From Goat Farm to Treason

[José]

Originally posted by trobinett
My point, the young man KNOWINGLY committed treason, as its written in our laws, and the laws of many other nation's.

This is precisely where our views diverge, Trobinet.

This young man has commited a CRIME prescribed in the US constitution and therefore he can be jailed, but he did not commit any act of TREASON because he never officially pledged to defend the US and its constitution, as an adult.

Start calling his crime “aiding and abetting enemy combatants” instead of “treason” and we will reach perfect agreement.

 

[José]

Originally posted by CSM
I kind of like Jose's philosphy here. By extension, then if one does not declare allegiance to this country, they are therefore not subject to our laws; neither are they to benefit from government largess... no right ot vote, no free education, no police/fire protection, no driver's license, heck not even a library card. Once someone declares allegiance, then and only then should they receive the benefits of citizenship....

LOL

Sounds like a fair deal to me, CSM.

I bit too north korean for my individual taste, but still fair : )

 

[CSM]

LOL

Sounds like a fair deal to me, CSM.

I bit too north korean for my individual taste, but still fair : )

LOL...where reality meets philosophy!

 

[Hobbit]

This is the core of the disagreement here.

Definition of treason:

Treason: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.

Most people here believe an individual starts owing allegiance to his country since his birth.

I strongly disagree with this "automatic" allegiance.

I believe only ants and bees owe automatic allegiance to their colonies or hives.

The definition says 'owes,' not 'has pledged.' Many people owe things they have not promised to pay. After being granted citizenship, education, legal protections, emergency services, and a multitude of other things by the United States of America, he owes allegiance, whether he pledges it or not. If he goes through the process of gaining citizenship elsewhere and legally rescinds his U.S. citizenship, then he's held accountable to that country, not ours. However, this guy is still a U.S. citizen, and thus owes allegiance to this country.

 

[Abbey Normal]

...
You would say:

“José is a scoundrel... he dated three other girls at the same time he dated her.”

Dillo would say:

“No way, José is not a psychic to read her mind and find out that monogamy was an important value in her worldview. Besides, he already dated those three girls when he met her so he just continued his previous relationships.”

Each member of the board would have his/her own opinion about my behaviour. No way of reaching a consensus about whether I betrayed her or not.

This is the problem with implicit agreements, Abbey.

They are open to subjetive interpretation because no one has explicitly promised anything to anyone.
...

And yet, it is almost a universal experience that if your beloved sleeps with someone else, you feel, and are, betrayed to the core. Regardless of any promises or vows not spoken. Think of common law marriage, as another example. If you hold yourself out as married for x number of years, you may very well have the rights and obligations of marriage thrust upon you. Yet, no verbal vows were spoken.

And implied contracts are as valid as written in most cases. Funny how that works, isn't it? Everyday, people are obliged to others for things they've never explicitly agreed upon. Why should your country be any different?

But I will meet you half-way. Lets' say that until you are 18, you can be considered not to have agreed to anything vis a vis your country. You didn't ask to be born here, and you have not technically sworn allegiance to your country, or anything else. But once you turn 18, you are either agreeing de facto that you are an avowed American, with all the rights, privileges and obligations thereto, or you can leave and live elsewhere.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I kind of like Jose's philosphy here. By extension, then if one does not declare allegiance to this country, they are therefore not subject to our laws; neither are they to benefit from government largess... no right ot vote, no free education, no police/fire protection, no driver's license, heck not even a library card. Once someone declares allegiance, then and only then should they receive the benefits of citizenship....

Makes sense.

Plus no use of our roads, and no protesting.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Hobbit
The definition says 'owes,' not 'has pledged.' Many people owe things they have not promised to pay. After being granted citizenship, education, legal protections, emergency services, and a multitude of other things by the United States of America, he owes allegiance, whether he pledges it or not. If he goes through the process of gaining citizenship elsewhere and legally rescinds his U.S. citizenship, then he's held accountable to that country, not ours. However, this guy is still a U.S. citizen, and thus owes allegiance to this country.

Hobbit!!!
How nice it is to see you addressing one of my posts, son!

I already addressed this issue (post n° 22):
______________________________________________________________

The state bestows these benefits and privileges on the individuals when they are born. It's not an agreement between two consenting parties where the government concedes these rights on the condition that the individual remains loyal to the state.

Again, you can't betray any tribe or ideology until you grow up and take the initiative to swear allegiance to it.

Now if someday the US legislative branch creates a law establishing that all adult citizens must swear allegiance to the country before engaging in any remunerated activity or using any other kind of social benefit, it would be an entirely different story.

But then again, this would be an authoritarian law that would suit a totalitarian state like NK, not the US.
_________________________________________________________________________

The individual does not owe allegiance to the country because those state benefits were not conceded as part of an agreement between two consenting parties.

It can be argued that the individual owes a debt of gratitude to his country for these benefits but definitely not allegiance.

CSM paid attention to post n° 22 and based his post on it, you must have skipped it.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Abbey Normal
But I will meet you half-way. Lets' say that until you are 18, you can be considered not to have agreed to anything vis a vis your country. You didn't ask to be born here, and you have not technically sworn allegiance to your country, or anything else. But once you turn 18, you are either agreeing de facto that you are an avowed American, with all the rights, privileges and obligations thereto, or you can leave and live elsewhere.

Great Abbey!!! Glad to see CSM was not the only one who fully understood post 22 and others : )

Of course the individual can and should leave the country, Abbey, but as far as criminal charges are concerned, the onus belongs to the government.

If it wants to be able to charge civilians with treason, it must establish an official pledge of allegiance and make it compulsory for all young adults.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Great Abbey!!! Glad to see CMS was not the only one who fully understood post 22 and others : )

Of course the individual can and should leave the country, Abbey, but as far as criminal charges are concerned, the onus belongs to the government.

If it wants to be able to charge civilians with treason, it must establish an official pledge of allegiance and make it compulsory for all young adults.

Sorry, but when I said de facto, I meant automatic. No official pledge would be required. I would put the onus is on the 18 year old to leave if he or she doesn't want to be implicitly considered from that day forward to have sworn allegiance to the country. If he stays, then he can be charged with treason if hsi actions fall within our treason laws.

 

[Hobbit]

Hobbit!!!
How nice it is to see you addressing one of my posts, son!

I already addressed this issue (post n° 22):
______________________________________________________________

The state bestows these benefits and privileges on the individuals when they are born. It's not an agreement between two consenting parties where the government concedes these rights on the condition that the individual remains loyal to the state.

Again, you can't betray any tribe or ideology until you grow up and take the initiative to swear allegiance to it.

Now if someday the US legislative branch creates a law establishing that all adult citizens must swear allegiance to the country before engaging in any remunerated activity or using any other kind of social benefit, it would be an entirely different story.

But then again, this would be an authoritarian law that would suit a totalitarian state like NK, not the US.
_________________________________________________________________________

The individual does not owe allegiance to the country because those state benefits were not conceded as part of an agreement between two consenting parties.

It can be argued that the individual owes a debt of gratitude to his country for these benefits but definitely not allegiance.

CSM paid attention to post n° 22 and based his post on it, you must have skipped it.

A U.S. citizen is a de facto consenting party by virtue of not refusing the rights and privileges of citizenship. He owes allegience whether he wants to or not. It's like taxes. You never agreed to pay taxes, but you have to pay them anyway or go to jail. It's the same way with your loyalty. You owe allegience to this country so long as you are a legal citizen, whether you like it or not.

Once again for clarity, you do not have to pledge allegiance to owe it. You owe allegiance as soon as you become a citizen.

 

[nt250]

Nt, I won’t discuss this particular case (Kerry), but rest assure that any soldier who is not faithful to his pledge to defend his country and follow orders is definitely a traitor, end of question.

But the same thing can’t be said about a civilian who has never pledged the same thing (as an adult).

No promise to defend anything = no treason commited

It’s as simple as that, nt250.

It’s not rocket science.

That's actually not true. No soldier of the United States can simply just follow orders and escape punishment for doing so if those orders violate the rules of engagement or basic humanity. This isn't Nazi Germany, no matter how often liberals like to claim it is.

What is rocket science in this case seems to be your understanding of what the United States is, and what our basic principles are based on and still stand for. What makes America different than other countries on Earth is that we do not require loyalty oaths. We don't require that anyone show their "papers" when they travel. It's that very concept that makes this country America, and makes us different than most other countries, for most of the history of the world.

And you are using that fact to argue your point, when your very argument is what makes America America.

If it walks like a duck, and quack likes a duck, it's a duck. If you leave this country, join up with an army that is dedicated to killing our people, you are a pretty good candidate for the charge of treason. That's not rocket science.

 

[Annie]

Sounds like he's found his new "home", hopefully he'll come down with the same aliments that Bin Laden did.

Very possibly:

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/05/wheres_the_beef_mystery_grows.php

Where's the Beef? Mystery Grows Surrounding Whereabouts of Adam Gadahn
By Evan Kohlmann

This afternoon, Al-Qaida's As-Sahab Media Foundation has released the second audio recording of Usama Bin Laden in the space of only three days--this time, openly addressed "to the Islamic nation." But, perhaps what is most interesting about Bin Laden's latest set of audio recordings is not what they contain--but rather, what they inexplicably lack: the English-language subtitles and matching transcript that have, until recently, been a customary feature of professional-quality As-Sahab videos. An analysis of the history of As-Sahab recordings and their evolution over time would seem to indicate that the responsibility for creating these English-language products fell largely on the shoulders of one man alone: Adam Gadahn (a.k.a. "Azzam al-Amriki"), the California native who was recruited by Al-Qaida computer specialists living in Garden Grove in the late 1990s, and who later traveled on to Pakistan seeking to join his new hero Usama Bin Laden. Gadahn's voice and, more recently, his face have been an integral part of As-Sahab releases since their first video production in 2001, "The Destruction of the U.S.S. Cole" (a.k.a. "State of the Ummah"). He has frequently appeared as a freely identified commentator in As-Sahab videos, with clips of him speaking in English juxtaposed amid footage of Usama Bin Laden and Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri.

