How many liberals actually know the definition of treason?

Question

Seriously, how many self proclaimed liberals actually know the definition of the word "treason" without looking it up in a dictionary.

I have seen numerous questions regarding Blackwater "treason"; George Bush "treason"; General Petreus "treason".

I really want to know what liberals consider treason or how they define it.

My definition of Treason actually stems from the definition found in the US Code:

"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"

For all of you who tried to turn this into an argument about Bush and weather he committed Treason, please try to stick to the question as asked.

Please note, I purposely used the word "liberal", not "democrat". Liberal is a very specific mindset held by some regardless of political affiliation.

Nice definition Goldenrae, in the same line of... "You called me a name first". Right out of grade school.

Coragryph, while I disagree with most of what you have to say I respect your ability to give a thoughtful and respectful answer. I agree that the Constitutional (interpreted) definition is the only one that should apply. Thanks

It's hard to take you seriously worldinspector.

Honestamerican.... Ignoring a sworn duty is dereliction.

Max H, remember this was a question about self proclamation. While you drive what you want and own guns, I truly risk nothing by saying that based on your answers here and in others you espouse liberal ideas. I am in no peril by saying so.

Alias Smith & Jones, thanks for confirming the fact that liberals send memos telling others what to think and say. Sorry you didn't get this one, call the DNC they'll put you back on the mailing list.

nickap2000, thanks for your service, from a 21 year military officer. Truly, thanks!!

For those that turned this into a tossing of insults, shame on you. It was a question regarding perception.

Answer 1

Well, most that I've talked to seem to use the definition in the Constitution -- waging war against the US, or providing material support to those who wage war against the US.

Their argument that Bush committed treason is based on their interpretation of "against the US" -- namely that Bush's actions are in violation of his oath of office, and with the apparent intent of suppressing or damaging the integrity of the Constitution -- and that such actions against the Constitution are therefore to be considered "against the US".

That's their perspective -- your mileage may vary.

Answer 2

As a self-proclaimed social "liberal" and fiscal "conservative" I would suggest one start with the U.S. Constitution (something the the Executive and Legislative branches might try once in a while). Basic rule of thumb, if you start breaking the guidelines/rights spelled out there, you MAY have a case for treason. If you attempt to usurp the powers that are defined in the document for each branch (and let us not forget the successive changes to said document), then you MAY have a case for treason.

And I put it back to you: How does a "conservative" define it?

And while we are on the subject - can one "discussion" be had without labels? This "liberal"/"conservative" issue is boring and time wasting. Each person has their own ideas and attitudes. When attempting to actually have an exchange of ideas, when it starts out as: "You liberals" or "You conservatives", any hope of having a verbal intercourse devoid of barriers has already been destroyed.

Now, back to your question. Blackwater? Treason? Doubtful. It is a private company. Have the performed "criminal acts" as defined by either U.S. or Iraqi law? Only time and investigation will tell.

George Bush? Treason? Doubtful. One of the most disconnected executives ever? Maybe. History will judge.

General Petreus? Treason? Doubtful. "Stooge for the administration"? Doubtful. Completely honest with the Congress and the American public? Doubtful. In an unwinable situation? Definitely. The fact that he has associated himself so closely with this Administration taints his words from the get-go - rightly or wrongly.

I saw a cartoon on the editorial page of our local paper that Petreus had been "swiftboated." That, I feel is true. He had done to him what this administration did to John Kerry and John McCain. Was it deserved? I do not think so.

Anyway - you asked, I answered.

And again - lets hear YOUR interpretation of "treason."

Answer 3

Nazism is not Socialism. Nazism, by definition, means NATIONAL SOCIALISM which is different then just plain old socialism. It is important to note that Socialism is an economic ideology, Communism is the political equivalent. This is an important distinction that people often miss, and thus, lump together and use interchangeably. You are correct in some of your cases. Nazism does incorporate some elements of Socialism in terms of economic policy. But Nazism also incorporates many qualities of the far right in political policy, such as Xenophobia, Racism, Militant Nationalism. In other words, Nazism is very far removed from Communism. I mention Communism (political) because many of your examples are political, not economic. Some of your examples are obviously flawed and far fetched. You mention affirmative action and you argue that it is racist. However, the important distinction that must be made is that Nazism was racist and xenophobic against minorities (Jews, Gypsies, Gays, etc) while, according to you, affirmative action is racist, but against the white majority. In other words, you can't have it both ways. Secondly, your number 9 is simply ridiculous. You're spinning a benign quote and making it sound something other than it was intended. If you are truly using that quote as an example, then I would also expect you to use our Constitution and Declaration of Independence since "all men are created equal.." is IDENTICAL to this Nazi equivalent. In other words, you can't make the comparison between this Nazi quote and Obama without rightfully using the Constitution or Dec of Independence as a comparison as well. To be honest, I don't even know why I am writing this, nothing I say will convince you otherwise, my words are futile. Still, what you say is not correct and you're are leaving out many many details

Answer 4

Trying to label this as a liberal versus conservative issue is another example of how polarized the country has become. We need to find a common basis on which to move the country forward.
Bush and company deliberately misled the country to take us into war. However you define treason, this has cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars and led the country away from solutions needed for healthcare and global warming.

Answer 5

Treason is pretty vague, frankly. I don't agree that GW might be called treasonous but he has certainly violated his oath to uphold the constitution-the conservative US Supreme Court has said so several times that his decisions violate the constitution. That is impeachable. Patraeus has simply followed orders. The question is whether they were illegal orders(soldiers have to disobey illegal orders-supposedly-but we all know better) is a different question.

I think throwing "treasonous" around in a Democracy is dangerous, especially when anyone who disagrees is called treasonous.

Patrick Henry said "If this be treason, make the most of it"

1.Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Answer 6

How do you define liberal? Because disliking Bush doesn't make you a liberal, thinking that our President is a liar(no WMD's), a law-breaker(wire-tapping all Americans), an idiot(many instances) just doesn't make one a liberal.

LIBERAL - 1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. liberally, liberalness

TREASON - Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies

Hope you now understand the meaning of both words.!!!!!!

Answer 7

None of the Traders know—
Synonyms 1. Treason, sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense.

Answer 8

Don't know the "liberal" definition, because I didn't get the memo. However, I think one legitimate definition of treason is intentional subversion of the constitution. That would be George Bush with his disregard for the 4th, 6th, and 9th Amendments.

Neither Patraeus nor Blackwater have engaged in treason, as far as I have observed (though Blackwater presents other disturbing issues).

What about YOU? What's your definition?

Answer 9

I think the average intelligent person of either party knows what the word means.

Do you think that someone expressing an opinion is treason?

I've heard conservatives say so.

Opinions are not treason.

And I agree with Harry Truman who said: "Those that profit from war, and press for war on the basis of economic advantage to be gained, are traitors to peace and humanity."

Answer 10

I'm sure you've also seen numerous posts that accuse all liberals of treason because they don't support the war, Bush, etc... Which makes me wonder how many people overall actually know the meaning.

Answer 11

Below is a cut and paste.

I would say the liberal bible, the NY Times, has done this on many levels.
Soros and moveon definitely come to mind. Soros isn't even a U.S. citizen last I heard.


>>>>In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavor.<<<

ADD-
The libs in hear don't get it do they? Nobody said anything about disagreeing with Bush or the war as being treason. Those are viewpoints, not treason. But to a lib they think all cons believe this.

Treason is when a major newspaper gets wind of our secret operations by our military or Intel and pastes it on the front page.

Treason is when you call our military who are in harms way murderers.

Treason is when you call our military in harms way terrorists.

Treason is when a person in power says or does things in any way that could possibly undermine or negatively affect troop performance and or morale.

Hmmmmmm, the NY Times and many Democratic leaders have already done these things haven't they?