http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/williams120805.htm
| Canadian Free Press wrote: |
by J.B. Williams
Thursday, December 8, 2005
Like so many other old ideas, the concept of treason seems to have lost its usefulness in today’s American society of social creature comforts and lofty "love thy enemy more than thy country" precepts. It’s almost treasonous to accuse anyone of treason today. But have some stretched the boundaries of honest dissent and strayed into treasonous territory for the sake of political gain?
Treason is defined differently in different parts of the world. In America, the U.S. Constitution defines it this way in Article III, 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." |
The American left has taken it upon themselves since the 60's the position that anything goes and nothing can be treasonous. Jane Fonda SITTING in a North Vietnamese AA gun position and cheering them on, to the left that was no more an act of treason than printing a phamphlet critical of a bill in the Senate. They seem to believe that the First Amendment protects everything from yelling fire in a crowded building to calling for the destruction of the state.
Naturally, a leftist would see what Fonda did as "freedom of speech." It's one thing to march and protest IN the United States. It is another entirely to visit an enemy of the United States, with whom we are engaging actively in hot combat and bubble, "I will I could should down a US aircraft!"
Not only is it treason, it's also distasteful. It's like talking about your friend behind his back and then he finds out about it. I can forgive Sheryl Crow. I can forgive Pearl Jam. I can forgive Green Day. I CANNOT forgive the Dixie Chicks. They said what they said in another country. That's just bad taste. "We're ashamed that George Bush came from Texas."
The Dixie Chicks
well if thats the quote in which you are talking about, then I think you should seriously think about it. In no way is that a Treasonous statement, matter of fact it is opinion and only an opinion. The country of the United States was founded on the idea that our government officials and Leaders are not only selected by the mass majority, but also allowed to be openly and publicly critisized. Thats the beauty of our Democratic way of Gov't, of course it is your opinion as well to be irked by this comment, however I firmly stand by my statement of think about it again. It's not like they said "Down with the United States, Send the terror their way," which if they had said that then it would be treasonous. I can garauntee that not every citizen in the U.S. is going to see eye to eye with the President, in fact it's that reason alone that keeps his actions in check.
Now before you just write this off as what ever, take this to mind; I voted durring both the last two presidential elections, and Yes I voted for Bush, yet I still don't agree with this war. I only recently have come to the idea that this war is just in reason but a lot of the facts are blinded from our view and/or negated from popular media propaganda.
Treason would be turning your back on the nation, not for critisizing a figure head.
What's treasonous is the media's portrayal of the war. They have undermined troop moral as well as any enemy attack could.
I agree the medias portrayl of this war is a little bit on the misleading side but once again would not agree that it is Treasonous. Lets not forget what this word means before we throw it around so easily.
treason, high treason
Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Old French traison, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray -- more at TRAITOR
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.
that was pulled off webster.com verbatum: http://www.webster.com/dictionary/treason The way I see it, if people can claim Bush lied and should be impeached, I can say the media is treasonous. 
And I can say that Santa Claus is a robot! 
We are each free to speak our "Truth". In any legal situation "Truth" is the minimum requirment, with false being perjury and "joined false" being Conspiracy.
If you truly oppose that is not treasonous and if you are truly for that is not treasonous.
It seems to me that only the intentional advancing of a false position-lying to someone elses detriment- would put you on the road to treason.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/williams120805.htm
| Canadian Free Press wrote: |
by J.B. Williams
Thursday, December 8, 2005
Like so many other old ideas, the concept of treason seems to have lost its usefulness in today’s American society of social creature comforts and lofty "love thy enemy more than thy country" precepts. It’s almost treasonous to accuse anyone of treason today. But have some stretched the boundaries of honest dissent and strayed into treasonous territory for the sake of political gain?
Treason is defined differently in different parts of the world. In America, the U.S. Constitution defines it this way in Article III, 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." |
The American left has taken it upon themselves since the 60's the position that anything goes and nothing can be treasonous. Jane Fonda SITTING in a North Vietnamese AA gun position and cheering them on, to the left that was no more an act of treason than printing a phamphlet critical of a bill in the Senate. They seem to believe that the First Amendment protects everything from yelling fire in a crowded building to calling for the destruction of the state.
Naturally, a leftist would see what Fonda did as "freedom of speech." It's one thing to march and protest IN the United States. It is another entirely to visit an enemy of the United States, with whom we are engaging actively in hot combat and bubble, "I will I could should down a US aircraft!"
Not only is it treason, it's also distasteful. It's like talking about your friend behind his back and then he finds out about it. I can forgive Sheryl Crow. I can forgive Pearl Jam. I can forgive Green Day. I CANNOT forgive the Dixie Chicks. They said what they said in another country. That's just bad taste. |
Wow, you know... the USA just spent a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives trying to get rid of a dictator with the same attitude as you... Either you agree with me or your a traitor and guilty of treason.
Dixie Chicks, Sheryl Crow, and Green Day had the stones to say what they felt was right, . That my friend is what I miss about America, speaking out, being heard, despite the pressures against you. At least some americans haven't lost their spine...Heheh.So what are you trying to imply now?
I mean before, you wanted everyone to support the war despite the fact that it was illegal, there was no evidence, ergo sum there was no reason.
Then you wanted everyone to support the war even though, to your own admission the purported reasons given for the war before it started don't exist.For the sake of the country and for the sake of patriotism, and ofcourse for the sake of agreeing with you.
