I think the President's actions meet the legal definition of treason. The Constitution defines treason carefully. Article 3 section 3 says:
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. [Emphasis added: SiG]In particular, in supplying arms to the rebels we are supporting in Syria - just like the ones we armed in Libya - we are providing aid and comfort to our enemies. The Muslim Brotherhood is our enemy. Al Qaeda is our enemy.
"...yet last night the President of the United States asked this country to back military action where our coalition would be made up of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda,” Glenn said...[Note: Glenn Beck from 9/11/13 radio broadcast]The president himself said,
Why should we get involved at all in a place that's so complicated, and where -- as one person wrote to me -- "those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?" It's true that some of Assad's opponents are extremists.They're extremists? Like the ones who cut out an opponents heart out and eat it on camera? Extremists like the ones who raped and murdered ambassador Chris Stevens? (Yeah, there are photos online for those who aren't squeamish) Extremists like the ones who are burning down churches, massacring Christians, and who dismembered a little girl with a saw while she was still alive - oh, and recorded it on video to impress each other? Yeah, I think you can call them that.
That part of the Constitution quoted above is also pretty clear that a charge of treason has to have two witnesses. Since the president has been very clear about all of his support for these rebels, as well has having Muslim Brotherhood in the White House many times, there are millions of witnesses.
IANAL, but case closed.
Beck closed that radio piece on the president's treasonous behavior with this:
“Healthcare is one thing,” Glenn concluded. “But siding on the side of Al Qaeda — and being asked to do it on the eve of September 11th — is a whole different ball game,” he concluded.
Well, after all, he is a Muslim. Note the interview when just a candidate. Also note Stephanopoulos covering for him.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKQhkh8xhE0
I get the whole "war is hell" thing and understand that in any war both sides kill and sometimes kill innocent people. But it takes a "special" kind of inhuman A-hole to dismember a little girl with a saw while she is still alive. What we need to understand is probably most of the radical muslims would not object to this, not speak up against it and may well try to come up with something worse. Also most "moderate" muslims may dislike this, may reject it at a personal level but they too will not speak out against it. We better figure out that we are indeed in a war and it is a dirty war and one day the terrorists will get nukes or some other weapon of mass destruction and destroy an entire American city or worse.
ReplyDeleteWell said. War is hell, but they seem to take a special enjoyment out of killing innocents over there.
DeleteAlso, it may not be something as dramatic as taking out a city with a nuke or something. Maybe it's just a slow takeover of Shariah law, where non-Muslims with Dhimmitude, special taxes just to be allowed to live, and non-Muslims may be killed at will for entertainment.