| Welcome to The Mountain. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Is Treason Free Speech? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 28 2007, 03:54 PM (213 Views) | |
| GRITS | Jan 28 2007, 03:54 PM Post #1 |
|
Unregistered
|
If profanity, pornography and flag burning are free speech, isn't treason free speech as well? "I think Germany has a right to defend itself from foreign aggression and that our war against them is wrong! They are only doing what we are doing!" Is that treason or free speech? Does it encourage the Nazis to continue fighting? The Democrats claim exactly that - as long as they aren't actually shooting at US troops or giving the enemy weapons or money to use against US troops, then they aren't committing treason, but only exercising free speech. "The war against King George is wrong! These men like Washington swore loyalty oaths to the King! They are liars and traitors!" (join the Redcoats!) "The South didn't invade us! We invaded them! This is an unlawful war of aggression!" (desert from the Union Army!) "Mexico didn't invade us! Texas and California are Mexican territory! This is an unlawful war of aggression!" (petition Congress to withdraw our army!) Is treason free speech? If someone hearing the quotes above gives money to those actively waging war on US troops, does the one who made the quoted statement bear any responsibility? If a doctor treats an enemy soldier or noncombatant who was wounded fighting US troops is he a traitor? Should a woman who gave shelter to such an enemy be hanged for treason? They merely gave "aid and comfort" - they didn't actively wage war on US troops. Why do you silently tolerate treason against your country? Does that make you a traitor as well? Should we just get rid of the "aid and comfort" clause of the treason definition? Do you give a damn? CHINA MUST BE DESTROYED |
|
|
| Hick | Jan 28 2007, 04:02 PM Post #2 |
|
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
| Almtnman | Jan 28 2007, 04:21 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Free speech and treason are not in the same ball park with each other. |
![]() |
|
| GRITS | Jan 28 2007, 04:23 PM Post #4 |
|
Unregistered
|
I have to point out that parts of my post were altered with those alterations not being noted as such or set apart. A doctor can only treat an enemy in captivity - a doctor who treats an enemy who is actively pursuing war on US troops, or whose treatment enables him to resume war on US troops does commit treason - the Hippocratic Oath doesn't defend against treason. Doctor Mudd did commit treason, even if he wasn't aware of what Wilkes Booth did or who he was. Mary Surratt was hanged for the same reason. The Constitutional definition of treason doesn't allow for "unconsciously" - it doesn't matter if you didn't know or didn't believe you were committing treason. It goes far beyond the standard dictionary definition. |
|
|
| Town Drunk | Jan 28 2007, 04:29 PM Post #5 |
|
Town Drunk
![]()
|
I agree with Almtnman, there is an old clique that says, "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." To commit treason is something that hurts a lot of people for the good of one and should not be tolerated. It is not free speach. ecomcity
|
![]() |
|
| GRITS | Jan 28 2007, 04:45 PM Post #6 |
|
Unregistered
|
The act doesn't even have to result in harm, just have the possibility of causing harm. If I tell the enemy that US troops will be using such and such road on at such and such time, even if the enemy disregards the information it's still treason. Even if I told same over a beer in a bar without knowing an enemy overheard me it's treason. These Democrats and Republicans who supported the "Resolution" committed blatant treason according to the Constitution. You don't have to prove intent to commit treason, only that an act aided the enemy in any way, or could have aided him in any way. edit - I just noticed at the bottom of this page a link for "ImpeachableTreason" that says Bush must be impeached for treason - this I gotta see. Do you still think there shouldn't be an open and aggressive campaign to charge these people with treason? Anything less is a waste of time. |
|
|
| Toothless Dawg | Jan 28 2007, 07:32 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Ruler of the Mountain
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sgt Kirkland - the Angel of Fredericksburg |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics & Hot Topics · Next Topic » |











![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
