President is above the law........Follow

1. I'm English

2. I'm a Liberal

3. you're a F*ckwit

4. You're wrong AGAIN.

Treason is spacific to crimes against the crown or govenment nothing else, thats it, the lot, nothing more.

Thats from the Oxford English dictionary the premier dictionary of the english language in the world. Here

Edited, Sat Jan 8 14:10:11 2005 by tarv

I would think that in the situations you have given that the person no longer considers themselves to be part of the country any longer, and so to that individual they are not commiting treason.

However to the govenment of the country betrayed they would be tried for treason and would probably have hung. That is pretty much a perfect example of treason, to annex and over throw land controlled by a govenment and set up your own.

Selling secrets may or may not constitute treason depending on the secret and the outcome of selling that secret i suppose.

Since China have never Attacked or confronted America as a consequence of the "alleged" secrets i can't see how it does though.

Breach of the offical secrets Act in britain is a seperate offence.

Treason is reserved for direct violent attacks against the crown or Parliment here in the UK and is 1 of only 3 offences that can result in the death sentance.

The other two being Arson against crown property and rape of royalty.

Oh and it is legal to kill a scotsman with a bow from the Walls of York

Remember that walkers if you are ever travelling south /em evil grin

The problem I have with the treatment that the detainees received being called 'torture' is that, in my opinion, it cheapens the term.

What Japan's Unit 731 did to Allied PoWs was torture.

What the ***** did to the Jews they didn't outright exterminate was torture.

What Stalin did to dissidents he threw into the gulags was torture.

What we did in Abu Graid was, by comparison, hurtful to the detainee's self esteem at the very worst. It was humiliation, especially when considered in the context a Muslim would view it with their stringent mores. But 'torture'? Sorry, it doesn't rise to that level.

Let me pose this as a hypothetical:

Suppose you capture a mid-level Terrorist leader of an organization that has, in the last hour or so, planted a bomb in a major US (or UK or wherever) city. You know that this terrorist knows where the bomb is because either he himself planted it or it was planted by someone else under his explicit directions. If the bomb goes off, tens of thousands of people are at risk.

My question: To what lengths would you go to obtain this information from this person?

Shadowrelm come on, I mean I admire your vigor and passion for what you believe, but ye can still be cordial to people.

Dissagreeing with you doesn't make someone a republican, nor is it valid to dismiss someone's conclusion for being so.

Treason is spacific to crimes against the crown or govenment nothing else, thats it, the lot, nothing more.
-------------------------------------------------------------

like all discussions in a public forum, this once again turns into a pissing contest about symantics, while the topic gets lost after the second or third post, but....im board, so what the heck......ill try and tie the topic into this pissing contest......

you do not think it is a crime against THIS government to degrade the integrity of the office of president of the united states of america to the point where our word means NOTHING anymore? where our promise carries no weight?

our word means NOTHING anymore. this addministraition scraped the integrity of this country to push its own political agenda in complete disreguard to our allies, long time friends, and the rest of the international community.

by walking out on the kyoto treatie, and the russian nuclear arms treaty.....intentioanlly.......with not attempt to negotiate with the other parties in good faith......we showed the entire world our word as a country is only as good as long as the person who signed it is in office.

we showed the world, no matter what promise we make, we WILL go back on our word WITHOUT PROVOCATION if we feel the agreement is no longer in our best interest, or we gain the upper hand and no longer have any fear of the other party we signed the agreement with.

we attacked a country, SUPPOSEDLY, becuase they would not abide by the egreement they made with the international community.

Russia has every right to start a nuclear arms race again, and freely sell their weapons to anyone who wants to buy them. that was the fear that pushed us into signing an agreement with them. as soon as that fear is gone....***** russia, and on with the weapon building....

korea HAS the bomb, iraq MIGHT have made the bomb sometime in the future, so we invade Iraq.

this, along with the abandoning of the russian nuclear arms treaty, tells the world this..........if you ARE a threat, we will talk, if you MIGHT BECOME a threat, we will hit you with "shock and awe", and an "iron hammer". if you ARE a threat, adn we talk to you, then at sometime in teh future you are no longer a threat....we will break every promise we ever made to you.

the message to the rest of the world?

you want to be safe from america, GET DA BOMB and show it to the world. bacuase we will only talk to you if you are a threat, and we WILL ***** YOU the second you stop being a threat.

the result? increased potential for violance through out the world....which is EXACTLY what we are seeing through out the world in our news papers and on TV.

they did this. this hurts this country big time. this is TREASON of the highest order. the integrity and honor of our word was intentionally trashed and replaced with fear mongering. TREASON, nothing less. they destroyed this country more profoundly than any physical attack could possibly accomplish. they wounded this country to a much greater extent than al-queada did on 9-11.

our word means nothing. the only way anyone can deal with us now is with violance or the threat of violance. this is what this administraition did to this country.......in the name of peace of coarse......with the support of the moral majority....

the tie in........

and to make what they did legal, they appoint a lawyer to make a legal argument its all O-TAY.

the statement Mr. Gonzales made is what this addministraition stands for. ANARCY, TYRANY, DICTATORSHIP.......TREASON, and WAR CRIMES.

Some tidbits from the Taguba Report (http://www.agonist.org/annex/taguba.htm):



So, beatings, sodomy rape, sex with detainees, dog attacks, and serious psychological treatment doesn't count for "torture"? Just what do you consider torture? If it's causing physical harm--Abu Ghraib had it. If it's causing sexual harm--Abu Ghraib had it. Psychological harm--Abu Ghraib had it. Please clarify what types of torture you think "count", of a type that wasn't at Abu Ghraib.



I couldn't answer unless I was in that position. Theoretically I'd like to say I wouldn't torture him.

But, if I did end up feeling torture was the best method, I would fully expect--and turn myself in afterward--to be tried for a very serious crime, and would agree that it was torture and inexcusable. That's the thing about crimes like torture and rape--there can never be a mitigating excuse, even if by circumstance you feel "I have to do it". If I were to torture the person and "get away with it" by either no charges being filed or a very light sentence, I'd feel justice wasn't doing its job. Regardless of my sentence, I should properly be reviled by any humane person for what I did.

Shadowrelm, the point is that you are usingf terms that do not apply, they weaken your already weak arguement and make you look like a fool.

G.W.Bush <much as i cannot stand him> is the duely elected Leader of the USA, he cannot commit treason, since he cannot betray himself.

I will however humour you and reply to the points you have made. Thats right the rest of the world does not trust America anymore, but that is 75% because of your aggressive multinational companies like Cokacola and McDonalds and 25% central govenment.

How would you feel if there was a Brandname Japanesse restraunt in every town driving your traditional food out of the market?

Yes they did hurt America with all of those things but that is not treason because it in no way attempts to overthrow the American govenment YOU ARE USING THE WRONG F*CKING WORD.

Adiemus wrote:


To your question, a question... what makes you think that torture would extract any useful information in the first place? What would prevent the torturee from simply lying to stop the physical/psychological torment?

Can shadowrelm go a post without CAPITALISING every other word? It doesn't make your argument more effective, just makes you look like a fu[i][/i]cking moron.

Now try that phrase with the following:

"resort to torture to extract the information from the captured suspected terrorist"

I denounce the use of torture (whether physical, psychological or spiritual) in any circumstances. Period.

From personal experience, I appreciate the privelige we hold (or used to hold) where innocence was presumed before a fair trial.

On the contrary; if there is a more reliable method (say, negotiation and bargaining) to extracting the information from the terrorist, why use torture if indeed it is proven to be unreliable? My argument did not involve values judgements, but instead a question of simple practicality.

Shadow. Could you at least have the vaguest bit of knowledge of the topic before posting? This is ridiculous...



First off. I'm pretty sure that "enemy combatants" have existed since the first man hit anotherman over the head with a stick. I'm assuming the term you mean to use was "illegal combatants". In that respect, you are sort of correct. The GC has a whole article devoted to discussion of the treatment of civilian populations in an occupied area, including the responsiblities of the occupying power *and* the responsiblities of the civilians. While the term "illegal combatants" isn't specifically used, the GC does spell out that civilians that act in a particular way (ie: working in the factories by day and putting on the black pjs at night and blowing things up) do *not* fall under the heading of POWs, and lists a completely different set of rules for them. This class is not given a specific name,ut that's what Bush is talking about when he says "illegal combatants".

The term may have been coined outside the GC, but the status is not. It's clearly defined (in article VI I believe, but I could be wrong and don't feel like looking it up for the 8th time we've had this exact discussion).



No. They aren't. Just cause the term has the words "prisoner" and "war" and both seem to apply, does *not* mean that everyone fits the definition as set down by the GC. Platitudes are nice and all that, but if you actually read the GC, you'd maybe have a clue.



No. They wanted to do *exactly* what the GC covers. They wanted to be able to detain members of a terrorist cell secretly and question them without them being able to communicate and potentially pass on information. The relevant article was specificsally written to prevent cells of terrorists or resistors from being able to use the "rules" of war to make it impossible for an occupying power to be able to stop them. Ultimately, it was written to protect those citizens who *don't* commit such acts by giving an occupying power the ability to find and remove such cells without requiring draconian measures against the population as a whole. It was also written to discurage such acts (since they endanger large groups of innocent civilians) by allowing greater punishment against those who "break the rules".

That's the part you are issing here. The GC specifically prohibits civilians from doing things like conducting attacks against military forces while hiding in crowds of innocent people. Those who violate those rules lose the protections of the GC as POWs and fall under a different catagory (including much stiffer potential penalties including death, which is prohibited against POWs). This is because the GC has a whole set of rules for conduct of civilians in an area that is occupied. When the legitimate military/political authority surrenders, the assumption under the GC is that any civilians who do not at that time take up arms openly against the occupation are assumed to *also* surrender, and thefore mucst follow "the rules". If they don't follow those rules, they can't qualifiy as POWs. Get it? Try reading the GC first, then discuss it.



OMG Facts? I'd be surprised. I've never seen you post facts. Just guesses and things you heard on some guys blog.

Guess what? They are "covered by the geneva convention". As I just explained. The SC did say that they should be given counsel though (which was a meaningless gesture since the "rules" of illegal combatants sets a time that they can be held without counsel anyway. The SC was just saying that we had to do something we were already required to do anyway). I do not recall any rulling by the SC that we must reclassify them as POWs though (assuing you are talking about the Gitmo detainees, which is the *only* group the SC has gotten vaugely involved in).


The rest of your post is pretty much meaningless rambling. Not even worth responding to. Look. How about you actually find a single fact that supports your argument first, eh?

I love how shadowrealm always is getting rated down.
He's not malicious, he's NOT a troll. He just has strong views and expresses them. I'm not going to argue about the validity of them, but still, he tries. So I'm rating him up. So NYAHH!

OK, commence explaining why our law of "Rule by Rich Tobacco Spitting Country Club Oil Tycoons" is working.