Are war critics helping the enemy?

[bob_kark]

If one feels that strongly about the issue of POTUS lying resulted in the war, your actual course is impeachment.

If impeachment is not a realistic issue, what purpose is served by criticizing past history other than to provide comfort to the enemy? Of course views of our future courses of action should be vigorous and ongoing.

So you believe that the only good that can come from questioning the President would be impeachment?

 

[Mark]

Sorry it took so long for me to respond, I've been a bit busy.



While legally speaking, she has not been found guilty of treason, that does not mean she's innocent. The term "innocent until proven guilty" simply means that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a resonable doubt, not the defence to prove innocence. It does not mean that we need to believe that everyone is innocent until they are found guilty by a court of law. But, if that is how you want to view things, I doubt I could change your mind.



Aid and comfort, help or assist, just what you would suspect. There is a broad meaning for a reason. If you are looking for precedence, Iva Ikuko Toguri, AKA Tokyo Rose, AKA Orphan Ann, was convicted of treason. She was charged with 8 counts of treason leading from her broadcasts on Radio Tokyo during WWII, where she made Anti-US remarks to demoralize US troops. She was only convicted of one charge, "That she did speak into a microphone concerning the loss of ships." This resulted in a 10 year sentence and a $10,000.00 fine.

The sad thing is that she was convicted due to perjured testimony and was actually trying to help the US. She tried several times to sabotage her own show and helped to keep several US and Australian POWs alive by providing them with food, medicine, and clothing. In addition, the judge later admitted he was prejudiced against her. However, regardless of her innocence, she was tried and convicted of charges very similar to the actions taken by Jane Fonda.



Well, as we've just seen, being found guilty of a crime does not guarantee actual guilt. Maybe you should play it safe and assume everyone is innocent unless you see them commit the crime. That makes just about as much sense.



Well its good to know that even though you admit you are not a lawyer and don't really know much about treason, you think that the laws of treason must have been rewritten since 1970 (or so). Again, the laws concerning treason have been written into the Constitution, there have been no Amendments to the Constitution concerning treason. In fact, the only two Amendments ratified since 1970 would be the XXVI Amendment, right to vote at age 18, and the XXVII Amendment, compensation of members of congress.

Most of your objections to what I said are elimnated by the fact that I said "whatever my personal views."

Do you really think Jane Fonda's trip and the efforts of Tokyo Rose are in any way similar? I don't.

I did not say for a fact that the laws against treason have been re-written. I said that they almost certainly have been. But are you seriously suggesting that the only laws regarding treason are the ones to be found in the original constitution? Even I know better than that.

Sorry "innocent until proven guilty" offends you. Write your Congressman. The fact remains that Jane Fonda was never even charged with a crime...however much you want to declare that she is guilty of treason. Perhaps we should scrap our judicial system and just imprison whomever you say we should?

 

[bob_kark]

Most of your objections to what I said are elimnated by the fact that I said "whatever my personal views."

Sorry, I didn't realize that my personal views and facts, were eliminated by your personal views. I guess I really need to exercise them more often.

Do you really think Jane Fonda's trip and the efforts of Tokyo Rose are in any way similar? I don't.

Only that they both made anti-US statements during a time of war, aimed at demoralizing US troops. You know, the reason Ms. Toguri was tried for treason. But they were different wars...

I did not say for a fact that the laws against treason have been re-written. I said that they almost certainly have been. But are you seriously suggesting that the only laws regarding treason are the ones to be found in the original constitution? Even I know better than that.

If you want to find the specific law in the U.S. Criminal Code, it is TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381

CHAPTER 115--TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Sec. 2381. Treason

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.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII,
Sec. 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Secs. 1, 2 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch.
321, Secs. 1, 2, 35 Stat. 1088).
Section consolidates sections 1 and 2 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
The language referring to collection of the fine was omitted as
obsolete and repugnant to the more humane policy of modern law which
does not impose criminal consequences on the innocent.
The words ``every person so convicted of treason'' were omitted as
redundant.
Minor change was made in phraseology.


Amendments

1994--Pub. L. 103-322 inserted ``under this title but'' before ``not
less than $10,000''.

Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in sections 14, 951, 3591, 3592 of this
title; title 5 section 8312; title 8 section 1101; title 38 section
6105; title 50 App. section 34.

So the only change here since it was placed in the US Criminal Code on June 25, 1948 is in the fine imposed on a person found guilty of treason increasing to $10,000.00, made in 1994. Notice the "aid and comfort" part is still right there. So I suppose you were right that it changed, the change is simply irrelevent to the conversation.

Sorry "innocent until proven guilty" offends you. Write your Congressman. The fact remains that Jane Fonda was never even charged with a crime...however much you want to declare that she is guilty of treason. Perhaps we should scrap our judicial system and just imprison whomever you say we should?

Innocent until proven guilty is one of the foundations of our justice system. I love it. I never declared that Jane Fonda was guilty of treason. My only claim is that she could have been tried and the trial of Ms. Toguri set the precedence for the charge. I don't know why you would want to scrap our judicial system, that seems very odd. My point was simply that not being charged of a crime does not make you innocent of that crime.

 

[Mark]

Sorry, I didn't realize that my personal views and facts, were eliminated by your personal views. I guess I really need to exercise them more often.

Didn't say or imply that.

Only that they both made anti-US statements during a time of war, aimed at demoralizing US troops. You know, the reason Ms. Toguri was tried for treason. But they were different wars...

Tokyo Rose did a whole lot more than merely visit the enemy!

If you want to find the specific law in the U.S. Criminal Code, it is TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381



So the only change here since it was placed in the US Criminal Code on June 25, 1948 is in the fine imposed on a person found guilty of treason increasing to $10,000.00, made in 1994. Notice the "aid and comfort" part is still right there. So I suppose you were right that it changed, the change is simply irrelevent to the conversation.

I'll have to debate this another time...I am heading out the door.

Innocent until proven guilty is one of the foundations of our justice system. I love it. I never declared that Jane Fonda was guilty of treason. My only claim is that she could have been tried and the trial of Ms. Toguri set the precedence for the charge. I don't know why you would want to scrap our judicial system, that seems very odd. My point was simply that not being charged of a crime does not make you innocent of that crime.

Under our legal system is does exactly that. The Scots have a verdit of "Not proven." The U.S. does not. And I remind you again that Jane Fonda was never even charged with anything.

 

[bob_kark]

Didn't say or imply that.

If you meant no offense, I'll drop it.

Tokyo Rose did a whole lot more than merely visit the enemy!

So did Jane Fonda!

I'll have to debate this another time...I am heading out the door.

Have fun!

Under our legal system is does exactly that. The Scots have a verdit of "Not Proven." The U.S. does not. And I remind you again that Jane Fonda was never even charged with anything.

I don't really understand what you mean. If someone is not charged with a crime, it does not mean they're innocent. The person can be charged at any time until they reach the statute of limitations. Also, its great to know that the Scotts have a verdict of "Not Proven." However, it would be more relevent if they had a verdict of "Not Charged." Although that really wouldn't make any sense...

 

[aerocontrols]

I don't really understand what you mean. If someone is not charged with a crime, it does not mean they're innocent. The person can be charged at any time until they reach the statute of limitations. Also, its great to know that the Scotts have a verdict of "Not Proven." However, it would be more relevent if they had a verdict of "Not Charged." Although that really wouldn't make any sense...

Just so you know your point is not lost on us all.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=343839&postcount=20

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=352168&postcount=15

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=354122&postcount=41

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=718205&postcount=9

 

[bob_kark]

Just so you know your point is not lost on us all.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=343839&postcount=20

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=352168&postcount=15

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=354122&postcount=41

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=718205&postcount=9

Thanks Aero, I appreciate the support!

 

[hammegk]

So you believe that the only good that can come from questioning the President would be impeachment?

As it might concern prosecuting the war-in-fact that actually has people fighting for us with POTUS as CIC, what other actual remedy do you envision? Congressional elections this year should provide opportunity to accomplish something, as will Pres 08.

Monday morning quarterbacking is fun I agree, albeit useless.

 

[bob_kark]

As it might concern prosecuting the war-in-fact that actually has people fighting for us with POTUS as CIC, what other actual remedy do you envision? Congressional elections this year should provide opportunity to accomplish something, as will Pres 08.

Monday morning quarterbacking is fun I agree, albeit useless.

You actually mentioned exactly what I intended. Criticism of the POTUS and/or the war sways voters when it comes to election time. If the POTUS is improperly handling the war, it would be important to replace current members of congress to better direct the war effort. Far from useless, this could change how the war is managed and hopefully save the lives of troops.

In addition, in a perfect world, criticism of the POTUS could effect White House policy. Perhaps they could even get back on track. However, I'm not under the illusion that the current administration is capable of taking any form of criticism.

Oh, and yes Monday morning quarterbacking is fun as well.

 

[hammegk]

Yeah, who would want to say "I (or we) don't agree with the war-we-have and will actively support efforts to elect politicians that share my(our) views. In the meantime, I(we) wish our troops and leaders the best possible outcomes."

No fun there, especially when you have no alternative solutions and all you can do is fight against all your opponents' plans and efforts.

 

[billydkid]

The mantra has caught on! Great work ID....come on now...altogether and harmonize!! Kumbay-ah baby!

So the fact that Saddam gassed thousands of his own people but would clearly refrain from using WMD's via terrorists on the US....riiiight.

Attacking me? Please attack the argument not the man or I'll set Darat on ya!

Darrrrat!!! Yo!

That's your opinion. Can you please explain what a "genuine WOT" would entail and how a "genuine WOT" could be discerned objectively? Unless Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism(tm) is an organ of some rogue nation I don't see how you'd fight it in one place. My idea of a "genuine WOT" would include attacking all terrorists worldwide...this would mean US troops in Palestine, Iran, Syria, Phillipines, Indonesia, Yemen, and Somalia as well as Iraq and Afghanistan...but that's just me.

You have evidence? Then present it to the IA branch of the police depatrments concerned. Otherwise I call BS on you.

-z

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/27/114744/73

 

[hammegk]

Hey, Billy. Want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn? Or maybe some nice land in Florida?

 

[Year Zero]

Again, the evils of the world are only perpetrated by America and our allies in your mind.

Sure, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, the dictators of Central America with American backing, the coup that put Saddam in power... all these things just NEVER existed!! Eyewitnesses? Documentation? All a big HOAX set up by the "liberal democrat" conspiracy.

You can keep pretending these things didn't happen but it's not going to work.

Never mind that the Taliban turned a soccer arena into a killing arena to murder women who dared speak out against them and for other sins like teaching and showing ther faces.

Never mind that the Marxist government in Afghanistan had introduced massive advances in women's rights but the US and England got together to help the Islamic rebels overthrow the government.

Never mind that Slobodan Milosivek was commiting genocide.

Which genocide? The largest ethnic cleansing operation in the Balkan wars was AGAINST SERBS in the Krajina region in 1995, when the Croats had NATO air support. And lets not forget when America supported the Al Qaeda linked Kosovo Liberation Army in its insurgency and then stood by while it ethnically cleansed Kosovo of nearly all non-Albanians. Encouraged by their success, the terrorists later turned their attack on Macedonia.

Never mind that Millions of North Koreans died needlesly as a result of North Korean policies. Never mind that North Koreans are denied basic rights and suffer teribly decades after the last American bomb was dropped there.

North Korea is a country that has been at in a state of war with two superior powers to the present day. It cannot afford to relax its posture, not with the memories of what happened in the first war, memories that are shared by the South.


I suggest you start studying actual history and not getting your information filtered through talk radio pundits.

 

[Year Zero]

Yeah, what is the logical conclusion to democracy and free thought?

This is incredible. You actually believe that someone voting in an election is the ultimate expression of "democracy". Do you have any idea how many dictatorial or corrupt governments throughout history(including our own) have been ELECTED in just such a manner? Were you aware that all these elections were rife with complaints about corruption? It is insane to believe that there is some kind of sacred meaning behind someone voting in an election- an illusion of democracy. If the government survives, and it is to keep Iraq united, it will inevitably degenerate into another dictatorship suppressing various forces in the same way that Saddam did. Never forget that we put that man in power.

 

[Freakshow]

This is incredible. You actually believe that someone voting in an election is the ultimate expression of "democracy". Do you have any idea how many dictatorial or corrupt governments throughout history(including our own) have been ELECTED in just such a manner? Were you aware that all these elections were rife with complaints about corruption? It is insane to believe that there is some kind of sacred meaning behind someone voting in an election- an illusion of democracy. If the government survives, and it is to keep Iraq united, it will inevitably degenerate into another dictatorship suppressing various forces in the same way that Saddam did. Never forget that we put that man in power.

So what democracies in history have met your standards?

 

[Year Zero]

So what democracies in history have met your standards?

I am not setting "standards". What I am sick of is a country that decides very selectively which countries are "free and good" and which ones "aren't", as in: Countries that support America are good regardless of their government and those that don't, are not regardless of their form of government. Milosevic was elected and reelected by the Serbian people, but that wasn't "democratic" enough so he became a "dictator". Of course taking over Kosovo by armed force, the "election" strategy of the KLA terrorists, was A-OK by American standards. The immensely popular government of Ho Chi Minh was Communist, so it couldn't be "democratic", but the corrupt and violent Diem regime was on our side so they were fine.

 

[Freakshow]

I am not setting "standards". What I am sick of is a country that decides very selectively which countries are "free and good" and which ones "aren't", as in: Countries that support America are good regardless of their government and those that don't, are not regardless of their form of government. Milosevic was elected and reelected by the Serbian people, but that wasn't "democratic" enough so he became a "dictator". Of course taking over Kosovo by armed force, the "election" strategy of the KLA terrorists, was A-OK by American standards. The immensely popular government of Ho Chi Minh was Communist, so it couldn't be "democratic", but the corrupt and violent Diem regime was on our side so they were fine.

So what democracies in history have met your standards?

 

[RandFan]

Sure, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, the dictators of Central America with American backing, the coup that put Saddam in power... all these things just NEVER existed!! Eyewitnesses? Documentation? All a big HOAX set up by the "liberal democrat" conspiracy.

You are creating straw men and willfully ignoring what I said. I will repeat it though I'm sure you will again ignore it. I don't think everything my country does is right.

You can keep pretending these things didn't happen but it's not going to work.

You are being obtuse. How many times can I say it.

I don't dismiss the wrongs perpetrated by my government. My view is not so myopic. ... I don't see America as only right and everyone else as only wrong.

Never mind that the Marxist government in Afghanistan had introduced massive advances in women's rights but the US and England got together to help the Islamic rebels overthrow the government.

I don't at all deny this. The difference between you and I is that I accept the wrongs perpetrated by all sides.

Which genocide? The largest ethnic cleansing operation in the Balkan wars was AGAINST SERBS in the Krajina region in 1995, when the Croats had NATO air support. And lets not forget when America supported the Al Qaeda linked Kosovo Liberation Army in its insurgency and then stood by while it ethnically cleansed Kosovo of nearly all non-Albanians. Encouraged by their success, the terrorists later turned their attack on Macedonia.

Please to cite?

North Korea is a country that has been at in a state of war with two superior powers to the present day. It cannot afford to relax its posture, not with the memories of what happened in the first war, memories that are shared by the South.

Hardly a reason to let your people starve to death. Nations are more than willing to help North Korea feed its people and they have proved that.

I suggest you start studying actual history and not getting your information filtered through talk radio pundits.

You have said nothing to indicate that you are an objective observer of history. You clearly see history with a bias.

 

[Year Zero]

So what democracies in history have met your standards?

Again your missing the point. The question of standards should be posed to the US government if anyone- since it is they who seem to enjoy changing regimes around the world for the past 50 years. Ask them why a democratically elected popular government can be an "evil dictatorship" while a general who takes power in a coup, or an unpopular figure who wins a corrupt election are considered "free and democratic" if they support the US and Western status quo.

 

[Year Zero]

I don't at all deny this. The difference between you and I is that I accept the wrongs perpetrated by all sides.

Not really because you like talking about the "evil" dicators of the world who need punishment but you don't advocate punishment, sanctions, or regime change for the US.

Please to cite?

I have not the time to educate you on the entire history of the 90's Balkan wars.

Hardly a reason to let your people starve to death. Nations are more than willing to help North Korea feed its people and they have proved that.

North Korea did not let it's people starve to death. They were hit with a massive disaster.

You have said nothing to indicate that you are an objective observer of history. You clearly see history with a bias.

Right when someone points out America's wrongs and suggests that maybe America ought to tend to its own problems at home before telling the rest of the world how to live, it must be bias.