Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Gen Milley: Traitor

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
    It isn't providing aid and comfort to the enemy because China isn't an enemy in the sense of the term used in the Constitution. To recap, the United States Constitution says the following: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

    Compared to many countries, the United States actually has a rather narrow definition of treason--this was intentional due to the fact in the past some British rulers would slap their political enemies with accusations of treason to get rid of them. While the US did take those definitions of treason from the Treason Act that Britain had, it cut out some of the other definitions that were used by sovereigns to accuse enemies, leaving only the two above.

    What's important here, though, is the meaning of "enemies." It refers specifically to states that the United States is in active hostilities against. That, clearly, is not China. China may not be friendly to the US--well, outside of the money they can get from business anyway--but that doesn't make it an enemy.

    This article explains it fairly well:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...5fc_story.html

    It is, in fact, treasonable to aid the “enemies” of the United States.

    But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.

    This was true even in the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War. When Julius and Ethel Rosenberg handed over nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, they were tried and executed for espionage, not treason. Indeed, Trump could give the U.S. nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin or bug the Oval Office with a direct line to the Kremlin and it would not be treason, as a legal matter. Of course, such conduct would violate various laws and would constitute grounds for impeachment as a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the framers fully understood that there could be cases of reprehensible disloyalty that might escape the narrow confines of the treason clause.

    So who are the current enemies of the United States? North Korea is a possible enemy, since the Korean War was never formally concluded. Certain nonstate actors can also count as enemies, and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State probably fit the definition.

    And before anyone dismisses it by saying the Washington Post is liberal, note that (1) the context of that is defending the Trump administration from accusations of treason, and (2) it was written by a law professor, not a simple journalist.

    Milley's actions (if these actions have been accurately described) may have violated other laws--military or civil--but weren't treason.
    The term "treason" gets used a lot for a number of activities but does have a very specific definition in law. I think people confuse conducted that is tantamount to a betrayal and just assume that means they are guilty of treason.

    As for North Korea, given we never declared war, could aiding them be considered treason?

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
      It isn't providing aid and comfort to the enemy because China isn't an enemy in the sense of the term used in the Constitution. To recap, the United States Constitution says the following: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

      Compared to many countries, the United States actually has a rather narrow definition of treason--this was intentional due to the fact in the past some British rulers would slap their political enemies with accusations of treason to get rid of them. While the US did take those definitions of treason from the Treason Act that Britain had, it cut out some of the other definitions that were used by sovereigns to accuse enemies, leaving only the two above.

      What's important here, though, is the meaning of "enemies." It refers specifically to states that the United States is in active hostilities against. That, clearly, is not China. China may not be friendly to the US--well, outside of the money they can get from business anyway--but that doesn't make it an enemy.

      This article explains it fairly well:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...5fc_story.html

      It is, in fact, treasonable to aid the “enemies” of the United States.

      But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.

      This was true even in the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War. When Julius and Ethel Rosenberg handed over nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, they were tried and executed for espionage, not treason. Indeed, Trump could give the U.S. nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin or bug the Oval Office with a direct line to the Kremlin and it would not be treason, as a legal matter. Of course, such conduct would violate various laws and would constitute grounds for impeachment as a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the framers fully understood that there could be cases of reprehensible disloyalty that might escape the narrow confines of the treason clause.

      So who are the current enemies of the United States? North Korea is a possible enemy, since the Korean War was never formally concluded. Certain nonstate actors can also count as enemies, and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State probably fit the definition.

      And before anyone dismisses it by saying the Washington Post is liberal, note that (1) the context of that is defending the Trump administration from accusations of treason, and (2) it was written by a law professor, not a simple journalist.

      Milley's actions (if these actions have been accurately described) may have violated other laws--military or civil--but weren't treason.
      I'd like to see the definition bandied about in court. If the premise for Milley's actions were to allay China's fear of being attacked by the US, then such fear could hardly emanate from a "friend." Why would China fear an attack from us? To the point Milley contacted them twice to assuage them?

      Words and definitions change all the time, especially when the world around us changes. There may not be bombs flying back and forth between us and China, but they may be actively trying to squeeze the U.S. out of existence through it economic and trade practices. I'd call that an act of an enemy.

      Comment


      • #63
        Milley.jpg

        Comment


        • #64
          Both old Joe and the MSM have circled the wagons around him, trying to redirect the conversation to whether it is uncommon for generals to talk to their opposite numbers rather than the issue of what it is he is supposed to have said to them.

          So it looks like even though his fingerprints are directly on the Afghanistan disaster, they can't fire him because old Joe keeps insisting it was a great success, so it would be odd to fire someone for succeeding so well.

          And they're probably protecting him because it is unlikely they'll ever find anyone else so willing to dismantle our military from within -- seemingly more interested in turning it into a national police force ready to root out white supremacy -- and pretending that the Chicoms and Taliban are our friends.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #65
            My impression of D.C. fatcats and elitists is:
            "Hey, I've got my fat paycheck and my fat pension and my free Cadillac healthcare, so all I need to do is play along with the deep state and all will be well ... for me. Nothing else matters."

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Both old Joe and the MSM have circled the wagons around him, trying to redirect the conversation to whether it is uncommon for generals to talk to their opposite numbers rather than the issue of what it is he is supposed to have said to them.
              I don't believe it was uncommon for Eisenhower and Montgomery to have chit-chats. Different relationship, different era.

              So it looks like even though his fingerprints are directly on the Afghanistan disaster, they can't fire him because old Joe keeps insisting it was a great success, so it would be odd to fire someone for succeeding so well.

              And they're probably protecting him because it is unlikely they'll ever find anyone else so willing to dismantle our military from within -- seemingly more interested in turning it into a national police force ready to root out white supremacy -- and pretending that the Chicoms and Taliban are our friends.
              I imagine Milley has already called China and told them "Hey, Joe is senile but he's not going to attack you. His puppet masters told me so."

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                I don't believe it was uncommon for Eisenhower and Montgomery to have chit-chats. Different relationship, different era.
                They were also allies fighting a war together. In those circumstances I would hope that they frequently communicated.



                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  They were also allies fighting a war together. In those circumstances I would hope that they frequently communicated.
                  They didn't like each other much, though. Funny, Eisenhower was far more fond of Churchill, said he was possibly the greatest man he ever met.
                  Last edited by Ronson; 09-16-2021, 05:02 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    You are asking for trouble if you put a traitor at the very top of your chain of command.
                    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                    “not all there” - you know who you are

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                      You are asking for trouble if you put a traitor at the very top of your chain of command.
                      Come on, man, Runaway Joe can't be a traitor - he doesn't even know what's going on!
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                        Come on, man, Runaway Joe can't be a traitor - he doesn't even know what's going on!
                        Mainly, I am very, very, very, very disappointed with anyone still connected to the Republican Party.
                        “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                        “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                        “not all there” - you know who you are

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by firstfloor View Post

                          Mainly, I am very, very, very, very disappointed with anyone still connected to the Republican Party.
                          Ummmmm.... Joe is a Democrat.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                            Ummmmm.... Joe is a Democrat.
                            I am keeping an eye on developments and will report any good news, if it happens. In the same book, Pence is revealed to be much worse than we suspected.
                            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                            “not all there” - you know who you are

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                              I'd like to see the definition bandied about in court.
                              Sure. See United States v. Greathouse:
                              https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case...cas.0018.2.pdf

                              "The term “enemies,” as used in the constitutional clause defining treason (Const, art. 3, § 3), applies only to subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us; it does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."

                              We are not in a state of open hostility with China. There is no declaration of war or authorization of force. The mere fact there's so much trade between the two countries that is permitted by both governments is sufficient to disprove that. In fact, if China does qualify as an enemy, that means that basically anyone owing loyalty to the US who does any kind of business with or in China is guilty of treason.

                              As noted, the Soviet Union during the Cold War didn't qualify as an enemy in the sense of the Constitution. It's why the Rosenbergs (or other spies for the Soviet Union that were caught) were never charged with treason. If the Soviet Union during the Cold War didn't qualify, then China sure as heck doesn't.

                              If the premise for Milley's actions were to allay China's fear of being attacked by the US, then such fear could hardly emanate from a "friend." Why would China fear an attack from us? To the point Milley contacted them twice to assuage them?
                              Even if China is not a friend to the US (in the colloquial usage of the term or any other), that does not make them an enemy for the purpose of the Treason Clause.

                              Words and definitions change all the time, especially when the world around us changes. There may not be bombs flying back and forth between us and China, but they may be actively trying to squeeze the U.S. out of existence through it economic and trade practices. I'd call that an act of an enemy.
                              If so, then the onus is on the US government to declare that it qualifies as an enemy. It has not.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Gen. Jack Keane (sp.?) was defending Milleystone on Fox News today.
                                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                                Beige Nationalist.

                                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 03:02 PM
                                1 response
                                80 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 10-17-2021, 01:58 PM
                                3 responses
                                55 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 10-15-2021, 11:30 AM
                                15 responses
                                127 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 10-15-2021, 10:20 AM
                                8 responses
                                66 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 10-15-2021, 09:43 AM
                                14 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Working...
                                X