Is Our Leadership About To Commit Treason?

he's been committing treason since day 1. seriously

Originally posted by DaMod
Don't forget about Libya people... We were aiding AQ There too remember?!

Or have you guys already forgotten.

edit on 29-8-2013 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

This is precisely what I meant when I said that forgetting our errors dooms us to repeat them, and thanks for pointing out the Libya connection, because this is damned important. Sometimes I am not at all sure that the AQ/CIA linkage is entirely severed, such is the usefulness of AQ presence to US and UK foreign policy, in terms of getting them places they would not otherwise dare be.

reply to post by jtma508

Given the fact that a large number of Republicans not only support attacking Assad but are concerned that Obama won't go far enough and have been blasting him for waiting this long, does that charge of treason extend to them as well or is only Obama in the crosshairs?

Sure it does apply to them too.

There are people who've spent over a decade in gitmo for a LOT less than supplying arms and comfort to the enemy..the same enemy that is using those arms and comforts with which to murder British and American Soldiers right now.

I'd say there are a lot of politicians who have it coming.

How quickly we forget all the atrocities that are committed in the name democracy in the past. This country was founded on the blood shed and genocide of thousands upon thousands of natives of this land for control of resources and property and that is exactly what is happening in the middle east. A propaganda fueled war for resources and thousands of innocents dying by the hands of rebels funded by the U.S government. The U.S policy is genocide, bribery, propaganda and pointing the finger at everyone else for everything they are guilty of. Honestly look at all they blame everyone for doing and that is exactly what our government is guilty of.

I really don't think these or any other politicians care one bit about laws they brake to create the means to an end to meet there agenda, besides congress is on vacation and Obama can do what ever he wants.........as he has proven so many times before.

I would imagine it is a hard choice for Obama to figure out which Muslims to bomb, I doubt he wants to bomb any of them. If they would all just step aside and let his Muslim Brotherhood step in then Obama could get back to "Reggie"

The only interesting thing about this whole circus is seeing if the Russians, Chinese or Iran are all mouth or if they pull the trigger on the U.S.................somebody is going to look the all talk no walk "coward" !!!!

Makes sense, look at it this way: as many have pointed out the US will be fighting against Syria alongside Al-Qaeda. It could be defined as treason, however as the saying goes "the enemy of my enemy is also my friend" In this case, assuming I understand correctly Syrias enemy Al-Qaeda, is, in this situation a friend to the US.

And hasnt this happened in history before? It seems weird I know, but when theres a threat to the world how can we just let it continue?

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
he's been committing treason since day 1. seriously

Day 1? I remember him working as "president" before he was inaugurated. Remember how as soon as he won, he got his posse to join him at a round table I think at the white house and just plan things? Sure, I get we were all tired of Bush but that's just rude.

The US and the UK are turning into facist electoral dictatorships , they no longer care for our votes or opinions as set out in the founding documents. They just simply want us to feed the machine so the rich can get richer and the everyone else suffers !

They erode our freedoms which were hard fought for whilst expanding their geopolitical corporate choke hold on foreign lands stealing resources to feed the corporations who fund the elections the wheels keep turning until they have eroded everything that is free and good in the world

we would all have to be blind and dumb to not see this for what it is

its the same tried and tested method for the last 50 years
rinse repeat ad infinitum

the evil empires continue to grow and our humanity slowly fades away

I'm starting to think that this country has been gradually shifting to become a dictatorship of sorts. At least in other countries that are dictatorships the citizens know they're in a dictatorship. In the States? The government pretends it's a democracy but really the government is a dictatorship. A wolf in sheep's clothing type of deal.... I think the US gov't is resorting to becoming a dictatorship because they fear losing its worldwide power and influence because they realize they've peaked and are now on a downward slope. Looks like the US is starting to approach its great Roman fall.....

reply to post by sapien82


Couldn't agree more (you beat me to it, as it seems to me ha ha).

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
he's been committing treason since day 1. seriously

How so?

Are you another person that doesn't know the Constitutional definition of treason?

Looks moot now, UK just voted not to support action against Syria, and with support of it dwindling here as well, doubt US would do anything without the support from UK. Thank You UK. Killing people to save people is something we need to eradicate in our world.

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by Phoenix

 

The government/leadership, cannot be held for treason.

The laws only apply to the people governed and for those who fall out of line in government..

once you understand this.. everything they do makes perfect sense.

Ditto that. This treason thing is silly, many and all governments have fought against an enemy which they latter turned around and called friend, I mean its only happened in every dam war and battle since the beginning of human history. I think they think any of this constitutional thing has any real meaning, it would only apply to those who do not toe the line. Its always been business as ussuall, one of the parts of business as usual is selling lines to the people governed, its make believe. Its like telling your child that if they follow a certain behavioral pattern they will get treats, or that Santa Claus is watching them.

None of it is real but the constructs which have been created by it, and the government is a construct, created by people, but once it is created it becomes outside of peoples reach. And so no they are not committing any treason while and in its confines, once they lose that favor, or fall out of line they are committing treason. And only to the construct itself can anybody there in commit treason, everything else is just banding words.

So yes people will say this and that like they have said for ever. Yet the whole thing will go on as it always has done. Besides this whole thing is a business in itself and so must sustain itself, that if anything is really what is going on. Kind of like when you create and empire it takes a life of its own and must always sustain itself. The war machine like congress or anybody else in the government are just sustaining themselves, so therefore yes the "enemy" is merely situational given on the circumstances and interests involved.

