From Goat Farm to Treason

[just_sad]

Is this guy mentally ill? What could have gone so horribly wrong in his life that he wants to destroy the country of his birth? I was stunned when I read that this nitwit is Jewish. It's almost beyond belief. Al Qaeda would like nothing more than to kill every Jew on the planet. This guy makes Jose Padilla seem like a model citizen.

thats what alawys happen they alawys use young guys and convince them that
this is "jehad" ..etc until they own them
i hate el qadda they are the cauze of all this 2000's wars

 

[José]

Originally posted by jillian
Allow me. One who accepts the benefits of citizenship has the obligation not to work to overthrow the government. No society is going to allow those who actively seek to destroy it to live freely inside its borders. Thus, laws against treason.
Why would you have a problem with that?

Originally posted by insein
All those that are citizens of this nation whether through choice or by birth are subject to the priveleges and the rules of the United States. He was born a citizen of the United States of America. He therefore has said oath in his birthright. He then is a traitor for siding with the enemy and deliberately attempting to kill Americans in the name of our enemies.

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.

 

[MtnBiker]

I know the legal use of the term treason refers to individuals who commit any kind of disloyal acts against his country.

This is how the constitution reads;

Article III

Section 3. 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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html#section3

 

[José]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
This is how the constitution reads;

Article III

Section 3. 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.

Thanks for the info Biker : )

This confirms what I said in my previous post: the US is an open, democratic society.

American laws are careful enough to restrict the definition of "treason" as much as possible to avoid abuses.

I guess the north korean constitution defines as a traitor any citizen who does not shout "Long live the Dear Leader" at least five times a day : )

But I still hold the opinion that you can't betray anything you haven't explicitly sworn allegiance to.

 

[Gunny]

Thanks for the info Biker : )

This confirms what I said in my previous post: the US is an open, democratic society.

American laws are careful enough to restrict the definition of "treason" as much as possible to avoid abuses.

I guess the north korean constitution defines as a traitor any citizen who does not shout "Long live the Dear Leader" at least five times a day : )

But I still hold the opinion that you can't betray anything you haven't explicitly sworn allegiance to.

Treason carries the ultimate penalty at the federal level .... death. It also has just about the strictest rules of evidence of any law. Unlike most laws it is not open to interpretation, or used to not be. There was concrete evidence of guilt, or no charge.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Thanks for the info Biker : )

This confirms what I said in my previous post: the US is an open, democratic society.

American laws are careful enough to restrict the definition of "treason" as much as possible to avoid abuses.

I guess the north korean constitution defines as a traitor any citizen who does not shout "Long live the Dear Leader" at least five times a day : )

But I still hold the opinion that you can't betray anything you haven't explicitly sworn allegiance to.

If you cheat on your girlfriend of many years, to whom you have not taken any oath of allegiance (i..e, marriage vows), have you not betrayed her?

 

[José]

Originally posted by GunnyL
Treason carries the ultimate penalty at the federal level .... death. It also has just about the strictest rules of evidence of any law. Unlike most laws it is not open to interpretation, or used to not be. There was concrete evidence of guilt, or no charge.

The american law is completely objective Gunny and I praise the US for having such strict requirement regarding a crime that carries the death penalty.

The american law is totally objetive but unfortunately we can't say the same about the act of betrayal in itself as you can see in my next post.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Abbey Normal
If you cheat on your girlfriend of many years, to whom you have not taken any oath of allegiance (i..e, marriage vows), have you not betrayed her?

Just imagine the following scenario, Abbey:

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.

This is why all developed human societies urges its citizens to formalise their implicit agreements through legal contrats etc etc...

The social contract is an implicit agreement. The members of the society agree to follow the rules of the state and respect its government.

The social contract suffers from the same problem of all implicit agreements. There’s no way of conclusevely accusing a particular individual of betraying a contract he never explicitly agreed to follow.

A thief and a revolutionary can be accused of breaking two different rules of the social contract and be jailed for it, but they can’t be accused of betraying a contract they never explicitely pledged to respect.

If my girlfriend wants to consider me a cheater beyond any reasonable doubt she must explicitly state that he wants to have a monogamous relationship with me.

If my society wants to consider me a traitor beyond any reasonable doubt it must make me explicitely pledge an alligeance to its values and government when I become an adult.

From then on, my stated allegiance to the values and government of my society will be formalised and my eventual act of treason will not be open to subjective interpretation anymore.

 

[José]

Let’s simplify the debate Abbey.

Forget my post n° 28 and pay attention to this one.

There’s no causal connection between the country an individual was born and the practice of an act of treason.

There is a causal connection between THE PROMISE to defend your country and the practice of an act of treason.

I can’t be a traitor to my country just because I hapenned to be born there and the government had an uncalled for confidence in me.

I can only be a traitor to my country if I have made a previous formal promise to defend it.

You’re saying I betrayed the confidence the country had in me, but if I didn’t take any official oath then I never gave any reason for it to have any confidence in me. I never promised anything in that regard.

What causes the treason is your previous promise to defend your country not the fortuitous fact you were born there or any misplaced, gratuitous, unsolicited confidence the country has in you.

If I’m an internationalist, an individual who rejects all forms of tribalism AND never made any kind of pledge towards any tribe, I can’t betray any country even if I conspire against the one that included me as a member when I was born.

 

[Gunny]

The american law is completely objective Gunny and I praise the US for having such strict requirement regarding a crime that carries the death penalty.

The american law is totally objetive but unfortunately we can't say the same about the act of betrayal in itself as you can see in my next post.

I refer you to post #19, above.

 

[trobinett]

Let’s simplify the debate Abbey.

Forget my post n° 28 and pay attention to this one.

There’s no causal connection between the country an individual was born and the practice of an act of treason.

There is a causal connection between THE PROMISE to defend your country and the practice of an act of treason.

I can’t be a traitor to my country just because I hapenned to be born there and the government had an uncalled for confidence in me.

I can only be a traitor to my country if I have made a previous formal promise to defend it.

You’re saying I betrayed the confidence the country had in me, but if I didn’t take any official oath then I never gave any reason for it to have any confidence in me. I never promised anything in that regard.

What causes the treason is your previous promise to defend your country not the fortuitous fact you were born there or any misplaced, gratuitous, unsolicited confidence the country has in you.

If I’m an internationalist, an individual who rejects all forms of tribalism AND never made any kind of pledge towards any tribe, I can’t betray any country even if I conspire against the one that included me as a member when I was born.

The key to this discussion, I belive, is practical application, verus empirical application.

In a "perfect" world, Jose' argument holds water, however, in the "real world", Abbey's carries the day.

 

[José]

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.

 

[trobinett]

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.

Well put, and understood.

I seriously doubt though, if you checked, that any country, and those that enforce such policy, would agree with you.

 

[nt250]

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.

What's your opinion of John Kerry's admitted acts of treason? He was a member of the United States Navy Reserves, so took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but yet he admitted he met with the enemy and he promoted their agenda upon his return to such an extent that he exploited the wives of POW's to do so.

You can't get anymore treasonous than that during wartime.

What this Muslim convert has done is a classic case of treason. Our Constitution, and our system of governement, allows dissent. If you don't like the way things are going, then our system of government allows you to work to change it within the law. Killing thousands because you don't like the government, and supporting those who do such things, is treason.

 

[José]

Originally posted by trobinett
I seriously doubt though, if you checked, that any country, and those that enforce such policy, would agree with you.

Exactly, trobinett, all governments want its citizens to behave like ants and bees.

But all revolutions, including the american revolution, begins with a group of individuals who does not recognise any kind of allegiance to the government.

If any of these revolutionaries have pledged allegiance to the country in the past they are indeed traitors but this in itself does not mean anything.

You have to see whether their cause is just or not.

A german soldier who refused to follow orders to transport jews to concentration camps was certainly a traitor to Nazi Germany and a hero for humanity at the same time.

 

[José]

Originally posted by nt250
What's your opinion of John Kerry's admitted acts of treason? He was a member of the United States Navy Reserves, so took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but yet he admitted he met with the enemy and he promoted their agenda upon his return to such an extent that he exploited the wives of POW's to do so.

You can't get anymore treasonous than that during wartime.

What this Muslim convert has done is a classic case of treason. Our Constitution, and our system of governement, allows dissent. If you don't like the way things are going, then our system of government allows you to work to change it within the law. Killing thousands because you don't like the government, and supporting those who do such things, is treason.

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.

 

[MtnBiker]

A german soldier who refused to follow orders to transport jews to concentration camps was certainly a traitor to Nazi Germany and a hero for humanity at the same time.

I hope you are not trying to make a comparison with the current case.


BTW Jose, the last case of treason in the US was in the early 1950's. The ablility of the government to prosecute crimes of treason is certainly not a means of control over the citizen.

 

[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....

 

[trobinett]

Exactly, trobinett, all governments want its citizens to behave like ants and bees.

But all revolutions, including the american revolution, begins with a group of individuals who does not recognise any kind of allegiance to the government.

If any of these revolutionaries have pledged allegiance to the country in the past they are indeed traitors but this in itself does not mean anything.

You have to see whether their cause is just or not.

A german soldier who refused to follow orders to transport jews to concentration camps was certainly a traitor to Nazi Germany and a hero for humanity at the same time.

Easy now Jose', lets don't fall back on a favorite ploy of the left, the "over statement", as in, Behave like ants, and bees.

I DO understand your point, truly.

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

I only wonder the reaction, if this same young man had another change of heart, and came back to the United States? Do you think his new adopted "freedom fighters" would be any more understanding than we are?

I don't think we would hold a baby responsible for its actions, just as we don't hold youngsters responsible for their actions, that if committed by adults, would get them jailed or worst.

But I do feel, once "of age", you are held accountable for your actions.

With that in mind, this young man should be charged with treason.

Jose' posts:

A german soldier who refused to follow orders to transport jews to concentration camps was certainly a traitor to Nazi Germany and a hero for humanity at the same time.

An excellent point Jose', but NOT Germain to this discussion.

 

[José]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
I hope you are not trying to make a comparison with the current case.

Hell no... no comparison between the nazi soldier and this particular individual ... far from it.

Originally posted by MtnBiker
BTW Jose, the last case of treason in the US was in the early 1950's. The ablility of the government to prosecute crimes of treason is certainly not a means of control over the citizen.

In the specific case of the US, Canada, european countries and some asian countries I couldn’t agree more