First treason indictment

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24913

I think this is a good thing. (I wouldn’t mind seeing one finally get slapped on Fonda)

Most of you probably disagree.

Hmm, I thought the Fonda thing was discredited, but it turns out only the “passing slips of paper” was false. She might be in line for a charge.

H.

I’m not sure where you get your assumptions from Rollory but I can guess. Anyhow, it’s pretty obvious that this guy is a text-book traitor and what he’s doing is deliberate treason. So, maybe you can pack up your strawmen and go home?

I’m encouraged that he’s actually being charged with something, rather than just declared an enemy combatant and thrown in Gitmo or something. Of course, since he’s not actually in custody, it’s a moot point.

Also, for those who would like a politically neutral story on this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZrRwGzCnYxk&refer=home

Hey, this story is totally neutral!

“…And, as of today at least, no charges of any kind have been leveled against The New York Times and other newspapers for their treasonous exposure of three highly secret government programs that served as integral parts of America’s war against Islamic terrorists.”

Fixed.

H.

What reasonable person could disagree with that?

He seems like a traitor to me. Death seems like an odd punishment, I would think we’d prefer to have him put in the stocks and pilloried for the rest of his natural life. I mean seriously, al-zawahiri refers to him in fond terms, where I come from, that’s really bad. That’s like listing Michael Jackson as a reference on your day care operator job application bad.

The interesting thing is that it’s still really hard to convince him of treason. You need two witnesses!

They’re just never going to give up on the Fonda thing, are they?

So, is Fonda really guilty of treason, given that we never actually declared war on Vietnam? I mean, the fact that we decided that the VietCong were our enemy didn’t actually make them our enemy (unlike Al Qaeda which actually has declared themselves our enemy).

Yeah, I love this quote:

we may expect the legal left’s lawyers to defend Gadahn with every dirty weapon in their armory.

…like the Constitution?

I presume he’d be happier if Gadahn were returned to the US and receive no defense at all, but merely be summarily executed?

So, the argument seems to be that it’s OK to dissent from the US or to hold treasonous views, but as soon as you “broadcast” them (in this case, put them on video) you are guilty of Treason and can be put to death.

How about if Gadahn posted his views on Qt3 rather than making a video - would he still be guilty of treason?

Yes, but that’s a love hate relationship. I understand al-zawahiri hates himself because the relationship is really founded on his fascination with the guy’s thirsty lips and shapely thighs.

I don’t think it matters whether war was declared. I have not looked to be sure, but I’m pretty comfortable that we were not at declared war with the Soviet Union, but John Walker was still guilty of treason.

No, because it has been largely substantiated including by Fonda herself. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanoi_Jane#Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War

You don’t have to be “at war”. It simply has to be with an enemy of the US.

Some of the people in this thread are really being silly. You don’t have to be at war. You aren’t giving comfort to an enemy by publishing journalistic exposes. You don’t have to kill Americans. Etc.

And, again, I’d question whether the NLF (a guerrilla organization in a jungle 11000km away) were an “enemy of the US”.

The stuff Fonda did was inflammatory, no doubt, and often stupid and wrong (such as her insistence that POWs weren’t mistreated). But treasonous? Hardly.

Anyhow, she’s an old crone now, and it’s a 40-year-old incident. People need to let it lie.

Here’s an actual neutral story for people who want to know what this is about without wading through ten thousand mentions of Jane Fonda.

I guess my only question is, is this really “material support?” I mean, he just appears on their videos and praises what they’re doing, right? Sounds more like moral support to me, and frankly, I think I need someone to explain how just broadcasting some extremely hostile sentiments amounts to medium-to-heavy treason.

Haven’t you been paying attention? Dissent in times of war is treason, whether it’s during the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, or the War on Oceania.

Terrorist-lover.

I think he gets his assumptions from the fact that people in P&R almost never agree with anything that the administration ever does.

Also: There are no strawmen here, just stereotypes. Well deserved stereotypes.

Regardless of the morality of the conflict itself, anyone who kills Americans is, one would think, an enemy of the US. Perhaps you think Iraqi insurgents aren’t enemies of the US because you disagree with the current shitfest in Iraq?

Who says it has to be material support? Aid and comfort.

Hard to argue with that, although even you have to admit the distinction is blurred when we insert our soldiers in the middle of a civil war. The NLF was not really our enemy - we were just standing between them and their target (as evinced by the fact that once we withdrew from Vietnam, we were largely forgotten).

Anyhow, I don’t want the Fonda incident to detract from the current case. This guy helped make an Al Qaeda recruiting video specifically targetting the US, Al Qaeda is indisputably an enemy of the US based on their own declarations, so it does seem more clear cut.

I guess we’d need lawyerizing on “aid and comfort” and “material support.” The founders were remarkably serious about making treason convictions really, really hard after the stuff the King got up to.