isn't treason a crime?
isnt someone presumed innocent until a charge has been brought, a trail carried out, and the accused found guilty?
but there wasnt any trial for jane fonda or the other folk that have the right's panties in such a retrospective twist.
there was no due process.
there were no charges.
so there is no treason.
you, mojo (or anyone else who believes this nonsense) might have the opinion that x is guilty of treason--and i might (well i do) view that opinion as crackpot. you might find it therapeutic to wage symbolic warfare against jane fonda for whatever bizarre psychological reason--i doubt somehow that you were alive during the vietnam war, mojo---and it is your right to do that. yes it is. and it my right to view you, on this and the kerry matters, as a crackpot. period. but nowhere in any of this is there the slightest question of guilt.
unless of course you really are true to the legal "logic" of bushworld and are trying at some level to blur what you imagine fonda did into the category "terrorist" or an equivalent--in which case, like for your boy in the white house, there is only the need for suspicion--for bushworld, suspicion is enough to send many folk into either the domestic or international legal black hole circuit, shuttled place to place on private jets accompanied by cia operatives and delivered to the secret service of egypt, syria, pakistan for torture--ooops, i meant "interrogation"---with no hope of coming to trial...for background, listen to this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme..._4/4246089.stm
or read this (a transcript)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp...renditions.pdf
or if you read french, check out the lead article in this month's le monde diplomatique on the american outsourcing of torture--lots of documentation behind it--check the sources, mojo--be critical and look into the matter.
funny how this works--on the one hand, conservatives like yourself are interested in doing away with due process at all and effectively convicting someone who was never charged with anything of treason--on the other hand, your conservative buddies in power are interested in doing away with due process altogether by interpreting human rights law (like the cia said once: human rights are very simple) in the narrowest possible sense and not ever bringing charges against suspects. you could combine this stuff with the recent far right assaults on the judiciary in general and see that everything converges on the justification of what amounts to vigilante pseudo-justice--which i am sure you would endorse, so long as people you agree with politically were carrying it out. why not, really--it is very john wayne.
what a great bunch of folks there in bushworld.
real champions of individual rights.