Treason

[Scuba]

[underthematrix]

1. I call it domestic terrorism.

[Initech]

19. I call it economic terrorism.

[libodem]

2. .

[pacerbluedrum1949]

3. And.

And TREASON!!!!!!!!!!!

[riderinthestorm]

4. Yes. Oh yes nt

[Nye Bevan]

5. No. Because I know the meaning of the word "treason". (nt)

[Puzzledtraveller]

10. what Nye said

[Demeter]

12. How about a Pustch? A Coup?

noun: putsch; plural noun: putsches

1. a violent attempt to overthrow a government.




noun: coup; plural noun: coups; noun: coup d'état; plural noun: coups d'état; plural noun: coup d'états

1. a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.
"he was overthrown in an army coup"
synonyms: seizure of power, coup d'état, putsch, overthrow, takeover, deposition; More
revolution, palace revolution, rebellion, revolt, insurrection, mutiny, insurgence, uprising
"a violent military coup"

2. a notable or successful stroke or move.
"it was a major coup to get such a prestigious contract"

synonyms: success, triumph, feat, accomplishment, achievement, scoop, master stroke, stroke of genius More


NO, THERE IS NO VIOLENCE (EXCEPT TO DEMOCRACY). SO TREASON IT IS:


noun: treason; noun: high treason; plural noun: high treasons

1. the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

"they were convicted of treason"

synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More

[Nye Bevan]

13. Or global thermonuclear warfare? Regicide? Aggravated jaywalking?

All of which make just as much sense as your suggestions.

[onenote]

30. The Constitution, not the dictionary, defines what is considered treason in the United States.

[JDPriestly]

42. See my post # 35.

[Demeter]

58. No, the People define it.

Everything comes back to the consent of the governed, in America. Sooner or later. It's in our genes; it's in our souls. It's even in our Constitution, amazingly enough.

[onenote]

60. Yes. And no.

To the extent that the Constitution or a judicial interpretation of the Consititution doesn't represent the will of the people in numbers sufficient to ratify an amendment to the Constitution, you are right. But it's a big hurdle. The fact that a majority, even a substantial majority, thinks that certain behavior should be considered "treason" is irrelevant unless and until the words of the Constitution defining what constitutes treason are changed.

[grahamhgreen]

22. I don't know, destroying the govt is essentially war against the US, isnt't it:

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 any office under the United States.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. "Destroying"?

[JDPriestly]

39. See my post # 35, please.

[grahamhgreen]

66. "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can

drown it in the bathtub." - Grover Norquist


Yes.... destroying.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. Do you really believe that statement is anything other than bluster and hyperbole?

Seeking to reduce the size of government is not treason. Because if it were a declaration of intent to literally destroy the government then the only response would be an armed response and I don't see any thoughtful and responsible thinkers suggesting such a thing.

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. THIS

[onenote]

29. +1

[JDPriestly]

40. See my post # 35. The Republicans repeatedly oppose the basic tenets of our Constitution.

They have done this since the Nixon administration.

[Nye Bevan]

44. Oh please. I oppose the Second Amendment, so I guess I am also treasonous (nt)

[JDPriestly]

49. If you oppose the Second Amendment, you need to try to amend the Constitution.

You can't just pass a law saying it no longer applies. You can place time, place and manner restrictions on guns although our current Supreme Court doesn't even seem to like that.

If you go into Congress on a platform of passing laws that abolish the right to bear arms, then you are rebellious. If you go into Congress on a platform of amending the Constitution to abolish the right to bear arms, then you are trying to change things and are not rebellious.

[Zorra]

52. ...

Treason

1. the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

[marble falls]

6. Well, .... yes.

[YarnAddict]

7. Hyperbole

n/t

[JDPriestly]

41. Not really. See my post # 35.

[Half-Century Man]

8. I'd go Crimes Against Humanity.

And as for the ecological damage and stripping for the funding from safety programs; 322,000,000 counts of attempted Manslaughter (Monetarily motivated Gross Indifference).

[BodieTown]

9. Why do people use all caps to make a point?

Reading comprehension depends, in part, by unconsciously recognizing word shapes/forms (uppercase/lowercase).

All caps induces fatigue.

It's a fact.

