• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

Deuce said:
:roll: Want to take an absolutist definition of "aid," do you? Have fun with that.
Click to expand...

Did you read the Constitution? Want to remain ignorant? Have fun with that.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
If the words were, Hanoi Janes liver would have been pickled a long time ago. Here's one of the things that American scum said, "I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to communism".
Click to expand...

The Libbos are cool with that, because they're all commie sympathizers.
 
apdst said:
Did you read the Constitution? Want to remain ignorant? Have fun with that.
Click to expand...

If you think there's a singular interpretation of that, I don't know what to tell you.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Are you on another self-promotion jag, you constitutional scholar, you?
Click to expand...

No, just pointing out that the Constitution directly addresses and defines treason.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Are you on another self-promotion jag, you constitutional scholar, you?
Click to expand...

Do you have a hard time understanding documents that are very clear in meaning? Or do words mean nothing to you, like an -ist?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Well, if it doesn't sting at all, and your hastily beaten retreat when you found out how totally wrong [ not to mention in what a pitiful state one's internet research skills must be ]... and which, I can pretty much assure you brought a chuckle to many...how utterly wrong you were when two of us found different pictures depicting exactly what you cast doubt upon as to their being any actual photos in existence...

But I guess what is worth bringing up again, besides rubbing it in a bit...would be to get from you certain acquiescence that Hanoi Jane is just what you said she would be if she were, indeed, to be caught in such acts, those of being unabashedly "anti-American" as you put it [ see in red where I bolded, above ].
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you're going on about this for. A certain photo was said to exist, which for me would establish a certain claim about her behavior (being anti-American instead of being just anti-war). I couldn't find it, so somebody kindly provided that photograph with very little attitude. Once that photograph was provided I really didn't have much interest in defending Jane Fonda anymore so I...left. All very civil, if you ask me.

But then you came in, beating your chest and swinging your dick all over the place, knocking over shelves and furniture in proof of...I'm not sure what, actually. Based on your post I'm going to guess that you never cede any ground...ever...and that doing so constitutes some grave weakness in your mind. That's unfortunate if true.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm not really sure what you're going on about this for. A certain photo was said to exist, which for me would establish a certain claim about her behavior (being anti-American instead of being just anti-war). I couldn't find it, so somebody kindly provided that photograph with very little attitude. Once that photograph was provided I really didn't have much interest in defending Jane Fonda anymore so I...left. All very civil, if you ask me.

But then you came in, beating your chest and swinging your dick all over the place, knocking over shelves and furniture in proof of...I'm not sure what, actually. Based on your post I'm going to guess that you never cede any ground...ever...and that doing so constitutes some grave weakness in your mind. That's unfortunate if true.
Click to expand...
wwww_hhhhh....www_hhhhh...ww_hhhhhhhhhhhhh

Translation of all the whimpering, crying, hand wringing and bleating...? = Yes, Jane Fonda was a Anti American anti-war traitor to our country.

Thanks.

The only time I cede ground is when I am wrong...and if you say that is never, ever, ...well, who am I to disagree with just such a wonderful postulate, eh?
 
Deuce said:
Posing for a picture is worthy of death now?
Click to expand...

Oh, please, like that innocent description captures what actually happened. What she did was treasonous.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
The only time I cede ground is when I am wrong...and if you say that is never, ever, ...well, who am I to disagree with just such a wonderful postulate, eh?
Click to expand...

And has that to date been never?
 
Harshaw said:
Oh, please, like that innocent description captures what actually happened. What she did was treasonous.
Click to expand...

Is there precedent for posing with enemy combatants being categorized as treason? So if, today, an American civilian traveled to Pakistan, posed with one arm around a member of Al Qaeda and with his other hand gave a thumbs up sign while grinning, but didn't take part in any military action or transfer military secrets helping Al Qaeda, would that legally be defined as treason?

It's the precedent question I'm particularly interested in, though.

I know if somebody is able to successfully answer that in the affirmative that Gaugingreate will probably do a five hour end zone dance, but well those are just the chances one takes.
 
Cardinal said:
Is there precedent for posing with enemy combatants being categorized as treason?
Click to expand...

When it's for propaganda meant to aid the enemy's cause, it's treason:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Click to expand...

"Precedent" has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't with any other crime. If you fulfill the elements, you're guilty of it.
 
Harshaw said:
When it's for propaganda meant to aid the enemy's cause, it's treason:



"Precedent" has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't with any other crime. If you fulfill the elements, you're guilty of it.
Click to expand...

Precedent is crucial because "aid and comfort" are vague terms. What is "cruel and unusual"? As vague as "aid and comfort" are, you could argue that libertarians and conservatives arguing for the secession of Texas weakens us as a union and therefore gives Al Qaeda strength (and therefore aid and comfort) over us.
 
Cardinal said:
Precedent is crucial because "aid and comfort" are vague terms.
Click to expand...

Not really. And you do not look to "precedent" to reach a verdict in a criminal trial. The jury decides of the actions fulfill the elements or not.


What is "cruel and unusual"?
Click to expand...

Categorically different. Parsing a law against a prohibition of the Constitution is not at all the same thing as proving the elements of a crime. You get there in different ways for different reasons. Criminal trials are not Constitutional inquiries; they do not consider esoteric questions like that.


As vague as "aid and comfort" are, you could argue that libertarians and conservatives arguing for the secession of Texas weakens us as a union and therefore gives Al Qaeda strength over us.
Click to expand...

No, not even close. Talk of secession has not one thing to do with al Qaeda. Though you could argue for incitement of rebellion or insurrection.
 
Harshaw said:
Not really. And you do not look to "precedent" to reach a verdict in a criminal trial. The jury decides of the actions fulfill the elements or not.




Categorically different. Parsing a law against a prohibition of the Constitution is not at all the same thing as proving the elements of a crime. You get there in different ways for different reasons. Criminal trials are not Constitutional inquiries; they do not consider esoteric questions like that.




No, not even close. Talk of secession has not one thing to do with al Qaeda. Though you could argue for incitement of rebellion or insurrection.
Click to expand...


According to your interpretation. According to mine I could say that the support of the division of the United States gives aid and comfort to Al Qaeda's goals. Nothing you've said addresses the vagueness of the term, which was my point. It means whatever the beholder reads into it, which is exactly why precedent is so important.
 
Cardinal said:
According to your interpretation. According to mine I could say that the support of the division of the United States gives and comfort to Al Qaeda's goals.
Click to expand...

Treason is an intentional crime. You'd have to prove intent to aid Al Qaeda, and you're not going to get there.


Nothing you've said addresses the vagueness of the term, which was my point. It means whatever the beholder sees into it.
Click to expand...

What's vague about "aid"? It means, help, assistance, cooperation. And the "beholder" is the jury who decides whether or not the action fulfills the element; I already said this.

By your argument, you'd need "precedent" for whether or not someone committed murder if they did it by remote-control robot. But in reality, no, you don't.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
She sat in a seat. Oh my god! And someone snapped a photo! Thats not treason. You would have to prove that she knew that those images were gonna be used as propaganda. And if that i dont even know if that would be considered treason.
Literally have no case or proof that she was "aiding and comforting the enemy".
Click to expand...

You must be smarter than that post, which indicates that you are just blowing smoke to defend the indenfesible. HJ travelled to Vietnam in violation of a federal law prohibiting said travel. Posed for at least one photo intended use as propaganda by the VC. There are/were a number of other incidents during her stay. To say that there is no proof is denial.

There were a lot of anti war protesters, and for the most part I support most of them in their right to protest. Those that vioated the law and aided the enemy not so much.
 
Kobie said:
I find that funny when "independents" will discredit a source from a liberal while ignoring a blatantly right-wing partisan source.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should rise above this habit, unless you feel its more amusing when you do it.
 
Deuce said:
If you think there's a singular interpretation of that, I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

Do you really want leftists, who can never seem to focus properly, re-interpreting the Constitution??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom