Treaty Too Quiet

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


67SS
Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:21 pm

Re: Treaty Too Quiet

#31

Post by 67SS »

Andrew wrote: So, when was the trial? There must be due process. Even if all of your assertions are true, there must be a trial, even in absentia, with sworn witnesses, before Congress. The Executive branch cannot assume the powers specifically granted to the Congress and attaint a citizen of these U.S. as a traitor.

same trial as the gitmo's detainees got?

I raised 5 kinds of sand, when the patriot act was enacted, I equaled that same effort when bush started sending people to gitmo, and other nations for information gathering( wink, wink) wheres the due process? wheres habeas corpus, wheres the equal protection under the law....

were you shouting just as loud then? or were you one of the sheepel that said.. Oh we need this.(patriot act) did you agree with the invasion of Iraq? I did not... I did agree with the invasion of Afghanistan...

whats clear to me is we have very different opinions of what treason is and what to do about it...and how its defined in the Constitution...and what the war powers act and congressional approval can do. what the CIA can do with no authentication or with presidential condonement...


you want due process.. end the patriot act...

67SS
Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:21 pm

Re: Treaty Too Quiet

#32

Post by 67SS »

Slowplay wrote:
They are not correct. The actions listed out by 67SS are flawed. The Constitution states: "...,or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." These are not two unlinked acts, as stated by 67SS. They are connected. Mens rea and actus reus, if you will. You could give aid and comfort to enemies under duress or unknowingly. Giving aid and comfort would not consist of treason unless you did so "in adhering to" the enemies of the United States (need the intent).
OK read it your self... from legal dictionary.... each act is separate ...
The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.

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.

The English common law required defendants to forfeit all of their property, real and personal, upon conviction for treason. In some cases, the British Crown confiscated the property of immediate family members as well. The common law also precluded convicted traitors from bequeathing their property through a will. Relatives were presumed to be tainted by the blood of the traitor and were not permitted to inherit from him. Article III of the U.S. Constitution outlaws such "corruption of the blood" and limits the penalty of Forfeiture to "the life of the person attainted." Under this provision relatives cannot be made to forfeit their property or inheritance for crimes committed by traitorous family members.

Further readings
Carlton, Eric. 1998. Treason: Meanings and Motives. Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate.

Holzer, Henry Mark. 2002. "Why Not Call It Treason? From Korea to Afghanistan." Southern University Law Review 29 (spring).

Kmiec, Douglas W. 2002. "Try Lindh for Treason." National Review (January 21).

Spectar, J.M. 2003. "To Ban or Not to Ban an American Taliban? Revocation of Citizenship and Statelessness in a Statecentric System." California Western Law Review 39 (spring).
and now adhering
ADHERING. Cleaving to, or joining; as, adhering to the enemies of the United States. The constitution of the United States, art. 3, s 3, defines treason 2. The constitution of the United States, art. 3, s 3, defines treason against the United States, to consist only in levying war against them or in against the United States, to consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. 3. The fact that a citizen is cruising in an enemy's ship. The fact that a citizen is cruising in an enemy's ship, with adesign to capture or destroy American ships, would be an adhering to the design to capture or destroy American ships, would be an adhering to the enemies of the United States. 4 State Tr. 328 ; Salk. 634; 2 Gilb. Ev. by enemies of the United States. 4 State Tr. 328 ; Salk. 634; 2 Gilb. Ev. byLofft, 798.Lofft, 798. 4. If war be actually levied, that is, a body of men be actually 4. If war be actually levied, that is, a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable enterprise,assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable enterprise,all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy are to be scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy are to be considered as traitors. 4 Cranch. 126.considered as traitors. 4 Cranch. 126.
these are not my opinions but legally defined by the legal dictionary... argue with them.

Andrew

Re: Treaty Too Quiet

#33

Post by Andrew »

67SS wrote:
Andrew wrote: So, when was the trial? There must be due process. Even if all of your assertions are true, there must be a trial, even in absentia, with sworn witnesses, before Congress. The Executive branch cannot assume the powers specifically granted to the Congress and attaint a citizen of these U.S. as a traitor.

same trial as the gitmo's detainees got?

I raised 5 kinds of sand, when the patriot act was enacted, I equaled that same effort when bush started sending people to gitmo, and other nations for information gathering( wink, wink) wheres the due process? wheres habeas corpus, wheres the equal protection under the law....

were you shouting just as loud then? or were you one of the sheepel that said.. Oh we need this.(patriot act) did you agree with the invasion of Iraq? I did not... I did agree with the invasion of Afghanistan...

whats clear to me is we have very different opinions of what treason is and what to do about it...and how its defined in the Constitution...and what the war powers act and congressional approval can do. what the CIA can do with no authentication or with presidential condonement...


you want due process.. end the patriot act...
Sir, I've always answered you respectfully, why do you resort to name calling when answering a question? There is a world of difference between detaining enemy combatants and attainting as traitorous a U.S. citizen and then executing them, why are conflating the two?
I believe that U.S. forces have captured 99 U.S. citizens during combat operations in Afghanistan. One, Yasser Hamdi(born in U.S. but raised in Saudi Arabia), was briefly held at Guantanamo Bay due to confusion on his citizenship, he's since been released in Saudi Arabia and had to renounce his U.S. citizenship.
So back to executing U.S. citizens for treason, do you really support the current administrations DOJ stance that they can decide where and when to execute U.S. citizens?
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 26852
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Treaty Too Quiet

#34

Post by The Annoyed Man »

67SS wrote:
VMI77 wrote:
67SS wrote:you had better read what you just quoted..
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies

Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act

whats a leftest?
I took the oath of office in 1973 to support, defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies ...

war is hard, and it takes hard men to wage it... there were your kind in both WWI and WWII who were peace nicks who thought we should not have aided England..... I guess I come from a family of Hawks... from Virginia named lee, to nam and Iraq/Afgan... named son... with grand fathers, fathers, and brothers by blood who fired shots in fear and anger so you can sit then and whine about a person who clearly had bad intention against the USA...

we are a Different Nation than that of the WWII.... OMG.. America is a LAND of warriors.. We kick but and tell other how the cow chews the cabage.... read your history.... we have had troops in china befor WWII, in Russia, all over the world....

why do you think you enjoy the prosperity this nation has? because we killed everyone in WWII.. and bombed every nation into dust... no country had any industrial power save the USA.. and to rebuild thoes countries bought goods and services from us.. which is why the 1950s and 1960s were so good...
if your a vet.. :patriot: if not.. you dont have a clue...
All right, well, apparently you don't have any kind of coherent argument to make. You just want to talk about what a tough guy you are and your family history. I'm talking about the law and the Constitution, you're talking about how the cow chews the cabbage without using complete sentences, and talking a lot of irrelevant nonsense. No, we didn't kill "everyone" in WW2 and we didn't bomb "every nation" to dust. I've got some news for you "hard man," in order to defend the Constitution you first have to understand what it says, and it would seem from all the emotional nonsense and misdirection, you don't. I don't know whether you're incapable of an intelligent conversation or just unwilling --not that it matters to me, because I'm done with you.

yeah I a tough guy, I'm 57 have half a leg, cant see, cant run, cant do 20 min of hard work befor I have to take a 2 hr break... oooo fear me.. are ya shakin yet?

BTW hard MEN is attitude and commitment...and moral judgment.. not physicality...

One other thing.. family history.. that is a commitment to the United States OF America... In WWi , In WWII in the pacific, in nam, in afga, Iraq,.. My family and I have shed blood for this nation.. dont lecture me on patriotism nor belittle it before me or my history....

PS. we killed over 250,000 in toyko fire bombings in one night, we fire bombed Germany, Italy, so much along with Belgium, Austria, from the Med, to the north Atlantic lay in total ruin ... my god man.. have you not read the total lives lost nor see the cities...... Europe was in total destruction, spain was in a rebuild from the franco wars...
Dude, you SERIOUSLY need to take a chill pill. You're cutting a pretty wide swath for a new kid on the block. You are FAAAAAAAR from being the only one on this forum who has poured his blood into foreign soil on behalf of the nation, and the TRUE heroes are humble men who don't feel the need the pee down everyone's neck. You think you're the only one who ever cracked a book open. The Jamaicans have an interesting saying: "The higher the monkey climb up the tree, the more he expose himself."

You sit there and lecture everyone about their supposed lack of knowledge and belittle their patriotism, and then command them not to treat you exactly the same way you're treating them. In my world that makes you a hypocrite and a jackass that nobody can have a conversation with. It IS possible, you know, to disagree without being an insulting piece of work about it. I read through all three pages of this thread four times just to make sure I was seeing what I thought I was seeing before I posted this.

Dude, you are way, WAY, WAY out of line. I sincerely hope that you are drunk right now, and that this isn't the kind of person you are most of the time. Moderators, I'll understand if you need to remove my post, but this had to be said. This member is rude, disruptive, and incoherent. I think he needs a moderator talking to.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 18502
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Treaty Too Quiet

#35

Post by Keith B »

Everyone needs to back down on this and chill out. Personal attacks will not be tolerated on the forum. If you can't discuss things civily, then don't discuss them.

Keith B
Moderator
User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 10371
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Treaty Too Quiet

#36

Post by jmra »

Keith B wrote:If you can't discuss things civily, then don't discuss them.
Sure got quiet in here. Kinda like the treaty.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

Dave2
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:39 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Treaty Too Quiet

#37

Post by Dave2 »

jmra wrote:
Keith B wrote:If you can't discuss things civily, then don't discuss them.
Sure got quiet in here. Kinda like the treaty.
Image
:mrgreen:
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.

67SS
Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:21 pm

Re: Treaty Too Quiet

#38

Post by 67SS »

in reading back over this.. I see where this all when to .. well. anyway....

let me restate.. I dont have a problem with the 2 targets that have been canceled .. they were active supporters of those that mean to do the USA and its citizenry dire harm..... while it would be prudent to have them stand before the man to be accounted for... In truth the practical side of it was moot...

which is why we pay the CIA to make these dirty decisions for us..... mostly people dont want full/half/any knowledge of what black ops our CIA has done on our country's behalf in the past 60 years...


I do have a problem with a law that gives unilateral execution rights to the president or any one.... I see now they are considering a judicial review as a compromise.. which I do not support either..

I also have a huge problem with the ndaa....and the Patriot act.. and the expansion of the TSA in unilateral searches

I dont know how the energize the nation/public to see the cataclysmal offerings by the electorate... I am gravely concerned for all...
User avatar

Slowplay
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:52 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Treaty Too Quiet

#39

Post by Slowplay »

67SS wrote:
OK read it your self... from legal dictionary.... each act is separate ...
The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.
...
these are not my opinions but legally defined by the legal dictionary... argue with them.
I don't have to argue with them. Why cite something like the online legal dictionary (which doesn't contradict in any way what I've stated)? What you've cut and pasted to reach your conclusion doesn't change the words and punctuation marks in the Constitution.

I will respectfully suggest that you spend some time looking a bit deeper than the online legal dictionary. The framers were very familiar the Edward III statutes in regards to treason, but they did want to live under the same British law (they had just separated themselves from the crown). The treason clause was discussed at the convention. Cramer v. United States (1945) is another source that addresses treason.

Had you cited Madison''s convention notes from August 20, 1787 and the discussions that resulted in the final Article III, section 3 wording, we could have seen how George Mason was responsible for adding the "giving them aid and comfort" restrictive condition to the "adhering to their enemies" wording (linking the two elements as "adhering to their enemies" would be otherwise too indefinite). :tiphat:
NRA Benefactor Member
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance..."
- John Philpot Curran

67SS
Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:21 pm

Re: Treaty Too Quiet

#40

Post by 67SS »

Slowplay wrote:
67SS wrote:
OK read it your self... from legal dictionary.... each act is separate ...
The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.
...
these are not my opinions but legally defined by the legal dictionary... argue with them.
I don't have to argue with them. Why cite something like the online legal dictionary (which doesn't contradict in any way what I've stated)? What you've cut and pasted to reach your conclusion doesn't change the words and punctuation marks in the Constitution.

I will respectfully suggest that you spend some time looking a bit deeper than the online legal dictionary. The framers were very familiar the Edward III statutes in regards to treason, but they did want to live under the same British law (they had just separated themselves from the crown). The treason clause was discussed at the convention. Cramer v. United States (1945) is another source that addresses treason.

Had you cited Madison''s convention notes from August 20, 1787 and the discussions that resulted in the final Article III, section 3 wording, we could have seen how George Mason was responsible for adding the "giving them aid and comfort" restrictive condition to the "adhering to their enemies" wording (linking the two elements as "adhering to their enemies" would be otherwise too indefinite). :tiphat:
well we disagree.. to me adhering means joining your enemies.... Again to me aid and comfort means providing whats needed.. Cramer was the 2 witness clause.... and had nothing to do with aid or adhesion. the Curious thing about Cramer is that only one witness testified, Cramer testfied againgt himself.. was he not apprised of self inflection, pleading the 5th? ...


I am a huge fan of james M. please provide links to your citations.. I would love to read it...http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_jm.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

one of my favorite quotes is from Abe.
the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it —"

"Abraham Lincoln, [September 16-17, 1859] (Notes for Speech in Kansas and Ohio),
User avatar

Slowplay
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:52 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Treaty Too Quiet

#41

Post by Slowplay »

67SS wrote: well we disagree.. to me adhering means joining your enemies.... Again to me aid and comfort means providing whats needed.. Cramer was the 2 witness clause.... and had nothing to do with aid or adhesion. the Curious thing about Cramer is that only one witness testified, Cramer testfied againgt himself.. was he not apprised of self inflection, pleading the 5th? ...
Another non sequitur - you can take whatever meaning you want and cling to old British law, but that doesn't change what the Constitution says. It's very curious that you would not know how to locate Madison's convention note - as a fan, no less.

It's also curious that you claim Cramer v. U.S. "had nothing to do with aid or adhesion" when Cramer had been indicted and charged (and convicted) with treason (by adhering to enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, in violation of § 1 of the Criminal Code). Cramer was in fact witnessed by FBI agents meeting with identified enemies. However, there wasn't sufficient evidence to support that Cramer had provided aid and comfort to the enemies with whom he was witnessed meeting on occasions. The conviction was reversed. Troll with someone else - I'm done with you.
NRA Benefactor Member
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance..."
- John Philpot Curran

Andrew

Re: Treaty Too Quiet

#42

Post by Andrew »

http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0820.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; 20 August 1787 convention notes.
User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 10371
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Treaty Too Quiet

#43

Post by jmra »

Andrew wrote:http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0820.txt 20 August 1787 convention notes.
I don't suggest reading this before you've had that first cup of coffee.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

67SS
Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:21 pm

Re: Treaty Too Quiet

#44

Post by 67SS »

Slowplay wrote:
67SS wrote: well we disagree.. to me adhering means joining your enemies.... Again to me aid and comfort means providing whats needed.. Cramer was the 2 witness clause.... and had nothing to do with aid or adhesion. the Curious thing about Cramer is that only one witness testified, Cramer testfied againgt himself.. was he not apprised of self inflection, pleading the 5th? ...
Another non sequitur - you can take whatever meaning you want and cling to old British law, but that doesn't change what the Constitution says. It's very curious that you would not know how to locate Madison's convention note - as a fan, no less.

It's also curious that you claim Cramer v. U.S. "had nothing to do with aid or adhesion" when Cramer had been indicted and charged (and convicted) with treason (by adhering to enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, in violation of § 1 of the Criminal Code). Cramer was in fact witnessed by FBI agents meeting with identified enemies. However, there wasn't sufficient evidence to support that Cramer had provided aid and comfort to the enemies with whom he was witnessed meeting on occasions. The conviction was reversed. Troll with someone else - I'm done with you.
from the site Andrew listed..
It was moved & 2ded. to amend the sentence to read -- "Treason agst. the
U. S. shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to
their enemies" which was agreed to.

Col. MASON moved to insert the words "giving them aid [20] and comfort,"
as restrictive of "adhering to their Enemies &c." the latter he thought
would be otherwise too indefinite -- This motion was agreed to: Cont.
Del: & Georgia only being in the Negative.

Mr. L. MARTIN moved to insert after conviction &c -- "or on confession
in open court" -- and on the question, (the negative States thinking the
words superfluous) it was agreed to
so here we have three different amendments.. all defining what may transpired as treason ... each, is a helper, but each is also a separate clause.... Col. MASON moved to insert the words "giving them aid [20] and comfort," as restrictive of "adhering to their Enemies... so it separates adhesion, from aid and comfort...

as for Cramer.. Cramer was convicted by the 2 witness clause... what ever his crime...he may have been convicted on adhesion ... that may have been what he was charged with but summarily he was convicted with the 2 witness clause, not adherence clause.. and Adherence and levying war are the same..... giving aid can be a simple as a note, a dollar etc..... comfort, can be a dollar, a note, a blanket.. the lines are very grey.. that was the concern of
Mr. WILSON. much may be said on both sides. Treason may sometimes be
practised in such a manner, as to render proof extremely difficult -- as
in a traitorous correspondence with an Enemy.
so thats why they broke it down in to parts, that can be broken out of the whole... to be used when one dont fit the other will, and the 2 witness clause is, to witness the act.. one does not have to define what it was, whether aid, or adhesion.. all that is needed is 2 witness to a act undefined, but levied against the USA

Additionally
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 25&invol=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Our problem begins where the Constitution ends. That instrument omits to specify what relation the indispensable overt act must sustain to the two elements of the offense as defined: viz., adherence and giving aid and comfort. It requires that two witnesses testify to the same overt act, and clearly enough the act must show something toward treason, but what? Must the act be one of giving aid and comfort? If so, how must adherence to the enemy, the disloyal state of mind, be shown?
It appeared upon the trial that at all times involved in these acts Kerling and Thiel were under surveiliance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. By direct testimony of two or more agents it was established that Cramer met Thiel and Kerling on the occasions and at the places charged and that they drank together and engaged long and earnestly in conversation.
This is the sum of the overt acts as established by the testimony of two witnesses
. There is no two-witness proof of what they said nor in what language they conversed. There is no showing that Cramer gave them any information whatever of value to their mission or indeed that he had any to give. No effort at secrecy is shown, for they met in public places. Cramer furnished them no shelter, nothing that can be called sustance or supplies, and there is no evidence that he gave them encouragement or counsel, or even paid for their drinks.
The Government recognizes the weakness of its proof of aid and comfort
, but on this scope it urges: 'Little imagination is required to perceive the advantage such meeting would afford to enemy spies not yet detected. Even apart from the psychological comfort which the meetings furnished Thiel and Kerling by way of social intercourse with [325 U.S. 1, 38] one who they were confident would not report them to the authorities, as a loyal citizen should, the meetings gave them a source of information and an avenue for contact. It enabled them to be seen in public with a citizen above suspicion and thereby to be mingling normally with the citizens of the country with which they were at war.' The difficulty with this argument is that the whole purpose of the constitutional provision is to make sure that treason conviction shall rest on direct proof of two witnesses and not on even a little imagination. And without the use of some imagination it is difficult to perceive any advantage which this meeting afforded to Thiel and Kerling as enemies or how it strengthened Germany or weakened the United States in any way whatever. It may be true that the saboteurs were cultivating cramer as a potential 'source of information and an avenue for contact.' But there is no proof either by two witnesses or by even one witness or by any circumstance that Cramer gave them information or established any 'contact' for them with any person other than an attempt to bring about a rendezvous between Thiel and a girl, or that being 'seen in public with a citizen above suspicion' was of any assistance to the enemy. Meeting with Cramer in public drinking places to tipple and trifle was no part of the saboteurs' mission and did not advance it. It may well have been a digression which jeopardized its success.
Please refrain from further inquisition of my abilities... I cast no such dispersion in your direction... and stay on topic...
Last edited by 67SS on Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar

Purplehood
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4638
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Treaty Too Quiet

#45

Post by Purplehood »

67SS wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote: killing of US citizens with drone strikes.


I feel better now.

Anygunanywhere
I blame the parents of the kid, for sending the kid to a known terrorist , in a known war zone...

If ANY U.S. citizen knowingly collaborates with enemies of the USA they are equal targets... I dont understand all the up roar.... they are the enemy... and if a innocent is killed, its called collateral damage...

it happens in every war... GET OVER IT... I am so sick and tired of people wanting it both ways... bull feathers.... its war people .... and things die.. everything dies in its path... you dont want dead? stay out of the path....

to bad... 14 year old kid is pink mist... well.... dont send your kids to a war zone, dont send your kid to grandpaw terrorist for indoctrination...

No I have no sympathy for the family or the kid or any former U.S. citizen that proclaims allegiance against the USA.. frackem, fragem, chootem.

I think it was 1959 a man who denounced the USA so many times... he was stripped of his citizenship place on a cargo ship with orders he was never to set foot on U.S. soil again.. he also never set foot on anyone else's soil either.. he truly was a man with out a country... and I found it fitting.

wheres Joe McCarthy when ya need him...
American Citizen = D.U.E. P.R.O.C.E.S.S.

We lowered our standards at Abu Graib. I know that I haven't.
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”