And this is why the Founding Fathers hardcoded the definition of treason, the standard of evidence, and it's punishment in the Constitution itself. Because treason is too easily turned into legal way of disposing of one's political enemies.
Hey, Woolsey, you fucking want to talk about treason?
Didn't you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, bitch?
It's a terrifying nation when supposed "good guys" are consumed with murderous rage, and the "treasonous" bad guy sacrifices for the betterment of citizenry.
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 Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Good luck with that Mr. Woolsey...
In Wikipedia's entry on the Treason Clause, there's a quote from Federalist No. 43, which I interpret to mean: this is normal. Free societies will enviably have people who conflate dissent and treason. Such people are entitled to their option. But Madison etc inserted that little clause to keep a lid on any actual killing of mere dissidents.
You know, I'm generally the calm commenting type, but I pretty much just came here to say "Fuck you Woolsey," too.
I would only agree if everyone involved in the international law breaking activities Snowden revealed get the same.
I can understand the tactical reason for keeping the voters from knowing what the state is doing - for up to a year. But politicians use secrecy to keep us from evaluating them.
If we are going to try someone for treason, try those who are stopping us voters from doing our jobs. Those who are allowing the state to walk all over us.
My heart rate jumped up and rage set in when I read what this treasonous piece of shit James Woolsey said about Snowden. Thanks for basically saying what I was thinking.
love the way they toss around the talk about the death penalty when it's a
'lone wolf' - and not a word like it when it's one of their own outing a CIA agent, putting all their contacts in jeopardy - we're in Zardoz, folks and have been for a while - now, i need to get back to browsing for cat vids.
Dear Cardinal Wolsey - I mean, Ex-Director Woolsey:
I, too , would like to take this opportunity to say, "Fuck you. In the ear, with a wire-haired brush. Repeatedly."
The fact that you have served as a Director of the CIA and yet still do not even know what treason actually is pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
Hallo Cow. Welcome back
It sounds like the defenders of the surveillance conspiracy are starting to run out of resources.
- Their greatest resource was secrecy.
- Secrecy was stripped away. They turned to privilege; to their private law.
- Privilege is now being stripped away and they turn again to Fear.
Is this what we want of ourselves? Of our country? To be driven by our hate? To be hounded by our fears?
Shame on you Director Woolsey. Do you chose this path or are you forced to it?
At this point, no sane person would trust you to lead a pack of cub scouts.
So, just wanted to poke my head in for a moment. The gentleman is retired as far as I understand, and so is a private citizen. This makes his statement completely a matter of opinion which will have no effect on a sentence/criminal matter being faced by someone.
If on the the other hand, he were still a member of government, he would be the director of an executive agency. The judicial branch has authority of determining guilt and sentencing convicted persons (although the Legislature can and does regulate sentencing generally). In other words, even in this event, his statements would have absolutely no bearing on anything, particularly as it pertains to sentencing (to wit: a hanging).
Also of note, the treason part is one of my favorite parts of the Constitution. I mean, "corruption of the blood"? Awesome (ps. that means that there can be no crimes which affect the rights of your blood relatives; which is a pretty smart concept, and especially smart when considering the political climate many of he Founding Fathers/Mothers had come from)...
But I digress. The fact that a private citizen said this is absolutely and completely meaningless. Just as meaningless in fact as the many people on this forum who are saying unpleasant things about the gentleman in question.
what, legally, is "aid and comfort"? I mean, you could argue anyone who's bought anything made in China has given them 'aid and comfort'. Should we get in a shooting match with them, who reading this wouldn't be a traitor?
He used to run the CIA. Expecting a humane answer out of Woolsey is like expecting Putin to be humane after running the KGB. Did anyone really think he was going to give an intelligent, thoughtful and considerate answer? If people do not like inflammatory and ignorant responses then stop asking inflammatory and ignorant people these questions. We need to bypass the Woolsey critters and focus on what a better world would be without the mass paranoia that let the NSA get this way in the first place.
Moo!!! (OK apparently I have to be more descriptive than that. I'd like to say moo to cow who has been absent).
Holy shit, nice photo! If I had to imagine a guy calling for a lynch mob, that would be him.
next page →