Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States. Like all elected (or selected) presidencies, it is a caretaker of the nation's government, provisionally in place and subject to review and dispute. Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.

Yes! Thank you for posting sense. Even if we do not agree with what McDermott et. al. say or do, we need to recognize that such loyal dissent can slow us down and keep us from making massive errors. Even if we do ultimately go to war with Iraq, we would at least be doing so with a clearer purpose if dissent is listened to and thought about.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Unless we are at war, we do not have any "enemies." That is a word with a very specific meaning. Depending on how one interprets the declaration of war clause in Article I, Section 8, our last "enemy" was either the Taliban government in Afghanistan, or Imperial Japan.

What utter rubbish.

How is it that "privacy" means "abortion", "A well-regulated Militia" means "National Guard", and "an establishment of religion" means "God", but "Enemies" doesn't even mean "Enemies"?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge.

No, it wasn't defined that way because it is an easily-abused charge. It was defined that way because it was an easily-abused charge. Let's hear just how it was abused:

The treason clause is a product of the awareness of the Framers of the ''numerous and dangerous excrescences'' which had disfigured the English law of treason and was therefore intended to put it beyond the power of Congress to ''extend the crime and punishment of treason.'' The debate in the Convention, remarks in the ratifying conventions, and contemporaneous public comment make clear that a restrictive concept of the crime was imposed and that ordinary partisan divisions within political society were not to be escalated by the stronger into capital charges of treason, as so often had happened in England.

Thus, the Framers adopted two of the three formulations and the phraseology of the English Statute of Treason enacted in 1350, but they conspicuously omitted the phrase defining as treason the ''compass[ing] or imagin[ing] the death of our lord the King,'' under which most of the English law of ''constructive treason'' had been developed.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/consti...icle03/24.html

Despite attempts to put words into my mouth, I have not advocated calling ordinary political squabbles "treason". I merely define what exceeds "ordinary political squabbles" far differently than Mr. Rush, who thinks "Unless we are at war, we do not have any 'enemies.'" - a claim that would make Neville Chamberlain's ears bleed.

In a previous part of this discussion I stated:

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Chris '68

do we accept our positions in the saeculum and try and alter the more unpalatable aspects of that desitny to steer the 4T to a better present and future, or do we fight it tooth and nail while holding the peace sign in the air and pleading for humanity to "Save The Earth" from ourselves?

can we not do the former without (childishly) branding those who do the latter as traitors? does it not suffice to say "they're wrong"?

Depends on if they're really traitors or not.

Sounds like a reasonable cause-effect relationship there. Now let's compare this to Mr. Rush:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.

Okay, let's follow this logic, shall we? "Enemies" doesn't mean "Enemies", so Mr. McDermott could not have done more than dissent. Therefore, for me to say that I hold the opinion that travelling to a nation with whom we have been in an extended conflict, and doing so for the express purpose of allying one's self with the very same positions held by the NotTheEnemy approaches a treasonable offense.... makes me an "anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom".

Anathema, eh?

anath?e?ma 1 a : one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority b : someone or something intensely disliked or loathed -- usually used as a predicate nominative <this notion was anathema to most of his countrymen -- S. J. Gould>
2 a : a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication b : the denunciation of something as accursed c : a vigorous denunciation

I especially like the "ban or curse... and accompanied by excommunication". As a catholic, that makes me all warm and fuzzy. 8) Obviously, you meant this in the sense that I was "intensely disliked or loathed". More properly, that I was disliked or loathed by "a reasonable ideal of freedom".

An Ideal of Freedom. Loathed by an Ideal such as the First Amendment, perhaps? Or maybe the Constitution itself?

Are you trying to suggest that Mr. McDermott has the Right to fly to Bagdad to say whatever he likes (contrary to the right most Iraqis have, I might add), but that I should be silent because to attack him is... dare I say it... treasonous to that Ideal?

