when Harry Reid said, "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week."
2007-04-25 09:11:36 · 17 answers · asked by credo quia est absurdum 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Section 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence
the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces
of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the
United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or
printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the
military or naval forces of the United States -
That _still_ sounds like old Harry and his 'this war is lost' statement. That was a definite moral impairment. Just ask the soldiers who are there.
2007-04-25 09:26:42 · update #1
U.S. Code, CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
2007-04-25 09:27:25 · update #2
Looks like H Reid's treason has struck a nerve here.
BTW, I did my time in the U.S. Navy and would go back in a heartbeat if they would let me.
email From: squawk_squawk_chickenhawk
Subject: you're in iraq fighting today? LMAO
Message: of course you're not.
your hatred of Freedom of Speech betrays you.
2007-04-25 09:54:39 · update #3
WW2 lasted from 1939-1945 and you may want yo include 37-38 for the hostilities heating up portion. 4 Years into WW2 things looked pretty Bleak for the Allies, Glad Harry and his kind were not around then Or at least not running things! Forget the Hundreds of thousands of Dead civilians and Allied personnel!
2007-04-25 09:20:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
The "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" bit is just a run-up to the Republicans declaring any and all dissenters from the Bush administration's policies legal traitors, rounding them up, and sticking them in internment camps. Read the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Bush now has the power to unilaterally declare any person on this planet, citizen or not, an "enemy combatant", and thereby strip them of all civil liberties and protections by international treaty.
Enabling Acts, anyone?
2007-04-25 16:27:56 · answer #2 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The enemy does not need aid, the enemy was created when the invasion forced insurgents out of the sand.
The loss was insured when the public was persuaded to finance a full fledged war as revenge for a private affair.
The loss was shown by the sheer number of destruction, deaths of hundreds of thousands of lives, for greed and doubtful agenda.
Yes indeed we all have given aid to the so-called enemy by allowing for a government which relentlessly aggravates other sovereignty's in order to sell more of their goods and interests.
Harry Reid sees it up close and uncomfortably personal. The other nations need to feel the strength of the congress and senate before they can trust us or help us again.
2007-04-25 16:29:24 · answer #3 · answered by Nadine Sellers 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The creation of a terrorist nation is a far cry from the greeting us as liberators analogy as stated by our truest enemy.
Don't crucify someone that acts on behalf of your better interests despite your clueless personal reasonings and objections.
2007-04-25 16:32:43 · answer #4 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, it wasn't.
"Giving aid to the enemy" is a specific legal term that has been abused by the Republicans to the point that they think it means saying anything that could make the enemy happy, even if it's true. They abuse this term to use it as a weapon against their political adversaries, which is completely unAmerican. Are you doing the same thing?
2007-04-25 16:18:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
No, I'd say that was giving aid to our troops. Who ever claimed that sending our troops to fight an unnecessary war was supporting them needs to see a Head Doc ASAP.
2007-04-25 16:18:50 · answer #6 · answered by sparks 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No, it was just stating what most of us already know and understand. By giving aid to the enemy you actually need to help them, he didn't help them he is just trying to help the American people understand that by staying in Iraq we are sacrificing more of our soldiers to a lost cause.
2007-04-25 16:16:51 · answer #7 · answered by Don 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
giving aid to the enemy was shipping money over there that disappear. That missing money surely aided the terrorist.
2007-04-25 16:20:15 · answer #8 · answered by wondermom 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No--- giving aid to the enemy is sending our troops into harm's way without properly equipping and adequately training them--- then extending their stay.
2007-04-25 16:17:44 · answer #9 · answered by jj raider 4 · 5⤊ 3⤋
no. it's called not having your head shoved 3 feet up your butt.
2007-04-25 16:22:03 · answer #10 · answered by Alan S 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