TREASON! Rep. Waltz Says DOD Told Him China Spy Balloons Crossed US During Trump Years But Gen. Matt

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Violater1

The US has not been in an official state of war since World War II. It takes an act of Congress for war to be declared.

I'm pretty sure your comrades were screaming "treason" for about six years...

Now we're suddenly defining it?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Some random old document:

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.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Creep Thumper

Except he was retired from the military and operating in a civilian capacity. Also, more importantly, there's not even evidence that he did withhold information from Trump. The only thing you have is a Gateway Pundit article that completely misconstrues comments made by Waltz.

He had better hope it never happened, and this is just a democrat hissy fit. If it did happen, and they withheld it from Trump and his admin, there will be some difficult questions to answer.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Exactly.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Creep Thumper

Except he was retired from the military and operating in a civilian capacity. Also, more importantly, there's not even evidence that he did withhold information from Trump. The only thing you have is a Gateway Pundit article that completely misconstrues comments made by Waltz.

I'm talking about Biden too. He says he ordered the balloon shot down on Wednesday. He was defied by the Pentagon.

What would you call that?

a reply to: Ahabstar

That only says that Congress defines the punishment.

a reply to: Violater1

Where did you prove me wrong?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Some random old document:

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.

Part of this old document.
From the U.S. Government website:
www.govinfo.gov...


In case you can't read it.
§ 2381. Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be im- prisoned 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.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Anytime someone on here improperly uses the term treason I try to correct them regardless of who they're talking about.

a reply to: Violater1

And what is the definition of enemies?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Anytime someone on here improperly uses the term treason I try to correct them regardless of who they're talking about.

Do you believe Trump was treasonous?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Do you punish without determining guilt?

a reply to: SourGrapes

Nope.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Do you want me to link you to all the treason cases that were decided by the courts?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: SourGrapes

Nope.

Thanks. Fwiw, it wasn't a trick question, I genuinely am trying to understand your (and others) position.

a reply to: SourGrapes

My position is exactly what I said on the first page of this thread. Even if the narrative Gateway Pundit is trying to push were true, Mattis wouldn't be guilty of treason.

I believe that if a country commits a hostile act against the United States, and person is aware of that act, and that person refuses to relay that information to their next higher person in command, they have committed treason.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

John Brown was executed for treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia for his capture of the National Armory in Harper’s Ferry (now in WV). Were his constitutional and civil rights violated? If so, what would have corrected that issue?

Many Congress members have called Jan6 an Insurrection. Who determines treason for waging war against he US? Hint: “To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court”

SCOTUS isn’t hearing Treason trials unless there was an appeal based on a just cause. Who holds an inferior tribunal to SCOTUS?

Treason is, in a nutshell, either levying war against the country you are a part of or assisting an enemy and providing aid.

Milley had no right to make contact and 'speak' for the president with China during the 45 admin. Reassuring them there would be no attack. He was not following protocol and was assisting a foreign government. You can have whatever position you want, but what he did during the Trump administration was, in my mind, treasonous because he was benefiting our enemy with that call not us. You could maybe call it sedition but he did it to actively undermine the US head of state. I do not care if you do not like a sitting POTUS this should not happen.

Right now you have the military again still running the country. The 'balloon' incident has shown that. The military overrode an order from the POTUS. It was not an unlawful order from Biden. That is the only time the military has a leg to stand on. If nothing else he did not follow orders and should be court martial.

The Constitution states that the POTUS is the CIC.

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
It's really sad to me that there are people here who don't understand why we are so indignant about a general defying a president or withholding information from his Commander-In-Chief.

I attribute it to a serious lack of patriotism.

I’m trying to get my head around this and still have to read through more of this thread but… hypothetically… if some lone radar operator sees a nuke inbound from a country not at war with the US and decides not to report in to avoid MAD is he a good guy or a bad guy?

I think the answer is self evident!