Making a case for treason against Hannity & other RW talkshow hatemongers

[Hugabear]

http://www.wnd.com/static/89837.html

I don't normally like to link to RW sites, but I'm not really sure if any reputable news agencies would be covering this. Apparently some soldier in Iraq has taken it upon himself to question Obama's eligibility to serve as Commander-in-Chief. This all stems from the RW meme that Obama never provided his birth certificate. Despite having absolutely no merit whatsoever, the RW hatemongers simply cannot let this go. I haven't listened to Hannity or any other hatemongers since Obama took office over a month ago, but I'm sure they're still pushing this same tired old bullshit.

Back when * was in office, these hatemongers would routinely tell us that questioning the president during wartime was considered treason. Now that they've set a new precedent for what constitutes treason, I'm sure that by them continuing their anti-Obama lies and propaganda, and encouraging active military members to openly criticize the president - while they're in the theater of operations no less - I'm sure that should at least constitute some level of treason, shouldn't it?

[NeedleCast]

1. So what's the problem?

I activly encouraged criticism of Bush while I was in Afghanistan. Should I be tried for treason?

[BulletproofLandshark]

2. This isn't about any serious pursuit of treason charges.

It's about shoving the wingnuts' hypocrisy back in their faces.

[Common Sense Party]

8. Yes, but hypocrisy can be a two-edged sword.

Many of us were criticizing (to put it mildly) Chimpy during his residency. Now we say that no one can criticize President Obama?

That is hypocrisy.

[BulletproofLandshark]

10. I don't say that at all.

The day we can't criticize our leaders out of fear of reprisal is the day democracy truly dies.

[SeattleGirl]

3. From what I was reading about this soldier, he was not just questioning

him (and I do think anyone has a right to question one's CIC), but he was defying orders. That's a different thing altogether.

[vadawg]

4. i think there was also a few who disobeyed brushcos orders as well

and a lot of people on this boad supported them, i think this is a slippery slope to go down. If hes broken the rules (i Have No idea) then let the military deal with him, but to start witchhunts never ends well.

[tanngrisnir3]

6. Then it should be brought up with his XO.

There is no treason here.

[Xithras]

5. It's not treason when we do it, and it's not treason when they do it.

The crux of a treason charge is the presumption that a persons speech or actions have caused injury to your nation for the benefit of another. The only exception to this presumption is actual participation in a conspiracy to overthrow the government. Saying "the government is crooked and should be overthrown" doesn't cut it.

What their speech DOES qualify as is sedition. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that sedition isn't illegal in the United States unless it also leaves the realm of speech and becomes part of an overt act (i.e., sedition can be prosecuted as a second charge in a treason case, but that's about it).

[Raskolnik]

7. Nope.

It was a stupid idea then, and it's just as stupid now.

[NutmegYankee]

9. Treason has a very narrow definition in Article III of the US Constitution.

This doesn't even come close to meeting it.

[Hugabear]

12. Would it have helped if I had put the "SARCASM" smiley in my post?

n/t

[NutmegYankee]

13. No. I was going to say it anyway.

It's the "Ahh Geez, not this shit again" feeling.

[damntexdem]

11. I would think that an active-duty officer would be open to prosecution.

The hatemongers are exercising their free speech.