Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Treason


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Treason Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Treason - 10/17/2006 7:59:16 AM   
Amaros


Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

   Consider the historical context, Benji.  Back then, "treason" meant "pissing off the King."  This was a major step forward.

   JMO, right now, the standard is seems to be not only joining forces with the enemy (Johnny bin Walker) but actually participating in efforts against one's country.  Walker fought with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance, but not against US forces.  He is doing 10 or 20 years in Federal Prison, but was not charged with treason.  Gadahn has become an Al Queda spokesman and targets his efforts at the USA.

    As for the definitions morphing into something irrational, I doubt this would be the route to impose a police state.


Um, a guy was arrested in Colorado for doing nothing more than criticizing Cheney over his prosecution of the war - I believe this is called "testing the waters".

http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc100406


< Message edited by Amaros -- 10/17/2006 8:06:29 AM >

(in reply to WyrdRich)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Treason - 10/17/2006 8:09:26 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

    JMO, right now, the standard is seems to be not only joining forces with the enemy (Johnny bin Walker) but actually participating in efforts against one's country.  Walker fought with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance, but not against US forces.  He is doing 10 or 20 years in Federal Prison, but was not charged with treason.  Gadahn has become an Al Queda spokesman and targets his efforts at the USA.



It seems to me from what I read Johnny bin Walker is a political prisoner. I have never figured out why he was arrested and charge, simply because he was an American who pissed off American politicians as far as I can see.

If he was a Brit and the British government did the same it would start alarm bells off in me. Not because I think he was right to do what he did, I just think it is his right to do what he did but he just shouldn't call on his government for help if he's desperate. There are a lot of American mercenaries around the world, why aren't they arrested and jailed?

(in reply to WyrdRich)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Treason - 10/17/2006 8:27:59 AM   
HarryVanWinkle


Posts: 1720
Joined: 5/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Treason is one of those dangerous crimes that can grow like poison envy. The first prosecutions are always agreed with by the majority and then its tentacles grow and take in lesser and lesser crimes until it comes knocking on your door.


"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

"The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

Treason is the only crime defined in the U.S. Constitution.  The Founding Fathers defined it precisely because of the British habit of abusing the charge in the manner you spoke of.  Their intention was to insure that a charge of Treason would be used very rarely and only in the most serious of cases.  They were largely successful.  The only time the charge of treason has been used frivolously in this country was two hundred years ago.  The man who made the charge was the President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, in one of his many hypocritical moods.  The defendant, Aaron Burr, was acquitted.

In this case, the charge is clearly on point.  The fact that no American has been tried for treason for over half a century does not make the charge obsolete.

quote:


Someone on British TV suggested this was a political ploi by Bush to get security back on the agenda with the up coming elections


Someone on British TV, and a multitude of people on American TV as well, suggests that EVERYTHING is a political ploy by Bush.  As far as I'm concerned, talking heads on TV have about as much credibility as a preacher who says that Gawd will strike him dead if you don't send him your money.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Treason - 10/17/2006 8:38:09 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle

"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

"The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

 The Founding Fathers defined it precisely because of the British habit of abusing the charge in the manner you spoke of.  Their intention was to insure that a charge of Treason would be used very rarely and only in the most serious of cases.  They were largely successful.  The only time the charge of treason has been used frivolously in this country was two hundred years ago.  The man who made the charge was the President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, in one of his many hypocritical moods.  The defendant, Aaron Burr, was acquitted.



In regard to Britain abusing treason laws in the N American colonies, you are talking garbage.

Then you appear to be a Bush supporter so you probably think Saddam had WMD and smuggled them out to Syria in the nick of time.  Though Bush supporters have never been able to answer the question, if he had them, why the fuck didn't he use them!

(in reply to HarryVanWinkle)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Treason - 10/17/2006 10:36:44 AM   
ToGiveDivine


Posts: 650
Status: offline 		I think a sex change operation and let him go live under Islam as a woman - that ought to shake up his, er her, world.

(in reply to WyrdRich)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Treason - 10/17/2006 11:57:29 AM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline 		you are a SERIOUS sadist!

(in reply to ToGiveDivine)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Treason - 10/17/2006 9:49:19 PM   
HarryVanWinkle


Posts: 1720
Joined: 5/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle

"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

"The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

 The Founding Fathers defined it precisely because of the British habit of abusing the charge in the manner you spoke of.  Their intention was to insure that a charge of Treason would be used very rarely and only in the most serious of cases.  They were largely successful.  The only time the charge of treason has been used frivolously in this country was two hundred years ago.  The man who made the charge was the President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, in one of his many hypocritical moods.  The defendant, Aaron Burr, was acquitted.



In regard to Britain abusing treason laws in the N American colonies, you are talking garbage.

Then you appear to be a Bush supporter so you probably think Saddam had WMD and smuggled them out to Syria in the nick of time.  Though Bush supporters have never been able to answer the question, if he had them, why the fuck didn't he use them!


He did use them.  He used them against Iran.  He used them against the Kurds.  Or do you claim that Bush made that up too?  My opinion is irrelevant.  These are facts.  I am not, in fact, a fan of President Bush.  In my opinion, the only thing worse than Republican politicians are Democratic politicians.  But, the rabidity with which you of the Bush hating, loony-left attack him never ceases to amaze me.  You denounce him as a liar for believing, and acting upon, what EVERY major intelligence organization on this planet at the time SWORE was true.  When Louisiana is hit by a hurricane and the local authorities demonstrate unparelleled incompetence, it's because Bush is a racist.  When that same storm wrecks an oil refinery and seriously effects the the price of fuel in this country, it's Bush feeding his oil business cronies.  When the price of fuel drops in the Fall, as it usually does, it's a conspiracy by Bush to win the election.  If the price of tea in Eastwick goes up, you will no doubt blame Bush for it.

On May 30th, 1765, when Patrick Henry said in the Virginia House of Burgesses, "Ceaser had his Brutus.  Charles I had his Cromwell.  And George III..." he was nearly drowned out by cries of "Treason!"  Had he finished that sentence the way everybody thought he would, he would have been open to being charged with Treason and taken by force to Britain to be tried and mostly likely executed for it, which WAS a common practice of the British Colonial Authorities.  He escaped the noose by concluding, "may he profit by their example.  If this be Treason, make the most of it."

I will admit that only the only people of the time who would have felt that the conditions the Colonial Americans lived under to be tyrannical was the Americans.  The charges against King George elucidated in the Declaration of Independence sound impressive and terrible to us grandchildren of the Common Law.  But to the other ninety percent of the human race they must have sounded ludicrous.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Treason - 10/18/2006 2:50:06 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle


On May 30th, 1765, when Patrick Henry said in the Virginia House of Burgesses, "Ceaser had his Brutus.  Charles I had his Cromwell.  And George III..." he was nearly drowned out by cries of "Treason!"  Had he finished that sentence the way everybody thought he would, he would have been open to being charged with Treason and taken by force to Britain to be tried and mostly likely executed for it, which WAS a common practice of the British Colonial Authorities.  He escaped the noose by concluding, "may he profit by their example.  If this be Treason, make the most of it."

The fact is Patrick Henry wasn't charged with treason and was free to become an agitator for independence. The people who cried treason were fellow colonists. The war of independence being as much a civil war as a war against the crown. This is shown by how many families had members die fighting for both sides and the pogram that sent over 100,000 empire loyalists north to Canada after the war. Hardly the sign of a people speaking with one voice.

The amusing thing is about 'Brutus had his Ceasar and Charles had his Cromwell' was that Patrick Henry's ambition was to be a Brutus or a Cromwell, both of who struck for the good of the nation against would be dictators. George III was not a dictator and had very little power, the power being in the hands of the British Parliament but it was good rhetoric.
 
Actually Cromwell is seen by Britons as one of the greatest Brits of all time but if you read up on Britain and treason, you will find post Cromwell, the charge of treason has been used very very rarely.

.




< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 10/18/2006 3:05:54 AM >

(in reply to HarryVanWinkle)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Treason - 10/18/2006 6:34:33 AM   
Amaros


Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle

He did use them.  He used them against Iran.  He used them against the Kurds.  Or do you claim that Bush made that up too?  My opinion is irrelevant.  These are facts.  I am not, in fact, a fan of President Bush.  In my opinion, the only thing worse than Republican politicians are Democratic politicians.  But, the rabidity with which you of the Bush hating, loony-left attack him never ceases to amaze me.  You denounce him as a liar for believing, and acting upon, what EVERY major intelligence organization on this planet at the time SWORE was true.  When Louisiana is hit by a hurricane and the local authorities demonstrate unparelleled incompetence, it's because Bush is a racist.  When that same storm wrecks an oil refinery and seriously effects the the price of fuel in this country, it's Bush feeding his oil business cronies.  When the price of fuel drops in the Fall, as it usually does, it's a conspiracy by Bush to win the election.  If the price of tea in Eastwick goes up, you will no doubt blame Bush for it.


