in any country in the world it is FACT
2007-03-20 05:19:07 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Anytime, it is espionage, it's not treason.
2007-03-20 05:21:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Cheney committed treason against the USA out of spite to intimidate the CIA. How despicable is that man?
Why anyone would defend that tyrant is beyond me.
The only thing saving his traitorous behind is that their must be proof that he knew at the time that Plame was a covert agent.
2007-03-20 05:35:16 · answer #2 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No it is not. Not from a legal definition.
Treason is specifically defined under US federal law as taking up arms against your country, or providing arms or material (money/hardware) support to enemies currently engaged in hostilities. See 18 USC 2381.
The term treason does not automatically include every bad act, nor does it include everything that might harm the govt.
Leaking classified information is a separate crime.
2007-03-20 05:24:03 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would say that leading any official's information at ANY time would be treason. Just because there isn't an "official" war going on, there's always a battle going on with the bad guys.
2007-03-20 05:22:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Take all this with a huge grain of salt. Valarie is promoting books. we are able to not in any respect know what the real tale is, replaced into or will be. this finished problem replaced into muddled from the begining. what's treason? Pelosi and the dems calling Petraus a liar? attempting now to not fund the conflict leaving our adult men in harms way?
2016-12-02 07:10:12 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whitch countries? Some evidence. The world doesnt work on because I said so.
2007-03-20 05:21:39 · answer #6 · answered by this_takes_awhile 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Not if it was accidental. You can't accidentally commit treason. The word treason implies intent.
2007-03-20 05:20:42 · answer #7 · answered by Pfo 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
valerie flame was a paper pusher. What is the big deal.
2007-03-24 00:26:03 · answer #8 · answered by edward m 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Considering that she wasn't undercover, I'd say no. Just because she says she was doesn't mean the facts have changed that she was an analyst.
2007-03-20 05:21:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Did you want a answer or just a chance to post nonsense.
2007-03-20 05:21:17 · answer #10 · answered by George D 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