Replies

As I said on the other thread.

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. - United States Code Title 18 Section 2381. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um...

Well, I realize Coulterism has made it cool to proclaim absolutely everything disagreeable "Treason" this isn't treason and proclaiming it is is basically a silly, counterproductive waste of time and the political equivalent of a masturbatory fantasy. And counterproductive in the long term, too; basically makes you look like a loon in public opinion and the media.

(I'm expecting to be viciously flamed for simply making that statement, of course. Of course, people will try to twist my saying it isn't treason into an endorsement of the memo.)

You clearly haven't done the slightest research into the history of American treason prosecution precedent.

Fewer than 30 Americans have ever been convicted of treason, and none have since World War II. Even the Rosenbergs weren't prosecuted for treason.

If Rockefeller was passing names of any undercover agents we have in the AQ organization to AQ, THAT would be treason, and that's basically what is meant by the law. Even then it would be a surprisingly difficult prosection and he'd probably be convicted of something other than Treason. The Consititution VERY deliberately made treason VERY difficult to prosecute, and the framers were very open about fear of treason laws being abused.

I mean, it really isn't that much of an extreme interpretation of the law as posted to declare that ANYONE opposing any US military action is a traitor; after all, if we bomb or invade somewhere, and you come out and oppose that action (Kosovo, perhaps) technically that's an "aid and comfort" to the enemy, if you have an all-encompassing definition of treason, as that opposition makes it more likely that public opinion in the US will force a stop to that action.

And I think people are getting carried away with how effective this scandal will be.

As with most political scandals, 99.99% of the people outraged now are people who weren't going to vote Democrat anyway. It's very, very, very hard to get a scandal to CHANGE votes.

It would help if the whole issue were simpler; I mean, to a typical Democratic voter, the memo alone is probably the longest thing they'll read in a given month. And to see what is wrong with it requires a certain degree of critical thinking/reading-between-the-lines ability.

It's not Rockefeller being photographed kissing an AQ member on the cheek or being found in bed with a Girl Scout or something.