Welcome to Gaia! ::

Kasumi of Vientown
agrab0ekim
Kasumi of Vientown
agrab0ekim
he STOLE classified evidence and LEAKED it to a site which posted it PUBLICALLY AROUND THE WORLD

I think he should be shot on spot, a trial is too good for him.




Obama has done far worse then Bradley Manning

http://navysealsagainstobama.com/

Quote:
Obama Exploits the Navy SEALs
Leif Babin
Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193024150056072.html



Adm. William H. McRaven, America’s top special-operations commander, wrote in his 1996 book “Spec Ops” that there are six key principles of success in special operations. Of paramount importance—especially given the risk and sensitivity of the missions and the small units involved—is what the military calls “operational security,” or maintaining secrecy. If the enemy learns details and can anticipate the manner and timing of an attack, the likelihood of success is significantly reduced and the risk to our forces is significantly increased.

This is why much of what our special-operators do is highly classified, and why military personnel cannot legally divulge it to the public. Yet virtually every detail of the bin Laden raid has appeared in news outlets across the globe—from the name of the highly classified unit to how the U.S. gathered intelligence, how many raiders were involved, how they entered the grounds, what aircraft they used, and how they moved through the compound. Such details were highly contained within the military and not shared even through classified channels. Yet now they are available to anyone with the click of a mouse.

It’s difficult for military leaders to enforce strict standards of operational security on their personnel while the most senior political leadership is flooding the airwaves with secrets. The release of classified information has also opened a Pandora’s box of former and retired SEALs, special operators, and military personnel who have chosen to violate their non-disclosure agreements and discuss intricate details of how such operations are planned and executed.

We’ve already begun seeing specific examples of strategic harm from the post-bin Laden leaks. In June, Pakistan arrested several individuals who allegedly provided information to the CIA in advance of the raid. One of those charged with treason was a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi. This Sunday, Mr. Panetta confirmed to “60 Minutes” that Dr. Afridi had provided “very helpful” intelligence to the CIA. That may have condemned Dr. Afridi to death or life imprisonment.

Such disclosures are catastrophic to U.S. intelligence networks, which often take years to develop. Recklessness not only puts lives at risk but could set U.S. intelligence-collection efforts back decades. Our ability to carry out future operations is significantly degraded—something not lost on Pakistan.

A week after the bin Laden raid, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates expressed dismay about Washington’s loose lips, telling a town hall meeting of U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune: “Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday—the next day.”



Quote:
Michael Mukasey: Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights
Michael Mukasey
The Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577374552546308474.html



Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president’s celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: “The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out.”

Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven’s, not the president’s. Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.



Abraham Lincoln, on the night after Gen. Robert E. Lee’s surrender ended the Civil War, delivered from the window of the White House a speech that mentioned his own achievements not at all, but instead looked forward to the difficulties of reconstruction and called for black suffrage—a call that would doom him because the audience outside the White House included a man who muttered that Lincoln had just delivered his last speech. It was John Wilkes Booth.


The man from whom President Obama has sought incessantly to distance himself, George W. Bush, also had occasion during his presidency to announce to the nation a triumph of intelligence: the capture of Saddam Hussein. He called that success “a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq.” He attributed it to “the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers. . . . Their work continues, and so do the risks.”

He did mention himself at the end: “Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.”



Quote:
Will The Navy SEALs Swift Boat Obama?
Michael Hastings
BuzzFeed
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/will-resentful-navy-seals-swift-boat-obama



What was supposed to be an easy win—a victory lap on the anniversary of Bin Laden’s death, trumping up the president’s most militant moment—appeared to be slipping away.

The frustration—or, even anger—within the SEAL community is real, and has been brewing for months, particularly among a politically conservative core of operators. It started immediately after the raid, with questions among the Special Forces and intelligence community of whether the president should have waited to announce the kill to exploit the intelligence cache at Osama’s compound. It simmered after a Chinook helicopter was shot down, killing 30 Americans, 22 of them Navy SEALs from Team Six.

Was it a coincidence, SEALs asked themselves, catastrophe hit Team Six so soon after being named as the team responsible for the killing?

The White House narrative on the Geronimo mission would soon come under scrutiny as well, after Chuck Pfarrer, a former member of Seal Team Six, published a book length account questioning the official version of the story. The controversial book was viciously attacked—a JSOC spokesperson called it a “fabrication”—and it was widely dismissed by the press.

What the pushback revealed, however, was an extreme sensitivity in the White House as to who would have the privilege to tell the Bin Laden story, best expressed in a compelling, if well stage-managed, story in the New Yorker. The piece recounted the Abbottabad raid based on interviews with senior administration and military officials, while imbuing the story with the drama of a SEAL’s eye view. Yet the author conceded he had not actually interviewed the men who did the shooting.



Quote:
SEALs slam Obama for using them as ‘ammunition’ in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign
Toby Harnden
Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137636/SEALs-slam-Obama-using-ammunition-bid-credit-bin-Laden-killing-election-campaign.html



Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.

The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.

In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.



Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.

‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice – it was a broader team effort.’

Mr Zinke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’



Quote:
McCain on Bin Laden raid: ‘The thing about heroes, they don’t brag’
Justin Sink
The Hill
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/224625-mccain-on-bin-laden-raid-the-thing-about-heroes-they-dont-brag

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) continued to hammer the Obama re-election team over its use of the death of Osama bin Laden in a campaign commercial, echoing Mitt Romney’s statement that any president – including Jimmy Carter – would have made the same call.

“I say any president, Jimmy Carter, anybody, any president would have, obviously, under those circumstances, done the same thing. And to now take credit for something that any president would do is indicative of take over campaign we’re under — we’re — we’re seeing…So all I can say is that this is going to be a very rough campaign,” McCain told Fox News in an interview set to air Monday night. “And I’ve had the great honor of serving in the company of heroes. And, you know the thing about heroes, they don’t brag.”



Quote:
Navy SEALs Are Hammering Obama For Taking Credit For Their Work
Brett LoGiurato
Business Insider
http://www.businessinsider.com/navy-seals-hammer-obama-on-osama-bin-laden-ad-2012-5



For someone not currently engulfed in politics on the other side, let’s go to Clint Bruce, who “gave up the chance of an NFL career to serve as a SEAL officer,” according to the Mail:

Quote:
“We were extremely surprised and discouraged by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to operate. It’s a waste of time to speculate about who would and wouldn’t have made that decision. It was a symphony of opportunity and intelligence that allowed this administration to give the green light. We want to acknowledge that they made that decision.

“Politicians should let the public know where they stand on national security but not in the play-by-play, detailed way that has been done recently. The intricacies of national security should not become part of stump speeches.”


The debate continues to rage over Obama’s campaign ad, in which Bill Clinton voices over the narrative that Obama made the tough decision that led to the death of the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.



Quote:
SEALs: Obama Taking Credit for bin Laden ‘Cheap Shot’
Martin Gould
NewsMax
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/SEALs-slam-Obama-binLade/2012/04/30/id/437580



Current and former US Navy SEALs have joined the attacks on President Barack Obama for attempting to take credit for killing Osama bin Laden and using them and Special Forces members as ‘ammunition’ for his campaign.

SEALs bashed the president to Britain’s MailOnline after Obama released a campaign ad called “One Chance,” to coincide with this week’s first anniversary of the raid that killed the al-Qaida figurehead.

The ad features former President Bill Clinton praising Obama’s decision to order bin Laden killed, and suggests that his Republican rival Mitt Romney might not have made the same call. It has already been criticized by all sides, with even Arianna Huffington, founder of the liberal Huffington Post, calling it “despicable.”

Chris Kyle, the former SEAL credited with a record 160 confirmed killings, called it “a cheap shot.”

“He’s trying to say that Romney wouldn’t have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican,” Kyle told the Mail’s Toby Harnden. “Obama is taking more credit than he is due.”

Kyle’s comments echoed those of Romney himself. Campaigning in New Hampshire on Monday he said, “Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order,” adding that he “of course” would have done the same.


He is CiC, by law the highest officer of the military, it is his right to determine what is classified or not


All Navy SEALS missions have the highest classified level by default. Exposing their secrets for political gain potentially puts their lives in danger. I don't know what's wrong with you, but a reasonable person should see that Obama's disclosure's undermine's the SEALS ability to do their jobs effectively and safely

User Image


No saying I disagree with your assesment of the logic behind the release of the information, but the statement "a lot worse than manning' means you are saying Obama has done worse than treason - which is what I was countering
Wendigo
agrab0ekim
Wendigo
Military tribunal in lieu of courtmartial's only allowed when in the field, and regularly constituted courts can't be provided. Not the case for Manning.


I'm not calling for a tribunal, I am calling for the international law concept of spys, where they are to be shot upon discovery if so desired
i.e. I'm calling manning a spy
Summary execution's pretty well illegal.

And it's not international law that'd apply, it's US military law.


1) IL has the power of US law where it is true IL or enacted
2) We have enacted a portion that governs this
3) UCMJ allows for exactly what I am arguing

Summary execution under almost all situations is illegal, I'm arguing this is one of the very few excemptions, where both spies and treason get fun provisions.
Ban
agrab0ekim
but this isn't a human rights issue. Even if it is, the Geoneva Conventions would apply here, not the IHC issues, and those govern spies and allow direct killing upon capture. I.e. the only form of international law which has been enacted, and thus has the power of US law, are the first two conventions, and those govern.
The first two Conventions don't mention spies at all. The Fourth does, but as noted, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld more or less says the Fourth isn't self-executing. However, the U.S. has more or less followed the Fourth Convention in the treatment of spies, and says that spies "shall be tried by a general court-martial or by a military commission and on conviction shall be punished by death."

I have no idea where you're getting that they can killed upon capture without trial.

I don't have the book with me, but there were numerous cases where specific spies could be executed and others not. All were brought up as defenses, and the ICJ generally found that in an active combat, which this is, the neccesisty aspect of the rules is much higher, allowing for instant death instead. I'll look for them
You're right with only the first two really being US law, though the 4th has some parts which mght be, but it itself is not enacted. However, Spies ARE covered by the first and second, just not in name. There are sections which govern the treatment of those in the wrong uniform and no uniform, which was their method of handling spies.
Further, the UMCJ allows for non-court marshall killings if the need exists during active combat

Quote:
agrab0ekim
Rosenburg is irrelevant as they are more a milligan issue and less a armed force issue
Quirin is applicable IF one argues that the belligerent class includes treason spies, which it doesn't. Almost all countries and almost all IL concepts separate a spy and a military spy, which is what I'm arguing here
My point was that, as a policy issue, we don't usually kill spies, and I don't think there really is much given to the distinction between a military spy and a civilian spy. The law applies to both equally, in the Geneva conventions and in U.S. law. Do you have a specific example?

I'm not saying this is our standard policy, I'm saing it is an option, andI personally view it should be our standard on issues like these.
UCMJ is the difference between civilian spy and a military spy. I only brought up the geneva (don't apply anyways) to indicate the support from IL as well

Quote:
agrab0ekim
Can manage isn't the same as need to manage. I'm contending we don't need to, and that I fully support the DP of anything like this. People can argue the wisdom of a trial vs not if they wish, but I contend the right of a trial here doesn't exist.
It's kind of right there in the Constitution, man. I'm not sure any case law exists saying that there is no right to trial simply because the crime is really bad.

1) one can give up their rights, which they agree to when they sign into the military
2) seriously, read the UCMJ, a lot of the rights are removed and you agree to it
3) Yes, but notice that there is a seperate area for treasonary laws to be made, so arguably those could enver be unconstitutional (more orig. argument, less based on case law)

Quote:
agrab0ekim
The distinguish is war for the penalty, but not for the method - even in peace, an armed force treason CAN be held in the field, just the UCMJ recommends a court marshall. yes, RECOMMENDS
I don't think I'm reading the same UCMJ you are. Point me out an article relating to treason, sedition, espionage, spying, or similar offenses that doesn't state that they will punished "as a court-martial may direct." That language requires a court-martial for punishment.

will scour
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

agrab0ekim
I don't have the book with me, but there were numerous cases where specific spies could be executed and others not. All were brought up as defenses, and the ICJ generally found that in an active combat, which this is, the neccesisty aspect of the rules is much higher, allowing for instant death instead. I'll look for them
Please do. I have a hard time thinking of the ICJ approving of extrajudicial execution.

agrab0ekim
You're right with only the first two really being US law, though the 4th has some parts which mght be, but it itself is not enacted. However, Spies ARE covered by the first and second, just not in name. There are sections which govern the treatment of those in the wrong uniform and no uniform, which was their method of handling spies.
Well, interestingly, the Third is also apparently good law on some level, because General Article 3 was upheld in Hamdan. Actually, I need to re-read the relevant section in Hamdan. I might be getting the SCOTUS and the D.C. Circuit opinions mixed up.