Heh, back when Clinton was pres, neo-cons called that "a pattern of behavior" - if all Bush's motives seem suspicious now, he has only himself to blame. He doesn't appear to do anything that doesn't somehow manage to increase his power, or that isn't politically motivated - hell listen to right wing radio, it's all about politics, and the "right thing" is never anything more than what's politically expedient at the moment.

First, liberal tolerance and the "gay adgenda" was a threat to Christian values and all of civilization by extension, and no effort was spared to bash gays, and the very notion of tolerance at every opportunity, ad nauseum. Now, of course, with one of their own exposed as a statutory pedophile (many more than one, actually) it's of course the fault of liberals, not the poor innocent Congressman who's being "gay bashed" by the dems. A more nauseating display of spineless weasley whining... oh wait, I have seen it before, too many times, Schiavo, etc.

Time and time again, the neo-con pubs have had the opportunity to rise above politics and show leadership, and time and time again, they've proven they care for nothing but politics, money and their own fat, white behinds - believe me, I watch very closely for any hint of integrity, and I have yet to see so much as a glimmer of it from this lot. The "party of ideas", it turns out, stands for nothing but themselves.

Yeah, Saddam had WMD's, Dick Cheney is the one that sold them to him to use against the Iranians - 20 years old, and half the shit they might have had left didn't work anymore, and no delivery systems, but hey, they're technically WMD's aren't they? Pretty much what the weaposn inspectors, the only people on site, were saying.

Why didn't these weapons end up in the hands of AQ, if Saddam and OBL were such great buds? Seems like we'd have gotten a taste of them by now if any of this were remotely true.

Very noble of you to defend the hand puppet, but it's the smell test baby, and something is very funky in Denmark.

(in reply to HarryVanWinkle)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Treason - 10/18/2006 7:41:09 AM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline 		VanWinkle,

Let us know when you wake up and catch back up with reality.

Saddam HAD wmd but they were destroyed post GWI PERIOD.  I bet you weren't complaining when he was using them against the Iranians so your hand wringing about them now is completely political and complete bullshit.

The whole lie about others believing Iraq had WMD is just that.  The Germans were telling us that CURVEBALL was an unreliable drunk.  The CIA and others were telling us that Chalabi was at best a fraud and at worst an Iranian double agent.  Our very own nuclear agency was telling us the aluminium tubes had NOTHING to do with a nuclear program.  Since you fell asleep three years ago, much has come out about how the Bush administration systematically edited out ANY doubts (which were REPLEATE throughout the intelligence summaries ) before they got to congress.  In short, they lied, they knew they were lying, but all they had to do was fool their base and you just proved once again how effective those lies were.

As for New Orleans, thanks for demonstrating so clearly how you are willing to forgive any level of incompetence in order to protect Bush. 

I don't hate Bush because he is a Republican, I hate him because what he is doing isn't the result of incompetence but of malice and greed.  He sees the coming hard times for America and is busy stealing as much as he can off a sinking ship instead of rallying America together to save that ship.  Lucky for America, the marines arrive next month and we are going to do our best to save America from the horrible destruction wrought on her these last six years.

(in reply to Amaros)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Treason - 10/18/2006 10:49:30 AM   
wolffeathers


Posts: 315
Joined: 8/6/2005
From: Clearwater
Status: offline 		and this proves why I hate politics.  People are to wrapped up in the "I hate blah" or "Stop hating blah".

Saddam had WMD.  He may not have had them during the attack on Iraq (differnt sources say he destroyed them, their buried somewhere, their in another country, yadda yadda yadda).  Instead of bitching and moaning about what happened, how about we all try to figure out how to fix it.  The White House had a great WAR stragity, but fucked the long term rebuilding. 

Hell, North Korea has just all but declaired war on the US if the UN imposes Sanctions.  Strange how that works....

If Bush had just used the reason that we were going in to do something about the UN's rules on Saddam, I would have been fine.  If more then the US had not be convinced that the information that was given was false, I would have been fine.  Hell, four hundred years ago, most of us would be dead because we don't agree with some aspect of our respective goverments.

You want to change how the goverment works, then run for office.  If not, your just bitching to the wind.  Every President in the US has had their administration changed do to lobbists, and most of the laws put infront of the Senate are changed before vote because the people paying large amounts of money (lobbists) want them to be.  That's not going to change anytime soon.




_____________________________

It's my way or the highway. Just happens that the highway is on my way.

~Master Wolf

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Treason - 10/18/2006 11:12:36 AM   
ToGiveDivine


Posts: 650
Status: offline 		It's my God giving right to bitch, whine and moan.

Hmmmm, who gives those rights to Atheists since they don't believe in God!?!?!?!

So perplexing

(in reply to wolffeathers)
Profile   Post #: 32
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Treason Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078