Thread: Treason - what is it?

Originally Posted by Kate

I'll add some to what JAK stated. If Congress is aware that Bush is intending to keep our borders open and merge the US into a North American Union, thereby eroding US soverignty and our form of government based on the Constutution, and they are deliberately not performing their oversight duties in an effort to further this union, then all of Congress should also be charged with treason. As JAK said, this may or may not be technically considered treasonous, but it should be.

You are not "technically" a Traitor or guilty of Treason until charged, arrested, prosecuted and convicted in a court of law.

Certain officials however can be charged as such with articles of impeachment including the President and Vice President.

Meeting the political standard of treason in an impeachment proceeding is easier than meeting the technical burden in a court of law allowing for the process of impeachment to be speedy in order to solve the problem quickly and remove them from office so they may do no more harm to the nation.

Nonetheless, when they would then be impeached and removed and charges filed to pursue a legal criminal conviction of Treason in order to jail them or provide what other punishements are allowed under the laws of the United States, you make the case; bring in all your evidence of their actions; witnesses to those actions; show the harm to the country which is irrefutable; show that they knew the consequence of their actions cavorting with foreign interests and foreign governments .. were not to advance the United States, not to sustain the United States, but rather to harm the United States ... my goodness ... in their defense they would only have 2 pieces of information to flounder in front of a Judge and Jury ... the expanded stock market and the low unemployment rate.

On rebuttal you simply demonstrate:

1. The stock market is international so that when it does well and expands the very foreign interests they are aiding and abetting by their Treason do well at the expense of millions of Americans

2. That they stopped counting the unemployed and instead have been using monthly polls of 60,000 households and the statistical manipulation of these surveys and polls have been used to under report unemployment. Under discovery you can demand every labor and payroll record in the possession of the US Government to show ... they not only lied they lied on purpose to defraud the US and American People by confusing the American People as to their true economic status.

Either way ... the goods are there; the stats are in; their actions deliberately harmed the US and the American People, solely to benefit foreign nations, foreign interests, and foreign nationals by weakening America in order to End the United States as a independent sovereign super nation ... the same or worse than if they gave China military secrets which China used to invade and occupy our nation.

I think that they are essentially the same, with the exception that with treason you are knowingly helping the enemy. Let's say that I ordered something from a company that does not hire illegals. When my order arrives, the delivery was outsourced, and is made by illegal employees. Technically, the company I ordered the appliances from are traitors with the potential of commiting treason and the delivery service used comitted treason because they purposely hired illegal employees.Technically we have all been traitors in one way or the other by using a companywho hires illegals indirectly, but it is not our intention to commit treason.

2ndamendsis ... what John Kerry and Jane Fonda were accused of doing are very narrow limited aspects of Treason and while I would agree that they had some premise for it, there was no legal or political will in the country to prosecute anyone trying to end the Vietnam War. The wind had turned and was blowing in another direction. In addition, the country they harmed or could potentially be considered to have harmed was Vietnam and not the United States. We never declared war on North Vietnam so they were not our enemy. They were supposedly South Viet Nam's ... and many will argue today as to whether or not they were even South Vietnam's enemy as millions of South Vietnamese we have subsequently learned wanted reunification with North Vietnam. There was much about that war that many of us didn't know at the time and probably still don't.

What happened ultimately with our leaving Vietnam, the two nations reunifying into one country.. regrettably perhaps under communism .. but for the people of Vietnam the reunification of the country was more important. Today, they are becoming more capitalistic; prospering; and hopefully will one day have the freedom and civil rights we wished for them but could not provide militarily.

Besides, Americans have the right to oppose wars and conflict initiated by our government.

I'm not going to get into the VN discussion, Judy. That's not why I made the comment.

The legal aspects of TREASON are extremely limited in scope. I used those 2 as a simple example of one of the two {I believe} ways a person could be tried for Treason. There's a fine line although we often wonder how other acts were not included in the law.

.

I think that they are essentially the same, with the exception that with [quote:3c9m59pw]treason you are knowingly helping the enemy.

[/quote:3c9m59pw]

Isn't this what is happening with Mexico? They are invading our country, while the president and congress...over 20 years have allowed it to happen?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... leiii.html

skip navigation Search Cornell Law School home
LII / Legal Information Institutehome search sitemap donate


United States Constitution main page annotations

Article III

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

"adhering to their enemies"

The enemies of the United States are those entities including governments, individuals and companies to wish the US harm, disadvantage, extinction, weakness and/or dissolution.

Today those enemies are Globalists Garbage, New Order Worder Wackos, One World Government Freaks, Free Trade Agreement Trash, Illegal Immigration Maniacs, SPP Pond Scum and NAU Psychos!

Now, I ask you, is there anyone amongst US who feels, believes, considers the proponents of any of the above to be doing anything less than "adhering to their enemies" ... these enemies being the enemies of the United States?

Anyone "aiding or giving them comfort" is a Traitor and therefore guilty of Treason.

Of course, you have to prove it to secure a conviction.

Now, I ask you, is there anyone amongst US who feels, believes, considers the massive harm and irreversible damage to the United States caused by these enemies of ours expedited by the actions of our own Traitors is insufficient to convince a Jury that Treason has occurred?

Because that is the only question before US ... is there too little evidence to show the Treason? Are there too few illegal aliens to show the harm and thus the Treason? Are there too few industries that have left our shores to find new homage on others to show the harm and thus the Treason? Are there too few debts of our citizens and nation to show the harm and thus Treason? Are there too few impoverished, uninsured, underemployed, unemployed, bankrupt and struggling Americans to show the harm and thus the Treason?

I would only ask show me a Traitor whose done more harm to the United States and the American People than George Bush and Dick Cheney, and I'll be the first to add those Traitors to my list.

The legal aspects of TREASON are extremely limited in scope. I used those 2 as a simple example of one of the two {I believe} ways a person could be tried for Treason. There's a fine line although we often wonder how other acts were not included in the law.

We need to change the law!

"We need to change the law"

No we don't. We need to enforce the law. You do this by filing charges and commencing prosecutions.

Nothing like what we're experiencing has ever happened before in the United States. We've never had Traitors in the White House before to our knowledge.

George Bush One and Clinton ... proabably were but the evidence on their actions and motivations was not available back then.

We have it now, the evidence, the undying unending proof that we are being betrayed by our leaders to accommodate foreign interests at our expense and irreparable harm including damage to our civil rights and sovereignty ... our most precious assets of a democracy ... even our elections are in question and at risk.

Bush just sold India our nuclear technology without restriction.

India is now trading it to China.

Would that fit everyone's definition of Treason?

Fine ... then lets go with that one.

I mean there are so many ... the list is endless ... he and Cheney pull one about every other day. In court you're able to secure all their records and notes and telephone calls and correspondence. Nothing while voluminous due to the largess of their Treason could be eaiser to prove in a court of law than that Bush and Cheney are the worst Traitors the world let alone the USA has ever seen.

The world must just be caught in a twix between whether to laugh at US for being so stupid or crying for our sad demise.

An example of ... Treason through Trade:

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8671

March 8, 2006

What the Indian Giver Got

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Standing beside Pervez Musharraf, an ally in the war on terror, President Bush explained how he told him Pakistan would not be getting the same aid in developing peaceful nuclear power that Bush had just promised to India:

"I explained that Pakistan and India are different countries with different needs and different histories. So as we proceed forward, our strategy will take in effect those well-known differences."

Bush was bluntly saying India is a democracy we can trust not to spread nuclear technology, but we're not sure we trust you. After all, your boy A.Q. Khan was running a Home Depot for A-bomb technology.

Unstated message: We're not sure any nuke technology we give you, Pervez, will not end up in an al-Qaeda madrassa. For there is no guarantee you will be around that long, Pervez, given your enemies have tried to kill you four times and elections are to be held in 2007.

If Musharraf feels he was asked to come through the service entrance and given the bum's rush, who can blame him?

While even his greatest admirers do not confuse Bush with Bismarck, what the president did on his Asia tour seems inexplicable.

In the Cold War, India aligned with Moscow and repeatedly fought a smaller Pakistan that was our friend. In the war on terror, no ally has taken greater risks than Musharraf. While both India and Pakistan refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, India was first to break faith with a West that gave it nuclear technology and the first to test nuclear weapons.

Why, then, did Bush agree to transfer U.S. nuclear technology only to India? In so doing, he insulted an ally and blew a hole right through the NPT regime on which we stand to make our demands on Iran and North Korea.

Apparently, at an all-night session on the last night in India, the U.S. negotiators capitulated to all of India's demands, lest Bush leave New Delhi with nothing to show for a trip halfway around the world but an agreement to import mangoes.

What did Bush give – and get?

India will be given the same access as Japan to U.S. technology and nuclear fuel, which will enable India to divert its fuel to weapons.

India agreed to let the International Atomic Energy Agency inspect 14 of its 22 nuclear facilities, while eight, military in nature, are off-limits. This is a like a college president agreeing to let cops search the dorm for a stash of marijuana – as long as they stay off the sixth, seventh, and eighth floors.

Would the United States permit Iran, which signed the NPT and has allowed IAEA inspections of all known nuclear facilities, to agree to a deal like this? No way. We don't trust them – but we trust a democratic India that already has the fruits of its past deceit, a nuclear arsenal.

Unilaterally, Bush has decided that democracies who refuse to sign the NPT and secretly build, test, and maintain nuclear weapons will be exempt from the laws. Nations we do not entirely trust, like Pakistan, get no help. Nations we detest, like Iran, face sanctions and preventive wars.

While Pakistan was sent to the back of the bus, this was a triumph for India. Bush got nothing but press clippings for his presidential scrapbook.

What happens now?

Israel, which has also refused to sign the NPT and has 200 to 300 nuclear weapons, will demand the same nuclear technology that India got. On what grounds can Bush deny Israel?

And while Bush may grant exemptions from U.S. law and the NPT regime for countries he views as friendly and democratic, China is likely to provide similar aid to its friends, democratic or not, and step into the breach Bush opened with Pakistan.

Iran will use the U.S. concessions to India to show U.S. hypocrisy. For unlike New Delhi, Tehran signed the NPT, agreed to open up its nuclear facilities, and never tested a bomb. On this one, Democratic Rep. Ed Markey is right: "America cannot preach nuclear temperance from a barstool."

That Bush decided to end decades of estrangement between America and India, and make her a friend and partner, letting Cold War bygones be bygones, is commendable. But why did we have to pay a price for India's friendship? Economically, India sells twice as much to us as she buys, and outsourcing benefits her workers, not ours.

As for India being a counterweight to China, we don't have to pay for that. With Muslims to the east and west, Chinese to the north, and Maoists in Nepal, India needs us more than we need India.

Nor is New Delhi so foolish as to allow herself to be dragooned into some NATO-like U.S. alliance to encircle or contain China. She has good lines to nations not exactly our friends: Iran, Syria, and Cuba.

In New Delhi, Bush traded a horse for a rabbit, and some of us are wondering as to the whereabouts of the rabbit.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.



And yes the US Senate Chamber of Traitors approved it.



To me this is an example of what Treason means ... selling our technology to countries with whom we have no Treaty concerning nuclear weapons; nations who have nuclear weapons; nations who have islamic militants; nations raiding our industrial base through outsourcing; and officials to grease the hands and line the pockets of these nations with trade and nuclear technology are in my opinion committing Treason against the USA because this is not in the best interest of the US; this poses a threat and harm to the US; and my goodness ... to me it's just so obvious that the allegiance of those who promoted and approved such a thing is to our enemies and against US which to me ... means ... "adhering to their enemies" .... "providing aid and comfort" (wow, actually that and a whole lot more) and is ... Treason.

AND RIGHT ON TIME ... HERE COMES CHINA!!

Woo! Woo! Woo!

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p01s02-woap.html

World>Asia Pacific
from the November 21, 2006 edition

ALL SMILES: China's President Hu Jintao (l.) arrived in India Monday for four days of talks between the two rising powers.
MUSTAFA QURAISHI/AP
China woos India and Pakistan with nuclear know-how
President Hu expects to cut energy deals this week to gain regional influence.

By Mark Sappenfield and David Montero

NEW DELHI; AND ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN – The race for influence in South Asia is taking a nuclear turn.
In recent days, reports have emerged that both the United States and China are prepared to alter the nuclear establishment in order to curry favor with South Asia's two powers: India and Pakistan.

The American offer was expected. The keystone of President Bush's longstanding efforts to expand ties with India is a deal to share civilian nuclear technology, which the Senate passed Friday. What has come as more of a surprise is a report that China is preparing to give similar help to Pakistan.

The game of nuclear brinksmanship comes as Chinese President Hu Jintao spends this week between Delhi and Islamabad, where he will look to reaffirm ties with China's old ally, Pakistan, and to forge new ones with its erstwhile enemy, India.

It marks open season for courtship on the subcontinent, in which the US and China are willing to rewrite the rule book for nuclear nonproliferation - offering nuclear know-how to two countries that built nuclear-weapons programs in defiance of the international community - in order to outflank each other in a regional power play.

"With the US using India to checkmate China, China will counter by supporting Pakistan," says Kaiser Bengali, an analyst in Karachi. "Using the nuclear card is a new phenomenon."

It is a tactic that causes considerable consternation, both in the United States and elsewhere. Though both nuclear deals are confined to civilian nuclear technology, both India and Pakistan have distanced themselves from the international nuclear regime in order to build their nuclear-weapons programs. That means they have not agreed to the same rules for nonproliferation.

Yet just as the decades-old international regime of nuclear checks and balances has failed to deal with the challenges of Iran and North Korea, it has similarly failed to account for the growing clout of India and Pakistan, who have become established - though unofficial - nuclear powers.

These latest gambits, then, are merely efforts by the US and China to advance their agendas amid this new reality - offering India and Pakistan the sheen of nuclear legitimacy in return for greater strategic and economic ties.

The result, however, is another example of how the old nuclear order is falling into disarray. "This is a sign of chaos," says Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution in Washington. "There is no gameplan."

The US has placated critics by demanding transparency from the Indians. According to the terms of the agreement signed by President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, American technology and fuel can be used only in civilian nuclear facilities, and these facilities must be open to international inspectors.

The House passed the agreement this summer. Now, after the Senate's approval last week, it awaits a vote before the full Congress.

With regard to Pakistan, only a Reuters report released last week offers any potential specifics, suggesting that later this week President Hu will announce China's intention to help Pakistan build six civilian reactors.

So far, the Pakistani government has denied this report. But experts and Pakistani officials confirm China's general intention to help build Pakistan's civilian nuclear-power program in the future. Ashfaq Hassan Khan, an economic adviser to Pakistan's Finance Ministry, says China will play a central role in Pakistan's intention to increase its nuclear energy to 8,000 megawatts by 2025.

It should come as no surprise. While India and China have often been at odds - and sometimes at war - China and Pakistan have formed one of the world's most durable and overlooked alliances during the past 40 years. China has emerged as Pakistan's largest arms supplier, selling everything from aircraft to missiles to naval vessels. In return, the Chinese have nurtured Pakistan as a loyal counterweight to India and as an access route to Central Asian and Middle Eastern energy, which the Chinese desperately need, given their exploding energy demands.

To that end, China is developing a major port on Pakistan's Arabian Sea coast, from which Persian Gulf oil will flow back to the Chinese interior. Pakistan, however, also needs energy, with its power demands expected to double by 2015. Already, China helped Pakistan build a 300-megawatt nuclear reactor in 1999.

But Pakistan turned to the US in hopes of getting the same deal that the US gave to India. When Pakistan was rebuffed amid concerns over security, it turned to its old standby. China has often taken a lead role in Pakistan's nuclear adventures.

China provided Pakistan with some of its first nuclear technology in the 1960s, and its continuing help has been seen as crucial in Pakistan's development and test of the bomb in 1998. China is also considered to have been a principal enabler for Abdul Qadeer Khan, the former head of Pakistan's nuclear program, who sold nuclear secrets around the world.

"Chinese cooperation with Pakistan is irresponsible, but it always has been," says Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "China has still not figured out where nonproliferation fits into its strategic policy."

China's dealings with India are far more uncertain. A report in The Boston Globe suggested that China was on the verge of signing a civilian nuclear deal with India similar to India's deal with the US. (The Monitor was unable to independently verify this report before press time.)

That fact has not gone unnoticed in India, which still looks at China with a wary eye. Despite significant progress in the area of economic cooperation, India has refused to open the door to China too wide.

President Hu is expected to push for free-trade rights for Chinese businesses in India on his trip. He isn't expected to get it. China's role as armory to India's sworn enemy is only part of the rub. Recently, China announced a plan to dam the mighty Brahmaputra River just before it reaches the Indian border. Also, in 1962, India was roundly defeated in a brief border war with China, though it managed to hold on to its territory. Yet China still claims an entire Indian state as its own - the Chinese ambassador to India went so far as to openly claim China's ownership of Arunachal Pradesh earlier this month.

__________________

No, China is not going to trade with Pakistan to checkmate China like the analyst says ... China is going to trade with them both and get our nuclear technology.