So, you would say that giving intel that gets our people killed and damages our operations around the world is not any form of aid or comfort?
“To the enemy”, yes. Which enemy are you talking about, and who got killed by them?
We were just a few posts ago talking about a hypothetical situation in which trump hands putin a list of operatives in russia, and putin has them all killed, and whether or not that would be a traitorous thing to do.
I think that, even if the president is protected from the consequences of these actions due to the nature of his office, that is still treason, in that it gives aid to our enemies. Others feel that because he is the president, he cannot commit treason, no matter how grievous the offense. If trump ordered a nuclear strike on american territory at the direct command of putin, because that is something that that office holder is able to do, it wouldn’t be illegal. I would still consider it treason, though, ommv.
Lets say you are in a smallish town, and you have elected a new mayor based on a populist demagoguery campaign. Now, because in the past, when mayors were of a different party or philosophy of the chief of police, the police would pull the mayor over constantly, making up violations. So, in the town charter there is a clause that makes the mayor immune to traffic and parking laws. Some mayors in the past have taken advantage of this; they speed a bit, sometimes they double park in front of city hall when there isn’t available parking and they need to attend a meeting.
So, we have this new mayor, and he decides that this immunity is great, so he speeds through town at 100+ mph while drunk, crashing into other cars and buildings, causing considerable property damage and personal injury, and parks his car in the middle of a main intersection, effectively stopping all traffic in the town.
Now, when it is pointed out that his behavior is detrimental to the community, and that he is “above the law”, his defenders come back with showing that police too have the ability to drive at high rates of speed, they are usually immune to suits about property damage, and they can block traffic, and so is the mayor is “above the law”, then so are they. That certain duly sworn officers have, in certain places and circumstances similar powers to what they mayor has at all times and places and circumstances is shown as if there is an equivalency there; that the mayor is justified in his actions, because sometimes police take somewhat similar actions.
I think the bigger issue with the treason charge is that Russia isn’t an enemy. Has anyone ever been convicted of treason under the “enemy” clause where the country in question and the US were not in a state of armed conflict?
Does “enemy” have a legal definition that requires a state of armed conflict?
I don’t think so, which is why I asked the question (see the link upthread to the GQ thread I started on that subject over a year ago). If we never before considered a country to be “the enemy” when we weren’t in a state of armed conflict, you’re charity new judicial territory. And considering that you can get the death penalty for treason, charting new territory in that area is pretty risky. As people keep mentioning:
The Rosenbergs were convicted of selling nuclear secrets to the Soviets, but they weren’t charge with treason.
John Lindh was convicted of fighting with the Taliban against he US in Afghanistan and even he wasn’t charged with treason.
Right. According to wiki:
A summit with Russia doesn’t meet the criteria, by far. Congressmen and tv people who say otherwise are trolling.
To continue to debate along the lines of this digression, I will point out that in the hypothetical that I mentioned, if russia is openly executing our operatives, then yes, they would be a pretty open enemy of ours.
But, this is a digression of semantics to avoid the actual question. The wording of the OP is traitor, and while you may only consider a traitor to be someone who is convicted of the narrow definition of the United States crime of treason, the actual definition of a traitor is someone who betrays their country (or friend, principle, etc). That I can find, Benedict Arnold was not convicted of treason, do you consider him to have not betrayed our country? Did the Rosenbergs not betray us, are they not traitors, in your mind?
So, by changing the subject that we are talking about, “Is donald trump betraying his country” to what you want to talk about, “Does donald trump’s actions fit the narrow legal criteria of the US legal code of treason” you can make a point, but it is a point that has no relevance to the actual question asked by the OP.
If you feel that his actions do not betray our country, then defend him on those grounds. Don’t change the argument to one in which you can win on pedantic semantics, while completely ignoring the actual point of the OP’s question.
This thread has had a lot of twists and turns in it, but you did just then respond to a post that specifically cited the constitutional definition of treason, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable that I thought that was what we were talking about at the moment.
You are correct that I followed D’Anconia’s digression from the actual topic, and answered directly his question that I would feel that aiding a foreign power in causing harm to our country would fall under the guise of treason. That I did allow myself to be distracted by his diversion from the topic does not mean that the conversation has changed. You yourself asked,
So, you do know what the actual question of the thread is. And the answer is yes, he has betrayed our country. Do you feel otherwise?
Having a summit with the President of Russia is not “betraying our country.”
Who said it was?
I thought it was obvious why I asked that. If not, it’s because people were hijacking the thread to talk about voter ID laws and such.
The actual question in the OP was:
No, I don’t think that. I think Trump is acting on Trump’s behalf to enrich Trump.
OK then explain yourself. How has President Trump “betrayed our country”? Please provide cites.
I thought it was too, at the time, but now I’m not sure. Did you ask that rhetorically, or did you ask that looking for someone to actually answer it?
If someone is selling out to the highest bidder, that’s not betrayal? I have no impression that he is doing it out of loyalty to russia, but loyalty to a foreign govt is not necessary for betrayal, only betrayal is, for whatever motivation. Are you saying that if someone is selling classified secrets for profit, rather than political motivation, then they are not a traitor?
Yes, the united states is being undermined, and it is being undermined to the benefit of russia, and trump is the one doing so.
He has caused a great deal of harm to our reputation abroad, he has given recognition as equals to brutal dictators, he has equivocated that the actions that the US has taken are not any better than that of dictators and strongmen.
He has threatened the long term stability of our govt and economy with tax give aways to his wealthy peers. He has threatened the short and mid term stability of our economy with unnecessary trade wars.
Other countries are benefiting, some that we have been at odds with for decades, at the expense of our country and that of our allies, and it is specifically because of decisions that trump has made, due to his desire for personal enrichment over the benefit of the country that he represents.
He has called for an increase in police brutality, undermining the public’s trust in local law enforcement.
He has undermined our country’s federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies that he now controls by starting and spreading false and malicious stories while using the bully box of the presidency.
He has specifically given russia intelligence that was entrusted to us by foreign governments, meaning that those governments intelligence agencies are no longer willing to share information that could be crucial to our protection.
I could go on, but I’m a combination of sickened and bored with this list, and I am sure that he will do something next week that will top that anyway.
Now, you may feel that these are all the qualities of a leader that you admire, and that being weakened on the world stage and having our economy falter due to his whims is a great thing, so it is a matter of opinion as to how much damage a person can do before you would consider them to have betrayed the office to which you placed him, so ymmv.
So, then explain yourself, why would you think that a a summit with putin was the entirety of the grievances against this man, to the point of repeating your inane question? What actions would it take for a president to be considered to be working against the interests of the country he is elected to represent, in your eyes?
So no cites. In my opinion, Great Debates should be about facts, not random opinions.
Also, what’s wrong with your caps lock button?
That’s an exceedingly inapt summary of what I said. While it’s true that I invoked phony psychics (as opposed to the real ones??) I did so only to rebut the claim that failed predictions didn’t matter.
I do it to impose a cost on the makers of false predictions. They are otherwise free to gain a rhetorical advantage during discussion, and then escape any scorn when their failures materialize. There is an analogy to bad psychics, true, but that analogy ends with their failure: I never said they were claiming to be psychic. They are just claiming insight and confidence, and that confidence should be tested with reference to their success rate.
I certainly understand your reluctance to adopt that approach.
Dispute any of those, then. I’ll cite them if you challenge them.
Those are betrayals of our country, which is the definition of a traitor. Now, if you admire those qualities, then that may make you have a favorable opinion of a traitor, but those are the facts, whether you admire the traitor for his actions against our country or not.
Could you elaborate on what you perceive the issue to be there?
You must write some pretty nasty mails to your local weatherman nearly every day.
Where are you cites that the President has "betrayed the United States?
Again, a factual cite, not your opinion.