Is it really "treason"?

[Jed Dilligan]

Doesn't that word imply working for a foreign enemy of one's country? If so, who are Bush and company working for? Osama? I think it's more likely that he's working for them!

As far as I can tell, the Bush gang are the only enemy. End of story. And being homegrown American thugs, they should be treated as such--like common criminals. Perpetrators of a gross fraud, for nothing but their own venal purposes, that led to death and suffering for thousands of people. I would call it homicide, or manslaughter, or criminal negligence, accessory to murder; a couple of thousand counts of any of these crimes would put them away for a couple of hundred lifetimes.

Treason is a very, very special crime. It can even imply a certain sort of honor. Benedict Arnold, after all, is a hero to the Brits to this day. Yet it's very common for someone to profit criminally from the deaths of others. Think heroin dealers, or people who knowingly sell defective products that kill people. The federal government (wrongfully, in my opinion) has charged possessors of LSD with attempted murder. The Republicans are not turncoats, because they never wore our coat to begin with. They are just common negligent sleazeballs who had the good luck (for a little while) to carry out their shenanigans on a very large scale. Except for being in the right place at the right time, there is nothing special about them.

That being said, I want the advocates of "treason" to explain the case for treason to me. I see the word used a lot without any explicit rationale. Is it because it is a capital crime? Do you think they are working for "the enemy"? Or do I not understand the crime of treason correctly?

[YDogg]

1. I tend to think of it as activity against the interests of the USA.

And in that regard, the major bush admin players are all guilty, IMHO.

[William769]

2. Treason.

1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=treason&x=18&y=16

I think treason is the right charge.

[Jed Dilligan]

3. The constitution has it a little different, though

Art. 3 Section. 3.

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court

I just can't fit their actions into this without some pretty kooky connections that the public probably wouldn't buy.

[William769]

4. Outing a CIA operative IMHO is helping the enemy.

[Jed Dilligan]

9. Okay

That does seem fair enough, even if the intent of the crime was venal and not actually to make the enemy win.

[Lerkfish]

15. wow, how hard to you have to work to make treason "likeable"?

taint workin.

also: committing treasonous acts and passing the constitution's requirements for PROVING treason are two different things.

You can murder someone, but not be charged. Does that make murder not a crime?

[Marr]

31. These traitors are even worse than someone who seeks to directly aid some

foreign nation. These men sold out their own country's national security in the pursuit of political victory and power. A traitor for some other nation at least holds an allegience to *something* outside of themselves. These traitors do not.

[Jed Dilligan]

32. That's kind of my point...

I would respect them much, much more if they were secret Islamist infiltrators.

[Jed Dilligan]

10. self delete

dupe

[Hubris Heaver]

5. They are levying war against us..

and our children and grandchildren will pay for it.
Every American that dies for false pretenses is the result of a treacherous act. Every Iraqi civilian that dies is a war crime committed by the US Govt



<edited for dyslexic spelling>

[Toucano]

17. Silencing Joe Wilson provided aid to the enemy.

No, the enemy is not "Osama".

The enemy is anyone who would like to wage war against the United States. Their identity may be unknown to us, but negating the contacts Valerie Wilson made doing her job could only have given them aid.

[johnaries]

22. Remember, it wasn't just Plame they outed. By outing her they

exposed the CIA front company she worked for, Brewster Jennings & Assoc, which was tracking the purchase of WMD's. By destroying the company's cover, they foiled the efforts of the REAL investigation which most certainly helped the enemies that BJ&A were tracking.

Also, all of the employees of BJ&A were outed and their lives put in jeopordy. In fact, it's very possible that some agents lost their lives as a result of the outing of Plame. The CIA doesn't release the names of NOC agents killed in action, so we wouldn't know if any agents were killed or not.

Yes, this most certainly was treason, by any definition.

[nookiemonster]

24. Brewster Jennings

Two words that the RW will NEVER bring up.

[johnaries]

25. Nope, so WE need to. and KEEP bringing it up! n/t

[hootinholler]

45. Yep I've heard it in the press once. n/t

[oasis]

39. If I'm the widow of a CIA agent who was whacked as a result of his

being outed, I'd say "treason". Moreso since the outing occured out of vindictiveness.

[murielm99]

6. Intelligence Identity Protection Act of 1982.

It is a crime according to this.

http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html

Follow the link. It is not only a crime to reveal the names of current undercover agents, but also former ones.

This is treason, according to the law.

[onenote]

7. its a crime, but its not necessarily treason

[onenote]

8. The Law of Treason

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5168724&mesg_id=5168724

onenote

[Jed Dilligan]

12. Thanks for the link

The Supreme Court decision on that thread seems to indicate that no, outing an agent as part of a harebrained political scheme is not treason, but something else with a much more commonplace stink to it.

[Mike03]

11. I don't know

But it seems to me:

That if any one interferes with the conduct of a person whose occupation is to prevent terrorism against the United States, that that obstruction constitutes "Treason." Particularly when it transpires during a time of war.

[unblock]

13. consider if someone had given plame's name to the iranians?

would THAT be treason?

yet that's exactly what the white house did.

[Jed Dilligan]

19. I'm not saying it's not "treasonous"

But I think the distinction is whether they did it to help the Iranians win a war against us or not. I don't think they did it for that reason; they did it because they are stupid and lame. The intent does make a difference, the punishment could be the same, I just don't know if treason is really the crime.

[Marr]

27. These men put their own *personal interests* ahead of national security.

Period.

Besides, their apparent intent was political revenge. Not exactly some shining, moral justification. Not that it matters.

[Jed Dilligan]

28. Right, it doesn't matter except

we should be accurate in accusing them, I think.

[Marr]

33. Is it supposed to inspire sympathy that these fools were willing to

sell out their own country for so little? Because it doesn't inspire sympathy in me.

[Jed Dilligan]

34. Sympathy? hell no! nt

[Marr]

41. :D

[Lerkfish]

14. is it treason? yes. is it provable? I have no idea.

its treason because they shared top-secret intellignce on a national security level with agents of a foreign power (chalabi, who incidentally ends up being a double agent for Iran, AND an implanted official if Iraq....whom the bush people LOVED, then HATED, then LOVED again) and conspired with agents of foreign powers to deceive our govt and our people into approving a fallacious war to line their own pockets and achieve world domination.

So, yes, I don't think you understand treason correctly.

as a side note, I notice that many of the koolaid drinking republicans had no trouble at all calling the dixie chicks traitors, and anyone who opposed the war as treasonous. For some reason, when it's their own, they seem to forget what treason means.


apparently they only have two brain cells, and geting them to rub together long enough to produce a spark is hit or miss.

[Jed Dilligan]

20. That hits on what's bothering me

Ann Coulter calls us "traitors," so I'd like to keep the definition of the term fairly tight!

[Lerkfish]

35. just curious, why?

why do you need to keep the definition "tight"?

It is a betrayal of a public trust, which put several operatives at high risk of assasination. It was falsifying evidence to the congress to approve a war, and it was lying to the UN to get sanctions and approval to invade.

If it was to revenge against Wilson, that makes very little sense-- the risk outweighs the benefit, on the face of it.

therefore I tend to agree with a theory I heard here that the REAL reason for the outing was to shut down Plame's whole operation, which was tracking WMDs around the world.
Now, ask yourself, why would they need to do that? What has been suggested is that they intended to PLANT WMDs themselves in Iraq, a sort of huge throw down weapon, to justify their illegal war. That's why Miller was involved, she was embedded and was supposed to "find" the planted weapons. However, it may be that Plame's group actually prevented Bushco from transporting the WMDs.

I don't know if that theory is correct, but it does have the advantage of showing a more understandable risk/benefit ratio for them.

[Jed Dilligan]

46. For a strong case.

I think people are relying on a dictionary, rather than a legal definition of treason. There are a lot of other really heinous crimes that their actions could embody. Why haul out a rare and hard-to-prosecute crime when there are a lot of common and easily demonstrable ones that could land equivalent penalties?

We don't need to invoke that part of the constitution to put them away. We should be more careful than they are about what accusations we make. Fraud and accessory to murder and war crimes--yes. Treason? I'm still not convinced. I guess I would need to see evidence that they were actually interacting with actual foreign enemies (and I really don't think that's outside the realm of possibility; I just haven't seen evidence).

But extending "aid and comfort" to a situation that isn't actually collaborative--I don't like it. I can imagine a situation where the precedent is applied in an oppressive way.

[Lerkfish]

47. you sound extremely set in your arguments...

now you finally came out with what you're fishing for.

nice rhetorical trap. I see through those fairly easily, though.

again, I ask, why? when you already possess the answer you desire.

[Jed Dilligan]

48. I don't understand you

I've come out of this convinced that treason actually is a possibility, though I haven't seen the evidence yet. But bandying the charge around without evidence seems kind of... Republican, don't you think?

[Lerkfish]

49. LOL!

I bet that works on some people.

[Jed Dilligan]

50. "Works"?

What do you think I'm trying to do? I feel like you're trying to insinuate something that you aren't allowed to say. PM me and I promise I won't tell on you. I have a thick skin.

[Lerkfish]

52. bwahahahahahahaha nice try.

nope, I'm referring to your debating style.
You were trying to bait me into becoming angry by insinuating I was arguing in a "republican" way.


just so you know, I"m immune to passive aggressive techniques.

[Jed Dilligan]

53. I'm not trying to debate you

That's where our confusion lies. I don't know who you are or where you come from and I'm not trying to change your mind. I've hated debate and debaters since high school.

I'm just trying to understand something that doesn't make sense to me, and the posts in this thread, including some of yours, have helped. Thanks.

[Mr_Spock]

16. Death penalty.

They gonna fry baby :D

[Jed Dilligan]

21. their heads pulled out of the sand

and raised up on pikes?

[TripleD]

18. According to GHW Bush, outing a CIA agent would be treason

"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." -- George H. W. Bush at the Dedication Ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence (CIA), given on Apr. 26, 1999.

[The Wielding Truth]

54. Thank you. They should hang on their own lying ropes.

[elehhhhna]

23. Come and listen to a story 'bout a man named Jed,

Didn't Last long--Had his very own thread!~
Then one day he said
"treason is okay"
And back to Freepville*
We sent him on his way






* i'm not implying YOU'RE a freeper, of course

[Jed Dilligan]

26. did I say

treason is okay? It isn't and neither are the crimes they did.

[berni_mccoy]

29. Damn, I can hear the Music in my head... now, I'll be singing it all night

THANKS!

:P

[LSK]

30. well, there really are people out there trying to get WMD

And the outing of Plame destroyed the whole CIA Brewster Jennings Brass Plate company that was out to thwart those people from getting WMD.

Once its know Plame was CIA, every country out there would find out where she worked, who she met, who she talked to, etc etc etc

Henceforth, treason.

[thinkingwoman]

37. My reasoning exactly

from day one I've been saying this to freepers I know. They can't grasp it, but it's really not that hard.

Destroying spy network that keeps WMD out of the hands of bad people = giving aid and comfort to the enemy (terrorists who want WMDs) = treason.

[PowerToThePeople]

36. Treason. Crime against humanity. I like the second one. n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

Seems more appropriate to me too.

Send them to the Hague--why not?

[elehhhhna]

57. NOW YOU'RE TALKING< Jedediah!

At least we'd get some justice!

[Jed Dilligan]

38. Seems more appropriate to me too.

Send them to the Hague--why not?

[WinkyDink]

40. They destroyed a covert CIA operation!!

Howzatferya?

[Jed Dilligan]

42. Why, is the question

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5168724&mesg_id=5168724

The law on treason seems to distinguish it from offenses where national security is damaged WITHOUT the intent to help the enemy. They didn't destroy the spy network to advance the cause of jihad but to advance their own political aims, making the crime something sleazier and more commonplace, but just as severe, as treason.

[Jed Dilligan]

43. dupe

self delete

[hootinholler]

44. Suborning perjury to prosecute an otherwise illegal war is equivilent to

Levying war against the United States.

Yes it is Treason.

-Hoot

[Carolab]

51. One word: Israel. n/t

[Rex]

55. Treason is betraying your country.

Betraying your country means placing it in harms way by weakening the national defense, which has happen. I can see Afghanistan being considered a legitimate target right after 911, I will not contend it was treasonous to enter Afghanistan.

IMO, it was treasonous to enter Iraq because most of our Army is over in Iraq NOW, this has weakened the nations ability to defend itself.
Doesn't matter if it is a natural disaster or a real invasion, they went to Iraq under false pretenses. That is treason. You are helping the 'enemy' by weakening your own defenses. Which the BFEE has done time and time again to make a profit. War is the secret to making hugh amounts of money and power.

Ike warned us and not ONE FUCKING PERSON tried to stop the military industrial complex. No one.

[Carolab]

56. Espionage--AIPAC

The party line, coming out of Neocon Central, is that Israel has a right to classified material, since we're such good buddies and all: friends don't have any secrets from each other, now do they? This is all just a matter of a faction fight within the administration, between neocons and "old guard" Republican realists in the State Department.

That may well be true, but it may also be true that one of the factions has committed illegal acts – espionage – on behalf of a foreign power. The "AIPAC kerfluffle," as the Jerusalem Post smugly refers to it, is surely the result of an internecine struggle within the Bush administration, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that one side constitutes an axis of treason.