How do you define treason? Should LBJ have been tried for treason?

[Anarchist420]

If he ordered the bombing of the US Liberty then I think that he should've been.

As long as there is a single executive over the whole nation, there will be imperialism and corruption. The Executive Branch is a corrupt institution.

Bush should be tried for Treason too, if he signed off on the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

James K Polk and FDR were also imperial treasonous Executives who sacrificed American blood so that they would have an excuse to massacre non-Americans.

The most ironic thing is that the Executive, the one who is the most treasonous bastard of all, is the one who gets to execute people for being against the State, in the name of treason. Lincoln, for example, considered it treason to not obey the State, but it was in fact he who was the traitor since he waged war against the United States ("United States" meaning "we the people").

Do you think treason should be defined as going against the wishes of a tyrannical govt or should it be defined as waging war against the people?

 

[Capt Caveman]

I think you should gtfo out of this country. Fucking traitor retard.

 

[nehalem256]

How about Obama for granting work permits to illegal immigrants.

If granting work permits to illegal foreign invaders isn't giving aid and comfort to our enemies I don't know what is.

 

[allisolm]

Since LBJ didn't order the bombing of the Liberty, NO.
Since Bush didn't sign off on the 9/11 attacks, NO.
Since Lincoln didn't wage war against the US, NO.
Since Polk and FDR didn't sacrifice American blood so that they would have an excuse to massacre non-Americans, NO.

Treason has a definition and it involves neither "going against the wishes of a tyrannical govt" nor "waging war against the people."

You are basically just wrong.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Since LBJ didn't order the bombing of the Liberty, NO.
Since Bush didn't sign off on the 9/11 attacks, NO.
Since Lincoln didn't wage war against the US, NO.
Since Polk and FDR didn't sacrifice American blood so that they would have an excuse to massacre non-Americans, NO.

Treason has a definition and it involves neither "going against the wishes of a tyrannical govt" or "waging war against the people."

You are basically just wrong.

The contention of the specific claim is false, however it does raise some questions. Suppose that a President or official willingly lied to create an involvement which caused a significant loss of life (aka war)? What distinguishes treason by individuals from intentional acts which harm the nation? Does office and authority provide immunity from consequences of action in a moral sense? What about the concept of immunity of actions while in office? On one hand we need some degree of freedom for well intended action even if it goes wrong, but do we go too far by having no mechanism of accountability while in office other than removal for gross illegal acts?

Do we strike the proper balance? Do we have real accountability for those we place above us?

Somewhat tangential I know, but I wonder if the double standard for office and citizen is being appropriately applied.

Thinking out loud here.

 

[Anarchist420]

Treason has a definition and it involves neither "going against the wishes of a tyrannical govt" nor "waging war against the people."

What if a tyrannical executive has Americans killed as an excuse to start a war? That's not treason? Lincoln wasn't treasonous for waging total war against CSA civilians whom he considered still part of the Union? The constitution's definition of treason is those who wage war against the United States and/or give comfort to the enemies of the United States.

Do we strike the proper balance? Do we have real accountability for those we place above us? Somewhat tangential I know, but I wonder if the double standard for office and citizen is being appropriately applied. Thinking out loud here.

Thank you. Excellent points and that was specifically what I wanted discussed. I can't articulate as well as you can though, so that's why I was misunderstood.

 

[Farang]

What if a tyrannical executive has Americans killed as an excuse to start a war? That's not treason? Lincoln wasn't treasonous for waging total war against CSA civilians whom he considered still part of the Union? The constitution's definition of treason is those who wage war against the United States and/or give comfort to the enemies of the United States.

Thank you. Excellent points and that was specifically what I wanted discussed. I can't articulate as well as you can though, so that's why I was misunderstood.

You argument can be turned around on the Rebels to say they were treasonous is attacking the government of the United States. Lincoln's actions could be justified as police actions against treasonous citizens breaking the law

 

[Agent11]

Closest we've come to an example would be Reagan. As for the civil war the confederates were the aggressors.

 

[nextJin]

God you make dumbass threads

 

[Anarchist420]

You argument can be turned around on the Rebels to say they were treasonous is attacking the government of the United States. Lincoln's actions could be justified as police actions against treasonous citizens breaking the law

That would be true only if I believed that treason means going against the govt.

Closest we've come to an example would be Reagan.

I guess he's the only one who was caught red handed in the past 40 years.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Ronald Reagan sold weapons to our enemies. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

 

[beachchica]

If he ordered the bombing of the US Liberty then I think that he should've been.

As long as there is a single executive over the whole nation, there will be imperialism and corruption. The Executive Branch is a corrupt institution.

Bush should be tried for Treason too, if he signed off on the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

James K Polk and FDR were also imperial treasonous Executives who sacrificed American blood so that they would have an excuse to massacre non-Americans.

The most ironic thing is that the Executive, the one who is the most treasonous bastard of all, is the one who gets to execute people for being against the State, in the name of treason. Lincoln, for example, considered it treason to not obey the State, but it was in fact he who was the traitor since he waged war against the United States ("United States" meaning "we the people").

Do you think treason should be defined as going against the wishes of a tyrannical govt or should it be defined as waging war against the people?

You don't really believe that stuff do you? If so... wow.

 

[Anarchist420]

You don't really believe that stuff do you?

Yes I do.