Share This Page:
Treason or ?
Treason or ?
Okay here is a hard one. If the president and his aids knowingly misled the country into war, is that treason? And if not, then what do you call it? If you assign an investigation of hand picked friends to investigate you is that a cover up? Or is it something else? I need help understanding this stuff.
Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul. (Thomas Paine)
-
Frank S.
- Guest
There are several legal definitions or doctrines for treason, and none of them quite applies.
The one which I think might come closest is constructive treason: "Treason imputed to a person by law from his conduct or course of actions, though his deeds taken severally do not amount to actual treason."
But it's not 'known', i.e. in use in the US.
US code title 18, RICO statute's interesting to consider but not applicable either, besides, I don't know that there's an equivalent in international law. And how to enforce it anyway if there was any substance to it?
Yeah, I'd call the administration's commission to investigate the'reasons for going to war' a cover-up, but in fairness, we still have to wait and see. And waiting is what the administration wants us to do, until well after the elections.
The one which I think might come closest is constructive treason: "Treason imputed to a person by law from his conduct or course of actions, though his deeds taken severally do not amount to actual treason."
But it's not 'known', i.e. in use in the US.
US code title 18, RICO statute's interesting to consider but not applicable either, besides, I don't know that there's an equivalent in international law. And how to enforce it anyway if there was any substance to it?
Yeah, I'd call the administration's commission to investigate the'reasons for going to war' a cover-up, but in fairness, we still have to wait and see. And waiting is what the administration wants us to do, until well after the elections.
Well Frank could he be charged under his own patriot act? I mean if you orchestrate a massive conflict of of fabricated lies for personal gain isn't that illegal?
Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul. (Thomas Paine)
-
Frank S.
- Guest
In short, no.
To answer your question, I don't believe it is possible to prove the illegality of what 'they' did, certainly not to the point where judicial sanctions would be applicable.
Without getting entangled in the type of question like "who polices the police", you can imagine how hard it would be to prove that this war was detrimental to the security of the United States and its people, especially given the burden of that proof.
Demonstrating that the administration acted with nefarious purposes, beyond even bad faith and so on. You'd have to examine each member of the administration's role and responsibilities, their subordinates and associates, and on and on.
Let's say that in the end you hit some kind of jackpot and establish a demonstratable (is that even a word?) pattern not only of deceit and fabrication, but of corruption, would it be in the best interest of the nation to reveal the result, with potentially incalculable risks?
I don't believe so.
Bear in mind too, that no one seems to raise an eyebrow over members of the president's entourage double-dealings with Israel. At most, Richard Perle was investigated by a commission in the early '80s for passing on secrets to Israel, but has he lost any influence?
To answer your question, I don't believe it is possible to prove the illegality of what 'they' did, certainly not to the point where judicial sanctions would be applicable.
Without getting entangled in the type of question like "who polices the police", you can imagine how hard it would be to prove that this war was detrimental to the security of the United States and its people, especially given the burden of that proof.
Demonstrating that the administration acted with nefarious purposes, beyond even bad faith and so on. You'd have to examine each member of the administration's role and responsibilities, their subordinates and associates, and on and on.
Let's say that in the end you hit some kind of jackpot and establish a demonstratable (is that even a word?) pattern not only of deceit and fabrication, but of corruption, would it be in the best interest of the nation to reveal the result, with potentially incalculable risks?
I don't believe so.
Bear in mind too, that no one seems to raise an eyebrow over members of the president's entourage double-dealings with Israel. At most, Richard Perle was investigated by a commission in the early '80s for passing on secrets to Israel, but has he lost any influence?
We the people then I guess it is true to say answer to the government and the government answers to? Sounds like dictatorship with rigged elections and pull politics.
My issue is it is shaping up to look like some serious crimes have been and are being committed and the media, the people and the troops who actually take an oath to uphold the Constitution don't give a damn.
My issue is it is shaping up to look like some serious crimes have been and are being committed and the media, the people and the troops who actually take an oath to uphold the Constitution don't give a damn.
Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul. (Thomas Paine)
-
Spannerman
- Member
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Mon 14 Apr, 2003 8:21 pm
- Location: East Anglia
I figured betrayal of ones country constituted treason. Leading the nation into an unneccissary war is decietful, a betrayal I would think. Resignation or not seek a second term would be the minimum solution I'd think. I used to like W., then we went from Afgahnistan without accomplishing the mission in totality to Iraq who had no navy, no Airforce, a piss ant 1960's Army and 3rd rate at that and just seemed to forget about what we started out for(OBL's head).
The idiots told us Iraq would fall and would be like a liberated Paris which was a lie, Jessica Lynch, false reports on WMD constantly, the slander of honorable men who said their ain't no WMD's, hell one was a highly decorated marine. So 533 kia, 3009 wia and who knows how many Iraqis later we ain't found no WMD but we have found that our leaders lied intentionally.
I think the administration needs to fess up and atleast appologize, followed by an exit in Nov. 04.
The idiots told us Iraq would fall and would be like a liberated Paris which was a lie, Jessica Lynch, false reports on WMD constantly, the slander of honorable men who said their ain't no WMD's, hell one was a highly decorated marine. So 533 kia, 3009 wia and who knows how many Iraqis later we ain't found no WMD but we have found that our leaders lied intentionally.
I think the administration needs to fess up and atleast appologize, followed by an exit in Nov. 04.
Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul. (Thomas Paine)
it aint going to happen, lets face it. it will be swept under the rug, untill 10 years time, when someone in a high ranking office fesses up and then they write a book, cash in and then it become history.
in the mean time bush swindles another election and who knows, homer simpson could be president, or even green peace could have a fair few seats in the back benches.
all in all, the US doesnt have a trully democratic society, which in my view is a bit contradictory. hell - have we even got a truly democratic society, after all the queen can sack the PM if she liked - although this is all constitutional theory!
its all a bit pear shaped!
in the mean time bush swindles another election and who knows, homer simpson could be president, or even green peace could have a fair few seats in the back benches.
all in all, the US doesnt have a trully democratic society, which in my view is a bit contradictory. hell - have we even got a truly democratic society, after all the queen can sack the PM if she liked - although this is all constitutional theory!
its all a bit pear shaped!
All they have to do, is to say; That on the best advice around it was cosidered the wisest option take. If with hindsight this proves to be wrong then that is unforunate, but hind sight is a wonderfull thing. The actions we took at the time where in the best interest of our Country. I think you find there would not be court in America or Britain that would take it any further.
wtf Whitey?
For a start, lying is not treason it is...lying (or Contemp of Parliament over here). Secondly, the US has proper seperation of powers with active checks and balances, George Dubya didn't lead the US into a war on his own, he did it with the blessing of the (properly) elected legislature (Congress and Senate to you). In a republic like the US, even if an idiot is elected by fraud, he cannot (thank god) unilaterally lead the country to war, he needs the representatives of the people on side.
You go on about how the war was bad because Iraq had
Why don't you stop being so reactionary and actually get your arguments straight. While you are at it, stop meddling in legal matters when you obviously have no clue about them. I'm not saying I do, but then I don't go around indicting people.
For a start, lying is not treason it is...lying (or Contemp of Parliament over here). Secondly, the US has proper seperation of powers with active checks and balances, George Dubya didn't lead the US into a war on his own, he did it with the blessing of the (properly) elected legislature (Congress and Senate to you). In a republic like the US, even if an idiot is elected by fraud, he cannot (thank god) unilaterally lead the country to war, he needs the representatives of the people on side.
You go on about how the war was bad because Iraq had
So is your argument that it was unfair of us to enter this war? You then go on to say that we should leave in Nov this year! It has taken us FIVE YEARS to get to a point in Kosovo where we can soon pull out, and that was just a peace enforcment role. If we are to leave Iraq in a state that is not civil war, we should be there for at least a decade. The likes of you go on and on about how it was unfair to invade. Now that we have done it, whatever the rights and wrongs, surely it is more unfair to invade, kill thousands, wreck the infrastructure, ivite civil war and then leave.no navy, no Airforce, a piss a 1960's Army and 3rd rate at that
Why don't you stop being so reactionary and actually get your arguments straight. While you are at it, stop meddling in legal matters when you obviously have no clue about them. I'm not saying I do, but then I don't go around indicting people.
Staffords all the way :D
Well we're just going to give the new government a big sack of money and f@#k off arn't we. Could really use some UN support now.chrisfow wrote:wtf Whitey?
For a start, lying is not treason it is...lying (or Contemp of Parliament over here). Secondly, the US has proper seperation of powers with active checks and balances, George Dubya didn't lead the US into a war on his own, he did it with the blessing of the (properly) elected legislature (Congress and Senate to you). In a republic like the US, even if an idiot is elected by fraud, he cannot (thank god) unilaterally lead the country to war, he needs the representatives of the people on side.
You go on about how the war was bad because Iraq hadSo is your argument that it was unfair of us to enter this war? You then go on to say that we should leave in Nov this year! It has taken us FIVE YEARS to get to a point in Kosovo where we can soon pull out, and that was just a peace enforcment role. If we are to leave Iraq in a state that is not civil war, we should be there for at least a decade. The likes of you go on and on about how it was unfair to invade. Now that we have done it, whatever the rights and wrongs, surely it is more unfair to invade, kill thousands, wreck the infrastructure, ivite civil war and then leave.no navy, no Airforce, a piss a 1960's Army and 3rd rate at that
Why don't you stop being so reactionary and actually get your arguments straight. While you are at it, stop meddling in legal matters when you obviously have no clue about them. I'm not saying I do, but then I don't go around indicting people.
[img]http://rustless.50free.org/skullsig.jpg[/img]
-
Spannerman
- Member
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Mon 14 Apr, 2003 8:21 pm
- Location: East Anglia
Strewth! Whitey was only asking a question, in fact there are four question marks in his post. These politicians should hold their hands up and say to the electorate, "we got it wrong, SORRY", they won't do this and are culpable of blame as are their advisers, therefore are only answerable to the electorate who will vote for or against them when due for re-election.chrisfow wrote:wtf Whitey?
Why don't you stop being so reactionary and actually get your arguments straight. While you are at it, stop meddling in legal matters when you obviously have no clue about them. I'm not saying I do, but then I don't go around indicting people.
-
Frank S.
- Guest
Chrisfow: "checks and balances"?
Let's look at the legal nitty-gritty of our government's engagement in Iraq. To do this, read the resolutions submitted in Congress and the Senate, SJ46 and HJ114 SJ is the Senate version of the Congress resolution, so the text is the same.
HJ 114/SJ 46 found here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/arch ... 100302.htm
Extract:
"[Iraq] remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability (my note: Nigerian yellowcake being the main indicator), and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."
The source of this alone is highly disputed, after all these months. The assertions above were based on intelligence long since discredited.
There are other assertions made in the text which have since been either dispelled or become suspicious.
Let's look at the legal nitty-gritty of our government's engagement in Iraq. To do this, read the resolutions submitted in Congress and the Senate, SJ46 and HJ114 SJ is the Senate version of the Congress resolution, so the text is the same.
HJ 114/SJ 46 found here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/arch ... 100302.htm
Extract:
"[Iraq] remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability (my note: Nigerian yellowcake being the main indicator), and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."
The source of this alone is highly disputed, after all these months. The assertions above were based on intelligence long since discredited.
There are other assertions made in the text which have since been either dispelled or become suspicious.
