... if not executed.
Unfortunately the diary format doesn't allow for subtitles; if it did, this one would be subtitled "when strict constructionism bites back."
As has been widely circulated here and elsewhere in the wake of his high profile in the Schiavo fiasco, Randall Terry has unabashedly argued for the overthrow of the United States government:
"Our goal is a Christian nation. ... We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. ... Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules."
Which means Randall Terry has provided all the evidence he needs to be convicted of several very serious crimes.
We'll start with the easiest case first. Terry clearly violated
Title 18, Section 2383 of the United States Code, which prohibits rebellion or insurrection against the United States:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
I don't think it would take a very creative or eloquent U.S. Attorney to make the case that telling a group of committed Dominionists that "We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country" is an incitement to "rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof." It seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. Terry wants to overthrow the existing government and replace it with a Christian theocracy. Unlike many others, Terry is refreshingly candid about his aims; unfortunately for him his candor also makes him a criminal.
Moving on to more debatable violations of the law, Terry may also have violated Title 18, Section 2385 of the United States Code, which prohibits advocating the overthrow of the 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
...
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.
The only real debatable point here is whether Terry's statement advocated the overthrow of the government by force or violence, which is what differentiates Section 2385 from Section 2383. "Conquer" certainly implies, to my mind at least, an element of force or violence, especially when coupled with the notion that the theocratic conquest advocated by Terry is a biblical duty. The two ideas, taken together, would indicate that should peaceful means of conquest prove ineffective, then force would (indeed, should) be used. In the end, like most close questions of fact, this one should be left up to the federal jury that sits in judgment of Terry.
Finally, there's the most explosive, and least plausible, charge: treason. Title 18, Section 2381 of the United States Code prohibits treason:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Does Terry's statement fit the statutory definition of treason? Possibly, but it's not likely. The statement itself cannot be construed as levying war against the United States; its treasonous content, if any, is due to the fact that it gives aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. Certainly, there's an argument to be made here by an enterprising prosecutor: those who would overthrow our government and replace it with a Christian theocracy (in which, per Terry's vision, doctors were hunted down and executed) are certainly enemies of the United States. Terry's statement, insofar as it posits that such an overthrow of the government is nothing short of a biblical duty demanded by God provides aid and comfort to these enemies of our government. Is it a slam dunk? No, but it's also not illegitmate for a prosecutor to charge Terry with treason and let a jury decide (of course, were I Ann Coulter, an entire chapter of a book could be devoted to my definitive opinion that Terry is clearly guilty of treason; I'm a little more cautious when it comes to charging people with crimes that carry a death sentence).
So, there you have it in black and white. Randall Terry, through his statements inciting the overthrow of the United States government, is I think plainly guilty of one and possibly guilty of two other federal crimes. In wanting to conquer the country and replace it with a true American Taliban, Terry's comments and actions are a matter of national security. I am appalled, though not shocked, that the appropriate charges have not yet been brought.