Is Michael Moore Iraq's "Lord Haw Haw"?

No. I don't agree with him but I can't see that as treasonous (all he's done is disagree with gov't policy, not disclose sensitive information).

Part of what we're fighting for is the right to be a jerk (except on the JREF forum!).
 
Giz said:
No. I don't agree with him but I can't see that as treasonous (all he's done is disagree with gov't policy, not disclose sensitive information).

Part of what we're fighting for is the right to be a jerk (except on the JREF forum!).
Click to expand...

I'm not as sure as you...

Treason, as defined in Merriam-Webster is "betrayal of a trust; the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but how do Moore's words differ from that of people like Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw who were tried for treason during WWII?

I'm sure that there are other examples as well that I'm unaware of...
 
Can you highlight the exact words you are talking about Kodiak?
 
Kodiak
Have a good look at yourself.

You are so rusted onto GWB that you will happily brand dissent as sedition.

GWB whistles and you dance....
 
And in what "war" is MM a traitor?

The "war"against Saddam is over - the guy is behind bars and it all finished nearly a year ago. The "war" against terror is not a real war as there is no formal enemy who is responding. How about the "war" on drugs? Or the "war" on under-age drinkers? Or the "war" on tax-dodgers? Just saying that some nebulous fuzzy "enemy" exists and then calling out the army does not constitute a war.

What if MM gives aid and comfort to me? I'm not a US citizen, never will be, don't live there, not subject to US laws. Is the US in a war against me currently? Not that I'm aware of, so if MM tells me stuff, how is he a traitor?

Incidentally, there were at least two "Tokyo Rose's", none of whom were tried for treason.
 
Kodiak said:


I'm not as sure as you...

Treason, as defined in Merriam-Webster is "betrayal of a trust; the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but how do Moore's words differ from that of people like Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw who were tried for treason during WWII?
Click to expand...
Let's see, Michael Moore hasn't, to my knowledge, fled to the Middle East and done radio broadcasts for Osama Bin Laden.

>>>On 26 August 1939, approximately a week before the outbreak of war, Joyce and his family fled to Berlin after a tip-off that, under the soon to be introduced emergency powers, he would be interned for the duration of the war. It was an act that would lead eventually to his death and denouncement by many, including Mosley, as a traitor. Rightly or wrongly Joyce was adamant that Britain was being led into another pointless war and Neville Chamberlain's, and subsequently Winston Churchill's, governments were betraying their people.

Friends in Germany put Joyce in contact with Dr. Erich Hetzler - Private Secretary to Germany's Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop. Two weeks after the outbreak of war he was appointed Editor and speaker for the German transmitters for Europe at Berlin's Charlottenburg. Joyce was still only 33 years old. His wartime broadcasts to England became infamous - he was nicknamed 'Lord Haw-Haw' by a Daily Express journalist because of his aristocratic nasal drawl. Unknown to the public at this time, his image was very different from the scar-faced fascist thug he was usually portrayed as. <<<

Nor has he as far as I recall, ended spechess with saluting Osamma Bin Laden.

>>>During the final stages of the war, with the Red Army approaching Berlin, Joyce moved to Hamburg. He made a final broadcast on 30 April 1945 - warning that the war would leave Britain poor and barren now that she had lost all her wealth and power in 6 years of war, leaving the Russians in control of most of Europe. He signed off with a final defiant "Heil Hitler." <<<
http://www.heretical.com/British/joyce.html
 
a_unique_person said:
Throw him in a lake, if he sinks, he's not a traitor, if he floats, he is.
Click to expand...
Breathtaking.....

America, the land of the free and the home of the brave...unless you refuse to believe the bedtime stories.

Tell us the one about good V evil again.....That should be good for a laugh. Do yourself a favour Americans...your current regime smells like Nixons.....time to get another one.
 
Tony said:
Can you highlight the exact words you are talking about Kodiak?
Click to expand...

For example:

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."

"I currently have two cameramen/reporters doing work for me in Iraq for my movie (unbeknownst to the Army). They are talking to soldiers and gathering the true sentiment about what is really going on."

"I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."
 
The Fool said:
Kodiak
Have a good look at yourself.

You are so rusted onto GWB that you will happily brand dissent as sedition.

GWB whistles and you dance....
Click to expand...

I think I've made it pretty clear that I am undecided about the issue and was opening a dialogue here to get a variety of opinions for mostly reasoned individuals.

Feel free, though, to continue with the ridicule. Its more of a reflection upon you, anyway...
 
Kodiak said:


I'm not as sure as you...

Treason, as defined in Merriam-Webster is "betrayal of a trust;
Click to expand...
As in "There are W.M.D. in Iraq trust me."

or of assisting its enemies in war.
Click to expand...
Invading Iraq has undoubtedly helped increase the support for Al Queda, and made the UK a greater target than it was.

Is Tony Blair guilty of Treason ?
 
Kodiak said:


I'm not as sure as you...

Treason, as defined in Merriam-Webster is "betrayal of a trust; the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but how do Moore's words differ from that of people like Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw who were tried for treason during WWII?

I'm sure that there are other examples as well that I'm unaware of...
Click to expand...

I see where your coming from, Moore could be seen as being a propaganda threat which could demoralise our populations. How far should free speech extend in a war? I'm pretty sure it should extend at least as far as what Moore said in the linked article (which in precis just said he disagrees with the war and hopes for a change in administration [Thanks for clearing your position up MM!]).

Should Lord Haw Haw have been hung? I'm not up on the deatils of what he did (other than make scornful, demoralising radio broadcasts) but there seem to be two main actions that could be treasonous:

1) Being employed by an opposing power, with the intention of impeding your country's war effort.
2) The actual speech itself - urging people to stop fighting, accept the inevitable fascist victory etc.

Now 1) is probably not controversial, but I guess you'd be worried about Moore falling under 2). How much (and how far) would you have to go before 2) became treason? Are there any specific flags you can think of?

I sincerely hope that expressing a wish for a change of administration is OK (FYI i'd prefer Bush to Kerry) - get rid of that bit of free speech and you're no longer a democracy...
 
Zep said:
And in what "war" is MM a traitor?

The "war"against Saddam is over - the guy is behind bars and it all finished nearly a year ago. The "war" against terror is not a real war as there is no formal enemy who is responding. How about the "war" on drugs? Or the "war" on under-age drinkers? Or the "war" on tax-dodgers? Just saying that some nebulous fuzzy "enemy" exists and then calling out the army does not constitute a war.

What if MM gives aid and comfort to me? I'm not a US citizen, never will be, don't live there, not subject to US laws. Is the US in a war against me currently? Not that I'm aware of, so if MM tells me stuff, how is he a traitor?

Incidentally, there were at least two "Tokyo Rose's", none of whom were tried for treason.
Click to expand...

Good points. The line is indeed "fuzzy".

Do you not consider Bin Laden, al-Sadr, and all the other militant jihadists attacking US and coalition forces to be our enemies in the WOT?
 
Kodiak said:


I'm not as sure as you...

Treason, as defined in Merriam-Webster is "betrayal of a trust; the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but how do Moore's words differ from that of people like Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw who were tried for treason during WWII?

I'm sure that there are other examples as well that I'm unaware of...
Click to expand...

May be better to look at the legal definitions of treason here. This page (although people may not like the organisation behind it) seems to have a concise legal summary: http://www.adlusa.com/treasdef.htm

...snip...

Treason. A breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort. Cramer v. U. S., U.S.N.Y., 325 U.S. l, 65 S.Ct. 918, 9327 89 L.Ed. 1441. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 2381. A person can be convicted of treason only on the testimony of two witnesses, or confession in open court. Art. III, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Or perhaps this may be a better site:http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Treason
 
The crime of treason is not defined by the dictionary.


THe real factor for what someone feels is treason seems to be "I dont like the person." Mike Moore is gulity of not being liked by you. HANG HIM!!!!


You want to see real traitors. Theres monuments to a bunch of them down south. Im talking about Confendrate "heros". The ones who raised arms and killed 100,000's of US TROOPS. But thats ok cause people down south like them. BUT MIKEY MOORE, now theres a traitor!!!
 
Tmy said:
The crime of treason is not defined by the dictionary.


THe real factor for what someone feels is treason seems to be "I dont like the person." Mike Moore is gulity of not being liked by you. HANG HIM!!!!


You want to see real traitors. Theres monuments to a bunch of them down south. Im talking about Confendrate "heros". The ones who raised arms and killed 100,000's of US TROOPS. But thats ok cause people down south like them. BUT MIKEY MOORE, now theres a traitor!!!
Click to expand...

Um...

Thanks for the rant?? :confused:
 
Giz said:


I see where your coming from, Moore could be seen as being a propaganda threat which could demoralise our populations. How far should free speech extend in a war? I'm pretty sure it should extend at least as far as what Moore said in the linked article (which in precis just said he disagrees with the war and hopes for a change in administration [Thanks for clearing your position up MM!]).

Should Lord Haw Haw have been hung? I'm not up on the deatils of what he did (other than make scornful, demoralising radio broadcasts) but there seem to be two main actions that could be treasonous:

1) Being employed by an opposing power, with the intention of impeding your country's war effort.
2) The actual speech itself - urging people to stop fighting, accept the inevitable fascist victory etc.

Now 1) is probably not controversial, but I guess you'd be worried about Moore falling under 2). How much (and how far) would you have to go before 2) became treason? Are there any specific flags you can think of?

I sincerely hope that expressing a wish for a change of administration is OK (FYI i'd prefer Bush to Kerry) - get rid of that bit of free speech and you're no longer a democracy...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom