Intent to overthrow the government is treason isn’t it?

[Cleita]

So why aren’t the right wing think tanks, who are behind the Bush Administration, the war in Iraq and global domination, and who have infiltrated and taken over the Republican Party being investigated for treason? I don’t believe it takes Congress to do this but concerned citizens or even states’ governors could. I believe they could initiate investigations with the intent to indict if proof is found, and even I have found much proof on the neo-con websites in their own words to prove this.

I believe the Project For a New American Century, The Carlyle Group and the American Heritage Foundation among others are deliberately eroding our Constitution in a coup to take over the United States Government and initiate global rule through military insurgency throughout the world.

Didn’t Grover Norquist say, ““My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

That pretty much sounds to me like he and his neo-con companions want to overthrow our government and replace it with a global, facist, dictatorship more in keeping with the goals of the corporate behemouths who want to control all the world’s resources including its workforce. It even states in the mission of the PNAC that this is their goal using the United States government and the military as a means to this end.

I believe that they and their institutions should be investigated and put on trial for treason. If found guilty these corporations and their membership then could be outlawed. Members of these outlawed groups would be forbidden then to run for political office, as treasonous convicted felons, even if they are registered with a legitimate political party in this nation. It would clean out most of the Bush Administration’s cronie appointees and many of the elected ones.

There is a precedent for this. In 1954, "The Communist Control Act of 1954" was enacted. The bold type is mine.

Sec. 3. The Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby terminated: Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall be construed as amending the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended. Rest of document…

http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1950s/Communist_54.html

Any Constitutional students here have any ideas about this? I think impeachment of Bush, although it should be pursued as well, will not accomplish much of anything, nor will taking power in 2006 and 2008 do so either. The Hydra will only grow another head and lurk in the background until it sees it’s opportunity to grab power again.

[Dora]

1. The time has come to call a spade a spade.

Say it like it is, Cleita. Thanks for the post!

[KingFlorez]

2. You've got a great point

It's not that they don't want government, they want their own totalitarian form where a small wealthy elite control all the means of industry, control people's lives and censor free speech.

[Cleita]

5. They don't want Democracy regardless of all the

empty rhetoric about bringing freedoms and democracy to other people.

[Swamp Rat]

3. RICO

[shance]

4. Yes Cleita, it is most assuredly treason.

n/t

[patcox2]

35. Nope it aint. Its just disloyal.

Treason is the only offense specifically defined in the constitution. It consists of taking arms against the US, or cleaving to its enemies and giving them aid and comfort. Those are technical terms which mean to give the enemies assistance in their fight against the US.

Accusing people you disagree with politically treasonous is about as stupid as calling people nazis. Its usually wrong, and its a freeperish thing to do.

[Cleita]

38. Really, it seems the freepers are the ones who object to

anyone calling this present administration Nazis and yet every official act they do is more Nazi than the previous one.

Treason is the attempted or actual overthrow of our Constitutional government. It seems that this has already happened as no one is paying much attention to the Constitution anymore. Herr Bush recently proclaimed himself dictator saying he didn't have to get permission from anyone to spy on whom he chose to.

Freedom of speech is being able to say any thing, intelligent or wacky, as your ideology. When you start implementing that ideology and it is contrary to the Constitution, it seems to me that this can only be called what it is.

[bryant69]

6. Treasons a pretty big stick

If you can prove MIHOP or LIHOP in a court of law you might have the beginning of a case on those grounds. But most of your post sounds like you want the tried for treason because they want a different United States than you do. I'm not sure I'm in favor of that legal theory.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Cleita]

9. Here on the PNAC's Statement of Principles on their own

website it states:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

The bold fonts are mine.

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Their whole strategy is written there. A historian once remarked that if the West had read "Mein Kampf" and taken it seriously, we wouldn't have had the rise of Nazi power because Hitler did exactly what he said he would. Nazism could have been contained in the early days if they had listened.

I feel the same about this document. They are doing exactly what they are setting out to do, to rule the world. This is not what our Constitution and our nation is about. To rule the world they fundamentally have to change how our government operates. The reference to "inconstant leadership" seems to infer that dictatorship would make a "constant leadership."

I find these words treasonous and now that they are being put into action, the acts are treasonous.

[bryant69]

15. I disagree

Obviously I disgree with the PNAC and this document, but I don't find it treasonous. Wrongheaded, sure. Reprehensible, that as well. Treasonous? I don't buy it.

Bryant

[Cleita]

17. Well, that would really be for the legal eagles in

Constitutional law to really decide, but it sure seems treasonous to me.

[bryant69]

21. Is the socialist party treasonous?

They have a different idea about what sort of America they want to create; should they suffer legal consequences?

[Cleita]

22. Have they taken over our government with impunity and

disregarded the Constitution? No they haven't. And, as a Social Democrat myself, there is a different America I would like to create, but not with stolen elections and disregard for our laws and conventions.

[bryant69]

23. Than we are back where we started

Try them on the crimes they have committed. If you can prove MIHOP in a court of law, than do that. That certainly would be treasonous. Same with a direct connection to diebold and definate voter fraud.

If you can't prove specific crimes committed in the pursuit of their plans, than I don't know how you make Treason stick.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Cleita]

32. Why are you stuck on this LIHOP MIHOP mantra?

They have done acts that are in direct conflict with the Constitution, besides 9-11, since Bush was declared President. First and foremost the RW operatives in the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush President when in fact it was the Florida Supreme Court who was supposed to have the final decision.

Then Georgie comes along with throwing money to his Faith Based Charities in violation of the Separation of Church and State. Also he gave Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell unprecedented access to our government also in violation of the Constitution. And why was the Reverend Moon crowned the Messiah in a government building with many members of Congress attending?

Then he invades Iraq with bogus evidence in violation of the Constitution that says that only Congress can declare war. The IWR was not a declaration of war but a permission from Congress to inquire whether or not a war was justified.

Then he populates his administration with PNAC members and religious fundamentalists also not in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution.

They are guilty of criminal negligence in the inadequate response that they made to the Katrina hurricane. Instead the President of the United States was off fund raising because the people he works for, the PNAC, felt that was more important. In his Oath he vowed to uphold the Constitution and to take care of the Country he is leading first, not after his other obligations to his puppetmasters has been met.

Someone with the right authority needs to start an investigation of these think tanks, subpoena all records of their meetings and correspondence. Then they need to put all these members under oath, especially the ones like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to shake the truth out of them. If this happens, I believe a lot of indictable acts of treason will surface.

[DoYouEverWonder]

24. You must have missed Jeb Bush's inugural speech?

When he stated his goal was to see all the government buildings in Tallahassee standing empty.

That's a pretty outrageous statement if you ask me.

We are all learning the hard way that it's not a good idea to put people in power who hate government. Who don't believe in democracy.

[bryant69]

25. So you are saying I should vote against Bush and the Republicans?

That's good advice.

But not germaine to this discussion, as we are talking about charging people with Treason.

Treason is a crime, punishable by death. It's a big stick.

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. All of the top leadership of the US stood down

on 9-11. Not a single one of them, Bush, Cheney, Rummie, Myers, Tenet, Rice... reacted appropriately to the ongoing attack. Not a single one. Yes, they are traitors.

[bryant69]

28. Are you asserting MIHOP?

Or just saying they didn't react the way you think they should have?

If you are asserting MIHOP I see your point; assuming that MIHOP is true (which I don't believe, but I understand many others do), they clearly are traitors. Of course that implies the burden of proving MIHOP beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bryant

[DoYouEverWonder]

29. In June 2001, Rumsfeld made himself the only person

who could order NORAD to respond to a hijacking are some other air emergency. Prior to that there was an automatic system that kicked in that did not require Rumsfeld to issue an order in order to respond.

On Sept 11, 2001 Rumsfeld was holding a meeting at the Pentagon with Paul Wolfowitz, Rep Cox and others. Tory Clark interupted the meeting to tell Rumsfled that a plane had hit the WTC. Rummie and Co turned on a TV and saw the second plane hit. At that point, Paul Wolfowitz said that they decided to continue with their meeting since 'there was nothing they could do about it anyway'. It was not until the Pentagon was hit and then Rummie disappeared for 1/2 hour to help pull people out of the rubble before he returned to his post at Command and Control. By that time it was after 10:00 AM and the attack was over.

Now tell me Rummie didn't know exactly what he was doing when he decided 'there was nothing for them to do'?

[bryant69]

31. I won't bother telling you that.

I can see that you are one of the MIHOP faithful.

If you can prove MIHOP beyond a reasonable doubt, you have a strong case for Treason (and worse).

