Oh, Mark, you've opened yourself up to the attack dogs here in B4B. However, the only real problem they have with you is that you're a conservative Republican. I am, in fact, a lot like you. However, I have some "patching up" to do in the faith area, and I tend to despise certain people based on what I perceive to be their true ignorance of today's world.

I think you're a super person, Mark, and I am impressed at your patience with those who are obviously less-informed than you. I'm sure you don't have anything to worry about the Shipley's, Observer's, shortz', et.al., of the world.

Cheerio--there's blue-collar work to be done...

I'm not sure I take you seriously enough to hate you. In fact I find your policy of not hating anyone fairly admirable and probably one to emulate.

Now a feeble intellect combined with only a passing interest in your website means I cannot remember if it was you, BUT:

Were you the same guy who backed Bush in his defence of the Dubai ports deal and when it became obvious that by supporting the President on that you were alienating yourself from the rest of this Blog? From all conservatives in fact? I'd say that was one incident where you were a Republican first and a conservative second.

I found it reprehensible that rather than admitting you misjudged the conservative feeling on that you instead went on some long winded tearful sermon about what a good Christian you are. Well Mark, if that was your post I'm afraid you'll have to do better to convince me of your conservativism.

Being of Faith is not something to use as an excuse for making misjudgements like that. Jesus may forgive you but the rest of us are more interested in your behaviour as a man among men. By all means revel in your faith, but don't cheapen it by using it as a shield for your own worldly mistakes.

... This Town ...
Artist: Elvis Costello
Album: Spike
Year: 1989
Title: ... This Town ...

That Charlie Sedarka was a-playing the piano
like he was pawing a dirty book
He bit a hole in his big bottom lip and gave his
very best little boy look
It was a song with a topical verse which I'm
afraid he then proceeded to sing
Something about the moody doomed love of
the Fish-Finger King

[Chorus:]
You're nobody in this town
You're nobody in this crowd
You're nobody till everybody in this town
thinks you're poison,
Got your number knows it must be avoided
You're nobody till everybody in this town
thinks you're a bastard

Mr. Getgood moved up to Self-Made Man Row
Although he swears that he's the salt of the earth
He's so proud of the "kick-me-hard" sign that
they hung on his back at birth
He said "I appreciate beauty, if I have one, then
it's my fault"
"Beauty is on my pillow, beauty is there in
my vault"

[Chorus]

The girl with the eternity rock went down on
her bookie to buy some stock
Now all her signs in the shopping arcades say
"The corporation thief is The New Jesse James"
Her clothes and her attention were scant, her
eyes were everywhere,
Her eyes were like abstinthe [sic]
The little green figures that dance on his screen
say everything you want to hear and nothing
they mean
They made love while she was changing her dress
She wiped him off she wiped him out and then
she made him confess
A little amused by the belief in her power
You must remember this it was the fetish of
the hour

[Chorus]

In my opinion it is not possible to define “treason” in left-wing term. There are too many left-wing persons today, and this word is defined by each person as it fits him.

Mark

You hit the nail on the head:

"I am Catholic, conservative and Republican, in that order."

That explains why you're hated. You actually believe and try to live live and yes, vocalize your faith above all else - He told you they would hate you for doing just that.

Liberalism cannot tolerate Catholicism, actually lived -it is against all that they stand for.

As I've said repeatedly Mark, speech can only be treason if it's intent is to help our enemies defeat our country:

See US law:

"On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy -- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength -- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason."

What you are accussing the left of is not treason, plain and simple.

In your hatred for the left, you've A) not cited any evidence when accussing them of treason and B) ignored US law.

It doesn't get any lower than that.

And talk about changing the subject, Mark. I'm willing to talk about treason til the cows come home. But because I've called you an f'ing coward for not back up your claims, you're making this into "the left hates Mark."

What a joke.

I'm not taking the bait. It's nothing personal. The fact is that in a real debate you simply dismiss those who disagree with your claptrap as spouting "leftwing liberal lies". The facts speak for themselves. You are simply unable to accept them or even conduct an even-handed debate because you know you will lose.

You vigorously attack any political opponent for any reason, although you make pious claims to be a "peaceful" individual. You routinely make savage posts to denigrate opponents, while ignoring everything from Dick "Five Deferrment" Cheney's blatant lies and distortions to justify the Iraq War, to his well-publicized "Go f**k yourself" comment he made to a member of congress during a photo op, to name a few.

Under your facade of "reason" there is a certain arrogance and condescention in your posts. Perhaps you have chosen this forum to express yourself so that you can enjoy the reinforcement of being in the company of other "true believers" who have drunk the Bush Kool Aid of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. This way you can deny reality in your little self-reinforcing echo chamber, puncuated from time to time by Tom Shipley and others who make genuine attempts to interject reality and reason into the debate.

Please.....spare us the self-aggrandizing bull.

Thank you for the opportunity to vent. I fully understand that this site is a right-wing propaganda tool. It is called Blogs4Bush for god’s sakes. You wouldn’t be doing your job if you did not defend “W” at every opportunity.

As far as treason’s speech, in my opinion supplying the enemy with tactical information would be aiding and abetting. Protesting is not treason.

Bush might of had a good reason to invade Iraq. I don’t know because he has never told us. I applauded “W” for his hard stance on Saddam, but it was clear from the start that Saddam was not a threat, yet the invasion was preordained.

I will never forgive “W” for allowing OBL to escape justice, and for lying to the American people about Iraq. If he wanted to invade Iraq fine, but tell us the truth.

Mark,

I don't hate you . I'm certain you are a great guy.
You said, " I am Catholic, conservative and Republican, in that order." And I have no problem with this. The problem I have is that you believe those in charge of our country our Christians, conservatives and Republicans and I say they are nothing of the sort. They are not representing the American people but choose the interest of Corporatist and wealthy donors over the American people. You say you are Catholic, conservative and Republican but I believe you have prioritized in the reverse order. You've put party over both politics and your faith, IMO.

Anyway, I'm a human being, a father, an American, an independent and an atheist in that order.....

Sorry Mark.....but there's nothing wrong with hate!
Look up the seven things God hates and we are made in his image!!!

Mark

Thank you so much for giving us a glimpse of the man behind the words.

I have never attacked you as a person and never will. We all realize that there are always two sides to every opinion. Some think, "a right side, and a wrong side". The people posting here, offering Conservative views and views from the Liberal arena all believe they are on the right side.

Perhaps, somewhere down the line, we will all be on the same side, but human nature being what it is, I don't think any of us will be here to see it.

Mark, when this administration packs it in; you may look back and agree that the disapproval of its' policies and the damage they have inflicted, were well founded.

Um... Mark, perhaps you should have read a bit farther. I did give you "some sort of actual description of the sorts of acts a leftwing person would consider treason."

"Feeding, housing, funding enemy agents or nations is treason. Raising an army—that is, physically gathering people and arms with the express purpose of attacking US institutions—is treason. Spying is treason. But ‘psychologically’ aiding is not. The idea is amorphous and subject to abuse—no, not subject, really. The default is abuse."

In other words, I consider treason to be not much different than, and you seem to agree, how the founders saw it, so I didn't elaborate too much.

Oh... thanks for that 'excellent writer' bit, and I am not terribly 'left' actually-- more libertarian if I had to pick a label, but those guys have their own set of quirks. I'm coming to think I am more conservative than you are on some issues, like sticking to the Constitution and not breaking the law and such. And isn't it the 'liberals' who've run wild with the 'psychological damage' BS?

Well Mark, you have now gotten all the typical liberal Bull Ship remarks from the same B.S. posters! Do you feel any better or smarter or like you know these guys better now? NO! I didn't think so! You once gave me some great advice, I'm going to pass it back to you! Don't feed the trolls! This is feeding the trolls! All it does is remind us of how shallow, gutless, & discriminatory their lives are!

Bearman, this thread is all about Mark trying to avoid the fact that he's just plain wrong on his treason stance.

It is not treason to criticize the government, even if our enemies receive aid and comfort (in the loosest possible sense) from those words.

I don't have a lot of time here, but it seems to me that when former Presidents and Vice Presidents of this country go to the Middle East and criticize the administration in the most heated and imprudent rhetorical terms, this is more than giving aid and comfort in the loosest sense. I have no problem with anyone saying what they have to say, but it is clearly very different when Tom Shipley or shortz or muirgeo criticize the administration then when these former highest office holders do so in the Middle East. IMO, they do so with the express intent of undermining US foreign policy and this President, not just to express disagreement. (Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy for years.) If the line to treason has been crossed, it is in this kind of instance.

Mark, according to you political protest against the war is treason, but Reagan selling missiles to our enemy Iran, and using the profits to fund a terrorist group in South America was patriotic?

It's all about the way you look at things Ship, & Barney! Obviously some of us see Marks point ship! I wouldn't equate this to every day dipships like ourselves, but our leaders and prominent figures in the media! Hell ya they have committed treason! Lucky for them we are a forgiving crowd!!!

Expressing hatred for the messenger because they don't like the message is a time-honored travesty. Seems like that's what they did to Jesus of Nazareth some 2000 years or so ago...

While your detractors are busy piling on to vent about how illegitimate you and/or this site is, so far, they haven't ceded that some things are just plain treasonous. That's because, in the minds of the liberals, there's no such thing as treason as long as their efforts are against a conservative republican.

Remember - the Dems sincerely believe almost to the level of their DNA, that they are the only legitimate holders of power in the USA. Anything other than the Dems in power means a) our country is going down the tubes; b) our Constitution is in peril of being broken; c) all civil rights are being purposefully and assiduously eroded by the evil ones in power; and d) it is OK to attack the Administration because it's not part of the democratic party.

Blogging is sometimes dirty work. You've certainly had your share of invectives hurled at you, but at least you're thick-skinned enough to handle it maturely.

To all those who attack Mark: just remember that he, too, is a person. While your ideas are flippant, kooky, and sometimes downright spooky, they simply represent a different point of view than expressed here by Mark and others of like mind such as myself. Personally, I find many of them offensive, ridiculous, and, yes - sometimes treasonous. However, the definition of treason in my mind clearly doesn't match the definition in the minds of others. Just keep on shoveling your BS at us. It gives us food for thought and analysis.

When the eventuality of time disproves these specious and untenable arguments, you'll either be nowhere to be found, or relying on the good graces of fuzzy memory on our part.

No matter. The US Soldiers will fight for your right to make fools of yourselves, notwithstanding your apparent mistrust and hostility toward them, our Commander-in-Chief, and those who support their objectives.

Good job, Mark! Keep up the good work!!

P.S. What part of "we're a party of the big tent" did the Dems forget about when they attack you and your views? I thought the liberals were all about inclusiveness, diversity, and compassion...

Hmmm... that must have been the Democratic party of JFK. It's clear that the party has been taken over since then by a raging mass of ignorant, hormonally-driven, nincompoops who've watched one too many X-Files....

Bearman, it's not how you look at it. It's about US law. And US law says one must adhere to the enemy to commit treason. Meaning, you're words must be meant to aid our enemy as they fight us.

It's clear as day. Mark (and you apparantly) are wrong on this.

Mr. Noonan likes to throw around the "T" word. Under his broad definition, virtually all dissent against this administration and their war would constitute treason. Fortunately, he has no legal basis for his charges -- at least not until the Bill of Rights is abandoned.

What seriously interests me is that while he applies such a sweeping interpretation to the language of the constitution (apparently he is no "strict constructionalist") he applies a very narrow definition to the more pedestrian offenses of libel and slander.

Obvioiusly, nobody is paying much attention to what bloggers have to say, but while this site (among many) love to bash the so called MSM -- they should note that unlike the world of cyberspace, the MSM faces the possibility of litigation for irresponsible statements every day.

Just imagine if the NYT decided to accuse a group or groups of treason! Yet Mr. Noonan feels free to do exactly that to any number of people and groups without a second thought -- just shamefull.

And, quite frankly, nobody really cares about whether smoeone engaged in such rhetoric is a Christian or a bloody pagan -- or if they have an annoying dog named "Checkers."

Mark, good collection of moonbats (people who don't agree with me) you have here. Excellent posts from them too, and it is very timely dicussion. I've stayed out of these treason posts, because I have my ideas on what I think it is, but you didn't ask for my ideas, just the lefties.

So, for my 2 cents on why lefties or moonbats (a more endearing term) are so set on being the way they are and saying the things they say. They don't need to agree with me because they are moonbats.

They say these things because they are frustrated, and want to do something, anything to feel they have a purpose in life, and our country. They voted wrong and lost, they don't agree with Bush or most of their own politicians either. When they look around at what they could do to help in the war, Bush gave them no task or job to do since we have a all volunteer armed forces.

In reality all they can do is bitch - bitch - bitch. They think somehow if they all continue on that they will cause something to happen, maybe a politician will grab onto their ideas, run on it and get elected. Very important things are happening in the world today, and at a very fast pace, and they are on the sidelines having made wrong votes, and wrong thinking.

They can't allow that just maybe they were wrong, but feel compelled to continue on their hate Bush and whatever he does or ever does in the future. They think that by hating Bush like a lot of other people they will change things, but like terrorist and political rivals, they are underestimating Bush.

There is a new book out by Bill Sammon called Strategery that could help them understand. There is a interview with the author bookcast audio on GOP.com they could listen to if they wanted. But, these moonbats, like Bush are too stuborn to listen and or change.

The bottom line is "it just doesn't matter what they say or do". They cease to be of consequence in the changes that are happening, and they know it. I also am not relevant to what is happening, but at least I know I voted for the right person, and support him in the changes that he wants to make. I feel good about todays world, and would hope that someday moonbats could feel good too.

On the definition of treason, this topic is of course worthy of more than one book length treatment and has gotten many. "The New Meaning of Treason" is one that adresses WWII era events and through the Rosenbergs etc. I think it was CS Lewis who declared on that era "We mock the very notion of treason and are shocked to find traitors among us." Shipley, as usual, just shuts his eyes. If the measure of treasonous speach is, as you say, the intent of the speaker to harm the nation or the war effort, we would have Michael Moore hanging from a reinforced gibbet and far from alone. Who was it that called for "two, three, many Mogadishus"? Churchill? Is it not just stock for the "peace activists" to declare our opponents (and not just the latest) morally superior and deserving of victory? Isn't that what Kerry said of Viet Nam? Yes, it is. But we conflate two different things. A criminal charge of treason is much different than a rhetorical one. Personally I try not to use the T word if the case is not Constitutionally severe enough. No, most of those jokers out in the streets buring flags are not treasonous legally. They don't have the faculty to form a mens rea on so complex an issue, they are, as Lenin said, useful idiots and not responsible for their actions like a dog trained to be vicious would not be culpable. Still, we do not like mad dogs roaming the streets. I've been incommunicado (a blessing, friends and foes) and haven't read Mark's prior posts though I'm pretty certain that he probably takes a less rigid line than myself as is his wont. But yes, the nation is filled with rhetorical traitors these days. No, that does not mean anyone who disagrees with Chimpy. Believe it or not Bolshie tools, we all do from time to time but trust W on the big issues. Iraq, of course, is numero uno. But anyone who bases their criticisms on the lies of the enemy, and using a reasonable person standard can be expected to know these are lies (the Carroll revelations come to mind), yes these jackasses are treasonous. Now, I would certainly not support some sort of blanket prosecution. In the fullness of time the moronic depravity of the Leftie propositions will come down on all but the most rabid derange's but in the mean time we must call them as we see them. And it should be noted that the critics of the war and administration show no compunction in declaring Bush and his myrmidons traitors. Even on the Senate floor, much less in the media. So, Mark, keep marching. These goons don't have the brains or the balls for a vigorous field hockey match, much less the contest of modern american politics. Hated, you may well be, as is Dub. But plenty of us folks out here luv ya, and him, and appreciate mightily you doing this distasteful but necessary chore of wrasslin' with the hogs.

Just for the record, I have stayed focused on this treason issue for three threads, and now it seems Mark is no longer choosing to respond to me while changing a subject he’s been beaten on.

This is a very simple issue. Mark says he believes many on the left are committing treason by criticizing the president and our policy in Iraq. His reasoning? Our enemies receive aid and comfort from such criticism.

First off, if this were the case, these guys are guilty of treason too:

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/gop_kosovo.pdf

Thankfully, it’s not the case. The issue is where does free speech end and where does treason begin. Well, the Supreme Court has considered this and ruled clearly:

"On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy -- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength -- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason."

It must be provable that with what your words, you intent to help our enemies defeat us. None of what Mark has generally spoke about meets this criteria. Now, perhaps there have been words that do meet it. But Mark will not provide any. He makes the accusation, but does not back it up. This is a cowardly act, which I’ve already stated.

DL, trying to differentiate between a “rhetorical” charge of treason and a “criminal” one is incredibly weak. We are nation of laws. Innocent until proven guilty. If you choose to “rhetorical” charge someone with treason, it’s only because you know you can’t prove your case. It’s a cop-out. A cowardly way of labeling someone a traitor when in fact they are not. But in any case, he said these people should be thrown in jail, so he’s not making a “rhetorical” charge. He believes those he’s accusing are acting criminally.

Excuse, me. Re: "rhetorical" v. "criminal" i should have addressed Mega.

Tom wrote, "See US law:

"On the other hand, a citizen may..."

This isn't "law" as you put it. Whether you know it or not, you’re quoting from Cramer v. US; I suggest you read the dissent,
“That conclusion, we submit, leads to ludicrous results.”

Dissenting opinion Cramer v. United states,
“ … one cannot do an act which he knows will give aid and comfort to a person he knows to be an enemy of the United States, and then seek to disclaim criminal intent and knowledge by saying that one's motive was not to aid the enemy. So if you believe that the defendant performed acts which by their nature gave aid and comfort to the enemy, knowing or believing him to be an enemy, then you must find that he had criminal intent, since he intended to do the act forbidden by the law.”

Yeah, Bane, thank God that was the dissenting opinion, eh?

Otherwise, all those republicans who criticized Clinton going into the Balkans (giving aid and comfort to Milosovik) would be hanging from trees right now.

But that aside, thank you for at least bringing some legal analysis to this.

I don't if law is the proper term, but precedent does hold a lot of importance in the US legal system (just ask Alito). And the court set the precident with this case that one's words may give aid and comfort to the enemy, but that does not mean it is treason.

If the opposite were true, then we would be allowing our enemies to define when our free speech becomes treason or not.

Dissent is written for a reason, the court narrowly decided the Cramer case (5-4) and the dissent was written by William O. Douglass, who joined by Harlan Fiske Stone, also wrote, “Acts innocent by nature may serve a treasonous plan.”
This decision was decided on the view that there were not two witnesses that could testify to exactly the words used by Cramer in his conversations with the German spies. Witnesses are not the problem in the treasonous ramblings Mark is speaking of.

This is hardly settled law as you are implying, dissent is often cited as guiding theory, especially when the dissent begins, “The opinion of the Court is written on a hypothetical state of facts,”

As far as I'm concerned, giving aid and assistance to the enemy via outspoken, outrageous, irrational, and refutable rhetoric is inherently treasonous in and of itself. Just as John Kerry gave ideological succorance to the North Vietnamese in ratcheting up what was later proven to be fraudulent charges, so are some of the posts in these blogs giving aid and succorance in the ideological realm to our nation's enemies.

However...

John Kerry and Jane Fonda did their acts of treason in highly public ways. Yet they were never charged. People in blogs are simply a newer iteration of that sort of protest. And essentially, whether we like it or not, people on blogsites don't really count very much in the big equation. Rhetoric such as uttered by Sen. Dick Durbin about Guantanamo, as uttered by Sen. Ted Kennedy about how our President "lied" is much more significant in the context of the venue - on the floor of the Senate. That's where such rhetoric really has influence on our enemies. Barney2000, and his ilk can barf up whatever speech they wish - including hate speech about Mark or anyone else - and it really doesn't amount to a dog turd in the final analysis - any more than my comments have an significance in swaying public policy or opinion.

People such as Jose Padilla, the Lakawanna 7, and the Islamic "charities" that spew out hate and recruit jihadists among us are the true face of treason. They have been, and will continue to be prosecuted.

But people on blogsites treasonous?!

They're just people on blogsites... I sometimes find their thoughts bordering on treason, but since they're not on the streetcorner shouting
"Down With The USA" in a time of war, I guess I should consider their actions on the blogsite to be quixotically patriotic. They're committed enough to their ideas, however different that they may be, to toss them out into the blogosphere. This is the proper place to air those opinions, after all. They choose to air some of them here because they've been provoked by something they read here. That means something good is happening!

And while we often tire of the trolling, and find ourselves bored with the nauseating, neverending litany of the same tired ideas, it keeps us engaged and fired up sometime!

So, go ahead everybody - "MAKE TREASON!"

It shows the fool for what he is, and gives everybody else a little cheap entertainment!!!

Mark, when this administration packs it in; you may look back and agree that the disapproval of its' policies and the damage they have inflicted, were well founded.

Screw you and your incessant sales pitch, CO. You're like a broken record, that a**hole member of the club who has nothing to say, but repeats it endlessly. What Mark will, IMO, look back on, is the same I will look back on. A president who, against unwavering opposition, tried his heart out to keep his country safe, while trying to promote a better, more stable life for those in the Middle East.

What would you have done differently, smart guy?

You need to stay away from those shooting galleries.

What a joke.

You should end all your posts with these three words, Tommie-boy. That way, it keeps me from having to think it once I've read them. Could you please stop misspelling "accusing," and misusing the words "there," "their," and "they're?" Really Tommie, you're getting stupider every day. Mind if I start calling you "Barney?"

Anyway, I'm a human being, a father, an American, an independent and an atheist in that order.....

You left out "moron..."

Hey Keefer!
Don't be a hater for Canadian Observer. They're just ignorant. Besides, whatever his/her view of the Bush Administration, it can be safely assumed that it has no bearing whatsoever. It's ostensibly from a Canadian. They don't vote in American politics. Screw 'em if they don't like this country's policies - foreign or otherwise. When I'm entitled to vote for Canada's Prime Minister, I'll profer an opinion about Canadian politics.

CO just hates it that there is still solid support for many of Bush's policies. With all the hate-talk for the past five years, Bush is still standing - with pride. It flummoxes them that their ranting hasn't had a more corrosive effect upon the President than it has.

Hail to the Chief!

History will be the final arbiter of this man's Presidency. Methinks it will be kind...

Bane,

I haven't read the entire decision (I may tonight if I have time), but from what I know of the case, a father was found guilty of some charges of treason in aiding his son (a german spy).

This passage of dissent:

“ … one cannot do an act which he knows will give aid and comfort to a person he knows to be an enemy of the United States, and then seek to disclaim criminal intent and knowledge by saying that one's motive was not to aid the enemy. So if you believe that the defendant performed acts which by their nature gave aid and comfort to the enemy, knowing or believing him to be an enemy, then you must find that he had criminal intent, since he intended to do the act forbidden by the law.”

I believe is reference to the fact that in the man's defense, he claimed he was helping his son, not helping a german spy (even though he did know his son to be a german spy).

I don't think it is reference to the passage I cited about free speech v. treason, in which the question is when does free speech become treason. First off, saying criticism of the president during war "aids and comforts" the enemy during war, is reading the treason language in the constitution in the loosest possible way. It's certainly not on the same level of aiding a person you know to be a spy.

There's big difference between criticism and aiding a spy. But, I'll try and read the entire thing tonight. If you have any insight into this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

You cannot have Peace(Christ) by making war(anti-Christ). Peace

Mark,

I doubt anyone really hates you, certainly I don't. (Even if you think my posts get sillier every day)- thats your opinion.

I think we are both good folks, we just see the world differently, therefore see different ways of approaching our problems.

This is Blogs for Bush. If I wanted to converse with people that agree with me, I'd go to Blogs for Gore, or Blogs for Ghandi.

Could we have a Why I Hate Keefer Day?

Why does every discussion have to get so personal? Why is it so often perceived that there are only two sides to any argument? And why is it that any argument offered by anyone perceived to be "from the other side" as totally without merit without reference to the argument itself?

I assume that "the left" doesn't have a single interpretation of what constitutes treason that could be applied with absolute consistency to every single specific occasion across all time. Likewise, I assume the same of "the right". At some level it has to be appreciated that although we, as Americans, value free speech in as pure a form as possible, we also appreciate that there are practical limits to it. For example, one is not allowed to yell FIRE! in a crowded building -- at least not without evidence, real or perceived, that there actually is a fire.

That's a nice, obvious example. Others are not so obvious. The charge of treason may be one of the latter. I'm no lawyer, nor do I know in any depth the case law pertaining to the subject. I assume it is voluminous and I am willing to be educated on it. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the same general principles apply in the case of treason as they do to any other criminal charge. First you have to know what the statutory definition of the offense is. Then, in the context of any particular instance of a presumed infraction of the statutory definition, one must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed adequate means, opportunity, and motive. If you can't do that it's not treason.

We have heard about the case of Cramer v. US. That seems to be a very good example inherent in the on-going difficulty of applying the exigencies of a real-life case to the theoretical construct. From the transcripts of that case I gather that there was abundant evidence to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Cramer was in a position to know that his friend Thiel, and his friend's friend, Kerling, had some sort of subversive activity in mind. The only real question was whether he knew exactly what those activities were. The Supreme Court, in deciding that case, chose a very literal (constructionist) interpretation 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.'

So there was a double problem: they (a) couldn't scare up two witnesses that (b) Cramer knew anything about any sort of specific, overt act of sabotage or insurrection. They were pretty sure Cramer knew they were up to something, but they were also pretty sure he didn't know what. So they let the dude go.

Now if, as is fashionable on the right these days, you favor a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, you have to applaud the court's ruling in this case. If, as is fashionable on the left these days, you favor a more "activist" view of the court, you have to condemn it. After all, Cramer clearly had knowledge that the guys were up to something. And thus, he should have refused any involvement with them -- in fact, he should have turned them in!

And yet it appears now that the right and left have switched sides on the constructionist/activist leaning of the court as it pertains to this ruling. How interesting. What a tangled web we weave.

Either way, compare this case with what some would like to declare as evidence of treason vis-a-vis the declared opinions of various politicians, pundits, and bloggers are now saying about the situation in Iraq. As far as I can tell, they don't hold a candle to the Cramer case.

rico,
Remember while reading that Cramer confessed in open court. I'm not sure I agree with your assesment of strict Constitutional application in the cases Mark cites.

Tom,

Another thing to keep in mind, what Douglass was addressing was the broader issue of the overt act that facilitated the "aid and comfort" issue.

Here’s the beginning of the paragraph I previously cited, “It also charged: 'Now gentlemen, motive should not be confused with intent. If the defendant knowingly gives aid and comfort to one who he knows or believes is an enemy, then he must be taken to intend the consequences of his own voluntary act, and the fact that his motive might not have been to aid the enemy is no [325 U.S. 1, 55] defense.”

Assuming that Mark is arguing that the very nature of dissent in question is intended to give aid to the enemy by giving them encouragement to continue the fight against American interests, thus causing an embarrassment to the Administration and gaining political points I would be tempted to side with him. This does not apply to all dissent, obviously, but a case can be made that certain forms of dissent have the express intent of bringing about the defeat of American interests.

Where Douglass seems to agree with Mark is in the interpretation of the intent; that is, if the intent is to promote the fight against American interests in time of war, the outcome is treasonous.

Compare that to the statements you cited from Republicans during the Kosovo situation. In each case (except Buchanan) the authors are calling for clarification of goals, or challenging the non-specific reasons for the incursion. This cannot be intended to give aid to the enemy as none of the statements can be discerned to advocate or encourage defeat, IMHO. Kennedy’s statement that the war in Iraq was decided in Crawford for political reasons and Howard Dean’s statements that the war is “un-winnable” are stark in contrast.

Debate can be held as to whether or not each act or discourse is treason, but to dismiss it because of a passage in a case is oversimplifying the issue. What you should be arguing is whether or not an overt act was associated with the statements, or if the statements made in public constitute an overt act in and of themselves.

Pay special attention to the addendum that Douglass attached to the dissent, this will give you insight into his thinking, English common law, and the framers’ thoughts in putting such a simple definition of Treason in the Constitution.

"Debate can be held as to whether or not each act or discourse is treason"

First of all Bane, I've been badgering Mark for days to provide me an example of what Dems have said that he considers treaonous. He refused. I'd love to do this.

"Assuming that Mark is arguing that the very nature of dissent in question is intended to give aid to the enemy by giving them encouragement to continue the fight against American interests, thus causing an embarrassment to the Administration and gaining political points I would be tempted to side with him."

"Assuming that Mark is arguing that the very nature of dissent in question is intended to give aid to the enemy by giving them encouragement to continue the fight against American interests"

This I agree with. If an American openly supports an army fighting the US and encourages them to keep fighting us, this could be considered treason.

Where I drastically part with you is here:

"thus causing an embarrassment to the Administration and gaining political points I would be tempted to side with him."

I don't think trying to gain political points against your rival party can be considered treason, even if as a result, enemies of the state are "comforted" (again, in the loosest reading of the term). We cannot supress the right to criticize because our enemies may like what we have to say.

When Republicans accussed Clinton of "wagging the dog" when we attacked the Taliban, bin Laden could have seen that of division in our country and lack of will to attack him with force.

I don't agree with that charge against Clinton, but I do not believe it to be treason.

Again, this basically comes down to intent. If you intend aid the enemy with your words, that is treason. If the enemy is aided by your words, but you did not intent them to, it is not treason.

I also disagree with you about the republican comments. Just off the top of my head, there's the one about waiting for Clinton to fall on his face...

Mark Asked...
what does the left consider treason to be?

A leader who puts our national security at risk by invading nations without a reason. Demostic spying underminds the Constitution, and that could be treason. I don't know what treason is, but I would start there, and not with stuff that is protected by the Constitution, such as speech.

Mark said he is...
patient, kind, loving, generous and humble.

I'm from the south; Before anything else, I am honest. It's a shame that you are not, because what we need is honest people. You try to purposefully mislead people, and that is not kind or loving or generous or humble. It's just crooked. Mark, you are a shell of a man and I would be ashamed to know you.

Bane,
I thought I WAS careful in stating what Cramer confessed to in court. To paraphrase, he knew his friends were up to something, but he didn't know what. Do you have a different interpretation?

As far as your comment, "I'm not sure I agree with your assesment of strict Constitutional application in the cases Mark cites," I'm not sure why you're not sure. In the case of constructionist interpretation I didn't apply the argument to anything Mark said. I was talkiing about the Cramer v. US case exclusively. Secondly, did Mark cite any specific cases?

maiden,

Perhaps you are tilting right...but in tilting right, a full understanding of what conservatism actually is will be needed. Have you read "The Conservative Mind"? If you haven't, you should...even if you don't wind up conservative, it'll help you greatly in understanding where conservatives come from...but, even then, that would only give you a partial insight into me...you must understand that I am a Catholic conservative...I vote Republican because as a Catholic conservative, there is really no other choice; I support President Bush because he's one of the three best Presidents of the last 100 years...and he may end up on par with Lincoln in the by and by.

LOL!!! Gotta love the responses. Thank God none of the lib/dems on this site denied being hypocrites, at least they can be honest about what they are.

There isn't a single reason, besides the numerous given, that could convince any of you that Iraq was the right thing to do. Nothing that is ever discovered in Iraq will justify to you, so why bother?

Domestic spying? How convenient that dems/libs like to leave out the fact that there were terrorists or people with ties to terrorists on the other end of the phone. Kind of reminds me of the whole Iran/Contra/HOSTAGES deal. How convenient that they leave off the hostages part every time they bring up that deal. I may not agree with every part of that, but let's remember that it did free hostages from the Middle East that had been there for years. Oh wow, Iran got weapons that they used to kill the Iraqi army, gosh, how horrible. Give me a break.

Hey, Slipgrid, not sure what living in the South has to do with being honest but I've never read anything on this site except people's OPINIONS. Unlike dems/libs who make up there own "facts", this is purely a site based on a man's opinion and that is certainly his right.

Slip,

I may be a shell of a man, but I can read...I didn't say I am "patient, kind, etc"...but that I pray to be instructed in how to be so...hopefully, some day, with God's grace and mercy, I will genuinely be "patient, kind, etc".

But I imagine that you feel pretty stupid right about now, if you've read this.

There's an old saying - you can remain silent, and have everyone think you're a fool...or you can open your mouth, and remove all doubt.

Keefer

It's true, I am a Canadian, unable to vote in an American election. However, I am entitled to voice my concern whenever I witness a neighbour who is self-destructing. Our close proximity and in some cases, family ties, makes me care what happens to you all. In the same way, perhaps, that Bush cares what happens to countries where he is trying to bring democracy.

You cannot have Peace(Christ) by making war(anti-Christ). Peace

Posted by: steve at April 4, 2006 04:01 PM

Once again Steve, You know very little about Christ, so you should probably stop invoking his name as proof of your pipe dream liberal utopia! Peace thru strength!!!

Mark, I think you missed my point. Ok, you didn't say that your are patient, kind, etc, but you aspire to be patient, kind, etc. I'm not honest, but I aspire to be honest. You do not aspire to be honest; you propagate lies.

Now, I'm not the smartest kid, but I know BS when I see it. This site is BS!

So, you can check my spelling, or make sure I don't attirbute your desires to your actualality, but your site still does harm to society by masking outright lies as patriotism for one person. You talk about Jesus, but you idolize Bush. In my book, that makes you a bad person. Shame on you.

Tom,
First, your debate with Mark is still missing what he asked for, specifically what would you consider treason. I cannot answer for Mark and wouldn’t attempt to do so. I did say if Mark’s argument is … and then put my personal assessment in place of my exact knowledge of his argument. Mark, I apologize and I encourage you to continue to ask what Tom deems treason.

Next, you made an error in separating my comment into two components; they are mutually exclusive. “… intended to give aid to the enemy by giving them encouragement to continue the fight against American interests, thus causing an embarrassment to the Administration and gaining political points … " these are not two separate points but part and parcel to the argument; heed Douglass’ warning, do not confuse motive with intent.

Trying to gain political points may not be treason in and of themselves, but to give aid to our enemies in order to gain political points is, assuredly treason.

I would never argue that we, the people nor the government should suppress dissent, but there are consequences to your actions. In the day of Cramer the only way to communicate your intent to bring about the defeat of American interests for foreign consumption was via newspapers which could be read by enemy governments. Today, a speech made by Cindy Sheehan in Crawford Texas accusing the President of acquiescence to Zionist demands is immediately played in all parts of the Arab world simultaneously. And what is the intent of this speech? I believe it is to encourage our enemies to defeat our interests.

You wrote, “(T)his basically comes down to intent” to repeat myself, because it’s worth repeating ““Acts innocent by nature may serve a treasonous plan.”

Regarding the criticism of Clinton, first, and foremost he was wagging the dog. Next, the bombing of an aspirin factory is not nearly the same as putting troops in harm’s way. Regarding Kosovo, many of the comments then, as many of the comments now revolve around the relative wisdom of the conflict. What Mark is posting, if I may be so bold, is the descent from dissent to treason. When did we go from questioning the methods used in war, to encouraging our enemies to hold on while we try our President for war crimes.

Slipgrid,

Get off your obsession with hating Mark and this blogsite. If it's so offensive to you, get the hell off the site and go visit dailyKos.com. They seem to be much more to your liking.. Birds of a feather, flocking together, and all...

But since you've apparently made it your personal mission to debunk, discredit, and discount everything you read here, I don't suppose we'll be seeing any less of you, will we?

What would we do without you?!

Wow! Slipgrid is a one-man superhero on a mission to restore Truth, Justice, and the American Way to the Blogs For Bush Blogsite.

My hero....

Rico,
What Douglass wrote extensively about in his dissent on Cramer, was that the Court decided the case of treason not based on what actually occurred but on the esoteric meaning of treason, the majority (5) would have been fans of Bill Clinton’s “depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” argument.

The dissent cites voluminous amounts of English common law, framers’ language, and case study that supports the opposition opinion that treason is as treason does. If you know your actions are for the consumption of the enemy, and you know they are indeed the enemy, your actions aid and comfort the enemy, ipso facto. A strict constitutionalist would agree with this assessment. IMHO.

"When did we go from questioning the methods used in war, to encouraging our enemies to hold on while we try our President for war crimes."

Who is encouraging our enemy to hold on while we try our president for war crimes?

Get off your obsession with hating Mark and this blogsite. If it's so offensive to you, get the hell off the site and go visit dailyKos.com. They seem to be much more to your liking.. Birds of a feather, flocking together, and all...

Ahh, I don't know that I find the Kos to be very interesting. They get bogged-down with the facts, and it's dry. Anyway, the reason I'm here, as I've posted many times before, is this article. Someone is misleading the people, and I can't stop it all, but I can help.

But since you've apparently made it your personal mission to debunk, discredit, and discount everything you read here, I don't suppose we'll be seeing any less of you, will we?

Well, as Bush's poll numbers go down, things seem to take care of themselves (though, I'd like to see this site come down). And, I've found other ways to fight the good fight. So, as I start to find other ways to get my message out, I lose the need to post here as much.

Question, I'm not here often, but has there been more dissent since I started posting a few months ago? Did I spark it, or is it related to Bush's dropping polls, or else?

"If you know your actions are for the consumption of the enemy, and you know they are indeed the enemy, your actions aid and comfort the enemy, ipso facto."

If you go by this, any politician today must assume that what they say if for the consumption of the enemy (due to advances in technology). So any criticism of the president would in fact aid or comfort the enemy (in the loosest interpretation). This would supress dissent.

“Acts innocent by nature may serve a treasonous plan.” I don't know the context of this in the dissenting opinion, but does it go on to say that these innocent acts constitute treason?

"And what is the intent of this speech? I believe it is to encourage our enemies to defeat our interests."

It's not enough that to believe this, you have to be able to prove it. Why do you believe this?

Slipgrid, "...Bush's dropping polls.." HA! You make me laugh. The poll that mattered was held on Nov. 2, 2004. We won. You lost. Get over it.

Slipgrid we have seen the error of our ways. That 12/29/05 article you linked to was an eye opener...

Have you gotten good traffic on your website yet? Keefer & I missed you... ya know, good to see you back I think you did spark it, but my memory isn't so good no more, so I'll just assume that all the dissent her is because of you and some of the other moonbats.

Bush's polls aren't reliable you know, they have been tweaked to show a weakness, because in reality he hasn't gotten any weakness and loves to get moonbats all fired up. Him & Rove get into a laughing fit about moonbats till their sides ache I've heard.

That's why I keep coming back too you know. Without somebody to debate world affairs with, I'd have to do something else and my wife has some things on her short list.

Hope you and all the others continue to post here, otherwise who could we talk about and reply to? Ourselves, how boring would that be... Fire us up, get the boat a rockin...

megapotamus is back! Hurray!

I thought we had lost you. I admire the things you say and the way you say them. Don't stay away for long, we need your excellent posts and strive to follow in your footsteps.

Tom,
Are you serious?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
http://www.dailykos.com/
http://feingold.senate.gov/

No, any dissent is not treasonous by itself; politicians should carefully parse their comments in times of national emergency to avoid perfidy. You and I both know that.

Extending an argument to its illogical conclusion doesn’t make your case more tenable. You cited Cramer in support of your argument that freedom of speech is guaranteed in spite of, not because of the consequences of your words. I cited the dissenting opinion in support of my argument that the Court was far from in agreement as to the context of treason. Is intent, not motive the deciding factor in treasonous speech, which is in adherence, facilitating aid and comfort to the enemy?

Regarding Sheehan, res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself.

Now, don't pick flysh*t out of the pepper, you are well aware of the many scurrilous claims made about this Administration; that’s the thrust of this thread as well as From Dissent to Treason numbers I & II.

Slipgrid, "...Bush's dropping polls.." HA! You make me laugh. The poll that mattered was held on Nov. 2, 2004. We won. You lost. Get over it.

Why do you say you won? You didn't win anything! Are you part of the Bush admin? If you are part of the general public then you might be angry that Bush doesn't care what you think. I am!

Shipley, pathetic. On your own criteria there are plenty of Lefty figures like Moore and Churchill who have explicitly stated that a US defeat in Iraq is proper, good and welcome. If we go back to Viet Nam we can use the Shipley standard to harvest multitudes of tie-dye types. "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong is going to win!" Kerry's treason alone requires a booklength treatment or two. Luckily he's had at least one already. You should avail yourself if you genuinely care. Dubious? M'kay, because Kerry was forthright enough in his treason to spout Commie lies, known to him to be lies, TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Just his testimony in '72 will put him in hoosgow on the Shipley standard. And if you don't care for a distinction between a rhetorical and du jur charge of treason you should try and gag Teddy Kennedy and Dick Durbin among others as they happily and without any account have accused Bush of treason from the well of the Senate.
Slippy, Saddam DID have a hand in 911. Google up Salman Pak. Not enough?
Harold Baer/Iraq should get you to a civil decision holding Iraqi assets liable for 911 damages by demonstrating prior knowledge on your old Uncle Saddam's part. Still not enough?
Google up Ramzi Yousef although there are multiple spellings of this and you will find that this alias is used by a member of Saddams secret police that helped to plan and execute the first WTC bombing, the truck bombing. Still not enough? Fine and dandy. Wait. Facts are stubborn things that tend to accumulate and that Saddam had prior knowledge and operational collusion in 911 is just that. A fact.

Fact?

What dat?

Tom,
Are you serious?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
http://www.dailykos.com/
http://feingold.senate.gov/

No, any dissent is not treasonous by itself; politicians should carefully parse their comments in times of national emergency to avoid perfidy. You and I both know that.

Extending an argument to its illogical conclusion doesn’t make your case more tenable. You cited Cramer in support of your argument that freedom of speech is guaranteed in spite of, not because of the consequences of your words. I cited the dissenting opinion in support of my argument that the Court was far from in agreement as to the context of treason. Is intent, not motive the deciding factor in treasonous speech, which is in adherence, facilitating aid and comfort to the enemy?

Regarding Sheehan, res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself.

Now, don't pick flysh*t out of the pepper, you are well aware of the many scurrilous claims made about this Administration; that’s the thrust of this thread as well as From Dissent to Treason numbers I & II.

Yep dl, you might be the only one who knows that I linked it on one of my first post here, most likely on Dec 29th of last year.

Tom,
My posts seem to be going into a cybertoilet.
“Acts innocent by nature may serve a treasonous plan.” was Douglass commenting on the Cramer case.

I'll try again, if this post shows up in a week or two, ignore it.

Tom,

No, any dissent is not treasonous by itself; politicians should carefully parse their comments in times of national emergency to avoid perfidy. You and I both know that.

Extending an argument to its illogical conclusion doesn’t make your case more tenable. You cited Cramer in support of your argument that freedom of speech is guaranteed because of, not in spite of the consequences of your words. I cited the dissenting opinion in support of my argument that the Court was far from in agreement as to the context of treason. Is intent, not motive the deciding factor in treasonous speech, which is in adherence, facilitating aid and comfort to the enemy?

Regarding Sheehan, res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself.

Slipgrid,
Since you've exhibited a bit of intellectual curiousity on this subject, perhaps this article will help to frame Saddam Hussein's connection (not a hardwired "link" per se) to terrorism in general and al Qaeda in particular:

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

It features a plethora of quotes from Clinton Officials, many of the antique media's assertions about Saddam, and other substantial and relevant proof that Saddam Hussein had ill intentions toward the US and the West.

It is carefully researched, with full annotation and bibliographic references to the source material. Link to the originals are also active, if you wish to pursue the research to the source.

A significant conclusion reached by this researcher on the Iraq ties to al Qaeda issue is this:

"...Thus, there is abundant and undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing and — according to a Clinton-appointed federal judge — the September 11 attacks. The Iraqi dictator aided al-Qaeda and other global terrorists who murdered Americans, both at home and abroad...."

I hope you take the time to read and digest this study. Then re-examine your beliefs...

Tom,
I have to prove it?
I told you in a previous thread, if you believe I’ve accused someone without merit all you have to do is a) prove that the claim is untrue (truth is the best defense), and then b) prove some damage caused by my assertion. You responded in that thread that I had the right to be a moron. Remember?

Well, whose the be-atch now?

Demostic spying underminds the Constitution, and that could be treason. I don't know what treason is, but I would start there, and not with stuff that is protected by the Constitution, such as speech.

I don't know what gibberish is, but I would start here, and try to decipher Slippy's poor writing. And this moron has a blog...

*Chuckles*

Well back on Treason III I actually enumerated my list of things that were considered treason. Mark replied and agreed to disagree so I have no reason to "hate" Mark. In fact since I'm right over the border here in Barstow, CA I hope to bump into him one of these days. :)

I do find it funny how many posts this thread got though. To think you'd actually start a thread like this just like you said you would. The mind boggles! :)

If you folks would like I can re-post my list. It's quite simple, strait forward, and in my own words. No need to quote anyone or anything else. Just post what YOU consider treason as simply as possible. (Though saying "what it says in the Constitution or in the law" is simple I don't think that's what we're looking for here.)

"“Acts innocent by nature may serve a treasonous plan.” was Douglass commenting on the Cramer case."

Yeah, I figured, but does he say that innocent acts that serve a treasonous plan are treasonous acts?

"You cited Cramer in support of your argument that freedom of speech is guaranteed because of, not in spite of the consequences of your words."

No, i cited Cramer because it states that for one's words to be considered treasonous, they there must be adherance to the enemy (there's must be intent to help the enemy).

Free speech is guaranteed in the constitution.

"I have to prove it?"

For it to be considered treason, yes.

"Remember?"

Honestly, no. But it does sound like me.

"Well, whose the be-atch now?"

You?

Here are some examples of pols subverting US war plans and giving aid and comfort to the enemy:

Lugar: “This is the president’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, it’s going to be his problem.”

Shelby: “Obviously we are not winning the war.”

Campbell: “We are presently at war and it is an unconstitutional war.”

Gregg: “I don’t believe that a ground war in Kosovo is going to be very successful.”

And lets not forget the politician who openly told our enemies to attack us:

Bush: "Bring em on."

You're opening a can of worms that will quell dissent and infringe of free speech. The court decision in the Cramer case is a correct one.

Tom,
In spite of repeated attempts to demonstrate that you have a sophomoric understanding of the Constitutional concept of treason, you continually duck the issue with inane, insipid misdirection and flawed logic.

You don’t understand adherence, you don’t understand free speech beyond your 7th grade civics class, and despite my efforts you cannot differentiate between intent and motive.

I’ll defer any further comment until you present a salient argument in support of your ever-changing position.

Darn, this thread is getting long! Anyway, I'll say what I was going to say, even though it seems rather old already...

Bane,
Let's put personal opinions aside and argue the facts in a logical framework. You claim that the majority opinion in Cramer was based "on the esoteric meaning of treason". No, it was based on a very LITERAL meaning of treason, as specifically stated in the Constitution. In Douglass' own words: "Article III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution defines treason as follows: '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.'"

That's pretty explicit. You might not like it, but it is as it is. And that is what formed the basis of the majority opinion. As you pointed out, the majority opinion considered no facts in the case insofar as they did not pertain to that definition. It was, in other words, the very essence of a constructionist interpretation of the Constitution.

But Douglass, in writing for the dissent, argued in favor of adherence to the trial court's instructions to the jury, to wit: 'criminal intent and knowledge, being a mental state, are not susceptible of being proved by direct evidence, and therefore you must infer the nature of the defendant's intent and knowledge from all the circumstances.' It charged that proof of criminal intent and knowledge is sufficient if proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the two witnesses are not necessary for any of the facts other than the overt acts.

The statement just expressed formed the basis of the dissenting opinion. Thus, to agree with the dissenting opinion one must argue that a substantive charge of treason can, at times, be based on something other than "the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." Much of the rest of the dissenting opinion is dedicated to constructing an argument in favor of why the Constitution should not be taken so literally. But in so doing, Douglass writes this: "IT IS PLAIN FROM THOSE MATERIALS THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF AN OVERT ACT IS DESIGNED TO PRECLUDE PUNISHMENT FOR TREASONABLE PLANS OR SCHEMES OR HOPES WHICH HAVE NEVER MOVED OUT OF THE REALM OF THOUGHT OR SPEECH. IT IS MADE A NECESSARY INGREDIENT OF THE CRIME TO FORECLOSE PROSECUTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE TREASON."

In other words, even Douglass, in his dissenting opinion, recognized that thought or speech or even hopes alone is not a necessary or sufficient condition for the charge of treason.

"I’ll defer any further comment until you present a salient argument in support of your ever-changing position. "

Yeah, whateve