Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to There You Go Again

Criticism of Bush's war policy = treason
Mary Anne — (archived)

Thank you for bringing this up.

Have you, or anyone, seen a poster here list information that would be useful in a concrete way (aid and comfort) to terrorists? Do you have any reason to suspect that encription is being used in messages here to set up or facilitate future terrorist activities under our noses, or to cover up past terrorist activities to hinder our law enforcement personnel from apprehending the terrorists?

Or is the putative treason merely the expression of a political opinion that doesn't happen to agree with the actions or declarations put forward by the current administration, its friends, or its allies?

The former is treason. The latter is dissent.

The attempt to frame political dissent, which is free speech (at least for now) in the United States, as treason (cf. Ann Coulter et al) has been so successful that people don't know the difference anymore. To use the dictionary definition to support such an argument is to use a definition that will do for literary and historical works, that is, to explain why French kings could throw people into the Bastille for criticizing their policies, or to explain why Henry VIII had Thomas More beheaded for More's exercise of the right not to agree with his king. This kind of thing is not treason in modern America, which is where the accusation is levelled. Treason in America is defined by the Constitution. Our Founders had examples like the ones I have provided in mind when that definition was framed.

The charge of treason is used quite deliberately to squash dissent. It has always been so. (See the examples above.) This has been very skillfully manipulated by the Right recently to do just that. Pardon me while I don't put up with that anymore. Words mean things, especially legal words. I insist on precision.

You state that the free speech of people who claim treason against others is attacked when someone takes exception to the accusation. Nonsense. The accuser's free speech must be fragile indeed if he can accuse someone of a crime but be crushed when someone else tells him he doesn't know what he's talking about so cut it out.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, this particular charge has been levelled about people posting here. There must be evidence. Find some. Then we can discuss the difference between dissent and treason using actual examples.

Of course, if no evidence can be presented, then we all know how much the charge of treason is really worth. It takes a capital crime and turns it into a cheap propaganda tool.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (148 posts)