Betrayal of our country will bring severe consequences

So how do they define betrayal of our country? That is the question...

If they define it as "betrayal of our leaderships interest", then welcome to the new USSR... or prewar Germany...
You think they way they tell you, or face death!

If they define it as "aiding those that would hurt American Civilians", then by all rights, that would be treason...

The constitutions main principle, is that the people ALWAYS should retain the tools, and free voice needed to regain control of a corrupt government... PERIOD!

any "ifs ands or buts", and the American people should get very suspicious...

if your room mate belonged to a book club and they vandalized and looted your home and your room mate stay in that club, what would you do

He is branded treason based on his association with Al Qaeda which intentionally targets AMERICANS. Its that simple.

It isn't this guy and his guilt at heart here...

A judgement sets precedence... the ever mighty overrule of the courts.
It is the gist of that precendence, and how it is interpreted, that will doom America, or add to its security...

Is this the same guy that was in the news a couple of months ago? Dressed in white, delivering a message from AQ.

If so, fry the bast&%$d. If not, carry on then

Incitement is not covered by 1st Amendment Rights.

You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre.

You can't tell whitey to rise up and kill (fill in racial slur here).

...And you can't tell people to rise up and overthrow the government.

Prett cut and dry. Toss in the fact he's allied himself with Al'Qaeda and pretty much any sympathy I might have had for him previously is summarily wiped out.

What a shame if it turns out he was kidnapped and forced into making statements on behalf of Al Qaida. I guess it's unlikely but still a possibility.

quote- thelibra

...And you can't tell people to rise up and overthrow the government.

forgive me if i overread the power of our rights, but isn't that the exact reason we have these rights of free speech?

So that if enough people listen (if there is no truth, then they are laughed away), and understand the nature of our corrupt government, they can unite and change it...

Now, that doesn't mean "march in the streets, and take no prisoners"
that means that when a revolution is needed, it can be called upon by a united voice asking for a vote to remove the corrupt.

And only if free and fair elections are not possible, should force be used...
hence- the right to own, and bare arms...

Wasn't that the very basis for how the constitution was written and worded? so that we could assume natural right of representitives to rule us, for us... but only with our permission (given by vote), and with powers assured to the people, that if these representitives no longer represent their people, then they can be removed legally.

Wow... my civics class must have been a wet dream...

Being actively involved in the recruitment of people for a group that murders American civilians, and inciting people to murder American civilians is quite different from having "different views". It is not covered by the first ammendment as free speech.

If some crazy televangelist got up on TV and said "Wake up my white brothers, we must round up and murder all those wearing turbans" would you then understand why that is NOT covered by free speech? Are we on the same page yet.

Not covered by free speech at all.

Treason charges are being brought because what this fool is doing is precisely what treason is defined as.

And PLEASE stop with the "Bush Bush Bush" political whining. Treason is not a charge that was invented by this administration. Do some research and you'll find that while it's not common, such charges have been brought up against American nationals who have assisted enemies of the USA.

Not everything is Bush. This guy made a choice to abandon the US and assist a group who's goal is to kill Americans. That is treason. There is simply no free speech issue here.

Originally posted by solidsnake 1331
if your room mate belonged to a book club and they vandalized and looted your home and your room mate stay in that club, what would you do

Charge him for his opinion......if he really intended on staying around. Otherwise, there are different options...

Originally posted by thelibra
No, but I can say you slept through a rather crucial part of it.

I'm sorry...I have to call you on this...

Originally posted by thelibra
Yes, our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution gives us the power to overthrow the government in times of tyranny, oppression, etc...

...TO AMERICANS ACTING IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF AMERICA.

Emphasis where you placed it.....

Americans range all over the spectrum............to the point that the term American/american does not mean a set standard of individual. Just take a look at the myriad of individuals/groups that take standard with the constitution.....back in the day andall that rot....semantics rules in this day and age...

Originally posted by thelibra
This man is not John Q. Public standing on a corner and calling for an assembly to rock the vote and get the administration out of office. He's not organizing a campaign to force change in Washington to give power back to the people.

He probably lacks money.....you of all people should know this....[abstaining from citing past threads]

Originally posted by thelibra
He's not asking Americans to review the documents of our Founding fathers, and to remember our roots and how we overthrew King George to become a nation free of Tyranny.

He probably lacks the werewithall.....or he is a government patsy....or fill in the blank........at any rate.....an appellation to review the past and make cognizant decisions by which to apply your actions that step outside the bounds of adhering to corporate and economic goals...i.e..the fulfillment of personal desire within your own social stratasphere......is, at this point...arguably...'Un-American.'.....

Originally posted by thelibra
What he has repeatedly stated, over and over in his broadcasts, is that he will assist in terrorist attacks against the United States, has allied himself with a terrorist group with murderous idealology, and that he and his newfound brothers will not excercise restraint or compassion in carrying out his attacks.

Granted. However....let's go back to the same history we both are aware of and define how the American Revolution wasn't an extension of 'terrorist' activity. The definition was a bit more tame in the era, however, context may be applicable.

Originally posted by thelibra
Does that sound even remotely like someone who is peacefully excercising their right to free speech, or encouraging a revolution for the better in America?

Please.....don't think that I immediately disagree....but your use of catch phrases, such as, 'terrorist,'....,'murderous,'....,'idealology,'....,'peacefully,'.....etc.......obliges me to call you upon the intelligence I know you possess......

Definitions are subjective at this point. Spindoctors abound......we here at ATS take alot of our opinion based on what the media presents......none of us have first party knowledge....well...mostly....so how much opinion should we derive on an 'official story?'.....

Regards....

LazaursTheLong that is exactly what came to my mind when I heard about that resurrection of the meaning of Treason.

What definition is that? Who can be called a traitor or Who, our government in time of special needs may see in the right to judge who is a traitor and who is not and under what meaning should be interpreted.

Scary times I see ahead of us regular Joes in our nation, when it seems that our political leaders can play with laws and definitions of words to suit their needs.

You are right the corruption of our rights, our constitution and the leaders in power and the elite that protect them is just blatantly and a slap on the faces of any American citizen.

So I guess anybody that kill Americans including serial killers, domestic violence and ect. can easily fall on the category of doing harm to Americans.

So close to the time when even going against the government is also going against Americans and Americans and deemed also a traitor.

I see the changes so subtle so laced with for the good of the people and Americans but when we Americans will become our own enemies and turn into traitors is just in the eye of the beholder and occurs in the eyes of the powers than rule our nation.

Yes the man is a traitor but under the same traitor meaning so our founder fathers were traitors also to their nation of birth when they fought against them.

I guess is just in the eye of the beholder . . . but conveniently . . . well I guess the secret detention camps and the rights to strip citizenship and nationalities from the guilty ones is here to stay.

The real issue is that the man is guilty and he should be judge acordingly but bringing the old Traitor meaning in this time seems to me nothing more than another power grab taken away from us the regular citizens not the guilty that are away in far away lands but us here in our own nation.

This new presidential choice of word as everything else is nothing than more striping of citizens rights, I guess our constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper as good as the one use in the toilet.

Now our government will tell who is an American and who is a traitor depending of personal needs at the moment.







[edit on 12-10-2006 by marg6043]

US Consitution, 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".

Marg,

The US government does not decide who is guilty of treason. The government levies the charge, a grand jury will hand out the inditement, and a jury of American citizens will decide guilt or innocence. As the saying goes, the Attorney general can indite a ham sandwich if he so chooses, but its up to the jury to decide guilt or innocence.

Common criminals are covered by criminal statutes. War is not covered in the US Code.

The refer to our founding fathers as traitors is, well....hmmmm. How do I put this? Disloyal? Maybe your a Tory at heart? Our founding fathers advocated independence from Britain, and desired a peaceful coexistence with mother England. Al Qaeda desires the total destruction of our government and the forceful conversion of our population to Islam. Therein lies the difference.

And BTW, your last sentance makes no sense, as one needs to be an American to be charged with treason in this country.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort".

It's pretty plain and simple, IMHO. Dude is guilty as charged, and needs to do some hard time in Ft. Leavenworth.

Originally posted by Pyros
Al Qaeda desires the total destruction of our government and the forceful conversion of our population to Islam.

Prove it.

Again.....I say prove it. Al Qaeda having been fingered by our government and ran with by our media as having had a hand in specific terrorist attacks.....does not necessitate the corrolation with your statement.

I am more likely to believe that they are dissatisfied with their lives in relative comparison to how they percieve the rest of the world to live...without the omniscient threat of economic and specific security.....or at least the most talked about parts of the world.........

At any rate.....the generalization you stated above is devoid of logic....at the onset of the inclusion of the term, 'desires.'..........

Westpoint

You and I may need to start somewhere different.....for the precise reason that I agree with your motivations.....but not your logic.

Define America....please...


[edit on 12-10-2006 by MemoryShock]

For the record...
this American AQ guy is so obviously deserving of a charge of treason...
I agree... totally...

BUT!!!!!!!!

this is the phrase and wording a have trouble with...

Today's indictment should serve as notice that the United States will protect itself against all enemies, foreign and domestic. . . . Betrayal of our country will bring severe consequences."

That sounds to me far more like a threat to American Citizens whom might call the leaderships bluff, on what moves they have made, and the legality of them...

That sounds to me far more like a threat to American Citizens whom might call the leaderships bluff, on what moves they have made, and the legality of them...

I guess it's all about perception but I see nothing in that statement from that official to support that. Indeed as much as it may pain you to admit it you and anyone else can still say whatever you want about this government, and still question what they do. That is as long as it's in line with accepted limits and methods established by both legal and historical precedents. Now don't try to make that sound like something scary, it's clear what I'm referring to.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong

That sounds to me far more like a threat to American Citizens whom might call the leaderships bluff, on what moves they have made, and the legality of them...

Exactly you got it right, this just another way to tell us the regular joes that big daddy is watching and making sure that we do not have anymore rights that the ones been chosen in Time of need. Conveniently occurs.

Nobody is advocating to call the man in question Innocent, the fact that he decided to join a group that has its own reason to target US made him guilty in the eyes of many.

But . . . We already Have a patriot act and laws for Enemy combatants so I don't see what the traitor may fit here and for what.

That is my point, is this just for the man in question or for all of us to be aware of that we are not longer in control of our nation and our rights.

In other words is no more We the people.

Troublesome.