[Drjones]

Why do we not try people for treason anymore?

Things like what hillary said to our troops (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53507)

and plots by leftist extremists to wage violent attacks against our Armed Forces (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53508)

both are deserving of a trial and execution for treason.

WHY aren't these two people being tried?

Is our country that far-gone???

:fire: :fire: :fire:

[Bruce H]

Both of them pretty much fall under free speech. Trying to obtain is a far cry from blowing it up. Hillary is a politition. When you trot out the treason charge you had better be damn sure what you have. Using it in either of your named links would leave several of us on this board open to charges also.

[Drjones]

Bruce:

If instead it had been a civilian saying those things to our troops, I'd fully agree with you.

The fact that clinton is a US Senator makes it a whole different issue.

A US Senator openly making such disparaging comments to our troops during what is essentially a time of war is treasonous behavior, period.

[Waitone]

We as a society have a hard time differentiating between good and bad, right and wrong, legal and illegal.

Our moral compass is being spoofed and we don't realize it.

[Solinvictus70]

Because it's a slippery slope. Treason and sedition are two charges that most of the Founders faced at one time or another, so they wanted the definition and prosectution for these crimes carefully defined.
* On edit * If we, as gun owners, profess to keep firearms to prevent government tyranny, by implication that is a statement that we are prepared to use them against the government. That alone, in some arenas, could be treason.

[MacPelto]

The first guy, i don't know about, so I won't comment, but, as much as I dislike Hillary, the article in no way indicated that she commited treason.

US Constitution

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. 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.

Clause 2: 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.


Saying that not everbody back home is behind the war, and that the outcome isn't assured is neither 'levying war' nor giving the enemy 'aid and comfort'.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Such speech by "government officials" aid the enemy and gives them comfort.

The entire resistance, either Taliban or AlQaeda or Hussein/Fedayeen, are all counting on us to pull out once the political fires start burning. Daschle to Dean, Clinton to McAuliffe have been hammering this home for a while.

Qualifiers: Certainly open debate is necessary in the House and Senate. The media itself can snipe all they want. BUT, when you are representing the government, in any capacity, and disparage the official US policy overseas in the war zone (espeicially in front of the troops), then we must consider these possibilities.

Is it a policy dispute? She sits on the Armed Services Committee. Hold a hearing.

Is it dirty politics? Absolutely

There is a tradition (or was?) that no politician would disparage US foreign policy on foreign soil....ever.

Remember DiFi getting off the plane in Europe and stating that she is embarrassed to be an American? Poor taste but not treason.:barf:

Hitlary demoralizing our troops in a war zone, possible aiding and inciting the enemy/terrorists for prolonged battle/terror campain? Poor taste and Treason-like behavior

:barf: :fire: :mad: :eek: :what:

[Joe Demko]

This thread itself perfectly illustrates why we should be parsimonious in levying charges of treason. Somebody you don't like said something you don't like and you are ready to set up the firing squads. Comrade Hillary isn't being goodthinkful in the way youwant her her to be goodthinkful, ergo she is a traitor and must be executed.:rolleyes:

[Art Eatman]

I think that in the original intent of the usage of the word "Treason", "war" could only be a case of Congress having actually declared it as was done in December of 1941. Today's waffling and woofling "permission" for the Chief Executive to use the troops doesn't really fit the original definition.

I'd rather have the First Amendment be more powerful than such things as mouth-music treason or "sedition", anyway. Let treason be actual physical actions against us, on behalf of a Congressionally-defined enemy.

Art

[Il Duce]

If we, as gun owners, profess to keep firearms to prevent government tyranny, by implication that is a statement that we are prepared to use them against the government. That alone, in some arenas, could be treason.

This is why our Constitution is so important. Any deviance or remolding of our fundamental Bill of Rights, Second Amendment included, is, in essence, treason committed by our government. Our right and responsibility to keep firearms to prevent government tyranny is the people's safeguard against treason. The Constitution is superior, not equal, to government. We, as gun owners, cannot commit treason if it is in defense of the Constitution.

[MrAcheson]

Sorry but I see nowhere in the constitution that the members of the US Congress lose their right to free speech. I may not like what she says, but I will fight for her right to say it.

[one-shot-one]

:fire:
BECAUSE TO MANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT CURRENTLY HOLD ELECTED OFFICE IN THIS COUNTRY WOULD FALL UNDER THAT TITLE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER (AS DEFINED BY SOME OF OUR MORE RIGHT WING POSTERS ON THIS FORUM).

"Remember DiFi getting off the plane in Europe and stating that she is embarrassed to be an American? Poor taste but not treason."
SHE HAS RECOURSE TO THAT PROBLEM, RENOUNCE HER CITIZENSHIP AND STAY IN EUROPE.

[Drjones]

You guys give me too much credit.

No, really...I mean it... :rolleyes:

This is as clear as I can say it:

hillary is free to say whatever she wants. Of course she has freedom of speech. I of course think that even anti-American communists have freedom of speech while living in this country that they hate so much. If I ever implied anywhere that certain people don't or shouldn't have freedom of speech, please do point it out for all to see. I do imagine we'll be waiting a long time, however...

As awful as I of course think it is, if she had made similar remarks at, say, a fundraiser to her audience there, fine.

But to go into hostile territory and make remarks that were very obviously inteded to disparage, demoralize and otherwise harm our troops' morale is treasonous, period.

If you can't see that, well, perhaps you aren't too different from hillary.

[foghornl]

"Remember DiFi getting off the plane in Europe and stating that she is embarrassed to be an American? Poor taste but not treason."
SHE HAS RECOURSE TO THAT PROBLEM, RENOUNCE HER CITIZENSHIP AND STAY IN EUROPE.



WORKS 4 ME ! ! ! !

[Daniel T]

If you can't see that, well, perhaps you aren't too different from hillary.

It's attitudes like this that make people ignore anything thoughtful you might have to say. More of the old "if-you-aren't-with-me-100%,-you-must-be-one-of-them" way of thinking.

[Sean Smith]

Treason is pretty strictly defined in the Constitution. I don't think you can say that Hillary's conduct fits that definition. "Giving them aid and comfort" is a reference to providing enemies of the U.S. during a time of war direct, physical, tangible assistance... not just saying things that might give them a warm fuzzy.

In practical terms:

Fight on the enemy's side = treason
Give direct assistance to the enemy = treason
Hillary in Iraq = not treason

I consider Hillary personally and professionally despicable. The world would be a better place if she had to fish her dinner out of dumpsters, instead of having it paid for by the general public. But her behavior thus far doesn't fall under the narrowly defined crime of treason.

[Correia]

Careful what you wish for. If Hillary could be executed for treason under that loose of guidelines, 3/4 of us wouldn't be around to see it because we would have been executed for treason under the previous administration.

[telewinz]

The degree of evidence required and the wish to avoid creating a "cause".

[twoblink]

Dr Jones..

She can't be tried for STUPIDITY which is what it is..

Treason is like Hanoi Jane..

Comments are all freedom of speech, and besides, she's a politician, you'd be stupid to actually take anything she says seriously..

The best way to deal with Hillary is not to give her airtime, which is all she vi's for anyway.. Ignore her, she's a non-issue.

2 things tell me she's lying:

#1) She's breathing
#2) Her lips are moving..

Carry on Soldier... ignore the trash, and the trash might get picked up on Tuesdays and Thursdays..

[CaesarI]

My own amendment to the constitution:
Politicians found guilty of passing laws that the Cato Institute finds unconstitutional shall be put to death for treason.

-Morgan

[jimpeel]

Because the test for the charge of treason is so great.

[Wildalaska]

both are deserving of a trial and execution for treason.

Cooments like this demonstrate why we arent winning the hearts and minds of the great undecided masses...

WillunaticfringeAlaska

[Art Eatman]

Lemme try again: Treason is the wrong word for every example of dislike posted above. Congress hasn't declared war since 1941. Without a Declaration of War by Congress, there can be no treason.

Personal opinions don't re-define words.

Art

[Triad]

Have you considered what would happen to you, say in 2008 if Hillary is elected, if we did try people for these things you think are treasonous?

[Triad]

You should also consider that Bill Clinton could still be president. All he would have had to do is start a little war somewhere and try anyone who wanted to have elections for treason. Nice thought, huh?

[seeker_two]

Because the test for the charge of treason is so great.

jimpeel got it in one...:D

Prosecutors have to have an incredible burden of proof to prove treason. Since many prosecutors would rather have an easy win in court than have to work hard to prove the greater charge, many prosecutors go for the lesser charges (i.e. the bomb case mentioned above.)

As for Hillary's statements: I don't see her statements as treasonous, but definitely worth censure. However, that would take a Republican leadership w/ a bigger pair of cojones than can usually be found in a politician. She'll skate by on this one...:banghead: