New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

I guess if you've committed TREASON once, second time easier

Yes he is and always be a traitor in my eyes. However, signing this bill is nothing more than symbolism. From what I have been hearing about this, even if the Congress (Senate) passed the legislation, it would not affect our Second Amendment rights, because the guaranteed rights in the Constitution can not be trumped by treaties, the only thing that it would affect is the import of firearms and ammunition and federal law.

So if you like the Bennelli shotguns, or are into cowboy action shooting buy your firearms now to be on the safe side. For investment foreign firearms would be a great choice, if this goes through, they will be worth a mint here in the states.

ORR
 

GordonGecko

President
What are you talking about? What treason?

Moonie Times has all the Gun Right in a tizzy....apparently, for like the 4857th time in 30 years...."All er guns are gunna be confiscated by the United Nations!!!!!!!"

Likely it's another attempt by Echo Chamber Media at a "bright shiny object" "outrage"....to distract them from the failing Cruz Defunding Conjob.


Oh, and of course their 9 year old claim that telling the truth about the Vietnam War from a guy who was actually there?...was "treason".
 

Arkady

President
Moonie Times has all the Gun Right in a tizzy....apparently, for like the 4857th time in 30 years...."All er guns are gunna be confiscated by the United Nations!!!!!!!"

Likely it's another attempt by Echo Chamber Media at a "bright shiny object" "outrage"....to distract them from the failing Cruz Defunding Conjob.


Oh, and of course their 9 year old claim that telling the truth about the Vietnam War from a guy who was actually there?...was "treason".
Right-wing cant is becoming so insular and specialized that eventually they'll be speaking a wholly separate, mutually-unintelligible language.
 

GordonGecko

President
Right-wing cant is becoming so insular and specialized that eventually they'll be speaking a wholly separate, mutually-unintelligible language.

In a way it works to our advantage. Imagine if they had metaphorically "left" the Rightwing Media Echo Chamber last year.....STOPPED believing only in Fox, Drudge, Talk Radio, "Moonie Times" (above), Weekly Standard, Rasmussen polling, etc. Did NOT dismiss everything else as the "Lib'rul Media who lies all the time!" and "skewed polls".

They wouldn't have believed in the "Romney Landslide"....and thus might have worked HARDER to get Mitt elected or figured out new strategies to win the Senate for Republicans.

Their self-imposed 'information isolation' and cult-like "We believe no one outside of the Group" mentality....directly worked against them there.
 

Arkady

President
In a way it works to our advantage. Imagine if they had metaphorically "left" the Rightwing Media Echo Chamber last year.....STOPPED believing only in Fox, Drudge, Talk Radio, "Moonie Times" (above), Weekly Standard, Rasmussen polling, etc. Did NOT dismiss everything else as the "Lib'rul Media who lies all the time!" and "skewed polls".

They wouldn't have believed in the "Romney Landslide"....and thus might have worked HARDER to get Mitt elected or figured out new strategies to win the Senate for Republicans.

Their self-imposed 'information isolation' and cult-like "We believe no one outside of the Group" mentality....directly worked against them there.
I agree that it works to our advantage if you view things as a partisan contest. If politics are a chess game, you want your opponent to be a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic who can't master his own prejudices well enough to really think clearly about the pieces on the board.

Unfortunately, if you instead think of politics as an inherently cooperative and constructive process, albeit with adversarial elements, it's different. Let's say that instead of a chess game, we're talking about a couple partners in a company with different visions of where the company should be headed. Having one of them be a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic may interfere with his ability to enact his vision, but it'll be nearly as destructive for the other's vision, too, and the company as a whole will suffer.

Like it or not, we have to deal with these people, so we'd be better off if they recovered their sanity, even if that did make them more formidable partisans. I'd rather that Democrats and liberals have to step up our game to compete with a newly revitalized GOP than having us slum our way to easy national election wins against self-deluding half-wits, while the country crumbles around our ears.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
What are you talking about? What treason?
my gawd why does this have to be posted so often, esp to a lawyer.......Kerry as a Naval Officer met with the NV in Paris=Treason

IMO Kerry signing the arms treaty with UN=Treason.........

maybe he can throw his medals at the UN.....wait.....they would be another Vets medals...............as before.
 
my gawd why does this have to be posted so often, esp to a lawyer.......Kerry as a Naval Officer met with the NV in Paris=Treason

IMO Kerry signing the arms treaty with UN=Treason.........

maybe he can throw his medals at the UN.....wait.....they would be another Vets medals...............as before.
Kerry is no traitor. He is a true American. The way I look at it, the unamerican traitor is the one who opposes him and the President. The man who shouts that Obamacare will ruin the country is working hard to ruin the country. Whose treason is plain here?
 

Arkady

President
my gawd why does this have to be posted so often, esp to a lawyer.......Kerry as a Naval Officer met with the NV in Paris=Treason

IMO Kerry signing the arms treaty with UN=Treason.........

maybe he can throw his medals at the UN.....wait.....they would be another Vets medals...............as before.
Treason is defined by the US Constitution as levying war against the US or adhering to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort. As you surely know, Kerry did no such thing, and has never been charged with treason, much less convicted of it by a jury of his peers. If you're under the impression that meeting with representatives of a government with which the US is fighting is treason, then wouldn't that make thousands of Americans, right on up to presidents, generals, and secretaries of state all guilty of treason?

I suspect you're just confused and you're referring instead to claims that Kerry's meeting was a violation of 18USC953, which says a US citizen can't, without US authority, correspond with a foreign government with the intent of influencing it in relation to controversies of the US. That, of course, is not treason -- it's merely a statutory crime punishable by up to three years in jail. And to convict Kerry of it, you'd need to prove not that he met with those foreign representatives, but that he did it without US authority, AND that he did it with the intent of influencing those authorities in relation to the war. That last item would be tough to prove without his direct admission. If he met with them, for example, with the intent of learning what they had to say, in order to come home and influence US policy based on that, it would be completely legal. It would also be legal if he met with them for personal purposes, or in order to signal to third parties that the US was not monolithic on these controversies, or to bring attention to the talks back home, or to bask in a little limelight, or to satisfy personal curiosity, or to enhance his career, or literally any other of thousands of conceivable purposes. Only if he met with them with the purpose of trying to influence their policy on the war would it be a crime.

Even if you could prove that he met with them for purposes of influencing their policy, there's also the question of whether the law making that a crime is even Constitutional. We citizens are supposed to have a free speech right and a free association right, and our speech is most strictly protected when it's political speech. We'd be talking about a law that criminalizes a form of political speech by a US citizen, and I'm not sure that a conviction would survive appeal.

As for the damned fool reasoning that a Secretary of State signing a treaty (which remains subject to ratification) is treason, it shows how unserious you are when throwing around that charge. You can dislike the treaty without it being treason for someone to disagree with you.
 
Last edited:

Arkady

President
Kerry is no traitor. He is a true American. The way I look at it, the unamerican traitor is the one who opposes him and the President. The man who shouts that Obamacare will ruin the country is working hard to ruin the country. Whose treason is plain here?
We don't need hyperbole in the other direction, either. All citizens should speak their minds forcefully about US policy, whether it's Kerry speaking out against Nixon's war policy in Vietnam, or Tea Party goons speaking out against Obamacare. Those things are the very opposite of Treason. They're citizens performing their most basic duty of contributing to our national dialogue, in order to exercise influence on policy.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Kerry is no traitor. He is a true American. The way I look at it, the unamerican traitor is the one who opposes him and the President. The man who shouts that Obamacare will ruin the country is working hard to ruin the country. Whose treason is plain here?
yeah, looks as the 1st Amendment chaps ya azz........meeting the enemy as a navy officer makes Kerry a Traitor...........
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Treason is defined by the US Constitution as levying war against the US or adhering to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort. As you surely know, Kerry did no such thing, and has never been charged with treason, much less convicted of it by a jury of his peers. If you're under the impression that meeting with representatives of a government with which the US is fighting is treason, then wouldn't that make thousands of Americans, right on up to presidents, generals, and secretaries of state all guilty of treason?

I suspect you're just confused and you're referring instead to claims that Kerry's meeting was a violation of 18USC953, which says a US citizen can't, without US authority, correspond with a foreign government with the intent of influencing it in relation to controversies of the US. That, of course, is not treason -- it's merely a statutory crime punishable by up to three years in jail. And to convict Kerry of it, you'd need to prove not that he met with those foreign representatives, but that he did it without US authority, AND that he did it with the intent of influencing those authorities in relation to the war. That last item would be tough to prove without his direct admission. If he met with them, for example, with the intent of learning what they had to say, in order to come home and influence US policy based on that, it would be completely legal. It would also be legal if he met with them for personal purposes, or in order to signal to third parties that the US was not monolithic on these controversies, or to bring attention to the talks back home, or to bask in a little limelight, or to satisfy personal curiosity, or to enhance his career, or literally any other of thousands of conceivable purposes. Only if he met with them with the purpose of trying to influence their policy on the war would it be a crime.

As for the damned fool reasoning that a Secretary of State signing a treaty (which remains subject to ratification) is treason, it shows how unserious you are when throwing around that charge.
Presidents/Generals/SOS do not meet Enemy on their own time, they meet for the country.............Kerry was NOT sent to Paris by President/General and or the SOS........how Kerry was never charged..is a mystery.
 

Arkady

President
Presidents/Generals/SOS do not meet Enemy on their own time, they meet for the country.............Kerry was NOT sent to Paris by President/General and or the SOS........how Kerry was never charged..is a mystery.
He was never charged with treason because that's not what treason means. As for 18 USC 953, charging him would have been very difficult for the reasons I mentioned. It would have been hard to prove the key element of the crime (that his intent was to influence the foreign government), and a conviction would have been very vulnerable to being overturned on appeal. It would also have been a political nightmare: trying to lock up a highly decorated American war hero because he talked to the wrong people about peace?! And it would have opened the door to charges of hypocrisy, since no doubt many, many people have met with agents of foreign governments about controversies, in an unofficial capacity, without any charges.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Title 10, Section 904 of the United States Code [Uniform Code of Military Justice], which provides:



Any person who . . . without proper authority, knowingly . . . communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

The meaning of this section-apart from the definition of "enemy," which in the early 1970s certainly included the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese (see Title 18, United States Code, Section 11)-has been interpreted in four appellate cases.

I rest my case.
 

Arkady

President
Title 10, Section 904 of the United States Code [Uniform Code of Military Justice], which provides:



Any person who . . . without proper authority, knowingly . . . communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

The meaning of this section-apart from the definition of "enemy," which in the early 1970s certainly included the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese (see Title 18, United States Code, Section 11)-has been interpreted in four appellate cases.

I rest my case.
Before you rest your case, you should try to make it. Was Kerry subject to military law?
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Before you rest your case, you should try to make it. Was Kerry subject to military law?
as a naval reserve officer.......ya damn right he was, even more than Hanoi Jane, what part of "any person" confusing ya counselor .......
 

Arkady

President
as a naval reserve officer.......ya damn right he was, even more than Hanoi Jane, what part of "any person" confusing ya counselor .......
So, just to make sure I'm following correctly, your position is that all members of the reserves are subject to all aspects of the Code of Military Justice at all times?
 

GordonGecko

President
. I'd rather that Democrats and liberals have to step up our game to compete with a newly revitalized GOP than having us slum our way to easy national election wins against self-deluding half-wits, while the country crumbles around our ears.
I would too.....I want a quick end to these Tea Party nonsense in the GOP. Get the Party back to some kind of common sense, modernity, and moderation. Better still...back to the Eisenhower Party.

But it looks like it's going to take a few more disasterous elections and clown circus Republicans like Cruz....before the GOP finally puts these guys back up in the attic like a crazy aunt.
 
Top