TREASON. I think the GOP'ers relentlessly persecuting Obama are now guilty of it.

[calimary]

I posted this elsewhere here - but thought it might be worth its own thread. It was a response to rhett o rick who wondered if jonathan karl and his ilk might be guilty of sedition in cooked and concocted "news" coverage that passed off GOP-doctored talking points as the real thing from the White House. I think it smacks of flat-out TREASON. And I think we oughta start a drumbeat about it. Hit these bastards back HARDER than they hit us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022872271

Bill Maher broached the subject last week with Michael Moore - wondering aloud whether all this obstruction was tantamount to treason.

Well, I think he makes a GREAT point, and WE ought to be repeating that meme and starting to bring it to life.

Consider:

At this moment, we still are a nation AT WAR. We presently have thousands of Americans IN HARM'S WAY, IN ACTIVE COMBAT, IN LIVE HOT ZONES. FACING ARMED AND RELENTLESS AND WELL-ARMED ENEMIES. RIGHT NOW. At this very instant. Afghanistan mainly. But ANYWHERE in the frickin' Middle East, their lives are literally on the line.

Now - when a President presides during wartime, that makes him a wartime president, does it not?

And what else is a President known as? How 'bout Commander-in-Chief of ALL United States Armed Forces? Yep, WHOEVER the POTUS is at any given moment, that's his OTHER title. That's what else our nation's Chief Executive is.

Now - what would you call obstructing the Commander-in-Chief of all United States Armed Forces DURING wartime? I think it just might be TREASON. Probably HIGH Treason, at that. Because like it or not, the United States of America is still at war.

So that means Barack H. Obama is not only the current President, he's also Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. Armed Forces. And at THIS time, he's a WARTIME President and a WARTIME Commander-in-Chief. Anybody willfully getting in his way and impeding and obstructing his job is, in effect, committing TREASON. After all, they're obstructing the Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. Armed Forces DURING A TIME OF WAR.

What do you think the republi-CONS would be doing now - if it was their guy in the White House, facing this much on-going opposition?

This whole mess needs to be reframed and renamed. And if they were blathering about the "I-word" then I think it's high time we started bringing up the "T-word."

It's time to fight these bastards with EVERYTHING WE'VE GOT. TREASON. That is what the GOP is now GUILTY of. They've even got the "G-for-guilty" in GOP already in place.

I'd like your take on this. I think it's messaging we should start circulating. Maybe it'll catch on.

What do you think?

[Tx4obama]

1. For the folks that missed seeing it, the Maher 'treason' video is on the link below

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251306706

[DCKit]

2. While I personally think you've gone over the top...

You're mild by Teahadii standards.

I think we should run with it and fight back with an equal measure of crazy.

[Cha]

3. What the hell is altering WH emails and passing them off as verbatim,

Voter Suppression, Leaking a double agent, Leaking Valerie Plame( in the bush-cheney admin but even so), and as you say, calimary.. obstructing in a time of war? What is that called if not "Treason"?

[longship]

4. Well, in the US, "treason" has a specific definition.

From Article III of the Constitution:

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.

So calling political opposition treasonous would be wrong in every way.

Of course, the reason why the framers of the Constitution bothered with this is because the charge of treason is simultaneously very serious and has been historically abused to persecute political opponents. Article III cuts that off by making specific what "treason" means under our Constitution.

In other words, calling Republicans treasonous is mere hyperbole.

I opposed such things when the John Birchers were doing it in the fifties and sixties and I have to call it out now.

Plus, there's this thing call the first amendment which protects free speech. It protects both the Republican lunacy and those who would label it treason. Both have the right to state their opinions in spite of being demonstrably wrong.

[Cha]

5. Okay, then dead weight.

[Rosco T.]

8. No, CALL it treason... loudly and clearly...

then MAKE THEM DEFEND THEIR ACTIONS as to why it ISN'T treason. It will force an enumeration of their actions in public, in detail.

[longship]

9. Call it treason like the Birch society did?

For political gain when the definition of treason is so specific? Like what happened in the fifties with McCarthyism?

Then, how we any different than what we profess to be against?

No thank you. I respectfully decline to follow people down that path.

Fortunately, I also believe in supporting the first amendment and would defend your right to call it as you see it. But realize that the specificity of treason in the Constitution makes it difficult to sustain such accusations. Thank goodness for that. But that means a claim of treason will not likely pan out. It's an invitation to look foolish in the end, IMHO.

[Rosco T.]

11. Then call it TREASONOUS

since everyone is so hyped on 'definitions'

treasonous - having the character of, or characteristic of, a traitor; "the faithless Benedict Arnold"; "a lying traitorous insurrectionist"

[longship]

12. Read the Constitutional definition.

And maybe you'll understand the difference between Benedict Arnold and a GOP congress critter.

The former was aiding an enemy at a time of war -- kind of what the Constitution says. The latter are douchebag obstructionists within the US political structure. The former is treason by definition; the latter doesn't come close to meeting the requirements.

People are free to call it treason. And I will call what they're doing hyperbole, a rhetorical technique often used by the GOP, the tea baggers, and their followers. So if people want to jump into the swill with the pigs, have at it. But, remember that the pigs love the swill.

I would prefer that we didn't do that.

[Rosco T.]

13. I would prefer they don't continue to screw up this country...

.. what's your preference?

[longship]

14. I would prefer they wouldn't either.

But calling "treason" goes beyond the pale, since what they are doing is demonstrably not treason. We know that because treason has a succinct legal definition in the Constitution.

Flinging "treason" around is a well known conservative technique used by the John Birch Society in the fifties and sixties.

I would prefer that Democrats not stoop to hyperbole like that. Oppose the GOP on policies and outcomes. Leave the demonstrably false hyperbole to our opponents.

[Zoeisright]

6. Of course.

They are deliberately undermining and purposely harming this country. If that isn't treason, I don't know what is.

[longship]

10. Fortunately, we know exactly what treason is.

And this isn't it. See my response above re Article III of the Constitution.

This is despicable politics (the GOP), but it isn't treason. Read your Constitution Article III.

[trueblue2007]

7. they are TRAITORS

[hack89]

15. I think you need to read the Constitution. nt

[onenote]

16. Posting this in a second forum doesn't make any less stupid

As others have pointed out, there is a specific definition of treason in the Constitution and it doesn't cover anything the repubs have done. The means that the Constitution provides for responding to political obstruction is political (i.e., elections) not legal (i.e. criminal prosecutions).

Many of us here protested the Vietnam War during the Johnson and Nixon administrations and were labelled traitors for doing so. We weren't and its stupid to suggest that somehow the fact that we are at "war" makes political actions treason. It wasn't treason when Democratic members of the House and Senate sought to end the Vietnam War by voting to cut off funding.

Seriously, get a copy of the Constitution already.

[polynomial]

17. Fox News just blew it.

Hannity admits this is could be a case of espionage. If that’s case the government has the Great Republican Bush Patriot act as the tool to use.

Hello, you out there? To me this is very funny the government using the tools, the Republican created, to protect the Constitution being the primary goal.

Yet the way Hannity is telling his story it does sound like jabberwocky where Obama is doing something wrong. They, the Republicans are having a fits because perhaps someone broke the law and if it is a Fox News personal it will destroy the integrity of Fox and cable Journalism across the spectrum.

IRS official Lois Lerner pleading the fifth in an audit investigation by Congress is very, very shallow. WOW…this is a political stretch, or real. What concerns me is Fox News has a primary stock ownership which includes the Arabs. Very close to the Bin Laden family which has been dancing around the American securities and banking industry for decades. Which means the media could be aiding and abiding the Al Qaeda enemy.

It’s a very sorry story, but true happening. What is puzzling to me is that the Bin Laden family has been business partners with the Bush Cheney family for decades. Profiteering through war.

[Sunlei]

18. it is treason but republicans see no war criminals,wall street fraudsters,target holders like palin

pray the president dies email senders, media liars, congress with their stock fraud, the wacked out war contractors...no one is ever charged with any "crimes" in America except the little citizens they have stuffed in their 'for profit' prison Corps.