Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 75

Thread: Threats that target America itself

  1. #1
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/0...ca-itself.html

    THE NEWS TRIBUNE Published: 04/08/1012:05 am
    Few Americans need reminding that violence has no place in politics. The alleged death threat against U.S. Sen. Patty Murray is a good occasion to talk about why.
    A physical attack on an elected leader – be it Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Gerald Ford or former Seattle Mayor Paul Schell – has a criminal dimension beyond ordinary assault or murder. Violence is done against the human being, but violence is also done against democracy itself.
    The assassination of an elected leader overturns the election that put him or her in office. In a broad sense, that’s treason – not treason against the leader in question, but betrayal of a constitutional system that guarantees a government founded on the will of the people as expressed in elections, not angry rallies. In America, elections are sacred. The alternatives are not pretty: coups, civil wars, revolutions and thugocracy.
    Assaults on public figures may also be a form of terrorism – attacks on the innocent to achieve political or religious ends.
    “Mere” threats of violence serve much the same purpose as outright attacks. In both cases, the goal is to intimidate political opponents or decapitate their leadership. Murray has plenty of company on the receiving end of intimidation. Several other members of Congress – including Rep. Eric Cantor, a Republican – have been so threatened. On Wednesday, the FBI arrested a San Francisco man in connection with threats he’d reportedly made against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
    In the furious arguments over health care reform, legitimate conservatives have sometimes been accused of fomenting violence with bitter and angry rhetoric. But like it or not – we don’t like it – bitter and angry rhetoric has become a standard feature of politics in this country; the left engaged in plenty of it during the administration of George W. Bush.
    The anger crosses the line when it morphs from boilerplate frontier hyperbole into calls for plausible violence. Not, “We’ll string ‘em all up come election day,” but “Please, someone shoot her.” It’s a short step from there to an unbalanced fanatic sneaking up on a politician with a gun in his belt.
    A few decades ago, most of the political violence and firebreathing threats were coming from the far left fringe. Today most of it is coming from the far right. The extreme left and right are equally deranged – so goes the joke – but the wackos on the right have guns.
    The Selah man arrested on charges of threatening Murray reportedly possessed a .38 revolver and a concealed weapons permit. Scary, given his rantings. Some “open carry” advocates look scary themselves when they show up at political events brandishing firearms. Maybe that’s the idea.
    In politics, direct or indirect physical intimidation – especially with guns – is un-American. In fact, it smacks of the communism that some right-wing extremists accuse their opponents of espousing.
    Trotsky once said that Stalin doesn’t strike at the ideas of a rival “but at his skull.” Genuine Americans don’t settle their differences that way – or threaten to.



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    "The assassination of an elected leader overturns the election that put him or her in office. In a broad sense, that’s treason – not treason against the leader in question, but betrayal of a constitutional system that guarantees a government founded on the will of the people as expressed in elections, not angry rallies. In America, elections are sacred. The alternatives are not pretty: coups, civil wars, revolutions and thugocracy.
    Assaults on public figures may also be a form of terrorism – attacks on the innocent to achieve political or religious ends."

    What happens when an elected official commits treason? Is it not suitable to punish? That's the nail in the coffin. Elected officials are Not innocent; in the eyes of the new revolutionary. At what point does inaction become betrayal?

    Truly is unconstitutional and treasonous to remove an elected official that has Not committed treason.

    Truly is Constitutional and heroic to remove an elected official that Has Committed Treason.



    The deal is; we need an iron clad Declaration that treason has been committed. Does this indeed need to come from the gavel? I bet it does. Until a duly seated judge rules treason; an elected official is bullet proof.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    And about OC at political rallies... Nothing wrong with Any of these reasons.
    This goes without saying but;

    There are some that really honestly do strap up the pistol to prove a political point at a rally. This is documented and discussed. It's a "way to remind the politicians who's boss" and this and that. Standard.

    There are some that really honestly Already had their pistol strapped when the decision was made to head out the door for the rally.

    Maybe a few that CC and open up, specifically for the rally; to prove a political point.

    If it's legal, screw it, why not? There's another division in here, as well; which has some gun owners screaming bloody murder. "If everybody goes to the rally Open Carry will be banned overnight emergency legislation" I've literally actually heard this point of view. Ew.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    Kennedy was likely assassinated by the CIA, not by OCers. The author of this article is all confused.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    Kennedy was likely assassinated by the CIA, not by OCers. The author of this article is all confused.
    Kennedy was assasinated by an avowed communist.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    double tap


    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227

    Post imported post

    If you don't think politics is violent*, just visit a war zone

    And if it wasn't for the threat of violence, would Obama have gotten elected?



    If it wasn't for violence, would healthcare have gotten passed?



    It's hard for the leftists to play 'innocent victim' on this issue. Especially since Holder is stonewalling all investigations into political violence perpetrated by the left.

    * I do not endorse or advocate political violence. I am simply stating a historical, and philosophical truth.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Well as I stated in another thread. The 2A was written as an implied threat of violence against politicians.

    My belief one reason why gun owners and the like are so demonized by them and media.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/0...ca-itself.html

    THE NEWS TRIBUNE Published: 04/08/1012:05 am
    Few Americans need reminding that violence has no place in politics. The alleged death threat against U.S. Sen. Patty Murray is a good occasion to talk about why.
    A physical attack on an elected leader – be it Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Gerald Ford or former Seattle Mayor Paul Schell – has a criminal dimension beyond ordinary assault or murder. Violence is done against the human being, but violence is also done against democracy itself.
    The assassination of an elected leader overturns the election that put him or her in office. In a broad sense, that’s treason – not treason against the leader in question, but betrayal of a constitutional system that guarantees a government founded on the will of the people as expressed in elections, not angry rallies. In America, elections are sacred. The alternatives are not pretty: coups, civil wars, revolutions and thugocracy.
    Assaults on public figures may also be a form of terrorism – attacks on the innocent to achieve political or religious ends.
    “Mere” threats of violence serve much the same purpose as outright attacks. In both cases, the goal is to intimidate political opponents or decapitate their leadership. Murray has plenty of company on the receiving end of intimidation. Several other members of Congress – including Rep. Eric Cantor, a Republican – have been so threatened. On Wednesday, the FBI arrested a San Francisco man in connection with threats he’d reportedly made against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
    In the furious arguments over health care reform, legitimate conservatives have sometimes been accused of fomenting violence with bitter and angry rhetoric. But like it or not – we don’t like it – bitter and angry rhetoric has become a standard feature of politics in this country; the left engaged in plenty of it during the administration of George W. Bush.
    The anger crosses the line when it morphs from boilerplate frontier hyperbole into calls for plausible violence. Not, “We’ll string ‘em all up come election day,” but “Please, someone shoot her.” It’s a short step from there to an unbalanced fanatic sneaking up on a politician with a gun in his belt.
    A few decades ago, most of the political violence and firebreathing threats were coming from the far left fringe. Today most of it is coming from the far right. The extreme left and right are equally deranged – so goes the joke – but the wackos on the right have guns.
    The Selah man arrested on charges of threatening Murray reportedly possessed a .38 revolver and a concealed weapons permit. Scary, given his rantings. Some “open carry” advocates look scary themselves when they show up at political events brandishing firearms. Maybe that’s the idea.
    In politics, direct or indirect physical intimidation – especially with guns – is un-American. In fact, it smacks of the communism that some right-wing extremists accuse their opponents of espousing.
    Trotsky once said that Stalin doesn’t strike at the ideas of a rival “but at his skull.” Genuine Americans don’t settle their differences that way – or threaten to.

    There's some real irony there, considering that America was founded by 'terrorists'



    And America has a long history of "bitter and angry rhetoric" being used to create political change. In fact, it took exactly such rhetoric to help this country get founded.



    Whining, blaming, complaining liberals... never ones to let history and facts stand in the way of their drama filled bitching and moaning.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    Well that's the elephant in the room now isn't it? We are literally Supposed to throw off a broken government. Literally by force when needed. The Dec. of Independence remains Law and as citizens we are duly compelled to defend the State. I would say; defense of the State was the First federal mandate on each and every individual Able bodied citizen. It's basically all we have to do to be American.. defeat tyranny. It's our calling.

    Well it's just absurd that a Revolution is evil/wrong/insane etc. Obviously Obviously is a lawful option. Aliens and Sedition Act; that was a "blow" to the Whole idea that citizens have the right and duty to overthrow and unjust government.

    (Domestic) Terrorism is just the next step here.

    Duh the question is easy.. Just what Are you supposed to do? Just What does the government propose a citizen does when the government goes to far? Call 911? That's the whole idea behind "America isn't American anymore" and that whole thought process.

    During America's initial foundation; it was expected to deny authority to new government. (Specially Federal government.. Remember- They JUST got rid of a King) As such; the Constitution and other founding documents are written to justify the means of violent over throw of YES OUR DOMESTIC government in the event that such government becomes violent without redress of grievance there's literally nothing left.

    All the "You are a Slave" talk is part true part not true. When are we SUPPOSED to do when government fails for us? Or even for just a part of society? Or just a group? Do we need a judge to say "Okay it's now time.." before anybody even Can do anything?

    See we can all Vote and that's to be held sacred; where does Voting get us? Hell over half of us can't get out to vote in the General and barely anybody votes in the Primary.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/0...ca-itself.html

    violence is also done against democracy itself.
    So, um, like, passing a momumental health care bill that the MAJORITY did not want isn't an act of political violence against democracy itself?

    How is that again?
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Mukilteo Wa, , USA
    Posts
    101

    Post imported post

    Dave_pro2a wrote:
    M1Gunr wrote:
    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/0...ca-itself.html

    violence is also done against democracy itself.
    So, um, like, passing a momumental health care bill that the MAJORITY did not want isn't an act of political violence against democracy itself?

    How is that again?*
    I have to say that I saw that vote as an act of treason myself.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    The difference between a Domestic Terrorist and a Revolutionary Patriot is what side of the conflict you are standing and who wins. Our founders and all the Revolutionary Soldiers (Minutemen) were labeled criminals and terrorists by the British Crown, until they won.

    If the Communists/Socialists/Democrat crowd want to call me a terrorist, then it means I'm doing something right. Our nation was NOT supposed to be a Democracy (ruled by the majority) but a Democratic REPUBLIC (ruled by LAW). We have fallen so far away from what our founding fathers created that we are back to the tyranny of the British Crown.

    It is past time for a new Revolution, yet we are at that awkward stage where we can't work within or fix the system and we can't just shoot or hang the bastages yet.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Kennedy was assasinated by an avowed communist.

    That's odd. Howard Hunt made a taped confession of his involvement in killing Kennedy, and he never claimed to be a communist. However, he was well known as being in the CIA.

  15. #15
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    I think this quote belongs in this thread:
    I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.Barry Goldwater, acceptance speech as Republican candidate for President, 1963
    US politician (1909 - 1998)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Poulsbo, Washington, USA
    Posts
    546

    Post imported post

    Let's get one thing clear here. "Terrorism" consists of attacks designed to cause terror, usually by targeting and mass-murdering civilians. I never want to hear this used to describe revolutionaries or soldiers.

    Isolated acts of murder without a coordinated political agenda are not terrorism. Maurice Clemmons was a murderer, not a terrorist. Citizens advocating violent overthrow of the government are not terrorists, they are rebels, insurgents, or criminals (by the laws of the existing regime).

    Breaking the law is not treason. Subverting the Constitution is not treason. Passing laws against the wishes of the people is not treason. Read Article 3 Section 3 of the 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." You can come up with some complicated compromised chain of beliefs to stretch this definition to cover anything you don't like, but the facts are this is what the law says.

    What our politicians are guilty of is abuse of office. The Constitutionally-sanctioned method of removing them is via impeachment or voting them out of office. We all know this is very, very unlikely to happen. They could even pass a law that has the effect of making firearm ownership impossible, and they would not be traitors, and we could not do anything legally about it.

    If the time comes when you believe the federal government is too corrupt to continue, realize that you will have little to no legal backing for your decision or actions. Your only hope of survival lies in solidarity with other citizens - if your decision is not shared widely enough, you will be tried as a criminal (or not tried, given the suspension of habeus corpus for "enemy combatants").

    For any hypothetical revolution to succeed, its members must agree beforehand on a set of circumstances that act as a trigger. Unless every patriot mobilizes at the same time, their individual groups would likely be defeated separately.

    The problem is, our government seems to be very good at accomplishing goals in round-about ways, and will likely find ways of fuzzing those circumstances so not everyone agrees that they have been met.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Thank you, antispam, for bringing the clarity and sanity of definition to the discussion!

    MD


  18. #18
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    Outstanding post

  19. #19
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227

    Post imported post

    antispam540 wrote:
    Let's get one thing clear here. "Terrorism" consists of attacks designed to cause terror,(1) usually by targeting and mass-murdering civilians. I never want to hear this used to describe revolutionaries or soldiers(2).

    Isolated acts of murder without a coordinated political agenda are not terrorism. Maurice Clemmons was a murderer, not a terrorist. Citizens advocating violent overthrow of the government are not terrorists, they are rebels, insurgents, or criminals (by the laws of the existing regime).

    Breaking the law is not treason. Subverting the Constitution is not treason(3). Passing laws against the wishes of the people is not treason. Read Article 3 Section 3 of the 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(4)." You can come up with some complicated compromised chain of beliefs to stretch this definition to cover anything you don't like, but the facts are this is what the law says.

    What our politicians are guilty of is abuse of office. The Constitutionally-sanctioned method of removing them is via impeachment or voting them out of office. We all know this is very, very unlikely to happen. They could even pass a law that has the effect of making firearm ownership impossible, and they would not be traitors(5), and we could not do anything legally about it.

    If the time comes when you believe the federal government is too corrupt to continue, realize that you will have little to no legal backing for your decision or actions. Your only hope of survival lies in solidarity with other citizens - if your decision is not shared widely enough, you will be tried as a criminal (or not tried, given the suspension of habeus corpus for "enemy combatants").

    For any hypothetical revolution to succeed, its members must agree beforehand on a set of circumstances that act as a trigger. Unless every patriot mobilizes at the same time, their individual groups would likely be defeated separately (6).

    The problem is, our government seems to be very good at accomplishing goals in round-about ways, and will likely find ways of fuzzing those circumstances so not everyone agrees that they have been met.
    Good post, and I agree with quite a bit of it.Just afew off the cuff thoughts:

    1) That is a simplistic definition of a political term. Many criminal acts would indeed qualify, if the only issue was "intent to cause terror.'

    AFAIK there is no universally agreed upon definition of terrorism / terrorist. It is often simply a convenient term, that is inherently pejorative, used by governments to de-legitimizes rebels or revolutionaries.

    2) Case in point, the IRA. They engaged in activities designed to cause terror, and were labeled terrorists by the British government... but it is hard to argue that they were not soldiers, that they were not rebels or revolutionaries, and that they were engaged in a legitimate fight for independence with the goal of regaining their traditional sovereignty. That's not to say I agree with all their tactics.

    3) I disagree. Subverting the Constitution is treason. If you mean to overthrow, or to completely destroy, then I'd say that would be treason. If you mean to undermine, then probably not. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subverting

    Since I am not sure how you're using the term 'subverting,' let me clarify: politicians that intentionally act counter to their Constitutionally mandated powers, that act counter to their solemn oath to obey and defend the Constitution, are acting in a traitorous fashion.

    4) Semantics aside, we're at war with radical Islam. It is arguable that Obama, and other democrat liberals currently have committed treason by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Have they 'technically' acted in a treasonous manner? Probably not... but by any measure of the spirit of the COTUS, they have. But I do have to give you this on, it would probably not meet the legal yardstick.

    5) On this I disagree 100%. You said that congress could pass a law making firearms ownership illegal, and it wouldn't be treasonous. IMHO it would be. They would have acted directly against the Constitution, they would have greatly weakened our country, they would have forsaken their solemn oaths of office, et cetera.

    This is fundamental imho, if an member of Government intentionally and deliberatly act aganist the American people,in an un-Constitutional manner, then they are traitors.

    Now congress could pass a Constitutional Amendment making firearms illegal, they could in effect 'repeal' the 2nd Amendment... and that would not violate their oaths of office.

    6) No revolution spontaneously starts at a widespread level. Typically they start over time, after many small incidents slowly lead to greater incidents... after small unrest and protests grow and evolve into an atmosphere where larger unrest can occur. Seldom does anyone 'agree' beforehand, things just aren't that organized.

    Believing that widespread support comes before small scale revolutionary acts is putting the cart before the horse imho. I do agree that if widespread support does not materialize, then the movement is doomed.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575

    Post imported post

    When are these so called journalists going to look up the defination of brandishing and then use it correctly?
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501

    Post imported post

    Orphan wrote:
    When are these so called journalists going to look up the defination of brandishing and then use it correctly?
    You used journalist and definition in the same sentence. That's an oxymoron. It'll never happen.

  22. #22
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    oneeyeross wrote:
    Orphan wrote:
    When are these so called journalists going to look up the defination of brandishing and then use it correctly?
    You used journalist and definition in the same sentence. That's an oxymoron. It'll never happen.
    I think you've got a better chance of changing the wording in the RCW's, than you do getting a non-biased honest report from a journalist. They should just be called Literate Opinionaters.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501

    Post imported post

    Journalist's guide to firearms.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575

    Post imported post

    amzbrady wrote:
    oneeyeross wrote:
    Orphan wrote:
    When are these so called journalists going to look up the defination of brandishing and then use it correctly?
    You used journalist and definition in the same sentence. That's an oxymoron. It'll never happen.
    I think you've got a better chance of changing the wording in the RCW's, than you do getting a non-biased honest report from a journalist. They should just be called Literate Opinionaters.
    Your both right, I dont know what I was thinking. LOL
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Poulsbo, Washington, USA
    Posts
    546

    Post imported post

    Dave_pro2a wrote:
    Breaking the law is not treason. Subverting the Constitution is not treason(3). Passing laws against the wishes of the people is not treason. Read Article 3 Section 3 of the 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(4)." You can come up with some complicated compromised chain of beliefs to stretch this definition to cover anything you don't like, but the facts are this is what the law says.
    Good post, and I agree with quite a bit of it.Just afew off the cuff thoughts:

    1) That is a simplistic definition of a political term.<snip>

    2) Case in point, the IRA. They engaged in activities designed to cause terror, and were labeled terrorists by the British government... but it is hard to argue that they were not soldiers, that they were not rebels or revolutionaries, and that they were engaged in a legitimate fight for independence with the goal of regaining their traditional sovereignty. That's not to say I agree with all their tactics.

    3) I disagree. Subverting the Constitution is treason. If you mean to overthrow, or to completely destroy, then I'd say that would be treason. If you mean to undermine, then probably not. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subverting

    Since I am not sure how you're using the term 'subverting,' let me clarify: politicians that intentionally act counter to their Constitutionally mandated powers, that act counter to their solemn oath to obey and defend the Constitution, are acting in a traitorous fashion.
    1) It's not a simplistic definition - it doesn't matter how governments use the word (they've used it to describe peaceful protestors, even), the definition of "terrorism" is "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious". That's according to Princeton, but all the other definitions I've seen are similar in scope and meaning. If someone tries to use the word in other ways, it is invalid.

    2) I would agree that the IRA falls under the heading of "terrorists". It is a valid word to describe them - more valid, I think, than "revolutionaries" or rebels, so it should take precedence over the others. Revolutionaries lose whatever nobility of purpose or popular support they had when they resort to such tactics.

    3) How can you disagree? I quoted the definition of treason straight from the Constitution! It's not open to disagreement - it states quite clearly what treason consists of. Congress is not at war with the states because it has not issued a declaration of war against the states. The Constitution covers exactly what is and isn't war pretty clearly. Congress members are not adhering to the enemies of the states in any direct form. Passing a law the people don't like isn't becoming an enemy of the states. Passing a law that is unconstitutional isn't even a criminal offense, much less becoming an enemy of the states. As far as the war in Iraq goes, I haven't heard of anyone in the government giving aid or support in an official capacity to any group of people we have declared war against at the time. Like it or not, right or wrong, these people have not met the legal requirements of treason!

    If you have a citation that says subverting the Constitution is treason, please post it. It may be wrong, it may go against everything the founding fathers stood for, but I can't find anything that actually makes it illegal - it's just treated as something the courts should take care of. The founding fathers obviously assumed that politicians who voted so clearly against the values of our union would be removed from office or never elected in the first place. They knew some bad apples would get through, and they expected the courts to rule those laws unconstitutional. Beyond that, we have no real recourse unless the vast majority of citizenry votes together - something that will never happen as long as people just don't care.

    Article 3 continues to state that Congress gets to decide the punishment for treason anyway, and you can bet they'd never punish anyone in the government for it even if, by some miracle, you could find a way to seriously charge any of them with it.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •