I have, despite my growing anger with the Deciderer, to endorse John’s post 100%.
Remember when Ann Coulter’s book Treason came out? And she indicted every liberal or Democrat for actions that were “tantamount to treason”? I was so angry that otherwise civilized human beings would claim to agree with her that I lost at least one good friend for doing so.
It doesn’t sound any better on you folks. There’s a very good historical reason that the bar for treason is set as high as it is, and abuse of the term, for whatever reason, is well-poisoning at its worst.
Polycarp, how does publicly identifying one of your own spies not give aid and comfort to the enemy? Isn’t it, in fact, an ideal scenario for any enemy that an opponent’s spy is identified and taken out of active service?
Maher also believes ghosts are real and that psychics like John Edward can communicate with them. He believes in a ton of New Age BS and supports PETA. Like you said though, that’s got no bearing on the validity of his arguments re Cheney/Bush.
I can’t remember if it was Maher himself, or one of his guests on Politically Incorrect, who argued that ghosts were real, because Arthur Conan Doyle believed in them, and Doyle created Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes was super logical and rational, so that meant that the existence of ghosts was also logical and rational.
I’m afraid I’m getting this all from when I used to watch PI. I haven’t seen his new show. I doubt any of the PI stuff is up on Youtube, so you’ll have to take my word for it. I saw a show with Penn Jillette and some psychic where Penn was sitting slack-jawed as Maher asked “can you prove it isn’t true?” and went on about how he knew ghosts were real because one re-arranged the balls on his pool table once.
I do think that believing in something and defending something are different. Jillette, it seems to me, dismisses paranormal claims out of hand; but a skeptic is not supposed to dismiss (or accept) anything out of hand. James Randi is a good example. Despite his personality quirks, he’s a good skeptic. If he believed he already knew that ESP was not possible, then offering the million would be an empty gesture. He’d be just a hammy attention whore. But I’ve heard him express that his motivation is to find out whether paranormal claims are true. And that’s practically the definition of one school in classical skepticism — disavowal of the certainty of knowledge.
Polycarp, where did your ability to reason and make distinctions go? Are you actually saying there is no distinction to be made between Democrats who oppose the President’s policies and Republicans who deliberately outed a CIA covert agent to the press? Do you honestly not see a huge difference there? I understand that John doesn’t see it, he’s got his ideological blinkers on. But are those blinkers such a good fit for you?
I think I know what you are getting at, and if I do, your post is beside the point. The pupose of this thread is not compare Bush’s crimes for heinousness.
Take this for my take on the issue, for whatever that’s worth:
John Mace appears to be setting out that he sees two different contexts for the use of the terms “traitor” and “treason”. There is the legal context, and the colloquial context. In the legal context, the object of the term has met the definition of treason as laid out in the Constitution. In the colloquial context, the speaker is expressing his contempt for his subject as having caused harm to his country and to his country’s interests to a degree similar to the harm caused by actual treason. One is prosecutable (as treason); the other is not.
John Mace seems to be treating Maher’s rant as an accusation of actual treason against the Prexy and the Veep. Viewed in this light, John Mace is saying that Maher is wrong, and that the two scumbags are not prosecutable for atcual treason. This, in my view, is what Polycarp is agreeing with.
I have the sense that as far as Polycarp is concerned, Ann Coulter has conflated the legal and the colloquial usages [of the words “traitor” and “treason”] so insidiously that there is no longer any place in the national discourse for colloquial usage of “treason” or “traitor”.
I may be entirely wrong about every motivation that I have speculatively assigned to both of these men. One thing I’m not wrong about is my assessment that Polycarp is not toying with any ideological blinkers that might allow Bush and Cheney to escape his opprobrium.
Kaylasdad has it in one, and very well expressed. La Coulter’s screeds have sufficiently muddied the waters that there is no longer a valid metaphorical use of the term (if there ever was; I have my doubts).
Do I think outing Valerie Plame is reprehensible? Bet your sweet bippy I do! Prosecutable? Absolutely. Grounds for impeachment (especially coupled with all the other lies and exfoliation of rights)? I’ve been on the fence on this for some time, and tend to lean pro-impeachment now. I think impeachment is something that should be done for the good of the nation, never for political advantage – but I’m getting the clear message that Mr Bush believes he is above the law, and answerable to no one except his personal image of God, which always agrees with him. But even with that caveat, look carefully at the grounds for impeachment.
Accusation of treason was a device used for political ends throughout late Stuart and early Hanover England and Scotland. Many good public servants were destroyed in that way for political ends. The FF knew what they were doing when they placed careful restrictions on the charge and filed it in the constitution.
Outing Plame was a vile act, for which those responsible should be prosecuted, and locked up for the maximum sentence the law permits. But it does not approach the level of an overt act that directly aids and supports an enemy of this country, and I do think that’s an important distinction.
my recoolection of threads at the time was that the outing of a covert agent is prosecutable, generally, however, Bush has the power to declassify info, therefore, if Bush says it, it’s not outing classified info.,
If had Bush declassified the data, why didn’t he tell Fitzgerald and save everyone a lot of time? And why did he say he’d fire whoever had leaked the data? AFAIK, even the president can’t declassify things retroactively.
If George W. Bush is an American citizen, bound by our laws, then why hasn’t he been charged with treason? Or, why hasn’t a very smart attorney who knows the law made an excellent case against Bush and had him charged with treason?
And, will this occur the day after he leaves office? ( One can but hope… )
