Loral fined $14m over China missiles claim{Treason is cheap these days…}

Few SIMPLE questions Luis:

1) Are we AT WAR with the Taliban or any specific terrorist group? If YES, then why aren't the combatants being viewed as POWs? And what constitutes us being at war? We didn't FORMALLY declare it under the requirements in the Constitution. If NO, then are those groups our ENEMY? It would seem so since there was talk of trying Walker for TREASON.

2) Were we AT WAR with the USSR during the time of the so-called "Cold War"? During the time when we EXECUTED several people for spying for the Soviets, did we trade with them? During the time they SHOT DOWN, KILLED AND DETAINED many of our so-called "cold-warriers", did we maintain an embassy in each other's country?

3) What's the difference between the USSR and China now? They BOTH are(were) totalitarian regimes that see the relatively FREE U.S. Society and its market economy as the greatest threat to the hold they have over their people ... don't you think? They both threaten(ed) to attack US cities with nuclear weapons. They both spy(ied) on us. The Chinese Defense Minister predicted we would be AT WAR in just a few years. China SEIZED our aircraft in INTERNATIONAL WATERS and held the crew HOSTAGE. The Chinese sell weapons to those we have and are currently fighting. So are we in a COLD WAR with the Chinese? Did the Clinton Administration help the Chinese (supply them with access to formerly restricted ... secret in some cases ... information and technology)? Did they do it to help the U.S. or to line their own pockets and that of their party?

I'm not sure I accept your "definition" of and "requirements" for TREASON.

"Are we AT WAR with the Taliban or any specific terrorist group?"

Yes.

"If YES, then why aren't the combatants being viewed as POWs?"

To keep the Geneva convention from dictating to us what we will do with these clowns, that's my best guess.

"And what constitutes us being at war?"

Them killing us, us killing them.

"We didn't FORMALLY declare it under the requirements in the Constitution. If NO, then are those groups our ENEMY?"

There was no need for the congress to declare war, we did not initiate hostilities, someone else did.

The act of initiating hostilities against another nation, is what congress is charged with, defending our citizens and our soil and anywhere in the world for that matter, from attackers is what the president, in his role as commander in chief is charged with.<p.More later

"I'm not sure I accept your "definition" of and "requirements" for TREASON"

My definition?

You didn't read well, I was quoting Chief Justice John Marshall.

My definition?

You didn't read well, I was quoting Chief Justice John Marshall.

No ... you were INTERPRETING the words of Marshall. You wrote:

That leaves the next sentence: "...or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." The problem with that half of the argument, is that at the moment in time that Clinton did whatever he may, or may have not done, China was not an enemy of the US, you and I might think so, but we are not at war, they are trading partners, and we maintain embassies in each other's countries.

By that definition, you must not have thought the Cold War was a "war" ... even though the other side was KILLING or helping others KILL our people ... even though we EXECUTED (or put in prison) people who were spying for them? Those traitors shared our secrets ... much like Clinton's people "shared" our secrets. Don't you think? But at least many of the former did it for "ideological" reasons ... nothing as low as "campaign contributions" or "Swiss bank accounts". You can mince words but some of what members of the Clinton administration did was treasonable ... whether two people OBSERVED them doing it or not. Tell me, Luis, does a tree falling in the forest make a sound when noone is around?

BAC, do not post to me any longer.

I wrote:

By that definition, you must not have thought the Cold War was a "war" ... even though the other side was KILLING or helping others KILL our people ... even though we EXECUTED (or put in prison) people who were spying for them? Those traitors shared our secrets ... much like Clinton's people "shared" our secrets. Don't you think? But at least many of the former did it for "ideological" reasons ... nothing as low as "campaign contributions" or "Swiss bank accounts". You can mince words but some of what members of the Clinton administration did was treasonable ... whether two people OBSERVED them doing it or not. Tell me, Luis, does a tree falling in the forest make a sound when noone is around?

You wrote:

BAC, do not post to me any longer.

What part of what I wrote can't you deal with, Luis? Are you going to run from this little conversation just like you've done repeatedly from discussions having to do with Ron Brown? Speaking of which, do you think Brown sold this country out by allowing technology and information that in all former administrations had been restricted or even classified to be provided to the Communist Chinese in exchange for LARGE campaign contributions to the democRAT party and Clinton campaign organization ... contributions which subverted at least one and maybe two Presidential elections? Given that China at that point was very much a potential threat, does what he did qualify as treasonous? Or are you afraid to answer such a question?

No, I am done with you now.

Thanks for all the show publicity