Should Ted Kennedy be tried for Treason?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 2 2006, 09:03 PM) [snapback]343029[/snapback]</div>

No fan here but I would think that you would have to know what statements were in this communication . . . ["]Mr. Kennedy had two proposals for Andropov, according to Chebrikov. First, he asked for a meeting later that summer in order "to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA."

In any case I should think that the citizens of Mass would vote him out of office, ya think?!?

Wildkow

 

It is not treason to meet with foreign leaders in an attempt to reduce the level of tension between two countries capable of blowing the world to smithereens.

Remember that Ronald Reagan conspired with the Iranian ayatollahs, promising them armaments if they would hold the hostages long enough to insure Jimmy Carter's defeat in the upcoming presidential elections. Once elected, Reagan kept his promise, selling weapons to Iran, in violation of US law, and rewarding Iran for taking US hostages and holding them a little longer than they otherwise might have done, and used the profits from those sales to fund the illegal Contra war in Nicaragua. (I have said that I consider all wars illegal, but that war was specifically made illegal by an act of Congress that Reagan himself signed.)

Now, if you want to put Ted Kennedy in prison for drunk driving and manslaughter, I'm all with you. But of treason he is innocent.

 

Remember that Ronald Reagan scared the crap out of the Iranian ayatollahs, promising them armaments dropped in their laps if they would not release the hostages before he got into office and could order the action. This was enough to insure Jimmy Carter's defeat in the upcoming presidential elections. Once elected, Reagan did not need to keep this promise of dropping weapons on Iran.

Just another way to word it so that it can include the good old ugly truth.

The fiction version you made was fun though...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 3 2006, 10:49 AM) [snapback]343173[/snapback]</div>

When talking about Reagan, please also remember that Ronald Reagan did a lot more than just that. He created, armed, and financed the Taliban and helped Osama Bin Laden become the leader he is today! Sure, the Taliban were crazy fundamentalists, but they were our crazy fundamentalists. Wanna talk about someone who should have been put on trial... Reagan was the man.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 3 2006, 10:11 AM) [snapback]343181[/snapback]</div>

Typical RW bullshit.

If you are gonna accuse someone of fiction before posting some of your own, sweet Daron, then please provide a cite. Do you remember the 1980's? A little thing called Iran Contra? The arms sales to Iran made in exchange for the release of the hostages, and the ongoing profits from the arms sales used to fund the Contras?

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825447.html





<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Nov 3 2006, 10:19 AM) [snapback]343184[/snapback]</div>

And Saddam Hussein, since he was going to fight those evil Iranian ayatollahs, but wait, we, we were secretly arming them. Both sides were our customer! I guess that's a win-win in some folks eyes, but as Chalmers Johnson points out, blowback is a bitch. I hear a lot of people say 911 is Clinton's fault, but I think it really belongs on Ronnie's head.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 3 2006, 09:49 AM) [snapback]343173[/snapback]</div>

Parargraph #1 - I am not sure where treason begins and ends in certain circumstances. I know Jane Fonda should have been tried for treason when she went to North Vietnam and stood upon a shot-down US Air Force jet and proclaimed her support for our, then, wartime enemy. In her view she was trying to reduce the level of tension between the two countries.

Paragraph 2 - without accusing you of lying - please show evidence that Reagan conspired with whom you acccuse him of conspiring with. With or without the hostages Carter was going to be flushed down the toilet of American presidential elections into the terminal sewage system for total incompetance.

And how did you get from Ted "should have driven a Beetle" Kennedy to Reagan? Geeeeez. At least we agree to some degree although I would send him up the river for manslaughter.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 3 2006, 09:30 AM) [snapback]343190[/snapback]</div>

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."

So... how does Jane Fonda fit in there? she wasn't helping to overthrow the government, she wasn't trying to make war against the US, and she didn't seriously injure us... instead, she loudly proclaimed her support for one side over another in a war, much like people do today with the "we shouldn't be in Iraq", "The war in Iraq is illegal" and such. Are all of those people traitors because they choose not to support our side of the war?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 3 2006, 10:37 AM) [snapback]343194[/snapback]</div>

I am not a legal expert. I can however let my moral and ethical compass guide me through murky waters during wartime that aiding and abetting the enemy (giving comfort to the enemy) is probably wrong - how wrong I leave that to the lawyers.

You do not have to cause physical harm to be guilty of treason - she went beyond declaring support of our enemy (like Murtha, Kerry, NY Times, Pelosi, et al :lol: ) she traveled there, stood on top of a downed USAF jet which may have associated with the capture and possibly death of US military men.

You can support whomever you want - brave Americans have died for you to choose sides - with us or against us you are still us. I think if someone goes over to Iraq and offer support and comfort for those that have killed or captured US soldiers would be guilty of poor moral and ethical judgement -- whether or not they would be guilty of treason would be for the government to find out.

 

Obviously Kennedy should be tried for treason. That'll fix everything right up. Thanks, Doc.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher @ Nov 3 2006, 11:16 AM) [snapback]343224[/snapback]</div>

It would not fix everything right up - it will however save our sore eyes from the sight of Teddy "I done drown Mary Joe" Kennedy sitting on the judiciary committee passing judgement of SC justice nominees - I found that sight sickening - but leave it to God to find some irony in life -

like...


John Kerry getting "stuck" serving in Nam because he was a D student while Bush was obvioulsy smarter - not to getting stuck in Nam :lol:

Did Johnny Boy ever apologize to the troops??

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 3 2006, 08:11 AM) [snapback]343181[/snapback]</div>

CAN YOU EVEN BELIEVE THE NERVE OF THIS REVISIONIST CRAP? Obviously the poster never came down from his 1980's cocaine high!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Nov 3 2006, 11:47 AM) [snapback]343265[/snapback]</div>

almost like:

oral sex not being sex. Jeez, I can imagine tons of people not having sex now thanks to our recently impeached or was it disbarred or both ex president.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Nov 3 2006, 11:47 AM) [snapback]343265[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, see my earlier post. Some days I really think Reagan was really the downfall of a lot of things in this country: The whole deregulation movement, firing the air traffic controllers, the saving and loan looting etc. etc.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Nov 3 2006, 11:54 AM) [snapback]343269[/snapback]</div>

I know how you feel - the winning of the cold war, his taming of inflation, a booming economy, a restoration of American resolve...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Nov 3 2006, 09:54 AM) [snapback]343269[/snapback]</div>

This is a very well kept secret. For his track record only look at California. Once a beacon of a state long desirable as the pot at the end of the rainbow. Then Reagan became governor. Cut and slashed budgets and taxes to the bone, leaving LONG_TERM damage to all parts of the state's responsibilities. But Ronnie was nothing if not smart. The cuts and policies he implemented didn't take effect till long after he left office, same as when he was president, so it is very hard to definitively 'blame' him. Back to CA. For the 40 years since Ronnie's departure as gov. the state has become the laughing stock of the country. A long step from the enviable place in the sun of prior reputation. Same parallel to the national scene. Things humming along all but not perfectly. Regan comes along. Slashes long term budgets and gives the money to the rich. Funding dries up after years of slow deflation of those budgets. Reagan's long gone. His rich friends have taken the money and moved on. The rest of the populace suffers more and more each year well into the future. At the end of his term Reagan was so far gone mentally even Margaret Thatcher, his compadre, wondered aloud about his ability to govern. He leaves office and immediately goes to Japan and gives 5 speeches for a million dollars per then comes home. Payola? you decide. The republicans knew he was mentally incompetent and broke every law in the land (Iran Contra, encouraging Iran to hold hostages till his race was won, and others). They had 2 choices. Feed him to the law/democrats or raise him up to god like status where they were supremely confident his illegalities would not be questioned because of his 'enhanced' status. Smart!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Nov 3 2006, 01:24 PM) [snapback]343329[/snapback]</div>

I won't tell if you won't. Can you buy tin foil in California?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 3 2006, 01:48 PM) [snapback]343305[/snapback]</div>

Yes, Ronnie did a lot of amazing things.... his list goes on and on. Allow me to add: The Taleban, Al Queda, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Nov 3 2006, 01:48 PM) [snapback]343351[/snapback]</div>

And he has an aircraft carrier named after him too, correct? What type of ship will they use to honor Clinton - a submarine :lol: Perhaps a destroyher :lol: :lol:

I know what type of ship they will use to honor Hillary if necessary... a Frigid I mean frigate :lol: