First American to be charged with Treason in 50 years.

[o_the russian]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-10-11T222116Z_01_N11240953_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-USA-QAEDA.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-domesticNews-2

what do ya think?

oddly he was a Jewish-Christian who grew up on a Goat Farm... guess he REALY took the Eudepean complex to new heights.

[o_frenchtoast]

*cough*Bullshit*cough*

[o_backstaber]

*cough*Bullshit*cough*

Eh? Whats that?

[o_frenchtoast]

I said *cough*Bullshit*cough*

[o_the russian]

which part of that story is exaclty bullshit?

[o_backstaber]

I said *cough*Bullshit*cough*

Anything else you may want to "add"? :|

[o_puppychow]

if you looked like this much of a turd in highschool, you would be looking for other outlets too...

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7840/turdfp6.jpg

[o_imbrifer]

Justice Department officials denied the case was timed to deflect attention from the fallout over lewd computer messages sent by a former Republican congressman to young male aides Haha. Weird how this is something that just comes to the news now even though theyve been looking for him for nearly 3 years...

Treason. How archaic. If he did a similar thing in an editorial in a town newspaper in the US, would he be charged with treason or free speech?

Why don't they just capture him and throw him in those international torture prisons like theyve done with those ~1200 others? How come they have to make a stink about it? Oh yeah, the whole republican child molestation thing..

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

I wonder how well this will be covered in the media.

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.

Sounds like there may be substantial grounds for this. One problem I can think of is the ambiguous definition of the war we're in now.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Haha. Weird how this is something that just comes to the news now even though theyve been looking for him for nearly 3 years...

Treason. How archaic.

Why don't they just capture him and throw him in those international torture prisons like theyve done with those ~1200 others? How come they have to make a stink about it? Oh yeah, the whole republican child molestation thing..
Child? How old was the subject?

[o_uber]

16 or 17.

Either way, I think the charge of treason is quite aberrant, but it will be interesting to see how it works out if the guy is ever caught.

One part of me says free speech, the other says obvious terroristic threat in time of war that should not be tolerated.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

He's probably serving OSL tea...

16 or 17 was molested? Where are you guys getting that? I can't find a single story about molestation by Foley.

Edit: Uber, could you edit your second sentence...I think I am understanding what you're saying but I'd like to be sure.

[o_uber]

Eh, you asked how old the subject was. He was 16 or 17, I forget. Never said he molested, but it was defnitely inappropiate behavior, typical of a child predator.

Edit: edited before you did. ;)

[o_iarz]

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.

just for the record (article 3, section 3)

[o_imbrifer]

Consti-what?! What the hell is that?

Oh yeah, we stopped caring about that dated piece of shiat years ago.

[o_zsilver_fox]

Mind telling me when? PATRIOT Act doesn't count, given that it actually doesn't infringe upon the rights of American citizens.

[o_shortcircuit]

Talking badly about the government is protected under the Bill of Rights, helping the enemy recruit soldiers is not. It also says he gave al Qaeda material support which if that isn't treason, I don't know what is.

[o_imbrifer]

Umm...
Executive exemption from the law? (http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3261)
Approval to violate the bill of rights? (http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8434)
Executive signing statements? (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/)

If you want more, let me know. I figured I'd start out with three, so you can actually read them and comment.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Imbrifer, rather than quote some random webpage why don't you start with just stating what you believe to be true if you intend to answer what was asked?

[o_imbrifer]

The webpages aren't random. I am stating three, easy accessable ways the administration has violated the constitution of the United States of America. Not what I 'believe', but factual ways they have violated the US constitution. Making statements backed up with evidence is seen as a much more sound way to argue than making baseless claims. Therefore I posted three things the administration has done that violate the constitution, and linked them to news articles about the event. 'The proof is in the pudding', if you will.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

You couldn't just state what you believe here?

[Circuitous]

Option 1. Infer the blatantly fucking obvious.
Option 2. Look like an idiot by asking retarded questions and trying to get an opponent to make pointless claims of opinion so you don't have to argue them.

I'll take 1.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

No Circ, it's a thread where opinions are discussed. Posting links to what other people believe IMO is just stupid. Just post what it is you believe.

[o_yomamashouse]

Circ are the Winner.

[o_nezumi]

Innoc, I think he did.

[o_fjorn]

wait, so stating your opinion by means of links to sites that support your viewpoint is wrong?

[Circuitous]

Seems to be the case!