The Republican Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

He never lost his US citizenship and there is no mechanism for doing so by calling for attacks on America, short of being tried for and found guilty of treason.

 

I'm not understanding your issue here. I'm saying treason could be proven through his words that are conceivably still subject to 1st amendment protection. It might be circular logic, but there's no other way of doing it absent a physical act.

 

Edit: and i'm talking hypothetically, not in this particular case

Edited October 3, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I'm not understanding your issue here. I'm saying treason could be proven through his words that are conceivably still subject to 1st amendment protection.

 

You can't convict someone of treason for exercising constitutionally protected free speech rights. That would make said rights meaningless.

[Jenksismyhero]

You can't convict someone of treason for exercising constitutionally protected free speech rights. That would make said rights meaningless.

 

I don't think it'd make it meaningless, i think it would just be an added exception. If you published sensitive state/military information knowing that our enemies would use it against us, I'd consider that treason. The wikileaks guy was pretty close IMO.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think it'd make it meaningless, i think it would just be an added exception. If you published sensitive state/military information knowing that our enemies would use it against us, I'd consider that treason. The wikileaks guy was pretty close IMO.

 

I think you're missing the most important application of the 1st amendment speech rights: protection from government retaliation for speech against the government.

 

I know you've moved to a hypothetical case, but I'd like to bring this back to the actual one. What you're saying here, that protected 1st amendment speech could be treasonous and allow the government to strip you of your citizenship, would still require a charge of treason and a trial. It wouldn't be a unilateral decision by the Executive to declare that you're no longer a citizen and then execute you.

 

edit: I'm having a really hard time trying to make sense of a position that says you can lose your Constitutional rights by exercising them.

Edited October 3, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

I think you're missing the most important application of the 1st amendment speech rights: protection from government retaliation for speech against the government.

 

I know you've moved to a hypothetical case, but I'd like to bring this back to the actual one. What you're saying here, that protected 1st amendment speech could be treasonous and allow the government to strip you of your citizenship, would still require a charge of treason and a trial. It wouldn't be a unilateral decision by the Executive to declare that you're no longer a citizen and then execute you.

 

edit: I'm having a really hard time trying to make sense of a position that says you can lose your Constitutional rights by exercising them.

 

Treason is a different animal. What you're suggesting is that people that scream "Death to the USA, I am now a citizen of France, the mortal sworn enemy of the US, and I will publish various state and military secrets to aid them in their quest to destroy America" couldn't be tried for treason because they were merely exercising their Constitutional right to freedom of assembly/speech/publication. If the wikileaks guy (but American citizen version) had given up actual state secrets/intelligence, don't you think he'd be tried for treason, despite exercising his right to publication? I'm not suggesting that someone should be tried for treason for complaining or arguing against the US. But at some point that stops being politically protected speech and starts being treasonous acts against the state.

[StrangeSox]

Treason is a different animal. What you're suggesting is that people that scream "Death to the USA, I am now a citizen of France, the mortal sworn enemy of the US, and I will publish various state and military secrets to aid them in their quest to destroy America" couldn't be tried for treason because they were merely exercising their Constitutional right to freedom of assembly/speech/publication. If the wikileaks guy (but American citizen version) had given up actual state secrets/intelligence, don't you think he'd be tried for treason, despite exercising his right to publication? I'm not suggesting that someone should be tried for treason for complaining or arguing against the US. But at some point that stops being politically protected speech and starts being treasonous acts against the state.

 

You just slipped in an actual condition for losing your citizenship in there, which is absent from the real case. Additionally, publishing some state secrets may not be protected speech, whereas violent anti-government rhetoric is. If the speech is Constitutionally protected, you cannot be prosecuted for a crime or stripped of your citizenship for making it. Furthermore, in the Wikileaks case, neither Mannings's nor Assange's intention is predicated on "Death to the USA" or intentionally giving aid to an enemy in order to help them defeat America.

[StrangeSox]

Not to mention the fact that 99.9% of the "evidence" establishing his treasonous acts would be considered state secrets of national security and probably protected from being released in court.

 

Which should give you even more pause for allowing the government these sorts of powers, not less.

[Jenksismyhero]

You just slipped in an actual condition for losing your citizenship in there, which is absent from the real case. Additionally, publishing some state secrets may not be protected speech, whereas violent anti-government rhetoric is. If the speech is Constitutionally protected, you cannot be prosecuted for a crime or stripped of your citizenship for making it. Furthermore, in the Wikileaks case, neither Mannings's nor Assange's intention is predicated on "Death to the USA" or intentionally giving aid to an enemy in order to help them defeat America.

