Is President Bush a traitor?

Julius Shark

Banned
Dec 28, 2008
76
0
0
Recent discussions in other threads brought out an accusation by another poster that President Bush is a traitor.

Here is a link to the definition of a traitor.

The question is two fold:

Is President Bush a traitor? If he is, will we use the same standard to determine if President Elect Obama is a traitor?
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Yes, on this one : "1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty"

Of course, that also makes the vast majority of our gov't, be they (R) or (D), traitors.

This is super flamebait btw, good luck.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
No, I do not think GWB is a traitor, think more in terms of international war criminal.

As someone new on this forum, the international war criminal has been already well discussed before you joined.

In terms of Bush's actions, he is being judged for acts after he became President,
give Obama a break, its still 23 days before Obama makes his first official act as a President.

Being a wee bit premature are you not Julius?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Julius Shark
Recent discussions in other threads brought out an accusation by another poster that President Bush is a traitor.

Here is a link to the definition of a traitor.

The question is two fold:

Is President Bush a traitor? If he is, will we use the same standard to determine if President Elect Obama is a traitor?

add you to the Traitor list.
 

Julius Shark

Banned
Dec 28, 2008
76
0
0
Lemon law,

Are you saying a Senator cannot be a traitor? A President elect cannot be a traitor?

These are important points. Bush is not supported because he has been judged, by some on this forum, to be a traitor. If he is not a traitor, some impressionable minds on this forum are not being given full factual and accurate information.

This discussion may offer information that they did not previously possess.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: Julius Shark
Recent discussions in other threads brought out an accusation by another poster that President Bush is a traitor.

Here is a link to the definition of a traitor.

The question is two fold:

Is President Bush a traitor? If he is, will we use the same standard to determine if President Elect Obama is a traitor?

Well, here's the definition from your link

1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

And considering he betrayed America's trust countless times and has also failed to uphold the Constitution several times (which is his obligation and duty), yes, I'd say he's a traitor by your definition.

My definition of traitor is much more severe than that, and it requires a deliberate attempt to undermine your country. I don't think Bush was trying to undermine the nation, he just believed that the ends justify the means (even though he didn't get the ends he wanted).

So I don't think he's a traitor, but he is a war criminal.

Also, why are you righties so eager to judge Obama's presidency before he even takes office? Can we please at least wait until he takes office and see what he does? The Iraq War is an example of why unintelligent preemptive action is often stupid.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: Julius Shark
Recent discussions in other threads brought out an accusation by another poster that President Bush is a traitor.
Here is a link to the definition of a traitor.
The question is two fold:
Is President Bush a traitor? If he is, will we use the same standard to determine if President Elect Obama is a traitor?
Harvey has a macro that insets "TRAITOR IN CHIEF every time he types "GWB". It's just hyperbole from the left.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: Julius Shark
Recent discussions in other threads brought out an accusation by another poster that President Bush is a traitor.
Here is a link to the definition of a traitor.
The question is two fold:
Is President Bush a traitor? If he is, will we use the same standard to determine if President Elect Obama is a traitor?
Harvey has a macro that insets "TRAITOR IN CHIEF every time he types "GWB". It's just hyperbole from the left.

You didn't answer the questions.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: Julius Shark
Lemon law,

Are you saying a Senator cannot be a traitor? A President elect cannot be a traitor?

These are important points. Bush is not supported because he has been judged, by some on this forum, to be a traitor. If he is not a traitor, some impressionable minds on this forum are not being given full factual and accurate information.

This discussion may offer information that they did not previously possess.

I don't support Bush, not because he fits the loose definition of being a traitor, but because he's been dangerously incompetent. Perhaps the worst aspect of his administration has been appointing countless yes-men and ideologues to positions of considerable power and influence. Cronyism FTL. He has definitely betrayed the classical conservative at almost every step.

That said, I don't think he's a terrible person, as I truly don't believe he thinks enough ahead to see the repercussions of his decisions ahead of time. It's tragic that he's been in the spot he's been for 8 years, I watched him bumble his way here in Texas beforehand, and was rightfully fearful for the toddler's mayhem to cause us trouble on a national (and global) scale.

Finally, this issue is irrelevant to logical discussion, as it will quickly divide most people into two camps, and descend into pointless bickering.

There is little dissent from the viewpoint that Bush II's time in office has been disastrous. Thank goodness it's almost over. Perhaps Obama will be just as bad, but I seriously doubt it. One never knows though.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: Julius Shark
Recent discussions in other threads brought out an accusation by another poster that President Bush is a traitor.
Here is a link to the definition of a traitor.
The question is two fold:
Is President Bush a traitor? If he is, will we use the same standard to determine if President Elect Obama is a traitor?
Harvey has a macro that insets "TRAITOR IN CHIEF every time he types "GWB". It's just hyperbole from the left.
You didn't answer the questions.
OK, I don't think President Bush is a traitor. He may be guilty of other high crimes and/or misdemeanors, but I have seen no compelling evidence of treason. FWIW, my mind is more open with regards to such charges against Vice President Cheney (see Valery Plame).
Since he's not yet inaugurated, it's somewhat premature to discuss charges against President Obama. Once he is in office, he deserves exactly the same consideration given any other occupant of the Oval Office.
 

Julius Shark

Banned
Dec 28, 2008
76
0
0
CallMeJoe,

Just hyperbole? OK. Referring to a President as a traitor is a serious charge. Calling him a war criminal is over the top.

If we use the legal definition of traitor, linked here, the standard is much higher than the dictionary definition.

Can laymen spouting off in a forum use a lower standard?

I submit that purely gratuitous name calling would allow the use of ?traitor? when referring to a political enemy in a forum.
 

Julius Shark

Banned
Dec 28, 2008
76
0
0
?it's somewhat premature to discuss charges against President Obama?

He is not the President. I?m not to sure that it is premature to discuss traitorous acts by Senator Obama or President Elect Obama.

Some of the things Obama has said with regard to the Constitution of the United States of America may be considered traitorous. It is beyond the scope of this post to dig out linked backup for this. I encourage others to do so.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: Julius Shark
Some of the things Obama has said with regard to the Constitution of the United States of America may be considered traitorous. It is beyond the scope of this post to dig out linked backup for this. I encourage others to do so.

Nah, I think the burden is on you to make your point...

Of course the links will lead to the right wing whackaloon sites, so of course you don't want to share them...

by the way, Eeezee - eat me....

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Julius Shark
Lemon law,

Are you saying a Senator cannot be a traitor? A President elect cannot be a traitor?

These are important points. Bush is not supported because he has been judged, by some on this forum, to be a traitor. If he is not a traitor, some impressionable minds on this forum are not being given full factual and accurate information.

This discussion may offer information that they did not previously possess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I will concede the logical point, both a President elect, a senator, or any private
person could be a potential traitor. Certainly Alridge Ames, as an FBI agent, met the definition because he divulged key intelligence information to the Russians.

But if you Julius wish to imply Obama is a traitor simply because he does not meet your seal of approval, you have no seeming logical reason to support that opinion.

What prey tell has Obama done to rise to the label of a traitor? Put up or shut up.
 

Julius Shark

Banned
Dec 28, 2008
76
0
0
Logic is over rated Lemon law. Try using Wisdom to formulate your opinions and views.

Back to my question, Is President Bush a traitor?
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: Julius Shark
Just hyperbole? OK. Referring to a President as a traitor is a serious charge. Calling him a war criminal is over the top.
If we use the legal definition of traitor, linked here, the standard is much higher than the dictionary definition.
Can laymen spouting off in a forum use a lower standard?
I submit that purely gratuitous name calling would allow the use of ?traitor? when referring to a political enemy in a forum.
Traitor is over the top. "War Criminal" may have some basis in international law. I say "hyperbole" because Harvey is as irrational concerning President Bush as the Ditto-Heads on the board are concerning former President Clinton and future President Obama.

?it's somewhat premature to discuss charges against President Obama?
He is not the President. I?m not to sure that it is premature to discuss traitorous acts by Senator Obama or President Elect Obama.
He is not yet president. I am resigned to the inevitability of his inauguration.

Some of the things Obama has said with regard to the Constitution of the United States of America may be considered traitorous. It is beyond the scope of this post to dig out linked backup for this. I encourage others to do so.
It's your thread, OP. I'd love to see your evidence.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Julius Shark
Logic is over rated Lemon law. Try using Wisdom to formulate your opinions and views.

Back to my question, Is President Bush a traitor?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, I will bite Julius.

1. GWB very well may have had a hand in outing a CIA agent by the name of Valarie Plame. If so, that is a traiderous act. But proof is lacking, more likely it was an act of his underlings and GWB damn well should not have pardoned Libby.

2. GWB knowingly uttered a falsehood when he used the Uranium from Niger line in the State of the Union address. A lie the CIA had already disavowed.

Since I suspect but can not prove either of these allegations, I can not responsibly yet conclude GWB is a traitor, but as more facts come out, the proof may yet arise.
Nor are my suspicions confined to only two charges, I just don't shoot off my mouth on mere suspicion.

But the real line that now totally condemn you is your own words, " Logic is over rated Lemon law. "
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: Julius Shark
It's your thread, OP. I'd love to see your evidence.

No need. I choose the word "may" for a reason.

I'd rather let others report in with their findings.

Don't want to link to WND or some other fruitcake site, eh.... Why so cowardly?
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: Julius Shark
It's your thread, OP. I'd love to see your evidence.
No need. I choose the word "may" for a reason.
I'd rather let others report in with their findings.
Nice cop-out. I gather from your reply that we already saw the full extent of your evidence when you posted the weasel phrase "may be considered traitorous".
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: Julius Shark

Is President Bush a traitor?

I believe George W. Bush and almost his entire administration are traitors, but it's conjectural whether they could be convicted of treason in a U.S. court of law.

TREASON

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

Here's another definition:

trea·son
(tre'z?n)
n.
  1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
  2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
If you don't consider offering only a continuous string of ever changing lies as justification for taking the nation into a war that has squandered thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars in current and future debt, or illegal, unconstitutional unwarranted spying against American citizens to be a betrayal of trust or confidence, please tell us what it is. :shocked:

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution provides that each president shall recite the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Vice President also swears of affirms a similar oath. Since the day Bush and Cheney took office, they and their henchmen have waged an aggressive war against the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.

Instead of upholding and defending the Constitution, and well before the FISA law was rewritten, your Traitor In Chief and his gang were shredding the rights guaranteed to every American citizen by that document with illegal domestic spying.

AT&T Whistle-Blower's Evidence
05.17.06

Former AT&T technician Mark Klein is the key witness in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class-action lawsuit against the company, which alleges that AT&T illegally cooperated in an illegal National Security Agency domestic-surveillance program.

In this recently surfaced statement, Klein details his discovery of an alleged surveillance operation in an AT&T office in San Francisco, and offers his interpretation of company documents that he believes support his case.

In 2003 AT&T built "secret rooms" hidden deep in the bowels of its central offices in various cities, housing computer gear for a government spy operation which taps into the company's popular WorldNet service and the entire internet. These installations enable the government to look at every individual message on the internet and analyze exactly what people are doing. Documents showing the hardwire installation in San Francisco suggest that there are similar locations being installed in numerous other cities.

The physical arrangement, the timing of its construction, the government-imposed secrecy surrounding it, and other factors all strongly suggest that its origins are rooted in the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness (TIA) program which brought forth vigorous protests from defenders of constitutionally protected civil liberties last year:

"As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant." The New York Times, 9 November 2002

To mollify critics, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) spokesmen have repeatedly asserted that they are only conducting "research" using "artificial synthetic data" or information from "normal DOD intelligence channels" and hence there are "no U.S. citizen privacy implications" (Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General report on TIA, December 12, 2003). They also changed the name of the program to "Terrorism Information Awareness" to make it more politically palatable. But feeling the heat, Congress made a big show of allegedly cutting off funding for TIA in late 2003, and the political fallout resulted in Adm. Poindexter's abrupt resignation last August. However, the fine print reveals that Congress eliminated funding only for "the majority of the TIA components," allowing several "components" to continue (DOD, ibid). The essential hardware elements of a TIA-type spy program are being surreptitiously slipped into "real world" telecommunications offices.

In San Francisco the "secret room" is Room 641A at 611 Folsom Street, the site of a large SBC phone building, three floors of which are occupied by AT&T. High-speed fiber-optic circuits come in on the 8th floor and run down to the 7th floor where they connect to routers for AT&T's WorldNet service, part of the latter's vital "Common Backbone." In order to snoop on these circuits, a special cabinet was installed and cabled to the "secret room" on the 6th floor to monitor the information going through the circuits. (The location code of the cabinet is 070177.04, which denotes the 7th floor, aisle 177 and bay 04.) The "secret room" itself is roughly 24-by-48 feet, containing perhaps a dozen cabinets including such equipment as Sun servers and two Juniper routers, plus an industrial-size air conditioner.

The normal work force of unionized technicians in the office are forbidden to enter the "secret room," which has a special combination lock on the main door. The telltale sign of an illicit government spy operation is the fact that only people with security clearance from the National Security Agency can enter this room. In practice this has meant that only one management-level technician works in there. Ironically, the one who set up the room was laid off in late 2003 in one of the company's endless "downsizings," but he was quickly replaced by another.

Plans for the "secret room" were fully drawn up by December 2002, curiously only four months after Darpa started awarding contracts for TIA. One 60-page document, identified as coming from "AT&T Labs Connectivity & Net Services" and authored by the labs' consultant Mathew F. Casamassima, is titled Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco and dated 12/10/02. (See sample PDF 1-4.) This document addresses the special problem of trying to spy on fiber-optic circuits. Unlike copper wire circuits which emit electromagnetic fields that can be tapped into without disturbing the circuits, fiber-optic circuits do not "leak" their light signals. In order to monitor such communications, one has to physically cut into the fiber somehow and divert a portion of the light signal to see the information.

How is that not a violation of their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? How is that not a violation of allegiance toward one's country or the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies? Even if you don't believe that in so doing, they have committed treason, they have most definitely violated their oaths of office. :|

I further believe they are guilty of murder, torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as lesser felonies including lying to Congress and obstruction of justice.

MURDER

The Bush administration should be charged with murder under two different theories of the crime:

1. Callous, Reckless or Wanton Disregard or Depraved Indifference

Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. For example, under New York State Law:

MURDER SECOND DEGREE
(A-I Felony)
(Depraved Indifference Murder)
PENAL LAW 125.25(2)
(Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967)
(Revised December 12, 2006)
Under our law, a person is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of that person [or of a third person.

The deaths of every American in Iraq are direct, foreseeable consequences of the Bushwhackos' felonious LIES to Congress. In his published statement, George McGovern said:

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

All of those American casualties did not occur in one cataclysmic event. They happened over the years we since the Bushwhackos started their illegal war. If you question whether their actions constitute callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others, it begs the question of how many times, and over what period, can one consider excusing those ongoing, repeated acts that continue to raise the number of dead and wounded Americans on a daily basis. At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from being 4,218 cases of mere negligent homicide, which is another criminal offense? :shocked:

2. The Felony-Murder Rule

A RULE OF LAW that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.

Generally an intent to kill is not necessary for felony-murder. The rule becomes operative when there is a killing during or a death soon after the felony, and there is some causal connection between the felony and the killing.

The felony-murder rule originated in England under the COMMON LAW. Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a ROBBERY accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Today most jurisdictions have limited the rule by requiring that the felony must be a dangerous one or that the killing is foreseeable, or both. Statutes that restrict the application of the rule to dangerous felonies usually enumerate the crimes. BURGLARY, KIDNAPPING, rape, and robbery are typical felonies that invoke the rule. Under a number of statutes, the felony must be a proximate cause of the death. In other words, the killing must have been a natural and direct consequence of the felony.

Another of their crimes, lying to Congress, is a felony regardless of whether such lies are told under oath that directly supports charging them with murder under Felony Murder statutes. The Bush administration lied to Congress to pimp their war. Starting any war is obviously dangerous, and as stated, death is a foreseeable consequence of war. The deaths of every American in Iraq were direct, foreseeable consequences of the administration's felonious lies to Congress.

I hope you don't dispute that the Bushies lied to Congress. If you do, I can cite lots of them, including names and dates.

WAR CRIMES

George W. Bush, Dickwad Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and others authorized and encouraged American intelligence agencies to commit gross violations of human rights, including torture, in violation of international laws and obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which Berto the Clown Gonzales derided as "quaint."

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

The Bushwhackos have continually withheld evidence from Congress regarding Whitehouse involvement with anything and everything from Alberto Gonzales' communications to their involvement with outing covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to their direct involvement with the CIA's use of torture and the subsequent destruction of the tapes showing them in the act of committing that torture.

Originally posted by: Julius Shark

If he is, will we use the same standard to determine if President Elect Obama is a traitor?

I would hope so, but first, Obama would have to commit any of those crimes. George W. Bush and his criminal cabal already have done so, and they should be held to account for them.