can’t be sure. Something to think about.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 23, 2012, 1:02 pm

        “The larger question: would Mossad run black ops (including assassination ops) against American presidents? ”

        Did Israelis attack an American navy ship?

        Did Israelis bomb the Baghdad souk to spook the Jews into fleeing?

        Did Israelis bomb the Magen Avraham Synagogue in Beirut to do spook Jews?

        Did Israelis pull the Lavon false flag stunt in Cairo?

        Did Israelis conspire with the French and Brits to recapture Suez?

        Did Israelis have anything to do with Sabra and Shatila?

        Did Israelis have anything to do with the Hariri assassination in Beirut?

      • Avi_G.
        Avi_G. on January 23, 2012, 1:25 pm

        Is Ostrovsky credible? I can’t be sure. Something to think about.

        Sean,

        You are mentioning the so-called peace process but are leaving out the loan guarantees affair.

        Nonetheless, even if for the purposes of this debate one assumed that Ostrovsky wasn’t credible, the panic displayed by the likes of Chuck Schumer and other prominent Zionists in the American establishment, as well as on the streets of New York, alludes to the sense of both alarm and resentment that the Israeli leadership felt toward Bush Sr. at the time. Yitzhak Shamir was foaming at the mouth during statements he gave to the Israeli press at the time (1990/1991).

        And Israel was already angry with the U.S. when Bush pressured Israel to refrain from attacking Iraq as he feared that Israeli involvement would undermine the coalition which included Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 2:21 pm

        Avi_G.,

        I knew about the loan guarantees issue — Bush and Baker blocked them as a means to pressure Israel to rein in its settlements program.

        Yitzhak Shamir, the former proud Jewish terrorist and former Mossad head, went ballistic over the Bush/Baker policy. We know how Shamir usually dealt with political enemies — he murdered them. Business as usual for the Israeli government in general.

        Victor Ostrovsky seems to be quite credible. It strikes me as believable that the Shamir regime might have developed a scheme to assassinate Bush while setting up Palestinians as the patsy — a classical false flag op of the type to which Israelis seem to be addicted.

        Andrew Adler is believable when he claims that Israel may be plotting to assassinate Barack Obama.

        Of course what is most disturbing about Adler, and the point which Woody Tanaka and Walid continue to miss, is that Adler is encouraging this policy, trying to push it along towards fruition.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 23, 2012, 3:23 pm

        You also have to consider who benefited most from the murder of JFK, and the murder of his apparent murderer before he could speak significantly with enough time to the charges leveled against him? At the time JFK was pressing Israel to let inspectors into Israel as JFK was adamant Israel should not get the bomb. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not… Israel got the bomb about a month after JFK was murdered.

      • MRW
        MRW on January 23, 2012, 3:32 pm

        Sean,

        ”Is Ostrovsky credible? I can’t be sure.”

        I’ll tell you who was 100% credible: Claire Hoy, the guy who wrote Ostrovsky’s first book, in which O. spilled the beans. Hoy was (is) an established respected Canadian parliamentary journalist (or like a Bill Moyers/Woodward/Bernstein/Teddy White type) who only agreed to take on Ostrovsky’s project if he absolute control over vetting sources and source documents. And he would not put anything in the book that he could not confirm. [That was one reason why Ostrovsky wrote the second book without him, according to O. who explained this anecdotally in a talk later.] All of this is in the intro to O’s 1st book. I seriously doubt Israel would have filed lawsuits in the US and Canada to ban publication if concern was unwarranted.
        http://cwrtkingston.phpwebhosting.com/Hoy.htm

      • Avi_G.
        Avi_G. on January 23, 2012, 4:27 pm

        Of course what is most disturbing about Adler, and the point which Woody Tanaka and Walid continue to miss, is that Adler is encouraging this policy, trying to push it along towards fruition.

        And that brings us back to two issues: (1) Israel firsters who claim to be loyal to the US, and (2) Israel as an ungrateful and abusive ally. With friends like Israel, the U.S. doesn’t need enemies.

      • Walid
        Walid on January 24, 2012, 1:18 am

        “At the time JFK was pressing Israel to let inspectors into Israel as JFK was adamant Israel should not get the bomb.”

        Citizen, that’s my explanation but we can’t totally discount JFK’s extensive hit list that landed him on the hit list of many that stood to profit. But I’d still pick the most dastard Israel.

  47. patm
    patm on January 23, 2012, 8:54 am

    Canada’s Globe and Mail has a front page item on the Adler article. It currently has 1400 comments.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/assassinate-obama-if-he-wont-attack-iran-for-israel-jewish-monthly-suggests/article2310783/

    • seanmcbride
      seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 9:24 am

      As of a few minutes ago, the New York Times and Washington Post *still* haven’t mentioned this story, which beggars belief. The CNN story on Adler will probably pass the 5,000 mark on comments within a hour.

      Everything one needs to know about the severe warpage and bias of the American mainstream media can be found in how this story is being handled.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 10:31 am

        Ok — there are now 5,009 comments on the story “Jewish paper’s column catches Secret Service’s eye” at CNN:

        http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/21/us/jewish-president-threat/

        I can’t recall ever seeing more than 3,500 comments on any story or post anywhere on the net. The New York Times and Washington Post can’t claim that this story isn’t newsworthy.

  48. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 1:14 pm

    Richard Witty is a Chabadnik

    Interesting: while looking into discussion on Andrew Adler on +972 I discovered that Richard Witty is an Chabadnik (and therefore a religious Zionist):

    http://972mag.com/u-s-publisher-who-called-for-obama-assassination-proves-israel-firsters-exist/33484/

    BEGIN QUOTE

    Richard Witty
    Saturday,
    January 21, 2012
    3:28 pm

    Adler should be imprisoned for urging anyone even in a “parody” to shoot the president.

    But, Gurvitz (sorry to use your last name, your post was grossly offensive to me) should be criticized for generalizing about the chabad movement, and then publishing his generalization, his implication that they should be dismissed or silenced, or that they are anywhere near monolithic.

    I am an assertively liberal Zionist Jew. I pray with the chabad community in my home town. My son is a chabadnik.

    I’ve heard racism uttered by chabadniks, and I’ve seen chabadniks protect victims of racism.

    If you want to influence the world for the best, you would encourage a vigorous religious discussion on the treatment of Palestinians, and on the concept of defense of Israel, and empower and encourage those voices that assert a religiously based kindness towards neighbors, including within Chabad. And, they are there.

    Not a contempt of religious discussion at all.

    END QUOTE

    Some of the most extreme right-wing religious Zionists I have encountered have been ardent Chabadniks.

    More:

    BEGIN QUOTE

    Richard Witty
    Sunday,
    January 22, 2012
    4:43 am

    The picture of him [Andrew Adler] without a yarmulke even is a giveaway.

    Not all chabadniks dress in black, but I’ve not seen one without a yarmulke, ever.

    END QUOTE

  49. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 2:28 pm

    “Atlanta Jewish Times publisher resigns over Obama assassination column”

    http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/01/23/3091312/atlanta-jewish-times-publisher-resigns-over-obama-assassination-column

    BEGIN QUOTE

    The owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times has resigned and is seeking a buyer in the wake of a column he wrote speculating that Israel would consider assassinating President Obama.

    Andrew Adler, in an email obtained by JTA, announced Monday that he is “relinquishing all day-to-day activities effective immediately” following the publishing of his opinion piece saying that Obama’s assassination was among Israel’s options in heading off a nuclear Iran….

    The Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta said earlier Monday that it would suspend its relationship with the Atlanta Jewish Times until Adler removed himself from the newspaper’s operations. The federation also called on Adler to sell the weekly.

    “While we acknowledge his public apology and remorse, the damage done to the people of Israel, the global Jewish people, and especially the Jewish Community of Atlanta is irreparable,” the Atlanta federation said in a statement issued Monday to constituent groups.

    END QUOTE

    • LeaNder
      LeaNder on January 23, 2012, 3:58 pm

      actually RW studied 40 years with Ananda Marga. He married his wife twice first according to Indian custom and then back in the US he had a Jewish wedding. I somehow had the impression that his sons choice made him choose Chabad, or maybe it were the famous mother’s genes:

      To my mind, the Jewish mission, the covenant of Jewish obligation to cultivate the sensitivity and skillsets to make whole what is disparate is critical to continue. I will and do “teach my children”, both racially through mother’s genes and culturally through pragmatic compassion, prayer and good deeds

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 7:27 pm

        LeaNder,

        Hasn’t the case been made definitively that Chabadism is a racist ideology? One might even say a virulently racist ideology?

        I’ve encountered a fair number of Chabadniks who were indistinguishable from Kahanists. In fact, they were proudly self-avowed Kahanists.

        Google [chabad racism]

        http://www.google.com/#q=chabad+racism

        In some ways, Chabadniks (who are fundamentalist religious Zionists) remind one a great deal of Christian Zionists — and, in fact, one gets the impression that these two messianic Old Testament cults engage in quite a bit of political coordination on the American scene.

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty on January 23, 2012, 8:57 pm

        You have a memory LeanDor.

        I was involved with Ananda Marga mostly on, not always, from 1973 – around 1997 or so.

        Ananda Marga has very diverging views expressed, from the most progressive of any, to periodic fascism and fanatic.

        My son introduced me to chabad and to serious Jewish practice and study, which I do inconsistently currently.

        I combine the emphasis in Ananda Marga on ethical practice and monist theology, with the Jewish emphasis on ethical practice and monist theology.

        Both also have a sense of “chosenness”, in the sense of responsibility to attempt to heal the planet. Ananda Marga has a concept of sadvipra, which is taught as a turner of history. Jewish teachings are more of the nature of “all my relations”, or “tikun olam”.

        I find the Jewish to be more relevant to my life, more harmonious with my deeper views. Both are serious and important.

        Both need continuous reminders to keep their eyes on the prize.

        Both are positive in orientation, meaning that they propose, more than they oppose.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 10:48 am

        LeaNder,

        Did Richard Witty write this?

        “I will and do “teach my children”, both racially through mother’s genes….”

        How does one teach children “racially”? Is Judaism a racialist ideology according to Witty?

      • eljay
        eljay on January 24, 2012, 11:06 am

        Question:
        >> How does one teach children “racially”?

        Answer:
        >> I cannot consistently say that “ethnic cleansing is never necessary”.
        >> If I was an adult in 1948, I probably would have supported whatever it took to create the state of Israel, and held my nose at actions that I could not possibly do myself.
        >> The nakba [sic] that occurred in 1948 was accompanied by the independence, the liberation, of the Jewish community. So, I primarily celebrate …

    • Hostage
      Hostage on January 23, 2012, 9:22 pm

      The owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times has resigned and is seeking a buyer . . . The Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta said earlier Monday that it would suspend its relationship with the Atlanta Jewish Times until Adler removed himself from the newspaper’s operations.

      Of course the forfeiture provisions of the Patriot Act would allow the authorities to seize the assets of any individual, network, or organization planning to commit acts of terrorism against the U.S.

  50. Citizen
    Citizen on January 23, 2012, 3:30 pm

    Here’s a mail message sent directly to Adler by a young Jewish American, which I posted in full on another thread here today–it’s well worth reading, especially by those who are minimizing Adler’s feat, and most especially by the religious Zionist, Richard Witty: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/20/dear-editor-of-the-jewish-times-please-re-think-your-call-to-assassinate-obama/

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/20/dear-editor-of-the-jewish-times-please-re-think-your-call-to-assassinate-obama/

    • patm
      patm on January 23, 2012, 4:38 pm

      That is one terrific letter to Andrew Adler, Citizen! WOW!!

      One correction though: Dr. Kevin Barrett isn’t a young man. Check the top of the Veterans Today site and you’ll see a black and white photo of him which seems to indicate a man of at least middling years.

      The photo of the young man beside the letter is perhaps the fellow caught with evil intent near the white house in recent weeks.

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/20/dear-editor-of-the-jewish-times-please-re-think-your-call-to-assassinate-obama/

    • eljay
      eljay on January 23, 2012, 10:25 pm

      >> Here’s a mail message sent directly to Adler by a young Jewish American …

      Terrific letter! Thanks for the link.

      >> … it’s well worth reading, especially by those who are minimizing Adler’s feat, and most especially by the religious Zionist, Richard Witty …

      RW will either ignore it or distort its message. Either way, he will remain confident in his hateful and immoral Zio-supremacism.

  51. The Hasbara Buster
    The Hasbara Buster on January 23, 2012, 4:27 pm

    There was a time when Jews were expected to shut up and follow along. Not any longer. Thanks to Israel, Jews like Adler are speaking their mind now, and the antisemites are not liking it.

    • Citizen
      Citizen on January 23, 2012, 6:08 pm

      Yeah, let Hasbara Buster and his ilk get Obama shot in the same way that type of Jewish ilk got Rabin shot in Israel: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/21/orders-from-tel-aviv-murder-obama/

    • annie
      annie on January 23, 2012, 6:29 pm

      Jews like Adler are speaking their mind now, and the antisemites are not liking it.

      you talkin about abe foxman or the AJC hasbrat?

    • The Hasbara Buster
      The Hasbara Buster on January 23, 2012, 7:42 pm

      For God’s sake, fellows, it was IRONY!!

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 23, 2012, 9:44 pm

        The Hasbara Buster,

        Hey — I knew your comment was ironic from the moment I read it because I remembered some of your earlier comments. It’s all good, brother. :) Be well.

      • annie
        annie on January 23, 2012, 9:48 pm

        what a relief! sorry sorry. i did think to myself , i didn’t think he was like that.

    • DaveS
      DaveS on January 23, 2012, 7:48 pm

      Ibrahim (Hasbara Buster) – long time no see! How are you doing on the other side of the world? I must say I LOL’ed when I read your comment, but I am not surprised that Citizen and Annie did not get the sarcasm. It’s happened to me on several occasions (and still I am not deterred), and you gave no hint, other than your history, that you were kidding.

      • The Hasbara Buster
        The Hasbara Buster on January 23, 2012, 10:55 pm

        Thank you, David. I wanted to play on the Zionist concept that thanks to Israel Jews elsewhere can be assertive, and that we oppose Israel because we want them to be submissive.

        Can you suggest a better wording for the admittedly failed joke?

      • DaveS
        DaveS on January 24, 2012, 8:57 am

        HB, your wording was perfect, but almost every attempt I have made at humor has been misinterpreted by one or more others, and usually sharp people like Citizen and Annie. Maybe your comment was a little too good. Though absurd, it brilliantly captured the mindset you tried to portray. In fact, had it not been someone I knew, I might have thought it serious myself. I would have been shocked if no one was fooled. You can always go with the “wink” emoticon, but I prefer not to.

      • Antidote
        Antidote on January 24, 2012, 9:04 am

        “Can you suggest a better wording for the admittedly failed joke?”

        The more I think about it, the better it looks. Flawless. Eliciting the split reaction you’d expect from hitting the problem spot on.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 9:52 am

        I hate using emoticons to signal irony but I’ve found through bitter experience that the failure to do so can lead to messy misunderstandings and complications. :) I thought that HB’s piece of wit was perfectly structured and nuanced.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 24, 2012, 2:46 pm

        David Samel, it’s not always the actual case that when a woman protests “he should be able to read my mind (by now)”, that she is wise, and he an utter fool–or visa vera.

  52. DaveS
    DaveS on January 24, 2012, 9:16 am

    Having read Hostage’s exposition of the law, I am convinced that an overly aggressive prosecutor could make some hay with this column. I think the defense that Adler was musing about the minds of Israeli leaders would probably prevail, though it is rather clear to me that he was actively trying to move public discussion of this option into the mainstream. My guess is that he also was trying to vault himself into the spotlight by making a bold proposal, and stupidly did not expect such universal negative fallout. As much as I detest this jerk, I would hate to see an actual prosecution. Interestingly, I could easily see a MW poster with a completely different perspective suggesting that Bibi et al might be considering an assassination of Obama. It would be easy for all of us to see the difference between Adler’s speech and such a hypothetical MW post, but more difficult to place a legal line between the two so that one is criminal and the other not. And as I said before, the first victims of an erosion of our civil liberties will not be people with Adler’s views, but more likely people opposed to him.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka on January 24, 2012, 10:24 am

      “Having read Hostage’s exposition of the law, I am convinced that an overly aggressive prosecutor could make some hay with this column.”

      Don’t be. He’s wrong. Such a prosecutor would be risking sanction or worse.

      “though it is rather clear to me that he was actively trying to move public discussion of this option into the mainstream.”

      There is nothing illegal in that. The notion that it is somehow a crime to talk about the assassination of the president is false. One could favor it, talk about it, and even express a wish that it be carried out and it is still — in the absence of a clear and present danger, and so long as it is in the realm of discussing an idea — wholly and completely protected by the First Amendment.

      “It would be easy for all of us to see the difference between Adler’s speech and such a hypothetical MW post, but more difficult to place a legal line between the two so that one is criminal and the other not.”

      Because there is no such line. it would be completely legal in both cases.

      “And as I said before, the first victims of an erosion of our civil liberties will not be people with Adler’s views, but more likely people opposed to him.”

      We all lose when civil liberties are eroded for anybody. And that is why the principle must be supreme. One who is not willing to uphold absolute freedom of expression for those who are espousing views he hates is the enemy, because that person does not have a principle, he merely has a position. And woe be to all of us, if that person decides that OUR view is next on the list of those which don’t “deserve” protection.

      • Hostage
        Hostage on January 24, 2012, 12:57 pm

        “though it is rather clear to me that he was actively trying to move public discussion of this option into the mainstream.” . . . There is nothing illegal in that.

        It is hard to boil the issue down to a sound bite, but the problem I’ve been trying to explain as the Devil’s advocate is this:
        *The Congress intends for threats to assassinate government officials to be criminalized and has adopted statutes to accomplish that objective.

        *The are two related lines of 1st Amendment cases. One line tends to give you permission to express your views and say that overthrowing the government (in general terms) is a desirable thing, so long as there is no incitement directed at third parties to commit violent acts or imminent threat of physical harm to anyone. The other line of cases says the First Amendment doesn’t apply to true threats (at all) and that you are not allowed to intimidate someone and make them feel endangered – even in the absence of incitement or intent to cause harm.

        *So your free speech rights are not unqualified under any line of judicial precedents. If the facts of a particular case allow the Prosecutor to apply the second theory on true threats, then the Court would have to balance the right to express the view that the overthrow of the government is acceptable or desirable with the fact that true threats cannot be employed to do that. A further complicating factor is that the Courts have specifically ruled that encouraging, inducing, or conspiring to advocate a violent overthrow of the government by assassinating government officials is still illegal and that the State has the right to criminalize such speech.

        *The Congress has revised the public law sources of Title 18 Chapter 115 – Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities several times since the attacks on the World Trade Center. They have never altered the text of section 2385.

        *The Congress has enacted a series of laws giving the Chief Executive almost boundless discretion to designate individuals that threaten violence against the US government or its citizens as criminals and to subject them to indefinite detention without charge or trial.

        *I don’t know how you could ever have a serious discussion about the desirability of murdering someone in a non-intimidating way.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 24, 2012, 4:04 pm

        Woody, I agree with you that the American 1st Amendment is designed specifically to protect political speech, and any speech that is not the majority view (or government view–it’s not always the same) at any given time–we don’t need the 1st Amendment for speech that simply praises the status quo.

    • seanmcbride
      seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 11:11 am

      David Samel,

      Under the current Soviet-style and Nazi-style police state culture that neoconservatives are pushing on Americans through various legislative violations of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, might not Obama be fully justified in picking up, detaining, torturing and executing anyone who advocated his assassination without due process or public knowledge? Wouldn’t it be easy for the powers that be, in their minds, to define them as anti-American terrorists?

      The neocons are relentlessly and rapidly driving American culture and the American political system in this direction.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 3:28 pm

        Interesting comment from Ynet News:

        http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/App/TalkBack/CdaViewOpenTalkBack/0,11382,L-4179929,00.html

        BEGIN QUOTE

        Do You Realise That Under The ….
        Recently Passed US National Defense Authorization Act Mr Adler could have been picked up by the US military, put on an airplane, flown to any number of secret prisons like Guantanamo, put in a cage, tortured and executed with no arrest, no charges, no trial, no record of his demise? There are no 1st Amendment rights in the USA anymore. Mr.Adler got off lucky because he is a Jew. If he had been an Arab, Muslim, a black or poor white he would already be on his way to Guantanamo.

        END QUOTE

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 24, 2012, 4:29 pm

        Yes, seanmcbride, yes, that is what is happening in the USA.

  53. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 12:52 pm

    “Is there a bigger message in the Atlanta Jewish Times fiasco?”

    Ron Kampeas

    http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2012/01/23/3091318/is-there-a-bigger-message-in-the-atlanta-jewish-times-fiasco

    BEGIN QUOTE

    J Street, the Union for Reform Judaism, Americans for Peace Now and the Anti-Defamation League seem to agree that the Atlanta Jewish Times column speculating that Israel would consider assassinating Barack Obama has broader implications.

    Here’s J Street:

    The extremism evinced by the Atlanta Jewish Times’ editor is enabled by a broader communal atmosphere in which critics of Israeli governmental policy are regularly called anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic.

    While we welcome the outrage that is being focused around this latest incident, we hope that the American Jewish community will take this opportunity to consider the state of discourse over Israel more broadly.

    We need to temper the rhetoric and recognize that disagreements over policy do not justify the vilification and smears that they too often bring.

    We urge the community’s leadership to address this broader phenomenon directly and in a coordinated and meaningful manner.”

