Treason: Just Another Silly Antiquated Idea?

#1
Section 3. 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.
Certain people around ARRSE seem to think that it's not a problem at all that a man who aspires to the leadership of these United States has as a long time business partner and political ally, a man who without question committed treasonable acts, only getting off due to the mercies of the justice system he attempted to destroy.

Or perhaps some Obama ally around here can somehow spin Ayers' acts to not exactly fit the definition of treason as given in the Constitution of the United States? :roll:
 
#3
Appearing on The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great,".
 
#5
Red Shrek said:
Appearing on The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great,".
Ever listen to Liddy's show?

Thought not.
 
#6
I know someone who smokes weed, does that make me a drug user?

I know a bloke with a PhD. in science, does that make me a genius?

Is it no longer possible to run an election campaign focussed on your strengths rather than sling mud at the opposition?
 
#7
Bravo_Zulu said:
I know someone who smokes weed, does that make me a drug user?

I know a bloke with a PhD. in science, does that make me a genius?

Is it no longer possible to run an election campaign focussed on your strengths rather than sling mud at the opposition?
I don't know anyone personally who exploded bombs in the US Capitol Building and the Pentagon, and if I ever met Bill Ayers I'd tell him to his face that he should be swinging from a gallows, and I'd gladly pull the lever.

I wouldn't go into business with him, or use his home as a launching ground for my political career.
 
#8
jagman said:
We have out own treasonous Priminister, why should we be interested in the Amricans little difficulties?
Honestly, no real idea. But a few do seem to have a lot of interest vested in telling us how to vote.
 
#9
Yank_Lurker said:
I don't know anyone personally who exploded bombs in the US Capitol Building and the Pentagon, and if I ever met Bill Ayers I'd tell him to his face that he should be swinging from a gallows, and I'd gladly pull the lever.

I wouldn't go into business with him, or use his home as a launching ground for my political career.
Would you work at the same company as him? Or sit on the same trust boards as him? Are all the members of that particular charity trust's board now guilty of conspiracy to treason as well as Obama?

Republicans are getting desperate - their combination of geriatric/creepy and cheerleader (in brains as well as looks)/gun-toting nutcase will not be enough and they know it. If this is the best argument they can come up with as to why people shouldn't vote for Obama, the election is already lost for them and good riddance too.
 
#10
Carcass said:
Yank_Lurker said:
I don't know anyone personally who exploded bombs in the US Capitol Building and the Pentagon, and if I ever met Bill Ayers I'd tell him to his face that he should be swinging from a gallows, and I'd gladly pull the lever.

I wouldn't go into business with him, or use his home as a launching ground for my political career.
Would you work at the same company as him? Or sit on the same trust boards as him? Are all the members of that particular charity trust's board now guilty of conspiracy to treason as well as Obama?

Republicans are getting desperate - their combination of geriatric/creepy and cheerleader (in brains as well as looks)/gun-toting nutcase will not be enough and they know it. If this is the best argument they can come up with as to why people shouldn't vote for Obama, the election is already lost for them and good riddance too.
The political/social aims of the Annenberg Challenge and its board mebers were quite neatly aligned with Bill Ayers' political worldview. And Obama's worldview is quite obviously neatly aligned with Ayers'.

Any friend of Ayers is no friend of the United States of America.
 
#11
Yank_Lurker said:
The political/social aims of the Annenberg Challenge and its board mebers were quite neatly aligned with Bill Ayers' political worldview. And Obama's worldview is quite obviously neatly aligned with Ayers'.

Any friend of Ayers is no friend of the United States of America.
Interaction between Obama and Ayers

Obama and Ayers served together for three years on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty foundation established in 1941. Obama had joined the nine-member board in 1993, and had attended a dozen of the quarterly meetings together with Ayers in the three years up to 2002, when Obama left his position on the board,[1] which Ayers chaired for two years.[10] Laura S. Washington, chairwoman of the Woods Fund, said the small board had a collegial "friendly but businesslike" atmosphere, and met four times a year for a half-day, mostly to approve grants.[2] The two also appeared together on academic panel discussions, including a 1997 University of Chicago discussion on juvenile justice. They again appeared in 2002 at an academic panel co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library.[1] One panel discussion in which they both appeared was organized by Obama's wife, Michelle.[11]

Obama served as president of the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a large education-related nonprofit organization that Ayers was instrumental in starting.[12] The board disbursed grants to schools and raised private matching funds while Ayers worked with the operational arm of the effort. Both attended some board meetings in common starting in 1995, retreats, and at least one news conference together as the education program started. They continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 period when the program was operating. [12]

Ayers and Dohrn hosted a "meet-and-greet" for Obama at their home in the Hyde Park section of Chicago, where the Ayers and the Obamas lived. [12] It was at this meeting that then State Senator Alice Palmer introduced Barack Obama as her candidate for the 1996 Democratic primary.[12] Although the exact date of the meeting is not known, it was sometime in the second half of 1995, according to Ben Smith, a reporter for The Politico.[7]

In 2008, a spokesman for the Obama campaign said the last time Obama and Ayers had seen each other was when Obama was biking in the neighborhood in 2007 and crossed paths with Ayers. The spokesman said "The suggestion that Ayers was a political adviser to Obama or someone who shaped his political views is patently false".[13]

The New York Times reported that Obama did not have a significant relationship with Ayers.[12] According to several people, Ayers played no role in starting Obama's career which was primarily launched when Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, suggested Obama be appointed as chairman of the board of the six-member board that oversaw the distribution of grants in Chicago.[12]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama–Ayers_controversy

So, funding failing public schools is anti-American? You're making this pretty easy for me, really. Do you have any concept of what the Annenberg Challenge actually does or are you just spouting whatever drivel FOX News feeds you?

1 - How are the actions of the Annenberg Challenge equatable to bombing public buildings?

2 - What exactly is wrong with Obama chairing the board of a charitable trust with the laudable aim of improving education via philanthropy. What makes such an aim 'anti-american?'

3 - Although Bill Ayers committed bombings in the past, his actions with regard to the Annenberg Challenge seem to all and sundry to be entirely philanthropic and not at all related to his previous atrocities. Why do you object to former bombers from supporting charities?

4 - It basically all boils down to this: A man chaired a board of directors for a charitable trust for an entirely worthy cause. Sitting on the board was a man with a criminal past (for which he has never been tried nor convicted). Is the chairman of the board guilty merely by association, despite denouncing and distancing himself from the other member's past actions? I think not.
 
#12
Yank_Lurker said:
Any friend of Ayers is no friend of the United States of America.
He's not his friend, you cretin. He's repeatedly said so and his actions have borne that out...
 
#13
Red Shrek said:
Appearing on The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great,".
Gordon Liddy? Now, there is a man we could use right now
 
#14
The more I read of yank_lurkers posts the happier I am to have won the lottery of life and been born an Englishman.
 
#15
Besides I thought war had a legal basis involving two or more nation-states. Is Ayers a nation state?
 
#16
Carcass said:
Yank_Lurker said:
Any friend of Ayers is no friend of the United States of America.
He's not his friend, you cretin. He's repeatedly said so and his actions have borne that out...
Cretin, eh? Well! Obama says that an unrepentant terrorist bomber isn't his friend, and the New York Times backs him up! Nothing to see here, move along...

Just who is the cretin? :roll:

Rather like Barney Frank in 2004 asking Franklin Raines if Fannie Mae suffered from insufficient oversight. Raines replies in the negative, Frank immediately says, "I see no reason for us being here!" Uh huh.
 
#17
Northern Monkey said:
Besides I thought war had a legal basis involving two or more nation-states. Is Ayers a nation state?
Perhaps you didn't read the Constitutional Article in question?

"Levies war against the United States..." Do some googling and find his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, in a recorded message to a radio station declaring war upon the United States of America on behalf of the terrorist organization The Weather Underground. An organization whose goals and methods they REFUSE to apologize for, recant, or disavow. And Barry thinks these guys are just peachy. Oh wait, he said he repudiates their acts. Good enough for me! :roll:
 
#18
Section 3. 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.
Did a state of war ever exist between Ayers (a terrorist by your assertion) and the United States? Be careful how you answer, the US never formally declared war on Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The definition of 'unlawful combatants' largely hinges on that technical distinction.
 
#19
smartascarrots said:
Section 3. 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.
Did a state of war ever exist between Ayers (a terrorist by your assertion) and the United States? Be careful how you answer, the US never formally declared war on Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The definition of 'unlawful combatants' largely hinges on that technical distinction.
"By my assertion?" The fcuker detonated bombs in the US capitol building and the Pentagon. They attempted to murder a Federal judge and his entire family. Ayer's then-girlfriend was killed along with a number of other members, while building a nail bomb (anti-personnel dontcha know) to Ayers' specification. They intended to detonate that bomb at a dance for soldiers and their wives and girlfriends. Yeah, I'd "ASSERT" that makes him a terrorist.

Nice handle. Fits you.
 
#20
Yank Lurker,

Just a question. I find this whole issue of "treason" is really a non-issue unless and until it becomes reciprocal. This applies equally to other countries, and not just the US.

What I mean is that while gobments find it easy to invent a charge of "treason", i.e. committing acts which are harmful to a particular country's security or welfare, the same gobments feel no inclination to respond in a like way. Quite apart from the fact that just because you're born in a country doesn't have to mean you love it, does it? So to have an act that "forces" you to do that seems, to me at least, very anachronistic.

MsG
 

Similar threads

Top