Posted on 02/13/2007 5:43:31 AM PST by SJackson
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
— President Abraham Lincoln
It is, of course, unimaginable that the penalties proposed by one of our most admired presidents for the crime of dividing America in the face of the enemy would be contemplated — let alone applied — today.
Still, as the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate engage in interminable debate about resolutions whose effects can only be to "damage morale and undermine the military" while emboldening our enemies, it is time to reflect on what constitutes inappropriate behavior in time of war.
Scarcely anyone seems to consider the conduct of the Congress inappropriate, to say nothing of a hanging offense. As various sitting members, whose day jobs increasingly are those of presidential candidates, jockey to outbid one another in their defeatism, the talk is not about whether such behavior is appropriate in time of war — or consistent with the national interest.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
— President Abraham Lincoln
BUMP
It is an indication of the sorry state of our polity that some legislators are so intent on justifying their opposition to the conflict in Iraq that they persist in claiming then-Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and his organization engaged in intelligence skullduggery, misleading them and the nation in the run-up to the invasion in 2003. The most prominent of these are the newly installed chairmen of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, Carl Levin and Jay Rockefeller, respectively. The Wall Street Journal has dubbed the former "Senator Ahab" for his "obsessive" pursuit of this white whale of a story about "politicized" intelligence. I guess we should call the latter Ishmael.
BUMP
BUMP
good article
Let's ask Obama (The Next Lincoln) if he is going to implement 'his mentor's' policy...
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
— President Abraham Lincoln "
Pelosi to democrats. Ignore it he was a Republican.
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.Happy Birthday, Mr. Lincoln! (.. one day late)— President Abraham Lincoln
Obama is not the next Lincoln, he's next Marjoe.
I am shocked and dismayed that John Kerry hasn't yet been tried for his treason.
The fact we entered into military conflict without actually declaring war leaves the door wide open for dissenters.
If you want to use Lincoln as a good example, then don't forget that he suspended habaeus corpus during the CW.
He put several people in jail just for speaking their minds. Lincoln was no fan of free speech or certain essential liberties.
Anybody here care to see what mischief Hillary could do with the same power?
Technically, there has been no declaration of war, so there can be no treason trials.
I've a few others in mind also.
The worst and most enduring consequence of the Vietnam war is that it had legitimized the giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Since the Vietnam war, giving air and comfort to the enemy has not be confronted anymore, but rather has been hailed and cherished in the left wing liberal circles.
The worst and most enduring consequence of the Vietnam war is that it had legitimized the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy. Since the Vietnam war, giving aid and comfort to the enemy has not be confronted anymore, but rather has been hailed and cherished in the left wing liberal circles.
There is no need for a declaration of war. If an individual citizen commits an act of war against the U.S., it is treason. What McVey did was treason, if they had wanted to prosecute it that way. Spies who give info to the enemies are committing treason.
"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."
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."
William Tecumseh Sherman
"William Tecumseh Sherman"
Oh, yeah, he's a great example of humanity for us to follow. He and his men had a scorched earth policy, with little reason or benefit to it. They raped, pillaged, and burned everything for miles out of pure hatred, with no hint of mercy for anyone.
At that point in the war it was totally unnecessary, it was purely punitive. We treated Germany and Japan much better than the South was treated.
You are right, in that Kerry, Kennedy and other could be prosecuted under this statue, but for one thing.
We do not as a nation agree what the "enemy" is. Now most on this site have a good idea of who and what that enemy is, but sadly most people in the US will not admit it. Heck, a large portion believe that the Enemy is Bush, Christians, and Rush Limbaugh in no specific order.
So, until and unless we have a legally declared war (meaning an actual declaration of war from Congress), "Treason" can not be defined, much less prosecuted.
I notice how "THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX" was just a 'catch' phrase of the moment post 911. The common wisdom is now exactly what it was pre 911. Don't disagree, don't offer alternative views, go along, get along, and don't make waves because if you do, you will be considered a manipulative, underhanded war monger!!
While all that may be true, he was still right about the media.
Treason can be easily defined. It is making war on the U.S., or aiding those who do, in an overt act that can be testifed to by two people. Whomever the U.S. has declared war on is moot; "enemy" is defined by the actions of those who wage war on us. There are only three questions at issue. 1) Was there an overt attack or attempt to damage or injure the United States? 2) Was a citizen of the U.S. involved in the attack directly, or in direct, overt aide and/or support? 3) Are there at least two witnesses or a confession?
The will to prosecute traitors is a different question. The answer to that is obviously no, or Hanoi Jane would have been serving time instead of videotaping exercise programs.
Filthy treasonous demoRAT bump.
"While all that may be true, he was still right about the media."
I suppose you would prefer the kind that answers to the gov't?
I can't stand the MSM but it's better than what Hugo Chavez has control of in his country.
The supposed quote in question is not a quote at all, and I never intended it to be construed as one. It was my lead sentence in the article that a copy editor mistakenly turned into a quote by incorrectly inserting quotation marks.
It was Waller, in The Washington Times’ Insight Magazine, urging that anti-war Congressmen be hanged—not Abraham Lincoln.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.