When will we arrest these fools for treason!

edit

a1ziggyman:

The government run media needs to be put to rest, and all those that have climbed into that bag should be tried for treason as well.  I'm not sure of this but, in a time of war, is not treason punishable by death?  I've been noticing that this is not a war on terrorism as well.  It's a war to gain control.  Look at the map of the EU. If Turkey becomes a part of it, then the Perisan Gulf, which will not join the EU willingly, will be heavily and completely surrounded by the EU.  Overthrowing the Persian Gulf and incorporating it ,by force, into either the EU or the NAU (should it happen) is just another step towards the master plan of OWO.

I believe Brian Ross should be held for treason. His broadcast behavior has given information along with aid and comfort to US enemies and he (as most broadcasters do) is siding with an enemy against the United States.

Bush bashing is one thing, and he should be bashed but to attack our efforts and in fact agree with the enemy, should be considered treasonous.

I also think if treasonous behavior is considered, half the Congress (Pelosi, Reid, Slaughter come to mind) and the Administration should be considered too!

If the NAU isn't reason enough, what would be?

It is interesting to note that one reason treason is so seldom prosecuted is because the treasonous person knows many things which might become public knowledge in a trial, but which should not.  Spies are often given a lesser conviction to keep national secrets secret.

With these media types, there is probably no concern about them knowing anything else.  They are blabbing about everything they know.  So we must conclude that they have pictures on somebody, they know even more than they are telling, they are being fed misinformation, or they got their information from people who don't want to be fingered in the treachery.  It would be good to set a few examples in the media.

a12iggymom said: Any lawyer-types..., Is it possible for a private citizen, or group of private citizens, to initiate treason against, say a Congressman, news person ect?

Well, actually, no.  NO individual or group of individuals has legal standing to bring such a charge against anyone.  The criminal judicial systems of this nation are Constitutionally set up in a manner that a District Attorney or U.S. Attorney may file, at his/her discretion, certain criminal charges by an information if the alleged crime is a misdemeanor and the prosecution process can begin.  In the case of a felony (treason would be felonious conduct) complaint it must be submitted by a District Attorney or U.S. Attorney and/or his/her disignee to an impaneled Grand Jury for its considerations and decision to vote a true bill (indictment) or no-bill (dismissal) against the accused with respect to the alleged crime.

That said,  there certainly is no legal prohibition of a "Concerned Citizen/Citizen Group" gathering his/her/their evidence together and reporting it to either the duly authorized investigative arm of a prosecutorial agency of government or to the agency itself.  It may or may not then be acted upon but the citizen/citizen group certainly can do the reporting and continue to request that it be followed up on or followed through with.

You may be thinking about the doctrine of a citizen or group of citizens filing a civil suit on behalf of the government.  In legalese it is known as a Qui Tam claim or lawsuit, which is, to wit: An abbreviated version of the Latin phrase "Qui Tam pro domino rege quam pro si ipso in hac parte sequitur," which means "Who sues on behalf of the King, as well as for Himself." In Qui Tam litigation a private citizen (the whistleblower) who knows of fraud committed against the government may, through his own privately retained lawyers, file a law suit to recover the losses caused by the government fraud. The False Claims Act provides huge financial incentives to citizen whistleblowers to retain attorneys and come forward,  prosecute these lawsuits and fight government fraud.

FeedFwd said:

It is interesting to note that one reason treason is so seldom prosecuted is because the treasonous person knows many things which might become public knowledge in a trial, but which should not.  Spies are often given a lesser conviction to keep national secrets secret.

 

Lewis W. Jones III said: Has anyone thought that the information that leaked out was supposed to do just that!

Astute, sir, very astute.  Recall during WWII how many times our government and military purposely leaked disinformation and misinformation?  Thankfully, Germany and Japan took much of the information as credible and moved troops into a position where "no one showed up for battle" but instead kicked the enemy all over another battlefield where it didn't expect us to be.  D-Day comes to mind.

Great wartime strategy.  Sometimes it also works very well in political and civil warfare as well. 

Always keep your friends close to you and keep your enemies even closer.

Esquir and Lewis,   If it weren't for the fact that the media of today is not the media of by-gone years, I'd say it is highly unlikely.

I don't think I'd believe the current crop of media if they said the sky was blue!

 And thank you for the legal info. It's been on my mind awhile now why no one has even mentioned legal action.

Kaksdesign said: I'll never understand why the media/reporters/journalists in this country are bent on destroying us with their leaks and innuendos and blatant disregard for the safety of American citizens.  This aiding and abetting is too much!  It's treasonous, but no one will do a thing....unless it is us demanding resignations...

Definition of futility - trying to understand that which is not happening except perhaps in ones own mind. 

Democracies flourish because of a free press - not in spite of it.

I do agree with you on one point - there should be resignations.  The ganster-in-chief Bush and his unindicted co-conspirator Cheney are the ones who should be resigning - right before they are tried, convicted and imprisoned for war crimes.

I am in favor of securing our borders.  Both our southern and northern border.  I have lived in a border town all of my life, so I know about illegal aliens crossing and I have seen the drugs coming across the border.  First of all to you Bush bashers, our borders should have been secured way before Bush was president.  Clinton was in office 8 years and he did nothing to help secure our borders. He was probably to busy getting a blow job, that it slip his mine.  The 9-11 hijackers slipped through Canadian into the USA.  Why wasn't our borders secured then?  If you want to try anybody for "treason" we have to start with congress.  They are the ones that makes the laws and then don't follow them.  Then we can try the drive by media, for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  For falsely reporting!  They don't care on what they report if it is the truth or not.  The bottom line is that they hate Bush so much that they will print anything.  Even if it is false!

I may not agree with everything Bush has done, but in my opinion he has done a good job being PRESIDENT!