No, that can't be it, because we are not at war, and we have no Enemies.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Unless we are at war, we do not have any "enemies." That is a word with a very specific meaning. Depending on how one interprets the declaration of war clause in Article I, Section 8, our last "enemy" was either the Taliban government in Afghanistan, or Imperial Japan.

What utter rubbish.

How is it that "privacy" means "abortion", "A well-regulated Militia" means "National Guard", and "an establishment of religion" means "God", but "Enemies" doesn't even mean "Enemies"?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge.

No, it wasn't defined that way because it is an easily-abused charge. It was defined that way because it was an easily-abused charge. Let's hear just how it was abused:

The treason clause is a product of the awareness of the Framers of the ''numerous and dangerous excrescences'' which had disfigured the English law of treason and was therefore intended to put it beyond the power of Congress to ''extend the crime and punishment of treason.'' The debate in the Convention, remarks in the ratifying conventions, and contemporaneous public comment make clear that a restrictive concept of the crime was imposed and that ordinary partisan divisions within political society were not to be escalated by the stronger into capital charges of treason, as so often had happened in England.

Thus, the Framers adopted two of the three formulations and the phraseology of the English Statute of Treason enacted in 1350, but they conspicuously omitted the phrase defining as treason the ''compass[ing] or imagin[ing] the death of our lord the King,'' under which most of the English law of ''constructive treason'' had been developed.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/consti...icle03/24.html

Despite attempts to put words into my mouth, I have not advocated calling ordinary political squabbles "treason". I merely define what exceeds "ordinary political squabbles" far differently than Mr. Rush, who thinks "Unless we are at war, we do not have any 'enemies.'" - a claim that would make Neville Chamberlain's ears bleed.

In a previous part of this discussion I stated:

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Chris '68

do we accept our positions in the saeculum and try and alter the more unpalatable aspects of that desitny to steer the 4T to a better present and future, or do we fight it tooth and nail while holding the peace sign in the air and pleading for humanity to "Save The Earth" from ourselves?

can we not do the former without (childishly) branding those who do the latter as traitors? does it not suffice to say "they're wrong"?

Depends on if they're really traitors or not.

Sounds like a reasonable cause-effect relationship there. Now let's compare this to Mr. Rush:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.

Okay, let's follow this logic, shall we? "Enemies" doesn't mean "Enemies", so Mr. McDermott could not have done more than dissent. Therefore, for me to say that I hold the opinion that travelling to a nation with whom we have been in an extended conflict, and doing so for the express purpose of allying one's self with the very same positions held by the NotTheEnemy approaches a treasonable offense.... makes me an "anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom".

Anathema, eh?

anath?e?ma 1 a : one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority b : someone or something intensely disliked or loathed -- usually used as a predicate nominative <this notion was anathema to most of his countrymen -- S. J. Gould>
2 a : a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication b : the denunciation of something as accursed c : a vigorous denunciation

I especially like the "ban or curse... and accompanied by excommunication". As a catholic, that makes me all warm and fuzzy. 8) Obviously, you meant this in the sense that I was "intensely disliked or loathed". More properly, that I was disliked or loathed by "a reasonable ideal of freedom".

An Ideal of Freedom. Loathed by an Ideal such as the First Amendment, perhaps? Or maybe the Constitution itself?

Are you trying to suggest that Mr. McDermott has the Right to fly to Bagdad to say whatever he likes (contrary to the right most Iraqis have, I might add), but that I should be silent because to attack him is... dare I say it... treasonous to that Ideal?

No, that can't be it, because we are not at war, and we have no Enemies.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Unless we are at war, we do not have any "enemies." That is a word with a very specific meaning. Depending on how one interprets the declaration of war clause in Article I, Section 8, our last "enemy" was either the Taliban government in Afghanistan, or Imperial Japan.

What utter rubbish.

How is it that "privacy" means "abortion", "A well-regulated Militia" means "National Guard", and "an establishment of religion" means "God", but "Enemies" doesn't even mean "Enemies"?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge.

