"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."
"owing allegiance to the United States"
Therein lies the "get out of jail free card" (no pun intended) for the treasonous journalists at the NYT and LAT. They have no "allegiance" to the United States, so how then can they commit treason against it?
8 comments:
The thing that gets me about all this is that this isn't about the Iraq War. We can all agree or disagree about the decision to go into Iraq and what kind of threat Saddam was, or wasn't, and whether it's a legal or illegal war, etc. That's fine. I can accept that. But this about a real, tangible threat that EVERYONE should be able to agree exists and should be combatted in any way possible (as the NYT openly admits in their 2001 article). But the hatred and contempt that people like this have not only for the President and his administration, but even for their own country -- or at least the country in which they reside (in their effort to be "objective" I believe many of them hardly even consider themselves Americans) -- is so deep that they would prefer to put at risk more American lives, not to mention the lives of people all over the world by undermining our governement's ability to keep us safe, which they have long-ago forgotten is the number-one function of the government. Not feeding the poor, or paying for our kid's education.
Six: I believe that all citizens "owe alligiance" to the US, even if they reside abroad, or work for foriegn companies.
Maybe I haven't read enough about this topic, but I haven't found where the NYT article reveals anything that would help enemies of the US. This doesn't mean that the article shouldn't qualify as treason, but I'm not jacked up about this issue.
I'm bothered about lots of stuff regarding this war, and mostly with what Bush can control, and within that realm, where he's unneccessarily failed. You and I knew -- and he ought to have known -- that a war would have meant a constant rhetorical battle from the 20% or so of the US population (including about 90% of professional journalists) who believe that the US and capitalism are immoral and wrong in all cases and at all times. This wasn't true in the 1930s and in the early 1960s, but it has been true since the early 1970s or so.
Perhaps Coulter is legally correct; she has a top-notch legal mind, so without further examining this I accept her conclusion. But I don't think that Bush can effectively fight this war by arresting NYT reporters who publicize details about covert efforts. The cover they are using is that Bush has not submitted these operations to appropriate congressional oversight, and I think we agree that this is generally true about many of his operations. I think that he should focus on remedying that, and accept that the constraints and disadvantages imposed by democracies on war efforts.
FDR led a war in which he was able to keep 90% or so of the US population on his side. This is not the case with this war, and I suggest that Bush modify his actions to account for that.
Why is Paul on Ann Coulter's jock?
Six: I think you and some of your Republican brethren are tripping on this. The Bush administration is dangerously skirting the line at best, and guilty of serious Constitutional violations (my opinion) at worst.
In the name of democracy and transparency, you should want disclosure of these types of operations. It was a Republican administration that launched the Church Committee which investigated US government surveillance of American citizens. That committee found, and Congress agreed that the government should not be given free reign to spy on US citizens.
The Bush administration at least needs to explain its program. I think they are bringing 1984 to life.
Quote from Sen. Rick Santorum last week: "Yep. I'll show you the classified documents right here." (Holds up classified report to camera.)
Where is the outrage????
I think you right-wingnut supporters of domestic spying are giving aid and comfort to the enemy by allowing the destruction of our civil liberties and constitutional law. If the US Constitution is the great thing about this country, why aren't you demanding that the president follow the law to the letter? If the Constitution works, why are you allowing Bush to ignore it?
Nadir: You keep using the term "domestic syping". Please explain how this term applies to international phone calls and international banking transactions.
Do you apply the term "intrastate commerce" to describe your father's purchase of Wisconsin cranberry apertif from his computer in Provincetown, RI?
Back in the days when we paid for "long distance calls", under what catagory did your calls to Canada fall? Was the term, "international"?
When you travel to Canada and use your credit card, the term "exchange" appears on your credit card. What word appears before it?
Why am I on Ann Coulter's jock? I thought that I answered that question. I think she has a brilliant and very funny mind, and she's an outstanding writer: clear, organized, logical.
Domestic spying means that Bush is spying on US citizens without a warrant. The fact that these lawless acts involve international communications or transactions is irrelevant. The fact that it is illegal to spy on Americans without a FISA warrant is the relevant matter. FISA does not offer an exception for international communications.
Why are you giving Bush a free pass to violate US law by conducting warrantless surveillance? If his espionage cannot withstand the scrutiny of a US judge, then it is probably an unwarranted act in the first place.
Shouldn't the president be bound by the law like the rest of us - especially those laws that are specifically designed to check the actions of law enforcement?
Post a Comment