Let me put it this way, there are many "special interests" out there, however the opinion and wants or will if such a thing even exists of the populous is not considered a special interest, its merely a "interest" therefore it has less sway and bartering power or even buying power in the machine, mostley because it can be easily co-opted or just plain stupid. So yes one day Al Qaeda is an enemy, the next day if it suits the interests of a power faction withing the machine you know as government it can be a friend, and then the next day an enemy again, or anything in between. And not only that but sometimes the boogie man is literally invented from scratch and takes a life of its own, as in the case of Al Qaeda, they are slowly becoming a fighting force withing themself by working for the local and non local warlords in these back and forth wars have brought them some profit as well, given time and they will become a governing faction.

So literally it becomes a point of definitions on treasonous to whom? Not them surely because they currently are the government. And really that's all the government is, merely the current administration, however they may not stay current forever, but no matter what or whom takes over they become the guiding reasons of the government and get to decide what is considered treason. And let me tell you, they rarely pick treason as being defined against themself. And Obama like any other president is just a figure head, not even a competent one at that, but then again were any of them? However it seems that may be one trait you need to have in mass quantities when selected for those sort of jobs and almost child like ignorance which is equated to innocence of what is going on around you.

And so: The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
and a little child shall lead them.

I would say considering the past that just may be considered progress...Or not...We shall see.

I've long been a fan of Denninger's blog and tend to agree with him more than not. However, I don't think an attack against Assad's forces would rise to the Constitutional definition of treason ( which I think is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution ) except under the most legalistic of theories. But use of military force against any nation without the advice and consent of Congress or more appropriately some form of vote authorizing it, except in the most urgent circumstances where there is no time to consult Congress before acting to save American lives or protect vital American interests, definitely rises to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".

I'm of the opinion that in Syria, two sworn enemies of the US are killing each other in particularly horrible and barbaric ways. We should let them continue. The Middle East is a basket case of: competing strains of Fundamentalist Islam that have been at it for over a millenia, extreme political disfunction/corruption, ethnic hatreds, and a host of other problems. Picking one side or the other in the Syrian Civil War does nothing to change any of the issues affecting the larger Middle East. I have no doubt in my mind that our "allies" in the Gulf would (if not already have) be just as brutal as Assad in retaining power against a popular revolution.

I've let my CONgressman and SINators know that I do not support intervention in Syria at this time no matter which side has used chemical weapons. We are treaty bound to protect Turkey should they invoke the NATO charter following an attack against their sovereign territory, but that hasn't happened to a large extent. My opinion changes if it does. Doing nothing at this time is my preference, and if action must be taken, it is imperative that Congress is consulted and it's members are on record as to where they stand. If action is taken I prefer that it target both Assad loyalist, and rebel forces. They aren't going to kiss and make up if we slam both of them. If so, then it requires the international forces supporting Assad (Iran and Russia) to expend resources to keep him up while also requiring the international forces supporting the Rebels (Saudi and the Gulf States, as well as darker elements of western governments) to do the same. Entering the civil war on the side of the rebels needlessly antagonizes a powerful international rival (Russia) and hastens the day that those fighting Assad are able to turn their guns on us or other allies.

While I acknowledge that two facts were indeed presented, and I do understand the consequence of that, this whole thing just furthers my belief that we rely on the Constitution too much.

It has proven useful; I'm just pointing out that sometimes we look to it as an infallible, all knowing source of information. It's a handwritten document.

Logically blasting Syria is aiding the enemy because the Syrian governments' enemy is Al Qaeda.

Will Obama be held responsible for "aiding the enemy"? Absolutely not....

If he does this, I will be one of the first ones out there holding IMPEACH OBAMA signs.

What if we sit on the sidelines long enough and enough people die? I just think about Rwanda, when literally nobody but the UN cared when black people were killing black people, and even then they couldn't fight the rebels enough to stop the massacre. Muslim people are people too, we should help.

reply to post by burdman30ott6

I agree, the point you are attempting to make is silly. You're trying to compare nations with disembodied terrorist cells. Al Qaida isn't a country, they're a collective of insane asshat fundamentalists whose only reason for existing as a group is war against "infidels.

That don't have the balls to attack Isreal ?................Ever ?....................Not even a hangnail ?

what they are killing people with gas instead of bullets? wait wait wait lets dig out the rule book. yep here it is people dying in a different manner than explosions or bullets.
awesome! we can start to turn the gears of war and make some money!

reply to post by Phoenix


That is a ridiculous conclusion. That's like saying that a Ron Paul presidency would be guilty of treason by not attacking Al Qaeda sites.

Originally posted by jtma508
Given the fact that a large number of Republicans not only support attacking Assad but are concerned that Obama won't go far enough and have been blasting him for waiting this long, does that charge of treason extend to them as well or is only Obama in the crosshairs?

Congressional Republicans on Sunday ratcheted up pressure on the White House to intervene in Syria, saying the United States “has sat on the sidelines for too long” amid increasing evidence that the Assad regime used chemical weapons on civilians.

article #1

Sen. John McCain doesn't think three days of missile strikes against Syria will make a significant impact on the fighting, and said it might even have an "unhelpful effect."

McCain, on the other hand, thinks Obama isn't going far enough.

"The question is, will those attacks just be a retaliation and Bashar (Assad) goes on as normal, or will those attacks degrade his capabilities, particularly his air capabilities, which you could do easily with stand-off weaponry?"

article #2

Prominent US Republican lawmakers are lining up behind military strikes in Syria, forming a rare alliance with the Democratic commander in chief.

article #3

Who CARES if the Republicans or Democrats support it or not, HE is the President. HE is calling the shots. HE should be held responsible if he goes to war without the approval of Congress. In the end anyone who violates their oath of office should be; however, HE is the one making the call here - not Republicans or Democrats.