With everyone yelling "treason", time to pay a visit to the 'ol Constitution...

[brooklynite]

Art. 3, Sec. 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.

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.

I realize some people are just venting, but for those who aren't, explain how you meet the above criteria.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Glad to see this as a post.

I've noted this in several threads. I found few willing to read it.

[Romeo.lima333]

2. i tried explaining it to several people and i got called a republican apologist

[razorman]

10. You are not an "apologist" by simply stating facts for the sake of accuracy.

I have always been uncomfortable with words like, "traitor" or "treason" being thrown around casually. This current issue, with the Republican letter to Tehran, is important. But, similar things have happened in the past, and were done by both sides. Technically, I suppose, the R's may be correct that any agreement with Iran would not be binding without congressional ratification. But, they would have been much smarter to simply make it an open letter to the American people, rather that a direct communication to the mullahs in Iran. Stupid move on their part.

[Dr. Strange]

3. What if we petition the FCC to find them guilty of treason?

[dumbcat]

14. Bravo!

[BlueCaliDem]

4. I understand that "treason" in the case of the warmongering 47 isn't the correct definition,

according to the U.S. Constitution, but since when did the Neo-Confederates posing as Republicans care about the Constitution outside the 2nd Amendment?

I, for one, am loathed to correct the use of the word since it's gaining traction among the populace, putting these Neo-Confederates on the defensive and shaming them. I'm totally fine with that.

The U.S. Constitution has a narrow definition for what is and what isn't treason, but the American people don't. What the 47 Warmongers have done might rise to the level of sedition - according to the U.S. Constitution - but the people see it as treason and they see those 47 as traitors which, I believe, they are.

[calimary]

8. THIS^^^^^

THIS:

"I, for one, am loathed to correct the use of the word since it's gaining traction among the populace, putting these Neo-Confederates on the defensive and shaming them. I'm totally fine with that."

I, too, am totally fine with that.

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. Their failure ot care is not justification for our failure to care.

Opinions, however, may vary.

[BlueCaliDem]

20. But I *do* care. Very much so. It hurts each and every time I see these Neo-Confederates

dismissing and degrading the U.S. Constitution like it's nothing to them (which, clearly, it isn't). The only way to have them understand that they've gone too far is for the American populace - the majority of the American populace - to start seeing them as traitors. Seditionists isn't a word the vast majority of Americans understand or even know.

As long as these Neo-Confederates aren't shamed and seen as pariahs in our country, they'll keep slashing at the Constitution because face it, they don't care for it. Neo-Confederates want to destroy the United States any which way they can, hence their "reluctance" to govern - which is fine by their voters who have told me as much. This isn't hyperbole. This is their strategy. After all, to them, the Constitution is not theirs. It has always belonged to "the Northern aggressors".

[Agnosticsherbet]

23. The Constitution belongs to every Citizen of this country.

Even those who are not worthy of it.

[SteveG]

5. Aren't they giving the Iranian Hard Liners

"aid and comfort" by trying to scuttle these negotiations. The hard liners are sworn enemies of the United States and absolutely do not want these negotiations to succeed. The Letter plays into their hands by claiming that anything negotiated would not survive the next election let alone a 10 year timeframe.

[Agnosticsherbet]

12. No, they are pushing to fight a war against Irainians, no matter what line they stand it.

That is not aid and comfort.

[SteveG]

13. it's helping the hard liners in their fight to stop negotiations.

Both the Republicans and the Hard liners want war.

[Agnosticsherbet]

17. They are not allied with Iranian Hardliners. Their intent is to kill the Iranian Hardliners.

Though I agree that the 47 see war as the only possible way to stop Iran from developing a Nuclear Weapon. I do not agree that Iranian Hardliners want a war. If they do want a nuclear weapon, it is to use as a form of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Iran has not started a war since the 17th century.

Everything I've read indicates the Hardliners want to expand Iranian influence, not attack the US. The Hardliners see the US as an strategic and economic threat to Iran. That doesn't mean they desire or are capable of projecting sufficient power across the Indian Ocean and the Pacific and attack the West Coast.

[BlueCaliDem]

21. Maybe not allied, no. But they both want the same thing: WAR. eom

[Agnosticsherbet]

22. As I said, I don't think the iranian hardliners want a war.

Even if they did, they are not allied in making war on the US of A. What they did does not meet the narrow definition written into the Constitution.

I have issues with some of he things the founding fathers did. Their constitutional definition of treason was written so it would not be misused.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. "Both the Republicans and the Hard liners want war."

Saddam Hussein didn't want to be overthrown and executed. What does that make anti-Iraq war protesters?

[Lurks Often]

6. You're a bad person for bringing facts and rationality into this topic!!!

[Agschmid]

7. Yup.

[HappyMe]

9. I have to admit that when I read the letter

the first thing I thought was treason. Then I read a little more. While I don't think it is technically treason, it is a pretty serious offense. I don't know that anything can be done legally - I'm no attorney. What can be done at least on our end, is continually hammer on this point. Between this and the Bibi stunt, these people can't be trusted to behave rationally at all. The ME situation is always tricky and has become even worse. For people to play stupid games with it is unbelievable.

edit to add -
This may be sedition.

[yuiyoshida]

15. I knew nothing would

become of this. I don't think there will be any discipline coming in any form, other than public shaming, and since Republicans have no shame, its no biggie to them.

[dumbcat]

16. I know it's not treason but I'll call it that anyway

Because it makes me feel good. And you can't stop me.

[pansypoo53219]

19. i use sedition.

[Jamaal510]

24. K&R