Then you wanted the media to tell you happy stories in a world where there's more funerals than birthdays every day.
And now, you want us all to like Bush?
Did I get that right?
If we don't like Bush or if we're ashamed of Bush we're guilty of treason?
wow.
In that case you might want to subject a little under half of the American population that didn't vote for him to the possibility of capital punishment ( yup you could get that for treason ) Cus I'm pretty sure quite a lot of the folk that didn't vote for him didn't like him.
So much for the land of the free.
| i_am_mine wrote: |
| despite the fact that it was illegal, |
umm its a fact.
and i'm glad you found it funny.
helps the heart out, is what the docs say.
| i_am_mine wrote: |
umm its a fact.
and i'm glad you found it funny.
helps the heart out, is what the docs say. |
oh, ah, so you desire facts that you can subsequently blind yourself from and deny, aaaalrighty then...have a glass of water, or whatever that is that you're drinking...
and if its coke...
enjoy. 
| Quote: |
Resolution 1441, drafted and accepted unanimously the year before the invasion, threatened "serious consequences" to Iraq in case Iraq did not comply with all conditions. Russia, the People's Republic of China, and France made clear in a joint statement that this did not authorize the use of force but a further resolution was needed. This was also the position of the UK and the US at the time the resolution was decided. On the day of the vote the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, said that in the event of a "further breach" by Iraq, Resolution 1441 would require that "the matter will return to the Council for discussions."
Until a few days before the war, it was the position of the UK, the main US ally in the war, that a further resolution would be desirable before the UK would go to war.
According to international law the US and other coalition governments' invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked assault on an independent country which breached international law. Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." This is known as the "Prohibition of Aggression." For the use of force other than in self defence, it is absolute without the positive sanction of the security council under Article 42. Resolution 1441 was not intended by China, Russia and France to authorise war.Kofi Annan, speaking on behalf of the UN charter, declared: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." |
Oh but wait, I remember now, you only think the United Nations is a fair, just and mighty body when you're able to pass your resolutions, but then when you can't its just a defunct organisation comprising of 200 plus nations that are all evil and unfair and conspiring...
| Quote: |
Invasion legitimacy
The legitimacy of the invasion is illegal under international law. Prior to invasion, the U.S. and U.K. attempted unsuccessfully to secure a U.N. resolution authorizing force on the grounds that Iraq was allegedly in violation of various previous resolutions. The U.S. structured its report to the U.N. Security Council around alleged intelligence from the CIA and MI5 stating that Iraq allegedly possessed weapons of mass destruction. Legal justification rested upon Iraq's violation of several U.N. Resolutions, most recently UN Security Council Resolution 1441. U.S. president George W. Bush claimed Iraq's supposed WMDs posed a significant threat to the United States and its allies. The Iraqi government denied the existence of any such facilities or capabilities and called the reports lies and fabrications, which was backed by the post-war prima facie case that no WMDs were evident or found. U.N. inspection teams capable of continuing the search were ordered out because war appeared imminent. The U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded in its September 30, 2004 report that, "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks"
The U.S. officially abandoned its search for WMDs in Iraq on January 12, 2005.
To this date, WMDs have not been found in Iraq, [see Duelfer Report].
Countries supporting and opposing the invasion
Support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq included 49 nations, a group that was frequently referred to as the "coalition of the willing". These nations provided combat troops, support troops, and logistical support for the invasion. The nations contributing combat forces were, roughly:
Total 300,884 - 98% US & UK
United States (250,000 83%), United Kingdom (45,000 15%), South Korea (3,500 1.1%), Australia (2,000 0.6%), Denmark (200 0.06%), and Poland (184 0.06%). Ten other countries offered small numbers of non-combat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination. In several of these countries a majority of the public was opposed to the war. For example, in Spain polls reported at one time a 90% opposition to the war. In most other countries less than 10% of the populace supported an invasion of Iraq without a specific go-ahead from the UN. . According to a mid-January 2003 telephone poll, approximately one-third of the U.S. population supported a unilateral invasion by the US and its allies, while two-thirds supported war if directly authorized by the U.N..
|
Legitimate.Ofcourse not, but then again, ofcourse according to you it should be legit, so ofcourse...
and 98% of the forces? US and UK? heh, so much for the 17+.But thats old news what I didn't know was that Korea actually sent more forces ( 1.1%) than Australians (0.6%).Thought our mates from down under would have been more willing in the coalition of the willing...
and the countries that opposed the war:
| Quote: |
The following countries' governments did not support the War of Iraq:
* The 114 governments of the Non-Aligned Movement
* Russia
* China
* Pakistan
* Morocco
* Germany
* France
* Canada
* New Zealand
* Belgium
|
So lets see, 114 + 9 = 123, but that don't matter... 
| Quote: |
| and France made clear in a joint statement that this did not authorize the use of force |
This gets funnier and funnier every time you post! whatever you say.
never knew when plain good ol' English got so funny, but hey, who knows.
or is it just the facts,truth and evidence that make you laugh.
in which case
you should be laughing well into the turn of the century.
oh and the French did a lot more than just issue a statement against the war, as did most other European countries, which ofcourse got Bush in a spin.
but hey atleast we got "freedom fries " eh?
the denial gets stronger everytime you post, which used to be funny, now its so pathetic that its boring.
" First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. "
Mohandas Gandhi Now your just feeding the Troll
