09 Sep 09
Originally posted by Seitsewhoever, 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 not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
I won't go into a mud slinging contest with you regarding my qualifications to speak about political theory and history. It is not the place nor the essence of this thread.
What I can tell you, though, is that as harsh as it may sound to your ears, the abolition of the state is a valid political ideology contained, in more or less extent, in every posture ...[text shortened]... rhaps he could shed light regarding interpretation of the 'law on the books' on this matter.
Anyone advocating the overthrow of the U.S.,discarding the constitution and replacing it w/a communist state is guilty of treason.
Notice the wording above, "or adheres to their enemies"
[from the concise oxford dictionary]
adhere v. 1. stick fast to. 2.believe in and follow the practices of. 3.represent truthfully and in detail.
09 Sep 09
2 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragon[/b]Try to process all this information with no partisan mind, please. You are making statements which are way too vague and common place, e.g. "commies bad, freedom good", etc.
[b]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 not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding a stick fast to. 2.believe in and follow the practices of. 3.represent truthfully and in detail.
That means "commies" are not your enemies, just people who think differently than you. Same way, you are not the enemy of the "commies", just a person that advocates for a different political ideology.
Moreover, if this fella would speak of "overthrowing" the U.S. government "by violent means", I would agree with you. However, he doesn't, and he is free to voice his opinion, and his opinion is valid since communism, monarchy, theocracy, anarchy, or other forms of political organization can be achieved through democratic means. Not a single bullet fired. Is he calling for abolishing the U.S. government through violent means? No, he's not. Hence, he's not committing treason.
Last but not least, pay attention to the fact that I am not defending the guy nor his ideology. I am defending his freedom to voice his political opinions within the boundaries of the law.
09 Sep 09
Originally posted by SeitsePerhaps I am not being clear.
Try to process all this information with no partisan mind, please. You are making statements which are way too vague and common place, e.g. "commies bad, freedom good", etc.
That means "commies" are not your enemies, just people who think differently than you. Same way, you are not the enemy of the "commies", just a person that advocates for a differen ...[text shortened]... nding his freedom to voice his political opinions within the boundaries of the law.[/b]
I am not saying he does not have a right to speak his views or even to have them.
I am saying,that he is the founder of the ACLU.The ACLU is attempting to destroy the CIA and defending Islamic Jihadist whose sole purpose is to murder as many Americans as possible.
I find this not only peculiar but scary.
As far as communisim, it is the enemy of the United States.Hence,the Cold War,Vietnam,Korea,the Cuban Missle Crisis,etc
Also,treasonous acts do not have to be violent.
09 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonLook, man, I don't like the ACLU either since they defend two groups I loathe, i.e. Neo-Nazis and NAMBLA paedophiles. However, they have as much right to lobby for their causes as the corporations or other interest groups do.
Perhaps I am not being clear.
I am not saying he does not have a right to speak his views or even to have them.
I am saying,that he is the founder of the ACLU.The ACLU is attempting to destroy the CIA and defending Islamic Jihadist whose sole purpose is to murder as many Americans as possible.
I find this not only peculiar but scary.
As far as ...[text shortened]... War,Vietnam,Korea,the Cuban Missle Crisis,etc
Also,treasonous acts do not have to be violent.
As for the C.I.A. issue you mention, I confess I am not aware of a plan to destroy it so I am uninformed in that sense. As for defending Jihadists... what can I tell you? They defended also Oliver North! Everybody has a right to a legal defense, even what we in the West view as monsters (and I include myself in those who loathe terrorism and terrorists, regardless of their religion).
Regarding communism, I think there is not a single piece of legislation in the U.S. that prohibits people nowadays from having (and voicing) communist ideas. If I am wrong, I will be very glad to stand corrected.
Finally, regarding the reasons behind the Cold War, Korea, etc., it's about power, not theories. If Russia had been a Monarchy by the end of WWII, Reagan's famous speech would have stated "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this crown" instead of "wall". However, that's a whole different subject, far more vast and complex than this space allows.
09 Sep 09
Originally posted by SeitseRegarding communism, I think there is not a single piece of legislation in the U.S. that prohibits people nowadays from having (and voicing) communist ideas. If I am wrong, I will be very glad to stand corrected.
Look, man, I don't like the ACLU either since they defend two groups I loathe, i.e. Neo-Nazis and NAMBLA paedophiles. However, they have as much right to lobby for their causes as the corporations or other interest groups do.
As for the C.I.A. issue you mention, I confess I am not aware of a plan to destroy it so I am uninformed in that sense. As for defen ...[text shortened]... ver, that's a whole different subject, far more vast and complex than this space allows.
Your right as far as I know. I am Not debating that.
09 Sep 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonWhy do you have the ACLU?
[b]The Justice Department is investigating a group of lawyers working for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for taking pictures of covert CIA agents at Guantanamo Bay and handing them over to known al Qaida operatives. The lawyers, representing several detainees charged with organizing the September 11, 2001, attacks, have been accused of ...[text shortened]... s or, does it undermine our safety?[/b]
http://www.pogowasright.org/?tag=john-adams-project[/b]
don't these people have better things to do instead being a bunch of a$$holes?
09 Sep 09
Originally posted by generalissimoThey are a non-profit organization!!! What do you mean "why do we have them" ? They are here because they want to be! That is a absurd question you ask in the first place!
its the type of question you answer with another (irrelevant) question.
its obvious they're just ideologues, and sometimes even immoral.