When do dirty politics become treason?
On a recently trip to China, republican Representative Mark Kirk (IL) told China not to believe the budget numbers put out by the Obama administration. Congress, Kirk told them, is going to be spending a lot more money than has been reported to date. As we all know, we are heavily indebted to China and keeping China's confidence in our economic system is critical. We know the republicans are not on the side of America. They've given us ample evidence of that. I believe they have stepped over a line.
Wordnet's definition of treason:
-a crime that undermines the offender's government
-disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
-treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal
Cheney undermines the president with his calls to Israel; kirk undermines the economic well-being of the entire country by talking out of school to China; and limbaugh advocates failure of the president and preaches boycott of GM products. Don't these behaviors easily conform to items one and two and combined become item three, treachery? Who can tell me when dirty politics ends and treason begins? Is there anyone here who believes the republicans have not crossed that line?
I believe you right FDR but who will prosecute them Calling for the fall of GM is about as unAmerican as you can get remember baseball applepie and CHEVROLET CHEVY is America
June 10, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, red. Who will prosecute? Making a lot of noise helps bring the problem to everyone's attention, I believe. And a really good rant can help on an individual basis. I haven't cranked it up that high,yet, and I'm still boiling mad. It's going to tak more than this puny blog to get it out of my system.
June 10, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Constitution is LAW, not politics. That means treason is a LEGAL issue. If you want to rant about it, research FIRST; you'll find very little information about it from actual adjudication.
June 11, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. What Red said.
Well, if these actions haven't officially crossed the line, it's so dang close it doesn't matter anymore.
These efforts by those mentioned are detrimental to the US as a whole, as a country and as a nation.
Cheney no longer holds office. It's time for him to sit down, shut up and try to look pretty. Same goes for generic conservative radio talk show host. Congressman Kirk needs to remember which country he represents.
June 10, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be interested in hearing the legal side of this. I hope at least one lawyer contributes.
June 10, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the Reublicans no longer control Congress else they'd take him to task, like they did Cisco, Microsoft, and Yahoo for helping the Chinese gov't track down dissidents. After all, it is the Republicans who are the only true patriots*, as they continuously tell us.
_____
*As is the Holocaust Museum killer.
June 11, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
One Dares Call It Treason. Not a bad title.
Of course cheney is a traitor. He was a traitor when he was in office and now that he is out.
He took the pieces of silver in the name of outsourcing.
He intentionally violated statutory and constitutional laws.
He spearheaded the group that got us into an 'optional' war.
And he continues to lie about it while pocketing more pieces of silver.
June 10, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Constitution was subverted in 2000 when the election was stolen. As the Constitution expressly stipulates, only ONE branch of gov't has authority to resolve ELECTION disputes, and that is the ELECTED branch CONGRESS. And there's precedent: Jefferson and Burr knew that one takes the matter to the House.
The UNelected SC has NO legitimate role in resolveing election disputes, and the consistent holding by the judiciary until _Bush v. Gore_ was:
"This is a nonjusticiable POLITICAL question; take it to the LEGISLATURE."
June 11, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your question is mostly rhetorically given. If you want to know the line, look carefully at the legal definitions of the relevant terms and then apply them soundly to the facts.
Let's use your definitions as an example:
-a crime that undermines the offender's government
Did it actually also have the intent and effect of undermining the government? Given "free speech", just talking dirty about the government is hardly sufficient. In fact it can strengthen government to have healthy debate.
-disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
Distinguish subversive behavior from adversarial behavior, for starters. Distinguish partisan divides from disloyalty. Talking down Obama's ideas is different from subverting the Presidency, and a Repo doesn't have any requirement to be loyal to a Demo, only perhaps to his oath of office. How does the act violate the oath of office, for instance.
-treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal
That's more a synonym than a direct definition but who or what was actually betrayed?
"kirk undermines the economic well-being of the entire country by talking out of school to China"
That's arguable under the "partisan" option. Let's also consider two different things: 1) What he actually said behind closed doors, and 2) his public posturing about that. He may be exaggerating for effect in his public comments, grandstanding in an attempt to relate to his partisan base and weaken marginal opposition to his views.
June 10, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans have stated publicly for all the world to hear that they want the president to fail. If they then purposefully take steps that threaten to make that goal a reality I call it treason.
June 10, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad, I thought you wanted to discuss the topic.
June 10, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have added IMO to my post. I'm just learning, eds.
June 10, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I believe they have stepped over a line."
That says "IMO" quite nicely. But having an opinion, and posing or responding to questions, aren't quite the same things. It's no biggie, but there is a difference between holding an opinion as a sacred and unarguable metaphysical belief ("I believe in a good God" for example) is different from exploring why and how we have lesser opinions, and just where and how we draw "a line" where we do.
June 10, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, paulw put the lie to my beliefs. What I've described is not treason, apparently, nor is it even a crime. He says I can't even get a sedition charge out of it. I was sorry to hear that. Thanks for commenting. I'll pay more attention next time, eds.
June 10, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
That his actions were not Treason under the Constitution does not mean they were not treason in a larger sense. I'm sticking with my first comment.
June 12, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
FDRdog has presented you with an argument you are ignoring -- if a group states an aim -- to make the President fail -- and takes steps apparently designed for that aim -- he sees it as treason.
Claiming that he is not 'discussing' with you does not answer his argument. Do you think that should be treason? What if the arena in which the failure is wished for is the economic well-being of the whole country? What if it is a war? What if it is an offensive war versus a defensive war.
Start thinking rather than just reciting that people aren't discussing when they don't agree with you.
June 11, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"eds" is a troll. Or puts on a good show of being one. Behind his pretense to objectivity.
June 11, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's a different topic. And for another thing, "republicans" is a strawman. My comment was quite specific about key factors. He blew it off with a retreat to baseless opinion and fallacy.
"Claiming that he is not 'discussing' with you "
I made no such claim so you're also distracting in at least two ways from the topic.
How about you stop giving bad advice and concentrate on thinking more clearly or expressing yourself more clearly?
June 12, 2009 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
If these guys are not traitors then I don't know who is. However, as my son says, we still do have freedom of speech. There are a whole lot of us who are not falling for their retoric. I just want to explode when I see Cheney out there spewing the same garbage and lies he did for 8 long years. Personally, I would like to see them tared and feathered. But that would not be democracy now would it? These haters of America will do themselves in. We have only to watch them implode.
June 10, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps limbaugh falls under the free speech mantle, but undermining the government by talking against it directly to foreign countries is treason. Has nothing to do with free speech.
June 10, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll have to show me judicial findings of that in order to substantiate. At present, your assertion is no different than the far-right lunatic fringe/Cheney assertion that those who criticize a (Republican) president, and or his policies, is a traitor.
I'd rather go after Cheney for committing the war crime/crimed against humanity of torture. That, in my view, as it is a DIRECT ATTACK on the Constitution and rule of law -- our gov't is "a system of laws, and not of men" -- is treasonous.
June 11, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is good thing that you are outraged at these men it shows you recognize their true face. Their rhetoric is a yoyo that always comes back to bust their knuckles in the end. History does not bode well for them, McCarthy and Nixon for example hung themselves with their own ropes and the knots they themselves tied. Thanks FDRdog, keep up the good work.
June 10, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope bust their knuckles. Or at least close their mouths. Thanks for commenting DonDi.
June 10, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're a bunch of lying traitorous hacks, but they're not (yet) committing treason as laid out in the constitution (taking up arms against the US, joining forces with a nation at war with us). You might be able to make a better case for sedition, although that requires actual plotting to unlawfully overthrow the government, rather than just advocating unlawful overthrow as so many wingnuts have done.
June 10, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the information, paulw. Is it perfectly all right then to go around trying to bring down a government by dealing with other countries? Israel and China aren't our enemies, but a great deal of damage can be done to this country if Cheney and guys like Kirk put their minds to it. It's amazing to me that they are not committing a crime of some kind.
June 10, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Treason, in my view, isn't limited to "taking up arms" or the like. It inclues assaults upon RULE OF LAW.
Our gov't, designated United States of America, is "a system of laws"; attacking that system of laws, as the Bushit criminal enterprise did, consciously, deliberately, and at every opportunity, is "waging war against" the US.
That form of "waging war" is also treason.
June 11, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wordnet's definition of treason
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."
Wordnet's definition is irrelevant.
(Not that Repugnants should be otherwise allowed to walk the streets unfettered, putting the people at risk)
June 10, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
In law one uses terms as defined in law. Those definitions frequently differ from the non-law definitions due to centuries of adjudication. (The meaning of "reasonable man" as a "standard" has been adjudicated countless times.)
June 11, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Who can tell me when dirty politics ends and treason begins? Is there anyone here who believes the republicans have not crossed that line?"
No, they haven't. To qualify that statement, it's intended to mean that they haven't committed treason in the sense it's understood in a democracy. It would clearly be treason in Iran, North Korea, or Saudi Arabia, but it might be better if they learned from us, rather than we from them.
Words are thrown around the political arena far too casually in my view, and the fact that many individuals we despise engage in that type of mudslinging is an opportunity we shouldn't forego - to demonstrate to the public that our wisdom deserves more respect than the foolishness of our adversaries. In the long run, that will pay off more rewardingly than a game of mutual denunciations.
June 10, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly words shouldn't be thrown around too casually, but you also shouldn't bring a squirt gun to a knife fight. We can all imagine what would have happened if a liberal broadcaster had said "I hope he fails" on the eve of the Iraq invasion, and urged listeners to sabotage the war effort. People who merely said "Perhaps you should consider the longterm consequences of this action before moving forward" were branded as traitors and "objectively pro-tyranny".
So yeah, allegations of treason as constitutionally defined are incorrect, but we need to make it clear at every turn that only the vilest group of scum would openly announce that they intend to harm their own country for political and personal gain.
June 10, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is wishing a president to fail -- which means, of course, his POLICIES -- the same as wanting the COUNTRY to fail? Only in the minds of those who indulge in cults of personality -- such as the Republican party, as with Reagan and Bushit.
June 11, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could "Aid and Comfort" be construed in a fashion that offering advice as to the security of investments in US T-Bills, would meet it?
It seems like a stretch to me, but not that much of a stretch - particularly if the intent of the advisor was to inhibit the ability of the Treasury to sell its offerings.
June 11, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not talking about words in the political arena. I'm talking about words Cheney spoke against Obama directly to the Iraelis. And about a congressman who tells China, again directly, not to trust our accounting.
June 11, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is close enough to treason in my book that it deserves some kind of a smack-down. Is there truly no law that prevents an elected official from freelancing like this with a foreign government? We all know that freedom of speech is not a blanket right...you can't yell fire in crowded theater, or incite others to riot...surely undermining our country like this is not okay...and if it is, should it be?
June 10, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the same question asked by Republicans and far-right lunatic fringers. By the same party which fosters the illusion that "Republican party" is spelled exactly the same as "United States of America".
Why would one want to do to others that you disapprove they doing to everyone who holds views different from their monomanic tyranny?
June 11, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard for me to believe, too, Stilli. The other side would probably mention Jimmy Carter, though, now that I think about it. They weren't happy when he talked to Hamas.
June 11, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The right has a pair of potent tools to silence leftist dissent: outrage and shame. Take this website for example. Insolent Braggart says global warming deniers should be executed and TPM is the target of outrage and shame. Lo and behold, the work of an individual is tied to an entire left-leaning media site and the post is removed and the author apologizes... And that apology doesn't exist to the right. As far as they are concerned the story is that TPM says global warming skeptics must die.
The right doesn't respond to outrage or shame. Best case scenario is that rephrase their words. Worst case scenario is they cry oppression and clutch their pearls.
The fact is we are getting our asses handed to us on this front.
But we have other better tools. We have ridicule. And we have art. Those are powerful expressive means that the right doesn't entirely master, especially ridicule. It is one thing for Hannity to
say that liberalism is a mental disorder, it is another to watch The Colbert Report. They attack, we ridicule. We need more of that. And we need more art. Quit leaving the art to the business world so that they can inject business iconography into it.
If Hitler would have been a joke instead of a jailed hero, perhaps things would have turnes out differently. Instead, he became an unfunny tragic killing joke...
June 10, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. See Mark Twain for the master of master's at satire -- which is a finer art than mere ridicule. Though the Republicans are often not deserving of the finer art of satire -- their gutter-level behaviors are instead the proper target of the more accessible that is ridicule. Sorta like, small minds deserve small minded retorts (perhaps in hope that they'll be able to grasp them and correct their thinking).
June 11, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, now you're getting scary.
People are allowed to dissent. Cheney is allowed to dissent. Limbaugh is allowed to dissent.
They are allowed to disagree with the administration as loudly and vehemently as they wish.
For you to use the word treason in reference to those who disagree with you -- or with Obama -- turns my stomach, And to see that sentiment almost uniformly endorsed here, on a historically liberal site, takes my breath away.
Who's next on the list? Those who disagree with preventative detainees, because they undermine the world's perception of American Unity? A green party candidate who runs against a Democratic incumbant for the same reason? Comedians who joke that Michelle wears too much makeup?
You're honestly and deliberately asking whether complaints and opposition to Obama's policy should be criminalized. You want to know the scariest part of that? You weren't laughed out of the place.
I think I really do need to throw up now.
June 11, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, msa3. For you or I to say to each other that the government is lying about figures is one thing, for one of our elected officials (especially the opposition party who has tacitly agreed that they want our President to fail)to go to a foreign government and say it, doesn't seem like free speech to me. I'm not sure what it is, but it feels wrong.
But, if my saying that seriously makes you want to throw up, go for it. I have to admit that the thought that you find nothing wrong with it sorta makes me a little queasy, too.
June 11, 2009 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Stilli, but I agree with msa3 and Fred Moolton. If someone cannot legally be prosecuted for treason, he isn't legally a traitor. A recklessly casual of that term is no more legitimate if it is coming from the Left than it is coming from the Right.
On the other hand, paulw's "vilest group of scum" is perfectly legitimate (and accurate).
June 11, 2009 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
And isn't one of the grandest part of this place? We can think (and say) what's on our mind, and as long as we are relatively civil about it, that's okay! You may be technically correct about it not being "legally" treason, but it sure smells like it.
June 11, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You understand the distinction:
1. If a person isn't a liar, but is called a liar, it is a personal attack.
2. If a person is a liar, and is called a liar, it is not a personal attack: it is a statement of fact.
June 11, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have a good court system that will not jail Cheney for his offenses in the legal system, but I am still offended by him. I will tell anyone who listens he is a traitor in his heart, though not in our courts. I explain to them how Halliburton sold weapons to Libya I think it was through their French subsiary. He had the gumpton to declare in an interview something to the effect that, "All the embargo did was hamper American business interests". In other words, if Cheney can make a buck selling arms to terrorists, there should be no one to prevent that, and he resents anyone who attempts to impede his efforts to make a busk, regardless of whom gets killed. He is beneath my contempt, truly. I pronounce him guilty in the court of public opinion and I wish the MSM would stop catering to him and cater to their viewers. They do them no service broadcastind and perpetuating his lies without challenging their veracity.
June 11, 2009 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
As we know, power holds the ability to corrupt. Where power succumbs to corruption and where that corruption resolves to harm to the nation you have a treasonous act.
It's hard to say what evaluates to treason. Where there are multiple plausible ways to achieve a goal it becomes very hard to establish a legal differentiation between the stupid and the criminal. The visible parts look identical.
June 11, 2009 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
A "resolve" is not an action. It may rise to "intent," which is an essential element to a crime, but proving that state of mind can be extremely difficult to impossible. A current example is the Cuban spy case: if the evidence is as reported, it appears the evidence for state of mind -- the intent -- was actually written down by the alleged perpetrators.
June 11, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, when only Democrats are involved. At least in the eyes of Republicans.
June 11, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink