Is Our Leadership About To Commit Treason?

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by Phoenix

 

So this administration but not Congressmen pushing for the action?

That is not at all what I said or expressed, the OP has links that if read will support.

However - the administration has set the lead for destabilization publically and cannot be exonerated whatsoever even though there are many in league with its policies.

As you put it, this administration is weak, inept and has no leadership when it comes to congressional power - what universe are you from?

Given the fact that a large number of Republicans not only support attacking Assad but are concerned that Obama won't go far enough and have been blasting him for waiting this long, does that charge of treason extend to them as well or is only Obama in the crosshairs?

reply to post by jtma508


Good point! Any congressional leader who agrees on attacking Syria should be held accountable! The U.S. has been involved in way too many civil war conflicts. I personally feel the U.S. should be ashamed of themselves for how many wars and conflicts they've gotten involved in since 9/11. Just like the articles states, we will be supporting the same "terrorists" that attacked us on 9/11.

Launching cruise missiles into Syria before the United Nations has done a complete investigation is also criminal. Nothing will be settled by launching missiles except for aggravating the current situation.

reply to post by wondermost

Really? Al Qaida was behind the attacks on 9-11.

Makes sense to me. Given what has come to light in the last decade. Those 19 hijackers were Saudi, and Saudi is a staunch supporter of them as well as other arab allies.(Qatar,Kuwait) for example.

And one day they did tell us AQ was an 'Ally' in one breath and turn around 'enemy' in other breath. The asinine reasoning behind that is the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' crapola.

Believe it or not those sociopaths have quite the little 'justications' for it. That created the current situation we are talking about.

'Frenemy'.

But at the end of the day an enemy is still an enemy. Both Iran and Saudi are ENEMIES of the state. Those morons of capitol hill will justify it though. Like they always have.

reply to post by alldaylong


I'm confused, are you implying imperial Obama is king or implying treason is moot. The revolutionary war was won and a good constitution was enacted which has a specific clause that disallows the US administrations actions.

That is the discussion here - so what really is your point? please elaborate what it has to do with todays news and opinion.

You know jump ahead a few centuries to the subject at hand.

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by Phoenix

 

Who decides who our enemies are?

Are the Germans still our enemies? The Russians? The Chinese?

This is quite silly.

Defining enemies may be seen as silly at times,

The U.S. Constitution on the other hand and violations of it by those who took a solemn oath to uphold and protect it are not a silly subject at all - indeed one of the penalties for violating it is DEATH - that's about as serious as it can get - agree?

edit on 28-8-2013 by Phoenix because: sp

I think you missed the entire point.

The government is the ones that define the enemy, that can't be treasonous against themselves.

Remember those decks of cards portraying terrorists and enemies of the state? What if we had such a deck of cards that portrayed enemies of the Constitution? Would that make some think twice before mutilating it?

A Royal Flush

Originally posted by Phoenix
reply to post by alldaylong

 

I'm confused, are you implying imperial Obama is king or implying treason is moot. The revolutionary war was won and a good constitution was enacted which has a specific clause that disallows the US administrations actions.

That is the discussion here - so what really is your point? please elaborate what it has to do with todays news and opinion.

You know jump ahead a few centuries to the subject at hand.

Did do read this in the OP ? and i quote:-

This administration would still be committing treason

The word "Treason" is used is it not? So when did the US last commit "Treason"?
The answer if you need it , was 1776.

Two pages in and I'm hearing blame, blame, blame.

What I'm not hearing is much concise opinion about whether or not and why this triggers the clause in the constitution regarding treasonous acts.

I believe it does by virtue that Al Qaida is the excuse for the police state and spying on citizens activities along with militarizing civilian police.

While at the same time seeing our seemingly elected representatives right up through the presidency commit acts that are treasonous to the nation.

Question, where are all the protesters hiding, what about what's her name that stalked the former president at his ranch, where is the media outcry and night after night of TV punditry, how about the I voted for it before I was against it crowd?

Hypocrites they all are and the moniker never fit better.

When does one expect some more patriotic military leaders to say "sir, I am sorry but I cannot follow illegal orders"

reply to post by Phoenix


He got away with Libya, so why should he not get away with Syria??? Same thing right?

Oh but wait, Carney said yesterday, "It is not in US policy to do regime changes."!

The doublespeak and propaganda we are being fed in this country is at epic proportions...............

reply to post by AlienScience


Government smoverment, they do not define the constitution as much as they'd like to believe they do. There is another clause that defines the peoples right to make change when required - that time seems closer.

Originally posted by Phoenix
reply to post by AlienScience

 

Government smoverment, they do not define the constitution as much as they'd like to believe they do. There is another clause that defines the peoples right to make change when required - that time seems closer.

Elections?

That is the only power the Constitution gives citizens.

What clause were you speaking of?

Originally posted by seeker1963
Oh but wait, Carney said yesterday, "It is not in US policy to do regime changes."!

Someone was actually idiot enough to say that? OH...how fitting the name, "Carney" as we know what hucksters they can be. He meant, "We have "plausible deniability" in those cases, those many, many cases, where we've done just that...so shut up and take it like the un-elite punks you are.

reply to post by seeker1963


George Orwell's book 1984 is experiencing new sales records due to that very double speak. Having a good memory I have not had to re-read it but sure as heck seems more and more fiction is bandied about as truth as days pass.

The names congress puts on bills is continuously amusing having read Orwell's book.

Originally posted by AlienScience

Originally posted by Phoenix
reply to post by AlienScience

 

Government smoverment, they do not define the constitution as much as they'd like to believe they do. There is another clause that defines the peoples right to make change when required - that time seems closer.

Elections?

That is the only power the Constitution gives citizens.

What clause were you speaking of?

Really? is that what you think? you'd better go back and study things just a bit more. The clause cited in the OP is but one of the avenues available with an awake and mature citizenry - oh but one has to remember they quit teaching that stuff long ago - I digress

reply to post by neo96


Agreed. Everything coming from this administration and past admins. is pure hypocrisy at best! They will lie and lie and lie and use whomever whenever to get their agenda accomplished....

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by Phoenix
reply to post by alldaylong

 

I'm confused, are you implying imperial Obama is king or implying treason is moot. The revolutionary war was won and a good constitution was enacted which has a specific clause that disallows the US administrations actions.

That is the discussion here - so what really is your point? please elaborate what it has to do with todays news and opinion.

You know jump ahead a few centuries to the subject at hand.

Did do read this in the OP ? and i quote:-

This administration would still be committing treason

The word "Treason" is used is it not? So when did the US last commit "Treason"?
The answer if you need it , was 1776.

OK, then I'd have a strong case that you are derailing the thread and that asking you to post something actually pertinent is in order sans moderation of course!

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by Phoenix
reply to post by alldaylong

 

I'm confused, are you implying imperial Obama is king or implying treason is moot. The revolutionary war was won and a good constitution was enacted which has a specific clause that disallows the US administrations actions.

That is the discussion here - so what really is your point? please elaborate what it has to do with todays news and opinion.

You know jump ahead a few centuries to the subject at hand.

Did do read this in the OP ? and i quote:-

This administration would still be committing treason

The word "Treason" is used is it not? So when did the US last commit "Treason"?
The answer if you need it , was 1776.

OK, then I'd have a strong case that you are derailing the thread and that asking you to post something actually pertinent is in order sans moderation of course!

It would appear that my cognitive processes are somewhat above your own.
No matter, i did try.

My personal opinion is that we should not get involved with Syria at all. We shouldn't send them aid, we shouldn't send them weapons, we shouldn't have any involvement whatsoever.

What we should do is get Saudi Arabia to get involved. Why aren't they involved with their neighbors? If they are supposedly one of the "Pillars of Islam" they should be the ones who deal with disorder in the middle east.

Just my opinion.

And I have a hard time arguing against that if we help the syrian rebels it would be helping out Al Qaeda, and therefore a treasonous act on the part of our government. Because according to the US Constitution it would be treason.

It seems like a no brainer that giving aid or comfort to the enemy,in any way, is definitely treason.
it also seems that our leaders and elected representatives have without a doubt committed treason by providing aid and comfort to our enemies who are fighting in Syria against the government there.

As I have covered before we were on the same side as Iran in Afgansitan, the same side as Hezbollah in Bosnia, the same side as Maos communist in the Pacific etc. So no it is not treason to have a common enemy with an enemy. It happens all the time.

Of course the question of what helps Al Quaida and what does not is not simple. In Syria you have the rebels fighting for their freedom. When they win, and they will win. They will look back who helped them and who did nothing. A West that did nothing with radical groups who did is going to make people real receptive to the radicals. So the West will act. It really has no choice. Just as it acted did in Libya and Bosnia the idea of state owing its existance to radicals is simply not acceptable. One of the keys to make sure the rebels have the arms and the organization to deal with radicals after the civil war. A Syria run by Assad is no longer a reality, the best he can hope for is small area protected by Iran, Hezbollah and Lebanese militias and that would be one terrorist filled little state.