ubertuber

I'm not really trying to stake out a position on this yet - I'm taking in all of the current information. I suppose I'm inclined to rely on the court's findings.

My reasons for posting in this thread are merely to add more information to the discussion. Strangely, I'm feeling attacked for doing so.

Are the people I referenced the ones who you feel are specifically aiding and abetting war time treasonous acts?

I'm wondering, for the sake of discussion, if you really mean what you write, or if some of it is hyperbole?

Aiding and abetting are specific terms in law. Generally speaking, once a crime is committed and the perp convicted, you can't really aid or abet them. Similarly, one could argue that we're not at war, since a state of war hasn't been declared. Lastly, treason means something very specific in this country. Did you know that the Constitution specifically restricts the definition of treason?

This makes defining this crime (and also Libby's) as treasonous rather problematic. I suppose that if you could convince a court that Bush/Cheney are Enemies of the United States, you could claim that Libby adhered to them. Good luck with that. Of course, there's also the issue that no one has confessed, and I have yet to see that two witnesses to the same act have been produced - which would also be difficult since you can't make someone bear witness against himself.

Did you know that "In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions." Not only that, but some of the ones who were convicted were pardoned, by no less a precedent setter than George Washington? I just found that out. (Wikipedia Link)

I'm not defending the actions of whoever disclosed Plame's identity, but I am still a little suspicious of your characterization. I'm sorting it out, and I think that this is a fair position.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam