Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to re: MA Wins Again

There You Go Again
ID — (archived)

Your following a fundamentally flawed line of logic based on an assumption that is in error as has been pointed out many times before. Treason is not universally defined as a crime. The crime of treason in the US is defined in the US const. It also includes a definition of the word treason in the preceding sentence which is consistent with many dictionary definitions which define it only as providing aid and comfort or aiding and abetting enemies of the state. You guys really don't know me very well if you think for a minute I didn't look up the definition in several sources when first challenged on the definition I was using.

Other countries use different definitions for the "crime" of treason. If you read the constitutional references MA supplied you will see that the founding fathers intentionally narrowed the definition of the crime of treason full well knowing the word had broader meaning. I'm using the general definition and all of you are just plain wrong to claim it can't be applied no matter how many hissy fits you throw or how many votes you take to redefine the English lanquage on this board.

Treason is fundamentally an act of putting personal interests ahead of the state, it is not the act of honestly criticizing your country's actions. That is something I think everyone can agree on that goes beyond the simple dictionary definitions. I don't think Gary ever intended to imply the latter despite comments which seem to imply otherwise. I have emphatically stated this myself numerous times yet see numerous attempts to twist my comments into criticism of Bush's war policy = treason. This is a huge factor in my holding the so called consensus here in contempt along with the huge effort at denying treason can be defined as anything other than a prosecutable crime.

see ya

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (148 posts)