Is It Treason Yet?

Treason is defined, in part, as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States, according to the Constitution (Article III, Section 3) (web site) and the United States Code (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, Section 2381). (web site) Yet the Constitution also states, in the First Amendment, (web site) that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." How do we distinguish between free speech and treason? Where do we draw the line? The answer may be found using that least-used resource: common sense.

I would submit that the elected leaders of this country have more responsibility than the rest of us to ensure that they give no aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. With American troops risking their lives in daily battle on behalf of the nation, critical words from those in leadership positions carry greater weight than in peacetime, both with the enemy and with our own troops.

Yet the leaders of the Democratic Party consistently attack the war in Iraq with lies, from distorting the history of our confrontation with Saddam Hussein, (web site) to prevaricating about their own statements which led us to war, (web site) to defaming the character of every member of the Bush administration in turn. Worst of all, however, is the slander they spread about our troops.

The Chairman of the Democratic party, Howard Dean, said during a radio interview on 6 December (web site) that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." Does this statement not give "aid and comfort" to the enemy? The leader of a major political party, to which nearly half of all Americans belong, is telling the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq that they will win; that they will beat the United States.

Dean also said that, "this is the same situation we had in Vietnam," and in a certain sense, he's right. The beaten, demoralized North Vietnamese leadership was given new hope by certain American politicians and the press, to the point where they struggled on until America's liberals turned public opinion against the war. America was forced to withdraw from Vietnam in disgrace, having never lost a battle, by people just like Howard Dean. With his defeatist statements, Dean is giving our enemies the aid and comfort they need to keep fighting. How many Americans will die because of Dean's irresponsible remarks, made only to seek political advantage? Tell me why that's not treason.

Senator John Kerry (D-MA), the Democratic Party's most recent Presidential candidate, appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" on 4 December (web site) to deface the American military. Speaking to interviewer Bob Schieffer, Kerry said that "there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- the historical customs, religious customs." (And some people accuse GW Bush of being incoherent?) .

Does a United States Senator and former Presidential candidate accusing American soldiers of terrorizing women and children in the dead of night not give aid and comfort to the enemy? Just as he did during Vietnam, (web site) John Kerry is falsely accusing American troops of committing atrocities as a matter of normal course in an attempt to undermine support for the war among Americans. As a consequence -- intended or not -- he is yet again handing America's enemies an immense propaganda victory. How many potential terrorists will have their hatred of Americans fueled by Kerry's matter-of-fact statement that American soldiers are terrorising women and children in their homes at night, breaking cultural and religious taboos? Tell me why that's not treason.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) fully supports and endorses the recent statements of Representative John Murtha (D-PA), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. Murtha has made a big splash among the anti-war faction by calling for an immediate -- within six months -- pullout from Iraq. On 1 December, Murtha told a group of leading Pennsylvania citizens (web site) that America would be forced to abandon Iraq within a year because the troops are "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth." Murtha is hailed as a hero in the media for suddenly changing his mind about the war in Iraq, but called it "unwinnable" and stated that "we cannot prevail... with the policy we have today," while urging President Bush to send even more troops in May 2004. (web site)

What a burst of enthusiasm Murtha's words must have engendered among our enemies! How much hope will they take from his proclamation that they are, in fact, winning the war? Despite fantastic losses, and despite earning the enmity of the Iraqi people, the terrorists and Saddam supporters in Iraq can now believe that if they just find the strength to hold on a little longer, they can push the hated United States out of Iraq. How many of the enemy will fight rather than surrender, because Pelosi and Murtha have told them they're winning? How does that not give the enemy aid and comfort? Is that not treason?

Not all Democrats follow the defeatist, destructive path of their leaders. But those ARE their leaders -- the Chairman of their party, their most recent Presidential candidate, their party leader in the House of Representatives. Some Democrat politicians have repudiated the statements of Dean, Kerry, Pelosi, Murtha and the rest... not because those remarks were vile, untrue and treasonous, but because the Democrats are afraid such openly anti-American statements might "harm efforts to win control of Congress next year," according to the Washington Post. (web site) The only way they can regain power is to hide their true feelings, and they know it. Treason, it seems, is still considered malapropos by some Democrats.

Joe Mariani is a computer consultant born and raised in New Jersey. He now lives in Pennsylvania, where the gun laws are less restrictive and taxes are lower. Joe always thought of himself as politically neutral until he saw how far left the left had really gone after 9/11. His essays and links to articles are available at http://www.guardianwatchblog.com/

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

NOTE: All (website) notations can be accessed by going to the GOP USA link at the top of this article-smoothsailing

>>>>What's the difference in your mind between Reagan who supported the Afgani Mujahadeen against the Soviets (assuming he knew what the CIA was doing), and Murtha who supported the Afgani Mujahadeen...

The difference between a sitting President, with Congressional backing, budget votes, World Leader interactions, Pentagon consults vs. Charles Wilson, acting on his own, calling in favors to steal money and pass out stinger missiles like candy that created a black market in US weapons??? Surely you jest!

But, I agree, the subject is Murtha.

So since Murtha was instrumental in funding the Islamic Militants....and money kept coming in that helped Sheik Rahman.... That would make him a Traitor in aiding enemies of the State. This was the point of my post.

"http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1489385/posts My Enemy's Enemy by George Crile"

After I read this, I deduce from it that we were supporting all combatants.

Every time you say "steal money", you lose me. By "money was stolen", do you mean a congressman siphoned off some money for his pet mujahadeen operation, under cover of the classified program rules? Congressmen fund things this way lots of times, and it's regarded as legal theft, not illegal theft. Murtha is not distinguishable among his peers as a legal thief.

Regardless of that, let's say for the sake of argument it was "stolen" money that Murtha used to fund the afgani mujahadeen. There's a difference between theft and treason. The issue is WHO the money went to, not how it was obtained, that defines treason.

RE: "a sitting President, with Congressional backing, budget votes, World Leader interactions, Pentagon consults"

So the difference between Reagan and Murtha is illustrated by this maxim: "If 50 insiders send money to islamic militants, it's not treason, but if just one sends it, it is" ????

>>>>Every time you say "steal money", you lose me.

No, you follow fine: ...'legal theft, not illegal theft.'

Theft is theft.

>>>>So the difference between Reagan and Murtha is illustrated by this maxim: "If 50 insiders send money to islamic militants, it's not treason, but if just one sends it, it is" ????

Difference is - a sitting President and rogue individuals.

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.