The definition of treason

Technically speaking, any 'rebels' are treasonous against the ruling power.

The act of Treason is a good or bad thing dependant on the eye of the beholder.

Usually if you want to create a stable society you do not wan't people commiting treason, weather you are Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein or George Bush. Because treason is not a question of rightful covernment but a question of opposition to those in power.

No one seems intereted in this thread?

The op seems to be arguing that insurgents in Iraq are patriots. Obviously if they are willing to die for somthing they believe in then i'm sure the insurgents would feel they are patriots... hmm perhaps not patriots, i think it is more of a religious passion than a patriotic passion that drives the insurgents in Iraq?

Anyway, they already have their own government in Iraq, so if they don't like them then they can always stop blowing things up and vote them out!

that's my 2 cents worth!

This is the problem with making overly simplistic assumptions- namely that 'traitors' are automatically bad, and that 'patriots' are automatically good.

If you lived in Nazi Germany, the 'patriots' would be the guys following Hitler's instructions and gassing Jews. The 'traitors' would be someone who would help them escape. But who is it that is actually doing the right thing?

It isn't a bad thing to be traitorous to a dictator. And it isn't a good thing to be support one and be a patriot.

To say that treason is always bad, implies that the orders of the leadership should always be obeyed without question. I personally believe, that the rights of the people collectively supercede the rights of the leadership. The turnout during the first Iraqi elections after Saddam's fall was very high, which to me suggests that the people want the freedom to select their own leadership.

The people who voted for the current Iraqi president represent the majority of Iraqi citizens, so if anything, it is the insurgents who are committing treason. It is true that the Iraqi people are sick of foreign forces on their land, but don't suggest for one second that this means they don't want to select their own leadership.

As unlikely as it seems, if the insurgents somehow seize power, they will force their will on the people. This obviously goes against the will of the people, so therefore the insurgents are enemies of the people. The insurgents are not even fighting invaders, they are killing innocent Iraqi's, and stirring up racial hatred. Yes, very patriotic, lol.

I said it before and I'll say it again... Marcus you really know how to pick a topic!
Let's hope we can keep it civil.

Yes Evil Muppet you make some very good points indeed. So although treason is purely to fight against the ruling power, the true justice or injustice of treason is determined by the will of the majority.

The "insurgents", as the liberal TV and newspaper media like to call them, are Islamo Facists supplied and funded by Iran. Listen to intelligent talk radio on AM, sometimes FM, Satellite, and internet.

Listen to Michael Savage, the voice of reason in dangerous times. He is the talk radio host of 'The Savage Nation' and author of four number one best selling books. He is a Conservative Independent, not a Democrat or a Republican. Listen to him for a week then ask yourself if you can doubt his reasoning.

www.MichaelSavage.com
WWW Link
WWW Link
----------

[Quote]Explosive Talk Show Host

Best-Selling Author of 'The Savage Nation', 'The Enemy Within' and 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'[His latest best-selling book is 'The Political Zoo'.]

Explosive conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage continues to dominate the airwaves with his brash commentary and unapologetic solutions. The 10 million listeners who tune into Savage each week can't be wrong! Turn on WOR in New York, KNEW in San Francisco, WKRO in Boston, KRLA in Los Angeles. [And on various other stations throughout the nation.]

Savage is harder hitting than other conservatives. Wilder than Bill, funnier than Ann, Michael Savage is a media icon who is unafraid to take on the establishment. He pulls many of his life experiences, including that of father, son, husband, brother, ice cream factory worker, busboy, lifeguard, writer, and scientist, into his commentary.

Savage coined the terms "Compassionate Conservative" and "Islamo-Fascist," which have been hijacked by Republican speechwriters and spread like wildfire.
Explosive Talk Show Host

Best-Selling Author of 'The Savage Nation', 'The Enemy Within' and 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'

An independent-minded individualist, Michael Savage fits no stereotype. He attacks big government and liberal media bias, but champions the environment and animal rights.

Trained as a scientist, he holds Master’s degrees in medical botany and medical anthropology and earned his Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley in Epidemiology and Nutritional Science. He spent decades searching and saving tropical rainforests.

Savage is also the author of 18 books including three New York Times Best Sellers: "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder", “The Savage Nation” and “The Enemy Within.”

In show, books and speeches, Michael Savage electrifies and galvanizes his audiences. If you’re looking for someone with an opinion-- who isn’t afraid to tell it like it is-- he’s your man.[End Quote]

I think its going to be another discussion that will resort in the end to personal insults on the arguers morals.

Wade0448 is obviously a troll.



Anyway, if you've seen the PBS Frontline documentary about how Rumsfeld was in charge of organizing the torture in Iraq, and then at Guantanamo, it would be less than human to say that the US is not an institution which supports and implements torture. Wake up! That's what the US does!

Those who fight being tortured are the heroes, not those who torture.

And don't even start about how I'm not for the troops. I have family who are American soldiers.

I am confused as to why people still allow themselves to be influenced by media sensationalists. There is certainly no shortage of examples throughout history as to why this is unwise.

Perhaps! To be passionate about somthing is a good thing, but if taken too far it can lead to insults, violance and finally suicide bombs! Respect and tollerance of others goes a long way to preventing that from happening.

Thats why I pick Colbert, he is at least funny.

I'm not a troll. I just should not have listed Michael Savages attributes.

Torture? We are not hacking off peoples heads and the such. Humiliation is not torture. Humiliation is just extremely humiliating to some.

Um we are in a sense torturing individuals, there are other ways to torture that doesnt include physical violance, or even the contact of another human being or weapon.

Honestly, I know a woman who was a guard at Guantanamo. It's as bad as the New York Times reports. There is real torture there.

And, unfortunately, there was even worse torture in Iraq. And, unfortunately, we gave people up to others who would torture more deeply than we would. And some of these people were innocent. Why do you think CIA people are being held in Italy? Europe was complicit in us sending people on to other areas, and now they're having to face the music. Why do we here not make our government face what it's doing?

You forgot a very important part about the definition of treason. All of the above apply to members of a country. That is - working to overthrow one's OWN government is treason. When the Romans conquered Carthage, they were not committing treason, they were invaders. Someone FROM Carthage who HELPED the Romans conquer Carthage, would have been engaging in treason. Is English your first language? Under both British English and American English it is implicit in the concept of treason that it is an act against the country to which you swear fealty.

As for the war in Iraq, I am not commenting one way or the other, and I neither support nor contest your remaining points about what has happened in that country over the last 15 years. It is too complicated for me to give a proper response. But what the US and England have done is not not not treason.

Somehow i think the word torture among other things is overused, not that i support the unneccisary discomfort imposed on certain individuals in Guantanamo bay.

It works like this, somone might say you are a pedophile when you have sex with a 14 year old. But in my opinion it is far far worse to have sex with a 4 year old! There needs to be a clear distinction between the two. In the same way, somone who cuts your fingers off one at a time etc etc should clearly be called a torturer which is far far worse than what happens at Guantanamo bay (as far as i know).

So you can argue that having sex with a 14 year old is technically pedophelia, but frankly, i think that is a blatant insult to all those young children who were abused.

sorry got called away from my desk, couldn't finish my above point...

continued from previous post... similarly i think that calling what goes on at guantanamo bay 'torture' is an insult to all those that have suffered the real thing!

Wyndstar, why react so violently? You really don't know about Rome and Carthage, trust me. You're using this historical example to make some point that it doesn't make.







Well, you set up a straw man in order to avoid commenting upon what all Americans are dealing with at the moment. WTF?

Not a straw man at all. And I was very specific in the example I used. At the end of the Third Punic War Rome had gotten sick of Carthage being a thorn in its side. They ordered every person in the entire city killed. They burned all of the boats in the harbor, went house to house killing every man and taking the woman into slavery, and sowed salt into the soil so nothing would grow again. The Carthaginian thorn in Romes side was dealt with, and they never rose again.

However, AFTER Carthage was destroyed a new city was built there. In the interim, the nearby city of Utica was tasked with controlling Roman interests in the area. After the people of Carthage were destroyed... would Utican's supporting the Romans be treasonous? After the new Carthage was built, would attacks on Roman soldiers have actually been an act of patriotism? If so, to what nation? There was no Carthage anymore, what it had been was completely and irreprably destroyed.

- I disagree that the various factions that attack other factions or foreign soldiers are doing so out of patriotism to a "nation" of Iraq. To call it such misunderstands the concept. As I said the first time, I'm not going to get into a discussion about what is or may be right or wrong with the area that was Iraq. Or Mesopotamia. Or whatever you want to call it. Southern Kurdistan and Western Persia.... probably is what it will end up being.

I was mostly annoyed with the incorrect use of the word treason - a word that has been made too common amoung people with only a marginal education in this area because it is a word lately used in the media with frequency. People seem to like to point to everything and cry "treason". Treason is the only crime that is punishable by death even in countries that have abolished the death penalty. It is the ultimate act of betrayal against the state and its interests. It is not a little deal, and it is not something to wave around frivolously.

Iraqis blowing up car bombs in Bahgdad are not patriots. Iraqis working for the new police forces are not committing treason to the old, destroyed nation. That observation has nothing to do with whether what the US and Britian did was right or wrong. You are free to support or disagree with the west's actions, but accusing people of treason for working for or against a destroyed state is a misappropriation of the word.

Hope that helps.

You often have allot to say! hehehe lol. Usually I cannot seriously fault or add to any of your arguments.

OK, so I would like to hear your evidence from ancient sources. I've read all these Roman sources, so please enlighten me now. Do you really believe that you know what happened with Rome and Carthage? Please tell me that you've read any ancient sources.

As well as anyone who is not a scholar in the area. I have read some Roman sources in the area, but not in history classes, in Latin classes. I used to be a history/classics major back in undergrad before I changed and went into philosophy. But that was more than a decade ago now. As far as the history, I guess most of it comes from a book that was imaginatively named "The Punic Wars, a history" or something close to that. It has been a long time. I still remember the basics.

I haven't made studying the Punic wars my life's work, and I'm sure there are people more knowledgeable than me in the area. I haven't kept up on the scholarship in the area since graduating college... I'm a lawyer now, there is not enough time to keep up on everything. I am more interested with the work being done on the Peloponesian wars, and I always liked Greek more than Latin anyway. And some of the work on the historical Jesus and the theological works of Wright are always intersting.

I know that there are some small disputes as to a few of the details of the end of the Punic wars, ever since someone decided to start calling it a genocide... because then everyone had to jump to defend it. There are arguments on both sides as to whether salt was actually sown into the soil, or if that was just an urban legend that appeared around 300 AD. I know that there is debate over whether all the men were really killed, or if some of them were taken as slaves as well.

But broadly speaking, again, I think I know the history about as well as any lay-person. Enough to use it as my example. I prefer Greek and Roman examples when using the abstract, because ones closer in time still have emotional attachments for people. There are maybe a few hundred people in the world total who really really care a lot about how many were actually massacered by the Romans.

Hope that answers your question.


I wouldn't have even stopped by this post except for the title name. It probably seems strange when people are making political points to have someone else get upset about word choice. It's the disease of my profession I'm afraid. I don't want to dampen a lively public policy discussion, I just get frustrated when words with precise meanings, "terms of art" as it were, get diluted in the common vernacular.

Take care.

Wow... just wow.

yea, true, i think the english language is already screwed up enough as it is without that happening!

Actually i think it is the alphabet which is abused the most by the english language. My own philosophy is that the alphabet is a wonderful invention which is hardly taken advantage of at the moment, and that is a shame. I really do not know why we insist on keeping all this non phonetic foreign crap in our dictionaries??