"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."
Does releasing the "torture memos" to the public and to the rest of the world, including our enemies, constitute treason under the constitution?
Does this actconstitute "adhering to their enemies" or "giving them aid and comfort"?
What about the DHS report that says about retruning soldiers...
Quote:
"the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
Does the releasing of this report "adhere to our enemies" or "give them aid and comfort"?
Everything I have read on the subject of "adhering to our enemies" and "giving them aid and comfort"strongly suggests that these actscan, in fact, be considered treason under the constitution. If this is a treasonous act then under the definition of "misprision of treason" we have a constitutional obligation to
Quote:
In the United States, misprision of treason is a federal offense, committed where someone who has knowledge of the commission of any treason against the United States, does not inform the President, a federal judge or state Governor or judge (18 U.S.C.ยง2382). It is punishable by a fine and up to 7 years in prison.
Now, let me be clear in that I am not accusing any one of treason but it is very suggestive if you research the court cases and the supreme court rulings on the subject.
__________________
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency........... Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
What is they say about the shoe fitting? Lucky for some that our laws mean nothing, Bad for us they they always get away with it.[:@]
A charge of Treason would need to be levied against an individual or group of individuals by a citizen deemed to have "standing" to press the charges. Then, the merits of the charge would have to be measured (grand jury ???)...
__________________
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency........... Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
If they are the authority doesn't think so. if they're not they do.
I can't see a good reason to do it, I can see some profiting from it though and that's what it's all about isn't it? The economy is bound to get a boost in all the money the media will accumulate. Some may suffer but the media isjust living the American dream working hard. No ones forced to buy what they sell and I'm sure they will only charge what the market dictates. Their investors will make money and when it comes right down to it, that is what any company is there for. I guarentee some have already figured out how to make money off of it.
This ideal is what many here have called and defended as prosperity. Kind of a bitter fruit this apple tree has produced aye!
Then again the release of this information will cause our enimies to really get pumped up and possibly attack us in which case we can wipe them out for good. That aought to change some minds here. Don't just blow it off either, been done many times before. Like I said, I can't see any good reasons.
I'm not a lawyer, but a person who has "standing" is somebody who has cause to sue....he is a party 'damaged' by
the actions being called into question. For instance, the assistant atty general of the State of Pennsylvania was determined not to have sufficient STANDING to compel Obama to produce a valid Hi birth certificate. I will assume that some such litmus test will be applied in the event 'citizen' swears out a charge of 'treason' against say,
Pelosi, or Reid, or Frank or Obama. I don't know how this would happen, I do not know if 'treason' is a charge you can make by walking into the police station and swearing out an arrest warrant for citizen Barack Hussein Obama, or if prosecution for certain crimes must be initiated by the Attorney General of the United States. That's my point.
So, if nobody has standing who is willing to persue the Treason charge, then the offender gets to skate. Conversely, if you DO have standing, but choose NOT to make the allegation, again, the offender skates.
If they are the authority doesn't think so. if they're not they do.
I can't see a good reason to do it, I can see some profiting from it though and that's what it's all about isn't it? The economy is bound to get a boost in all the money the media will accumulate. Some may suffer but the media isjust living the American dream working hard. No ones forced to buy what they sell and I'm sure they will only charge what the market dictates. Their investors will make money and when it comes right down to it, that is what any company is there for. I guarentee some have already figured out how to make money off of it.
This ideal is what many here have called and defended as prosperity. Kind of a bitter fruit this apple tree has produced aye!
Then again the release of this information will cause our enimies to really get pumped up and possibly attack us in which case we can wipe them out for good. That aought to change some minds here. Don't just blow it off either, been done many times before. Like I said, I can't see any good reasons.
Well, if you see things in 'black and white', then a treasonous act should be treated as such and the offender prosecuted and executed if the law calls for it. This includes congressmen/women, the president, anybody. So,
I don't see it as a money-making issue, I see it as an issue whereby we can root-out people working for our destruction and whom is in collusion with our enemies. Period. I believe if the media has engaged in treasonous
acts, then those responsible need to be pulled out of their rat-holes and excised. Same for hollywood skunks and literally anybody else who is found to be a traitor. I don't know what you're talking about in regards to whatever the heck it was you were talking about, but if a president has the power under current law to de-classify Top Secret documents and he does so, then he cannot be found to be a traitor now, can he ? He may be a consummate fool and an ignoramus (as Hugo Chavez so eloquently put it...) and a moron and anti-American and anti-CIA and anti-Military and all sorts of scurrilous things (all of which I believe is true, by the way), but he's not a traitor as he's working within the confines of the law. Now if we find that Nancy Pelosi is selling secrets to Taliban operatives in her craphole of a district in Ca, then that might be considered as Treason, but barring overt and/or blatant acts, there will be no charges levied against anybody in this administration.
Treason????????