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. Ok, a couple of more logs for the fire

We all know how Bush reacted or rather didn't react that morning, but most of us know little about how anyone of Bush's other top WH officials reacted that morning. I've already explained Rummie's reaction in the post above, here's another one.


In Dec 2001, Newsweek reported this account of Cheney's reaction:

At about 9:35 a.m., Vice President Cheney was standing by his desk, looking at the TV in the corner. A Secret Service agent said to him, in a tone that brooked no dissent, "Sir, we have to leave now." The agent grabbed the vice president by the back of his belt and aimed him at the door. "They practice this," says Cheney. "You move. Whether you want to be moved or not, you're going. They don't exactly pick you up and carry you. It's more like they propel you forward." Cheney was unflappable about his hasty exit. As he was swept through the outer office, the vice president reached out and grabbed a magazine, a copy of that week's Economist, off the table. "I'm always carrying something in case I get hung up someplace," Cheney explains. "I've got to have something to read." Down the hallway, past the empty Oval Office, the vice president was rushed into a tunnel outside a bombproof bunker known as the PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. About 30 miles away, at Dulles airport, air-traffic controllers were watching agape as a plane raced toward Washington at 500 miles an hour.

Newsweek
December 31, 2001 issue
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/newsweek123101.html

So at 9:35 Cheney is still sitting around his office watching TV? Amazing. The country is being attacked and the VP of the US in standing in the WH, seemingly as if there was nothing to do?

I can give you more?

If only one person reacted like this, then I would chalk it off to stupidity. When everyone reacted like this, it's called a conspiracy and yes they are traitors.



btw: Here's a link for the Paul Wolfowitz account noted in the post above. Notice it is from the DOD website.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html


(I have one more ace up my sleeve. Would you like to see it?)

[bryant69]

44. Sure - show me your ace

So far I'd rate most of these at about 5 or 6.

Bryant

[patcox2]

36. So what do you think of the Monroe doctrine?

That essentially said we intend to rule one half of tht world.

There's nothing new, or the least bit treasonous, in anything in that.

Calling people treasonous is really getting pretty tiresome. Its so freeperish.

[Cleita]

37. That isn't what the Monroe Doctrine says. It says that the

United States would help the other countries of the Americas to stop any further European colonization. That isn't about intending to rule half the world. It was about joining with our neighbors to stop any further insurgency.

http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/history/chapter7section5.rhtml

The Monroe Doctrine

During James Monroe’s presidency, several revolutions against Spanish rule flared up in South and Central America and ousted the colonial governments. New leaders such as Simon Bolivar established independent regimes. The U.S., having itself broken away from colonial rule, officially recognized these new countries, and established lucrative trading relations with many of them. Fearing that European governments would intervene and try to reassert colonial dominance, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams composed the Monroe Doctrine, which Monroe revealed in 1823. This doctrine declared American dominance in the Western Hemisphere and warned against European interference in the Americas. It consisted of three principles:

Unless American interests were involved, the United States would stay out of European wars.

The “American continents”, including both North and South America, were not subject to any further colonization by European powers.

The United States would construe any attempt at European colonization in the New World as an “unfriendly act.”

Although the U.S. had little military power to back up its claims, the declaration nonetheless had immense symbolic importance, announcing the United States as a world power equal to the great European nations.

The Monroe Doctrine asserted U.S. preeminence in the affairs of the Americas, a position that has informed American foreign relations ever since.

[Just Me]

40. EXCELLENT response!!! The Monroe Doctrine had nothing to do with,...

,...destroying the US goverance in order to become a global dictatorship.

The neocons seek to destroy the balance of powers, asserting pre-eminence of the executive branch, such that they can rule the rest of the world.

THAT IS TREASON.

[madmom]

7. Ya know I said the same thing about..

Luci-anne Goldberg and anyone else involved in the blue dress conspiracy.Think about it!

[cosmicdot]

8. Paul Weyrich is quoted as saying ...

"We are different from previous generations of conservatives…We are no longer working to preserve the status quo. We are radicals, working to overturn the present power structure of this country." (John Soloma's 1984 book, Ominous Politics: the new conservative labyrinth, Hill and Wang, New York ISBN: 0809072955 0809001594).

When linking all the right-wing think tanks, I would suspect to find dotted lines running from most of them to the secretive IRS registered 501(c)(3) entity known as the Council for National Policy, as well as to Corporate Board rooms and Business Roundtables ... it's at the CNP where the extreme corporate and fundamentalist right confluence with such felons as Oliver North. It's at the CNP where Jack Abramoff and Howard Ahmanson, Jr. (the man who funded the research & development of Diebold and its twin ES&S) find common turf ... where religion and corporatism meet the government ... aka, imo, fascism. One might wonder what the corporate board has in common with the theocracy advocates ... I would say power and control, profit and greed ... they find common ground.

How many think tanks does it take to overturn the present power structure? How many corporate boards and policy tanks can one humanly do? The Heritage Foundation ... the Aspen Institute ... CATO ... the Council on Foreign Relations ... the Nixon Center ... http://www.usacc.org/contents.php?cid=2 ... the Council of Conservative Citizens ... the Manhattan Institute ... the Hudson Institute ... the Hoover Institution ... Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) ... so many cash-in on this 501(c)(3) vehicle ... sit one up ... funnel the donations ... be tax exempt and deductible ... declare it's an non-partisan educational organization ... set oneself up a title, support jobs and salaries ... get into the Spin Room 'expert' carousel ... there are so many think tanks that something called the Center for Policy Research Information compiled and published a World Directory of Think Tanks ... there are certainly good, legitimate 501 organizations, but for many its a racket ... Newt has one (the money coming in frees him up to be on the TV, etc.), Gary Bauer has one, Falwell, Robertson, Phelps ... even the so-called 'New Democrats' have several ...

... something is need of serious reform.

References:

SourceWatch
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Paul_Weyrich
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_National_Policy

Daily Kos threads
Sith Lords of the Ultra-Right
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/22/155525/061
This is What's Running the Country.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/1/83032/8777

The Council for National Policy
http://www.seekgod.ca/topiccnp.htm

Right-web profile
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/cnp.php


I agree that treason is being and has been committed. Some won't call it such until it's too late ... they might fall into Martin Niemöller's "First They Came For"'s category of 'Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.'

Many support George Soros, but he was an early investor and chipped in some $100 million into the Carlyle Partners L.P. buyout fund. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Carlyle_Group

Such matters as 'Watergate' weren't punished to the extent necessary to curtail and prevent future abuses of power ... the same players just keep surfacing and playing ... whether it's Cheney, Rumsfeld or Oliver North ... it's more serious, complex and involved than just impeachment, a mere slap on the wrist ...

[Cleita]

10. Thanks for the great references.

Yes they are all part of the same web and need to be exposed for what they are the Benedict Arnolds who are selling us out to other nefarious interests. Look at the familiar names of the PNAC founders to begin with.

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

[rinsd]

11. Why don't we revive the sedition act while we're at it....

:eyes:

[Cleita]

12. Well, if you like the way these jerks are destroying our

democracy and our Constitution I guess you are happy with the status quo. I and many others of us on the other hand think that they are getting away with some really criminal acts and at the bottom of it all are these think tanks that are cranking out policy and political operatives meant to destroy our government as we know it and replace it with something that most of us consider abominable. Overthrowing our government by whatever means is treason any way you look at it.

[rinsd]

13. Simply put,

You advocate outlawing/criminalzing people based on their political beliefs, something that is completely at odds with what this country is about. It was wrong in the 50's, it was wrong in the 20's and it would be wrong now.

By all means prove individual cases of treason, but what you are calling for guilt by association.

[Cleita]

14. I think it would be better to put the institutions on trial

for advocating political beliefs that are contrary to our Constitution once they actually start putting their ideology into practice and this is what they are doing. To publish wacko political ideas in a book or a website gives them a First Ammendment protection.

But when the President of the United States claims he is above the law and most of his administration is comprised of the members of these institutions who seem to have no loyalty to their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution, that is treason. Their actions have been out there for everyone to see. DU is full of posts about "how do they get away with it?". It means that those institutions, particularly the PNAC are a secret government that is running our government.

I didn't pull this out of a hat. There are political science academics who believe this to be true. They just don't talk about it very loudly. I, on the other hand have nothing to lose, so I will talk about it.

[Selatius]

16. You can't levy treason for sheer stupidity

Stupidity of belief is one thing. Sedition or treason against the government is a different ballgame.

If you can prove LIHOP or even MIHOP, you've taken the first step towards indictments over treason, but until you can prove that, you're essentially wasting everybody's time.

[Cleita]

18. It isn't going to be little me, but I hope someone investigates

this and puts and end to this nightmare we are in. I really think there are bodies buried here that need to be exhumed and see the light of day.

[Selatius]

19. I'm not saying you don't have a case because I believe you do

But if you're going to nail Bush or even the puppet masters behind Bush on anything, it's over what happened in and around the events surrounding 9/11 and the things that went on deep inside the government in the lead up and prosecution of the invasion of Iraq.

I hope to God somebody manages to dig it up, but ultimately, a great part of me says it will simply enter into urban legend much like the questions surrounding the JFK assassination. The government will put out its Warren reports, and the people will feel something is wrong or amiss, and nothing is done about it, and a few of us will live long enough to be shocked that people would so willingly allow their own government to lie to them so blatently for so long and not do anything about it except behave as if it never happened, to live in a state of denial like many Germans after WWII.

[Bluerthanblue]

20. great post- and Impeachment may not 'accomplish much' but it's

necessiary.

After all, didn't bush himself say we live by the "rule of law"-?

Dug his own cell, in my opinion.

[mopaul]

27. not if your republican. jfk, carter, bush jr., all coup de tats

coup de tat one: kill the kennedys. two: ruin and conquer jimmy carter with the hostage crisis extension. three: bush jr. stolen elections, nine eleven, war on terror.

[SupplyConcerns]

30. We have a right to overthrow the government

in some circumstances. It's written in the constitution. I would rather go by that than by a McCarthy-era anti-communism bill.

[Cleita]

33. I put that bill up there as an example of what previous

law makers considered treason. I'm not saying we should do exactly the same thing. Attempting to overthrow the government in a coup was deemed treason in previous administrations. Besides Grover Norquist's remark about drowing government in a bathtub, someone posted Jeb Bush's comment (another PNAC member) in a post above where he practically stated the same thing in different words.

[Just Me]

41. Where? Where in the Constitution is overthrowing the government,...

,...a right? I'm sorry. I'm in a fog about that. I'm sure it's in there somewhere. :P

[Just Me]

39. If only us commoners had the power to prosecute.

Your argument (that the neocons are guilty of treason because they have engaged in activities intended to destroy our present governance and turn that government into a dictatorial power over the world rather than uphold the government as a voice of and servant to the citizens of the USA) is legit as far as I'm concerned. I am a former attorney. However, my practice did not focus on Constitutional law. Nevertheless, if the friggin' neocons can argue that the executive is all-powerful and can violate the Constitution, treaties, and US laws, we can certainly argue that they are guilty of treason for seeking to destroy our government and trample on the Constitution IMHO.

[Cleita]

42. Thank you. That is what I thought too.

However, not being a lawyer, nor even that knowledgable about politics, I was hoping that someone who does know and who has access to and studied all the documentation and sources about this could weigh in with a knowledgable opinion. It doesn't take a rocket science to figure out something very bad is happening here.

[earth mom]

43. Great post! Wish I could recommend it, but it's too late now.

Odd how so many on this thread are saying that what Bush & Co-aka PNAC-are doing is not treasonous. :wtf:

Seems like I've heard them called treasonous many times before around DU. :freak:

Maybe some on this thread have an ax to grind if you know what I mean.... :eyes:

Meanwhile....my question is....

Where in the hell are those concerned citizens and/or governors investigating this corrupt cabal?! We need them NOW!!!

[onenote]

45. almost certainly not a case of "treason"

The US Constitution specifically defines treason as follows:
Section. 3. Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

While I've seen attempts to twist those words to encompass the lies and abuses of power committed by the Bush administration, from a legal standpoint I don't think they hold up. The treason clause was intended by the framers of the Constitution to be read very narrowly.

A very long article discussing the origins and meaning of the treason clause can be found at http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_4.htm

onenote

[Cleita]

46. Interesting history that you posted and thank you for that.

It seems though that they acknowledge that the generic term of "treason" does cover the points I have made. For the purposes of putting it into the Constitution they narrowed the definition. I suppose legally one should say sedition or subersive acts with the intent to overthrow the government would be more acceptable language.

Also, interesting was the fact that if an American should commit subversive acts for a foreign prince or government, that this could be called treason. I wonder if it can be proved that our government, under the two Bushes, are retooling our government as a subsidiary of Saudi Arabia and the oil consortiums, if that could be then called treason?

Of course this would require investigations to dig out the proof.