Treason
OK, folks, let's go over the definition of Treason:
Merriam-Webster On Line defines it as: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family.
Dictionary.com comes up with:
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. (American Heritage Dictionary)
the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war; specifically : the act of levying war against the United States or adhering to or giving aid and comfort to its enemies by one who owes it allegiance (Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law)
"The Constitutional Dictionary" has this: the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war
So it is not treasonous to speak out against the government. It is not treasonous to make (possibly bad) attempts at humor at the expense of the government.
Some recent examples:
Bill Maher commenting on the declining numbers of recruits into the army, using the term "low lying fruit" to describe those who are EASY to recruit. NOT TREASON
Dick Durbin comparing an FBI eye-witness description of conditions at Guantanamo Bay to conditions in Soviet Gulags and other similar places. NOT TREASON
Geraldo Rivera giving away troop movements live on the air as an "embed" during the first days of the Iraq war. POSSIBLY TREASONOUS, DEFINITELY STUPID(*)
George Bush announcing to the insurgency "Bring It On!". PROBABLY NOT TREASON, ALTHOUGH STUPID
Treason is not an accusation to be made lightly. Treason involves direct action against the country or aid to those who would act against the country.
Free speech is not treason. Providing secret, sensitive information to abet a terrorist is. Speaking out against the government is not treason. Training in a terrorist camp in order to come back and attack the U.S. is.
Get the picture?
There are a lot of people bandying about the term who really need to go back and read our Constitution, and understand that exercising a right which is guaranteed us by our Constitution can not be treasonous.
(* I say "Possible" because I'm not sure whether stupidity is treasonous or not. Certainly it was right that he was removed from access to sensitive information. But since I don't believe his intent was to harm America, I'd be hesitant to level a charge of treason, although if someone else did, I'd be hard pressed to defend against it either)
Copyright (c) June 21, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net
posted by Liam at 6/21/2005 11:39:00 AM
12 Comments:
Treason isn't the only word being bandied about haphazardly.
Do these sound familiar?
"Patriot", "Family Values", "Mandate", Terrorist", "Victim"
We are increasingly using words as buzzers to push to lead the sheep. And so it goes with constant propaganda in the absense of critical thinking.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:10:00 PM
Jane Fonda did not commit treason either. Or at least thats what they tell me.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:47:00 AM
Ralph, I wasn't around when Jane Fonda was so stupid... in my lifetime all she has done is really difficult workout videos and get married to some really rich guy, I also remember her apologizing and admitting that it was one of her stupidist moments in the history of her life (not defending her, just giving reference to the limits of MY knowledge, feel free to correct me).
What she did (video that I saw of her sitting with Viet Kong in their equipment, talking against the actions of the US) didn't appear to be treasonous, but it was anti-American.
Are you saying that Dick Durbin is acting Anti-American? Do you consider being against this war anti-American? (I am for this war against Iraq, incidentally)
Janet (don't usually log is, do i?)
Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:37:00 PM
Current Definitions
Patriot = someone who supports President
Family Values = someone against Gay Marriage, abortion, and Daycare.
Mandate = almost 50% or slightly over 50% of vote.
Terrorist = anyone picked up for suspicion of being a terriorist.
Vicitim = everyone.
Anti-American = Disagrees with Rush Limbaugh.
Liberal = see Anti-American
Conservative = Republican
Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:45:00 PM
Janet,
This treason issue has been hanging around for a while. Jane Fonda damaged our war efforts monumentally, undermining our troops, our will as a nation to finish the job we started. When we (as a nation) lost the will to win in Viet Nam, it left the region open to the genocides in VietNam and Laos. Maybe stupidity is the right term but where is the accountability for the results of her actions both to our troops and POW's and to the innocent people killed after we left. We used to know where to draw the line about these things and people used to be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. No more.
I think that Dick Durban is guilty of aiding our enemies and giving them credibility in their attacks on what we are doing to birth a democracy in Iraq while destroying those who want to kill and enslave us. I heard someone say on the radio yesterday that Durban is 'attacking our defenders and defending our attackers'. Stupid is just too week a description for this.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1:42:00 PM
What I don't get it how this SHOULD have been handled? Sweep it under the rug? Ignore allegations from reputable sources of prisoner mistreatment? All sit back like the "See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil" monkeys, refusing to see or hear anything that we're doing wrong, and refusing to speak out when we we DO happen to perceive it?
Durbin's comments were not treasonous. They were free speech at its most important: Pointing out places where our behavior didn't live up to our principles, in the hopes that perhaps we could shame ourselves into behaving the way we're SUPPOSED to behave.
Jane Fonda... I was quite young when that happened, I'd have to refresh my memory as to what specifically happened, but from my (possibly wrong) recollection, it seems to me that stupidity is a much better word for it. To my memory, all she was doing was talking to the enemy, she wasn't giving them secret troop movements, nor arms, nor any monetary support. She disagreed with the war, she did it in a stupid fashion, but I don't believe it rises to the level of treason (again, unless as is very possible I'm missing some part of the story). But even so, you're giving Jane Fonda a whole lot more credit than she deserves. There were a LOT of people who didn't like that war, and many of them were demonstrating actively. To claim that Jane Fonda was responsible in any appreciable amount for the change in American attitude towards that war is building her up way more than she deserves.
Treason is a big word to throw around. There are a number of big words we're throwing around way more than we should lately, as Ken pointed out. Speaking your mind, even if it might "demoralize the troops" is not treason. Actively travelling to the camps of the troops and then berating the troops and telling them how stupid they are, preventing them from getting enough sleep or doing their best, that might be treasonous.
I'll tell you, if I were over in Iraq fighting this sham of a war, I'd be applauding every time a Dick Durbin pointed out the things we were doing wrong, because I'd hope that maybe, just maybe, this would be the time the American public woke up and decided to bring me home from this hell hole.
If we're doing something wrong, it is not only the right, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of our leaders (especially Governors, Senators, Congressmen and the President) to speak up and then try to fix the problem.
Liam.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:30:00 PM
Being against the war is one thing(although I would rather have all the jihadist going to Iraq to attack our troops than coming over here to attack us) but comparing our troops with the Nazi death camp troops is not acceptaable.
Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:37:00 AM
Another attempt to redefine the discussion to something you can win, rather than discussing the facts.
Who are you saying compared our TROOPS with Nazi death camp troops? The issue we were discussing was Dick Durbin's comment that the FBI report of prisoner mistreatment sounded more like something that might have happened in Nazi Germany than under the United States.
He was right. Attempting to call him un-American, treasonous or to claim that he was slandering our troops is intellectual falsehood. What he read was disgusting. What he said about it was true. Getting your panties in a bunch over it because the Administration you support is shown in a bad light doesn't have much weight, if they deserve the bad light they're cast in.
No more obfuscating, no misdirecting, I'm going to ask you a series of honest, yes/no questions. I want a yes/no answer on each.
1) Do you approve of the behavior described in the FBI memo Dick Durbin read just prior to issuing the statement you take issue with?
2) Do you believe that these tactics befit the United States?
3) Do you think that free speech should only apply to speech you approve of?
Liam.
Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:50:00 AM
1. No, if it is ALL true. When asked to produce proof that the memo he read was entirely from a real FBI Agent or not, he (DURBIN) would not or could not.
2.No.
3.Free Speech is inherant in our society and I approve of it whole heartedly! I hear and read a lot of speech that I don't approve of, but I have never made any effort to stop it with anything other than competing ideas.
Thursday, June 23, 2005 11:59:00 AM
Well, it never occurred to me to distrust the source of that memo, because I'd heard it quoted several weeks earlier on NPR, as part of a discussion (if you look back to June 10th, under the heading "Guantanamo Bay", you'll see the essay I wrote at the time), and they also reported that it was an FBI memo, and the pro-Administration person on the show never disputed that fact.
Also, on the 15th, under the heading "Guantanamo Detainees: an Interview with an Insider", there was another pretty credible source discussing similar tactics he witnessed. So at this point I think the burden of proof is now on the other side to reasonably discredit that evidence. Thus far, it feels to me as though they have not done that, they discredit through misdirection, rather than ever bothering to dispute or discredit (other than by mere assertion) the evidence presented.
But I'll give you #1. If you don't yet think there's sufficient evidence that this stuff is actually happening, then I can see not getting angry about it.
That said, though, I still don't see how we can label as in any way treasonous the statements by Dick Durbin, unless we can show proof of the following:
a) That the memo is false
b) That Durbin knew it was false or had reason to be suspicious of its contents
c) That Durbin quoted it in order to aid the terrorists or harm our troops.
Ah well, I should get back to work.
Liam.
Friday, June 24, 2005 1:18:00 PM
Ah. If it was on NPR, it must be true. Of course.
Monday, June 27, 2005 10:18:00 AM
That was a cheap shot.
The point is that it has been reported from multiple sources, and as yet no one has challenged the veracity of the report. The person to whom it was quoted on NPR (Bradford Berenson, who was clearly on the Pro-Bush side of the fense) did not challenge the source. In fact, he even semi-confirmed it.
And in fact, the administration has now itself admitted that these abuses went on. So I don't quite see where your maligning of the memo is coming from. Do you have some source of information that says it's a fabrication?
Do I trust NPR? Yes, generally. They may have a more liberal viewpoint than the Administration would like (defining "liberal" as "anything which doesn't conform to party line" they certainly do), but I am not aware of charges of wholesale fabrication of facts.
So yes, it is potentially possible that they might report this memo and omit 6 other memos from the same FBI visit claiming to have seen NOTHING untoward, but I just don't have any reason to believe they'd fabricate the memo entirely. And by the way, I'd be surprised even at that. The "liberal bias" in NPR stories is (in my mind) based largely on the fact that a significant number of NPR supporters seem to be artsy types, who do tend to be more liberal. As a result, stories that appeal to them make it on the air more often.
But reporting on stories of liberal interest is (in my view) a very different form of bias than reporting a liberal spin on existing stories.
To look back at Clinton, just for a moment, a media outfit that said "Our base is primarily conservatives, they'd be interested in hearing more about the charges against Clinton" is different from one that says "Well, here's a story about Clinton. How can we make it look bad about him?"
I don't think PBS/NPR go out of their way to make Bush look bad. I just think they don't shy away from stories which may tend to do that. But of course you are welcome to disagree.
Liam.
Monday, June 27, 2005 10:54:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home