Treason: Just Another Silly Antiquated Idea?

#41
Yeah but Galloway is one of ours and much as I disagree with much of what he says (and agree with some of it) I haven't seen evidence of treason. Just saying it don't make it so!

Besides, you lot bang on about freedom of speech. The British just believe in it and have a nasty habit of defending it.

Land of the Free? If you believe in the right things.

You haven't answered the NORAID thing yet..Nor will you, I suspect.
 
#42
smartascarrots said:
Yank_Lurker said:
I'd say it's fairly obvious that he and his little b!tch intended to wage war against the US, and I'd say that a lawyer could probably make a good case that they waged war against the United States. Although I do retain some integrity, and therefore have not sat for the bar (despite the fervent wishes of one of my old college professors...sweet lady, raging liberal that she was...)
If they waged war against the United States, then they couldn't also have been guilty of treason against it since war is a legitimate act between nation-states and the citizens thereof while terrorism is a criminal act of individuals.

Congratulations, you've just legitimised the actions of al Queda in international law.
Uh. Right. :roll: The definition of treason per the Constitution is levying of war against the US by citizens of the US. If I were to attack the institutions of another country, I can't very well be considered a traitor to that country. It's too bad that no one seems to recall that once upon a time, betrayal and treasonous conduct were considered the mose vile of crimes. Dante reserved the 9th Circle for traitors.

Truly, the man was right at the beginning of the last century when he wrote

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
 
#43
Northern Monkey said:
Yeah but Galloway is one of ours and much as I disagree with much of what he says (and agree with some of it) I haven't seen evidence of treason. Just saying it don't make it so!

Besides, you lot bang on about freedom of speech. The British just believe in it and have a nasty habit of defending it.

Land of the Free? If you believe in the right things.

You haven't answered the NORAID thing yet..Nor will you, I suspect.
I never contributed. I suggest that you direct your queries to certain Democratic Congressmen and Senators of Irish extraction, primarily the New England variety...
 
#44
Yank_Lurker said:

:roll:

Occasional appearances on a radio show do not make a working political/business relationship.

I was a regular listener to the Liddy show perhaps a decade ago. He certainly never pushed an agenda of violent overthrow of the United States government. Nor did he push an agenda of dismantling the very foundations of our society (as Ayers advocates). And he never engaged in indiscriminate acts of violence against his fellow citizens.
:roll:
well, he was convicted of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping, and received a 20-year sentence. If he had his way he would have also done a nice bit of fire-bombing and kidnapping of US citizens.

From Wiki

In 1980, Liddy published an autobiography, titled Will, which sold more than a million copies and was made into a television movie. In it he states that he once made plans with Hunt to kill journalist Jack Anderson, based on a literal interpretation of a Nixon White House statement "we need to get rid of this Anderson guy"
Sounds like terrorism to me
 
#45
Yank_Lurker said:
Uh. Right. :roll: The definition of treason per the Constitution is levying of war against the US by citizens of the US.
But the definition in international law of war flatly contradicts this. The same definition accepted by the US government that it's been so keen to split hairs over in terms of 'unlawful combatants'.

Can't have your cake and eat it. He's either a nation-state engaged in an 'act of war' or he's a terrorist engaged in a criminal act. That criminal act might very well be treason, but an act of war can't be and you've said that's what it was.

That's why I was so keen to get your opinion on whether they'd committed an act of war.
 
#46
smartascarrots said:
Yank_Lurker said:
Uh. Right. :roll: The definition of treason per the Constitution is levying of war against the US by citizens of the US.
But the definition in international law of war flatly contradicts this. The same definition accepted by the US government that it's been so keen to split hairs over in terms of 'unlawful combatants'.

Can't have your cake and eat it. He's either a nation-state engaged in an 'act of war' or he's a terrorist engaged in a criminal act. That criminal act might very well be treason, but an act of war can't be and you've said that's what it was.

That's why I was so keen to get your opinion on whether they'd committed an act of war.
An act of war committed by a citizen against his own country is treasonous. An act of war by a citizen of Afghanistan against the United States cannot be treasonous. Whether it is also an illegal act is beside the question.

But I do see the agenda you're trying to push, and don't worry, we're losing on that front too. A Federal Judge has just ordered the release of 17 Al Quaeda members currently residing in Guantamo. Not just the immediate release, but release on their own recognizance, INSIDE THE UNITED STATES. In fact, the Judge issued an injunction against Federal Immigration from immediately detaining them and deporting them.

This is what happens when we allow judges (appointed by Clinton in this case) to rule on the cases of terrorists. I presume said judge is also arranging provision of Semtex, det cords, and time fuses, to replace property illegally confiscated from these obvious victims of American cultural imperialism. Perhaps he can get them tickets to the US Senate and Congressional galleries through his good offices, too.
 
#47
I never contributed. I suggest that you direct your queries to certain Democratic Congressmen and Senators of Irish extraction, primarily the New England variety...

So you're happy to lobby against an innocent (in legal terms) politician, but were content to allow NORAID to function? Did you lobby against that? No? Cos it ain't terrorism unless it affects you is it

Have you ever wondered why the USA is so universally despised?
 
#48
And you still haven't grasped the definition of an act of war have you?
 
#49
Northern Monkey said:
I never contributed. I suggest that you direct your queries to certain Democratic Congressmen and Senators of Irish extraction, primarily the New England variety...

So you're happy to lobby against an innocent (in legal terms) politician, but were content to allow NORAID to function? Did you lobby against that? No? Cos it ain't terrorism unless it affects you is it

Have you ever wondered why the USA is so universally despised?
I, along with most of my fellow citizens, couldn't really give a toss.

Especially considering most of the people who "despise" us are forming a monster-long queue trying to get in. :roll:

As for NORAID, I was aware of the people who perpetrated it, and you aren't going to unseat the Kennedy's or the products of corrupt northeastern urban politics
 
#50
Yank_Lurker said:
This is what happens when we allow judges (appointed by Clinton in this case) to rule on the cases of terrorists. I presume said judge is also arranging provision of Semtex, det cords, and time fuses, to replace property illegally confiscated from these obvious victims of American cultural imperialism. Perhaps he can get them tickets to the US Senate and Congressional galleries through his good offices, too.
Don't make yourself more ridiculous than you already have, Yank_Lurgy.

I take it you mean internees who've NEVER been charged with any crime, who've never been convicted of any crime, who've never had the opportunity to challenge their imprisonment in a proper court of law. Talk about the Land of the fückin' Free!

MsG
 
#51
Bugsy said:
Yank_Lurker said:
This is what happens when we allow judges (appointed by Clinton in this case) to rule on the cases of terrorists. I presume said judge is also arranging provision of Semtex, det cords, and time fuses, to replace property illegally confiscated from these obvious victims of American cultural imperialism. Perhaps he can get them tickets to the US Senate and Congressional galleries through his good offices, too.
Don't make yourself more ridiculous than you already have, Yank_Lurgy.

I take it you mean internees who've NEVER been charged with any crime, who've never been convicted of any crime, who've never had the opportunity to challenge their imprisonment in a proper court of law. Talk about the Land of the fückin' Free!

MsG
Please to be informing me of just when it was that German, Japanese, or Italian nationals captured on the battlefield between 1941-1945 were afforded trial by jury in the United States of America--with the exception of the German PW's who were tried and convicted of murder, of a fellow German internee.

America's last mass hanging, by the way...
 
#52
Yes, it does matter who's appointing Federal judges

A federal judge today ordered that 17 Chinese Muslims held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison be released into the United States by Friday, agreeing with the detainees’ attorneys that the Constitution bars holding the men indefinitely without cause. …
Justice Department lawyer John O’Quinn asked Urbina to stay the order for a week, giving the government time to evaluate its options and file an appeal. Urbina rejected that request and ordered the Uighurs to appear in his courtroom for a hearing on Friday. He said he would then release them into the custody of 17 Uighur families living in the Washington area.
O’Quinn said the legal ramifications from the order are complex and that he wants time to consult with officials from the Department of Homeland Security. Under existing U.S. law, immigration authorities may be forced to take the Uighurs into custody shortly after they arrive in the United States, O’Quinn said. The Justice Department alleges they have ties to a group that has been designated a terrorist organization by the government.
Urbina chastised O’Quinn for suggesting that the government might take the Uighurs into custody for a second time.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.
 
#53
Then who do you expect to give a shi-ite about your failed pseudo terrorists and internal politics, you inbred ****?

Trust me, most Brits despise you, and the majority certainly aren't forming a queue to get in.

When we had an Empire we were honest about trying to make the world English. You lot are trying to do the same thing but are unable to admit it and cannot see that everything you touch has the kiss of death about it.
 
#54
Northern Monkey said:
Then who do you expect to give a shi-ite about your failed pseudo terrorists and internal politics, you inbred *?

Trust me, most Brits despise you, and the majority certainly aren't forming a queue to get in.

When we had an Empire we were honest about trying to make the world English. You lot are trying to do the same thing but are unable to admit it and cannot see that everything you touch has the kiss of death about it.
My, for someone who doesn't even know my surname it's funny you're so quick to surmise my ancestry. I do recall a group of British au pairs from a few years ago, who were desparate to remain in the country. As to whether you give a shi-ite, you needn't if you don't want to. This topic was posted in reply to certain people who have posted in this, the Multinational HQ, regarding the US elections. If you're not interested, fine. I refrain myself from making recommendations regarding for whom you lot should vote.
 
#55
Northern Monkey said:
Trust me, most Brits despise you, and the majority certainly aren't forming a queue to get in.
I'd actually beg to differ on that point, Northern Monkey. I believe you'll find that most of the ex or serving squaddies on this site have had truck with Septics at one time or another. If they found them to be throbbers, it wasn't because they were Septics, but because they were throbber.

Most folks in Europe don't despise the Septics, but they certainly don't like their gobment or their foreign policy, so I reckon it's a bit unfair for you to go off on Yank Lurgy for things he's no influence over.

Perhaps it's important to understand that Yank Lurgy comes from a country where you can drive 3,000+ miles and still speak the same language and use the same currency. Thus it stands to reason that he's going to have a very insular outlook on life, especially with regard to other countries. I'm not saying that I agree with your average Septic mindset that the US is the yardstick for every other country and culture, just that I understand it.

Just a thought.

MsG
 
#56
A limp response!

Au pairs desperate to remain? **** me, that's half of the UK then!

I don't care what your surname is-although it's bound to be four letters!

FYI those leaving the UK prefer Canada (more cultured, proper Americans), Australia and NZ.

The British used to talk softly and carry a big stick. The yanks just holla and struggle to persuade the big stick to function.

Don't come over all imperious, you're talking to an Englishman FFS!
 
#58
I disagree Bugsy. Perhaps I'd better invade?
Yanklurgy, where did I surmise your ancestry.? You're a citizen of the USA. I'm English. Surmise my ancestry all you please, I'm probably Saxon, Celtic, Norman and God knows what else. All you need to know is I'm English. Not USA therefore feel no need to establish my ancestry past first generation.
 
#59
Ronnie, you're clearly US of A, therefore never passed the state boundary unless to travel to a warzone. Says it all...
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Penguin142 US 12
Robbeaus The Intelligence Cell 24
SKUNK The Intelligence Cell 6

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top