But, no, the first two are about combatants and wounded. Spies, even military spies, are considered separate from combatants.

agrab0ekim
Further, the UMCJ allows for non-court marshall killings if the need exists during active combat
Cite please.

agrab0ekim
I'm not saying this is our standard policy, I'm saing it is an option, andI personally view it should be our standard on issues like these.
UCMJ is the difference between civilian spy and a military spy. I only brought up the geneva (don't apply anyways) to indicate the support from IL as well
The UCMJ does not differentiate between whether a captured spy is military or civilian. It states "any person" found acting as a spy during a time of war in an area of military jurisdiction will be tried by court-martial.

agrab0ekim
1) one can give up their rights, which they agree to when they sign into the military
One can waive certain rights, such as trial by jury. One can even agree to certain limitations of the right to a trial inforseeable civil matters, alternative dispute resolution and so forth. However, one cannot give up a right completely, and I think you'd have to show me where on the enlistment contract they agree to no trial and summary execution anyway.

agrab0ekim
2) seriously, read the UCMJ, a lot of the rights are removed and you agree to it
Reading. Not seeing where it says anything about no trials.

agrab0ekim
3) Yes, but notice that there is a seperate area for treasonary laws to be made, so arguably those could enver be unconstitutional (more orig. argument, less based on case law)
I'm not sure what you're saying here. That there is a separate provision in the Constitution for making laws related to treason? If so, I suppose you mean Article III, which defines treason and gives Congress the ability to define punishment. However, it doesn't seem to go beyond into saying that they can take away juries (not an enumerated power), and even if it did, the Amendments trump anything in the Articles. That's why they're amendments.
FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-'s avatar

Dapper Codger

I don't know what you don't understand about this...

He was in the military and was responsible for information.

He was under contract to the US government.

He broke that contract by taking secret information that he had no clearance for or permission and then sent that information to third parties.


Could our military information, when put out into the public, be used by militants?

Also, to justify his release of the thousands of files by citing he found one violent video isn't substantial in my opinion.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
agrab0ekim

No saying I disagree with your assesment of the logic behind the release of the information, but the statement "a lot worse than manning' means you are saying Obama has done worse than treason - which is what I was countering
Manning hasn't done treason.
FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-
I don't know what you don't understand about this...

He was in the military and was responsible for information.

He was under contract to the US government.

He broke that contract by taking secret information that he had no clearance for or permission and then sent that information to third parties.


Could our military information, when put out into the public, be used by militants?

Also, to justify his release of the thousands of files by citing he found one violent video isn't substantial in my opinion.

Why is the only sensible person here the guy with a picture of a wifebeater?
The Infamous Unami's avatar

Conservative Raider

Wendigo
agrab0ekim

No saying I disagree with your assesment of the logic behind the release of the information, but the statement "a lot worse than manning' means you are saying Obama has done worse than treason - which is what I was countering
Manning hasn't done treason.

He has been charged with "Aiding the Enemy," which is it's self punishable by death.

It's also half of that whole "Aiding and Abetting the Enemy" thing.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Chains4w
Wendigo
agrab0ekim

No saying I disagree with your assesment of the logic behind the release of the information, but the statement "a lot worse than manning' means you are saying Obama has done worse than treason - which is what I was countering
Manning hasn't done treason.

He has been charged with "Aiding the Enemy," which is it's self punishable by death.

It's also half of that whole "Aiding and Abetting the Enemy" thing.

It's the Information Age. Watching any national news broadcast would be more essential to the enemy than any classified info drop. It's generally known that the cable leak was uncensored to anyone who cared about digging, and the Taliban made it perfectly clear they were not doing that digging. Espionage is of the past, there's no secret conspiracy going on no matter how much you want to be a part of it. There's only geographics, and power. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Kasumi of Vientown's avatar

Conservative Voter

8,800 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Marathon 300
  • Signature Look 250

At least during the Bush presidency, political opponents of President Bush weren't dying under suspicious circumstances.

Andrew Breitbart announced that he had a video tape of Barrack Obama in his college years conspiring with extremist Bill Ayer's, apparently talking about getting one of them to become president. The video apparently outed Obama as a Marxist extremist and was supposedly going to destroy Obama's ability to get reelected.

March 1st, 2012 was the date that he stated this evidence would be released, and on that very day he DIED.

Prior to his death, Breitbart called and spoke to Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, and then he mysteriously died while walking home a couple hours later. The 'official' cause of death for the 43 year old man was a heart attack, which by itself is mysterious, but if you think that is the end of the story you'd be wrong.

The day that the autopsy 'results' were annouced, one of the LA medical examiners was poisoned and was probably murdered with arsenic. Are we supposed to believe that it's coincidence that Andrew Breitbart died died on the very day that he was going to expose evidence that would destroy Barrack Obama's career, and then a Los Angeles Medical Examiner was murdered on the same day that they announced Andrew Breitbart died of a heart attack?

The news story I saw about the coroner that I saw said that he cared very much about the truth, so it's not so hard to believe that he was going to be a whistle-blower, and he had to be silenced so he wouldn't say that Andrew Breitbart had been murdered.

One coincidence I can accept, but two coincidences? I'm not that foolish. Anyone who buys into the medias account 100% without feeling at least an inkling that there's something really wrong here is nuts.

Don't just be a sheep, thinking whatever the government wants you to think. Look at the facts. The facts here indicate that Obama or someone in his administration very likely ordered the assassination of an American Citizen that had evidence to bring down Obama.

By the way, a video eventually was released, which was supposedly the one Andrew Breitbart was talking about if you listen to the media, but that is a lie. The video that was released did not have any of the things Breitbart apparently said was on it. Releasing that harmless video was just an attempt to convince the sheep that there was no evidence.

The video that was released was not worth killing him over, so it must mean that there was another video which the government suppressed after he was dead.

Like I said, I am not some conspiracy nut, one coincidence I can accept and overlook, but two deaths and two coincidences cannot be overlooked.

A political threat to Obama was killed. That is worse then anything Bradley Manning did.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Pockybot kind of needed friends.
The Infamous Unami's avatar

Conservative Raider

Heimdalr
Chains4w
Wendigo
agrab0ekim

No saying I disagree with your assesment of the logic behind the release of the information, but the statement "a lot worse than manning' means you are saying Obama has done worse than treason - which is what I was countering
Manning hasn't done treason.

He has been charged with "Aiding the Enemy," which is it's self punishable by death.

It's also half of that whole "Aiding and Abetting the Enemy" thing.

It's the Information Age. Watching any national news broadcast would be more essential to the enemy than any classified info drop. It's generally known that the cable leak was uncensored to anyone who cared about digging, and the Taliban made it perfectly clear they were not doing that digging. Espionage is of the past, there's no secret conspiracy going on no matter how much you want to be a part of it. There's only geographics, and power. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Burst my bubble? How do you figure you've done anything of the sort? I pointed out that, if the government chose to, a competitive case could be made that Manning committed treason (based upon the charge of Aiding the Enemy.)

Your response did not address my point in the slightest.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Chains4w
Heimdalr
Chains4w
Wendigo
agrab0ekim

No saying I disagree with your assesment of the logic behind the release of the information, but the statement "a lot worse than manning' means you are saying Obama has done worse than treason - which is what I was countering
Manning hasn't done treason.

He has been charged with "Aiding the Enemy," which is it's self punishable by death.

It's also half of that whole "Aiding and Abetting the Enemy" thing.

It's the Information Age. Watching any national news broadcast would be more essential to the enemy than any classified info drop. It's generally known that the cable leak was uncensored to anyone who cared about digging, and the Taliban made it perfectly clear they were not doing that digging. Espionage is of the past, there's no secret conspiracy going on no matter how much you want to be a part of it. There's only geographics, and power. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Burst my bubble? How do you figure you've done anything of the sort? I pointed out that, if the government chose to, a competitive case could be made that Manning committed treason (based upon the charge of Aiding the Enemy.)

Your response did not address my point in the slightest.

It doesn't address the legal case. But we all know, the establishment knows, such laws are rendered obsolete and unenforceable by time itself due to the reasons I prescribed. Such as the law against women driving an automobile without a man waving a flag and blowing a whistle in front of the vehicle, somewhere in Alabama. We all know it's a law, that people are technically liable for punitive measures, but no judge in his right mind would accept such a case. Times change, writings and laws change slower than that. When a law has not been enforced for some time, it's no longer something we proudly refer to.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Chains4w
Wendigo
agrab0ekim

No saying I disagree with your assesment of the logic behind the release of the information, but the statement "a lot worse than manning' means you are saying Obama has done worse than treason - which is what I was countering
Manning hasn't done treason.

He has been charged with "Aiding the Enemy," which is it's self punishable by death.

It's also half of that whole "Aiding and Abetting the Enemy" thing.
See now, Article 3 is pretty specific about this.

Quote:
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.


1. Levying war against the United States

A-nope. We have a fellow who did, name of John Phillip Walker Lindh. They gave him 20 years.

2. Adhering to the enemies of the United States

Well, if they want to argue THAT one, they should work out to which particular group of enemies he has adhered, when and how he did so, et cetera. The attainder bit's a problem otherwise.

3. Giving the enemies of the United States aid and comfort

Had a guy convicted of that once, too - Name'a Hans Haupt, father of Herbert Haupt. Harboring a Nazi saboteur, it was. The kind of material aid to the aforementioned war against the United States they obviously meant when drafting the clause.

He was deported after spending some time in prison.
Valiant Corvus's avatar

Eloquent Lunatic

8,650 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Tycoon 200
  • Wall Street 200
Heimdalr
Pockybot kind of needed friends.
Precisely what I was thinking.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games