Exactly, better than winning the lotto, and more fun. You could even argue an educational benefit for it. I feel so noble. So, still on.
If you go around stealing money and stuff, sooner or later people may call you a thief, because that is what you are. Maybe you think because you do it with a pen rather than a gun, you’re not a thief, but you are a thief and everyone know it, and will call you a thief, and put you in jail if they have sufficient evidence.
Rove has betrayed a covert op of the U.S. potentially putting her life at risk, and the lives of her contacts at risk, and endangering us all by destroying the work of the WMD tracking team. He’s a traitor, and what he has done is, for all practical matters, treason. Us usual suspects will definitely call him on it. I think most regular folks will buy it, too. That’s your real problem.
Yes, but is thievery as intent grounds for treason?
What if the intent was not to put “lives at risk”, but to prevent the detection of theft? Is it still treason?
If the intent of that roadside bomb was not to kill people, but to drive out the infidel, is it still murder?
And note that Tim McVeigh was convicted of murder for the Oklahoma City bombings, not treason, although he was arguably attempting to spark a rebellion against the US government.
What Karl Rove did doesn’t fall into either the legal definition of treason or the everyday definition of treason.
I think the essence of our difference is this: you are arguing that there is a legal definition of treason, and that unless Rove can be shown to potentially meet that definition, no one should call his actions treason. I agree that there is a legal definition of treason. I also think there is a “street” definition of treason, which is betrayal of US government secrets in such a way that US citizens or their allies are exposed to direct and imminent danger of execution, torture or imprisonment as a result. What Rove did was treason under that definition, and he is a traitor to the US under that definition. Plame could have been targetted for assassination, her contacts could have been arrested, and some probably were. You’re absolutely fucking naive if you think counterespionage types the world over didn’t look into Valerie Plame’s associates as soon as Novak ran that column.
What’s more, Plame and the agency she was working with were tracking WMDs, specifically terrorists’ attempts to get WMDs – work that is vital to US security interests. His callous indifference may yet cost many American lives.
Rove is a traitor, guilty of treason, belongs in jail.
I guarantee there are a lot of veterans who will see that logic.
I see your point about not adhering to any old standard of treason, but that “direct and imminent danger of arrest, torture and imprisonment” is a very strong standard. Just disagreeing with the Administration’s lies, er, line, doesn’t really constitute treason under it, because there’s no direct and imminent danger as a result.
[/quote]
I’m not an expert in the law, it may very well be that Rove is guilty of several crimes for leaking classified documents. In fact it seems highly likely that he’s guilty in fact, although it also seems unlikely to me that he would ever be convicted of one of his crimes. He should be fired, of course. And while he might have to spend time in jail I find that highly unlikely given that thousands of people in Washington do what he did every day.
[/quote]
You seem pretty confident for a non-expert. A lot of people think Rove could be nailed on treason charges if the current investigation yeilds further fruit. I’ll accept the notion that you’re no friend of Bush but I think you’re a bit premature (OK, way premature) in giving up on getting Rove for treason, and I am CERTAIN that your strategy is all wrong – keeping the heat on Rove for treason tars the entire Bush administration for his excesses, whether they are legally treason or not. Treason is a word voters understand.
Our liberal democracy couldn’t function if the officials didn’t give reporters secret information. If revealing secret information were rigidly and uniformly enforced you’d find very few high government officials still on the streets. Of course the best solution would be to stop the mania for declaring information secret, and only classify really really important information secret and then prosecute those people who reveal that information. Instead we’ve got a system where information is declared secret routinely, and government officials leak that “secret” information to journalists (and each other) routinely, and very few people get in trouble for it except when someone is made an example of, like that poor slob Jonathan Randal who was mentioned earlier, although it appears that his crime wasn’t revealing secret information as such but rather making an enemy of someone with political connections who could make trouble for him.
One more thing. Personally, I’m a little annoyed at all the accusations of bad faith being thrown around here from both sides. It doesn’t exactly help the debate when you refuse to listen to someone who argues against you, on the grounds that they are sophists who only argue the way they do because they are members of a particular political party. If you think I’m only arguing with you because I’m a brain-numbed Republican robot who thinks Saint Bush can do no wrong, ask me who I voted for in the last presidential election. Go on, ask me.
If you disagree with me, argue against me. Refusing to argue against me on the grounds that I’m arguing in bad faith doesn’t help anyone. If you only want discussions with people who agree with you, quit SDMB and go over to MoveOn.org or Free Republic.
I don’t give a rat’s ass whether Rove keeps his job, or whether he goes to prison, and I think it is completely fair to use this issue of Rove’s crimes to tar the entire Bush administration since it is indeed typical of the way Bush and his cronies operate.
But I disagree that Rove’s crimes are treason. And I think the attempt to label them treasonous is counterproductive, since they are clearly not treasonous as a quick reading of the constitution will reveal.
[/QUOTE]
Possibly the govt. felt the case against McVeigh for murder was easier than treason – and the penalty was the same in either case. Not so with Rove.
May emphasis.
So, let’s get this straight. You are using treason in the "street " sense, but you still think he could be charged in a “legal” sense. You clearly want it both ways.
One thing you’re right about, though, is that most Americans do understand what treason is, and they undertand that what Rove is being accused of does not amount to treason. In fact, only 25% of those polled think that he did anything illegal, much less treasonous. Link
I’m sure you have data to support your claim, but just haven’t gotten around to posting it yet, right?
Even so, Evil Captor has a point about the value of effective talking points from the opposition.
According to a recent USA Today poll, 25 percent polled don’t even know who Karl Rove is. Yet. As more news comes out about this, the poll numbers keep changing, and so far not in Rove’s favor.
I’m not sure most Americans understand what treason is. The Republicans seemed to get mileage out of calling the opposition traitors - with no legal standing whatsoever.
But they got there first. It might not be as effective now, coming from the other side.
I absolutely agree. The operative word be “effective”, though. Saying Rove is guilty of treason is as “effective” as saying Bush = Hitler or Gitmo = Gulag.
Or (paraphrased) “Liberals want to give therapy and understanding for the 9/11 hijackers”? :dubious:
Sit up! Speak!
Good boy! Here’s a treat for you!
Regards,
Shodan
I disagree. Most people are not going to say Bush equal Hitler or Gitmo equal Gulag. But most people WILL say that deliberately betraying a CIA covert ops’ identity is treason. You have to get some common sense going here, John.
The best I can do is this survey which does not ask specifically about treason, but does indicate Rove is increasingly unpopular.
My point is that Dems and liberals need to keep accusing Rove of treason so the heat will stay on. I don’t understand where people get the gall to defend Rove. Do you honestly think he didn’t deliberately out Valerie Plame? If you think he did, do you think he is, if not treasonous, a traitor to his country? Did he not betray ANYONE with his actions?
But we don’t. Burning an undercover agent in an effort to hide a deliberate conspiracy to unnecessarily take the nation to war is quite serious enough, without suggesting hangings on the white house lawn.
A little bit of treason talk is enough to jolt the Bush faithful, but more than a little just sounds shrill, and shrillness makes people stop listening. It’d be a shame if no one listened when Fitzgerald finally speaks:
Prosecutor Examines White House Effort To Discredit Critic
From what I’ve heard from the more rabid assholes I work with (among others), the treason charge should be levelled against all those who dare question he Divinity of Rove, as he is vested and bathed in the Almighty Glory of Bushyness. Same old shit. I hope Fitzgerald crucifies Rove. I don’t care if the charge that sticks is treason or jaywalking. Just get him.
Especially Valerie Plame.
Now Look What She’s DONE:
Gee, I wonder why. If you keep accusing him of treason, people will “defend” him against that charge, since it’s an absurd charge. That’s the point I was making above. If you call Gitmo a “Gulag”, then you shift the debate into whether or not it’s a Gulag, instead of arguing about the real abuses that happen there.
Yes, the Republicans have refined the art of framing* the deabte, but you do it in a subtle manner, not running around screaming fire in a crowded theater.
*the link is only to the abstract, but if you can get a copy of the NYT Sunday Magazine from Jul-17-05, the article is well worth reading.
Forcing the Republicans to defend Rove against treason is exactly what I think we should do. What fun it would be to have Republicans saying, “Rove may have behaved like a traitor … he betrayed America … but what he did wasn’t treason.”
That’s topnotch framing, from my POV.
What you will probably get from Republicans is, “Look at what a bunch of exaggerated bullshit the accusations against Rove are, and what hysterical ninnies are making them. Doesn’t that suggest that all the other charges flung so freely by the Loony Left are equally worthy of ridicule? And are these kind of foaming lunatics you want running a government?”
Where there is smoke, there is often fire. But there is very rarely a nuclear detonation. Chicken Little was not a whistle-blower.
Regards,
Shodan