Some of you guys are just plain embarassing, scratching your hairy 'nads in public. Tough guys. Lord, why so many hard asses? When will this baboon shit finally wash out of our gene pool?
Are these people naive? Misguided? Likely so. Foolish. Risking your life to stop people from killing people…
But ask yourself this: in a world where everybody and his cousin either is or soon will be armed with nukes…what kind of people do we need more of? Hard asses, or holy fools?
In general terms, historically being a hrad ass has had much better survival odds than does being a “holy fool” (a term misapplied in this instance ).
While I suppose I can admire the earnest zeal of the people, their ardor to avert war would be much more wisely applied in their home countries by leading active nonviolent resistance against the war, such as leading a General Strike, organizing traffic and transport delays, and so forth.
Sticking your body in front of a tank is just ensuring a quick demise.
luc: When will this baboon shit finally wash out of our gene pool?
Calling for treason charges and the death penalty against civil-disobedients who are placing their lives in extreme peril in the hope of averting catastrophe from innocent civilians is “baboon shit”? Isn’t that kind of unfair to baboons?
If they would only turn on their laser pointers they were playing with on the long bus ride and hold them real steady like …
I have special dispensation from a Primate of the Church.
Legally, what constitutes an “enemy”? When does Iraq become an enemy, legally, as compared to Egypt, Vietnam, or Antarctica?
I said in the op if and when we declare war on Iraq.
The Americans will be arrested under the Patriot Act. Other foreign nationals will be sent to Guantanamo as illegal non-combatants ("…conspiring to deflect anti-personnel ordinance by unauthorized absorption…").
The Canadians will be returned home. Serves 'em right.
See, now, elucidator, you’re giving the Bushistas waaay too much credit. Why bother arresting, or detaining, any of these fine upstanding (crazy) folks? We can just bomb them! And dem Iraqi civilians too!
Two birds with one stone that gathers no moss, or somesuch.
Don’t forget to grab the oil on your way out. Thanks much!
This is the second time you’ve asked a rhetorical question that I would answer opposite to your assumption. 
MuadDib: there’s not going to be a formal declaration of war, as usual. The Congress did insist on passing a resolution to rubber stamp Bush, but Bush made it clear, in an infamous remark to a reporter, that he and he alone will decide if and when we invade Iraq.
And he’s right too. The Congress long ago ceased to have any real say over whether we decide to go to war against another country. Which is very sad, and very bad.
Well unlike nutwrench, I think there is a good chance that the actions of human shields would affect how we conduct the war - bombing human shields would be a PR disaster. Unfortunately, while it won’t stop the war, it probably will end up getting more people on both sides killed because of the hesitation and confusion it will cause.
I agree completely. Thier presence in Iraq will not deter the Bushista for one second. They would be better off trying to initiate change at home.
A charge of treason is not contigent upon a formal declaration of war. The two are mutually exclusive.
What?!?! Explain.
UnuMondo
I don’t suppose you’d care to provide a citation for this? Specifically, a citation that it’s a crime in Iraq?
It may be “dumb and reckless” on their part, but I’d go for dumb, reckless, and heroic over blind obedience any day. I wouldn’t care one way or another whether or not they should be tried for treason. I’d still call them heroes in my book.
Dumb? Perhaps. Reckless? Possibly. Did they open a few eyes? Definitely. That’s what they’re out there for. Heroes in my book.
The US Constitution Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:
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.
George HW Bush gave aid to Saddam back in the late 80s, so by this definition Bush is a traitor. Oliver North sold arms to our enemies, the Iranians, so he is a traitor too.
The human shields are not traitors, they are heroes putting their lives on the line to protest an immoral and illegal war. I have much more respect for them than for all your bloodthirsty chickenhawks.
I don’t see as how any of those purported human shields are putting their lives on the line. They’re asserting, are they not, that our Armed Forces are going to target civilians and thus they’re going to be “shielding” civilian entities. As our Armed Forces aren’t targeting civilians, that’s pretty much the same as a walk in one’s front yard.
Source: Article III., Section 3. of the US Constitution.
Article I., Section 8. of the US Constitution.
The classic case - Aaron Burr. Regardless of the outcome of the case, the USA was not engaged in a war, declared or otherwise, at the time of Burr’s alleged treasonous activities. Of course, bringing a charge of treason because of actions occurring in a declared war may be quite a bit easier. After all, SCOTUS upheld a charge of treason occurring within the constraint of a declared war for the first time in 1947 in Haupt v. United States.
Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html#1
The “label” being referred is the Rosenberg case where … “holding that in a prosecution under the Espionage Act for giving aid to a country, not an enemy, an offense distinct from treason, neither the two-witness rule nor the requirement as to the overt act is applicable.” Ibid.
Personally, I don’t think the American protesters in the OP could be charged with espionage. However, although Burr was never convicted, the case does reflect the government’s attempt (well, Jefferson in particular) to charge someone with treason outside of any formal declaration of war, or even any defined hostilities. To that end, the voluntary American protestors being human shields for Iraq might very well be charged with treason becase they could very well be giving aid and comfort to the enemy, if only for the fact the President sees Iraq already as an enemy of the United States.
Possibly on stronger grounds, Iraq was an enemy under UN requirements, requiring the UN to act in Gulf War I. Since Saddam has effectively abrogated his responsibilities since the ending of Gulf War I., he is in violation of UN resolutions once again. And since the USA is a party to the UN via treaty, and that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding,” (Article IV., US Constitution), the protestors are giving aid and comfort to and enemy of the United States via this circuitous route.