Originally posted by Ghost01
If you want Contradictions, I have one for you:
Treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article Three defines treason as levying war
against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,"
SOURCE: Wikipedia- Treason
Now, the same source defines Espionage as:
Espionage is the practice of obtaining information about an organization or a society that is considered secret or confidential (spying) without
the permission of the holder of the information.
I ask you this: How exactly do you pass secret information to an enemy without giving them Aid? If you sell an enemy the plans for a secret weapon so
they can copy it, are you NOT Aiding them?
If anyone with a legal background can explain how you can give an enemy your country's defense secrets without helping them, PLEASE Explain it to
Apperently there is a way, because here in the US, spies are not chaged with Treason!
Don't you just love US contrdictions?
[edit on 16-11-2006 by Ghost01]
If you are not accepting anything in return for the information / secret's you are not considered to be trading with the enemy. Now if I were to
take some classified information and sell it to the united kingdom or austrailia for instance then if that information was indeed classifed I would
and could be charged with treason / espionage that would not mean I was guilt of it big difference.
The problem is it's the duty of congress to make the law clear and easy to understand of which they have failed at doing. That's why there has been
so many and rightfully just claims saying the patriot act violates the law because it does.
Because the law is not clear and easy to understand which is the duty of congress they makes them deliquent and any laws they might have passed during
any time they failed in there first duty that makes the laws they might have passed null and void until such time the law can be re examined.
Which is the sole duty of the surpreme court. If you can prove the supreme court has made a bias ruling or a un just ruling then either that law or
law's has to be struck down or there has to be a motion for a requsal of that judge. And no matter what the supreme court may think you can remove a
supreme court judge.
Just the very idea of that compels them to do there job and the supreme court does there job in many cases better then congress most of the time.
However due to the fact the supreme court in 2000 broke the law by superceeding there authority by declaring George Bush the President of the United
States they broke the law by Violating Seperation of Powers.
That also makes any ruling the supreme court has made sense making that ruling in 2000 null and void. That includes any law's passed sense George
Bush obtained the presidency. Once the law was clearly broken by the highest court in the land no laws applied in the United States changing the
rules and laws in which we can be governed.
Because there has never been a retraction of the orginal ruling of the supreme court of there ruling in 2000 by violating the seperation of powers
act, the puts the We the People in charge of the rule making and decison making process in which if the government becomes so corrupt it is the right
and duty of the people to remove such government to continue there way of life.
It does not say how to do that. Meaning if people in the FBI feel they cant take there message or messages anywhere to anyone in the United States
in accordance with United States Code title 18 section 4, then technically speaking even if the information is classifed they have the right to give
that information to a overseas press if they feel they cannot aquire justice under the normal governing system.
It would be reconised as legal if the person doing it could prove they had not other right to redress of grivences. And to answer the question "How
exactly do you pass secret information to an enemy without giving them Aid? If you sell an enemy the plans for a secret weapon so they can copy it,
are you NOT Aiding them?"
That depends if you are under contract with a spacific set of term's and conditions then you are liable in most case's. But then you have to define
the united states and see which set of laws apply to you why living in the united states.
Here's a little news flash for most people when gold and silver were taken in the united states as a form of currency the current president at the
time which If I remember correctly was Rosavelt gave people the unlimited right to contract in exchange for there gold and silver as currency.
Hale vrs henkle is still used today in a pure trust, a pure contract trust is a form of contract law that was around before the unlimited right to
contract was given to the people of the united states.
I can write any law I want to and there's nothing anyone can do about it, it might not be legaly binding but that's not a matter for me to decide
that's a matter for the supreme court and the court's. However if the courts already were and are corrupt then until such time the law can be
corrected of the orginal breaking of the law it's anyones right to change the govenment how they see fit.
You can argue that I for instance dont have the right to put out information to for instance ats but if you do that, then you would have to prove
everyone else does not have that right either. Even when you sign up for ats or yahoo or any other website you have a clause which you have to
"agree to" that set's out a set of "term's and conditions".
Because every contract is subject to change and that also includes anyone that entered into the orginal contract it means you can change the terms and
conditions for instance of ats. But then if Simon deemed that it was against his own personal policies and said change the terms and conditions and
you or I didnt's Simon would be well with in his juristictional authority to ban me or anyone else that disagreed with those term's and
The same for any law or contract on the book's today. I can rewrite the constitution that does not make it legal to do so. Getting back to the war
powers act it's never been proven one way or another that the war powers act is or isnt consititutional.
And until there is such a case the law technically has been broken for over 70 year's that's alot of laws that dont apply to anyone in the united
states when you start to think about it.
And to further answer the question
"How exactly do you pass secret information to an enemy without giving them Aid? If you sell an enemy the plans for a secret weapon so they can copy
it, are you NOT Aiding them?"
It's the responsiblity of the leadership and the law makers in washington and else where to "set the tone" of how the laws will be carried out in
the united states. If it can be proven they were trading with the enemy / trading secret's what ever the case may be they have to prove what they
were doing was both legal or illegal.
And until such time as that occur's it's not a settled matter. That's more then likly what's got washington so scared about the AIPAC case
because it proves people in washington were caught techincally trading with the enemy. That set's the tone for a possible ruling on trading with the
emeny which could set the tone for a ruling on the war powers act.