If we go to war with Syria. Is it treason?

[Two Thumbs]

treason  

noun
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
Origin:
1175–1225; Middle English tre ( i ) so ( u ) n < Anglo-French; Old French traïson < Latin tr&#257;diti&#333;n- (stem of tr&#257;diti&#333; ) a handing over, betrayal. See tradition


Synonyms
1. T reason , sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. T reason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. S edition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense. 2. See disloyalty.



We know AQ is heading/helping the rebels. AQ is a terror group and we are at war with them.

So wouldn't bombing Syria be giving aide and comfort to the enemy?

Either way it goes, either obama commits treason alone or each member of congress that votes for war, and we go, could be charged.


The enemy of my enemy is Assad, not AQ

 

[Borillar]

Not treason, just stupid.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Treason possibly without the consent of congress. It would be a tough thing to prove but we can only dream.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No one’s advocating ‘going to war’ with Syria, thus the question is moot.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The US Constitution only lists two things as treason. Congress authorizing force in Syria does not meet either of those two listed reasons.

Obama attacking with out Congressional authority does not meet either of them either.

Now if you can provide a verifiable link to arms transfers from US stocks to KNOWN AQ then you might have treason since we are technically at war with AQ.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No one’s advocating ‘going to war’ with Syria, thus the question is moot.

Obama asked for UNLIMITED power to do JUST that. Or does he need unlimited power for the supposed limited strikes he says he wants now?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Yes.

Going to war with Syria for the express purpose of giving aid and comfort to Al Qaeda is treason.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes.

Reread the Constitution. The answer is a resounding NO.

 

[Redfish]

not treason, but really really stupid-------and dangerous.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes.

Going to war with Syria for the express purpose of giving aid and comfort to Al Qaeda is treason.

That is not why we are going to attack them. We have as allies specific rebel groups none of which are AQ.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Yes.

Reread the Constitution. The answer is a resounding NO.

Don't partially quote, fuckface.

Yes.

Going to war with Syria for the express purpose of giving aid and comfort to Al Qaeda is treason.

The only debate to be had is whether or not Al Qaeda qualifies LEGALLY as an enemy of the United States, since there exists no Declaration of War against them, or any Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

The requisites to obtain a Declaration of War are well understood, as well as its implications and ramifications; but how about Letters of Marque and Reprisal (here is a bill introduced by Ron Paul)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.+3076:_blank

A BILL

To authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) That the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 upon the United States were acts of air piracy contrary to the law of nations.

(2) That the terrorist attacks were acts of war perpetrated by enemy belligerents to destroy the sovereign independence of the United States of America contrary to the law of nations.

(3) That the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks were actively aided and abetted by a conspiracy involving one Osama bin Laden and others known and unknown, either knowingly and actively affiliated with a terrorist organization known as al Qaeda or knowingly and actively conspiring with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, both of whom are dedicated to the destruction of the United States of America as a sovereign and independent nation.

(4) That the al Qaeda conspiracy is a continuing one among Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and others known and unknown with plans to commit additional acts of air piracy and other similar acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(5) That the act of war committed on September 11, 2001, by the al Qaeda conspirators, and the other acts of war planned by the al Qaeda conspirators, are contrary to the law of nations.

(6) That under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress has the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to punish, deter, and prevent the piratical aggressions and depredations and other acts of war of the al Qaeda conspirators.

SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT.

(a) The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act.

(c) No letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued by the President without requiring the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President shall determine is sufficient to ensure that the letter be executed according to the terms and conditions thereof.

The real question is why have we NOT issued such a Declaration or Letter against Al Qaeda?

Is it because such a Letter would be against the Federal Government itself, since we run Al Qaeda? That would then make it legal for US citizens to attack the federal government LOLOLOLOLOL

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes.

Reread the Constitution. The answer is a resounding NO.

Don't partially quote, fuckface.

Yes.

Going to war with Syria for the express purpose of giving aid and comfort to Al Qaeda is treason.

The only debate to be had is whether or not Al Qaeda qualifies LEGALLY as an enemy of the United States, since there exists no Declaration of War against them, or any Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

The requisites to obtain a Declaration of War are well understood, as well as its implications and ramifications; but how about Letters of Marque and Reprisal (here is a bill introduced by Ron Paul)

Bill Text - 107th Congress (2001-2002) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

A BILL

To authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) That the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 upon the United States were acts of air piracy contrary to the law of nations.

(2) That the terrorist attacks were acts of war perpetrated by enemy belligerents to destroy the sovereign independence of the United States of America contrary to the law of nations.

(3) That the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks were actively aided and abetted by a conspiracy involving one Osama bin Laden and others known and unknown, either knowingly and actively affiliated with a terrorist organization known as al Qaeda or knowingly and actively conspiring with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, both of whom are dedicated to the destruction of the United States of America as a sovereign and independent nation.

(4) That the al Qaeda conspiracy is a continuing one among Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and others known and unknown with plans to commit additional acts of air piracy and other similar acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(5) That the act of war committed on September 11, 2001, by the al Qaeda conspirators, and the other acts of war planned by the al Qaeda conspirators, are contrary to the law of nations.

(6) That under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress has the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to punish, deter, and prevent the piratical aggressions and depredations and other acts of war of the al Qaeda conspirators.

SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT.

(a) The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act.

(c) No letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued by the President without requiring the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President shall determine is sufficient to ensure that the letter be executed according to the terms and conditions thereof.

The real question is why have we NOT issued such a Declaration or Letter against Al Qaeda?

Is it because such a Letter would be against the Federal Government itself, since we run Al Qaeda? That would then make it legal for US citizens to attack the federal government LOLOLOLOLOL

I quoted what was there. You edited it. And I already covered that part. Unless you have some evidence of a link between the US and AQ you have nothing. The US officially supports a different rebel group.

 

[Two Thumbs]

No one&#8217;s advocating &#8216;going to war&#8217; with Syria, thus the question is moot.

worst lie ever told on usmb

 

[Two Thumbs]

Yes.

Reread the Constitution. The answer is a resounding NO.

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


wouldn't killing the enemy of aq be considered aide?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes.

Reread the Constitution. The answer is a resounding NO.

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


wouldn't killing the enemy of aq be considered aide?

No not when you are aligned with another group and aiding them not AQ. We killed insurrectionists in Iraq that were both opposed to Us, the new Iraqi Government and AQ. Did that make it treason?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Reread the Constitution. The answer is a resounding NO.

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


wouldn't killing the enemy of aq be considered aide?

No not when you are aligned with another group and aiding them not AQ. We killed insurrectionists in Iraq that were both opposed to Us, the new Iraqi Government and AQ. Did that make it treason?

That doesn't make sense

ok, we have rebels, aq and syria

rebels and aq are enemies of syria
aq is our enemy
if we make enemies of syria and attack
rebels and aq gain advantage

common sense says that's aide to aq, regardless of meaning to help the rebels

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


wouldn't killing the enemy of aq be considered aide?

No not when you are aligned with another group and aiding them not AQ. We killed insurrectionists in Iraq that were both opposed to Us, the new Iraqi Government and AQ. Did that make it treason?

That doesn't make sense

ok, we have rebels, aq and syria

rebels and aq are enemies of syria
aq is our enemy
if we make enemies of syria and attack
rebels and aq gain advantage

common sense says that's aide to aq, regardless of meaning to help the rebels

Makes perfect sense, we have a goal to overthrow the Government and we support the rebels. We will deal with AQ when we get that task done.

Of course knowing Obama he won't follow through.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama is not advocating going to war against anyone. The result of his insane propsals might end up with war being declared against us.

obama thinks that he can go around the world drpping bombs and nothing will happen. No one will do anyything but let him.

The first thing that will happen is the mangled bodies of dead children will be paraded for the cameras with tearful parents sayng "The Americans did this."