Have the Bush's committed treason? They have both used our military (our sons and daughters) to progress themselve in my mind. I don't call for empeachment, I would like to see a full military investigation into treason. Both, lied about the situation, lied about information given to them. Under military law, treason is punishable by death. Treason is defined as going against your country or decieving your country to help another ... both are involved in oil, and each time they have been in office, the price of oil has increased. I would seriously think about looking at this, and as Commander in Chief, present and past, they are punishable under UCMJ. Niether has done much for this country, except put us at war, and put us at odds with the rest of the world and they have profitted, to me ... this is treason, they were not serving their country, they were using the country for their own purposes. Lives.
Just my opinion, what is yours?
2006-09-14 13:29:32 · 15 answers · asked by Zenas Walter 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
lmao Trevor omg ... ty for the laugh :) Have a good day :)
2006-09-14 14:58:30 · update #1
defiantly investigate the allegation and if found to be committing or have committed treasonous acts then yes by all means hold accountable in the same standards according to his rank as commander in chief so the act of treason should be weighed against what he has obtained for this country and then the unbalance is what should be the weight of punishment and god help him and his father for they have not done much good
2006-09-14 13:42:42 · answer #1 · answered by matthew_yelle 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My opinion? *sigh* Just another Bush-hater spewing forth upon the soapbox of the internet....
Here's a clue for you: Most presidents have committed acts which some segment of the population would consider treasonous. For example, what was your opinion of Clinton allowing the sale of advanced missile technology to China? By the definitions you laid out, that too was treasonous. And, oh my, should we get into all the stuff that FDR did during World War II?
And, no, I'm not a big fan of the ol' Shrub...he's just another in a long line of bumbling fools that raised enough money to run for office. He'll be gone in two years anyway.
2006-09-14 20:42:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Treason is defined in the Constitution under Article III Section 3.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
That means an act of warfare against the US, or against any state, or actions that would subject one to accomplice liability under criminal law. "Aid and comfort" is more than just lying, and more than just doing something that makes an enemy's job easier.
"Aid and comfort" as defined under federal law means giving money or weaponry or other tangible resources to a current enemy.
And while Bush may have violated many other federal laws, and may have done many stupid things, he has not committed treason.
2006-09-14 20:42:48 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He didn't say anything that Clinton hadn't said before him:
"His (Saddam Hussein) regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.
What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/allpolitics/1998/02/1...
2006-09-14 20:33:13 · answer #4 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Sounds like you want the President to be executed for Protecting Our country. I think they should arrest you for being a traitor and send you to Colorado and put you in the cell with the islamic prisoners!
As far as the military goes. Our troops have signed up, There isn't a draft, They choose to go and go back!
2006-09-14 20:37:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I believe the government, including anti Bush politicians, voted to fund and invade Iraq so putting all the blame on Bush is ludicrous. I really would like to see proof from one of you who says Bush is gaining from this war.
2006-09-14 20:34:36 · answer #6 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
well if you want to call foul on Bush it needs to be called on Clinton too,he's the one that turn tail and run every time we could have solved this problem before Bush ever came into office,but where was he ,playing with Monica ,Bush is trying to fix the problem,he's not hid under his desk,so you need to put the blame on the right person.......This is Clinton fall out ,Bush is just cleaning up
2006-09-14 20:37:07 · answer #7 · answered by purpleaura1 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely, positively! But who is ever going to stop them? They are the ruling, elite, royal blooded Illuminati. They are well on their way to establishing their New World Order police state.
2006-09-14 20:36:30 · answer #8 · answered by oceansoflight777 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush is commander in Cheif. If you had a military investigation you know what the verdict would be.
2006-09-14 20:33:13 · answer #9 · answered by malcy 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No no no your getting it all wrong....you have to remember that many many MANY times Bush has stated that he is "above" the law.
When your "above" the law. Treason does not apply to you.
2006-09-14 20:32:08 · answer #10 · answered by trevor22in 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