Treason - can someone tell me why a charge of treason

[DURHAM D]

does not seem to be in the mix? Am I missing something ?

[NightOwwl]

1. Good question....

Isn't taking a country to war based on lies considered treasonous behavior?

I'd like to know, too.

[ramblin_dave]

2. It's been discussed

It all depends on what evidence the grand jury has...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/22/143214/56

[Junkdrawer]

3. Let's put it this way: If you were Fitz, would you let everyone know...

months in advance you were going to indict for Treason or would you float "the best I have is perjury" rumors, and then let the hammer fall in one fell swoop? :shrug:

[happyslug]

4. Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution

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.

While Bush has supported the Saudis etc, nothing he has done as been in concert with an overt enemy of the US. As to Plame, that is NOT overt action AGAINST the US. The Case law requires some sort of Military Action against the US, either invasion or Rebellion. While Bush has done things against the US, nothing he has done is Rebellion or aiding a foreign invader.

[Walt Starr]

5. I disagree and here's why

Brewster Jennings was a direct invesitgative unit in the war on terror. By outting Plame, Brewster Jennings was destroyed, opening up WMDs to terrorist organizations in general and Al Queda specifically. This act gave direct aid and comfort to the overt enemy, Al Queda.

Indictmens for treason are a possibility, but none dare call it treason, at least yet.

[happyslug]

7. During WWII The boss of the UMW called out the Miners

The US Looked into Charging him with Treason but the the Lawyers correctly pointed out that mealy doing an act the HELPS an enemy (In the Case of the UMW going on Strike) was NOT adding or abetting an enemy. The fact that what you are doing something the benefits an enemy is NOT treason if your intentions are to improve yourself NOT the enemy. Fine line but quite clear.

That is the same with Bush and Company, their Actions are NOT to benefit an enemy of the US but Themselves.

[serryjw]

8. What about 9-11

is that NOT treason?

[Walt Starr]

10. I see where you are coming from, however, we do not know

what Fitzgerald has. I agree, treason will most likely not be on the table, but again, we cannot be sure of what he has.

Remember, he did subpoena the AF1 telephone records and AF1 records all calls. Anything, and I do mean anything, could be in those recordings.

Most likely, there will be espionage, obstruction, conspiracy, and perjury charges.

[unblock]

13. think of it this way: what if al qaeda had disrupted brewster jennings?

if al qaeda had exposed brewster jennings, or otherwise shut it down, no one would have called it anything other than an act of war against the united states. they would have said it was part of a larger mission to gain wmds. they would have raised the terror alert color level.

so how can the white house do it and it NOT be treason?

[sandnsea]

6. call it treason anyway

No need to nitpick. They never do.

[TayTay]

9. I agree. It is treason.

I call it that when I discuss it with people, most especially my right wing borther and his wife. Drives them crazy. They believe only lefties can commit treason.

[Walt Starr]

11. At least use this talking point

"By outting a covert CIA agent and damagin our efforts at gathering WMD intelligence, these criminals BETRAYED THEIR COUNTRY!"

[applegrove]

12. Al Franken - implied on Dave Letterman than Rove & Libby would both have

to be executed for treason. Was funny in that sad way things are funny when they are sad.