Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/10/2002 12:52:29 PM EDT
TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance. The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist [b]only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.[/b][i] This offence is punished with [u]death[/u][/i]. By the same article of the Constitution, 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. [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54908,00.html[/url] "We have disrupted an unfolding terrorist [b]plot to attack the United States by exploding a radioactive dirty bomb,[/b]" Attorney General John Ashcroft said in a televised announcement from Moscow. Ashcroft said Jose Padilla, also known as Abdullah Al Muhajir, was in the custody of the U.S. military and [b]is being treated as an enemy combatant.[/b] He said the government's suspicions about Muhajir's plans came from "multiple, independent, corroborating sources." WHY ARE WE NOT KILLING THE TRAITOR? Geez! TheRedGoat
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 12:56:27 PM EDT
Cause we are going to TRY him first! Isn't it enough that he is not going to be going through the courts, but be court martialed? And hopefully he will squeal. It would be nice if we could confirm the Nation of Islams involvement in terrorist conspiricies now wouldn't it?
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 12:57:48 PM EDT
Patience, [b]TheRedGoat[/b], we have all the time in the world to drop the pellet on this rat! Eric The(SqueezeHim,ThenBleedHim)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:00:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Cause we are going to TRY him first! Isn't it enough that he is not going to be going through the courts, but be court martialed? And hopefully he will squeal. It would be nice if we could confirm the Nation of Islams involvement in terrorist conspiricies now wouldn't it?
View Quote
No, it is not enough that he is going to be court martialed. I want the guy in front of a firing squad. ASAP! I conceded the court martial misght be the fast track to a declaration of treason, however. TheRedGoat
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:02:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Patience, [b]TheRedGoat[/b], we have all the time in the world to drop the pellet on this rat! Eric The(SqueezeHim,ThenBleedHim)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Patience has never been my strong suit. TheRedGoat
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:02:16 PM EDT
The wheels of justice turn slowly. Of course, after he's tried and convicted, then we assemble the firing squad. TheRedGoat, since he hasn't been witnessed in the "overt act" or hasn't confessed it in open court, how do you suggest we legally execute him for treason?z
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:07:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:09:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zoom: TheRedGoat, since he hasn't been witnessed in the "overt act" or hasn't confessed it in open court, how do you suggest we legally execute him for treason?z
View Quote
From the article.... (The Acts) "Government agents have arrested a turncoat American citizen who plotted with Al Qaeda terrorists to build and explode a radioactive "dirty bomb" within the United States, officials revealed Monday." "At Abu Zubaydah's behest, Muhajir also traveled to Karachi, Pakistan, to meet with several senior Al Qaeda operatives, to discuss the plan, the official said. Muhajir also was interested in plans to bomb hotel rooms and gas stations in the United States, the official said. " (The Witnessing) "He said the government's suspicions about Muhajir's plans came from "multiple, independent, corroborating sources." "
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:09:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zoom: The wheels of justice turn slowly. Of course, after he's tried and convicted, then we assemble the firing squad. TheRedGoat, since he hasn't been witnessed in the "overt act" or hasn't confessed it in open court, how do you suggest we legally execute him for treason?z
View Quote
You don't know that zoom, though the fact is that he has yet to be charged with treason, only conspiricy to bomb, which probably falls under some of the sabotage articles of the UCMJ. The implications from the news "leaks" is that he has been under survailiance for some time, that he was followed by US agents all the way here from Pakistan, who have also recorded his movements and conversations with video tape and wire taps. Question is- does video and audio tape equal one or two live eye witnesses? SCOTUS will probably have to rule on that.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:11:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2002 2:09:59 PM EDT by ChrisLe]
Originally Posted By zoom: The wheels of justice turn slowly. Of course, after he's tried and convicted, then we assemble the firing squad. TheRedGoat, since he hasn't been witnessed in the "overt act" or hasn't confessed it in open court, how do you suggest we legally execute him for treason?z
View Quote
Let me know if they need volunteers for the firing squad....With the exception of those that lost family on 09/11, nobody has a bigger axe to gring than me...
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:15:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ChrisLe: Let me know if they need volunteers for the firing squad....
View Quote
Sign me up. I know just the gun and bullets I would use. Wouldn't cost the govt. a thing. -legrue
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:18:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: It would be nice if we could confirm the Nation of Islams involvement in terrorist conspiricies now wouldn't it?
View Quote
[devil]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:21:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By legrue:
Originally Posted By ChrisLe: Let me know if they need volunteers for the firing squad....
View Quote
Sign me up. I know just the gun and bullets I would use. Wouldn't cost the govt. a thing. -legrue
View Quote
I prefer the tried and true "Drawn and Quartered" apporach. [url]http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/189300.html[/url] TheRedGoat
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:26:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2002 1:27:20 PM EDT by legrue]
Originally Posted By TheRedGoat: I prefer the tried and true "Drawn and Quartered" apporach.
View Quote
RedGoat, Do you know what it is to be whipped around a tree? (For those who don't: The victim has a small hole cut in their abdomen and an end of intestine is removed. This is tacked to a tree. The person is then whipped so as to force them around the tree, winding their intenstines around the tree as they go.) I always thought that would be a particularly unpleasant way to go.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:28:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2002 1:28:52 PM EDT by CITADELGRAD87]
My wife and I discussed this this morning while the AG was making his statement. It occurred to both of us that what was needed was more than a press conference. How about Ashcroft reading a prepared statement about "WE caught this SOB doing yada yada..." Wrap it up with something like, Here is the individual, and here's what the United States does to traitorous terrorist scum." Boom, head shot at close range, live TV. Ashcroft himself pulls the trigger. Would it "work"? Well, it won't stop terrorism, but it will get out point across.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:32:04 PM EDT
First, lets find out what he knows, who he knows, and what they know. But before even that... find a way of doing it that doesn't take away any of his god-given rights and liberties. Maybe the guy slept with Ashcrofts wife and all this is just a weak little conspiracy. Or maybe he's a terrorist scum and deserves a slow death... I'll let the military tribunal of his enemies peers decide [crooked-ass-grin]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:33:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By legrue:
Originally Posted By TheRedGoat: I prefer the tried and true "Drawn and Quartered" apporach.
View Quote
RedGoat, Do you know what it is to be whipped around a tree? (For those who don't: The victim has a small hole cut in their abdomen and an end of intestine is removed. This is tacked to a tree. The person is then whipped so as to force them around the tree, winding their intenstines around the tree as they go.) I always thought that would be a particularly unpleasant way to go.
View Quote
Gotta love the Internet... [url]http://www.vintageviews.org/vv-tl/pages/Boyd_Parker.html[/url] You win, let's kill them indian style. TheRedGoat
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:33:39 PM EDT
Remember, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were not executed for [u]treason[/u], but for violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. Just find a law that permits capital punishment without resorting to a trial for treason under the US Constitution. You can imagine why the Founding Fathers put a strict legal definition of 'treason' in the Consitution - they were threatened with the same charges by the British Crown during the Revolution! Eric The(Historical)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:38:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TheRedGoat: WHY ARE WE NOT KILLING THE TRAITOR?
View Quote
Because: An accusation is an accusation. A conviction is a conviction. And in this country they are not the same thing.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:42:06 PM EDT
There's got to be due process. If we don't even make an effort at appearing to look like we are upholding our own Constitution than what good are it's other protections? Also, by going through due process there is the possibility that this idiot's other connections can be rolled up. So you interrogate the guy and scare him, offering him clemency for turning in his compadres (knowing that as soon as he hits prison this idiot is dead meat anyhow.) So while it would give great satisfaction to impale the guy on a dull, thick spit, it is ultimately more productive to do it legally and with due process.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:42:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2002 1:47:06 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
This seems to be the controlling case regarding treason [i]HAUPT v. U.S.[/i], 330 U.S. 631 (1947) [url]http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/631.html[/url]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:48:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2002 1:54:53 PM EDT by level3]
Originally Posted By icemanat95: There's got to be due process. If we don't even make an effort at appearing to look like we are upholding our own Constitution than what good are it's other protections? Also, by going through due process there is the possibility that this idiot's other connections can be rolled up. So you interrogate the guy and scare him, offering him clemency for turning in his compadres (knowing that as soon as he hits prison this idiot is dead meat anyhow.) So while it would give great satisfaction to impale the guy on a dull, thick spit, it is ultimately more productive to do it legally and with due process.
View Quote
And may I add -- just for the sake of argument, and not because I have judged the evidence -- that the accused in this case may actually be INNOCENT, and it is not nice to kill innocent people; and that possibility is the primary justification for due process in our country.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:49:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2002 1:49:54 PM EDT by TheRedGoat]
Originally Posted By level3:
Originally Posted By TheRedGoat: WHY ARE WE NOT KILLING THE TRAITOR?
View Quote
Because: An accusation is an accusation. A conviction is a conviction. And in this country they are not the same thing.
View Quote
Don't confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind. TheRedGoat
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:53:57 PM EDT
Don't confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind.
View Quote
[:)] That was the hardest I've laughed in a while. TheRedGoat might be stubborn, but he's honest.z
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:54:23 PM EDT
this seems to be the working definition of "two witnesses to the same overt act":
The most difficult issue in this case is whether the overt acts have been proved as the Constitution requires, and several grounds of attack on the conviction disappear if there has been compliance with the constitutional standard of proof. The Constitution requires that 'No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act ....' Art. III, 3. We considered the application of this provision to the problems of proof in the Cramer case. Defendant claims this case in two respects falls short of the requirements there laid down as to all the overt acts which comprise harboring and sheltering the saboteur: First, that there was no direct proof that the saboteur was actually in the defendant's apartment, and second, that there is no direct proof that the defendant was in the apartment at any time when the saboteur was there. Both of these we find to be without merit. The act to be proved is harboring and sheltering in the house at No. 2234 North Fremont Street. The defendant and his wife lived there in a third floor front apartment, which had but one bedroom. Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, never less than two, had the place under continuous surveillance from 10:30 a.m., June 22 to the arrest of the saboteur on June 27, and at least two testified in minute detail to each of repeated arrivals and departures of the saboteur, in some occasions accompanied by [330 U.S. 631, 637] the defendant, on others by the defendant's wife, and on some by both. He entered each night and left each day. On so e occasions he came out wearing different clothes from those he wore when he went in. When he went in at night the lights in the defendant's apartment were turned on and after a time extinguished. Two witnesses who were callers at the apartment testified that on one occasion defendant and Herbert were there together at supper time, the three Haupts being together in the kitchen, Herbert later coming into the parlor and one of the guests going into the kitchen. The defendant contends that this does not constitute the required two witnesses' direct proof that the saboteur was harbored and sheltered in the defendant's apartment. It is true that the front entrance, where all of this testimony shows the saboteur to have entered, connected with two other apartments. The occupants of each of the other apartments, two witnesses as to each, testified that the saboteur did not at any time occupy their respective apartments
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:55:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2002 1:59:26 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
continued...
It is sufficiently proved by direct testimony of two witnesses that the saboteur stayed in the house where the father lived and with the latter's knowledge. But it is said that this is not enough, that it fails because the two witnesses did not see him enter his parents' apartment therein. But the hospitality and harboring did not begin only at the apartment door. It began when he entered the building itself where he would have no business except as a guest or member of the family of one of the tenants. It is not necessary to show that he slept in the defendant's bed. Herbert was neither trespasser nor loiterer. He entered as the licensee of his father, and was under the privileges of the latter's tenancy even in parts of the building used in common with other tenants. His entrance to and sojourn in the building were made possible by the defendant, and the saboteur slept and stayed in [330 U.S. 631, 638] some part of it with the father's knowledge and by his leave. We think the proof is sufficient to comply with the constitutional requirement that two witnesses testify to the overt acts in that group which charges harboring and sheltering of the saboteur
View Quote
This suggests that standard survailance techniques suffice for treason so long as the survailance devices were constantly manned by a pair of federal agents. That does not seem to be too difficult to have been accomplished in this case.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 2:00:19 PM EDT
Top Top