Ann Coulter is a vile, despicable person... on Hannity she said, ""There was the shooting at Kent State," Coulter said. "And gosh I know liberals don't like it and you look at Nexis and 'it was embarrassing for the whole country.' I'm not embarrassed; that's what you do with the mob. They were monstrous at Kent State."
one of those killed Sandra Lee Scheuer; age 20; was over 390 ft from the demonstration, on her way to class. Classes had not been canceled. At no time during the disturbances did she take part in any demonstration.
I personally don't think that she believes half the stuff that she says. It's over the top schtick and she's laughing at us majorly (obviously, I could be wrong).
okjimm said: "one of those killed Sandra Lee Scheuer; age 20; was over 390 ft from the demonstration"
The ultimate blame for this lies with those who organized the protest (violent thugs). They caused the situation there. Imagine if they had stayed home instead of committing serious assaultive felonies.
instead of committing serious assaultive felonies.
You do not mean Gov Rhodes "shouldn't" have called in the National Guard who actually did the shooting and murder of unarmed US Citizens for exercising their constitutional rights, members of the US Armed forces swore to uphold and defend, do you?
The Kent State shootings—also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis. Two of the four students killed, Allison Krause and Jeffrey Miller, had participated in the protest, and the other two, Sandra Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder, had been walking from one class to the next at the time of their deaths. Schroeder was also a member of the campus ROTC chapter. Of those wounded, none was closer than 71 feet to the guardsmen. Of those killed, the nearest (Miller) was 265 feet away, and their average distance from the guardsmen was 345 feet.
On June 13, 1970, as a consequence of the killings of protesting students at Kent State and Jackson State, President Nixon established the President's Commission on Campus Unrest, known as the Scranton Commission, which he charged to study the dissent, disorder, and violence breaking out on college and university campuses across the nation.
The Commission issued its findings in a September 1970 report that concluded that the Ohio National Guard shootings on May 4, 1970, were unjustified. The report said:
Even if the guardsmen faced danger, it was not a danger that called for lethal force. The 61 shots by 28 guardsmen certainly cannot be justified. Apparently, no order to fire was given, and there was inadequate fire control discipline on Blanket Hill. The Kent State tragedy must mark the last time that, as a matter of course, loaded rifles are issued to guardsmen confronting student demonstrators.
Seems a little over the top using M-14 against unarmed people hundreds of feet away from the seemingly quivering gaurdsman (according to their statement they feared for their lives), unless your an appologists for the illegal actrs afgainst Americans who protested the Illegal War in Vietnam.
Cause the real felony is using the National Guard to suppress the rights of US Citizens when they are protesting the War Crimes of the sitting president.
IE The Kent State protests were about the ILLEGAL invasion of Cambodia ordered by Richard Nixon. You wouldn't suggest it is OK to use the government resources, IE the National Guard, to attack US Citizens just because who ever is sitting in the oval office (or Governors Mansion) doesn't like what other Americans want to use their Constitutionally protected first Amendment rights to express.
Sorry but people freely expressing their views is OK according to the US Constitution.
Government repression and attacks including murder by government agents is NOT OK according to the US Constitution.
Dmarks.... I really don't think you understand what Kent was... what Nam was.... So just don't give me a knee jerk reaction.... just don't....... I know what I know... and I KNOW where I have been... go away... don't say anything
No. of course not. I was referring to the violent instigators who torched buildings (a serious assaultive felony) and launched a riot. This had nothing to do with anyone exercising their constitutuonal rights.
"Gov Rhodes "shouldn't" have called in the National Guard who actually did the shooting"
He should have called them in, and he would have been remiss if he hadn't. Remember, it was the protesters who started this violence, and forced the National Guard to shoot, the protesters knowing full well that innocent people might be harmed
That you use the word "murder" for unintended manslaughter shows oyu know nothing of the meaning of such words, or the legal system.
"Cause the real felony is using the National Guard to suppress the rights of US Citizens when they are protesting the War Crimes of the sitting president."
There were no war crimes. You are quite simply lying. Using pure imagination.
OKjimm: I know full well what it was. A bunch of thugs who started an orgy of violence which got out of hand. The thugs were the protesters.
it was the protesters who started this violence, and forced the National Guard to shoot,
Not according to Richard Nixon's own commission, to wit;
The Commission issued its findings in a September 1970 report that concluded that the Ohio National Guard shootings on May 4, 1970, were unjustified. The report said:
Even if the guardsmen faced danger, it was not a danger that called for lethal force. The 61 shots by 28 guardsmen certainly cannot be justified. Apparently, no order to fire was given, and there was inadequate fire control discipline on Blanket Hill. The Kent State tragedy must mark the last time that, as a matter of course, loaded rifles are issued to guardsmen confronting student demonstrators.
It seems historical fact as determined by people who were there at the time means nothing to far right wing fringe historical revisionists, whether you or Ann Coulter.
I'm not as versed on this Kent State saga as you fellows are. So, please, forgive me if this is a stupid question. Why didn't they use tear gas, water, or rubber bullets to try and break this thing up? Why did they have to use lethal force?
At the time will, rubber bullets were not an option, non lethal force for military fire arms hadn't been invented yet, and at the time the National Guard carried the M-14 Garand .30 cal weapon.
Most rubber bullets were fired from shotgun type weapons, single fire rubber bullets came later. I do not know why batons instead of M-14's weren't chosen for units on anti riot activities, much better device to use on people especially if used in a coordinated way with tactics. Yes injuries can happen but not lethal injuries hundreds of feet away on students who aren't part of the problem but simply going to class like they were supposed to do.
Also the use of fire hose water cannons hadn't been used by Military Units at the time, and since the National Guard not local law enforcement units (which would have had more counter civil disobedience training along those lines), that wasn't a trained option for the local NG commander. The local law enforcement officials had already admitted they couldn't control the situation and asked for the NG to be called in.
They did use tear gas but due to the size of the area and weather conditions it wasn't effective at dispersing the students.
The NG units called up were combat infantry and calvary units, not MP units which would have had much better training to actually deal with civil disobedience. (The Ohio NG had a MP battalion stations at the Youngston Armory at the time)
One thing not discussed is some of the guardsman who were deployed to Kent state had just the day before been patrolling Akron Ohio during a truckers strike, where truckers DID fire weapons at non striking truckers and National Guard troops protecting the non strikers.
At the time of Kent state shootings the Ohio NG had units at OSU in Columbus, still at Akron, Cleveland (also for the truckers strike), and of course Kent state. Almost all the NG in Ohio was at one of those four places.
Sorry, anon, the uninformed opinions of armchair attorneys like you that a justified and legal action is "illegal" don't count at all.
"Richard Nixon illegally invaded Cambodia using US Military forces."
North Vietnam first invaded Cambodia to use as a base against South Vietnam. They brought the war to Cambodia. If any invasion was illegal, it was that one.
"Nixon is as much a war criminal as Saddam"
Silly, uninformed armchair attorney stuff.
"even if the idea that upsets your obvious far right wing fringe sensibilities."
I have no far right fringe sensibilities. I detest the far right as much as the far left.
"Invading Cambodia for Nixon is like invading Kuwait was for Saddam, a war crime."
And in reality, neither was. But it seems you make up any lie to justify aggression.
Actually, Anon, nothing you said contradicts the fact that
"it was the protesters who started this violence, and forced the National Guard to shoot"
If not for the violent actions of the protesters, the Guard would not have been there at all.
"The Commission issued its findings in a September 1970 report that concluded that the Ohio National Guard shootings on May 4, 1970, were unjustified."
Of course. Innocent people died. The shootings were unjustified. I fully support any reasonable actions against those in the National Guard. This does not change the fact that the violence by the protesters created the situation in which a tragic accident like this could occur.
"It seems historical fact as determined by people who were there at the time means nothing to far right wing fringe historical revisionists, whether you or Ann Coulter."
I am not on the far right, nor am I revisionist. I am referring to what actually happened. No silly opinions such as your "war criminal" slander claim about events you know nothing of.
I did google the fanciful claim that Nixon was war criminal, and find that it mainly comes from a famous linguist. An authority on linguistics, but a rank amateur armchair attorney on other matters.
Sorry dmarks you seem to be totally uniformed as to what constitutes a war crime according to international law(IE the law we used against Saddam in 1990).
As to the forced to shoot claim, that is bullcrap, and Nixon's own commission stated so, unjustified means they didn't face enough danger to justify their pulling a trigger against unarmed US citizens, hence were not "forced" to shoot by anyone.
The uninformed opinions of armchair attorneys like you that a unjustified and illegal action is "legal" doesn't count at all.
Especially if an amatuer armchair legalist like you chooses to ignore relevant law and legal decisions.
Most interesting of all is you illogical statement here;
"Invading Cambodia for Nixon is like invading Kuwait was for Saddam, a war crime."
And in reality, neither was. But it seems you make up any lie to justify aggression.
The aggression was the invasion, but you make claim I am defending it, when you are the one stating Nixon's illegal invasion was legal.
PS your feeble googling skills could use some help;
clif said: "Sorry dmarks you seem to be totally uniformed as to what constitutes a war crime according to international law(IE the law we used against Saddam in 1990)."
You are the clueless one, Quite simply there is no evidence, or no case. Just imaginary claims by idiots with no authority or even any law degree that something's "illegal" just because they don't like it.
No one with actual authority, experience, and reputation has made any such charges.
It's all just pundits flapping their jaws. Aside from the aforementioned famously uninformed linguist, let's pick one of your authorities at random. Seymour Harsch...A journalist associated with hardline partisan political views. Not a judicial authority on the World Court, a United States Secretar General, or anything like that. Just a person whose opinions that such matters are "criminal" are mere uninformed conjecture.
"The aggression was the invasion, but you make claim I am defending it, when you are the one stating Nixon's illegal invasion was legal.'
The aggression was the invasion by North Vietnam. Nixon's retaliatory and entirely legal action was entirely justified.
Not only are charges of "illegal" silly, they don't make sense when you look at the facts. North Veitnam invaded Cambodia, and then used it as a base of aggression for attacks against South Vietnam. Nixon, as the main ally of South Vietnam. responded to this aggression.
17 comments:
I dont think Ann has yet to jump the shark.Her new book will be another best seller,must to the disgust of the left.
As for the 9/11 widows...once you inject yourself into the political discourse you become fair game ala Cindy Sheehan
When she tried dodging that pie being thrown at her while dodging the question about that Adam's apple she has.
Ann Coulter is a vile, despicable person... on Hannity she said, ""There was the shooting at Kent State," Coulter said. "And gosh I know liberals don't like it and you look at Nexis and 'it was embarrassing for the whole country.' I'm not embarrassed; that's what you do with the mob. They were monstrous at Kent State."
one of those killed Sandra Lee Scheuer; age 20; was over 390 ft from the demonstration, on her way to class. Classes had not been canceled. At no time during the disturbances did she take part in any demonstration.
Ann Coulter is an on going embarrassment.
I personally don't think that she believes half the stuff that she says. It's over the top schtick and she's laughing at us majorly (obviously, I could be wrong).
"With her attacks on Muslims.
okjimm said: "one of those killed Sandra Lee Scheuer; age 20; was over 390 ft from the demonstration"
The ultimate blame for this lies with those who organized the protest (violent thugs). They caused the situation there. Imagine if they had stayed home instead of committing serious assaultive felonies.
instead of committing serious assaultive felonies.
You do not mean Gov Rhodes "shouldn't" have called in the National Guard who actually did the shooting and murder of unarmed US Citizens for exercising their constitutional rights, members of the US Armed forces swore to uphold and defend, do you?
The Kent State shootings—also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis. Two of the four students killed, Allison Krause and Jeffrey Miller, had participated in the protest, and the other two, Sandra Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder, had been walking from one class to the next at the time of their deaths. Schroeder was also a member of the campus ROTC chapter. Of those wounded, none was closer than 71 feet to the guardsmen. Of those killed, the nearest (Miller) was 265 feet away, and their average distance from the guardsmen was 345 feet.
On June 13, 1970, as a consequence of the killings of protesting students at Kent State and Jackson State, President Nixon established the President's Commission on Campus Unrest, known as the Scranton Commission, which he charged to study the dissent, disorder, and violence breaking out on college and university campuses across the nation.
The Commission issued its findings in a September 1970 report that concluded that the Ohio National Guard shootings on May 4, 1970, were unjustified. The report said:
Even if the guardsmen faced danger, it was not a danger that called for lethal force. The 61 shots by 28 guardsmen certainly cannot be justified. Apparently, no order to fire was given, and there was inadequate fire control discipline on Blanket Hill. The Kent State tragedy must mark the last time that, as a matter of course, loaded rifles are issued to guardsmen confronting student demonstrators.
Seems a little over the top using M-14 against unarmed people hundreds of feet away from the seemingly quivering gaurdsman (according to their statement they feared for their lives), unless your an appologists for the illegal actrs afgainst Americans who protested the Illegal War in Vietnam.
Cause the real felony is using the National Guard to suppress the rights of US Citizens when they are protesting the War Crimes of the sitting president.
IE The Kent State protests were about the ILLEGAL invasion of Cambodia ordered by Richard Nixon. You wouldn't suggest it is OK to use the government resources, IE the National Guard, to attack US Citizens just because who ever is sitting in the oval office (or Governors Mansion) doesn't like what other Americans want to use their Constitutionally protected first Amendment rights to express.
Sorry but people freely expressing their views is OK according to the US Constitution.
Government repression and attacks including murder by government agents is NOT OK according to the US Constitution.
Even Nixon's own commission agrees with that.
Dmarks.... I really don't think you understand what Kent was... what Nam was.... So just don't give me a knee jerk reaction.... just don't....... I know what I know... and I KNOW where I have been... go away... don't say anything
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo9yI-p5jqU&feature=related
Anonymous said: "You do not mean..."
No. of course not. I was referring to the violent instigators who torched buildings (a serious assaultive felony) and launched a riot. This had nothing to do with anyone exercising their constitutuonal rights.
"Gov Rhodes "shouldn't" have called in the National Guard who actually did the shooting"
He should have called them in, and he would have been remiss if he hadn't. Remember, it was the protesters who started this violence, and forced the National Guard to shoot, the protesters knowing full well that innocent people might be harmed
That you use the word "murder" for unintended manslaughter shows oyu know nothing of the meaning of such words, or the legal system.
"Cause the real felony is using the National Guard to suppress the rights of US Citizens when they are protesting the War Crimes of the sitting president."
There were no war crimes. You are quite simply lying. Using pure imagination.
OKjimm: I know full well what it was. A bunch of thugs who started an orgy of violence which got out of hand. The thugs were the protesters.
There were no war crimes.
Bullshit, the illegal invasion of a sovereign country by military force IS a war crime,
Richard Nixon illegally invaded Cambodia using US Military forces.
Nixon is as much a war criminal as Saddam; even if the idea that upsets your obvious far right wing fringe sensibilities.
Invading Cambodia for Nixon is like invading Kuwait was for Saddam, a war crime.
it was the protesters who started this violence, and forced the National Guard to shoot,
Not according to Richard Nixon's own commission, to wit;
The Commission issued its findings in a September 1970 report that concluded that the Ohio National Guard shootings on May 4, 1970, were unjustified. The report said:
Even if the guardsmen faced danger, it was not a danger that called for lethal force. The 61 shots by 28 guardsmen certainly cannot be justified. Apparently, no order to fire was given, and there was inadequate fire control discipline on Blanket Hill. The Kent State tragedy must mark the last time that, as a matter of course, loaded rifles are issued to guardsmen confronting student demonstrators.
It seems historical fact as determined by people who were there at the time means nothing to far right wing fringe historical revisionists, whether you or Ann Coulter.
I'm not as versed on this Kent State saga as you fellows are. So, please, forgive me if this is a stupid question. Why didn't they use tear gas, water, or rubber bullets to try and break this thing up? Why did they have to use lethal force?
At the time will, rubber bullets were not an option, non lethal force for military fire arms hadn't been invented yet, and at the time the National Guard carried the M-14 Garand .30 cal weapon.
Most rubber bullets were fired from shotgun type weapons, single fire rubber bullets came later. I do not know why batons instead of M-14's weren't chosen for units on anti riot activities, much better device to use on people especially if used in a coordinated way with tactics. Yes injuries can happen but not lethal injuries hundreds of feet away on students who aren't part of the problem but simply going to class like they were supposed to do.
Also the use of fire hose water cannons hadn't been used by Military Units at the time, and since the National Guard not local law enforcement units (which would have had more counter civil disobedience training along those lines), that wasn't a trained option for the local NG commander. The local law enforcement officials had already admitted they couldn't control the situation and asked for the NG to be called in.
They did use tear gas but due to the size of the area and weather conditions it wasn't effective at dispersing the students.
The NG units called up were combat infantry and calvary units, not MP units which would have had much better training to actually deal with civil disobedience. (The Ohio NG had a MP battalion stations at the Youngston Armory at the time)
One thing not discussed is some of the guardsman who were deployed to Kent state had just the day before been patrolling Akron Ohio during a truckers strike, where truckers DID fire weapons at non striking truckers and National Guard troops protecting the non strikers.
At the time of Kent state shootings the Ohio NG had units at OSU in Columbus, still at Akron, Cleveland (also for the truckers strike), and of course Kent state. Almost all the NG in Ohio was at one of those four places.
Sorry, anon, the uninformed opinions of armchair attorneys like you that a justified and legal action is "illegal" don't count at all.
"Richard Nixon illegally invaded Cambodia using US Military forces."
North Vietnam first invaded Cambodia to use as a base against South Vietnam. They brought the war to Cambodia. If any invasion was illegal, it was that one.
"Nixon is as much a war criminal as Saddam"
Silly, uninformed armchair attorney stuff.
"even if the idea that upsets your obvious far right wing fringe sensibilities."
I have no far right fringe sensibilities. I detest the far right as much as the far left.
"Invading Cambodia for Nixon is like invading Kuwait was for Saddam, a war crime."
And in reality, neither was. But it seems you make up any lie to justify aggression.
Actually, Anon, nothing you said contradicts the fact that
"it was the protesters who started this violence, and forced the National Guard to shoot"
If not for the violent actions of the protesters, the Guard would not have been there at all.
"The Commission issued its findings in a September 1970 report that concluded that the Ohio National Guard shootings on May 4, 1970, were unjustified."
Of course. Innocent people died. The shootings were unjustified. I fully support any reasonable actions against those in the National Guard. This does not change the fact that the violence by the protesters created the situation in which a tragic accident like this could occur.
"It seems historical fact as determined by people who were there at the time means nothing to far right wing fringe historical revisionists, whether you or Ann Coulter."
I am not on the far right, nor am I revisionist. I am referring to what actually happened. No silly
opinions such as your "war criminal" slander claim about events you know nothing of.
I did google the fanciful claim that Nixon was war criminal, and find that it mainly comes from a famous linguist. An authority on linguistics, but a rank amateur armchair attorney on other matters.
Sorry dmarks you seem to be totally uniformed as to what constitutes a war crime according to international law(IE the law we used against Saddam in 1990).
As to the forced to shoot claim, that is bullcrap, and Nixon's own commission stated so, unjustified means they didn't face enough danger to justify their pulling a trigger against unarmed US citizens, hence were not "forced" to shoot by anyone.
The uninformed opinions of armchair attorneys like you that a unjustified and illegal action is "legal" doesn't count at all.
Especially if an amatuer armchair legalist like you chooses to ignore relevant law and legal decisions.
Most interesting of all is you illogical statement here;
"Invading Cambodia for Nixon is like invading Kuwait was for Saddam, a war crime."
And in reality, neither was. But it seems you make up any lie to justify aggression.
The aggression was the invasion, but you make claim I am defending it, when you are the one stating Nixon's illegal invasion was legal.
PS your feeble googling skills could use some help;
If the Nuremberg Laws were Applied..
If Nixon Had Been Tried for War Crimes | War Is A Crime
Judicial Complicity In U.S. War Crimes
Cambodian Bombing March 17, 1969
The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House ...
Nixon and the Sixties: Mass Media and the Sanitized Past
It seems either your not very competent, or not very honest, since I found many more then just Norm Chomsky articles.
clif said: "Sorry dmarks you seem to be totally uniformed as to what constitutes a war crime according to international law(IE the law we used against Saddam in 1990)."
You are the clueless one, Quite simply there is no evidence, or no case. Just imaginary claims by idiots with no authority or even any law degree that something's "illegal" just because they don't like it.
No one with actual authority, experience, and reputation has made any such charges.
It's all just pundits flapping their jaws. Aside from the aforementioned famously uninformed linguist, let's pick one of your authorities at random. Seymour Harsch...A journalist associated with hardline partisan political views. Not a judicial authority on the World Court, a United States Secretar General, or anything like that. Just a person whose opinions that such matters are "criminal" are mere uninformed conjecture.
"The aggression was the invasion, but you make claim I am defending it, when you are the one stating Nixon's illegal invasion was legal.'
The aggression was the invasion by North Vietnam. Nixon's retaliatory and entirely legal action was entirely justified.
Not only are charges of "illegal" silly, they don't make sense when you look at the facts. North Veitnam invaded Cambodia, and then used it as a base of aggression for attacks against South Vietnam. Nixon, as the main ally of South Vietnam. responded to this aggression.
Post a Comment