Very simple DU poll: Richard B. Cheney has committed crimes, including treason Y/N?

[bobthedrummer]

Poll question: Very simple DU poll: Richard B. Cheney has committed crimes, including treason Y/N?

Voting Yes implies these crimes have been committed since occupying the office of VPOTUS as well as demanding accountability under law and our Constitution.

[bobthedrummer]

1. IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST-IMPEACH CHENEY NOW!

[Virginia Dare]

2. Of course he has..

but he's shredded the evidence and silenced anybody who knows anything.

[bobthedrummer]

6. Respectfully, no he hasn't neutralized all evidence and witnesses Virginia Dare.

Heck, even I know a bit about his crimes and have passed that on to my elected officials and other citizens over the years.

NGU.

[Yael]

3. I'll take 'yes'

as there is nothing stronger out there to pick from.

:hi:

[madokie]

4. hell yeah he has

so fucking many times

[BOSSHOG]

5. Yes, but

since he committed those crimes while exercising his conservative values he will not be held accountable. That's how it works for the members of the party of accountability and responsibility and integrity. Unless of course, that's just all worthless slogans like support our troops.

[movonne]

9. I always wonder who here on du would vote no...maybe some trolls...

[BOSSHOG]

11. Anyone trolling here

would vote yes and be proud of it. cheney fucking with the constitution and committing crimes and treason. Hell, trolls are proud of him for that. They don't give a fuck about our country, their allegiance is to their party.

[Deep13]

7. Crimes, yes, but probably not treason.

Aid and comfort to the enemy can mean anything, but usually it means material aid.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

18. Would "material aid" include nuclear armament? nt

[Rhythm and Blue]

20. If you can find evidence proving that Richard Cheney personally provided

a hostile nation with nuclear weapons with the understanding that they would be used on Americans, then you would have a case for treason, yes.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

28. Seriously endangering the national security interests by not only allowing,...

,...but also having a hand in arranging the proliferation of nuclear arms to countries whose populace are hostile to Americans. That qualifies as treason.

[Rhythm and Blue]

31. Are you referring to India?

That wouldn't exactly count as treason, since India is not hostile to America, and since Congress authorized it with the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act.

If you're going to suggest Dick Cheney is personally involved with an Iranian nuclear weapons program, well, you're going to need a lot of evidence to prove that.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

84. No.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=66773

[Rhythm and Blue]

85. Ah, you're referring to Six Degrees of Richard Cheney.

Here I thought you were referring to Cheney actually providing material aid to a hostile nation's nuclear weapon development with intent to harm America.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

92. Hardly. Ah, I see. That's how you characterize the information. Well, no use in continuing,...

,...to have further discussion on the applicability of treason.

[Rhythm and Blue]

98. Yes, once I suggest that

"Cheney worked with X who worked with Y who was involved with Z who had a hand in AQ Khan's program" and "Cheney worked to pass X, which benefitted Y, which then allowed Z to cover up AQ Khan's program," does not actually constitute evidence of treason, you decide that there's no use in continuing. Smart.

[Deep13]

34. No it doesn't.

Treason has a very narrow definition. Those other things may be crimes, but they are not treason.

"Having a hand?" Did he give supply nuclear weapons to an enemy state or not? And what country's populace is not hostile to us these day?

[timtom]

113. If I may interject...

trea·son n. 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. 2. A betrayal of trust or confidence. .

From the 3rd Edition American Heritage Dictionary.

I believe a violation of oath would qualify as violation of allegiance.

[Rhythm and Blue]

115. It certainly would.

However, our courts tend to defer to the United States Constitution, not the American Heritage Dictionary.

[timtom]

134. There I go again...

Now that you've mentioned it, I googled "treason" and you are quite right.

It's just wishful thinking on my part...

Legal definitions aside, I believe another good word for this band of thugs is "perfidy".

(Thanks for setting me straight.)

[Deep13]

143. The U.S. Constitution defines treason narrowly.

Look it up.

[timtom]

146. The previous poster and I already covered this.

Thanks.

[Deep13]

30. Giving nuclear weapons to an enemy state, sure.

When did he do that?

[cosmik debris]

8. Treason is an exaggeration. n/t

[seemslikeadream]

10. no it is not

He exposed Valerie Plame and EVERYTHING she had been involved with


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2104338&mesg_id=2104338

[cosmik debris]

17. Seriously?

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "......citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the ."

It's a stretch. Let me know when you find a prosecutor who will take the case based on the thin evidence you can present.

[seemslikeadream]

21. make war against,

you should try reading the whole link

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. or seriously injure the what?

[Rhythm and Blue]

24. It was probably something in square brackets,

like "nation of person's legal residence or citizenship." I can't count the number of times I've used square brackets and had them erased.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Well there you go.

Dick Cheney's seriously injured the country.

[Rhythm and Blue]

27. He has, but you're missing the first component of it.

"...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the (whatever was here)."

Unless you can prove that the Bush administration's horrible record was deliberate and done in conjunction with a foreign power with the goal of destroying America, that in and of itself isn't treason.

[cosmik debris]

35. link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

[seemslikeadream]

59. Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

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.

[Rhythm and Blue]

61. Richard Cheney has provided material aid to hostile nations,

with the intent they would be used to damage America? That's a new one on me.

[seemslikeadream]

68. Yes he has READ

AMERICAN JUDAS

[Rhythm and Blue]

75. Playing "Six Degrees of Seperation" with a high-ranking American politician

and the nuclear program of a foreign nation is not evidence of treason.

[seemslikeadream]

137. LISTEN TO THIS PLAME SAYS IT'S TREASON

IT'S TREASON

[Rhythm and Blue]

140. You're right, we should ignore 200 years of legal precedent and defer to her. nt

[seemslikeadream]

147. I don't know who the hell you are but you are no Valerie Plame and

you're a VERY FAST POSTER!!

[bobthedrummer]

23. The JUST US Department is corrupted by those that have prevented prosecution

and OUR Constitution and Bill of Rights are unambiguous when it comes to treason-it even mentions enemies as being foreign and domestic, I'm not going to waste anymore time on what is encapsulated in the wording of this simple DU poll-which I have discussed at length with elected officials and other citizens over the years.

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST-IMPEACH CHENEY NOW!

[Rhythm and Blue]

73. Obstruction of justice is indeed criminal,

and there are many who ought to be tried for this particular crime. Obstruction of justice is not treason.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

12. Is the Pope Catholic? n/t

[dkofos]

32. Was christ a Jew??

[MonkeyFunk]

142. Only on his mother's side

his father was a christian.

[Trouser Trout]

13. Where's the Category For "He's Pure Evil" ? n/t

[Rhythm and Blue]

14. He has committed many crimes. I do not believe a charge of treason would stick in court.

I am fully aware of the case that Cheney's role in the Plame affair constitutes treason, and while it is in many ways a convincing case, still I must respectfully disagree.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

55. More likely espionage, not treason

[babylonsister]

15. If treason, as defined in the dictionary, means betrayal of a trust or

or confidence; breach of faith; than I'd say yes. He lied us into a war for starters; I consider that a betrayal of trust.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treason

[Rhythm and Blue]

19. However, that is not how treason is legally defined. nt

[babylonsister]

29. Please provide the legal definition, and we could probably yank that apart, too. nt

[Rhythm and Blue]

37. Sure.

treason n. the crime of betraying one's country, defined in Article III, section 3 of the U. S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." (Note by R&B: generally interpreted to mean direct and intentional material aid only, not emotional support or 'support' by unintended and unforseen consequences of actions)

Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the information could harm American security. Treason can include revealing to an antagonistic country secrets such as the design of a bomber being built by a private company for the Defense Department. Treason may include "espionage" (spying for a foreign power or doing damage to the operation of the government and its agencies*, particularly involved in security) but is separate and worse than "sedition" which involves a conspiracy to upset the operation of the government.

*This is the argument from which the case that Cheney's role in the Plame affair constitutes treason arises. However, treason is a crime of intent as well, and one would have to prove that Cheney had both intended and succeeded through overt and intentional actions in the weakening of American security--and, crucially, that he had done so with the intent to weaken America to the benefit of a hostile nation.

[babylonsister]

46. So levying an illegal war Americans would have to fight and die for isn't

a qualifier? I imagine a good lawyer could do something with that. Also, see Pro's thread downstream; there are many links there that provide a lot of reasons treason could be applicable.
And thanks for the def!

[Rhythm and Blue]

49. No, it isn't. It may be criminal for other reasons, but it is not treasonous unless

it was specifically launched with the intent of assisting a foreign nation harm America.

[endarkenment]

50. By your own words:

"Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the information could harm American security. "

The exposure of Valerie Plame's covert status destroyed the intelligence gathering network she ran, causing still classified harm to those involved, harmed American security, and did so by giving any foreign intelligence service who cared to read our newspapers or listen to our broadcast media the classified information needed to roll up her network.

[Rhythm and Blue]

52. You probably started typing before I added this note.

This is the argument from which the case that Cheney's role in the Plame affair constitutes treason arises. However, treason is a crime of intent as well, and one would have to prove that Cheney had both intended and succeeded through overt and intentional actions in the weakening of American security--and, crucially, that he had done so with the intent to weaken America to the benefit of a hostile nation.

[endarkenment]

87. "treason is a crime of intent as well,"

Treason is a crime that requires overt acts with witnesses.

At any rate, Cheney et al intended to reveal Plame's covert status, that was an overt act with witnesses, and that act provided information to foreign nations that could and probably did damage our national security. There is no doubt that they intended to harm Plame, a covert CIA agent involved in an important national security matter, there is no doubt that they knew what her status was and what she was working on, you are left with claiming that the direct and predictable consequence of outing Plame: an act of sabotage against US national interests, was unintentional, while admitting that the outing of Plame was intentional.

They intended only to blow up just the door of the weapons depot, they didn't intend to cause the subsequent explosions of the weapons stored there?

You are now the one grasping at straws for an argument as to why this does not constitute treason.

[Rhythm and Blue]

88. That would be the crime of espionage, not treason.

For it to become treason, it would have to possess the intent of harming America to the benefit of a hostile power.

[endarkenment]

152. what?

Espionage was what Plame was being paid by the CIA to do. If you view what Cheney et al did as espionage, then they were engaged in espionage against the government of the USA, which espionage operation provided information to foreign governments that hurt our national interests, which fits exactly the definition of treason. Oh and if you insist on the foreign government being an 'enemy nation', the nuclear weapons proliferation arena seems to always involve North Korea, which nation we remain officially in a state of hostility with.

[ProSense]

51. "They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

"They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

Video

More

[ProSense]

57. For some reason the first link is redirecting, here is the actual link:

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/1999/bush_speech_042699.html

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

16. Very simply, yes, including treason. eom

[robertpaulsen]

25. YES, IN CAPS, YES!

:kick:

[The Traveler]

33. Lemme see

compromising pertinent intelligence resources at a time when American troops are engaged with a declared enemy, thereby providing direct material support to said enemy ... in my day, such conduct was rewarded with a blind fold, a cigarette, and twelve cheap bullets.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

36. Quite obviously not. "Treason" has a specific meaning.

Crimes? You bet. Treason? No.

Treason doesn't mean undermining the system of government or any generalized crime against the state or abuse of authority, or acting against the diplomatic interests of the US.

Since treason requires an "enemy" I believe treason should only exist in the context a declared war, or in terms of a foreign nation seeking to attack, invade or overthrow our government.

So I must be consistent. If the GWOT is a phony war it cannot generate treason charges.

What country is trying to overthrow us?

[TheBaldyMan]

78. how do you class the outing of Valerie Plame?

a CIA operative with the remit for non-proliferation of WMD to terror groups and rogue states?

This was a wilful act directly and seriously harming the security of the US. The whole network was blown.

If that doesn't count as betraying your country nothing does.

[The Stranger]

38. I was trying to think who would have voted "No" in this poll.

Any ideas?

[Rhythm and Blue]

40. You could start with reading the thread.

Pretty much everyone who's voted "no" has come forward with their justifications.

[seemslikeadream]

149. IT SEEMS WE JUST MIGHT FIGURE OUT A LOT OF THINGS

THERE'S A LOT OF CLUES OUT THERE ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS

[MonkeyFunk]

67. I voted "No"

because I think the inclusion of treason is wrong, for the reasons others have given.

[Initech]

39. The fact that this poll is not 100% yes is scary shit.

Who are the 5 people who voted no? Freeper lurkers?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

43. People who care what words mean.

Throwing around the word "treason" is a republican stunt from the 1950s.

Treason is a narrow crime specified in the constitution, not a generalized term for actions injurious to the state.

[The Stranger]

47. If what Cheney has done isn't treason, then the word simply has no meaning.

Where to begin?

[Rhythm and Blue]

53. Sure it does. A very specific legal meaning. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

54. Is beating a dog treason?

Seriously... treason doesn't mean "terrible thing." It mean intentionally assisting a foreign power at war with the US, or seeking to overthrow the govt of the US.

The war on terror is a phony war, so it cannot properly generate treason charges. What nation is trying to invade or overthrow us?

It is a precondition to treason, and one not met.

Outing Valerie Plame, for instance, may be espionage, but it isn't treason. Even if outing her assisted Iran's WMD ambitions, we are not at war with Iran.

[The Stranger]

65. Again I ask: Where to begin?

You think that because the "War on Terror" is a phony war, it cannot generate treason charges? The whole concept behind the "War on Terror" is to launch the nation into a war in violation of the Constitution and in violation of international law. The whole concept behind the "War on Terror" is that, due to the advent of assymetrical warfare, nations are no longer required for a war. It may be declared against a small group of people.

Along these very lines, it may also very well be that Cheney's allying with various interests (i.e., PNAC) and engaging in the endless list of crimes he has committed against the U.S. in alliance with these interests qualify as treason. That is, it may not be necessary to define Cheney's alliance with enemies of the U.S. as being a foreign power with whom the nation is at war. It is sufficient he has provided aid and comfort to foreign interests and groups against the U.S.

If Cheney hasn't sought to overthrow the U.S. from within, then what name can be given to the tomes of crimes he has committed or acted as a co-conspirator in?

[Rhythm and Blue]

69. Violations of the Constitution are not by themselves treason.

PNAC is certainly not an organization dedicated to the destruction of America. Rather, it is emphatically an organization dedicated to (by its own admission, down to its very name) eternal American hegemony. Committing crimes in furthering this goal is indeed criminal and impeachable, but is not treasonous.

Aid and comfort to foreign interests and groups, historically, must be material and given in explicit understanding that they will be used towards the overthrow or defeat of America. Neither are the case with Richard Cheney.

The name which may be given to the tomes of crimes he has committed is this: Criminal. "Treasonous" does not mean "very, very criminal."

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

83. What about intentionally scheming to destroy its substance? eom

[Rhythm and Blue]

86. That would be an extremely vague charge,

and depends on what specific crimes are being proposed were "schemed" over. For each crime X Cheney schemed to commit, the appropriate charge is conspiracy to X, and a count of obstruction of justice. It's not like once you hit the tenth illegal attempt to expand executive power you suddenly qualify as treasonous.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

96. I disagree. Conspiracy to disassemble the substance of the USC is pretty specific.

The expansion of executive power is only one piece of evidence proving the conspiracy. I'm sure I don't have to go through all other evidence (surveillance, torture, etc.) as you are obviously an astute individual.

[Rhythm and Blue]

102. Huh. I don't recall that one being in the United States Code.

Perhaps you could tell me where Disassembling the Substance of the United States (I assume you meant Constitution here, but FYI, USC is generally taken as US Code) appears.

Since Richard Cheney is not actually taking Wite-Out and Sharpies to the Constitution, I would have to suggest that what you propose would be so vague that absolutely any attempt to expand the mandate of an office or agency beyond its limits would have to be considered as treason, down to the EPA enforcing emissions standards in a manner that Congress finds unreasonable. That would be stupid.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

106. I wasn't citing law. I was referring to the U.S. Constitution. Deconstruction requires no,...

,..."Wite-Out and Sharpies". How silly.

You didn't acknowledge or address anything I posted.

I don't figure a conversation is possible with you, particularly with your smirky responses towards any information which challenges your "can't be treason" position. The "six degrees" and "tinfoil" and "wite-out" comments make it perfectly clear to me any reasonable discussion with you on the possibility of treason is off the table.

[Rhythm and Blue]

110. Well, I should like a reasonable discussion,

but that would require you to meet me halfway here. I'm providing a legal definition of treason, and explaining why Cheney's actions do not fit the bill. In reply, I'm getting nonsense involving unproven and unprovable conspiracies in which an influential foreign-policy think tank is plotting to destroy America (the tinfoil), links to long-winded posts suggesting that Cheney was involved with people who were involved with people who assisted people who were involved with Pakistan's nuclear program (the 6 degrees), and business about Cheney "deconstructing the Constitution."

What I meant by the Wite-out business (I'm sorry it went over your head) is that the phrase "Deconstruction" can have one of two meanings. Either you mean it literally--that Cheney is actually destroying the Constitution--or metaphorically, in which Cheney is overstepping his Constitutionally-mandated bounds. The first is clearly not true, as the Constitution still exists and no courts have found it lessened in importance. The second is clearly true, but agencies and organizations are constantly overstepping their bounds. When they do, they ought be pushed back, and if the violation was intentional they ought be charged with a crime. However, that is not "treason," nor is it a clear and present threat to the existence of the Constitution.

If you don't want me to dismiss your arguments, please provide actual arguments.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

114. Really. You've dismissed whistle-blower testimony (e.g. evidence). No where to go from there. nt

[Rhythm and Blue]

116. Yes, I have dismissed the claim that

you can play connect-the-dots between Richard Cheney and (eventually) Pakistan's nuclear program. While many of the associations involved there might possibly allude to various crimes, none of them amount to treason.

[The Stranger]

93. You assert both of those as if they are axioms. Quite the contrary . . .

PNAC is certainly not an organization dedicated to the destruction of America. Rather, it is emphatically an organization dedicated to (by its own admission, down to its very name) eternal American hegemony. Committing crimes in furthering this goal is indeed criminal and impeachable, but is not treasonous.

PNAC is dedicated to the destruction of such a fundamental aspect of the government and Constitution of America, that it is treason. Again, this is not someone descending upon Washington with pitchforks and torches. If it were, we wouldn't be in the predicament we are in. And of course it is not going to admit that its actions and intent is to destroy the most fundamental aspects of the government.

Aid and comfort to foreign interests and groups, historically, must be material and given in explicit understanding that they will be used towards the overthrow or defeat of America. Neither are the case with Richard Cheney.

Using the term "destruction of America" and "defeat of America," again, seems overly simplistic. Of course PNAC and its allies are not going to "defeat America" in the time-honored sense of overthrowing governments. But that is why we are where we are today. Rather than "defeat America," calling to mind war ships on the high seas, they have infiltrated the U.S. government and actively seek its overthrow from the inside. They intentionally seek to replace the U.S. government (as opposed to "defeating America") with themselves.

The name which may be given to the tomes of crimes he has committed is this: Criminal. "Treasonous" does not mean "very, very criminal."

Treason is a crime, but not all crimes are treason? Thanks, but we are talking about a far more subtle aspect of treason than you seem to appreciate.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

99. Very good.

:applause:

[Rhythm and Blue]

100. I'm sorry, but federal courts stopped accepting legal briefs written on tinfoil.

You're going to have to do more than simply allege that a foreign-policy think tank Cheney is a member of is secretly intending to destroy the American government.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

101. Oh, my. Out with the tinfoil assertion. "Smart". eom

[Rhythm and Blue]

103. Claims of an overarching conspiracy with no factual references would indeed be tinfoil.

If you don't want your post to be called tinfoil, don't post tinfoil. Simple as that.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

108. Why bother citing facts/evidence when they'll be dismissed as something else? eom

[Rhythm and Blue]

111. Well, one could try citing actual facts or actual evidence.

That might be an interesting change. How about you provide an example of a specific act Richard Cheney has committed (on a more concrete level than "attempted to destroy the Constitution"), and explain how that act satisfies the legal definition of treason.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

118. If I thought it would make a difference, I'd take the time to give that to you. nt

[The Stranger]

153. Federal courts consider allegations far, far, far more "tinfoil" than this.

[Deep13]

44. People who actually know the definition of treason. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

74. Not freeper lurkers...

people who understand that words have meanings.

People here love to toss around the term "treason", and very few seem to know what it entails.

[Rhythm and Blue]

76. It's interesting how many people have asked who's posting the 'no' votes,

when it seems that nearly all the 'no' voters have been extremely vocal about their reasoning in this very thread.

[MonkeyFunk]

79. I think it's

because people really really hate this administration, and feel that any claim against them is justified. People who actually CARE about things like words and meaning object to that, and then are accused of somehow supporting Bush and Cheney.

Check out any thread about child molesters: if somebody says "gee, maybe we shouldn't let the parents of the victims murder the perpetrator slowly", someone will, I guarantee it, accuse that person of supporting or endorsing child molestation.

They think the vehemence with which they express their hatred corresponds to the depth of their dislike of the crime/criminal. That's just not so.

I'm sure I hate Bush and Cheney as much as anybody on this board. I want them gone, I want them tried. But because I think impeachment would be a waste of time and effort right now, and because I think the word "treason" doesn't apply, I will be accused of being a freeper.

[ProSense]

41. War crimes refresher

War crimes

[babylonsister]

48. Great stuff-thanks! nt

[Deep13]

42. Definition of treason in the USA, just so we are clear...

Constitution, Article III, Section 3 - Treason

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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

[bobthedrummer]

56. Richard B. Cheney is a domestic enemy of the US-I'm with the citizens that state that fact

it's part of the larger context, this administration was installed-not elected and the criminals and traitors it has employed have, in fact, harmed US as well as illegally issuing paper and decrees unconstitutionally hiding behind the "national security" shield (a crime in itself).

Use the context of a coup that altered and modified OUR government once it was installed-that's treason to US--that's the solid camp I'm with.

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST-IMPEACH CHENEY NOW!

[Rhythm and Blue]

58. Richard Cheney has declared a desire to see America overthrown?

If not, he doesn't count as a "domestic enemy." Not all criminals are traitors.

[bobthedrummer]

60. Our US Constitution has been "overthrown" piecemeal-that is treason since it is US eom.

[Rhythm and Blue]

63. Violations of the Constitution are not treasonous. They are criminal. nt

[bobthedrummer]

64. Papering it over is treason regardless of the form (PD, EO, etc) by unelected Executive n/t

[Rhythm and Blue]

70. No, it is obstruction of justice, which is certainly criminal

but not treasonous.

[bobthedrummer]

71. See post 23 n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

81. Signing on to PNAC should be enough. Their intent is to overthrow

our government and go for one world government & global domination.

[Rhythm and Blue]

89. You're half right on that one.

Their intent is American global domination. Their intent is not to overthrow the government. Tinfoil is not admissible in court.

[Ghost in the Machine]

94. Rigged elections & "permanent republican majority" = overthrowing our form of government

I got your tinfoil right here.....

[Rhythm and Blue]

104. Election fraud is not the same as treason.

Even if I were to take the bizarre claim that Cheney personally ordered voting discrepencies in Ohio as true, election fraud is not the same as treason.

[Deep13]

77. No, treason is waging war on the USA, adhering to its enemies ...

...or giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

It is a crime of foreign collaboration.

[Rhythm and Blue]

80. It seems too many wish to define "treasonous" as an adjective meaning

no more than "flagrantly criminal."

[TheBaldyMan]

82. outing Plame gave aid and comfort to America's enemies.

the Bush administration has continued to screw things up, treasonous act piled on treasonous act.

The longer they are kept in office the more damage they do.

[Rhythm and Blue]

91. Yeah, in the same way the Dixie Chicks did.

:eyes:

"Aid and comfort" must be material aid specifically given to a hostile foreign power with intent of bolstering that nation's ability to defeat, overthrow, or cause significant damage to America.

[The Stranger]

95. Actually, I think he/she may be correct there.

Your flip dismissal of it seems to betray an unwillingness even to consider arguments for a charge of treason, instead smoothing it over with notions of "defeating America."

And then a rolling eyes icon and a reference to the Dixie Chicks?

[Rhythm and Blue]

107. The crime of treason is one of foreign collaboration.

I have already considered arguments for treason. I have come to the decision that they are all incorrect. I have not seen anything here that I have not already considered and dismissed for the reasons given. If someone were to provide a rationale for treason that was more sophisticated than "Cheney has committed crimes" and "Cheney has hurt America," I would be obligated to consider and either accept or reject the argument.

In the mean time, unless you are providing direct aid to a foreign power with the intent of defeating, overthrowing, or causing significant damage to America, you are not committing treason.

(The Dixie Chicks reference is entirely appropriate, as the argument the poster advanced is the exact same one that was levied by many conservative pundits against the group.)

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

117. Please, cite law backing up the assertion ALL acts of treason require foreign collaboration.

thank you

[Rhythm and Blue]

119. Cramer v. United States (1945)

the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=325&invol=1

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

123. Haupt v US, 330 U.S. 631 (1947). nt

[Rhythm and Blue]

124. That's amusing (edited to add more excerpts)

We have held that the minimum function of the overt act in a treason prosecution is that it show action by the accused which really was aid and comfort to the enemy. Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 34 , 65 S.Ct. 918, 934. This is a separate inquiry from that as to whether the acts were done because of <330 U.S. 631, 635> adherence to the enemy...

...As the Cramer case makes plain, the overt act and the intent with which it is done are separate and distinct elements of the crime.

It is true that reasonable doubts may be raised as to whether or not the prime motive for an act was treasonous. <330 U.S. 631, 648> Yet the nature of some acts is such that a non-treasonous motive cannot be completely dismissed as a possibility. An overt act of treason, however, should rest upon something more substantial than a reasonable doubt. Treason is different from ordinary crimes, possessing unique and difficult standards of proof which confine it within narrow spheres. It has such serious connotations that its substance cannot be left to conjecture.

It is urged that the conviction cannot be sustained because there is no sufficient proof of adherence to the enemy, the acts of aid and comfort being natural acts of aid for defendant's own son. Certainly that relationship is a fact for the jury to weigh along with others, and they were correctly instructed that if they found that defendants' intention was not to injure the United States but merely to aid his son 'as an individual, as distinguished from assisting him in his purpose, if such existed, of aiding the German Reich, or of injuring the United States, the defendant must be found not guilty.'

That decision is in full agreement with the one I cited. If you intend to cite Supreme Court cases, please at least first skim them to confirm that they do not actually uphold your opponent's position.

[Rhythm and Blue]

133. ...so you're done, then? nt

[TheBaldyMan]

105. what part of destroying up the anti-WMD network isn't harming the US?

and if you try and justify those actions with the chestnut that Cheney and Bush never intended to cause significant damage to the state - the 'We never intended to harm America' defence then I am afraid to inform you I won't be persuaded.

That CIA network WAS the US intelligence apparatus to track biological, chemical and nuclear capabilities. It was nullified overnight.

I wish this was the only example of security being seriously compromised by this administration but there are other instances of the incompetents screwing things up just as badly.

on edit: I can cite other examples if you insist on it.

[Rhythm and Blue]

112. And which government was Richard Cheney collaborating with when he did this? nt

[TheBaldyMan]

120. What legal basis do you have for your assertion for your sine qua non?

treason can be committed as you say, by collaboration with a foreign power but the crime of treason can be committed without active collaboration to a named foreign power. Your definition is far too limited.

One can damage US security as much as you want but as long as you did not intend to harm US security - it is, by your lights at least, not treason.

Your insistence that collaboration with a named foreign power is a necessary condition, a sine qua non to commit treason is wrong.

What legal justification are you using for that particular argument.

on edit : I have seen your Cramer v US citation

[Rhythm and Blue]

121. It's been part of the United States legal tradition since its inception. See:

Cramer v. United States (1945), which culminated its history and definition of the crime of treason in America with:

the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

[Rhythm and Blue]

122. And if you do not think Cramer case would be considered precedent,

see Haupt v. United States (1945), which stated:

As the Cramer case makes plain, the overt act and the intent with which it is done are separate and distinct elements of the crime.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=330&invol=631

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

125. Apparently, you didn't read Haupt, a 1947 case. Foreign collaboration is NOT necessary. nt

[Rhythm and Blue]

126. That is not remotely what Haupt found.

Haupt upheld the notion that intent to adhere to an enemy is a necessary prerequisite for treason, citing Cramer. See and reply to above post.

[TheBaldyMan]

127. I still assert that treason has been committed, let me expand my argument.

This hinges on the interpretation of adherence to the enemy, an intent to betray.

I assert there is an adherence or intent here that cannot be avoided. When Plame was outed there was a clear consequence, severe damage to US security, a consequence that cannot be claimed to have been unforeseen.

The VP (most probably with the full knowledge and blessing of the pResident) knew this would damage the security of the state and by carrying out that act is where his intent lies. He (and others involved in the commission of the crime) knew it would damage security yet still disclosed the information or caused the information to be disclosed. It is in this act that the betrayal is inherent.

There is not just an intent to betray, in this case the betrayal was unavoidably assured.

This is why I can't understand your insistence that the crime of treason was not committed, the conditions are not only met they are far stronger than those needed.

[Rhythm and Blue]

130. So, again, who is the enemy that is being adhered to?

Both Cramer and Haupt make it extremely clear that an act of treason is not one in which the United States is harmed, even willfully. Treason is a case in which the United States is harmed by an American citizen displaying allegience to a hostile power. Even if one is fully aware one is harming the US by one's actions (such as in Haupt*), it is not treason if it is not done with specific intent to harm the United States, bolstering a foreign power. The mere act of harming US security intentionally does not constitute a betrayal. It is a crime, yes. But it is not treason.

[TheBaldyMan]

131. You didn't read my post.

[Rhythm and Blue]

132. I did. It was incorrect. Read mine.

I will acknowledge that Cheney et al. were fully aware they were harming US security. However, that is not treasonous. As both cases have found, even if you are harming America and know that you are harming America, it is still not treason unless one intends to harm America in adherence to an enemy power.

You're grabbing on to the word "betray," and using it in a very loose manner. "Betray" does not simply mean "to harm something you were supposed to be defending." Betray here means "to oppose something to which you owe allegiance by displaying allegiance to an enemy." Both cases upheld this concept.

Unless you can provide the enemy to which Cheney was displaying allegiance to, you're not going to get very far.

[TheBaldyMan]

135. You keep clinging to the notion that you MUST 'adhere to a foreign power'. not so

If you insist on continuing that line then I will cleave equally limpet-like to my interpretation of 'intent to betray'.

Consider this: If a registered Republican who works in a government lab is bribed to pass plans for a rocket engine to the Red Chinese, this worker is without the slightest ideological sympathy with Maoism. This worker has committed treason in my book but according to you he hasn't. He didn't adhere to a foreign government, he did it for the money (or sexual favours, or blackmail).

He knew he was injuring the security of the US but he had no time for communist ideology.

He was helping a ill-disposed foreign power but had never adhered to that power, would never willingly go and settle in China and would be antithetical about a 'red revolution' in America.

[Rhythm and Blue]

136. Well, let's see what case law says about that.

In your example, he was aware that he was helping a specific enemy nation, by virtue of the fact that he was assisting admitted agents of a specific enemy nation. According to Haupt, if one is aware of an enemy nation's specific intent to cause harm to America, and one aids a member of that nation in consideration of that fact, it would constitute adherance and thus treason. It does not matter why he has shifted allegiences. Here it was money; in Haupt it was out of love for his Nazi son. He has still adhered to a foreign government. "Adherance" does not mean "support for purely ideological reasons;" it merely means "support."

It is the existence of Chinese agents requesting information that makes this case treason. Here would be an example closer to what happened with Cheney and Plame:

That Republican is having an internet argument on a public forum about whether or not the US is making new, improved rocket engines. To embarrass the other guy, he posts the plans online. The Chinese then steal the plans. What he did was reckless, yes. It harmed America. It certainly was done with knowledge that it could be used by enemy agents. But it was not done for that intent, and thus would count merely as an illegal disclosure of classified materials, and not as treason. Do you see the difference?

[TheBaldyMan]

138. Cheney, by your reasoning, did adhere to an ill-disposed foreign agency.

Cheney blew the gaffe on a whole network with the unavoidable and completely predictable consequence of aiding a foreign enemy. Wilful blindness is no defence in this case. Cheney knew that the disclosure would harm both security and Wilson-Plame, he went ahead with it anyway. He committed both crimes with the single act. You can't pick and choose here, both outcomes were inseparably linked. Intent for one outcome equates intent for the other.

I can't throw piano off a ten story building and then claim I only intended for it to fall the first few feet - in this case the piano injured a crowd of innocent bystanders at ground level.

By your reasoning not just disclosure of classified information but treason. Clear intent to injure and adherence to foreign agencies.

[Rhythm and Blue]

139. And that opinion is in contrast to the explicit opinion of the Court. nt

[TheBaldyMan]

141. with respect, I fail to see how this disagrees with the explicit opinion

Cheney's case is different to both Cramer and Haupt - they examine the criteria for treason to have taken place. Cheney meets those conditions.

There is a single act with a dual outcome. The intent is the dual outcome. Both crimes done with a single act.

There will be a trial, the sooner the better. The Bush administration continues to do long-term damage to national security for short term political gain.

Even the invertebrate Senator Pelosi would be preferable to Bush and Cheney in office a day longer than necessary. Maybe people should start sending calcium supplements to their representatives?

[Deep13]

144. Maybe. I have always taken the view that a nation...

...is not an enemy if there is no declaration of war. But then, I'm an idealist.

[rucky]

45. More than enough evidence to have a trial!

that's all I'm expecting. it doesn't seem like it's asking for much, but apparently it is.

[TheBaldyMan]

62. I only voted 'yes' because there is no 'FUCK YEAH!' option.

[RebelSansCause]

66. IMPEACH THE FUCKER NOW!!!!! n/t

[stirlingsliver]

72. I.M.P.E.A.C.H.

Impeach the motherfucker -- in fact, impeach BOTH motherfuckers.

NOW.

[and-justice-for-all]

90. CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY...

sums it up nicely.

they like to call other countries harbingers of Terrorism and we all know that the US Government has sponsered Terror Organizations.

Corporations like Standard oil (Now Exxon Mobil) continued to sell the Nazis oil during the war, much like the US Government, Anything for a buck no matter the cost.

[baldguy]

97. Every Iraqi child that is needlessly killed...

Every American who is now dead from his actions...

Every dollar that is wasted on this stupid, immoral & illegal war...

Every new contract that is awarded to well-connected criminal organizations like Blackwater & Hallibuton...

Every weapon "lost" that is used by our enemies...

Every vote that is suppressed, every vote cast & not counted...

Every day Osama remains free...


Every one of these is a separate indictment against every person serving this regime.

[Cleita]

109. Dick Cheney and George Bush are not loyal Americans. Their

loyalties lie with the international oil cartel that they are a part of. Their oaths to uphold the Constitution mean nothing to them. They are loyal to anti-American global interests only.

[Me.]

128. I Would Say That Fitzgerald

would like the cloud over the vice-president's office investigated by Congress

[WinkyDink]

129. Where was "HELL, YES!" ?

Destroying a covert CIA operation.

[Me.]

145. Treason

‘a crime that undermines the offender's government’

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:treason&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title


'TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, 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.’

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm


‘Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "......citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the ." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

[H2O Man]

148. Crimes and abuses

of power that not only justify, but demand impeachment.

[Vickers]

150. Very simple poll, huh?

:P

[Marrah_G]

151. You needed a poll for this?

[bobthedrummer]

154. The name Marrah means bitter, right? Did you vote yes? eom