 

well sure, and i've said the law needs to be changed to include terrorists/enemies with no ties to a nation-state, but still have ties to an enemy group like Al Qaeda. But that's a technicality IMO.

 

I still think if the speech is strong enough, it can be treasonous. It might be that .001% rarity, but I think the line exists.

[StrangeSox]

If the law needs to be changed, change it. Don't violate it and strip a US citizen of his basic rights.

 

And, again, his ties to Al Qaeda are alleged. Not demonstrated or claimed by Awlaki himself.

[StrangeSox]

http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/03/awlaki_7/singleton/

 

That mentality — he’s a Terrorist because my Government said he’s one and I therefore don’t need evidence or trials to subject that evidence to scrutiny — also happens to be the purest definition of an authoritarian mentality, the exact opposite of the dynamic that was supposed to drive how the country functioned (Thomas Jefferson: “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution“). I trust My President and don’t need to see evidence or have due process is the slavish mentality against which Jefferson warned; it’s also one of the most pervasive ones in much of the American citizenry, which explains a lot.

 

Providing evidence and proving their accusations is exactly the opposite of what Obama officials did in the Awlaki killing. Not only did they refrain from indicting this Obviously Guilty Terrorist Against Whom There is So Much (Secret) Evidence, but even when they were brought into court by the ACLU and CCR, they adhered faithfully to the Bush/Cheney playbook of invoking an array of procedural and secrecy arguments as to why they need not present evidence of Awlaki’s guilt before killing him. And rather than present evidence to the public, The Most Transparent Administration Ever did what it normally does in such cases: it ran to the media, usually anonymously, to justify its actions by — as Time put it — “dishing about classified intelligence which they say shows Awlaki was not just a YouTube inciter but also an operational planner for al Qaeda’s dangerous Yemen branch.” In other words: we have evidence to prove our accusations, but it’s secret and we won’t show it to you; instead, the media will go forth and dutifully assure everyone we said there is secret evidence and you’ll just trust us.

[Balta1701]

Treason is a different animal. What you're suggesting is that people that scream "Death to the USA, I am now a citizen of France, the mortal sworn enemy of the US, and I will publish various state and military secrets to aid them in their quest to destroy America" couldn't be tried for treason because they were merely exercising their Constitutional right to freedom of assembly/speech/publication. If the wikileaks guy (but American citizen version) had given up actual state secrets/intelligence, don't you think he'd be tried for treason, despite exercising his right to publication? I'm not suggesting that someone should be tried for treason for complaining or arguing against the US. But at some point that stops being politically protected speech and starts being treasonous acts against the state.

Let's be clear about a couple things on Wikileaks.

 

The Pfc who supposedly leaked the material to Wikileaks, Bradley Manning, has been in jail for a year now awaiting trial and kept in pretty harsh conditions. However, he leaked that material while it was classified...if he did so, then he was violating actual laws of classification by being the one who released the material. He will not be tried for treason, but he may at some point be tried for violating classification laws.

 

If I'm a newspaper editor and that material appears in the mail, and I publish it...that is not Treasonous by my standard. If I'm Assange and I receive that material and publish it, same deal. That's why this country hasn't charged Assange with anything.

[kapkomet]

If the law needs to be changed, change it. Don't violate it and strip a US citizen of his basic rights.

 

And, again, his ties to Al Qaeda are alleged. Not demonstrated or claimed by Awlaki himself.

 

 

You have spent more time defending this guy then a lawyer appointed to his dead ass ever would have.

 

He's was a terrorist recruiter, he's dead, let's move on.

[StrangeSox]

An American citizen was killed by his own government without due process, let's pause and think if that's a good thing.

[Balta1701]

An American citizen was killed by his own government without due process, let's pause and think if that's a good thing.

It is a good thing that this guy is dead.

 

It is not a good thing that we had to ignore the law to make it happen.

[StrangeSox]

It is a good thing that this guy is dead.

 

It is not a good thing that we had to ignore the law to make it happen.

No arguments there.

[The Sir]

It is a good thing that this guy is dead.

 

I wholeheartedly agree!

[Texsox]

It is a good thing that this guy is dead.

 

It is not a good thing that we had to ignore the law to make it happen.

 

That is true. I'm not certain if opening up the debate for something that may happen again in five years is the correct thing to do.

[EvilMonkey]

Finally Obama did something right. Wonder where he found the balls to go against the Unions on this?

 

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A...s-On-Agenda.htm

 

Trade Bill Puts Jobs On Agenda

 

Posted 10/03/2011 06:49 PM ET

 

Economy: After years of dithering and bowing to protectionists, President Obama finally submitted three pending free-trade pacts with South Korea, Panama and Colombia to Congress for a vote. Let the U.S. economy recover.

 

The president's decision marks the first bright economic move he has made to boost the nation's ailing economy. Dropping tariffs, opening markets and equalizing investment terms are a proven way to boost economic growth.

 

Contrary to all the nonsense about outsourcing and giant sucking sounds, the real impact of free trade is new freedom and opportunity.

 

The pacts are now on their way to a vote in Congress after a long delay, marking Obama's first real shift from campaign demagogue captive to special interests to President of the entire U.S.

 

"These agreements will support tens of thousands of jobs across the country for workers making products stamped with three proud words: Made in America," the White House said in a statement.

 

The White House knows this is a winner: "Growing American exports to South Korea, Colombia and Panama will support tens of thousands of jobs here at home," said U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, who encouraged the bill's passage "without delay."

 

The legislative process will begin next week, and both the White House and congressional leaders say the votes are there to pass it. But they always have been — the big change is the end of the president's hesitancy to submit them and Big Labor's campaign to block it.

 

The U.S. now stands to win $40 billion in new trade from the South Korea, Panama and Colombia pacts, and will add $10 billion to U.S. GDP. Made-in-America exports are expected to soar — they always do in the first years of a trade deal.

 

U.S. businesses will have a fighting chance against competitors that have already signed free-trade deals. And our trading partners often prefer American goods over any other, as the U.S. envoys to Chile, Peru and Brazil told a Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce gathering last week — a significant competitive advantage.

 

Best of all, there will be lots of jobs — for Americans.

 

"When a business says we've got a contract to sell more products to Colombia or Korea and because of that, it means we have jobs in the factory," then it will be obvious, Ambassador Kirk told reporters Monday.

 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates some 250,000 jobs will be created from all three pacts, and 380,000 will avoid layoffs as we take back business lost to Canada and the European Union.

 

To be sure, the pacts have included significant compromises with unions, which insisted on $1.5 billion in Trade Adjustment Assistance, a "Labor Action Plan" against Colombia and nearly five years of delays.

 

But no nation has ever developed without free trade, as former Chilean finance minister Hernan Buchi observed. He should know: Chile has 60 free-trade pacts and a record of economic growth.

 

Obama's move will bring U.S. free-trade pacts from 17 to 20 — the first gain since 2007. Opening new markets for American companies will also open the door to lots of new jobs — and one of them could be Obama's own.

[Rex Kickass]

The Obama administration essentially renegotiated those treaties to help repair some of the risks to American workers that this entails, from what I understand. This is one thing that I am glad that the Obama administration flipped on this term.

[mr_genius]

Chris Christie announces he's not running for President. Maybe now FOX can stop shilling for this guy every 5 minutes.

[Texsox]

Chris Christie announces he's not running for President. Maybe now FOX can stop shilling for this guy every 5 minutes.

His campaign for VP just kicked off . . .

[NorthSideSox72]

His campaign for VP just kicked off . . .

With what he said in his speech, I tend to doubt he wants to be a VP.

 

But it is worth noting, if the GOP nomination goes to someone on the more conservative end of things, they will probably look for a VP candidate who is more moderate, looking to use that as help in the general election. Similarly, if a moderate candidate wins the nom, they will look for a tea party type as VP.

 

[southsider2k5]

With what he said in his speech, I tend to doubt he wants to be a VP.

 

But it is worth noting, if the GOP nomination goes to someone on the more conservative end of things, they will probably look for a VP candidate who is more moderate, looking to use that as help in the general election. Similarly, if a moderate candidate wins the nom, they will look for a tea party type as VP.

 

Everyone here is convinced Mitch Daniels has a deal with one of the current leaders.

[Rex Kickass]

I think Romney won't bring Christie on when he gets the nod. Geographically it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't do a lot to excite the base of GOP voters - and this is going to be a lot more like 2004 than 2008 - where its a race to bring out the base.

[EvilMonkey]

I think Romney won't bring Christie on when he gets the nod. Geographically it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't do a lot to excite the base of GOP voters - and this is going to be a lot more like 2004 than 2008 - where its a race to bring out the base.

Rubio for VP