Saturday, October 30, 2004

Take a Trip...

...into John Kerry's White House...

ALSO: Please go visit Kat at The Middle Ground and read her reaction to Usama Bin Laden's latest appearance. Her sentiments are a mirror reflection of my own...yet she articulates it 1,000 times better than I could have.

Go Now Take Me to the Middle Ground!

10 comments:

J. Marquis said...

Middle Ground? Geez, if that's the middle of something I'd really hate to see the extreme part...

ALa said...

JM: Believe it or not, Kat was a loyal life-long Democrat until 9/11.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

And I was a staunch Libertarian Independant until late this past summer.

My reaction to "Welcome to the Wafflehouse" was very Homer Simpsonesque: Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, waffles... now I feel like going to rub elbows with drunks over at the all-night Perkins and get blueberry pancakes and sunny-side-up eggs...

riceburner147 said...

Before we tar and feather lets see what the LAW (you remember, the Constitution that we love) says about treason;

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who reneges on an oath of loyalty or a pledge of allegiance, and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."

To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution. Article Three defines treason as only levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort", and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. In the United States Code the penalty ranges from "shall suffer death" to "shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

In the United States, the accusation of treason has at times been levelled at those who dissented against the government's foreign policy, especially during military actions. However, actual prosecutions have been very rare, and even very well known spies have generally been convicted of espionage rather than treason.

In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions. Several men were convicted of treason in connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion but were pardoned by George Washington. The most famous treason trial, that of Aaron Burr in 1807, resulted in acquittal. Politically motivated attempts to convict opponents of the Jeffersonian Embargo Acts and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 all failed. Significantly, after the American Civil War, no person involved with the Confederate States of America was charged with treason, and only one major Confederate official, the commandant of the Andersonville prison who was charged with war crimes, was charged with anything at all.

In the 20th century, treason has become largely a wartime phenomenon, and the treason cases of World Wars One and Two were of minor significance. Most states have provisions in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. There have been only two successful prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr in Rhode Island and that of John Brown in Virginia.

from: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Treason

The Price of Free Speech is Objectionable Speech.

We need to be sober and deliberate so that people will listen to us when we point out the lies of people like Michael Moore, and to do that we need not sink to his level.

tescosuicide said...

By that definition most modern liberals are traitors. Get out the tar and feathers!

riceburner147 said...

Tesco: I appreciate the humour in your reply. To get serious for a sec, if one reads the whole definition you will see one of the most pwerful principles in the law. That is, you have the original statute, then you have the interpretation over the years. Because this is a law that has been extensively adjudicated for 200 yrs it has precedents that are the will of the people. Basically, we the people have decided not to try for Treason based on speech (and many times for actions), see the post on the subject of confederate soldiers (including the officers). I believe (and the preponderance of our law indicates) that M Moore has the right to put out his movie (even tho in my opinion it is garbage) and it is nowhere near treason. THe greatness of our country is based on the greatness of our constitution. We must not allow ourselves to fall into thoughtlessness and radicalism, as have our Islamic Extremists enemies. "Long Live the Republic"

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

It may yet be proven that a true democracy (yes, yes, democratic-republic, I know) cannot stand the test of time: eventually its openness to free-form speech and action and the liberality of its laws, invite the creeping cancers of subversion, of seduction to the very principles that will be its undoing, and ultimately enemies achieve, via the ballot box, what cannot be achieved on the battlefield (due to the superior technology which is a democracy's major strength--as a result of that same openness and flow of information).

Vietnam was given to the world as a roadmap to tearing down the U.S. from within. And now it would appear, some elements out there are following it.

ALa said...

I think Michael Moore is pretty safe from the charge of treason in the U.S. --if Jane Fonda, John Kerry or John Walker Lindh didn't qualify no one ever will....

riceburner147 said...

I think the charge of lousy filmmaker and liar may suffice.

redleg said...

The terrorists do not have to follow a Vietnam roadmap.

We are providing them with one free of charge with labor included.

To quote Pogo, "I have seen the enemy and he is us"

Or "With friends like this, we don't need enemies...."