Posted on 05/01/2016 9:22:15 AM PDT by Edward.Fish
PS - This is excerpted because there's a lot of formatting in the paper, and it wouldn't transfer well to HTML.
Uh.....
Simple summary: The Corker amendment/Iran deal was treason.
Short and sweet messages work best on FR.
Money - in the U.S.Senate, just follow the money.
Two points:
If we are not officially at war with Iran, iran did not attack us on 911 nor is there any evidence that would stand up in a court of law implying it.
And is difficult or Impossible to prove Treason. It has a very specific and narrow definition, in the Constitution, and misuse of the word serves the conservative cause not at all. “Treason” is *NOT* merely something that you (or I) consider harmful to this country, disgraceful for a citizen to do or say or a mere crime; the founding fathers made it EXCEEDINGLY difficult to charge and prove because it had been so overused; people who use the word merely for behavior that they find unpatriotic do harm, not good.
By Section 110 of Article III. of the Constitution of the United States, it is declared that:
“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.”
Not that the behavior wasn’t disturbing.
Regards
You've been here a whole nine days? This is going to go over like a fart in an elevator..........
I have absolutely no interest in paying for another stupid, expensive war that ends up harming national security.
Insisting on one betrays a deep inability to learn from history, even very recent history.
It’s excerpted because you wish to use FR as a hit farm, Eddy.
Bad form, that.
Good bye
True, but in this case I wanted not to simply assert that it was treason (which it must be admitted is often claimed for things that aren't treason) but also show a [reasonable] proof... and that requires a more lengthy presentation than a few paragraphs.
Iran is the least of my worries. Saudi funded Wahhabism is by far the greater Islamic threat.
That being said, the greatest threat to my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness lies inside of the DC beltway.
Term Limit the deadbeats
The AMUF is a declaration of war (even if it is claimed otherwise, as per the definition of 'war'), and Iran has already been found to be liable (FIONA HAVLISH, et al v. USAMA BIN LADEN); asserting that Iran isn't is implicitly asserting that this court either did not rule, or that its ruling is invalid.
And is difficult or Impossible to prove Treason. It has a very specific and narrow definition, in the Constitution, and misuse of the word serves the conservative cause not at all. “Treason” is *NOT* merely something that you (or I) consider harmful to this country, disgraceful for a citizen to do or say or a mere crime; the founding fathers made it EXCEEDINGLY difficult to charge and prove because it had been so overused; people who use the word merely for behavior that they find unpatriotic do harm, not good.
I do show how the Iran deal fulfills the Constitutional definition in the PDF; I agree that the word gets thrown about recklessly, but I did try to avoid this and show exactly how the actions of the Senate did fit the definition. I know that it was meant to be a difficult charge to prove, but the mentality inherent to our political leaders (i.e. "the law doesn't apply to us") makes them arrogant enough that they behave like it doesn't to the point where someone w/o formal legal training can construct a proof of treason.
I made a new account.
This is going to go over like a fart in an elevator.
Well, my farts are awesome. ;)
Nor do I; but this Iran deal is just terrible and just short of arming Iran with nukes ourselves... but the issue here isn't warmongering, but the actions of the Senate.
Insisting on one betrays a deep inability to learn from history, even very recent history.
Who says I'm insisting on one? (I'm not.) Did you read the paper?
No, its excerpted because I published it to PDF and has a lot of formatting that really isn't conducive to HTML.
Bad form, that.
Maybe so; but I know you and your quest against excerpts and will take your pronouncement with the appropriate grain of salt. (After all, the whole point of the blog/personal category is things that are personal and/or blogs.)
So who were you in your previous, likely zotted, incarnation?
My elevator has a fan button.
Private replied your answer.
LOL — That is a great reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.