Did the New York Times commit treason? - Page 12

barney-fife · #**111** (**permalink**) 07-02-2006, 03:04 PM

Article III US Constitution:

Section 3. 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.

Freedom of the press wasn't included until after the drafting of the US Constitution. It was one of the ten amendments added to the US Constitution. Our founding fathers thought enough about treason to include it in the original body of the US Constitution. Both have equal standing, but it is a very weak argument saying that freedom of the press excludes the press from treason.

Newspapers like the al-Times serve a very useful purpose--wrapping dead, stinking fish. Beyond that, the al-Times is worthless.

barney-fife · #**112** (**permalink**) 07-02-2006, 04:34 PM

"Not everything is fit to print. There is to be regard for at least probable factual accuracy, for danger to innocent lives, for human decencies, and even, if cautiously, for nonpartisan considerations of the national interest."

So wrote the great legal scholar, Alexander Bickel

Schwarzwald · #**113** (**permalink**) 07-02-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuH2";p=&quot

Classic.

A Communist telling other about not stepping on freedom. Funny enough all by itself...
..but then having a far lefty thanking the Communis for shoveling BS while at the same time pointing to Thomas Jefferson a man who was in no way dumb enough to believe a newspaper should be allowed to betray the nation during war.

I am Communist but that doesnt mean I agree with the dictatorships that used Communism as a mask. I'll take Eugene Debs and George Orwell over Marx and Lenin any day of the week. To say that you know what Jefferson would or wouldnt do/think is nieve. The man is dead (Allah rest his soul) and we only have his written work to go off of. By this analysis its logic to say that Jefferson supported free speech. The only BS I see is you and youre advocating that in times of war freedom is insignificant. I dont believe in this war or any war but I do believe that if the President, the leader of our country, has stated that we are fighting to spread and defend democracy then democracy must be up-help not only over-seas but at home. What good is loyalty to a nation if that nation gives you no freedom or even hints at restricting freedom. An American revolutionary once wrote, "Give me Liberty or give me Death". I respond to him, "So let it be written, so let it be done".

DuH2 · #**114** (**permalink**) 07-02-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

I am Communist but that doesnt mean I agree with the dictatorships that used Communism as a mask. I'll take Eugene Debs and George Orwell over Marx and Lenin any day of the week.

Tehn your not a communist.or not a real world communist but more of a tecxt book communist..adn not even a textbook communist becasue you rejetc the father of communism teachings.

Quote:

To say that you know what Jefferson would or wouldnt do/think is nieve. The man is dead (Allah rest his soul) and we only have his written work to go off of. By this analysis its logic to say that Jefferson supported free speech.

Yep and by his written work there is no way he would support a paper revealing secrets during a war. He would have considered them at best betrayers of the publics trust at worst traitors.

Quote:

The only BS I see is you and youre advocating that in times of war freedom is insignificant

I advocated that?...BS I never advocated that. I advocate criminal charge for treason in war or betrayal of national secrest for nothign..the NYT uis guilty of that and their being a part of the press is NOT a get out of the crapper free card.

Quote:

I dont believe in this war or any war but I do believe that if the President, the leader of our country, has stated that we are fighting to spread and defend democracy then democracy must be up-help not only over-seas but at home.

It is.

[quote]What good is loyalty to a nation if that nation gives you no freedom or even hints at restricting freedom[quote]

What good is making up nonsense about losing freedoms simply so you can act like your disloyalty to this nation has to do with anything but you?

Quote:

An American revolutionary once wrote, "Give me Liberty or give me Death". I respond to him, "So let it be written, so let it be done".

That as a Communist you would give him death. Becasue Patrick Henry wanted Liberty not Communism.

Quote:

Patrick Henry
March 23, 1775

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henry is a nationalist like me and for all intents in todays world a hardcore NeoCon..he is the last person a wanna be psuedo-Communist or the lunatic far left has any business quoting.

barney-fife · #**115** (**permalink**) 07-02-2006, 05:35 PM

Commies and socialists are so funny. Every time they are confronted with the utter failures of their ideology, they reply by saying something along the lines of "the right people weren't running it."

Thanks for once again validating this observation. Yes, Cuba indeed is that "shining city on a hill" of communist utopia!

Schwarzwald · #**116** (**permalink**) 07-02-2006, 06:40 PM

[quote="DuH2";p="254369"]

Quote:

I am Communist but that doesnt mean I agree with the dictatorships that used Communism as a mask. I'll take Eugene Debs and George Orwell over Marx and Lenin any day of the week.

Tehn your not a communist.or not a real world communist but more of a tecxt book communist..adn not even a textbook communist becasue you rejetc the father of communism teachings.

Quote:

To say that you know what Jefferson would or wouldnt do/think is nieve. The man is dead (Allah rest his soul) and we only have his written work to go off of. By this analysis its logic to say that Jefferson supported free speech.

Yep and by his written work there is no way he would support a paper revealing secrets during a war. He would have considered them at best betrayers of the publics trust at worst traitors.

Quote:

The only BS I see is you and youre advocating that in times of war freedom is insignificant

I advocated that?...BS I never advocated that. I advocate criminal charge for treason in war or betrayal of national secrest for nothign..the NYT uis guilty of that and their being a part of the press is NOT a get out of the crapper free card.

Quote:

I dont believe in this war or any war but I do believe that if the President, the leader of our country, has stated that we are fighting to spread and defend democracy then democracy must be up-help not only over-seas but at home.

It is.

[quote]What good is loyalty to a nation if that nation gives you no freedom or even hints at restricting freedom

Quote:

What good is making up nonsense about losing freedoms simply so you can act like your disloyalty to this nation has to do with anything but you?

Quote:

An American revolutionary once wrote, "Give me Liberty or give me Death". I respond to him, "So let it be written, so let it be done".

That as a Communist you would give him death. Becasue Patrick Henry wanted Liberty not Communism.

Quote:

Patrick Henry
March 23, 1775

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henry is a nationalist like me and for all intents in todays world a hardcore NeoCon..he is the last person a wanna be psuedo-Communist or the lunatic far left has any business quoting.

Communism is a philosophy and philosophers are only human, it would be blind to accept everything Marx said. I believe in workers controling industry and the rich being held accountable for their actions, only fools allow themselves to be packed into a clique. The Rosenburgs were traitors, the Times are reporters and journalists who can and should print whatever they want. If democracy is being up-held then why is the government suggesting a newspaper be banned for writing something they find disagreable, that certifies as violation of the First Amendment to me. How dare you call me disloyal to my country! My father fought in Vietnam, my grandfather fought in WW2, both recieved Purple Hearts. I love my country and that is why I believe what I believe. This war has murdered over 2,000 Americans, this war has taken away from schools, this war has taken away from hospitals, this war has taken away from families for what. For weapons that never existed. For a dictator that was never a threat. For a president who lied and used our anger and sorrow to lead us into a war that is un-beneficial to Americans and thus un-American. There is loyalty to the government and there is loyalty to America, forgive me for choosing the latter. As a Communist I adore Patrick Henry. He was working class, anti-imperialist, and anti-monarchist. Patrick Henry is what every Communist should aspire to be, a man un-afraid to speak his mind no matter the consequence. I quote him "We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts." This is what has happened to self-proclaimed Conservatives. What you must learn is that loyalty to the people supercedes loyalty to the establishment.

Schwarzwald · #**117** (**permalink**) 07-02-2006, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney-fife";p=&quot

Commies and socialists are so funny. Every time they are confronted with the utter failures of their ideology, they reply by saying something along the lines of "the right people weren't running it."

Thanks for once again validating this observation. Yes, Cuba indeed is that "shining city on a hill" of communist utopia!

Utopia is in the afterlife. All I want is Justice.

barney-fife · #**118** (**permalink**) 07-02-2006, 07:03 PM

Yes, Cuba is that shining cit on a hill when it comes to justice.

BTW, the definition of justice is getting what you deserve. Taking from those who've earned their wealth and giving it to those who've not earned any wealth hardly seems like justice. Justice means those earning their wealth get what they deserve (wealth), and those not earning any wealth get what they deserve (poverty).

I think justice is the last thing you desire.

DuH2 · #**119** (**permalink**) 07-02-2006, 08:07 PM

If you're a Communist and you adore Patrick Henry then your adoration is misplaced and a travesty based on a mischarcterization of all the Patrick Henry stands for.

If he made that speech today in regards to terrorism. You'd (*)(*)(*)(*) him without hesitation as an imperialistic warmongering NeoCon!...and if you personally didn't you can bet your ass most of the usual suspects here would.

Quote:

The Rosenburgs were traitors, the Times are reporters and journalists who can and should print whatever they want.

IOW if the NYT reported exactly the same thing the Rosenburgs gave the USSR then it would be ok?

Thats ridiculous..

rota · #**120** (**permalink**) 07-02-2006, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney-fife";p=&quot

I only watched the debate on the House floor today, where each and every demo stood and spoke against the al-Times publishing the story they did. No one, but NO ONE is coming to the defense of the al-Times. What the al-Times did was criminal, and I can only hope they and the leakers are punished to the full extent of the law (meaning execution).

I'll gladly volunteer putting the needle in their traitorous arms.

How about Richard Perle?

Quote:

October 1970: FBI Wiretap Records Perle Disclosing Classified Information to Israeli Officials An FBI wiretap at the Israeli Embassy in Washington picks up Richard Perle discussing classified information with an Israeli official. The information was given to Perle by National Security Council staff member Hal Sonnenfeldt, who is currently under investigation for providing classified documents to the Israelis. [Atlantic Monthly, 5/1982]
People and organizations involved: Richard Perle, Helmut Sonnenfeldt.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/e...=richard_perle

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode