The government has been doing things that it shouldn't be doing,...as it *always* does.
Somebody got the info and told the people about it.
Now the government is red faced and pissed,..and it's encouraging all of its sheep to start screaming a bunch of nonsense about treason and compromising national security.
The way I see it,..the biggest threat to our national security is the idiocy of the people who make up the federal government.
well, yes. exactly.
but, pls remember the gov't is nothing if not a projection of the People?
sure, it get's off course from time to time. the People (we voters?) need to reign it in, reposition it, and point it more toward the "right direction."
right now, it's off-course, and we're all arguiing over who best can get it back on the "right course."
given technological change, the mistakes and right answers accrued in the past, and forecasts for the future, which turn in the road should we take?
I'm not sure that the implication that your intellectual changes are so worthy that others should have undertaken them as well is a sign of an open mind.
realizing the door swings both ways, but just sayin.
Hubris is a butt kicker.
It's a good point.
I've gotten to be pretty good at praying for humility, but accepting the answer when it comes is a whole other discipline.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
The government has been doing things that it shouldn't be doing,...as it *always* does.
Somebody got the info and told the people about it.
Now the government is red faced and pissed,..and it's encouraging all of its sheep to start screaming a bunch of nonsense about treason and compromising national security.
The way I see it,..the biggest threat to our national security is the idiocy of the people who make up the federal government.
well, yes. exactly.
but, pls remember the gov't is nothing if not a projection of the People?
sure, it get's off course from time to time. the People (we voters?) need to reign it in, reposition it, and point it more toward the "right direction."
right now, it's off-course, and we're all arguiing over who best can get it back on the "right course."
given technological change, the mistakes and right answers accrued in the past, and forecasts for the future, which turn in the road should we take?
the Crossroads? ever heard of it?
Off course? Says who? It's precisely on the same course it's always been on, the same course every government steers. Get bigger and bigger and more expensive and more powerful. Erode your subjects' liberty as quickly and as deeply as you can get away with. Enrich your politicians and their cronies by destroying the economy. Regulate away all innovation so that big corporations who are threatened by innovation will grease your politicians. Commit atrocities, cover them up. Continually find new scares and emergencies to keep your subjects frightened and at war and less averse to giving up their liberties.
And on and on.
Until your subjects say it's enough and start hanging your politicians from lampposts. Or until your depredations so weaken the country that it's taken over from outside. Or until the economy is such a disaster that not even your most devout worshippers believe you anymore.
Then it's over, and if your former subjects are stupid enough, they'll replace you with a new government and you can start all over.
Nah, I'd say the ol' ship of the State is right on course.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
yes, indeed. a very powerful statement. even more powerful if the Ruskies, Chinese, Indians, and Brazillians among others had been standing beside her and shaking their heads in agreement.
oh well, life goes on.
the Age of the Internet advances forward. Individuals do count, don't they?
That may be the way to go, though. "Remember: Republican good, Democrat bad. Hillary is a Democrat. That means she's bad, okay? So if she says that Julian is bad, what does that mean? Anyone? Anyone? That Julian is actually good, that's right! Very good, Johnny. Here, have a chocolate. One day, if you study hard, the rest of you will learn to think as clearly as Johnny."
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
I would think that their would be hidden signatures in each of these documents that are added when they are displayed/printed and identify the person who looks at them. That way we could easily arrest the person responsible for this treason.
It's my understanding that a leaker (if not the leaker) has been identified and apprehended and is now incarcerated awaiting trial.
"Good enough" isn't.
Always take your responsibilities seriously but never yourself.
I would think that their would be hidden signatures in each of these documents that are added when they are displayed/printed and identify the person who looks at them. That way we could easily arrest the person responsible for this treason.
It's my understanding that a leaker (if not the leaker) has been identified and apprehended and is now incarcerated awaiting trial.
Yep, Pfc. Bradley Manning, who looks like a poster boy for gays in the military. Just saw Hillary reading a statement where she refers to the "alleged cables". I guess old speech habits die hard.
Why all the fuss about Wikileak anyway? As I recall the NY Times published leaked classified information at least twice that gave Bin Laden a heads up on our ability to track his communications and his financial operations. Put American lives at risk and zero outcry from the Obama/Hillary crowd. No prosecutions from the Bush administration either.
there's only one kind of treason, and it's the only crime defined in the Constitution, so some future government couldn't expand the scope of the crime.
"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."
The maximum penalty declared by Congress is death.
Thank you Steve for the reply. What Wiki leaks has done is treason as I see it. Wiki is levying war against us and is an enemy of the US. It is posing a great and grave danger to our men and women serving us all over the globe. 163bc
there's only one kind of treason, and it's the only crime defined in the Constitution, so some future government couldn't expand the scope of the crime.
"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."
The maximum penalty declared by Congress is death.
Thank you Steve for the reply. What Wiki leaks has done is treason as I see it. Wiki is levying war against us and is an enemy of the US. It is posing a great and grave danger to our men and women serving us all over the globe. 163bc
Not according to the addled, hare-brain trust of Barak and Bristoe.
Thank you Steve for the reply. What Wiki leaks has done is treason as I see it. Wiki is levying war against us and is an enemy of the US. It is posing a great and grave danger to our men and women serving us all over the globe. 163bc
Treason? Really? Can treason be committed against the US government by people who are not its subjects?
For example, take Saddam Hussein. Was he committing treason when the US government invaded his country?
And no, WikiLeaks is not posing a danger to "our men and women serving us all over the globe," if by that you mean the US military forces occupying 135+ foreign countries to impose the will of US politicians on them. The US government itself poses a far greater danger to them than WikiLeaks could even if it wanted to.
Try not to fall so easily for the propaganda of the likes of Hillary Clinton and other sleazy politicians. Consider the source and do some checking of your own. Have an open mind.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
I don't know whether you've been watching, but right here on this very forum I've undergone a great many intellectual changes
O yea I've been watching. You get loonier with each post. Patting yourself on the back and thinking yourself an intelect or a great thinker doesn't make you one. Smarts and good common sence are 2 entirely different things but I doubt you can grasp that concept. You are a way out there loonie bird. 163bc
The ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee has called for the prosecution of the source of the Wikileaks controversy, saying that the leak amounts to a treasonous act and has put the lives of Americans at risk.
The ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee has called for the prosecution of the source of the Wikileaks controversy, saying that the leak amounts to a treasonous act and has put the lives of Americans at risk.
So you Republicans are claiming Peter King now? When did this start?
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
Smarts and good common sence are 2 entirely different things but I doubt you can grasp that concept. You are a way out there loonie bird. 163bc
Okay, let's explore this a little. If you have something to teach me, I certainly want to learn it.
Given a template like, "You say that A, but common sense clearly indicates that B," can you give me useful examples of A and B?
(Please do try to make B something other than a simple regurgitation of standard government propaganda, though.)
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
Now, if Wikileaks is getting funding from an enemy of the United States, or if it can be proven that Wikileaks intentions are to weaken the United States through it's actions, then they should be considered an enemy of the U.S., but "treason" isn't really applicable.
Those 501 c3 Org's set up by Wikileaks or their supporters, need to be blown up however and investigated to the fullest extent.
![[Linked Image]](http://militarysignatures.com/signatures/member651.png)