GG Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 12 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Any sovereign nation collaborating would be committing an act of war. In this case England, Italy, France, Australia, and several others. Committing an act of war defines them as an enemy. However, enemies can be both foreign *or* domestic. Let’s take a step back. What actions would one have to take to be considered a domestic enemy? The attempted overthrow of the legitimate government wouldn’t rise to those standards? Also, it does not matter if they thought they were justified because they *really, really, really* disliked the guy who won. That’s not justification. That’s motive. In reading up the application of treason under US laws it appears that it's exclusively applied during actual wars. So to apply treason in this case, you would need to make a case that US is in a war with Australia, Italy, UK along with Russia. I don't think anybody wants to go down that road, when there are plenty of other charges that can be levied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Sedition 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 12 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Sedition This would be correct. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: So did Russia commit an act of war in 2016? You should go back to the Kiddie Table before you lose your chair hi-chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: So did Russia commit an act of war in 2016? By posting adds on Facebook? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: So did Russia commit an act of war in 2016? Getting a Facebook page about Jesus arm wrestling satan isn't an act of war. 1 hour ago, GG said: In reading up the application of treason under US laws it appears that it's exclusively applied during actual wars. So to apply treason in this case, you would need to make a case that US is in a war with Australia, Italy, UK along with Russia. I don't think anybody wants to go down that road, when there are plenty of other charges that can be levied. How about just Australia? I always hated Franz Klammer. Overrated. Edited October 31, 2019 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: How about just Australia? I always hated Franz Klammer. Overrated. Is he the one who drew the cartoon about the German kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 19 minutes ago, DC Tom said: By posting adds on Facebook? You knew they did more than that. You are such a sh it head sometimes 31 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: You should go back to the Kiddie Table before you lose your chair hi-chair. You are such a light weight POS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: You knew they did more than that. You are such a sh it head sometimes And what would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 3 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Sedition 3 hours ago, DC Tom said: This would be correct. Sort of. It seems as though "force" is an element. I looked at that yesterday when this conversation got started. Strictly speaking, not really: US Code Section 2384 is Seditious Conspiracy If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. 1 hour ago, GG said: Is he the one who drew the cartoon about the German kids? I think you're thinking of Kukla Franz and Ollie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, snafu said: Sort of. It seems as though "force" is an element. I looked at that yesterday when this conversation got started. Strictly speaking, not really: US Code Section 2384 is Seditious Conspiracy If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. It kind-of depends on whether you think "by force" applies to "to destroy" alone, or to "conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy" together. Given that the title of the code is "Seditious Conspiracy," I'd take the position that force is not a necessary element of sedition, as you can have a conspiracy without force involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 19 minutes ago, DC Tom said: And what would that be? Again? You are seriously so stupid you don't know anything else the Russians did? I've explained it to you before. Why are you even on a politics board if you have no memeory or ability to remember basic facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 7 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Again? You are seriously so stupid you don't know anything else the Russians did? I've explained it to you before. Well then you can link to it, can't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 (edited) 23 minutes ago, DC Tom said: It kind-of depends on whether you think "by force" applies to "to destroy" alone, or to "conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy" together. Given that the title of the code is "Seditious Conspiracy," I'd take the position that force is not a necessary element of sedition, as you can have a conspiracy without force involved. Well, unless I'm missing something in my 30 second google search, it looks like the "sedition" part of the 1918 Sedition Act was repealed. I can't find any other current statute that defines Sedition. That old definition certainly didn't have an element of force to it. Maybe (partly for the reason I lay out below) that's why it was repealed. And I lean the other way in my reading of the Seditious Conspiracy section. You're right that a conspiracy can exist without force, but it reads as though the plot that the co-conspirators are hatching is to overthrow by force. We can't just agree that the President has to go, and then come up with a benign plan. A vast portion of the country would literally be guilty of Sedition today. Again, I think that force needs to be an element because without it, the administration can move right on to a civil conflict predicated on people talking about how bad they want the President to go, and even #resisting. You can make a case for Antifa, perhaps, but I don't think you can for the likes of Page and Strzok. Edited October 31, 2019 by snafu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 54 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Well then you can link to it, can't you? Well yes I can, but what difference will this make with you? Have at it, it's the whole first part here that describes the sustained and intense efforts by Russia to help your boy Trump. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Tibs posts Volume I, which lays out how there's no proof of conspiracy/collusion/coordination between any American and Russia as proof of Russia's plan to help Trump. Pro tip: Read what you're posting before you post it. It helps avoid errors such as this. The truth of the 2016 election is that Russia meddled, as did a number of other countries, but to limited effect. The biggest impact on the election came from the meddling of the Obama White House and its intelligence services, working with our allies to thwart the will of the people. That's what the evidence shows, and it's incontrovertible. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 4 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Any sovereign nation collaborating would be committing an act of war. In this case England, Italy, France, Australia, and several others. Committing an act of war defines them as an enemy. However, enemies can be both foreign *or* domestic. Let’s take a step back. What actions would one have to take to be considered a domestic enemy? The attempted overthrow of the legitimate government wouldn’t rise to those standards? Also, it does not matter if they thought they were justified because they *really, really, really* disliked the guy who won. That’s not justification. That’s motive. Yes, let's back up. First off, there's a yuge difference between overthrowing a legitimate government versus attempting by fraudulent means to have a president impeached. If Trump gets impeached and Pence becomes president there is no governmental overthrow and certainly no coup. None of his fraudulent accusers have assumed power politically, militarily, or altered our system of government. Where's the treason? Act of war? England, Italy, France, Australia committed an act of war? Are you insane? Did citizens and agents within these countries play a role in this fraud? Where does this balloon into entire countries committing acts of war against us? Please realize the fact that since we are still on friendly terms with all these countries, maybe you should reconsider your take on this as being too extreme and ignorant. Our country and certainly congress do not recognize these as acts of war, even if they did it is not done by force so no treason. I am no lawyer so feel free to discuss but let's do the dime tour. Treason in the United States: SECTION 3. Clause 1. 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. Levying war against the US: The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution. Enemies: enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States Hostilities: The term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war. The laws of War: the law of war is that part of international law that regulates the resort to armed force; the conduct of hostilities and the protection of war victims in both international and non-international armed conflict; belligerent occupation; and the relationships between belligerent, neutral, and non-belligerent States. So, to answer your question, an enemy of the United States (whether foreign or domestic) is engaged or has engaged in armed force or violence against the US or its citizens, etc. And people who aid and support these enemies are also guilty of treason. Where has that happened here? There is no treason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Just now, GaryPinC said: Yes, let's back up. First off, there's a yuge difference between overthrowing a legitimate government versus attempting by fraudulent means to have a president impeached. If Trump gets impeached and Pence becomes president there is no governmental overthrow and certainly no coup. None of his fraudulent accusers have assumed power politically, militarily, or altered our system of government. Where's the treason? The entire point of the Trump/Russia disinformation campaign was to overthrow a legally elected POTUS by invalidating the election itself. The second goal, if the first were to fail, was to hobble the incoming POTUS's ability to set his own foreign policy. The first is seditious treason. The second is good old fashioned sedition. 2 minutes ago, GaryPinC said: Act of war? England, Italy, France, Australia committed an act of war? Are you insane? Did citizens and agents within these countries play a role in this fraud? Where does this balloon into entire countries committing acts of war against us? Please realize the fact that since we are still on friendly terms with all these countries, maybe you should reconsider your take on this as being too extreme and ignorant. Our country and certainly congress do not recognize these as acts of war, even if they did it is not done by force so no treason. The intelligence services of Australia, England, and Canada actively worked to subvert the otherwise legal and fair election of 2016. Why is it that the charges of Russia meddling -- which we now know were overblown by a great deal -- were considered acts of war by many in the media, and an "attack on our democracy", but several ALLIED intelligence agencies efforting to subvert our legal election does not rise to that same level? We're not at war with Russia either... yet when they are accused of doing it, it's war. When we are BETRAYED by our allies and elected officials, it's somehow less? Nope. Can't sell that dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, GaryPinC said: Yes, let's back up. First off, there's a yuge difference between overthrowing a legitimate government versus attempting by fraudulent means to have a president impeached. If Trump gets impeached and Pence becomes president there is no governmental overthrow and certainly no coup. None of his fraudulent accusers have assumed power politically, militarily, or altered our system of government. Where's the treason? Act of war? England, Italy, France, Australia committed an act of war? Are you insane? Did citizens and agents within these countries play a role in this fraud? Where does this balloon into entire countries committing acts of war against us? Please realize the fact that since we are still on friendly terms with all these countries, maybe you should reconsider your take on this as being too extreme and ignorant. Our country and certainly congress do not recognize these as acts of war, even if they did it is not done by force so no treason. I am no lawyer so feel free to discuss but let's do the dime tour. Treason in the United States: SECTION 3. Clause 1. 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. Levying war against the US: The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution. Enemies: enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States Hostilities: The term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war. The laws of War: the law of war is that part of international law that regulates the resort to armed force; the conduct of hostilities and the protection of war victims in both international and non-international armed conflict; belligerent occupation; and the relationships between belligerent, neutral, and non-belligerent States. So, to answer your question, an enemy of the United States (whether foreign or domestic) is engaged or has engaged in armed force or violence against the US or its citizens, etc. And people who aid and support these enemies are also guilty of treason. Where has that happened here? There is no treason. here in the 21st century, the definition of what constitutes war is drastically different than what it was in the 18th century with technology playing a major role in that. Edited October 31, 2019 by Foxx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: The entire point of the Trump/Russia disinformation campaign was to overthrow a legally elected POTUS by invalidating the election itself. The second goal, if the first were to fail, was to hobble the incoming POTUS's ability to set his own foreign policy. The first is seditious treason. The second is good old fashioned sedition. The intelligence services of Australia, England, and Canada actively worked to subvert the otherwise legal and fair election of 2016. Why is it that the charges of Russia meddling -- which we now know were overblown by a great deal -- were considered acts of war by many in the media, and an "attack on our democracy", but several ALLIED intelligence agencies efforting to subvert our legal election does not rise to that same level? We're not at war with Russia either... yet when they are accused of doing it, it's war. When we are BETRAYED by our allies and elected officials, it's somehow less? Nope. Can't sell that dog. Sedition can be argued. But there is no violence or weapons associated with these acts so there is no treason. US law was written this way in deference to kings and totalitarians using "treason" to persecute their "enemies". The intelligence services? No, can't sell that dog unless you can prove an organizational effort from the top down. Just because you enjoy conspiracies doesn't mean every individual act is a indicative of a systemic conspiracy. Russian meddling, absent any proof of vote corruption, was simply a political stunt and I think you know that all too well. I don't give a damn what the media tries to say, even if Russia had managed to hack our system and significantly affect the vote count I doubt we declare war on them militarily. 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: here in the 21st century, the definition of what constitutes war is drastically different than what it was in the 18th century with technology playing a major role in that. How so? I mean, the weapons have gotten more advanced and remotely controlled but it still involves forcible acts of violence against people and countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts