Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Ted Kennedy's Speech: Treason or disagreement?
Topic Started: Apr 6 2004, 11:18 AM (2,095 Views)
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 7 2004, 11:48 PM
For all to see and hear. THIS IS WHY Ted Kennedy has committed TREASON:

He is bent on destroying America's will to fight. His speeches have been proof.

That's it. When you hear rantings like his, or the oh-so condescending tones of Tom Daschle, or the lunacy of Howard Dean, Al Gore, or that idiot Dennis Kucinich, they are all bent on destroying America's will to fight. THAT MY FRIENDS IS TREASON.

Just so our buddy Adrian doesn't think I'm advocating violence toward them, I won't suggest the punishment for treason during wartime. I'll settle for maximum security prison. Say, twenty years to life.

So, if someone from the U.S., in your completely subjective view, does something that is not in the interest of the U.S., it's treason? I could apply the same logic to Bush using my completely subjective view. Would it sound ludicrous? You're darn right it would.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Jagalom Shaarek
Apr 7 2004, 07:56 PM
Quote IE "Matters like Iraq are international issues."

What? Our interests precede and proclude international agendas when it is in our best interest. You must love commitees.

It would only be in our best interest if it was an imminent threat. Otherwise, we are part of an international community and it's in our best interest to work with that community so we don't end up doing and footing the bill for everything for the rest of the world.

It's funny, the same people in the U.S. who complain about too much government don't seem to have a problem with the U.S. setting the rules for the whole world and footing the bill for the whole world. :rolleyes: :whistle:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dwayne
Apr 7 2004, 11:48 PM
ImpulseEngine
 
As for 9/11, that wasn't Iraq. As for Salman Pak, I've already expressed my discomfort with that point because you are the only one I know making a big deal about this (and maybe a couple of others on this board by now). If it was the big story you claim, I would expect to hear more from the Bush camp. Since I don't, it throws a serious question into its validity and importance to me. With all the heat Bush has been taking it should be an obvious point of defense. It's not. Why...? This still hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.

The fact is, the White House has talked about Salman Pak, but if the media doesn't report it...then what can they do?

Oh please! Do you recall Bush ever saying that "terrorists can't stand freedom"?

Of course you do (or you should) because it has been repeated over and over and over in one form or another by Bush following 9/11 and ever since.

Why? Because he considers it important enough to emphasize. Frankly, the statement hardly begins to explain the real reasons for terrorism against the U.S. (for example, they want us out of the middle east among other things), but since that was the point Bush wanted to drive home, he has repeatedly reiterated it.

If Salman Pak provides the terrorist and al-Qaeda connection that is still widely in question, I would think he'd be shouting it from the roof tops - over and over and over again... until the message got out. So, would you say everyone in his campaign is too stupid to realize this? I don't think so. There's obviously some reason they're putting this aside.

At the very least, it could have been mentioned in a State of the Union Address where there is guaranteed media coverage and a lot of people paying attention.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 8 2004, 07:45 AM
This from the Boston Herald:

On Monday Sen. Ted Kennedy, designated pit bull for the Kerry campaign, said, ``Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam, and this country needs a new president.''

    By Wednesday the theme had been picked up by none other than radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who issued a statement saying, ``I call upon the American people to stand beside their brethren, the Iraqi people, who are suffering an injustice by your rulers and the occupying army, to help them in the transfer of power to honest Iraqis. Otherwise, Iraq will be another Vietnam for America and the occupiers.''

This sure sounds like providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Senator Kennedy and Imam al-Sadr... separated at birth!

That trash newspaper? I grew up in Massachusetts and the Boston Herald isn't worth the paper it's printed on!

Quote:
 
This sure sounds like providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Senator Kennedy and Imam al-Sadr... separated at birth!

This is a LIE! (Sound familiar?)

No, it's not really. It's spouting off at the mouth (or the printing press as the case may be).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Apr 8 2004, 09:49 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 7 2004, 11:48 PM
For all to see and hear. THIS IS WHY Ted Kennedy has committed TREASON:

He is bent on destroying America's will to fight. His speeches have been proof.

That's it. When you hear rantings like his, or the oh-so condescending tones of Tom Daschle, or the lunacy of Howard Dean, Al Gore, or that idiot Dennis Kucinich, they are all bent on destroying America's will to fight. THAT MY FRIENDS IS TREASON.

Just so our buddy Adrian doesn't think I'm advocating violence toward them, I won't suggest the punishment for treason during wartime. I'll settle for maximum security prison. Say, twenty years to life.

So, if someone from the U.S., in your completely subjective view, does something that is not in the interest of the U.S., it's treason? I could apply the same logic to Bush using my completely subjective view. Would it sound ludicrous? You're darn right it would.

Did you completely miss where I said that these people want to destroy America's will to fight? THAT is why I believe it treason.

I'm not talking about "not in the interest of the U.S." I'm talking about INTENTIONALLY demoralizing troop morale. Can you see the difference through your partisan view?

