Help support TMP


"Treason?" Topic


172 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please don't make fun of others' membernames.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2012-present) Message Board


Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article


Featured Workbench Article

Three Adventurers from Hasslefree

Paul Baker of Brush Strokes tackles three female adventurers from Hasslefree.


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


3,456 hits since 14 Sep 2021
©1994-2021 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP15 Sep 2021 5:57 a.m. PST

I also know that far too many Presidents just could not be bothered to get Congressional "approval".

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP15 Sep 2021 6:20 a.m. PST

That far too many presidents "get away with it" does not make it right.
Far too often a feckless and gutless Congress avoid taking responsibility by passing the buck.

Back to the OP, (let's try to stay on topic here on TMP for once, shall we?) I think Milley was absolutely correct in minimizing the damage an unhinged loser could do in his last days in office.

By the way, it's quite possible that Woodward misquoted him. It won't be the first time. Didn't he "interview" a comatose William Casey before he died?
When it comes to Woodward, we should always consider that.

Personal logo doc mcb Supporting Member of TMP15 Sep 2021 6:59 a.m. PST

Yes, Congress has allowed the steady erosion of its powers, to the courts and the executive. Their vaunted "power of the purse" is virtually non-existent.

And yes, Woodward is a dubious source.

But Miley hasn't denied it yet, nor sued Woodward. Further investigation is essential.

Personal logo doc mcb Supporting Member of TMP15 Sep 2021 7:04 a.m. PST

This analysis argues that Miley himself was Woodward's source. You can read it and decide. TRIGGER WARNING!!! This is a CONSERVATIVE source, for those who get the vapors about such.

link

Btw, the Red State article quotes extensively and usefully from the WaPo piece that is behind their paywall.

Thresher0115 Sep 2021 7:06 a.m. PST

I am and was aware that technically, the Pres. can't "declare war" officially on his own, but he/they can certainly start one, or respond to attack(s) without congressional approval.

I was using the "declare war" term figuratively, not literally.

As we've seen though John, Deleted by Moderator

Personal logo javelin98 Supporting Member of TMP15 Sep 2021 8:52 a.m. PST

@Tgerritson:

That meets the giving aid part of what javelin98 so kindly quoted (but apparently didn't read?) and is what can be argued here.

What on earth are you talking about? I simply copied and pasted the US Code. I didn't take any stance on the topic one way or the other.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP15 Sep 2021 9:14 a.m. PST

"Giving aid" assumes we are at war.
Now, the Espionage Act is another story. Make your case there.
My hackles are always raised at the knee jerk yelps of "Treason!" It's defined in the Constitution, and in the US Code extremely narrowly. You can't throw out that word like Henry VIII.

Gorgrat15 Sep 2021 9:16 a.m. PST

John the OFM

Ever heard of a case called Marbury v. Madison? It set up judicial review. Is Marbury constitutional? There's a very good argument that it isn't, but it set the precedent for about the last 250 years of how we make laws and that the Supreme Court gets to decide what's constitutional and what isn't.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP15 Sep 2021 9:26 a.m. PST

Of course I've heard of Marbury. It should have been nipped in the bud ab initio. (Some Latin there.)
Marbury is constitutional because the Supreme Court said it was. QED.
Just like Dred Scott.

Personal logo doc mcb Supporting Member of TMP15 Sep 2021 9:49 a.m. PST

"Giving aid" assumes we are at war.

Except it isn't as clear cut as that.

Were we at war with Japan on December 1, 1941? Yes, their fleet was on its way to attack Pearl. We WERE at war but just didn't know it yet. And a US citizen in Hawaii assisting the Japanese would have been a traitor, BEFORE the bombs started falling.

One of the excellent scenes in UNITED 73 was when the air traffic controller boss makes the decision to shut down the entire country, land all the planes: "we are at war with somebody."

duke177615 Sep 2021 10:31 a.m. PST

I am a grown man with 4 kids and fought in a war that started when I was in grade school… Trump was the first president to not wag the dog in my lifetime, as in since before I was born. Since Reagan forward they all found a reason to invade some random new country.

Garth in the Park15 Sep 2021 11:39 a.m. PST

Without commenting upon Gen. Milley's alleged phone calls, I find it oddly convenient that nobody is asking why this thing, which apparently has never happened before in the history of a 240-year-old republic, happened under that particular president?

Is it perhaps that there was an extraordinary situation?

Gray Bear15 Sep 2021 1:57 p.m. PST

John, it appears, understands the thinking snd internal deliberations of the CCP. A true marvel. Please share further insights and relevant stock picks.

Gorgrat15 Sep 2021 1:58 p.m. PST

"Marbury is constitutional because the Supreme Court said it was…"

John, I'm sorry, but you just have no idea what you are talking about.

At that level, the Constitution is itself unconstitutional, because there is no constitutional basis for it.

To say that the seminal case that assigned the Supreme Court its powers of review is/should be unconstitutional just indicates that you are willfully defying reality.

Well, have fun.

arealdeadone15 Sep 2021 2:14 p.m. PST

Garth in the Park, it has happened before – the sacking of Macarthur because he was undermining Truman and US foreign policy in Korea.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP15 Sep 2021 3:02 p.m. PST

"Marbury is constitutional because the Supreme Court said it was…"

John, I'm sorry, but you just have no idea what you are talking about.


Sir, may I suggest that you are reversing things.
At the time, the decision was grudgingly accepted, and it stood as precedent. Stare decisis, and all that.
Marshal, in his opinion in Marbury said "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
This solidified the traditional concept of judicial review, which is not mentioned in the Constitution.
So, for better worse, ever since Marbury, the final arbiter of what is constitutional is decided by a varying number of unelected dude and/or dudettes in long black robes.
I find it rather unseemly that every sitting Justice has their health scrutinized in ghoulish anticipation.
The partisan and ghoulish question over whether the Court will be 6-3 or 5-4 is the legacy of Marbury.

I repeat. Marbury is precedent and thus constitutional because Marshal and the Court said it was. By 4-0. Complain about it all you want. How will you change it? By Mark Levin's goofy Article V Convention of the States?

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP15 Sep 2021 3:06 p.m. PST

To say that the seminal case that assigned the Supreme Court its powers of review is/should be unconstitutional just indicates that you are willfully defying reality.

To somehow find that I said that is beyond comprehension.

Garth in the Park15 Sep 2021 3:35 p.m. PST

it has happened before – the sacking of Macarthur because he was undermining Truman and US foreign policy in Korea.

I don't see much similarity.

In the 1950 case you had a commander who was issuing public statements in contradiction of administration policy, and he got fired. Nobody called MacArthur a traitor; the incumbent president certainly didn't accuse him of treason or suggest that he should be executed. MacArthur whispered to some congressmen, and of course it was passed along to Truman.

In the 2020 case you had an incumbent president claiming that an election had been stolen from him in a massive conspiracy in which he specifically implicated the Chinese, demanding that his VP overturn the results, rallying a mob to pressure members of his party to overturn the results, which stormed the Capitol and injured over a hundred police officers and got several people killed. The general, in that case, felt that he had to reassure members of congress and the Chinese that the president, despite his extraordinary behavior, would not launch a coup or a war. The general is now in trouble for those communications, and his former boss is accusing him of a capital crime, the punishment for which is execution.

I'm not sure how I feel about Milley's communications, but I certainly don't envy him for the extraordinary situation his political leadership thrust him into. It was historically unique, and I very much hope that it remains historically unique.

arealdeadone15 Sep 2021 3:48 p.m. PST

Garth,

The concepts are the same – a leading US general was going against his president. And there was no way the hero of WWII Pacific campaign, MacArthur was ever going to be called a traitor even if commandeered a B-29 and dropped a nuke on Beijing himself.

The Cold War demanded a unified face and MacArthur was extremely popular. Hence a mere sacking.

And public statements are extremely powerful – indeed here in Australia Prime Ministers such as Kevin Rudd have avoided Cabinet and their own parties by making public statements. Once something is in the public, it becomes hard to overturn.

Truman had a set of balls to tackle MacArthur.

Then the facts of the 2020 case:

Miley's first call to the Chinese was on 18 October, nearly 3 months before 6 January and also 3 weeks before US election.


Note there were no reports of Chinese mobilisation and the Chinese could probably see no major US movements either (like the US they have satellites, ELINT/SIGINT capabilities and a far better developed HUMINT network).

So the Chinese in October were not worried about a US attack and whatever Milley did, he did off his own back based on his own assumptions.


I'm not sure how I feel about Milley's communications, but I certainly don't envy him for the extraordinary situation his political leadership thrust him into. It was historically unique, and I very much hope that it remains historically unique.

If Milley gets away with it, then a precedent has been set. And that opens up a whole can of worms.

It makes it acceptable for US officers to be even more politically involved.

It also completely undermines the constitution and legal system. And given tensions in the US, the last thing the US needs is for legal framework to be undermined and perceived as "optional" for those in power.

Garth in the Park15 Sep 2021 3:57 p.m. PST

If Milley gets away with it, then a precedent has been set. And that opens up a whole can of worms.

You may be right about that, but unfortunately the same can be said about his former boss. Unlike 1950, the buck didn't stop there.

If the civilian leadership won't uphold the democratic process that gives it legitimacy, and the military no longer trusts the civilian leadership and feels it has to act on its own, then… I don't know where you go from there. History suggests: It's not looking good.

arealdeadone15 Sep 2021 4:04 p.m. PST

If the civilian leadership won't uphold the democratic process

As I mentioned previously, the first call was made 3 weeks before the election.

The October call has nothing to do with disputing the election results let alone 6 January!


It could be argued that Milley had by October 2020 no loyalty to the President.

The fact he felt comfortable enough to effectively kneel and grovel to the Chinese and was willing to throw away American lives by forewarning Chinese, actually makes it suspect as to whether by October 2020 he was still loyal to the USA at all.


A general that does not like his civilian masters should resign, not skulk around their back by appeasing enemies.


----

I've accentuated the date of first call (18 October 2020) because it is important. It means the whole 6 January moot and it shows Milley was actively opposing the President before it.

pzivh43 Supporting Member of TMP15 Sep 2021 4:09 p.m. PST

Garth,

Can't let you get awa with your statements unchallenged. Only one person was killed on 9/6 and that was Ashley Babbit, one of the protestors. Others died of natural causes according to coroner's report (which may have been brought on by stress, but not really due to injuries on the day). The rest of your statements are clearly based on your anti-Trump opinions.

arealdeadone15 Sep 2021 4:16 p.m. PST

And the current administration is standing behind Milley:

link

There should have been at least an investigation into the affair to see whether it was legally legitimate.


----

It must actually be scary for the Republicans to know that the upper echelons of the US military are now only loyal to the Democrats.

Even if Republicans win legitimately in 2024 or any year, they will face a military high command that's been stacked with Milley's followers.

Gorgrat15 Sep 2021 4:24 p.m. PST

John the OFM

That is the inescapable logic of it.

Sorry. Just the messenger.

arealdeadone15 Sep 2021 4:24 p.m. PST

I did see this:

Chinese must be overjoyed at the path the US military is taking.

All this talk of alliances blah blah is meaningless if the US high command would refuse to fight against the Chinese.

Gorgrat15 Sep 2021 4:34 p.m. PST

At least Arnold, traitor though he was, was also a man's man. Not some dude trying to understand his white rage.

SBminisguy15 Sep 2021 5:14 p.m. PST

The Biden Admin's position as expressed in a recent press briefing is since Milley opposed Orange Man Bad, his actions were just fine with them…so we only have a conditional Constitutional system, I suppose. Depends on who's in office and what they want to do…

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP15 Sep 2021 5:18 p.m. PST

Yeah, that's pretty much it.
What's the Latin for "It depends on whose ox is being gored"?

EDIT: Pendent cuius bove suffoditur.
Thank you Google.

Personal logo javelin98 Supporting Member of TMP15 Sep 2021 5:55 p.m. PST

As an additional data point, GEN Milley also spoke with his Russian counterpart in September of 2020 about tensions between the US and Russia and some military gamesmanship.

link

The situations are not a perfect parallel, but it does show that this isn't the first time a US commander has reached out to a potential adversary to try to quell tensions. Now, how accurate Woodward's account is remains to be proven, and the question may turn on those details, of course.

Blasted Brains15 Sep 2021 6:57 p.m. PST

So, all of the generals and admirals and other military officers who have communicated with our various and sundry adversaries over the years must be enemies of the country they serve? I know – a bit of a stretch, but at one level that is implied within this conversation. General Milley's position meant he had a responsibility to be in communications with our adversaries. The first duty of our military is not to fight a war, it is to prevent a war. I'm pretty sure that makes Milley's calls justifiable.

What so many are happily ignoring is the oath which includes "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC". (emphasis mine, of course) A pretty solid case can be made that Trump (at the very least profoundly ignorant of our Constitution), was acting as a domestic enemy of the constitution by claiming that the election was rigged against him – a claim that started long before the election, a standard tactic of authoritarians – and encouraging his followers to interfere with a lawful and constitutional act. That means that rather than being a traitor, maybe Milley should be hailed as a hero. At the very least, he was acting to protect the constitution and the country and thus fulfilling his oath.

I know, all you lovers of Trump and haters of anything not 'the way you want it' will decry that possibility.

My greatest fear in the months leading up to the election – the one Trump just plain lost so get over it – was that our military would be placed in the untenable position of having to intervene in an election. That way leads to disaster. And that was NOT what Milley did so don't try to claim it was.

If Trump had simply recognized that he lost and given the traditional concession speech, Milley would never have been placed in the position he was. And, again, from my view, he acted in the best interest of the country – and since Pence was suspect (just saw last night he actually inquired if he could not approve the election and was told 'not a chance' by a member of his own party) then communicating with Pelosi was appropriate and not necessarily partisan – she is third in line to the presidency after all.

Considering this is ostensibly a board devoted to miniatures gaming, I'd think the majority of folk here would condemn 'sore losers' as not worth bothering to ever invite again. I think Trump is pretty clearly the sorest loser in the history of losers.

But keep on holding him up as a paragon. Just don't have any chats with all the construction contractors he ripped off over the years – I'd guess some of them would be offended into some 'lights out' behaviors. There is a reason he switched to selling his name 'cuz I don't thing any contractor with a brain would work with him once they knew his reputation. I will never understand why people who work for a living and take their showers at night would vote for that crook.

Oh, by the way, I took that oath to serve in the military and to serve within a few different positions within federal service – and I take that oath very seriously even though I am no longer in federal employ.

No, I am not a commie. No, I am not a socialist. No, I am not a liberal. And I'm pretty sure a lot of the people – not all, of course – here on this board would be hard put to explain the difference – or even realize that there is a difference. And I'm pretty certain a huge swath of the people who call themselves republicans, on or off this board, would be totally clueless to what constitutes being a conservative. Wearing red hats and flying a flag in your pickup truck and brandishing a gun don't really count but, shh, don't tell them red hat folk that. Might Bleeped text them off. And shouldn't they all be wearing brown shirts instead of red hats?

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."

Guroburov15 Sep 2021 8:22 p.m. PST

I should learn to read all the posts before writing. As Blasted says, many flag level officers maintain communications with their counterparts in other nations. This informal level of contact has been going on for decades and serves as another level of diplomacy. Him calling to calm them down is just another day on the phone for an officer at his level.

As for telling the Chinese general that he would tell him if the U.S. planned an attack, I love how people see that as treason and endangering American lives. As if the United States has now adopted a policy of launching sneak attacks on sovereign (nuclear armed) nations.

The book has Milley telling officers, rightly, that only the president can use the nuclear option. He says he is to be involved if the decision is made. I don't know why people are freaking out about this. As the Chairman of the JCS, when the code is opened and the nuclear option chosen, the orders go from the president to the Chairman of the JCS (Milley) and from there to the relevant commands. Seems like Woodward is trying to make a smoking gun out of standard operating procedure. Milley, literally, was reminding officers of the chain of command.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP15 Sep 2021 8:46 p.m. PST

What so many are happily ignoring is the oath which includes "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC". (emphasis mine, of course) A pretty solid case can be made that Trump (at the very least profoundly ignorant of our Constitution), was acting as a domestic enemy of the constitution by claiming that the election was rigged against him – a claim that started long before the election, a standard tactic of authoritarians – and encouraging his followers to interfere with a lawful and constitutional act. That means that rather than being a traitor, maybe Milley should be hailed as a hero. At the very least, he was acting to protect the constitution and the country and thus fulfilling his oath.

+1 Blasted Brains.
Admirable analysis. I hope you don't get the DH over that.
But the Yuengling Black and Tan is behind the Rita Hayworth poster.

arealdeadone15 Sep 2021 9:38 p.m. PST

As for telling the Chinese general that he would tell him if the U.S. planned an attack, I love how people see that as treason and endangering American lives. As if the United States has now adopted a policy of launching sneak attacks on sovereign (nuclear armed) nations.

Doesn't matter if its a nuclear power ally or third world dictatorship or terror group – you don't tell them you are going to attack.

And I'm not a Trump or Biden supporter. I am a socialist by western standards.

SBminisguy15 Sep 2021 10:45 p.m. PST

A pretty solid case can be made that Trump (at the very least profoundly ignorant of our Constitution), was acting as a domestic enemy of the constitution by claiming that the election was rigged against him – a claim that started long before the election, a standard tactic of authoritarians – and encouraging his followers to interfere with a lawful and constitutional act. That means that rather than being a traitor, maybe Milley should be hailed as a hero. At the very least, he was acting to protect the constitution and the country and thus fulfilling his oath.

Now we're definitely in Blue Fez territory. In 2020 we had almost a year of actual political violence with the support of leaders of the Democrat party, including several overt insurrection events in which Antifa literally took over parts of major cities and declared independence. And we know from history what a Putsch look likes, and it's not lead by unarmed uncoordinated protesters like we saw on 1/6. Even the FBI has said now that it was an unplanned event, and that's even after we discover they had lots of foreknowledge and operatives working the crowd.

And as for the election itself -- there were so many odd things that happened in key States that a lot of people had questions. Why did key Counties stop the count, usher everyone home and said they'd resume the next morning -- but then resumed the count as mystery boxes of ballots poured in? Why was their the Big Flip at the same time in the 5 key States? Why were election observers ejected from the count in many Democrat controlled areas? Lots of questions, and outrage if you dared ask them. The Democrats were able to use politically allied judges to block lawsuits pushing for an audit, and the only one that has been initiated has been dragging on in Arizona – where at each turn the Democrats have tried to block attempts to to a fair and open audit. If Trump lost, fine -- prove it to the 70+ Million who voted for him. Should be easy to do, open up the books, let the auditors in and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's a losing loser.

So why won't they??

Basically the Democrat-Media-BigTech complex are gaslighting us all.

Let's make simple. Ever been in this situation? Someone does work on your house or your car. The final bill is a lot higher than you had discussed with the contractor, listing a whole bunch of parts and costs you don't understand.

So you ask for an explanation and the guy replies "everything I've listed is accurate, why are you questioning me?!?"

Well, I'd really like a cost break down. Can you send me the invoices from the parts stores and stuff so I can verify it and pay what's really owed?

"What, don't you trust me – what's the matter with you?!? It's because I'm Hispanic, isn't it, you're just a racist!"

If Biden won fair and square he would be insisting on an election audit to prove he won and was fairly elected as President, and that Trump just lost -- that's what happens in an election.

But he is not. Nor are any democrat politicians or appointees, they are gaslighting and name calling. So you have 70 million Americans who are angry, afraid and despondent. What happened in DC 0n 1/6? That should be a wake-up call, yes?

Didn't the Democrats say all last year about the riots that there's real anger and fear motivating them that must be addressed? And we had Democrat leaders like Pelosi say there should be more uprisings!

So if the Democrats want to govern and not rule, they should be immediately taking steps to reassure people and show they want to uphold the system.

I see the opposite from them. I see calls for retribution against Trump and anyone who ever voted for him supported him, calls to pack the courts, to admit DC, PR and other territories as States to give them more Senators and Congresspeople, calls to legalize illegal aliens with blanket amnesty, calls to eject opposition politicians from Congress, and calls for a national mail-in ballot law.

And then Milley's part of this mess, part of the DC Establishment who gaslighted the president on deployments, lied to the president about how many troops were in Syria, pushed forward a Pentagon officer to make inflammatory allegations that gave the Democrats the pretext for impeachment – allegations which were proven to be false, and so on. And now we see that Milley think's he's sooooo smart that he knows better than the President whom he loathed. So he threw his political weight behind Biden, then ran around reassuring folks he had it covered, that he would refuse lawful orders from the President and told foes he would warn them should there be a planned attack. How is that not at a minimum a gross violation of the UCMJ if not actually rising to treason??

shadoe0116 Sep 2021 5:41 a.m. PST

Speculation is fine but as a cop I work with says, "there's a reason hearsay is inadmissible in court". Keep in mind that's what we have so far – hearsay. Of course, the court of public opinion operates on different rules from the official courts.

Thought this was appropriate – from the USNI:

news.usni.org/2019/01/14/40348

link

High level discussions are not unusual.

FWIW, in my view the number 1 job of any US president and administration is to prevent nuclear war. There can be no higher national interest for the US – or anyone else for that matter. That doesn't mean such a risk existed but I will wait on further info – knowing that a quote in a book might not exactly be what was said. I've experienced first hand – as I'm sure a number on this board have as well – that media reports tend to have a good number of errors. I can't say books necessarily do better; and the name of this book, 'Peril', is a good indication of the book's purpose. Claims in the book – or in this case a newspaper excerpt from the book – should be read with that in mind.

Personal logo doc mcb Supporting Member of TMP16 Sep 2021 6:09 a.m. PST

SB, yes indeed.

Gorgrat16 Sep 2021 6:21 a.m. PST

link

To this day, the media lives in abject terror of this guy. You never look at google but that the banner is something about Trump and the military.

Good thing we have true heroes like Milley to save us.

Thresher0116 Sep 2021 8:00 a.m. PST

"As for telling the Chinese general that he would tell him if the U.S. planned an attack, I love how people see that as treason and endangering American lives".

Actually, this IS the definition of TREASON, e.g. "..giving aid….to the enemy….".

Telling our enemy that you will inform them of any future attack before it takes place endangers the lives of our American troops, and aids the enemy directly to limit the impact and success of any attack(s) on them.

With generals like Milley in charge, no wonder why we haven't won a war since WWII (with the exception of the First Gulf War – I count that as a win, though it is a pity that Powell called it off prematurely before we had literally crush the Iraqi military, so we had to go back in a do it again a second time, a decade later).

Treason IS punishable by death, if those in power decide to choose that option.

18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000 USD; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States".

Bringing back the death penalty for it will be 100% successful in halting recidivism, and will send a strong message to others to not take similar actions.

Personal logo javelin98 Supporting Member of TMP16 Sep 2021 11:22 a.m. PST

"As for telling the Chinese general that he would tell him if the U.S. planned an attack, I love how people see that as treason and endangering American lives".

I completely agree. If we were to go to war with China and he gave them advanced warning of our troop movements, that would definitely qualify as treason under US law.

However, if there is no war, then maintaining open communications and backchannel diplomacy would not meet this definition. China is not our enemy, as of yet.

Personal logo doc mcb Supporting Member of TMP16 Sep 2021 11:42 a.m. PST

javelin, was the Cold War a real war? Was the USSR our enemy back then? and was aiding them treason? and is China somehow less a threat than the Soviets were?

Personal logo javelin98 Supporting Member of TMP16 Sep 2021 5:39 p.m. PST

doc, if you look at the history, yes, American and Soviet personnel were actively killing each other at various times during the Cold War, and even more so through the use of proxies (Korea, Vietnam, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan).

There is no active or by-proxy combat taking place between the US and China. Unless you know something we don't?

Guroburov16 Sep 2021 6:02 p.m. PST

+1 Javelin

Aiding the USSR during the cold war was espionage, not treason as there was no war going on. You can look it up but they got those individuals on other charges. And that means that what Milley did is also not treason as we aren't at war with China, thus they cannot meet the definition of enemy. Treason is a very hard charge to levy. I mean, they didn't seriously look at it in the Bergdahl case.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP16 Sep 2021 6:26 p.m. PST

The Cold War included Korea, Vietnam…

arealdeadone16 Sep 2021 6:41 p.m. PST

javelin,

You don't have to be engaged in an actual war to commit treason even in the US.

Treason is a very hard charge to levy. I mean, they didn't seriously look at it in the Bergdahl case.

Western legal systems are increasingly built to be lenient and to obfuscate responsibility, accountability and transparency.


Here in Australia I can point a gun at you and pull the trigger yet often the charge will be something like wounding or shooting with intent to cause grevious bodily harm and not attempted murder. I've even seen murder cases whereby accomplices or even murderer was only charged with assault or robbery.

White collar crime is especially lenient especially when it comes to politicians, private company executives and public servants. Eg one chief executive officer from a timber company called Gunns was openly caught out cashing out his shares just before his company imploded – literally about as open and shut case of insider trading as you could get.

He was slapped on the wrist and back to running businesses in no time.


But as we discovered yesterday, they'll arrest domestic violence victims and put them through strip searches and hold them in court if they fail to turn up to court to testify (usually due to fear).

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP16 Sep 2021 6:42 p.m. PST

Not according to the Constitution.

arealdeadone16 Sep 2021 6:58 p.m. PST

The Constitution does not require state of war:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000 USD; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.


The "or" is critical as it gives two states – one of war and one a bit more vague that talks about adhering to enemies.

Note there was no declared state of war in Cold War either. There also wasn't a state of war in many cases of treason in the US eg the people involved in the John Brown raid or Walter Allen who was coal mining activist involved with 1921 Miner's March or Mary Surratt who was involved with Lincoln assassination.

Finally US hasn't been at an official state of war for nearly 8 decades.

By that definition if unloyal American Bob reveals American troop movements to say ISIS or Vietcong or provided radar codes to say Saddam or Milosevic or Ho Chi Minh so they could better splat some American jets, no treason has been committed despite tons of dead Americans.


If Americans are happy to have their generals appease their enemies, then more power to them.


We had lots of appeasers back in the 1930s- didn't work out so well, did it?

BigfootLover16 Sep 2021 7:33 p.m. PST

If Americans are happy to have a president lie about an election being "rigged" and try to browbeat the vice president into overturning an election--thus destroying our democracy--then more power to them.

Gorgrat16 Sep 2021 7:50 p.m. PST

If it was in fact a lie, which, I believe (my own opinion only) that only a person of… let's say, a highly imaginative nature could buy into.

Unfortunately, I remember November 3.

I went to bed knowing it was in the bag for Trump. Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona were all way ahead for the orange toupee.

Got up next morning. Turned out they stopped counting votes at 1am est or so, and, miraculously, truckloads upon truckloads of votes for sleepy creepy were found. Not a single orange vote on the bunch! And we stopped counting! Because we knew who won!

Gorgrat16 Sep 2021 7:51 p.m. PST

No. Really. It's an eclaire. Put it in your mouth.

SBminisguy16 Sep 2021 7:52 p.m. PST

If Americans are happy to have a president lie about an election being "rigged" and try to browbeat the vice president into overturning an election--thus destroying our democracy--then more power to them.

Didn't happen that way, see my above post. You had enough election "irregularities" to raise serious questions about it, and rather than put those questions to rest and prove Trump was a losing loser to tens of millions of citizens, the Democrats continue to fight tooth and nail to prevent an open and transparent audit.

Pages: 1 2 3 4