When the U.S. president is constantly defending himself and his administration against unrelenting attacks by a political faction amount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Rivals once maintained a veneer of courtesy that allowed the president to conduct the business of the United States without being targeted for opprobrium that once was the refuge of such propagandists as Axis Sally or Tokyo Rose. Is purposefully undermining the chief executive of the United States tantamount to treason? Should those who engage in such practices be subject to arrest and trial on that charge?
sort by best latest
After reading your response I realized that when I edited I cut the specific section that restricted my question to lies and distortions, not whistle-blowing.
Thank you. I can't believe people want to throw away our freedoms because they are thin skinned and can't take hearing opposing viewpoints. "A house divided against itself cannot stand" is great rhetoric, but we're standing just fine.
DEBT is killing us faster than racists are...
As for Congress that's where we can fix things but not unless we put citizen legislators in who want to get to work and get out of Washington.We are term limits so lets start acting like it!
And if you were to tell that to Axis Sally, Tokyo Rose or any of the other 11, I think, Americans who were tried for treason after World War II, I suspect that they would take issue.
My understanding of Tokyo Rose, Axis Sally and Robert Best, who were the only ones convicted were each arrested in foreign countries at war which would fall under the adhering to their enemies clause.
No comparison, at all, can be made between the actions of Tokyo Rose, et al and all of the Americans who are being critical of Obama today. Only in such places as Cuba, No. Korea and Red China is it treasonous to be critical of a nat'l leader.
We need to keep the apples and oranges separate. When Clive is putting forth the question of arresting people and putting them on trial, we need to use the legal definition of what 'treason' is based on USCON, rather than a dictionary definition.
Agreed, Sue St. Clair - that was my point, and if it wasn't clear, my apologies!
Thank you. I appreciate your reasoned response.
I agree with everything you said except I would remove the "unfortunately"'s. I would also argue that our government is effective. It is not perfect, but nothing humans create will ever be perfect. We're doing pretty darn well.
I agree with some of your answer, but I have to say that being educated does not make any of us wiser. The educated make just as many ridiculous comments as the uneducated, they just have more schooling behind them.
Again, I only refer to cases of intentional dishonesty: unreasonably skewing facts or outright lying.
Show me some one who believes that criticizing a particular president is treason and I will show you some one who is badly in need of tutor of Civics 101.
Of course, it was a general question.
Ah yes, because GWB was such a role model, tying the United States into 2 wars under the false pretenses created by a terrorist attack. And deregulating the banks was a great move; didn't destroy the economy of crash the housing market. Yeah, great.
You're a pretender Man from Modesto. How's your Russian dating life?
Speaking as a black man, Barack Obama is U.S. blacks' worst enemy. And there are no if's, and's or but's about that. Because of his actions, millions of blacks have fallen deeper into the pit of despair that they have always occupied.
I am unaware of the White House silencing critics this way or that there is evidence of the White House routinely leaking information. Are you thinking of specific instances? I hope that you are not including the Manning case.
Jake Tapper once addressed the matter in a press briefing. Jay Carney evaded it.
I just wonder how well we could do if we all pulled together. Any idiot knows what to do.
A President is only the Commander-in-Chief of the military. He is not the Commander-in-Chief of the people. Therefore, opposite of what is the case for military personnel, we are not required to stand behind him and do whatever he tells us to do.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the concepts of freedom upon which our republic is based. As you have proved. Thanks for the excellent answer to this rather discouraging question.
2 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Show
2 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Hide