Is It Treason Yet?

GOP USA ^ | 12-09-05 | Joe Mariani - Commentary

[smoothsailing]

Is It Treason Yet?

By Joe Mariani

December 9, 2005

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.

But not all.

-------------

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

[farlander]

Every one of those pukes advocating insubordination and murder of officers in the US Military is guilty of treason. Why they haven't been rounded up and put into a general population somewhere is surely beyond me.

[TheBattman]

Sedition for sure - and plenty of evidence to prove that. Unfortunately, when was the last time someone in the US was charged and/or convicted of sedition?

Treason - yes, but harder to prove/get conviction. Usually requires something a bit more substantial than words in an interview (although making the statements that Dean did sure would push those limits for me!).

[Travis McGee]

How about a candy cigarette?

Or, just,

Got rope?

[farlander]

BOOYAH! Now that should be something to see! About damn time.

[farlander]

LOL!

[Nateman]

[Prost1]

Let me help...

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_jr.htm

While I do not agree with the agruments or conclusions, the case of Cramer vs US has been decided.

Synopsis: accusation of treason can limit political debate which is forbidden by the Constitution. Therefore, there exists a line which 1st must be crossed, however, it has not be officially established.

We are waiting for Alito to be confirmed. If that happens, the socialists will wilt in the face of an honest Judiciary. IMO.

Given the temperment of the demofacists, it will not be about abortion but what Alito thinks about Treason.

Mark my words...

[Ostlandr]

Who decides if it's treason? A Federal Grand Jury, that's who.
Of course, that won't happen until our fine Attorney General gets off his butt and hands down some indictments.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. . .

[farlander]

Hear hear! But you know they're not thinking about that, are they ? I'm gonna love watching those trials.

[H.Akston]

"Not a single Confederate was ever prosecuted for treason"

It's interesting that to be prosecuted for treason, you must be a citizen of the US. Citizens of the CSA were not US citizens so they couldn't be prosecuted for making defensive war on the US.

[bigsigh]

It is arguable and a constitutional issue, but they were all US citizens. That was the Northern position. It's my understanding that at Appomatax Courthouse, the issue of treason had already been dismissed by President Lincoln and Grant was gracious to the losers.

[M1Tanker]

So Democratic congressmen going to Syria and divulging US plans is????

[H.Akston]

I've had some great discussions on FR about this.
Love these pithy issues. Let me suggest a read of Federalist 39 and I'll leave it at that.

I don't have any trouble at all calling Dean a traitor, but I do find it difficult to call Murtha a traitor. Murtha did acknowledge that we have done good things over in Iraq. Dean would never do that. Dean and Ramsey Clark I think are of a kind. It's late, I'm retiring :(

[Wolfhound777]

We might not like what the Rats say, they probably are hurting the war effort, I hate them for that, but, they have the right to be stupid but calling them treasonous just makes us sound as nuts as they are.

I don't agree with you. It's beyond saying stupid things. I would call it saying stupid things if what they were saying wasn't motivating the terrorists in Iraq to stay the course and continue to wreak havoc and kill Iraqi civilians and coalition troops. Putting myself in the enemies shoes and listening to the garbage coming out of the US Senate and the MSM, I would know that I was going to win in time and all I had to do was keep on planting IEDs, setting off Car Bombs, and sabotoging the economy. I wouldn't care about my losses at the hands of the coaliton because I could count of the fact that politics in the USA would force a US pullout. And by the partial definition listed at the top of this thread, they are aiding and abetting, and that is treason. It doesn't make us nuts to call them on it. If we want to win the war on terror, we better stay the course and project a united front from our political leaders. I don't care what the Rats say behind closed doors in Congress but they damn sure should STFU in public when peoples lives are on the line.

[Fledermaus]

BRILLIANT!

[MarkL]

It would be treason, except for the fact that we're not at war. Those would be the weasle words used by those who are for all intents and purposed, committing treason. Of course, we're "at" war, since our army is overseas, shooting at others, and being shot at: But by law and definition, we're not at war, because the US Congress hasn't declared war.

I just wish that somebody in the media would quote one of those losers who bring up Viet Nam, and then quote from General Giap's book, where he credited the anti-war protestors, the media, and their ilk, for the US defeat.

They're despicable, and they're causing the war to take longer than it should (just like the French, Germans, and Russians caused the war to take place in the first place: Hussien never believed that the US would act without their "consent.") More important, it's causing our service men and women to be killed.

Mark

[x1stcav]

KING. What's he that wishes so? My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin; If we are mark'd to die, we are enow To do our country loss; and if to live, The fewer men, the greater share of honour. God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more. By Jove, I am not covetous for gold, Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost; It yearns me not if men my garments wear; Such outward things dwell not in my desires. But if it be a sin to covet honour, I am the most offending soul alive. No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England. God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour As one man more methinks would share from me For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more! Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host, That he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart; his passport shall be made, And crowns for convoy put into his purse; We would not die in that man's company That fears his fellowship to die with us. This day is call'd the feast of Crispian. He that outlives this day, and comes safe home, Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd, And rouse him at the name of Crispian. He that shall live this day, and see old age, Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours, And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.' Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars, And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.' Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember, with advantages, What feats he did that day. Then shall our names, Familiar in his mouth as household words- Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester- Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red. This story shall the good man teach his son; And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by, From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remembered- We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition; And gentlemen in England now-a-bed Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Good to have a brother.

[Zman516]

Treason has to be redefined in the context of todays world situation and technologies.

The seditious blatherings of Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, et.al. go directly from their mouths to the ears of the enemy.

I hold them largely responsible for terrorist atrocities in Iraq.

Sounds like treason to me.

[William Terrell]

The only instances of any prosecution for treason in the US has been during a formally declared war under article 1 section 8 clause 11. If this had been done instead of a simple authorization by the Congress for the commander in chief to prosecute a UN resolution, you wouldn't be hearing any of what you're hearing now. You can take it to the bank.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

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.

This i understand fully

But with a giant BUT i ask don't you officially have to have declared war on a Nation of origin or at least on a official Government before you can call it Treason ?

Until we actually declare war on a country of origin are we just in a policing action?

Now before i'm beaten up for asking these questions you must understand i am fully behing this action weather it be war or policing i back our troops and our president on these actions and i back those senators and congressmen who stand on the side of America .

I to think it's not only treasonous but in some cases pure sabatage pourposly put forward for the pure use of political gain and shear power mongering !

But i still ask the same questions.