Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
How was Treason a requirement for opposing the war?
At least some, if not most, of the war protesters where trying to point out that the US was wrong in engaging in war.
Calling that treason is a recipie for tyranny.
|
<img src="http://bigalivy.com/STUFF/Fonda.jpg" /img>
"I would think that if you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists." --Jane Fonda, Michigan State University, 1970
Nope, no treason there...
Quote:
On the American side, you where fighting a grand war against the evil's of communism.
On the Veitnam side, you where fighting a colonial war of oppression against a people longing to be an independant people.
My position is, the Veitnam was was a mistake, an error. America got into the war without knowing what it was doing. America fucked up.
If you presuppose that Veitnam was a war of good against evil -- guess what, it is easy to show that Vietnam wasn't a mistake! But it wasn't a war against the ideology of communism.
The end of the Vietnam war was caused, partially, by the USA figuring this out. Pointing out where the USA is wrong isn't treason, it is the duty of every patriotic American citizen.
|
In the 1930's, there was an organization very similar to what you are advocating. It was called the "German-American Bund."
The "peace" movement was from the "get-go" a communist tool. It was financed by the Soviet Union. It was riddled with not just Communist sympathisers, but actual Soviet agents (since the Soviet Union collapsed, this has been confirmed from, of all places, the KGB's own files). Unfortunately, a lot of people "bought into" what they were selling, but fortunately not enough to destroy the US, as was their intention. Not all people involved in the Peace movement were actual traitors. Some were just the 1960's version of Neville Chamberlaine, with communism substituted for fascism.
The Democrats ran on the "Treason is Patriotic!" platform in 2004. This is proof that appeasement of our enemies is still somewhat in style.
Quote:
|
I'll assume you have evidence to back this assertion up?
|
You're asking me to prove a negative. Can you come up with a quote where Franklin was condemning Article III § 3?
Quote:
There are many things the constitution allows.
The USA can declair (sic) war on every nation in the world, according to the constitution.
The USA can prevent any trade from occuring between the states.
If the US constituion (sic) permits someone who protests against the US being in war that the person believes to be bad for the US to be made into a traitor, then this is just something the US constitution permits.
That which is permitted is not that which is required.
Second, someone who isn't adhering to the enemy cannot be found guilty of Treason under the US constitution.
|
Do you know the legal definition of "adhering"? It doesn't involve interpersonal contact and a tube of Crazy-glue. You say: "That which is permitted is not required." The fact that somebody isn't prosecuted for a crime does not mean that they are innocent of that crime, does it?