Why is it that most of the left refuses to condemn Kennedy for his remarks? When the right complained about Bill Clinton's military, they questioned why he cut military budgets. They did not call Kosovo (for example) a quagmire. While the right did ask for an exit strategy, they did not compare Kosovo to Vietnam. They pledged support to the troops.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 8 2004, 11:33 AM
Did you completely miss where I said that these people want to destroy America's will to fight? THAT is why I believe it treason.

I'm not talking about "not in the interest of the U.S." I'm talking about INTENTIONALLY demoralizing troop morale. Can you see the difference through your partisan view?

I didn't miss anything - including the FACT that this is your OPINION...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
I guess to satisfy such a charge one would have to look up a practical description of treason in either federal law or UCMJ to determine the criteria that must be met for actions to be considered legally treasonous. I suspect that, as distasteful as some might find it to be, that a politicians rhetoric does not meet that standard of definition.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
I realize that many have strong opinions on this. I think the salient question to answer is whether what Kennedy said is a treasonable offense. I know some believe it is, but can this be proven?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Ted Kennedy can not be charged under the UCMJ, because he is not a member of any military. He can (IMHO) be charged under the US Code. I underlined the juicy parts of 5 USC 7311, Subsection 8.

Specifically:

Sec. 8. (a) The investigations conducted pursuant to this order shall be designed to develop information as to whether the employment or retention in employment in the Federal service of the person being investigated is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security. Such information shall relate, but shall not be limited, to the following:
(1) Depending on the relation of the Government employment to the national security:
(i) Any behavior, activities, or associations which tend to show that the individual is not reliable or trustworthy.
(ii) Any deliberate misrepresentations, falsifications or omissions of material facts. (iii) Any criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, habitual use of intoxicants to excess, drug addiction or sexual perversion.
(iv) Any illness, including any mental condition, of a nature which in the opinion of competent medical authority may cause significant defect in the judgment or reliability of the employee, with due regard to the transient or continuing effect of the illness and the medical findings in such case.
(v) Any facts which furnish reason to believe that the individual may be subjected to coercion, influence, or pressure which may cause him to act contrary to the best interests of the national security.
(2) Commission of any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, or sedition, or attempts thereat or preparation therefor, or conspiring with, or aiding or abetting another to commit or attempt to commit any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, or sedition.
(3) Establishing or continuing a sympathetic association with a saboteur, spy, traitor, seditionist, anarchist, or revolutionist, or with any espionage or other secret agent or representative of a foreign nation, or any representative of a foreign nation whose interests may be inimical to the interests of the United States, or with any person who advocates the use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States or the alteration of the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
(4) Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States, or of the alteration of the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
(5) Knowing membership with the specific intent of furthering the aims of, or adherence to and active participation in, any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons (hereinafter referred to as organizations) which unlawfully advocates or practices the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State, or which seeks to overthrow the Government of the United States or any State or subdivision thereof by unlawful means.
(6) Intentional unauthorized disclosure to any person of security information, or of other information disclosure of which is prohibited by law, or willful violation or disregard of security regulations.
(7) Performing or attempting to perform his duties, or otherwise acting, so as to serve the interests of another government in preference to the interests of the United States.
(8) Refusal by the individual, upon the ground of constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, to testify before a congressional committee regarding charges of his alleged disloyalty or other misconduct.
(b) The investigation of persons entering or employed in the competitive service shall primarily be the responsibility of the Office of Personnel Management, except in cases in which the head of a department or agency assumes that responsibility pursuant to law or by agreement with the Office. The Office shall furnish a full investigative report to the department or agency concerned.
© The investigation of persons (including consultants, however employed), entering employment of, or employed by, the Government other than in the competitive service shall primarily be the responsibility of the employing department or agency. Departments and agencies without investigative facilities may use the investigative facilities of the Office of Personnel Management, and other departments and agencies may use such facilities under agreement with the Office.
(d) There shall be referred promptly to the Federal Bureau of Investigation all investigations being conducted by any other agencies which develop information indicating that an individual may have been subjected to coercion, influence, or pressure to act contrary to the interests of the national security, or information relating to any of the matters described in subdivisions (2) through (8) of subsection (a) of this section. In cases so referred to it, the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall make a full field investigation.

By the way, I underlined (4) because of calls by Senator Kennedy for "regime change.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Thanks for posting that. I will have to take some time to digest this! :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Quote:
 
Dwayne
Apr 7 2004, 11:48 PM
ImpulseEngine
 
As for 9/11, that wasn't Iraq. As for Salman Pak, I've already expressed my discomfort with that point because you are the only one I know making a big deal about this (and maybe a couple of others on this board by now). If it was the big story you claim, I would expect to hear more from the Bush camp. Since I don't, it throws a serious question into its validity and importance to me. With all the heat Bush has been taking it should be an obvious point of defense. It's not. Why...? This still hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.

The fact is, the White House has talked about Salman Pak, but if the media doesn't report it...then what can they do?

Oh please! Do you recall Bush ever saying that "terrorists can't stand freedom"?

Of course you do (or you should) because it has been repeated over and over and over in one form or another...

Man, you're so full of it.

The reasons why you've heard it as often are two fold...
1. Political speeches are often constructed for short concise sound bites
2. The media chooses to report on sound bites only instead of the substance of the speech

The administration has put the information was put into the public and there are so many other examples like Salman Pak. In reality, it's not the presidents job to go out and personally or through his administration, retort or inform every talking head on TV that fails to recognize or mention Salman Pak. There is simply not enough time to do such things, but the MEDIA has the chance at the time the comments are made to challenge those that say that Iraq didn't have a hand in terrorism, by pointing out Salman Pak.

The media is not doing their job - wilfully and/or irresponsibility.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
^^^
But when it's an important point (which if it's true Salman Pak unquestionably is), he would want to. And especially now that he is campaiging again, he has plenty of opportunities. And again, why didn't he include it in a State of the Union Address - a perfect opportunity with no need to try influencing the media to report it at all.

Quote:
 
The reasons why you've heard it as often are two fold...
1. Political speeches are often constructed for short concise sound bites
2. The media chooses to report on sound bites only instead of the substance of the speech

I didn't hear it through the media much at all! I heard it every time Bush himself delivered a speech. Have you really been paying attention? :ermm:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
AB,
Charges under the US Code would have to stand up to objective analysis, not anti-Ted Kennedy opinion. IMHO, they wouldn't. This is just a witch hunt. :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ImpulseEngine
Apr 8 2004, 02:36 PM
^^^
But when it's an important point (which if it's true Salman Pak unquestionably is), he would want to.  And especially now that he is campaiging again, he has plenty of opportunities.  And again, why didn't he include it in a State of the Union Address - a perfect opportunity with no need to try influencing the media to report it at all.

Quote:
 
The reasons why you've heard it as often are two fold...
1. Political speeches are often constructed for short concise sound bites
2. The media chooses to report on sound bites only instead of the substance of the speech

I didn't hear it through the media much at all! I heard it every time Bush himself delivered a speech. Have you really been paying attention? :ermm:

First off, Bush never said what you, with quotes and all, claimed he said. He's made claims that the terrorist hate American freedoms and I think it's good he keep re-enforcing that fact, because it transcends every aspect the debate.

As for Salman Pak, you don't hear Pres. Bush talking repetively about the reference samples of biological agents found in Iraqi scientist homes that David Kay talked about, but just because Pres. Bush doesn't talk about it every day, once a month, or whatever does not mean that the evidence is without merit.

There's so much evidence to support the fact that Saddam was a bad guy. He could not be trusted to disarm he did support terrorism. To deny this requires one to wilfully ignore evidence that he wasn't a threat.

Bob Kerry, a man on the 9-11 Commission and who has been repeatedly critical of the Bush Administration, said this in a column in the Wall Street Journal (USE archive).
Quote:
 
Mr. Clarke's views on Iraq notwithstanding, after 9/11 we could not afford either to run the risk that Saddam Hussein would be deterred by our military efforts to contain him or that these military deployments would become attractive targets for further acts of terrorism. I supported President Bush's efforts to persuade the United Nations Security Council to change a 10-year-old resolution that authorized force to contain Saddam Hussein to one that authorized force to replace his dictatorship. And I believe the president did the right thing to press ahead even without the Security Council's support. Remember, the June 25, 1996, attack on Khobar Towers that left 19 American airmen dead happened because of our containment efforts. Sailors had also died enforcing the Security Council's embargo and our pilots were risking their lives every day flying missions over northern and southern Iraq to protect Iraqi Kurds and Shiites.


Many of the critics of Mr. Bush readily acknowledge the threat presented by Saddam, but only disagree with tactics - that is a legitimate debate for a later date.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
Borther! You miss a couple of days and see what happens!
AB and Dwayne's claims of the Salman Pak training center really bothered me. Could I really have missed a link? Why wasn't this reported? If I were the Press Secretary, I'd be jumping up and down every day, announcing this as the link between Al Quieda and Sadaam.
After an exhaustive (and exhausting) search, I found tons of stuff from conservative pundits (Rush Limbaugh et al) and finally found some of the reports from when the Salman Pak site was actually captured by US forces. I did, however, come across several reports that it was actually a counter-terrorist training ground as in this Global Policy Center reprint of the New York Post article (New York Post).
CIA rebuttals to the claims that it was a terrorist training center have all been classified, but the article claims that an ex-CIA station chief thought that the site was "rinky-dinky" and not seriously a training site. CIA rebuttal position papers have supposedly been censored under "national security" concerns. The source says that these papers discount the Salmon Pak as a terrorist training center.
Even discounting that, the reports like PBS's interview on Frontline of a Iraqi Captain who ran some of the administrative facilities only saw some people who looked like conservative Moslems (he didn't even know where they were from).
When US troops captured the facility they thought it was also a WMD site. Nothing found.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus