🚀 go-pugleaf

"MR" <mcr1010@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bt34012lva76o7217enhqh1t6rik2dks3@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:43:38 -0700, Lone Haranguer
> <linusz@direcway.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.constitutionalguardian.com/federalist_papers/fed92.htm
> >*****************************************************************
> >       What is treason?
> >
> >Treason is a crime by a person owing allegiance to the United States
> >which threatens the security of the Nation. The offense is covered under
> >Federal Statutes, Title 18, USCS, (Crimes and Criminal Procedure)
> >Section 238111 which defines treason as follows:
> >
> >Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them
> >or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the
> >United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death,
> >or shall be imprisoned for not less than five years, and fined not less
> >than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the
> >United States. (Emphasis added) The concept of 'adhering to their
> >enemies, giving them aid and comfort' was further defined by the Supreme
> >Court as: 'Strengthening or tending to strengthen the ability of the
> >enemies of the United States, or which weakens or tends to weaken the
> >power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies.'12
> >(Emphasis added)
> >*****************************************************************
> >I think Kerry's actions make a clear case for treason and there IS NO
> >STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TREASON.
> >
> >Why isn't Congress investigating him?  They hold investigations for a
> >missing paper clip but not a traitor running for president?  Write your
> >Congresscritter TODAY.  Call-Fax-e-mail too.
> >LZ
>
> Good idea LZ..........done.
> MR

I'm surprised anyone would even wonder, it seems many people in poly-ticks
get away with all sorts of crimes, even MURDER. Last I heard was that the
representatives and senators combined had been accused (some even convicted)
of 483 crimes. Remember Kennedy and his "car wash" escapade in a lake where
the passenger died? That was never prosecuted, even one of the latest, sen
in SD KILLS someone and gets a whole 100 days in jail!
If you are considering doing a crime, run for office first!

Probably because he was only one of many thousands doing the very same
thing -- there were lots of traitors about then, the rest were in
Kanada -- so I guess "the authorities" couldn't arrest all of them and
chose to do nothing at all.

John D.



Lone Haranguer <linusz@direcway.com> wrote in message news:<c1ru71$1maf9j$1@ID-192430.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> http://www.constitutionalguardian.com/federalist_papers/fed92.htm
> *****************************************************************
>        What is treason?
>
> Treason is a crime by a person owing allegiance to the United States
> which threatens the security of the Nation. The offense is covered under
> Federal Statutes, Title 18, USCS, (Crimes and Criminal Procedure)
> Section 238111 which defines treason as follows:
>
> Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them
> or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the
> United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death,
> or shall be imprisoned for not less than five years, and fined not less
> than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the
> United States. (Emphasis added) The concept of 'adhering to their
> enemies, giving them aid and comfort' was further defined by the Supreme
> Court as: 'Strengthening or tending to strengthen the ability of the
> enemies of the United States, or which weakens or tends to weaken the
> power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies.'12
> (Emphasis added)
> *****************************************************************
> I think Kerry's actions make a clear case for treason and there IS NO
> STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TREASON.
>
> Why isn't Congress investigating him?  They hold investigations for a
> missing paper clip but not a traitor running for president?  Write your
> Congresscritter TODAY.  Call-Fax-e-mail too.
> LZ

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:43:38 -0700, Lone Haranguer
<linusz@direcway.com> wrote:

>http://www.constitutionalguardian.com/federalist_papers/fed92.htm
>*****************************************************************
>       What is treason?
>
>Treason is a crime by a person owing allegiance to the United States
>which threatens the security of the Nation. The offense is covered under
>Federal Statutes, Title 18, USCS, (Crimes and Criminal Procedure)
>Section 238111 which defines treason as follows:
>
>Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them
>or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the
>United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death,
>or shall be imprisoned for not less than five years, and fined not less
>than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the
>United States. (Emphasis added) The concept of 'adhering to their
>enemies, giving them aid and comfort' was further defined by the Supreme
>Court as: 'Strengthening or tending to strengthen the ability of the
>enemies of the United States, or which weakens or tends to weaken the
>power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies.'12
>(Emphasis added)
>*****************************************************************
>I think Kerry's actions make a clear case for treason and there IS NO
>STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TREASON.
>
>Why isn't Congress investigating him?  They hold investigations for a
>missing paper clip but not a traitor running for president?  Write your
>Congresscritter TODAY.  Call-Fax-e-mail too.
>LZ

Good idea LZ..........done.
MR

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:43:38 -0700, Lone Haranguer wrote:

> The offense is covered under Federal Kerry's actions make a clear case
> for treason and there IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TREASON.

Probably for the same reason Bush hasn't been charged with sedition,
malfeasance, drug abuse and AWOL, hm?

Regards, John Kinney

John Kinney wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:43:38 -0700, Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
>
>>The offense is covered under Federal Kerry's actions make a clear case
>>for treason and there IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TREASON.
>
>
> Probably for the same reason Bush hasn't been charged with sedition,
> malfeasance, drug abuse and AWOL, hm?
>
> Regards, John Kinney
>
Just assemble your evidence and make a clear case, booby.  The evidence
against Kerry is public knowledge and well documented.  Besides treason
has no statute of limitations, your shopping list does.
LZ

You really are a full-bore blithering yahoo, aren't you?

 A vegetarian could have your brains for breakfast and remain true to
his principles.

Bob


On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:43:38 -0700, Lone Haranguer
<linusz@direcway.com> wrote:

>http://www.constitutionalguardian.com/federalist_papers/fed92.htm
>*****************************************************************
>       What is treason?
>
>Treason is a crime by a person owing allegiance to the United States
>which threatens the security of the Nation. The offense is covered under
>Federal Statutes, Title 18, USCS, (Crimes and Criminal Procedure)
>Section 238111 which defines treason as follows:
>
>Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them
>or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the
>United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death,
>or shall be imprisoned for not less than five years, and fined not less
>than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the
>United States. (Emphasis added) The concept of 'adhering to their
>enemies, giving them aid and comfort' was further defined by the Supreme
>Court as: 'Strengthening or tending to strengthen the ability of the
>enemies of the United States, or which weakens or tends to weaken the
>power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies.'12
>(Emphasis added)
>*****************************************************************
>I think Kerry's actions make a clear case for treason and there IS NO
>STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TREASON.
>
>Why isn't Congress investigating him?  They hold investigations for a
>missing paper clip but not a traitor running for president?  Write your
>Congresscritter TODAY.  Call-Fax-e-mail too.
>LZ

www.arcatapet.net/bobgiddings

Current email at:
bobgiddings0 at yahoo dot com

Bob Giddings wrote:

> You really are a full-bore blithering yahoo, aren't you?

So let's see you refute ANY portion of my charge.
>
>  A vegetarian could have your brains for breakfast and remain true to
> his principles.

And yours for lunch and dinner.
LZ
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:43:38 -0700, Lone Haranguer
> <linusz@direcway.com> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.constitutionalguardian.com/federalist_papers/fed92.htm
>>*****************************************************************
>>      What is treason?
>>
>>Treason is a crime by a person owing allegiance to the United States
>>which threatens the security of the Nation. The offense is covered under
>>Federal Statutes, Title 18, USCS, (Crimes and Criminal Procedure)
>>Section 238111 which defines treason as follows:
>>
>>Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them
>>or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the
>>United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death,
>>or shall be imprisoned for not less than five years, and fined not less
>>than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the
>>United States. (Emphasis added) The concept of 'adhering to their
>>enemies, giving them aid and comfort' was further defined by the Supreme
>>Court as: 'Strengthening or tending to strengthen the ability of the
>>enemies of the United States, or which weakens or tends to weaken the
>>power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies.'12
>>(Emphasis added)
>>*****************************************************************
>>I think Kerry's actions make a clear case for treason and there IS NO
>>STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TREASON.
>>
>>Why isn't Congress investigating him?  They hold investigations for a
>>missing paper clip but not a traitor running for president?  Write your
>>Congresscritter TODAY.  Call-Fax-e-mail too.
>>LZ
>
>
> www.arcatapet.net/bobgiddings
>
> Current email at:
> bobgiddings0 at yahoo dot com

In article <c1ru71$1maf9j$1@ID-192430.news.uni-berlin.de>,
 Lone Haranguer <linusz@direcway.com> wrote:

-----

LZ, has it occurred to you that the reason he was/has never been charged
is because, unlike you, every administration has a staff of people that
actually -understand- Constitutional Law? ie the notion that the
sections about treason have to be balanced with the section on
free-speech rights.

Obviously you have never checked (or did check and could find nothing to
support your agruement) about anyone being charged with treason for
protesting the government's action.

You see, when you first made this rather interesting claim, I starting
doing some research, and have been, off and on for weeks. You know what
I found, not much. As best as I can find not -ONE- person has been
charged and convicted, since the Alien and Sedition acts expired in the
early 1800's. BTW, all of the people convicted under those acts had
their convictions overturned, their fines returned, etc, etc.

What I found, rather suggests that this simply -doesn't- happen. In the
Draft Riots (Civil-war, New York), not one person was convicted of
treason (for this riot, or other protests). Nor one person in any war
since then, including WW-I and WW-II.

In fact (returning to the Civil war), many of the leaders of the CSA,
were returned to elected posts after the war, including many to Congress.

In fact I found examples to the contrary. Like a WW-II US Bomber crew
that refused to bomb non-military targets. They were not even charged
with failure to follow orders. Rather they were given only military
targets to bomb (until they were shot down).

Or the lone Congressman (although today she would be called
CongressWoman) that voted against declaring war (WW-II) and continued to
vote against many war measures. She also voted against entry into WW-I
(yes she was in Congress then too) and continued her pacifist stands
through Korea and Vietnam.

Now I'm tempted to let one of our less educated loose-bolts spout off
about liberal-Democrats.... except she was a memeber of the GoP and
represented that bastion of liberal thought, Montana. (Yes I actually
learned about her in Montana history class, about 40 years ago).

In fact, some of the things I did find that was interesting (and
unrelated), was the number of "Colored" units and individuals that were
charged with "failure to follow orders", in their protesting their being
assigned to non-combat units, or like unit that was reprimanded for
"failure to follow orders". They were assigned build part of the Alaska
Highway, and were told not to contact any of the local natives (for some
reason the US Army didn't want the local Indians to meet any Blacks).
Only the unit had been issued standard "US Army Winter Gear", -not-
Arctic gear (ie not much good at -40). So they traded with the locals
for better winter clothing.

But, the point is, why hasn't Kerry been charged, because it's not
consider treason. I could find not ->ONE<- person that had been
convicted of treason, for protesting a war, in the last 200 years.

--
Personal email n7bsn@amsat.org (@callsign.net's a SPAM trap)

Dee Crabtree wrote:
>
> Because a person speaks their mind, that does not make them guilty of
> treason.

It does if it gives aid and comfort to the enemy.  The enemy has said it
helped their cause immensely.  Our POWs say his speeches were used to
torture them.

  Our constitution guarantees him, you, me  the right of free
> speech.

There ARE limits to free speech.  Otherwise there would be no such thing
as treason.

  No one has to agree with what we choose to say. I spent almost 10
> yrs because I believe(d) that everyone should spend some time defending our
> constitution and its amendments and the rights quarantined therein.
>
> "giving aid and comfort ...".

Well, I spent 21 but I disagree with your interpretation of the laws on
treason.

Let's investigate whether Kerry overstepped the bounds of free speech.

I'm happy to let a jury decide.
LZ  USAF '51-'72
>
> Dee Crabtree
> USAF '67-'77
>
>

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:16:42 -0700, Lone Haranguer
<linusz@direcway.com> wrote:

>Bob Giddings wrote:
>
>> You really are a full-bore blithering yahoo, aren't you?
>
>So let's see you refute ANY portion of my charge.
>>
Words mean something.

 A good man, who did his duty in an exemplary manner during TWO tours
of duty in Viet Nam, earning a silver star, a bronze star, and 3
purple hearts, came by virtue of his experience there to believe the
policies of his government were wrong.  After leaving the Navy, rather
than merely blather on newsgroups, he joined others to testify to
Congress about his concerns.  As his medals indicate, he is a man to
approach problems straight on.  Later, in 1973, when the group Vietnam
Veterans Against the War took a more radical turn, he resigned to work
within the system.

This is not treason.  Someone who disagrees with you is not by
definition a traitor.  Have a care.  If you adulterate language into
thin slop so you can  throw it around, hoping something will stick,
what will you do when you need those words?  Having rendered "traitor"
meaningless, what word will you use when you encounter the real thing?

Linus, it was a mistake to give you another chance.  I was right about
you a year ago.  You do not post useful information.  You merely drop
little piles of excrement here and there, hoping somebody will come
along and step in them.  You bloviate.

Now you will have to excuse me.  I have to scrape this topic off the
bottom of my shoes, and go watch the California debate on TV.  I want
to see what the next President has to say.


Bob Giddings
www.arcatapet.net/bobgiddings

Current email at:
bobgiddings0 at yahoo dot com

In article <c1ru71$1maf9j$1@ID-192430.news.uni-berlin.de>, Lone Haranguer
<linusz@direcway.com> writes:

>I think Kerry's actions make a clear case for treason and there IS NO
>STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TREASON.
>
>Why isn't Congress investigating him?  They hold investigations for a
>missing paper clip but not a traitor running for president?  Write your
>Congresscritter TODAY.  Call-Fax-e-mail too.
>LZ

Jane Fonda and Bill Clinton went there before him. The left in America
celebrates such people.

Lon

"Lone Haranguer"  wrote in message ...
> *****************************************************************
> I think Kerry's actions make a clear case for treason and there IS NO
> STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TREASON.
>
> Why isn't Congress investigating him?  They hold investigations for a
> missing paper clip but not a traitor running for president?  Write your
> Congresscritter TODAY.  Call-Fax-e-mail too.
> LZ
>

Because a person speaks their mind, that does not make them guilty of
treason.   Our constitution guarantees him, you, me  the right of free
speech.  No one has to agree with what we choose to say. I spent almost 10
yrs because I believe(d) that everyone should spend some time defending our
constitution and its amendments and the rights quarantined therein.

"giving aid and comfort ...".  That is so very difficult to prove, and I
would rather have free speech, than the extensive censorship which would
result to control what people said.  If Kerry had discussed troop movement,
unit strength, methods of operation, etc. that endangered other troops, he
would clearly have been treasonous.  The fact that he disagreed with our
continued involvement does not make him treasonous.  If he had made his
opposition statements while still in uniform, he might have been tried for
conduct unbecoming an officer, or other such charges, however, he resigned,
and then publicly voiced his opinions about the conduct of the war.  Free
speech...

Don't get me wrong.  I don't agree with Kerry, and as a veteran, I was
totally disgusted that he used his  "hero" status to get in front of the
media.  I felt (still do) that he degraded the service of every man and
women who served.  His treatment of his combat awards degraded the awards of
everyone.  The stories of how he got his awards call into question whether
anyone's awards were earned or "given".  I am particularly disgusted by
that.  I believe that most vets earned their awards many times over.  (if
there are some that didn't, they are a small insignificant number).

Treasonous? No ...  Politician ... Yes!

Dee Crabtree
USAF '67-'77

"Dee Crabtree"wrote ...
that everyone should spend some time defending our
> constitution and its amendments and the rights quarantined therein.
>
"quarantined" should be guaranteed