[NYC Liberal]

11. No.

[cstanleytech]

14. Nope its not treason.

Its shitty and imo unethical but its not treason.

[JDPriestly]

38. It is rebellion. See my post # 35.

The Republicans are opposing our constitutional form of government and the values of our Constitution in very significant ways.

[spanone]

15. robert is reight

[world wide wally]

16. The truly sad part about it is that there are enough idiots out there to vote for it

[Samantha]

17. I have posted two threads here on this subject, the first in 2011

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1104652

I too know the definition of treason, and I do believe some of the actions of Republicans have given aid and comfort to the enemy, in a time of war.

Here is the second thread posted in 2013 jointly hosted by 2naSalit and me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023771974#post5

Both of these threads have very interesting comments, pros and cons. Personally, I believe if an enemy of the United States, for instance, the late Osama bin Laden, states it is his goal to take down the economy of the United States, if Tea Party Republicans threaten actions to take down the government, the only difference between the two is that the late Osama bin Laden was a terrorist born in Saudia Arabia and the Tea Party congressmen are American citizens, but the latter is giving aid and comfort to the former. And that I do call treason.

Sam

[Gary 50]

18. No...

I'd call it a typical day at the office for the Koch brothers and their peers. Half of the country is rooting for them. I'd call them delusional. Or brainwashed.

[Rex]

20. Social-Economic terrorism.

You would THINK it would be treason, but capitalist societies bare the weight of billionaire terrorists that skate the law by using economics and social engineering as the weapon.

Still affects millions of people and never in a good fashion. It is the parasitic side of capitalism.

[JDPriestly]

37. Actually, they are attempting to destroy our Constitution.

See my post # 35. They are rebelling against fundamental principles set forth in our Constitution like separation of church and state.

[Enthusiast]

21. K&R! One of those "certain big lies" is, "America has the best health care system in the world."

Another certain big lie is, "Single payer won't work in America."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. No, I'd call it democracy producing results I don't like. N.T.

[JDPriestly]

36. See my post # 35.

[HughBeaumont]

24. Well, hey, it's not like they didn't try before . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Business_Plot

Learning their lessons that deliberate takeover doesn't work, the financiers then relied on working a glacial inside game of Washington . . . and then purchasing the media. Starting with these two jokers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_memo#Powell_Memorandum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich

And then instituting THIS asshole as Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff to start the Wealth Tax Slash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Regan

Oh, and did I mention THIS little bill, which relaxed thrift limits and allowed financial piracy to run rampant in the 1980s (When Reagan signed it, he infamously said "all in all, I think we hit the jackpot&quot ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garn_-_St_Germain_Depository_Institutions_Act

Of course, Don Regan's "ahem" . . . "Boss", didn't help matters much with this previous action:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATCO_strike#August_1981_strike

Michael Moore said that Reagan's firing of the PATCO strikers was the beginning of "America's downward slide", and the end of comfortable union jobs, with a middle-class salary, raises, and pensions. Moore stated that wages have remained stagnant for 30 years. He also blamed the AFL-CIO for telling their members to cross the PATCO picket lines.[12]

President Reagan's director of the United States Office of Personnel Management at the time, Donald J. Devine, argued:

"When the president said no...American business leaders were given a lesson in managerial leadership that they could not and did not ignore. Many private sector executives have told me that they were able to cut the fat from their organizations and adopt more competitive work practices because of what the government did in those days. I would not be surprised if these unseen effects of this private sector shakeout under the inspiration of the president were as profound in influencing the recovery that occurred as the formal economic and fiscal programs."

In a review of Joseph McCartin's book 2011, Collision Course: Ronald Reagan, The Air Traffic Controllers, and the Strike that Changed America in Review 31, Richard Sharpe claimed Reagan was "laying down a marker" for his presidency: "The strikers were often working class men and women who had achieved suburban middle class lives as air traffic controllers without having gone to college. Many were veterans of the US armed forces where they had learned their skills; their union had backed Reagan in his election campaign. Nevertheless, Reagan refused to back down. Several strikers were jailed; the union was fined and eventually made bankrupt. Only about 800 got their jobs back when Clinton lifted the ban on rehiring those who had struck. Many of the strikers were forced into poverty as a result of being blacklisted for employment."

[raccoon]

71. You should make this an OP. nt

[indepat]

25. What word or phrase would be more descriptive than treason? Yet the administration

seems to respond as if 'pukes were the loyal opposition.

[justanaverageguy]

27. Not treason

address each point.

1. Bankrolling any candidate, no matter what the candidate supports, is never illegal and never should be.
2. Bribing or intimidating any Senator or member of the House is already illegal.....but not consider treason.
3. Gerrymandering is done for all sorts of reasons and has been done for a very long time. Reasonable people may disagree on the principles behind the gerrymandering but it does not rise to the level of treason. Requiring an ID to vote is opposed by many and supported by many as well. Neither support or opposition to it is illegal or treasonous. Illegally purging rolls a damn right shitty thing to do but not treason.
4. PR campaigns are speech. Speech should never be considered treasonous.
5. Investing your own money to buy up newspapers, tv stations, radio, and the like is neither illegal or treasonous.

Robert Reich saying this is no different than the idiots who say the President is purposely destroying our economy and bankrupting the government so that it will collapse and they can start over with a brand new government of his liking. Both ideas rest on the same premise.

[freebrew]

31. The constant lies about PBO and the Dems in the senate...

could rise to sedition. Also illegal but the definitions seem to fluctuate depending on the circumstance.

But who would prosecute? Holder? HAH1

[JDPriestly]

35. Techinically what the Republicans are doing is not treason.

It is a revolt against our Constitution and form of government.

It is a right-wing revolt. They don't like our laws on racial equality. They don't like our constitutional protections of privacy and human rights. They don't like separation of church (religion) and state. They don't like public education. They don't like equal opportunity. They don't like allowing people who have no property to vote.

The list of things they don't like about our system of government is very long and is what motivates their rejection of, for example, Obama and everything he does and represents.

I would say that they are staging a rebellion but not calling what they are doing a rebellion.

So maybe it really is treason,"giving aid to the enemy" of our Constitution and form of government after all.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. Against your government, not against your form of government.

And trying to overthrow the government through the electoral process is not treason.

[JDPriestly]

48. The issues I raised in my post are all set forth in the Constitution.

They can only be changed by amending the Constitution, not by electing a different party to the government. You cannot have freedom of religion and no establishment of religion (First Amendment) unless you have separation of church and state, for example. The First Amendment does not just guarantee freedom of religion. It also guarantees our INNATE, birthright of freedom from the establishment of religion. And that is what guarantees the separation of church and state.

That is just one example.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. Those are government policies, not THE government.

When they are the majority and they enact their policies what we do to oppose them it is NOT treason/sedition/revolt or anything else except political opposition.

[JDPriestly]

47. Those are not government polices. Those are the principals set forth in the Constitution.

Those principles like equal protection before the law which translates into equal opportunity and racial equality are constitutional. All the principles I mentioned are based on the Constitution. Most are found in Amendments 1-14.

[onenote]

53. Most of the principles you mentioned are derived from amendments and/or court decisions

were those that advocated the ratification of the post civil war amendments or the overruling of decisions like Dred Scott traitors because they advocated for a change in what the constitution said or how it was interpreted? Of course not. The Constitution is a living document and it is not treasonous to argue for it to be interpreted in a particular way or to argue that it should be amended.

[JDPriestly]

68. But that is not what the conservatives are doing.

The Establishment clause in the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing religion, yet many of the conservatives will tell you to the contrary that we are a "Christian nation." We are a nation that does not establish any national religion. That is what the Constitution states. The 10th Amendment allows states to pass laws requiring that children be educated. The Supreme Court decisions support and enforce those states laws allowing for alternatives such as education in religious schools.

Yes. The Constitution is a living document. It is mostly conservatives that disagree with that idea. And yes it can be amended. But conservatives want to go in and pass laws that violate the Constitution without amending it. That is the problem.

[onenote]

72. It's not treason to pass a law that is struck down as unconstitutional

It shouldn't even be necessary to say that, but I will anyway.

[JDPriestly]

73. No. It isn't. But conducting a campaign that is wide in scope and opposes the basic

principles of our Constitution approaches rebellion, and that is treasonous. The Republicans fight one man one vote. They fight the separation of church and state. They fight the existence of the post office although Congress was granted the authority to create a post office. The Republican Bush administration set up Guantanamo and deprived people on soil controlled by the US and therefore in my view, our Constitution of a right to a trial and due process arguing that they were war prisoners without taking care to identify the prisoners as actual combatants against us.

The disregard for the Constitution and especially for equal opportunity and equal protection under the law by Republicans is shocking.

My list may have included a few points that are not strictly in the Constitution, but I stand by my point. The rebellious ideology of the Republicans verges on and may be treasonous. They aren't just proposing new ideas. They are attempting to abolish our constitutional government.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. All laws must be based on the constitution, otherwise they're unconstitutional

You mentioned public education. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we MUST have public education. We have, as a society, elected to institute it but it is not a constitutional requirement and alternatives are available. People may argue over whether or not the alternatives are the most practical/fair/whatnot but it isn't anti-Constitutional for someone to say, "Public/private/parochial/home education sucks!" It simply shows there is divergence in policy preferences.

If there were a singular means by which society's issues were to be confronted we could dispense with elections. We wouldn't need a 1st Amendment or any of the rest.

[Demeter]

59. Public education is "promoting the general welfare"

as such, it is entirely permissible, and supported by damn near every parent in the land. It has been the American way since the early 1800's. It's more than a quaint tradition; it is the foundation upon which democracy is built, part of that pursuit of happiness thing.

The anti-Constitutional aspect of the drive to destroy public education is that it is not desired by the populace, vigorously opposed, and yet, a shadowy elite continue to undermine it.

[onenote]

61. The fact that something is permissible under the constitution doesn't

make it unconstitutional to oppose public education. What one group thinks advances the "general welfare" may not be what another group believes advances the general welfare. The fact that something is neither required nor prohibited by the Constitution means that it is within the bounds of the Constitution for people to disagree over what the government should do.

The post that started this subthread gave an example of requiring the ownership of property as a prerequisite to voting. Exactly such a requirement was upheld in the 1930s as constitutionally permitted. That decision was later overruled. But just as it wasn't unconsitutional to advocate that legislatures repeal or not enact such constitutionally permitted provisions, it isn't unconstitutional for someone to advocate for one side or another on the issue of public education.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. I never suggested it wasn't permissable or unconstitutional or even undesirable

I said it is not mandated and that is the truth. Please re-read my comments before accusing me of making such claims.

[JDPriestly]

67. Yet Supreme Court decisions have required people to enroll their children in school ot

in an acceptable alternative if state law requires that children go to school. Yoder.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. I don't see that fact as contradicting anything I said.

[Maedhros]

32. We need to stop using the term "terrorism" to describe "people we don't agree with."

Yes, those people suck. But to refer to reactionary American politics as "terrorism" further muddies the already turbid waters that the term inhabits.

Hyperbole is not always the best course.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. I'm sure just as soon as the political tides move towards the GOP

these conversations will shrivel and die a quick death. In fact, once upon a time in Democratic circles, dissent was considered patriotic -- even on matters of opposing an active shooting war.

[orbitalman]

33. YES

[JDPriestly]

34. K&R.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Politics as Usual seems to fit the bill.

[Zorra]

51. Recommend. nt

[JackInGreen]

55. I'd call it a reason

to start putting heads on polls, but I have to stay civil or at least non-violent.

[polynomial]

56. Consider this

No if’s about it Mitch McConnell openly said the Republicans will do everything possible to make sure President Obama fails. What does that mean? The media letting this McConnell get away with an intentional threat to the president for years. From my view assassination cannot be counted out.

With that said, and repeat hypothetically; if anyone said openly they would do everything possible to make president Obama fail, and repeat saying just hypothetically, don’t you think that person would get a visit by the American secret police, then hear it on the news. Of course you would.

The president should have the right to tap everyone in the Republican Party because that is an action of treason to take out the president, with the appropriate warrant for McConnell or anyone in the Republican Party.

[DiverDave]

57. I see that word and I think. fucking north.

yes this applys, but god damn that traitor bastard to hell.

[idendoit]

62. Looks like most of the OP is covered....

...under 18 U.S. Code section 2384. So yeah, I'd say they are committing treason.

[Gothmog]

64. Prof. Reich is correct

[DirkGently]

65. Or just "Evil?" Or is that word too well-worn at this point?