/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Saturday, October 07, 2006

New York Times: Arguement for Treason

--posted by Pete Arnold on 10/07/2006

Our "Rights" are our rights. The only limitation placed on our rights is when our "right" harms someone else. Freedom of religion, so long as you don't sacrifice someone to your God. The right to bear arms, so long as you don't kill peoples with them. And Freedom of Speech for example, so long as (once again) you don't harm anyone. You can't yell fire in a crowded room. You can't whisper to someone in an Airport that you think I’d be funny if someone was caught with a Bomb in their bag. And you can't cover up Treason, with the claim that its covered under "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the press."

This is what the New York times is doing, and what the Liberal Left, Star Tribune, and all the Hate-Bush-First crowd are defending.

The definition of Treason is about as clear as you can get, as it is the only law that’s laid out in the Constitution:
Section 3: 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.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
So, lets look at this. Treason, after all, is a pretty big charge.

First of all:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Okay, what’s that word... levying? I gatta whip out my dictionary (note, I am using the American Heritage Dictionary definition... cause its... American.)
lev•y (lv) Pronunciation Key v. lev•ied, lev•y•ing, lev•ies
1. To impose or collect (a tax, for example).
2. To draft into military service.
3. To declare and wage (a war).
I'm pretty sure that "in levying War" they aren't talking about definitions 1 and 2. Levy is a synonym for wage in this case. Anyone doesn’t agree? I didn't think so... So treason would consist of a declaration of war against the United States... then there's the first "OR"
or in adhering to their Enemies
Adhering? adher?? What the nutz... where's that dictionary...
ad•here (d-h�r) Pronunciation Key v. ad•hered, ad•her•ing, ad•heres v. intr.
1. To stick fast by or as if by suction or glue.
2. To remain devoted to or be in support of something: adhered to her beliefs.
3. To carry out a plan, scheme, or operation without deviation: We will adhere to our plan.

v. tr.To cause to adhere; make stick.
Adhering to their enemies would be to Stick Fast to an enemy, like suction or glue? Kind of fits... Remain devoted or in support of an enemy? Carry out a plan, scheme, or operation with an enemy? I think 2 or 3 are a match here. If I were a lawyer, I would probably just pick 3... but what with my "progressive nature" I can be open minded. (i say that just to piss off liberals. te-he)

Okay. Treason would consist of a declaration of war against the United States, OR Remain devoted or in support of an enemy (carry out a plan, scheme, or operation with an enemy). Gett'in there. What about that last OR. that one has to mean something like "terrorists have rights" what with all the democratic banter... lets look at it.
giving them Aid and Comfort.
Woha, that’s nothing like "terrorists have rights." in fact, I don't think I even need my Dictionary for that one! I rule.

what about that second part?
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason,
Okay, easy enough. Any questions? Looks like know everything after that first part. Next:
but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood,
Damnit.
at•tain•der (-tndr) Pronunciation Key n.
1. In the ancient common law, the state of an offender who had been sentenced for a
capital offense.
2. Obsolete. Dishonor.
Obsolete, dishonor. That doesn't fit in there. In this case, the synonym of Attainder is Offender. So lets throw it in.
but no Offender of Treason shall work... Corruption of Blood?
What the F... Corruption of Blood. I bet that’s not even in the dictionary... No frick'in way, it IS in the dictionary!

According to Webster's (American Heritage Dictionary didn't have this entry):
Main Entry: corruption of blood: the effect of an attainder which bars a person from inheriting, retaining, or transmitting any estate, rank, or title
Holy cow... it even mentions the reason I'm looking it up. See how easy this is! So Corruption of Blood refers to, quite literally, the tainted blood that would follow a ancestor of the treason committer. More simply... the name of the traitor’s kids' would not be defunked because the traitor was a, well, traitor. Corruption of blood is an old English thing...
...or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
This means congress may take the property of a traitor, but once the traitor dies, the property must be inheritable. The property is only forfeit during the traitor’s life. Once the democrat traitor dies, their kids get their property.

All together now:
Treason would consist of a declaration of war against the United States, OR Remain devoted or in support of an enemy (carry out a plan, scheme, or operation with an enemy) OR giving them Aid and Comfort.
The second part I'll leave out, that has to do with punishment. We'll worry about the punishment when the New York Times is tried for treason. But the first part (remember, this is a law) is pretty clear.

Did the New York Times declare war against the United States of America? No, they did not. I won't even go that far.

Did the New York Times remain or devote support to an enemy? Um... No. Well... devote support to Terrorists? Did the New York Times support Terrorism? Perhaps. Let me ask my third question.

Did the New York Times give the enemy Aid or Comfort? Comfort, in this case, is a synonym of Assist? Did the NY Times assist or aid the enemy? Hell yea. I'll tell you how.

The moment you tell our enemy about our tactics against them, while we are at war against them, is the moment you willingly aid the enemy, as well as willingly harm the United States.

Did the New York Times tell our enemy about our tactics to fight terrorism while we were/are fighting terrorists? With our society, I would normally say, Ehhh, this happens all the time, but unfortunately classified information does not often get out, nor is it printed and published by the millions of copies. Classified information is classified for a reason. My argument for treason against the New York Times is because they released classified information that gave our enemy Aid or Comfort:

In May of 2004, the New York Times published leaked information about Data mining.

In December of 2005, the New York Times published leaked information about the Nsa spying.

In June of 2006 , the New York Times published leaked information about Financial transaction tracking.

Not once, not twice, but three times the New York times committed treason by releasing information that assisted our enemy. By the way, if anyone wants to argue the valadity of either of these programs, feel free to let me know.

And even worse, the New York Times, and all the liberal crazies are attempting to defend themselves under the blanket of "Freedom of the Press." Its amazing, isn't it, how the New York Times is defended when they commit treason, and in the same breath, they want to string up President Bush for going after terrorists. The New York Times has this to say about themselves:

We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices — to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government.

The way I read this: It's the Government's responsibility to conduct war, and defend the nation... And its' the New York Times responsibility to stop them.

Labels: ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Katy said...

you spelled argument wrong. ;)

November 14, 2008  
Blogger Tony said...

The Pete is not known for his spelling.

November 14, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home