Is Our Leadership About To Commit Treason?

Came across this well worded and well thought out commentary from Karl Denninger about Syria and the issue of treason as defined in the U.S. Constitution over at Market Ticker

The commentary starts with a quote from the Independant that says,

If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

The case is made that the state of emergency the U.S. has been under since 9-11-2001 can only exist if indeed Al Qaida is the declared nations enemy. An emergency used to justify the police state actions of the federal government domestically.

The point that Al Qaida is well known to be involved and allied in the so called Syrian rebellion is covered. I don't think one can ague that they are not directly involved in Syria.

The point is aptly made in attacking Syrian government forces the U.S. would be an ally of forces that are a named enemy of the United States and constitutes a treasonous act per the constitutional definition,

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 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.

"adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere"

"shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States"

The commentary makes a solid case that no matter which side may have used chemical weapons this administration would still be committing treason - attacking government forces constitutes aid to declared enemies - supporting so-called rebels that allied with Al Qaida is also treason.

I myself tend to agree that this particular case does rise to the level of treason sans a US attack on Syrian government forces or installations - the treason has already occurred and an attack just doubles down the charge.

While I think this is treason.

I honestly think if any action to be taken in Syira. The US should just bomb the hell out of both sides.

Both are enemies, BUT We should not even be involved there.

In the span of 1 decade we went to fighting AQ to aiding and abetting them.We truly have messed up 'leadership'.

since when has our elected officials cared a damn thing about the Constitution?

i liked the part about death or 5 years imprisonment, perhaps if we all agree they are habitual liars and murderers, we can use the first option.

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

We don't have 'leaders.' We haven't for years.
Leaders listen to those around them and act accordingly.

What we have are elected rulers, who act as they see fit, everyone else be damned.

Originally posted by neo96
While I think this is treason.

I honestly think if any action to be taken in Syira. The US should just bomb the hell out of both sides.

Both are enemies, BUT We should not even be involved there.

In the span of 1 decade we went from aiding and abetting AQ to fake fighting AQ to aiding and abetting them as usual.We truly have messed up 'leadership'.

had to fix that for you neo.

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

Sir/Ma'am,

Every post about this subject you have submitted has been about partisan politics.
At this point, isn't it obvious to all of us that the entirety of Washington... Republican, Democrat, and Independent... have chosen to do what they want instead of what their constituents have asked of them?

Leave the partisan stuff at the door, that's the herring. All of them should resign their offices, they are not worthy of them.

reply to post by Phoenix


Who decides who our enemies are?

Are the Germans still our enemies? The Russians? The Chinese?

This is quite silly.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle


Need to try again.

Some financing for al-Qaeda in the 1990s came from the personal wealth of Osama bin Laden.[63] By 2001 Afghanistan had become politically complex and mired. With many financial sources for al-Qaeda, Bin Laden's financing role may have become comparatively minor. Sources in 2001 could also have included Jamaa Al-Islamiyya and Islamic Jihad, both associated with Afghan-based Egyptians.[64] Other sources of income in 2001 included the heroin trade and donations from supporters in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.[63] A WikiLeaks released memo from the United States Secretary of State sent in 2009 asserted that the primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia.[65]

Saudi's own AQ.

Pay attention:

A WikiLeaks released memo from the United States Secretary of State sent in 2009 asserted that the primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia.[6[/b

reply to post by neo96


Yes, that's thinking inline with most I've talked to about the Syrian issue, WTH? we have no reason to be involved in the first place as they head scratch.

The more informed understand the potential involvement of the Benghazi debacle along with aiding and abetting Al Qaida's cause which first and foremost requires destabilizing the Middle East which seems as if in lockstep with the current US leaderships policies.

reply to post by neo96


I don't often agree with your views neo but what you said is spot on, I am dead against any intervention but if there is intervention by the US, UK, France or whoever, they should target both sides because whoever comes out on top after this war is just going to turn their attention westward. Assad will not be happy with western countries involvement and the rebels are animals who just want chaos get rid of them both if possible.

The foundations of The US are built upon treason. Treason to the British Crown in 1776.
Nothing new here.

reply to post by jtma508


The commentary I referenced at the link provided says "anyone no matter the party affiliation who supports an attack is likely guilty of treason.

The post is not Dem/Pub partisan, its strictly about whether or not the actions of the current administration rise to the constitutional definition.

As I see things it does.

reply to post by Dreine


I absolutely agree that it's been US vs. THEM (all of them) for a very long time. I have, however, chosen to post these articles in threads where people seem intent on hanging this whole Syria conundrum on Obama. I am, in fact, trying to illustrate rather than just state that they're all in this together. I have long presented the argument here on ATS and elsewhere that the government, the entire political system, is corrupt to its core and that the people we call politicians are just agents to move forward the agendas of the people who are really in control. I can't remember the last time I voted for either a Republican or Democrat. Yet the same people go out of their way to make the same Democrat v. Republican accusations (on both sides) as if one is in the least bit different from the other.

So, my friend Dreine, you are preaching to the choir director, as it were.

reply to post by Phoenix


So this administration but not Congressmen pushing for the action?

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by Phoenix

 

Who decides who our enemies are?

Are the Germans still our enemies? The Russians? The Chinese?

This is quite silly.

Really? Al Qaida was behind the attacks on 9-11. The war on terror is ongoing. We have not defeated Al Qaida. We are now aiding Al Qaida. World War II is over. The Nazi's were defeated. The issue was resolved. What is silly about our government telling us Al Qaida is our enemy at home, but our ally in Syria. Your post was quite silly....

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by Phoenix

 

Who decides who our enemies are?

Are the Germans still our enemies? The Russians? The Chinese?

This is quite silly.

Defining enemies may be seen as silly at times,

The U.S. Constitution on the other hand and violations of it by those who took a solemn oath to uphold and protect it are not a silly subject at all - indeed one of the penalties for violating it is DEATH - that's about as serious as it can get - agree?

reply to post by Phoenix


Øbama is using this situation to solidify his apparent status as 'decider' which is all about being deemed a 'dictator' status as later Red Line events are crossed...
see the idea is to have him operate as the supreme "decider " and throw away all the oversight functions of congress


see it's all about taking a a tiny step...hitting only 40 pre-determined targets over 48 hours ...'

but we are unawares that Øbama already gave that target list to both Assad and Putin
so as to avert retasliation.... but to keep the image of being a strong and moralistic leader that will only 'Do whats necessary- & nothing more'

so that the next phase of the Øbama regime will be to take an even shorter advance notice of unilateral action --- be it Syria, or Egypt or the greater prize IRAN (which is totally flaunting their gold swaps instead of using the formerly Western Required Petro-Dollars)


You--- We --- are being conditioned in stages.... remember that StUdio told you what to look for first as events transpire

Originally posted by alldaylong
The foundations of The US are built upon treason. Treason to the British Crown in 1776.
Nothing new here.

No, have to disagree - same old fight against tyranny then as now. Tyranny seems to have the upper hand now just as it did then. Fortunes can turn on a dime and me thinks it will do so again.

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by alldaylong
The foundations of The US are built upon treason. Treason to the British Crown in 1776.
Nothing new here.

No, have to disagree - same old fight against tyranny then as now. Tyranny seems to have the upper hand now just as it did then. Fortunes can turn on a dime and me thinks it will do so again.

You can call it what you wish.
It doesn't take away the fact that it was treason. That's why thousands of colonists refused to take part in the revolution.