Replies

Here is what you are citing:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

So does criticizing the Iraq war rise to giving our enemies aid and comfort? It's a gray area - Saddam did make some political hay from the antiwar protests. Of course, his information minister also claimed that we had been driven from Baghdad as our tanks circled his building. So I really don't see that much, if any, aid to the enemy was given.

Now, let's look at that other part of the Constitution in question - the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

No grey area there, it's pretty enequivocal. I don't see any exemption for time of war, or not allowing criticism of this country going to war. The best way to deal with the Sarandons and Robbins of the world is to allow them to demonstrate just how stupid and hypocritical they are. Your demands that they be tried and shot for treason just give them gist for their victimhood mill, and you are behaving in just as incomprehensible a manner as they are - they are saying we don't have the right to boycott or criticize their speech, and you are saying they don't have the right to say what they are saying. Both of you are an affront to what our troops are fighting to protect.

"So I really don't see that much, if any, aid to the enemy was given."

Of course this is subject to interpretation and I understand your concerns and from whence you speak.

However, I have heard that troops at the front who view these demonstrations find them demoralizing and I believe that is part of the intent of the demonstrators. Also, these people are provided with far better coverage by the leftist media in this country - ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN - than the very many demonstration in support of the war. I have been at demonstrations in support of Bush and our troops where the number of participants numbered in the thousands and seen newspaper reports indicating only several hundred people were there. Further, instead of concentrating on the pro supporters, the papers devote an inordinate amount of the news article to a handfull of counter demonstrators.

Additionally, these demonstrations take police from needed duty elsewhere and they deliberately block traffic and harass law-abding citizens who are going about their daily business.

"No grey area there, it's pretty enequivocal. I don't see any exemption for time of war, or not allowing criticism of this country going to war."

True, but there is nothing there which can be interpreted to specifically protect freedom of speech during war time. The Courts have been most clear on the issue of limiting certain rights during time of war.

"The best way to deal with the Sarandons and Robbins of the world is to allow them to demonstrate just how stupid and hypocritical they are."

I agree with you there, but only up to the point where we have committed troops in battle and American lives are on the line. I remember the terrible damage done to national morale by these treasonous protestors during the Viet Nam War.

" Both of you are an affront to what our troops are fighting to protect."

During time of war, activities which undermine the morale of the troops are neither in the best interest of the troops or of the nation. The number of malcontents in any country are usually few unless there is something very wrong going on with the war effort. To allow a few of these malcontents to act out with impugnity is to encourage all them to act out and the impact of such actions will go far beyond the actual percentage of these people in the total population.

You can type a lot faster than me.