    The ADL is a little more circumspect, but also wonders whether Adler was reflecting rather than initiating extremist thinking:

    Irresponsible rhetoric metastasizes into more dangerous rhetoric. The ideas expressed in Mr. Adler’s column reflect some of the extremist rhetoric that unfortunately exists — even in some segments of our community — that maliciously labels President Obama as an ‘enemy of the Jewish people.’

    Here’s APN, like the ADL, a little more circumspect:

    Words have consequences. Calls for murder may have disastrous consequences. We believe that people in positions of power – politicians, clerics, journalists or other opinion leaders, on all sides, bear a heavy responsibility of avoiding incendiary rhetoric.

    END QUOTE

    • Citizen
      Citizen on January 24, 2012, 3:07 pm

      Yes, seanmcbride, consider merely the murder of the Archduke that was used as a match for WW1, which resolution lead directly to WW2, and now we have war on Iran being pursued, which may lead to WW3. This guy Adler is totally irresponsible, to say the absolute least.

  54. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 1:57 pm

    “Atlanta Jewish Times Publisher Steps Down Over Obama ‘Hit’ Column”

    http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/01/23/atlanta-jewish-times-publisher-steps-down-over-obama-hit-column/

    Check out the fascinating set of comments, many of which are alarming in two ways:

    1. Zionism does indeed seem to be stirring up major antisemitic currents in American political life.

    2. There are indeed extremists out there who heard Andrew Adler’s call to assassinate Obama as a dog whistle. They think Obama’s got what’s coming to him.

    How will this all end?

  55. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 6:36 pm

    Adler video interview

    Maybe I’m a softy, but I feel really sorry for Adler. Check out the video embedded in the article below. I don’t think he’s a monster. But he is seriously confused.

    The interviewer did an impressive job of permitting him to speak and express his remorse.

    Lesson learned: Israel is leading many Diaspora Jews down the garden path by relentlessly pushing their fear and panic buttons. Adler almost appears to be a victim here.

    TITLE Adler’s Tearful On-Air Apology: ‘Call Me Naive’

    URL http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/150155/

    AUTHOR J.J. Goldberg

    PUBLICATION Forward

    BEGIN QUOTE

    One of the most intriguing threads is his recollection of his January 15 interview with Israel’s deputy consul general in Atlanta. Toward the end, he says, “she wanted to talk about Iran”:

    “I forget what she said, but it wasn’t a pleasant ending if we don’t wake up to what’s happening.”

    Again, as I wrote in my post last night, this is the end result of a campaign of incitement. The very healthy instinct among American Jews to want the best for Israel is exploited, fed with a deliberately exaggerated sense of threat and vulnerability, until anything seems imaginable. Let’s be clear: there is a real threat. But it’s less than it was a generation ago. And yet it seems that as the threat declines, the rage grows.

    END QUOTE

    • seanmcbride
      seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 6:59 pm

      The woman who did the interview — she’s a good person. That’s what I call Jewish — thoughtful and compassionate.

      If Adler was a defiant ranter and fanatic, we would rightly despise him. But he isn’t. He seems like a gentle person whose buttons have been cynically pushed by people who aren’t so nice.

    • annie
      annie on January 24, 2012, 7:14 pm

      thanks sean. i just put that up in a post, not sure if they will publish it but it is worth watching. for some reason i didn’t imagine his appearance like that.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 7:26 pm

        Annie,

        My heart went out to him. I say, be merciful to him. Give him a break. He has more than learned his lesson.

  56. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 7:04 pm

    Has anyone else noticed comments not making it to your email account through Disqus? I just turned up a batch of them by eyeballing the entire thread here (which is huge by now).

    If I haven’t replied to comments that were directed to me, this is the reason.

    If Woody hadn’t mentioned his comment with the term “atheist” (which I searched for and found in Firefox), I wouldn’t have realized what was going on. Anyway, heads up.

  57. patm
    patm on January 24, 2012, 7:22 pm

    Has anyone else noticed comments not making it to your email account through Disqus?

    Disqus isn’t a Canadian company that I know of, but I do find Mondo emails in my spam account from time to time. After reading your post now, I checked and found two from Jan 17.

    • seanmcbride
      seanmcbride on January 24, 2012, 7:30 pm

      patm,

      The best workaround I’ve found for this problem (not perfect, but it works): use your browser’s find command to search on the current day, for instance “january 24” — I just found more than a dozen good comments that I had overlooked because they didn’t reach me in email.

Leave a Reply