No, it wasn't defined that way because it is an easily-abused charge. It was defined that way because it was an easily-abused charge. Let's hear just how it was abused:

The treason clause is a product of the awareness of the Framers of the ''numerous and dangerous excrescences'' which had disfigured the English law of treason and was therefore intended to put it beyond the power of Congress to ''extend the crime and punishment of treason.'' The debate in the Convention, remarks in the ratifying conventions, and contemporaneous public comment make clear that a restrictive concept of the crime was imposed and that ordinary partisan divisions within political society were not to be escalated by the stronger into capital charges of treason, as so often had happened in England.

Thus, the Framers adopted two of the three formulations and the phraseology of the English Statute of Treason enacted in 1350, but they conspicuously omitted the phrase defining as treason the ''compass[ing] or imagin[ing] the death of our lord the King,'' under which most of the English law of ''constructive treason'' had been developed.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/consti...icle03/24.html

Despite attempts to put words into my mouth, I have not advocated calling ordinary political squabbles "treason". I merely define what exceeds "ordinary political squabbles" far differently than Mr. Rush, who thinks "Unless we are at war, we do not have any 'enemies.'" - a claim that would make Neville Chamberlain's ears bleed.

In a previous part of this discussion I stated:

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Chris '68

do we accept our positions in the saeculum and try and alter the more unpalatable aspects of that desitny to steer the 4T to a better present and future, or do we fight it tooth and nail while holding the peace sign in the air and pleading for humanity to "Save The Earth" from ourselves?

can we not do the former without (childishly) branding those who do the latter as traitors? does it not suffice to say "they're wrong"?

Depends on if they're really traitors or not.

Sounds like a reasonable cause-effect relationship there. Now let's compare this to Mr. Rush:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.

Okay, let's follow this logic, shall we? "Enemies" doesn't mean "Enemies", so Mr. McDermott could not have done more than dissent. Therefore, for me to say that I hold the opinion that travelling to a nation with whom we have been in an extended conflict, and doing so for the express purpose of allying one's self with the very same positions held by the NotTheEnemy approaches a treasonable offense.... makes me an "anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom".

Anathema, eh?

anath?e?ma 1 a : one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority b : someone or something intensely disliked or loathed -- usually used as a predicate nominative <this notion was anathema to most of his countrymen -- S. J. Gould>
2 a : a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication b : the denunciation of something as accursed c : a vigorous denunciation

I especially like the "ban or curse... and accompanied by excommunication". As a catholic, that makes me all warm and fuzzy. 8) Obviously, you meant this in the sense that I was "intensely disliked or loathed". More properly, that I was disliked or loathed by "a reasonable ideal of freedom".

An Ideal of Freedom. Loathed by an Ideal such as the First Amendment, perhaps? Or maybe the Constitution itself?

Are you trying to suggest that Mr. McDermott has the Right to fly to Bagdad to say whatever he likes (contrary to the right most Iraqis have, I might add), but that I should be silent because to attack him is... dare I say it... treasonous to that Ideal?

No, that can't be it, because we are not at war, and we have no Enemies.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

The treason clause is a product of the awareness of the Framers of the ''numerous and dangerous excrescences'' which had disfigured the English law of treason and was therefore intended to put it beyond the power of Congress to ''extend the crime and punishment of treason.'' The debate in the Convention, remarks in the ratifying conventions, and contemporaneous public comment make clear that a restrictive concept of the crime was imposed and that ordinary partisan divisions within political society were not to be escalated by the stronger into capital charges of treason, as so often had happened in England.

Thus, the Framers adopted two of the three formulations and the phraseology of the English Statute of Treason enacted in 1350, but they conspicuously omitted the phrase defining as treason the ''compass[ing] or imagin[ing] the death of our lord the King,'' under which most of the English law of ''constructive treason'' had been developed.

You need to be very careful here, Chris. Our "Framers," in a very technical sense, were all guilty, in 1776, of a quote "treason" against King George.

Thus, I believe, they wrote their 3Tish "anarchist" treason clause in with some trepidation. In otherwords, they said, in effect, treason does happen. But that's ok. It'll all come out in the wash, er, next 4T. :wink:

Let the McDerMUTT dogs bark all they want, everyday-folks know when the time comes to call the "dog" a mutt. :wink:

Originally Posted by Chris'68

The treason clause is a product of the awareness of the Framers of the ''numerous and dangerous excrescences'' which had disfigured the English law of treason and was therefore intended to put it beyond the power of Congress to ''extend the crime and punishment of treason.'' The debate in the Convention, remarks in the ratifying conventions, and contemporaneous public comment make clear that a restrictive concept of the crime was imposed and that ordinary partisan divisions within political society were not to be escalated by the stronger into capital charges of treason, as so often had happened in England.

Thus, the Framers adopted two of the three formulations and the phraseology of the English Statute of Treason enacted in 1350, but they conspicuously omitted the phrase defining as treason the ''compass[ing] or imagin[ing] the death of our lord the King,'' under which most of the English law of ''constructive treason'' had been developed.

You need to be very careful here, Chris. Our "Framers," in a very technical sense, were all guilty, in 1776, of a quote "treason" against King George.

Thus, I believe, they wrote their 3Tish "anarchist" treason clause in with some trepidation. In otherwords, they said, in effect, treason does happen. But that's ok. It'll all come out in the wash, er, next 4T. :wink:

Let the McDerMUTT dogs bark all they want, everyday-folks know when the time comes to call the "dog" a mutt. :wink:

Originally Posted by Chris'68

The treason clause is a product of the awareness of the Framers of the ''numerous and dangerous excrescences'' which had disfigured the English law of treason and was therefore intended to put it beyond the power of Congress to ''extend the crime and punishment of treason.'' The debate in the Convention, remarks in the ratifying conventions, and contemporaneous public comment make clear that a restrictive concept of the crime was imposed and that ordinary partisan divisions within political society were not to be escalated by the stronger into capital charges of treason, as so often had happened in England.

Thus, the Framers adopted two of the three formulations and the phraseology of the English Statute of Treason enacted in 1350, but they conspicuously omitted the phrase defining as treason the ''compass[ing] or imagin[ing] the death of our lord the King,'' under which most of the English law of ''constructive treason'' had been developed.

You need to be very careful here, Chris. Our "Framers," in a very technical sense, were all guilty, in 1776, of a quote "treason" against King George.

Thus, I believe, they wrote their 3Tish "anarchist" treason clause in with some trepidation. In otherwords, they said, in effect, treason does happen. But that's ok. It'll all come out in the wash, er, next 4T. :wink:

Let the McDerMUTT dogs bark all they want, everyday-folks know when the time comes to call the "dog" a mutt. :wink:

:lol:

:lol:

:lol:

Chris:

How is it that "privacy" means "abortion", "A well-regulated Militia" means "National Guard", and "an establishment of religion" means "God", but "Enemies" doesn't even mean "Enemies"?

Privacy includes the right to abortion, there is no well-regulated Militia and the National Guard is the nation's excuse not to overtly repeal the Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War, and an establishment of religion includes government endorsement of God -- among other things.

But you knew that, of course.

As for "enemies," it does mean "enemies." That is, it means our opponents in a war. That's the word's clear meaning. Any other use, such as you are proposing, is metaphorical.

No, it wasn't defined that way because it is an easily-abused charge. It was defined that way because it was an easily-abused charge.

Yes, that's right, I must admit. The framers did not live long enough to see you demonstrate that it is still an easily-abused charge, and hence could not have been motivated by that consideration.

Nevertheless, we ought to be. Your quote is informative and deserves repeating:

The debate in the Convention, remarks in the ratifying conventions, and contemporaneous public comment make clear that a restrictive concept of the crime was imposed and that ordinary partisan divisions within political society were not to be escalated by the stronger into capital charges of treason, as so often had happened in England.

Exactly. And what you propose is that ordinary partisan divisions within political society be escalated by the stronger into a capital charge of treason. That is precisely what I am accusing you of doing.

Despite attempts to put words into my mouth, I have not advocated calling ordinary political squabbles "treason". I merely define what exceeds "ordinary political squabbles" far differently than Mr. Rush

Since you take it upon yourself to redefine "ordinary political squabbles" away from that phrase's usual, customary, and time-honored meaning, in a way that suits your current political convenience, there is no difference between those two actions.

The bottom line is that you are defining a non-treasonous act of dissent as treason. The only persons who, endowed with power, do that, are tyrants. You advocate that this be done, and therefore you, Chris, are an advocate of tyranny.

We should all offer a prayer of thanks that you, personally, do not possess the power to put your despicable notion into practice, i.e., that you are merely an advocate of tyranny and not, yourself, a tyrant.

Are you trying to suggest that Mr. McDermott has the Right to fly to Bagdad to say whatever he likes (contrary to the right most Iraqis have, I might add), but that I should be silent because to attack him is... dare I say it... treasonous to that Ideal?

Of course not. You have the legal right to express your contemptible, freedom-loathing opinion, due to provisions in the Constitution which fly in its face. As I approve of those provisions, though obviously you do not, I cannot make an exception in your case.

I am not saying you have no right to your opinion. I am merely exercising my own parallel right, to point out that your opinion is the squalid ambition of a would-be tyrant.

Chris:

How is it that "privacy" means "abortion", "A well-regulated Militia" means "National Guard", and "an establishment of religion" means "God", but "Enemies" doesn't even mean "Enemies"?

Privacy includes the right to abortion, there is no well-regulated Militia and the National Guard is the nation's excuse not to overtly repeal the Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War, and an establishment of religion includes government endorsement of God -- among other things.

But you knew that, of course.

As for "enemies," it does mean "enemies." That is, it means our opponents in a war. That's the word's clear meaning. Any other use, such as you are proposing, is metaphorical.

No, it wasn't defined that way because it is an easily-abused charge. It was defined that way because it was an easily-abused charge.

Yes, that's right, I must admit. The framers did not live long enough to see you demonstrate that it is still an easily-abused charge, and hence could not have been motivated by that consideration.

Nevertheless, we ought to be. Your quote is informative and deserves repeating:

The debate in the Convention, remarks in the ratifying conventions, and contemporaneous public comment make clear that a restrictive concept of the crime was imposed and that ordinary partisan divisions within political society were not to be escalated by the stronger into capital charges of treason, as so often had happened in England.

Exactly. And what you propose is that ordinary partisan divisions within political society be escalated by the stronger into a capital charge of treason. That is precisely what I am accusing you of doing.

Despite attempts to put words into my mouth, I have not advocated calling ordinary political squabbles "treason". I merely define what exceeds "ordinary political squabbles" far differently than Mr. Rush

Since you take it upon yourself to redefine "ordinary political squabbles" away from that phrase's usual, customary, and time-honored meaning, in a way that suits your current political convenience, there is no difference between those two actions.

The bottom line is that you are defining a non-treasonous act of dissent as treason. The only persons who, endowed with power, do that, are tyrants. You advocate that this be done, and therefore you, Chris, are an advocate of tyranny.

We should all offer a prayer of thanks that you, personally, do not possess the power to put your despicable notion into practice, i.e., that you are merely an advocate of tyranny and not, yourself, a tyrant.

Are you trying to suggest that Mr. McDermott has the Right to fly to Bagdad to say whatever he likes (contrary to the right most Iraqis have, I might add), but that I should be silent because to attack him is... dare I say it... treasonous to that Ideal?

Of course not. You have the legal right to express your contemptible, freedom-loathing opinion, due to provisions in the Constitution which fly in its face. As I approve of those provisions, though obviously you do not, I cannot make an exception in your case.

I am not saying you have no right to your opinion. I am merely exercising my own parallel right, to point out that your opinion is the squalid ambition of a would-be tyrant.

Chris:

How is it that "privacy" means "abortion", "A well-regulated Militia" means "National Guard", and "an establishment of religion" means "God", but "Enemies" doesn't even mean "Enemies"?

Privacy includes the right to abortion, there is no well-regulated Militia and the National Guard is the nation's excuse not to overtly repeal the Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War, and an establishment of religion includes government endorsement of God -- among other things.

But you knew that, of course.

As for "enemies," it does mean "enemies." That is, it means our opponents in a war. That's the word's clear meaning. Any other use, such as you are proposing, is metaphorical.

No, it wasn't defined that way because it is an easily-abused charge. It was defined that way because it was an easily-abused charge.

Yes, that's right, I must admit. The framers did not live long enough to see you demonstrate that it is still an easily-abused charge, and hence could not have been motivated by that consideration.

Nevertheless, we ought to be. Your quote is informative and deserves repeating:

The debate in the Convention, remarks in the ratifying conventions, and contemporaneous public comment make clear that a restrictive concept of the crime was imposed and that ordinary partisan divisions within political society were not to be escalated by the stronger into capital charges of treason, as so often had happened in England.

Exactly. And what you propose is that ordinary partisan divisions within political society be escalated by the stronger into a capital charge of treason. That is precisely what I am accusing you of doing.

Despite attempts to put words into my mouth, I have not advocated calling ordinary political squabbles "treason". I merely define what exceeds "ordinary political squabbles" far differently than Mr. Rush

Since you take it upon yourself to redefine "ordinary political squabbles" away from that phrase's usual, customary, and time-honored meaning, in a way that suits your current political convenience, there is no difference between those two actions.

The bottom line is that you are defining a non-treasonous act of dissent as treason. The only persons who, endowed with power, do that, are tyrants. You advocate that this be done, and therefore you, Chris, are an advocate of tyranny.

We should all offer a prayer of thanks that you, personally, do not possess the power to put your despicable notion into practice, i.e., that you are merely an advocate of tyranny and not, yourself, a tyrant.

Are you trying to suggest that Mr. McDermott has the Right to fly to Bagdad to say whatever he likes (contrary to the right most Iraqis have, I might add), but that I should be silent because to attack him is... dare I say it... treasonous to that Ideal?

Of course not. You have the legal right to express your contemptible, freedom-loathing opinion, due to provisions in the Constitution which fly in its face. As I approve of those provisions, though obviously you do not, I cannot make an exception in your case.

I am not saying you have no right to your opinion. I am merely exercising my own parallel right, to point out that your opinion is the squalid ambition of a would-be tyrant.

To put this matter into a little better perspective, we should remind ourselves that the key and central question is this: Do we want the concept of treason to remain limited and restricted, so that it serves only to defend national integrity and not to endanger liberty? Or do we want the concept broadened to the point where freedom become subject to the whims of the state?

If "enemies" can be used in its metaphorical sense in the context of the Constitutional definition of treason, rather than restricted to its literal sense of opponents in war, then the definition of treason becomes dangerously broadened. The mere expression of approval of a nation or a regime, or opposition to any act taken against it up to and including genocide, could meet the definition of giving "aid and comfort." If, in addition, we allow "enemies" to mean any country that dislikes us, or opposes us in any way, or that our government labels as undesirable, then the First Amendment becomes null and void wherever speech touches upon foreign affairs.

To put this matter into a little better perspective, we should remind ourselves that the key and central question is this: Do we want the concept of treason to remain limited and restricted, so that it serves only to defend national integrity and not to endanger liberty? Or do we want the concept broadened to the point where freedom become subject to the whims of the state?

If "enemies" can be used in its metaphorical sense in the context of the Constitutional definition of treason, rather than restricted to its literal sense of opponents in war, then the definition of treason becomes dangerously broadened. The mere expression of approval of a nation or a regime, or opposition to any act taken against it up to and including genocide, could meet the definition of giving "aid and comfort." If, in addition, we allow "enemies" to mean any country that dislikes us, or opposes us in any way, or that our government labels as undesirable, then the First Amendment becomes null and void wherever speech touches upon foreign affairs.

To put this matter into a little better perspective, we should remind ourselves that the key and central question is this: Do we want the concept of treason to remain limited and restricted, so that it serves only to defend national integrity and not to endanger liberty? Or do we want the concept broadened to the point where freedom become subject to the whims of the state?

If "enemies" can be used in its metaphorical sense in the context of the Constitutional definition of treason, rather than restricted to its literal sense of opponents in war, then the definition of treason becomes dangerously broadened. The mere expression of approval of a nation or a regime, or opposition to any act taken against it up to and including genocide, could meet the definition of giving "aid and comfort." If, in addition, we allow "enemies" to mean any country that dislikes us, or opposes us in any way, or that our government labels as undesirable, then the First Amendment becomes null and void wherever speech touches upon foreign affairs.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Chris:

We should all offer a prayer of thanks that you, personally, do not possess the power to put your despicable notion into practice, i.e., that you are merely an advocate of tyranny and not, yourself, a tyrant.

Like I said, "You need to be very careful here, Chris. Our 'Framers,' in a very technical sense, were all guilty, in" 2002, "of a quote 'treason' against" King Brian Rush. :wink:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Chris:

We should all offer a prayer of thanks that you, personally, do not possess the power to put your despicable notion into practice, i.e., that you are merely an advocate of tyranny and not, yourself, a tyrant.

Like I said, "You need to be very careful here, Chris. Our 'Framers,' in a very technical sense, were all guilty, in" 2002, "of a quote 'treason' against" King Brian Rush. :wink:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Chris:

We should all offer a prayer of thanks that you, personally, do not possess the power to put your despicable notion into practice, i.e., that you are merely an advocate of tyranny and not, yourself, a tyrant.

Like I said, "You need to be very careful here, Chris. Our 'Framers,' in a very technical sense, were all guilty, in" 2002, "of a quote 'treason' against" King Brian Rush. :wink:

My apologies for the badly done "quote" and unquote business, in my previous post. Look deep, and perhaps you'll "get it." :wink:

My apologies for the badly done "quote" and unquote business, in my previous post. Look deep, and perhaps you'll "get it." :wink:

My apologies for the badly done "quote" and unquote business, in my previous post. Look deep, and perhaps you'll "get it." :wink:

Originally Posted by the lambster

My apologies for the badly done "quote" and unquote business, in my previous post. Look deep, and perhaps you'll "get it." :wink:

i know it's been said before (by me, for one), but really marc, if you have a point to make, you would do well to realize that many of us are not inspired to "look deep" so that we might "get it", and just come out and say it.

perhaps you really don't care whether or not we understand your point, but then i must wonder why you bother at all.


TK

Originally Posted by the lambster

My apologies for the badly done "quote" and unquote business, in my previous post. Look deep, and perhaps you'll "get it." :wink:

i know it's been said before (by me, for one), but really marc, if you have a point to make, you would do well to realize that many of us are not inspired to "look deep" so that we might "get it", and just come out and say it.

perhaps you really don't care whether or not we understand your point, but then i must wonder why you bother at all.


TK

Originally Posted by the lambster

My apologies for the badly done "quote" and unquote business, in my previous post. Look deep, and perhaps you'll "get it." :wink:

i know it's been said before (by me, for one), but really marc, if you have a point to make, you would do well to realize that many of us are not inspired to "look deep" so that we might "get it", and just come out and say it.

perhaps you really don't care whether or not we understand your point, but then i must wonder why you bother at all.


TK