In January 2008, the U.S. military used a Predator drone to launch an airstrike on a house in Mir Ali, Pakistan, which was suspected to be hiding several high-ranking Al-Qaida leaders and operatives. Within days, Al-Qaida issued a series of statements and video recordings acknowledging that the airstrike had caused serious casualties, including Abu al-Laith al-Liby--a senior Al-Qaida leader considered to be the "Field Commander" in charge of foreign mujahideen military operations across large swaths of southern Afghanistan. But according to NEFA Foundation sources inside Pakistan, the legendary Abu al-Laith was not the only loss suffered in the strike at Mir Ali. These sources indicated that a host of other less-senior-but-still-significant Al-Qaida members were also inside the house at the time, including Abu al-Laith's deputy, a Somali holding Australian or U.S. nationality, two Kuwaiti jihadis, and--most interesting of all--none other than Adam Gadahn himself. Al-Qaida has never confirmed nor denied reports of Adam Gadahn's death, and that has only added to the growing mystery surrounding his whereabouts...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Heh!

Or maybe they beat him too much?

One has to really ask, though, where the self-hatred comes from. It's like he got up one morning and asked himself how he could hurt his parents the most.... and this is what he came up with.

Lots of Liberals hate themselves and their country. Almost all of them are white.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Exactly trobinett, no comprendo : )

Oaths parroted by children and teenagers mean nothing. Their recitation is compulsory in schools and public events.

Let's imagine an individual who, AFTER BECOMING AN ADULT, finally concludes he does not agree with the values on which his country was founded (Wahabism in the case of SA and secularism in the case of the US).

I urge the members of the USMB to answer this simple question:

How can anyone betray a tribe or ideology they've never pledged (as adults) to defend or support in the first place?

That is not what is required for Treason.

He did not renounce his citizenship before or during any of this activity , thus it is TREASON. If he had renounced his Citizenship before embarking on this path, one could reasonably argue he did not commit treason.

I realize that a Grand Jury could charge a ham sandwich, but the fact the Government made the charge and a CALIFORNIA Grand Jury agreed is telling.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't disagree with what you are saying in fact, but I do disagree in principle. IF screwballs like this officially and publicly renounce their US citizenship, then so be it.

IMO, if someone takes the above steps PRIOR TO any acts agains the United States, they should be treated as any other foreign criminal. To charge them with treason is just a bit absurd to me.

Now, that ISN'T saying I don't think the guy should take one right through the forehead; which, makes the foregoing argument moot. I just think the rule being applied here is a bit screwy.

I do not see where he renounced his citizenship. I agree if he did he can not actually be guilty of Treason since he is no longer a US Citizen. That though would include sending in his US passport. Did he do so?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The definition says 'owes,' not 'has pledged.' Many people owe things they have not promised to pay. After being granted citizenship, education, legal protections, emergency services, and a multitude of other things by the United States of America, he owes allegiance, whether he pledges it or not. If he goes through the process of gaining citizenship elsewhere and legally rescinds his U.S. citizenship, then he's held accountable to that country, not ours. However, this guy is still a U.S. citizen, and thus owes allegiance to this country.

Actually if he publicly renounced his citizenship before committing these acts he would be clear as well, as long as he meet the criteria of being taken seriously, like sending back his passport.

 

[José]

Originally posted by RetiredGySgt
That is not what is required for Treason.

It's not but it should be.

You cannot betray something you never explicitly promised to protect.

This is common sense, plain and simple.

 

[Annie]

Actually if he publicly renounced his citizenship before committing these acts he would be clear as well, as long as he meet the criteria of being taken seriously, like sending back his passport.

My reason for resurrecting this thread, looks like he may be dead.

 

[jillian]

My reason for resurrecting this thread, looks like he may be dead.

If it was current, then it should have had a new thread. If there was nothing to say, the thread should ahve been left dead. I'm not quite sure why there were all these resurrected threads this a.m.

 

[Annie]

If it was current, then it should have had a new thread. If there was nothing to say, the thread should ahve been left dead. I'm not quite sure why there were all these resurrected threads this a.m.

#52. Rather than go into the guy's background, seemed better to use the previous discussion.