Yes we will see them and they are justified.
Yes we will see them but they will not be justified.
No we will not see them but they would have been justified.
No we will not see them and they would not have been justified.
If you're arguing that the President (or anyone else) has committed treason and should be put on trial for same (and I know that YOU are not), then you MUST use the term as it applies to US law. If you're not going to restrict the meaning of that term to that context, then your debate is, indeed, meaningless.
The definition of "treason" is specifed in the US Constitution.
Last edited by Goobieman; 12-23-08 at 11:08 AM.
Do you understand IF is important to what YOU want, not what YOU will get.Do you udnerstand?
The IF means that it is not a question of "should I do this" but "how would one go about doing that, were that their desire"
Hah, I'm college educated with a very high I.Q., don't think I'm the one hurting for knowledge here.It is not a complex word, and it was capitalised for a reason (because peoplefail to read here). I recomend you smarten up. Because you just got served.
You are a non American citizen who is getting upset that you can't change American law and protocol, and is not accepting that the facts don't support your wants. It's cute that you would call me the troll though, nice try.So yeah. Either a troll, or not worth talking to to due to inability to grasp basic qualifier statements. Ignored.
And I will limit it to people who understand the DEFINITION as spelled out by the U.S. Constituition.As for the treason charge I make,I will nto discuss it with people that struggle with the word "if".
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
He was dishonest with the people about important affairs of state. THis is in conflict with the good of the nation. And I dont care if he was being millicious or not, as he was lying, and it was his responsibility to ensure hat the told the truth.
If a CEO lies to his share holders, he has broken his bond to the company.
Same goes for a president and his country.
Honestly. Id ont know why I click view post for either of you. I guess itsmsotly that I feel bad for continuing a discussion, and denying the right of reply.
But honestly,I dont feel that conversation with you guys is worth while.
As for your (not goober,the other poster) colege education and a high I.Q? Guess what? Same. In international politics. Do u want a cookie? I know plenty of technicaly inteligent, but woefuly ignorant people with college degrees. The western world is full of them. Get down off that pedastal, as Im likely twice the expert you are on the things we post on in this forum, and im not sweating you or anyone about it.
In essence: If in fact that single quote that goober posted is an exaustive list of laws regarding treason in the united states federal legal system, ten such a charge could not be pursued. But as you will see clearly above, this thought was a concept of research for me. One that I acepted is open to debate, as I am unsure and want to know the verity of the situation.
Based on the presumption that this referance you cited is an exaustedlistof relevant alws in the U.S. legal system, I support campaigning for laws that change this.
I believe that when it comes to gross missconduct by a president against the people (the voting shareholders in government), that treason should be a relevant charge. I am not asking to hold your presidents accountable to me. Only to you, the American people. And I believe the crime should be the same for a civilian 2. If you lead the country into war on knowing lies, you are betraying your country. It is that simple.
The only problem with this is that I am wary of power holders laying the blame on fall guys. I believe george bush knew he was lying, and that if he did not he should have. Because his claims were without any factual merit. (certainty of wmds, links to alqueda). It was all nonsense.
And all of this presumes that there was no complicity/deliberate inaction regarding the septermber 11 attacks. IF (which I am far from presuming, but I am uncertain due to lack of relevant expertise and adequate research) George Bush (or any other American) knew of in advance, deliberately ignored in progress, planned or executed any action in support of this attack for any reason, treason would (IF it is the case) be grounds for treason, under the provision cited.
I would like to think we could all agree on that. Not that he had any involvement, or that anyone else did. But that IF it were the case, treason would be the relevant charge.
I hold no opinion on this (although I have read the project for a new American century, and do believe that they have clearly manipulating these events to achieve prestated ends), as im in no better position to judge than people who argue either way about the issue. But I figure its worth bringing up, considering how many people believe that this is what happened.
Last edited by Real Talk; 12-23-08 at 09:01 PM.
[QUOTE=LaMidRighter;1057857769]It is equally un-American to turn your back on the values that are the cornerstones of this country. Which is the rule of law. When you break it, you need to be held accountable. Especially, when your actions have the destructive results that Bush's actions have had towards this country. We are not giving up any Constitutional authority trying him for war crimes. We would be showing the world that we are not a nation of god-damn hypocrits!So it is nationalistic to uphold our constitutional sovereignity over a world body that is trying to usurp it?
So WE in the U.S.A. have to give up OUR rights to self-governance to make YOU and YOUR country feel better? Not gonna happen.
Good, because the concept of international law is a joke.
There was no treason, plain and simple.