marcello said:
I agree that impeachment is highly unlikely in reality, but I suspect that a good legal team could interpret treason law to cover allegiance to trans-national corporations.

No, I would characterize that as a really shitty legal team. Or a legal team making the best argument they could out of a shitbag theory.

If it's a bad thing to put Chinese interests before America's, then it should be similarly bad to favor Enron's.

No, not necessarily.

Anyway, treason means something really specific... it's the only crime the Constitution specifically defines. Art III sec 3 Para 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.

The Constitution treats the subject of treason very seriously, and it's a subject that should not be thrown around in cavalier fashion, even on a jokey internet message board.

I see what you're saying, and I'm aware of that article. What I'm suggesting is that the constitution had no way of predicting the rise of such corporations, and that if treason includes 'adhering to their Enemies', and you believe that our Enemies include non-state groups that would like to undermine the sovereignty of the nation (which I do) then there should be nothing cavalier at all about calling a Cheney a potentially treasonous character. I don't know that this is the best option for prosecution, but there should be some way to go after these fuckers.

Oh, but I like having shitbag theories... and needlessly aggressive replies to my comments. have a nice day.

The needless agression is a service I provide free of charge.

It's really dangerous to make arguments like this because you accept tacitly that the definition of "Treason" so (uncommonly) precisely laid out in the Constitution is quite flexible indeed. If you can argue that support of a multinational conglomerate is "Treason" then what's to stop Ann Coulter from arguing, say, that failing to condemn John Walker Lindh with enough gusto is "Treason?" You're opening up a whole can of worms -- and since the people in power (viz Cheney and Co.) are more likely to put a malleable definition of "Treason" to sinister use if it's opened up in this way, I'd prefer it if my comrades to the left of me would not open up the door for them.

It really is a shitbag theory, anyway. Yes, sure, lots of the categories of analysis in international law (e.g. "Enemies") are a bit outmoded. Even the UN Charter, which is a lot younger than the US Const., obviously, fails to deal with non-state actors like multinational corporations and international terrorist groups. Yes, this does lead to problems. But we have a perfectly decent process for dealing with the Cheneys and Bushes... representative democracy. We don't need to indulge in fantasies about trying them for Treason. It's dangerous and it's a waste of time pipe-dream.

All good points. The ambiguity of status for non-state groups is the justification of Bush's dis of the Geneva Convention, for instance. I know, I know. As I said, I don't know if this is the best option. But I refuse to believe that there is no option. So here you have it: I admit that I'm desparate, and casting about for a way out of this mess. I do not consider representative democracy to be the solution, as I do not believe the USA meets that definition (now that's entirely new and unpleasant thread). So I am drawn to explore other ideas, some of which will no doubt be pipe-dreams.

What I consider dangerous is the groundless faith that representative democracy alone can provide solid leadership for an electorate as misinformed, superstitious, and complacent as the USA's. That's why my other fantasy/pipedream is Blue State Secession.

H4a2s0H

Vancouver, WA

May 2004

FEB 17, 2005 04:42 PM

Washington/Oregon/Californa/Alsaka/Hawaii And British Columiba! Join me in forming a new country!! I'll legalize weed and give ya lots of money!

HenryTMensch

New York, NY

December 2004

FEB 17, 2005 04:49 PM

marcello said:
All good points. The ambiguity of status for non-state groups is the justification of Bush's dis of the Geneva Convention, for instance. I know, I know. As I said, I don't know if this is the best option. But I refuse to believe that there is no option. So here you have it: I admit that I'm desparate, and casting about for a way out of this mess. I do not consider representative democracy to be the solution, as I do not believe the USA meets that definition (now that's entirely new and unpleasant thread). So I am drawn to explore other ideas, some of which will no doubt be pipe-dreams.

What I consider dangerous is the groundless faith that representative democracy alone can provide solid leadership for an electorate as misinformed, superstitious, and complacent as the USA's. That's why my other fantasy/pipedream is Blue State Secession.

Blue State Secession is a much more attractive pipe dream, to me.

I don't think it's groundless faith, I just don't think that things are as bad as all that. At least not yet, anyway. The point of this thread was that Bush only barely managed to win re-election... and he's not exactly having an easy time of pushing his domestic agenda through these days. The politically aware people in his party -- i.e. the GOP members of congress -- realize that the stakes are huge right now for them. If they fuck up, there is no one to blame it on b/c the Republicans control all three branches of the federal government. The question is will Bush deal with the problem by compromising and softening his agenda or will he insist on his radical program and unleash Karl Rove on the members of his own party who don't tow the line to Bush's liking. This could be the start of a Republican Thermidor or a Rovian Reign of Terror... either way I'd say the result could wind up being the self destruction of the GOP.

Artsitis

Canada

December 2004

FEB 17, 2005 05:57 PM

H4a2s0H said:
Washington/Oregon/Californa/Alsaka/Hawaii And British Columiba! Join me in forming a new country!! I'll legalize weed and give ya lots of money!

Only is we take Alberta too - they have amazing amounts of petroleum, and some of the largest potheads around (they keep BC in business)

PAGE:

1 | 2

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

NEWS: The Bush Election Victory, Statistically Speaking

TakesATrainToCry

Ann Arbor, MI

October 2004

FEB 17, 2005 04:16 PM

H4a2s0H

Vancouver, WA

May 2004

FEB 17, 2005 04:42 PM

HenryTMensch

New York, NY

December 2004

FEB 17, 2005 04:49 PM

Artsitis

Canada

December 2004

FEB 17, 2005 05:57 PM