The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

By the way, who better to understand long-term strategy than a chess grandmaster and world champion? .

So the US should have outsourced policy making to known anti-Semite Bobby Fisher? Are you really this stupid?

[Priceless]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

By the way, who better to understand long-term strategy than a chess grandmaster and world champion? Great article today by Garry Kasparov in the Wall St. Journal on how to stop Putin from annexing any more territory without using military force.

I assume you'll be giving him your entire portfolio to invest for you. I mean, he does have such a great understanding of long-term strategy....

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Something went wrong on a Malaysia Airlines flight. 2 people on there were traveling with apparently stolen European passports.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I have to agree that there's been some downright treasonous comments out of the conservative knuckledragger crowd. Its pretty sad when collectively the opposition party is cheering on Putin instead of the President. Not too surprising though. One has to wonder if the Fishies and Opies of this board feel the same way and are sporting their "Rootin' for Putin" T-shirts that they're giving away at the CPAC conference.

I agree. Although they learned that trick from Democrats. You know, the ones who defended (and are still defending) Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs and went to Hanoi to collaborate with the North Vietbamese and have been kissing Castro's a*s for the last 50 years.

It's also a neat etymological trick to define "treasonous" in a way that includes the hard righties at CPAC but presumably excludes Jane Fonda.

[Priceless]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I have to agree that there's been some downright treasonous comments out of the conservative knuckledragger crowd.

I agree.

Getting kinda chilly in Hades...

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

From the Legal Dictionary

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, julius and ethel rosenberg were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.

Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty.

The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.

As in any other criminal trial in the United States, a defendant charged with treason is presumed innocent until proved guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Treason may be proved by a voluntary confession in open court or by evidence that the defendant committed an Overt Act of treason. Each overt act must be witnessed by at least two people, or a conviction for treason will not stand. By requiring this type of direct evidence, the Constitution minimizes the danger of convicting an innocent person and forestalls the possibility of partisan witch-hunts waged by a single adversary.

Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody revolution or coup. Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of the government and its policies, constitute treason. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]). On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of leaflets protesting the draft during World War I was not constitutionally protected speech (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

Because treason involves the betrayal of allegiance to the United States, a person need not be a U.S. citizen to commit treason under the Constitution. Persons who owe temporary allegiance to the United States can commit treason. Aliens who are domiciliaries of the United States, for example, can commit traitorous acts during the period of their domicile. A subversive act does not need to occur on U.S. soil to be punishable as treason. For example, Mildred Gillars, a U.S. citizen who became known as Axis Sally, was convicted of treason for broadcasting demoralizing propaganda to Allied forces in Europe from a Nazi radio station in Germany during World War II.

Treason is punishable by death. If a death sentence is not imposed, defendants face a minimum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine (18 U.S.C.A. § 2381). A person who is convicted of treason may not hold federal office at any time thereafter.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

It's a good thing that the only political wackdoodles in America are on the right. Right?

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621#photos

[SteveP]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The Alex Jones crowd has already raised the false flag alert over the missing Malaysia Airlines flight.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...age2501893/pg1

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The Alex Jones crowd has already raised the false flag alert over the missing Malaysia Airlines flight.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...age2501893/pg1

As Grandma Pio used to say: "Even a blind hog can find an acorn every now and then."

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Listening to Cheney on FTN talking about Crimea confirms he's as big of douche/weasel as he ever was.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Listening to Cheney on FTN talking about Crimea confirms he's as big of douche/weasel as he ever was.

Has he admitted that the Iraq was was all about oil? Cause the recent release of documents and the reporting on it has all but proven it.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Has he admitted that the Iraq was was all about oil? Cause the recent release of documents and the reporting on it has all but proven it.

If only we can "prove" who was on the grassy knoll. Or who the "woman in the polka dot dress" was.

[joecct]

If only we can "prove" who was on the grassy knoll. Or who the "woman in the polka dot dress" was.

Was it J. Edgar Hoover?

[Priceless]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Was it J. Edgar Hoover?

Which one?

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I agree. Although they learned that trick from Democrats. You know, the ones who defended (and are still defending) Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs and went to Hanoi to collaborate with the North Vietbamese and have been kissing Castro's a*s for the last 50 years.

It's also a neat etymological trick to define "treasonous" in a way that includes the hard righties at CPAC but presumably excludes Jane Fonda.

Got anything that didn't happen over 50 years ago?

Anyway, back in the here and now:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...477.html?hp=r2

Odd, that 1) the public supports Obama re: Ukraine despite all the white hot rhetoric out of the right, and 2) the public actually wants him to do LESS than he's proposing!

Neocons, you will spend the rest of your days trying to live down the legacy of Iraq.