Pentagon may get involved in sniper hunt

CNN

[Demidog]

I'm not. Are you a member of the KKK?

[Demidog]

Are you suggesting that killing folks with a rifle has some remote equivalence to selling military secrets to other nations?

[GovernmentShrinker]

Just as we are having to broaden our concept of "war", I expect we'll have to broaden our concept of treason as well. Deliberately aiding and abetting the enemy qualifies as treason by most people's definition. Either the sniper is an enemy combatant, or an American who's deliberately destabilizing our nation's capital and national security-related agencies at a time when we are, for all practical purposes, at war. The latter is quite arguably treason.

[Demidog]

I expect we'll have to broaden our concept of treason as well.

So you think treason should be broadened to include murder?

[Cachelot]

Are you a member of the KKK?

Lol. Would you be honest if I told you I was your Grand Kludge and commanded you to only tell the truth?

[Demidog]

for all practical purposes

Right. Let's go through a mental excercise. You are advocating that as long as the President (who constitutionally has no authority to do so) claims we are at war, then "for all practical purposes we are at war" regardless of the legal definition.

Let's pretend I am just a dude who decides that because I know how to drive, I "for all practical purposes" am therefore a licensed driver - regardless of what the law actually says.

How do you think I'll fare with this explanation to the judge when I appear for court attempting to defend myself against a driving without a license charge?

If it seems clear to you that such an explanation just won't fly in front of a judge, why would you accept such an explanation from the President and Congress given the actual law?

[Demidog]

Would you be honest if I told you I was your Grand Kludge and commanded you to only tell the truth?

I always tell the truth regardless of what some whackjob claims about his alleged authority. Are you a member of the KKK? Yes or no will suffice. Can you do it or are you too embarrassed to answer?

[GovernmentShrinker]

IIRC, the Constitution's reference to treason pre-dates any statutory definition of what constitutes war. Therefore a formal declaration of war cannot be a prerequisite to treason. Congress has authorized gazillions of dollars for the specific purpose of neutralizing the groups responsible for the WTC attack and other attacks (both in the past and threatened) by radical Islamic groups.

The intent of Congress and the President is pretty clear. The lack of a formal declaration of war is primarily due to the fact that the enemy is not a specific country or countries, but rather a global network of groups and individuals. The old definitions don't work anymore, and if we insist on stubbornly clinging to them, the enemy will win, because the enemy doesn't give a rat's hiney about our legalistic definitions of this or that.

[RipSawyer]

I happen to believe that the sniper is a foreign agent myself but you still have not refuted the reference to the constitution. Noone in government has come out and said that this is definitely an act of war by a foreign government so how can they change the rules without any proof. Before you answer I will say again, I believe the sniper is an agent of a foreign government.

[Cachelot]

I always tell the truth regardless

Good. Tell me when you left the Posse Comitatus :)).

[stndngathwrthistry]

In light of the revealtion that military involvement is to be limited to the use of surveillance planes, I'd like to withdraw my previous comment. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Demidog]

I've never been a member of Posse Comitatus. Are you a member of the KKK?

[Cachelot]

I've never been a member of Posse Comitatus

Tsk, tsk.. I think you protest too much, doggie, almost like someone stepped on your tail ;).

[Demidog]

Tsk, tsk.. I think you protest too much

I think you don't know the meaning of the word protest.

Are you in the KKK?