Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Let’s Talk ‘Treason’
Treason is one of the few crimes specifically mentioned in our Constitution. And the courts have been very specific in what constitutes the offense. In Cramer v US the 5-4 majority declared:
A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country’s policy or interest, but, so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy—making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength—but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.
And that was written in 1945 when the United States was operating under the last full-blown Congressional declaration of war. Today a sitting United States senator accused a former Congresswoman and current Lt. Colonel of the United States Army Reserve of treason. And people cheered.
I hold no special regard for Ms. Gabbard. She’s a Democrat and I think some of her ideas are absurd. But I have no need to insist that any policy difference I have with her meets any definition of “treason,” let alone the Constitutional one.
And while I also hate the “chicken hawk” trope, the end of the military draft in this country has created a huge divide where those who rattle the loudest sabers and advocate for war are the ones whose children are the most unlikely to be asked to bear the burden.
The Romneys are an especially large family and an “Army of None.” Daddy George, who was 34 at the time of Pearl Harbor, didn’t enlist. Mittens got four deferments during Vietnam. Older brother Scott avoided it, too. None of his children have served.
Nor has his peanut gallery of supporters. (As an aside I will give the Kristol family props here. Bill’s son Joe was a USMC infantry officer in Afghanistan from September 2010 to April 2011.) It’s only us lowly “proles” who offer up our children for their hubris. And I’m sick of it.
I’m also sick of politicians who tell me Ukraine’s borders are inviolable to the tune of $13.6B but not a dime for our own southern border. In 2016 Jimmy Carter’s pollster, Patrick Caddell, declared that the United States was in a “pre-revolutionary” state. If someone doesn’t get their act together soon the revolution will come. And it won’t be pretty. Then we can talk about the real meaning of treason.
Published in General
Not necessarily inevitable, if Putin is given everything he wants. But there’s no telling how far that list might extend.
If history is a guide it will always eventually get to something that is too expensive to give up on.
Well, maybe. But in this case it seems like he might threaten nukes first over the bigger things, such as US sovereignty. After that, everything seems like small potatoes. He might demand that CNN be the only TV network, but if we’re already a client of Russia, would having only CNN be worth destroying the world over?
It isn’t worth doing anything over CNN. American sovereignty may be worthwhile, too soon to tell on that one.
Which means that, if Putin said right now that he wants CNN to be the only TV channel in the US, Or Else Nukes, you’d be in favor of going along?
/sarc on
I would be deeply conflicted. On the one hand I would hate to see Putin win, but never having to see CNN in the airports again… all I can say is tempting.
/sarc off
On the other hand, when CNN is the last media outlet standing, we’ll fight to keep them on the air — and we’ll be right. Despite their corruption and plumping for the Dominant Paradigm, they’re not explicitly state-owned. Yet.
So, we wouldn’t risk nukes to keep CNN from being the only TV channel, but we WOULD get nuked over CNN being taken off too? Not sure I agree.
My lord . . .
Remind me again whose side we’re supposed to be on?
Biden is only on Biden’s side, as always.
Easy there Cathy. I’m not accommodating the whole damned thread here. Feel free to agree or disagree with the words you put in my mouth.
I was being sarcastic both times. Perhaps a little snarky too. I would not give an inch of US sovereignty to Putin even if it meant the end of everything. That includes Making everything CNN and forcing the end of CNN. I am hopeful CNN will die of its own stupidity and I won’t be afflicted with it in the airport between flights.
I disagree. As a member of the Senate (the world’s most deliberative body), emotional and intemperate pronouncements are not allowed. Wise and thoughtful is the standard and we should chastise anything less.
You’d think the intemperate pronouncements by Harry Reid from the Senate Floor about Romney’s taxes would have taught him something.
Or . . . as I suspect, Romney was okay with losing, just as McCain was. (McCain made it too obvious, though, and pretty much blew his cover.)
I’ve had enough of politicians who “grow” in office.
That’s because supposedly-conservative politicians always “grow” to the left. Seeing a lefty perhaps actually “grow” to the right could be interesting.
Or evolve.
Becoming corrupt is done by following the path of least resistance.
And Tulsi becoming more conservative would not be following the path of least resistance.