oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 03:57 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Well, I 'm under the impression that he has not borne us allegiance;
therefore, a trial for treason against America
does not appear to be logical. Espionage might be.


The guy who leaked the classified material to Wikileaks is the one who committed treason.

Yes, espionage for the people at Wikileaks.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 04:17 am
@oralloy,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Well, I 'm under the impression that he has not borne us allegiance;
therefore, a trial for treason against America
does not appear to be logical. Espionage might be.
oralloy wrote:
The guy who leaked the classified material to Wikileaks is the one who committed treason.

Yes, espionage for the people at Wikileaks.
I am in sympathy with your sentiments
against the soldier who betrayed his trust.

However, treason is defined by Article 3 Section 3
which limits it to waging war against America
or in giving aid and comfort to its enemy.

It has been argued
that this requires a state of war
for the existence of an enemy; (I do not necessarily adopt that point of vu).

Technically, the legal cognition of an enemy
might prove to be an obstacle to successful prosecution.





David
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 25 Jan, 2011 12:58 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
oralloy wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Well, I 'm under the impression that he has not borne us allegiance;
therefore, a trial for treason against America
does not appear to be logical. Espionage might be.


The guy who leaked the classified material to Wikileaks is the one who committed treason.

Yes, espionage for the people at Wikileaks.


I am in sympathy with your sentiments
against the soldier who betrayed his trust.

However, treason is defined by Article 3 Section 3
which limits it to waging war against America
or in giving aid and comfort to its enemy.

It has been argued
that this requires a state of war
for the existence of an enemy; (I do not necessarily adopt that point of vu).

Technically, the legal cognition of an enemy
might prove to be an obstacle to successful prosecution.





David


We're at war with al-Qa'ida and the Taliban.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jan, 2011 02:37 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
oralloy wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Well, I 'm under the impression that he has not borne us allegiance;
therefore, a trial for treason against America
does not appear to be logical. Espionage might be.


The guy who leaked the classified material to Wikileaks is the one who committed treason.

Yes, espionage for the people at Wikileaks.


I am in sympathy with your sentiments
against the soldier who betrayed his trust.

However, treason is defined by Article 3 Section 3
which limits it to waging war against America
or in giving aid and comfort to its enemy.

It has been argued
that this requires a state of war
for the existence of an enemy; (I do not necessarily adopt that point of vu).

Technically, the legal cognition of an enemy
might prove to be an obstacle to successful prosecution.





David


We're at war with al-Qa'ida and the Taliban.
Then the theory of criminal liability
against the soldier is that he helped one of them,
or both of them.
That theory must be pled and proven.





David
0 Replies
 
HesDeltanCaptain
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 07:48 am
@blueveinedthrobber,
While I do maintain a mental list, he isn't on it. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Yes Or No?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/26/2019 at 05:46:18