Is Bush guilty of treason?

[ButterflyBlood]

YES! As is Rumsfeld and the rest of the criminals in this adminstration. Hopefully one day they will be charged.

[whistle]

1. This is a classic "push/pull" poll

[mike_c]

2. please add a "not sure" category....

Bush is CERTAINLY guilty of multiple crimes, including international crimes against peace. He is likely guilty of lying to Congress on multiple occasions. And while I'd certainly like to see him spend the rest of his life bent over a prison bunk with a mouthful of socks to muffle his screams, I just don't know what basis there is for accusing him of treason. Could some of the folks who voted "yes" describe what treasonous acts he's committed and why they're legally treasonous?

[Wilms]

3. Three numbers

9 1 1

[mike_c]

8. ok, let me clarify my confusion....

Treason: Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

The basis for U.S. laws regarding treason was English law in which treason was most broadly defined as attempting-- or even simply thinking about-- killing the sovereign, or having sex with the sovereigns daughter without the sovereign's consent. Clearly, the framers of the constitution wanted to avoid such excesses....

A thorough discussion is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html which includes the following excerpt (my emphasis):

Doubtful State of the Law of Treason Today

The vacillation of Chief Justice Marshall between the Bollman 1304 and Burr 1305 cases and the vacillation of the Court in the Cramer 1306 and Haupt 1307 cases leave the law of treason in a somewhat doubtful condition. The difficulties created by the Burr case have been obviated to a considerable extent through the punishment of acts ordinarily treasonable in nature under a different label, 1308 within a formula provided by Chief Justice Marshall himself in the Bollman case. The passage reads: ''Crimes so atrocious as those which have for their object the subversion by violence of those laws and those institutions which have been ordained in order to secure the peace and happiness of society, are not to escape punishment, because they have not ripened into treason. The wisdom of the legislature is competent to provide for the case; and the framers of our Constitution . . . must have conceived it more safe that punishment in such cases should be ordained by general laws, formed upon deliberation, under the influence of no resentments, and without knowing on whom they were to operate, than that it should be inflicted under the influence of those passions which the occasion seldom fails to excite, and which a flexible definition of the crime, or a construction which would render it flexible, might bring into operation.'' 1309

[Jack Rabbit]

17. The only definition of treason that counts is this one

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.
-- US Constitution, Article 3, section 3

[jdj]

43. outing Plame sure gave aid and comfort to the enemy. nt/

[serryjw]

46. Try this on for size

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.


Did he do this?

[FromTheLeft]

72. Yes...

he has done that to the best of his ability, which sums up to total of Jack Schit accommplished, but even if he had not it would be reason for impeachment, not treason.

[earth mom]

26. You said it! If people here on DU don't know why * belongs in jail by now

....:wtf:

[mike_c]

31. ahh, now you're mixing apples and oranges....

I can suggest a couple of dozen reasons why Bush should be in jail. But are any of them treasonous? The more I think about, the less likely that seems.

[Wilms]

36. What part of 9 1 1 , can we detail for you? n/t

[mike_c]

38. oh come on, don't be condescending....

You can detail the part where Bush either:

1) actively participated in an armed attempt to overthrow the constitutional government of the United States (and recall that conspiracy to do so is a separate crime, NOT treason), or

2) the part where he deliberately provided material assistance to someone who was engaged in (1).

I'm sorry, but 9-11 had nothing to do with overthrowing the government-- it was an expression of rage-- and besides, Bush already was the head of state. Even if Bush were in it up to his eyeballs, personally and directly, it's not treason. It might be fun to call all the crimes committed by Bush treason simply because he's the one who committed them, but that no more makes them treason than a murder committed by a bank robber is made bank robbery. Bush IS a criminal, but just about the quickest way I can see for him to walk if he's ever charged is if he's charged with the wrong crime.

[Clark2008]

68. How 'bout the part where he was warned a month before it happened

and, obviously warned his staff (Google links for Ashcroft not flying commerical for an "unspecified reason"), but didn't warn the American public, didn't do a damn thing to prevent it.

If you don't like 9/11, how 'bout lying to Congress about WMDs?

I'm sure others here have other suggestions.

[mike_c]

71. read the thread....

Those are likely crimes, but they're not "treason."

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. Read what the international community thinks of fearless leader

and the thugs he chums with. Yes... chumming is a good term... bloodying the waters of the world with the blood of people who were in no way associated with 911, while leaving the ones who were to roam free.

www.BrusselsTribunal.org

[Mugsy]

39. Examples of Treason...

There are SO many, but just off the top of my head:

According to the Constitution, when the President takes an oath to defend the Constitution, he is legally "Under Oath" in all official proceedings... this includes (explicitly) the State of the Union Address.

When President Bush, despite having been told on numerous occasions 11 months before his 2003 SOTU that there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq tried to obtain Uranium from Niger, yet he went ahead and told the country that anyway in a deliberate attempt to mislead the country and drum up support for an illegal war, he committed an impeachable offense. Compounding that offense with war crimes that propelled the nation into a false war, is treason. Lying to the country was treason. Disregarding international law (the Geneva Convention) that may very well jeopardize the lives and safety of our own troops... is treason.

...and on the second day...

[mike_c]

48. those are indeed crimes, but they're not treason....

eom

[bdot]

62. Sure he is.

When you have your own soldiers killed just to satify your own hatred and greed, that's treason.

[bywho4who]

40. How about

The murder of 2902 people in new york city? WILL THAT DO?

[mike_c]

49. I'm sorry, but no, it won't....

Any involvement Bush might have had with 9-11, even simple dereliction of duty, is certainly criminal, but it's not treason. 9-11 had NOTHING to do with overthrowing the government.

on edit-- likewise, the murder of over 100,000 innocent Iraqis is a crime against humanity, but it's not treason.

[serryjw]

45. 2 that I can think of

9 1 1

and

The invasion of Iraq..You don't send citizens to war based on lies

[mike_c]

50. again, both are crimes, beyond any doubt, but they're not treason....

[serryjw]

54. Strange

Our Countries's leadership is in cahoots with the enemy, ignors evidence that a crime against this country and it's citizens is going to happen, you allow it to happen and that's not treason???....then what is?

[mike_c]

55. see #38 above....

or # 51 below

[Clark2008]

69. I don't think you know the definition of treason

It's not just "overthrowing the government."

It's:
# a crime that undermines the offender's government
# disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
# treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal

[mike_c]

70. no, you're wrong....

You might believe those actions are "treasonous", but they are NOT necessarily treason. Treason is broadly defined by Article 3, section 3 of the U.S. 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.

In particular, the term "enemies" is usually interpreted in terms of those "levying war" against the U.S.

Check the Findlaw references at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html for a history of court interpretation. The main point is that the vast majority of "treasonous" crimes are covered by OTHER laws, and are not "treason." Espionage is a good example.

[jdots]

4. look up treason before you say he isn't

turn off the t.v. if you are undecided,because actions are stronger than propaganda.

[Clark2008]

6. Which time?

Or, more aptly put, "Does a bear shit in the woods?"

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

7. Bush has given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States

Article III of the U.S. Consititution, Section 3:

"...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..."

Judge Irving R. Kaufman made it clear that one of the factors in finding the Rosenbergs guilty of treason was the fact that they were responsible for the Korean War and the deaths of 50,000 UN and American soldiers in that war:

"...I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-bomb <...> has already caused, in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason..."

I submit that the PNAC and their various disguised forms such as the Heritage Foundation are the enemies of the United States, in having hijacked the Bush Administration and the United States into pursuing war and dominion for their own agenda, contrary to the interests of the People. The blood of the our soldiers in Iraq is on their hands.

[mike_c]

10. by that definition nearly every U.S. president...

...who has provided aid to revolutionary forces is "guilty" of treason (and by that I mean a loose interpretation of the "giving aid and comfort" clause) since many are professed "enemies" of the U.S., i.e. the mujahidin that became al-Qaida. Unless I'm mistaken, the court has usually required that those enemies be engaged in armed warfare against the U.S. at the time the aid was rendered. As for the Rosenberg decision, surely you'd agree that that was judicial excess-- that the Rosenbergs were not really "responsible" for the Korean War?

Don't get me wrong-- I agree with you about the intent of the PNAC et al to undermine American institutions of government, or at least democratic norms, but the court has also stated clearly, as I read it, that while such acts might be criminal under some circumstances, they are not treason. Here's the Findlaw reference I'm using: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

14. The finding of treason seems to be a matter of political interpretation

I agree that the decision against the Rosenbergs was excessive. The Russians were not at war with the United States, and neither is the PNAC officially at war with the people. Nonetheless, the Rosenberg decision was one generally supported by the country. Why should the left only be found guilty of treason and not the extremist right? I agree that several Presidents could have been found guilty of treason by that definition. I agree (if this is what you are saying) that Ronald Reagan should have been found guilty of treason for aiding and giving comfort to sworn enemies of the United States, such as Osama Bin Laden. Reagan's chief aide (now a U.S. Congressman in California) Dana Rohrbacher has even admitted to travel to Afghanistan to support the Mujahedeen and meeting with a very young Osama Bin Laden.

The materials that you cited indicate that the current definition of treason is in fact nebulous. I suggest for our purposes here that it turns upon the definition of "enemy of the United States". The definition of what constitutes an "enemy" has not be clarified under the law. I would propose that it is dependent upon a political interpretation, especially when there has been no formal declaration of war.

To repeat the definition of treason under the Constitition:

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

There are two central lines of cases involving treason, including those in the materials you cited. Those involving the actual "levying of war" against the United States are one line. The other line involving "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" are another. Directly levying war upon the United States establishes the individual as an enemy per se. Aide and comfort to the enemy is less clear cut.

[mike_c]

18. yep, that's why I asked for clarification in this thread....

It's easy and somewhat cheap to snap off a "Bush is guilty of treason" post, but the reality is not nearly so clear. Personally, I'm "not certain," but I'm leaning toward "not guilty," at least not of treason. I can't say he's not treasonous, and he is CERTAINLY guilty of multiple crimes, but are they treason? I suspect that they could be considered such only, as you suggest, under a politicized legal interpretation. For example if he were found to have actually conspired with bin Laden in the planning of 9-11, that might be treasonous, but not all conspiracies are treason, and I suspect even that would not really be treasonous because its intent was not to overthrow the government. Simple failure to act, even if he knew the 9-11 attacks were a certainty, would certainly be criminal dereliction of duty and a whole host of other crimes, but again falls far short of treason, IMO.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

20. That wasn't quite MY point

The overthrow of the government seems to be the issue in the line of cases involving the first portion of Article III, Section 3, that of "levying war against the United States". In the cases you cited, it was determined by the USSC that the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country is not necessarily treason:

"However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into open action by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that . . . it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying of war."

I'm not saying that Bush has levied war against the United States (although some might feel that way) or conspired with others to levy war, or that he has even attempted to overthrow the United States. As mentioned in my previous post, treason consists of TWO separate and distinct types of activities: levying war OR aiding enemies of the United States. An individual might not have sought to overthrow the United States or to levy war against it. But that same individual might be guilty of the second type of treason: aide and comfort to the enemy. I argue in favor of finding Bush guilty of aide and comfort to the enemies of the United States. That would require the court defining whether the PNAC is an enemy. I argue that it is and I suggest that any definition of what constitutes an "enemy" is a political determination.

[mike_c]

29. I think we're mostly in agreement, but perhaps talking at...

...cross purposes. :toast:

[firefox]

16. Bush himself is an enemy of the US

He ignores the general welfare in his raid on the treasury and corporate agenda. He surely does not defend the Constitution or there would be no Patriot Act that allowed the government to go into your house without witness and threaten you with prison if you told someone about it.

[bywho4who]

41. Hell Yes

THATS RIGHT:kick:

[FromTheLeft]

73. In that case

Both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court would also be guilty. Passing and supporting law that is contray to the constitution is not treason. That is why our final check is there.

The supreme court is to decide whether or not some is or isn't constitutional, not our legislature. They are supposed to act in the best interest of the people, which is what they thought they were doing at the time, no matter how wrong they were.

[Ready4Change]

9. Not sure about Bush himself.

I still think he's a clueless stooge. But someone in the White House is, yes.

[timtom]

11. Wish I could share your uncertainty

but, let's see...no, Bush is guilty of treason.

[Stop_the_War]

12. duh

[Octafish]

13. Bush Knew and Let Attah Through.

Is that treasonous enough, America?

BUSHwas warned about Osama bin Laden months before 9-11. This was BEFORE the CIA briefed him at Crawford during his first month-long vacation in August 2001. Remember, Bush said he had been “forced” to sleep offshore during the G-8 summit in Genoa. The reason: bin Laden threatened to crash the party with a jet plane. This shows, at BEST, Bush's incompetence enabled 9-11. That makes him criminally derelict in his duty as commander-in-chief, an impeachable offense. What’s more likely, based on the results of his leadership in the three years since, Bush just decided to let 9-11 happen as a reason for building up the world’s first sole-superpower police state.

There is no doubt the former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and President Clinton personally warned the incoming administration of the dangers posed by bin Laden and Al Quaeda.

Later that summer, DCI George Tenet's hair was afire with all the warnings he was getting. How come he didn't get the info about the flight schools from CIA? Perhaps he'duh warned the airlines or even the flying public?

It's most LIKELY Bush's incompetence was the result of willfull ignorance. That requires no stretch of the imagination. Consider the following evidence, from JUNE-JULY 2001:

Plot to assassinate Bush - reports

Bin Laden: Believed to have a network of guerrillas

July 9, 2001 Posted: 9:23 AM EDT (1323 GMT)

MOSCOW, Russia -- Osama bin Laden has threatened to assassinate U.S. President George W. Bush at a G8 meeting in Italy, the head of Russia's Federal Bodyguard Service has said, according to reports.

The Associated Press said Yevgeny Murov was quoted by Itar-Tass news agency as saying: "Bin Laden is threatening the American president, but we know what international terrorism is today and therefore all the bodyguard units concerned are preparing for this.

"We view the threats as totally serious, but hope that with joint efforts we can solve all the problems."

The Group of Eight summit is meeting between July 20-22 in Genoa, Italy. Leaders from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States are expected to attend the summit.

Murov -- Russian President Vladimir Putin's chief bodyguard -- did not elaborate on the threats. He said agents from Russia's Federal Bodyguard Service have travelled to Genoa to coordinate with their counterparts from the other nations taking part in the summit to investigate the threats.

CONTINUED...

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/20/russia.binladen/


Missiles to protect summit leaders

Special report: globalisation

Rory Carroll in Rome
Wednesday July 11, 2001
The Guardian

Italy has installed a missile defence system at Genoa's airport to deter airborne attacks during next week's G8 summit, fuelling hysteria about looming violence.

A land-based battery of rockets with a range of nine miles and an altitude of 5,000 feet has been positioned in the latest security measure against perceived threats from terrorists and protesters.

Unidentified planes, helicopters and balloons risk being shot down should they drift too close to the heads of state from the group of seven leading industrialised nations and Russia.
Colonel Alberto Battaglini, of the ministry of defence, said the precaution was not exces sive. "The measure, which was planned by the previous government, may seem open to criticism, but in reality it is merely to act as a deterrent against any aerial incursion during the summit.

"They are little missiles ... which only have a deterrent function to discourage any aerial-led attack and they do not present any danger to the residents of the city," he said.

CONTINUED...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/story/0,7369,519925,00.html

Then there's John Ashcan who stopped flying commercial in July 2001.

Ashcroft Flying High

WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001

CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart reports on Aschcroft's travel arrangements.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines." -- FBI spokesman

(CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.

CONTINUED...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

And then what did BUSH DO POST-9-11?

HE BROKE INTERNATIONAL LAW TO INVADE A NATION WITH WHICH WE WERE AT PEACE TO STEAL THE OIL. SO DON'T PICK ON THE FUCKING TROOPS. PLACE THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS -- THE CRIMINAL CABAL RUNNING AND RUINING THE COUNTRY AND PLANET. OH YEAH. BUSH MAY ONLY BE THEIR FRONTMAN, BUT HE IS STILL A TRAITOR.

[jimmy47nyc]

21. Bravo...octafish

I couldn't have said it better..the failure to act prior to 911 is a crime,just imagine if bush had alerted the nation and the hijackers called off the sept.11 date,moved it to another day in the future what would the news of the nation be? slow economy,few jobs but more importantly,"the collapse of enron".how would bush handle all news all the time about enron and his close relationship with kenron lay..i dont believe enron caused sept.11 but bush coundn't go foward with any agenda until enron's mess was cleaned up,which by the still endures
let's also not forget "IRAQ" .according to paul thompson"s invasion timeline on jan.21 2001 p-nac already had plans to invade IRAQ.bush was quoted by o'neil,"find me a way into IRAQ".It gets worse,April 2001 James{stop the recount}Baker discusses "how the advance of P-NAC will likely be slow absent some catastropic and catalyizing event"like a new pearl harbor.It stinks octafish,3,000 innocent pawns for P-NAC horrifically killed and for what I ask?
COULD IT BE FOR THE OILFIELDS IN IRAQ?
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :dem: :hi: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Octafish]

33. Remember the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa?

The late Jim "Fortunate Son" Hatfield thought Bushler FAKED an assassination threat from Osama. Gee. If only Hatfield had lived to see the day...

Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner?

By James Hatfield

Editor's note: In light of last week's horrific events and the Bush administration's reaction to them, we are reprising the following from the last column Jim Hatfield wrote for Online Journal prior to his tragic death on July 18:

July 3, 2001—There may be fireworks in Genoa, Italy, this month, too.

A plot by Saudi master terrorist, Osama bin Laden, to assassinate Dubya during the July 20 economic summit of world leaders, was uncovered after dozens of suspected Islamic militants linked to bin Laden's international terror network were arrested in Frankfurt, Germany, and Milan, Italy, in April.

German intelligence services have stated that bin Laden is covertly financing neo-Nazi skinhead groups throughout Europe to launch another terrorist attack at a high-profile American target—his first since the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen last October.

According to counter-terrorism experts quoted in Germany's largest newspaper, the attack on Dubya might be a James Bond-like aerial strike in the form of remote-controlled airplanes packed with plastic explosives.

Why would Osama bi Laden want to kill, Dubya, his former business partner?

I knew that bombshell would whip your heads around. So here's the straight scoop, folks.

CONTINUED...

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Hatfield-R-091901/hatfield-r-091901.html

BTW: Thank you for the kind words, jimmy47nyc!

To PNAC, oil is thicker than blood. The Pentagon considers petroleum a strategic resource. As such, it's ours to buy or steal or whatever's needed to keep the machines going a-chooga chooga.

Most importantly: A hearty welcome to DU!

[jimmy47nyc]

35. thank you for the welcome..

octafish,can bush claim ignorance of the events leading up to sept.11? he tried portraying that image on sept.11 2001 9:37 am. with his brief"America is under attack "statement.At the time i didn't disbelieve him,I even supported him in spite of flordia as well as yourself,true Americans we were but then as the weeks and months passed the true nature of the beast showed its colors,Iraq was PNAC's goal for openers with an ultimate desire for American influence from Lebanon to China.As the months passed discrepencies,leaked documents and other contradictions surfaced and bush/cheney can't deny "THEY KNEW".Think about this,the Aug 6 pdb was leaked,how many pdb's weren't revealed?bush hides behind executive prividlege.It saddens me to know we the people can't have the answers.
:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :dem:

[Mugsy]

42. Bush was on the M/E warpath LONG before 9/11! (link - note date!)

From my own website - www.bi30archive.org:

"Bush was on the Middle-East WMD warpath long before 9/11" - In this February 16, 2000 PBS interview, then governor George W. Bush makes the following statement:

"<...> I'm just as frustrated as many Americans are that Saddam Hussein still lives. I think we ought to keep the pressure on him. I will tell you this: If we catch him developing weapons of mass destruction in any way, shape or form, I'll deal with that in a way that he won't like."

Forget former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Anti-Terrorism Czar Richard Clark's revelations that Bush was after Saddam 15 days into his Presidency. It was already ancient history by then!

[jimmy47nyc]

56. good site...thanks

The open letter from a mother whose daughter's life was sacrificed to advance P-NAC was compelling.She nailed bush.He cant answer so he hides the documents behind National Security,Executive Privilidge.What kind of reaction might bush have received from the nation had he been honest and said on sept.11,2001,"my fellow americans i was warned about these attacks,my aug 6 pdb clearly pointed out this could happen" not to forget the system was blinking red? bush claimed ignorance...he should rot in hell!!!!!
hello mugsy..

:toast: :hi: :hi: :dem: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Cleita]

15. I definitely think the Supreme Court is guilty when they stopped

the count in Florida in the 2000 election. They did not uphold the constitution. It should have been the Florida supreme court that should have settled the election not the federal Supreme Court. They crossed the line into treason and yet look where we are. I have always considered this administration to be a rogue one and not legitimate in any sense.

Of course Bush and his cronies have crossed that line into treason so many times I think we would have to make a list.

[Karenina]

19. Absolutely.

The downward spiral is breath-taking and a TOTAL BUMMER. My only question is WHEN will this shit bottom out? I do so dislike the CONSTANT SUSPENSE, finding it quite stressful, yet unable to avert my eyes...

[mike_c]

22. I hate to say it, but there's an awful lot of sloppy reasoning...

...expressed in this thread. Bush is CERTAINLY guilty of multiple crimes, but none appear to actually be treasonous. Acting against the best interests of the nation often violates laws, and is often criminal, but as I read the court's decisions, one must be actively engaged in armed combat against the U.S. with the purpose of abolishing the constitutional government, or deliberately assisting others who are doing that in order to be considered treasonous. Even conspiring to overthrow the government is not treason under normal circumstances (although it is a crime). Even if Bush were shown to have conspired directly with bin Laden to plan the 9-11 attacks, as someone suggested above, it would not be "treason." Conspiracy to commit air piracy, mass murder, etc certainly, but not treason. Failure to act during and after the attacks might likewise be criminal (it would depend), but is even less likely to be treasonous. Similarly, lying to congress is a crime, but it's not treason.

Most of the examples I've seen cited in this thread fall far short of treason, and seriously folks, we don't want to start playing fast and loose with the definition of treason!

on edit-- regarding the 2000 SCOTUS decision, I would argue that the laws regarding treason are meant to protect the OFFICE of the presidency, not the OCCUPANT. Again, engaging in a power struggle that ultimately subverts election laws is likely criminal, but it's not treasonous.

[Donailin]

25. do we not arm and fund our own enemies???

OBL? SH?

[mike_c]

30. self deleted

it was a dumb comment

[FromTheLeft]

74. All the time...only

when we do they are not our enemys. Remember what Sun-Tzu said, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. When we were funding Iraq in the 80's we were at war with Iran, when we funded the Osama in the early 90's we were at war with Iraq, as we now fund Saudi Arabia to fight Iraq the will soon be our enemy. Life is all about timing.

[Donailin]

23. good god, who voted no???

[mike_c]

24. ultimately, I did....

See my responses in the thread above. I struggled with that decision a lot.

[Donailin]

27. you gave good reason

I can't fault that. But c'mon, surely theres a way . . <g>

How about war crimes?

[mike_c]

28. oh they're certainly crimes...

...and I hope to live to see the day Bush goes to prison for them, but I just don't think they meet the standard for treason. Don't get me wrong. Bush is a brazen criminal. I just haven't seen any good evidence for that particular crime yet.

[Swamp Rat]

32. And genocide... and if we don't stop this administration soon...

think Germany, 1941.

[SouthernDem2004]

67. Genocide against who?

[Swamp Rat]

75. WARNING! Graphic photos! - If this doesn't answer your question,

there's no hope for you.

Here are some of the youngest survivors of genocide:

[NoPasaran]

76. Calling it "genocide" every time a civilian is killed in a war zone

Calling it "genocide" every time a civilian is killed in a war zone really cheapens the term. The United States is not engaged in a policy of extermination of Iraqis.

[Swamp Rat]

78. I beg to differ. It's called PNAC.

What is it?... a kinder, gentler Manifest Destiny?

[NoPasaran]

80. Your logic escapes me...

You call it genocide.
I say, no, it's not genocide.
You beg to differ... it's PNAC.

Huh?

Unless you claim that PNAC = genocide, which so devalues the gravity of the crime of genocide that the term is worthless (like Grover Norquist comparing the progressive income tax with the Holocaust).

[Swamp Rat]

82. My "logic" has nothing to do with it.

"like Grover Norquist comparing the progressive income tax with the Holocaust" - That's funny... and very ironic.

I say genocide and you say tomato. x(

[SouthernDem2004]

77. Thats senselesss killing, genocide means something else...

[Swamp Rat]

83. Nope.

If you mean without purpose, the killing in Iraq is not senseless. The clearly defined reasons, outlined in PNAC and our foreign policy, are being carried out at this moment. What is being done, in our name, is systematic and premediated mass murder in order to obtain control over a raw commodity and create a political hegemony.

It's is right there in front of us, like the proverbial elephant in the living room.

[FreedomAngel82]

34. Yes

He's the CIC in a time of war. He could've come out and said "no" to the torture and all that but he never said a word. So yes he is. And tons of other things. But what can we do? Elections don't work. Is there anyway to get help from another country or SOMETHING? Get justice for all their bs? And I agree. The WHOLE administration should go! Bush and Rumsfeld ESPECIALLY.

[LSdemocrat]

37. Incredibly delusional ideological stupidity does not constitute treason

[hootinholler]

44. It may be a push poll, but here's why I say yes:

He Lied to Congress in order to gain war powers. If that's not treason then Huston, we gots a problem.

-Hoot

[mike_c]

51. well, we got a problem, because lying to Congress is a crime...

...but it's not treason. Treason is either levying war against the United States, generally understood to be with the intent of overthrowing the constitutional government, or providing material aid to someone who is levying war against the U.S., again with similar intent. Legal opinions about treason are filled with the notion that most crimes against the peace or order fall under the general laws passed by state and federal legislatures, so even assassinating the president is not usually treason-- it's a separate crime. Even conspiracy to commit treason is generally not treason-- it falls under a separate set of laws. Lying to Congress would only be treason if it was directely or indirectly part of an armed campaign to overthrow the government of the U.S.

[zann725]

47. Okay now, give us a tough question, will ya?!

That was too easy.

[fat free goodness]

52. This thread illustrates the worst of DU.

It’s reminiscent of the persecutors of Bill Clinton. It’s a sadly humorous recurring theme to (a) accuse political foes of being treasonous thieves, deliberately destroying the Fatherland for their own person gain; (b bemoan how much you hate them; (c) express a desire to humiliate and punish them, preferably with jail time, no matter how long this takes...
Then, accuse them of being mean spirited, nasty people, who will use distortions, slander, and exaggeration to damage their political foes.

You can disagree with someone, even think their plans and policies are disastrous, without accusing them of treason. It’s possible to think the other guy is wrong while understanding he is doing what he thinks best. By proclaiming all Republican politicians are evil Nazis who rape and pillage for personal benefit, and those who vote for them are either willing accomplices or sheep-like morons, you destroy the credibility your policy may have.

Pay attention here:
It’s possible to be wrong (even badly wrong) without being a traitor.
It’s easy to loose all credibility by claiming your political foes are traitors and/or Nazis.

[noonwitch]

53. No, but Reagan and his daddy are

Selling weapons to a country that was our enemy (Iran) to fund money for weapons for a group of fighters in another country (Nicauragua) because Congress would not fund those nun-killing, drug-smuggling "freedom fighters" is complicated, but it is treason, at least the Iran part of it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

57. You're forgetting the Nixon Doctrine.

"If the President does it, it can't be illegal."

I'm sure Bush wholeheartedly endorses this...

[Amfortas]

58. Is there any doubt?

[Dookus]

59. sigh

this shows at least 196 DUers haven't read the constitution.

[Dangerman]

60. HELL YEAH!!!

[Frumious B]

63. "Treason" isn't the word I'd use.

However, that's mainly because I'm really not into nationalism or countries as entities so the concept of betraying them doesn't really mean that much to me. I'm more interested in the human race as a whole. Calling someone a traitor is too far down that Hannity/O'Reilly path for me. Bush is definitely guilty of murder and other crimes against humanity. I'd love to watch his trial.

[VelvetMonkeyWrench]

61. Wouldn't it be quicker to...

...just bring up all the old Clinton lynching files and do a global search/replace?

The Birchers probably got some kind of suitable "dem treason" boilerplate screeds online somewhere that could be ripped off and GSR'd :freak:

-- edit --
looking for suitable smiley ;->

[Q]

64. Bush protected 'enemies of the state' and obstructed justice...

...in the matter of financing of terrorism by his friends and business associates in the Saudi Royal Family.

It's on the record. He aided and abetted those who financed 9-11 by obstructing investigations and hiding information that connected the Saudi Royal and bin Laden families financing of terrorist networks. Bush was also able to hide the fact that he and his family had direct connections to the principles in this network.

This is treason.

It's also a high crime to rush this nation to war and unnecessarily put US troops in harm's way based on fabricated evidence.

[OrlandoGator]

65. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks of the "T" word.

I don't think it matters what flag they stand behind...if they are traitors to the principles and ideals this nation was founded upon, they are traitors to this nation.

Plus, I think that Bush's "special" relationship with Saudi Arabia has not been scrutinized nearly enough. He comes from an oil family, has close ties to the Saudi royals, then attacks an oil-rich country based on false premises. That smacks of treason.

[Bertha Venation]

66. Of being a terrible, awful president? Yes. Of treason? No.

Read the Constitution's definition (provided by Jack Rabbit in post # 17).

Bush ought to be run out of town on a rail for the damage he's done to this country in the name of making it better. :puke: But based on what I've read, seen, experienced, he hasn't committed treason.

[Seeker30]

79. Yes he is guilty

Him and the republican party in general are guilty of treason. They have overthrown the US Government by election fraud.

[The Animator]

81. giving them aid and comfort...

Well by this definition Bush has commited treason.

By launching this war for profit in Iraq, he has bolstered opposition to the United States. In his inept attempt to irradicate all terrorists he has created many more.

Many formerly moderate muslims who before had no axe to grind against the United States now hate our country with the white hot passion of a thousand suns. Bin Laden told the muslim world that the U.S. is full of arrogant bulling pricks, and that they will wage a war against their religion. Bush has played directly into Bin Laden's hands by being the arrogant, bullying prick Bin Laden described.

I beleive that giving Bin Laden credibility is "giving them aid and comfort."

I beleive that pissing off most of the world, thus increasing the number of people in the world who would do us harm by becoming terrorists is "giving them aid and comfort."

And while were at it... let's talk a little about the Patriot Act...
What more effective way to destroy a nation than from the inside out?

[MrSlayer]

84. Yes, I believe he is.

Outing a CIA agent, Causing or allowing 9/11, murdering our own soldiers, yeah I'd say that's treason.