When is a person a traitor?

gottdi said:

Still no need to explain. I said you added into the context of his comment (Free Speech). I said his comment was not about (Free Speech). I never said it did not violate Free Speech now did I. You changed the context by adding that in. Lets keep it in context. Unless of course you intended to change the course of the thread by making that comment.

Click to expand...

perhaps you should take a closer look yourself.

I never claimed his comment was discussing free speech ... I said, I disagreed to a specific quote I referenced ...

infantry11b said:

those who advocate this and claim to be Americans are traitors and need to be treated as such.

Click to expand...

I said free speech swings both ways , that to treat them as traitors for voicing their opinions destroys free speech.

The only thing I did to his context ... was to point out ... something I disagree with in his suggestion.

gottdi said:

I only stated on the observation of what you did by inserting the term Free Speech into a comment that had nothing to do with the topic of Free Speech.

See now?

If at first you don't see, be patient, you will.

Click to expand...

I never changed any quote of his ... I never claimed he used the term Free Speech ... however ... I did point out that his suggestion effects free speech... And that I disagreed with his suggested use of what it means to be a traitor... and how low he was setting that bar.

Unless you think his suggestion would have no effect on free speech ... If so ... please explain?

PhantomPholly said:

I do not and did not advocate for charging every idiot who believes in perpetual motion (which is analogous to the belief that Liberalism promotes Prosperity) with the crime of Treason - and to suggest that I did so is both rude and disingenuous.

Click to expand...

I'm glad ...

It wasn't disingenuous at all because that is what is seemed like when I read this part, ( underlined )

PhantomPholly said:

But, Liberalism isn't just about TALKING about that idea. Liberalism ACTIVELY works to promote the overthrow of the foundation of the Constitution - the inviolability of personal property. As such all activists are actually traitors seeking the overthrow of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

PhantomPholly said:

Free speech is not unlimited -

Click to expand...

never said it was... several times I have stated myself about the limits of free speech.

PhantomPholly said:

Publicly talking about killing elected representatives can net you jail time, as can yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Click to expand...

we don't label them traitors and treat them as such ( execution ) ... do we?

Abuse the concept of 'free speech' and you can be punished... but doing what what infantry suggested,

infantry11b said:

those who advocate this and claim to be Americans are traitors and need to be treated as such.

Click to expand...

I am against and I disagree with that extreme suggestion.

PhantomPholly said:

You can yammer all you want about the harmlessness of "just talking about" ideas which are fundamentally EVIL - but a Just society does not tolerate ideas that ultimately lead to intolerance and slavery.

Click to expand...

but does a 'just' society label them as traitors and treat them as such ( execution ) ? ... or does it do as you posted above ... jail time and fines... the 'just' society does not do what infantry suggested.

PhantomPholly said:

Did we not make Slavery illegal in our Constitution? If so, why does anyone believe it is a legitimate topic of conversation to discuss, demonstrate, and actively plan for a society in which we are economic slaves of the State?

Click to expand...

I have no idea why someone would think that would be good to advocate ... however that does not change ... I do not support the idea of labeling them as traitors and treating them as such ( execution ) ... just for peacfully advocating their position ... even if I 100% disagree with their position... which is why I disagree with infrantry's statement.

PhantomPholly said:

No, you cannot have it both ways. Hiding behind "Free Speech" as an excuse to advocate for an idea which is hardly one moral step removed from advocating for the actual physical slavery of the bulk of the productive citizens of our country is simply a ploy that is part of a scam to trick the unwitting into relinquishing their God-given Rights. Such fraud is a crime and should result in incarceration.

Click to expand...

a crime ... fine ... I agree those who abuse 'free speech' ... should be punished ... but labeling them as traitors, and treating them as such ( execution ) ... just for advocating ??? I think that goes too far.... which is what I was disagreeing with infrantry about.

PhantomPholly said:

Are some people simply misinformed about the aims of Liberalism? Certainly. Do I advocate that just any old citizen should be jailed for speaking about Liberalism in fond tones? Certainly not - and it was utterly disingenuous of you to suggest I had.

Click to expand...

My position is that infrantry's use of 'advocate' sets the bar way too low ... as a means of finding someone as a traitor and treating them as such ( execution ).

Not disingenuous at all...

That was the impression I got from your post ( underlined ) ... I'm glad you clarified it above

PhantomPholly said:

But, Liberalism isn't just about TALKING about that idea. Liberalism ACTIVELY works to promote the overthrow of the foundation of the Constitution - the inviolability of personal property. As such all activists are actually traitors seeking the overthrow of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

PhantomPholly said:

I was clear - those to whom the word "Traitor" should apply are those officials entrusted with the safekeeping of our Constitution and sworn to protect it, yet who are actively working to subvert it. It is for that precise purpose that the crime was specifically included in the Constitution, and it should be exercised - regularly, if necessary.

Click to expand...

I am glad you cleared it up in this post ... the previous one it was ... not clear ... at one point you are claiming , "all activists are actually traitors" , which is just as broad as the suggestion infrantry made that I was disagreeing with ... and then you claimed "Personally, I think most Liberals would cease and desist after a few executions - so to try them all would be a waste of time." ... a waste of time? ... that doesn't read like you didn't want to apply the term traitor to them ... or that it would be going to far ... it read like ... you thought it would be a waste of time to execute them all.

So I am glad you cleared it up.

Hoever , that still leaves me with the same position.

I strongly disagree with Infrantry's statement,

infantry11b said:

those who advocate this and claim to be Americans are traitors and need to be treated as such.

Click to expand...

Which is what I was disagreeing with from the beginning ... before you decided to defend this statement.

You did not not change the quote and I never said you did. I did say you changed the context of the topic by inserting in your original comment ( Free Speech). The topic you make this remark about has nothing to do with free speech at all. What you did was swing the topic another direction. It is quite common in the political arena to do things like this to swing the topic to a specific side or argument that only benefits the one making the change. If you are observant you will see this time and time again. One more lesson. Every one who speaks or writes is exercising his or her right of free speech. We have all taken or are taking history and know what free speech is all about. We don't need your input on that subject.

I neither agree or disagree on the comments of the post but can comment on each if you wish me to join in and make some political observations.

100% disagree.

free speech swings both ways.

to treat them as traitors for voicing their opinions destroys free speech ..and that is in conflict with the ideals of The United States.

Click to expand...

Who is a traitor?
One who takes action on destroying our rights. Yes, a person can be a traitor for taking a verbal stand but it would be a weak case if one tried to prosecute in court. I am quite sure we could find plenty of traitors in our midsts. Might be hard to fetter out too but they are here and they are actively trying to undermine our country. Don't blind yourself to the truth.

gottdi said:

I did say you changed the context of the topic by inserting in your original comment ( Free Speech).

Click to expand...

Yes ... I am guilty of making a comment on his statement... it is a forum.

Yes ... I am guilty of pointing out an aspect of his comment that I disagree with... I do disagree with it... and I gave a reason.

Yes ... he did not originally post about free speech directly ... I referenced free speech as an explanation of one reason why I was disagreeing with his statement... not the only reason.

Discussion , statements , and suggestions do not exist in a vacuum ... If someone wants to make on a public forum the statement,

infantry11b said:

those who advocate this and claim to be Americans are traitors and need to be treated as such.

Click to expand...

That person is opening his statement up to the critique of others.

I disagree with it ... and free speech is one reason why I disagree with it.

gottdi said:

The topic you make this remark about has nothing to do with free speech at all.

Click to expand...

Interesting...

I wonder how many people ( and their loved ones ) who would get labeled as traitors and treated as such ( executed ) ... just for advocating to friends and family about the benefits of having a king, would feel... would they agree with you that this had nothing to do with free speech at all? ... they would not feel any different about speaking freely?

Interesting...

gottdi said:

What you did was swing the topic another direction.

Click to expand...

What I did was give one of the reasons why I disagree with the statement.

If you think that reason is not justified ... that those labeled and treated as traitors would not have their free speech effected ... please explain... ( as you did a bit bellow. )

gottdi said:

We don't need your input on that subject.

Click to expand...

Never said you did...

I said I disagreed with the statement ... and offered one of the reasons why I disagree with it.

If you don't like that ... ok ... fine ... don't like me having reasons , or me telling you what they are ???

If you disagree with that specific reason ... please explain? ( as you did a bit bellow )

gottdi said:

Who is a traitor?
One who takes action on destroying our rights. Yes, a person can be a traitor for taking a verbal stand but it would be a weak case if one tried to prosecute in court. I am quite sure we could find plenty of traitors in our midsts. Might be hard to fetter out too but they are here and they are actively trying to undermine our country. Don't blind yourself to the truth.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt that some actual traitors might speak out publicly or privately one way or the other.

I have no doubt that an actual traitor might be making an intentional effort to subvert from within.

But that does not mean that everyone who advocates those things is a traitor.

A 100% loyal , and faithful U.S. citizen might honestly think that a monarchy would be a good idea ... for him to speak his thoughts does not in itself make him a traitor... even if it is advocating that position... he has not betrayed anyone... he has not sold anyone out ... etc.

Yes ... some types of speech we restrict ... if it does harm ... and as you say a case can be made in a court of law about it ... and we do punish people who abuse speech to harm society itself or members of that society ... but we do not just declare them to be traitors and treat them as such... we declare their activity to be illegal and treat it as a different kind of crime... and even if we did this is public movements toward monarchy ... that would still be a very different crime than being a traitor.

Who is making the subjective determination that someone is advocating something ? ... you wouldn't want to be thought of as being an advocate ... even if you weren't ... because being an perceived as an advocate would be a death sentence... talk about a step in the wrong direction of society and personal freedoms.

Being critical about the government could also be something an actual traitor would do ... should we also round up all those people critical of the government label and treat them as traitors?

I think only actual traitors ( those caught betraying the country ) ... selling military secrets , etc ... should be treated as traitors ... all of the indirect and second hand types of 'potential traitors' is a slippery slope ... and a bad idea.

IamIan said:

I'm glad ...

It wasn't disingenuous at all because that is what is seemed like when I read this part, ( underlined )

Click to expand...

An activist is one who goes beyond simply "discussion." Activism involves (as the root of the word implies) action to make a change.

we don't label them traitors and treat them as such ( execution ) ... do we?

Click to expand...

When one is part of a conspiracy (any group acting together under cover of subterfuge) to break their sworn oath of office - whether through providing aid and succor to our enemies or attempting to pass laws to weaken or break our Constitution, these actions are clearly described as Treason. Were not politicians generally cowards (read your history), this charge would be put forth more often - as it was in ages past. To call such persons "traitors" is simply a description of their acts.

Abuse the concept of 'free speech' and you can be punished... but doing what what infantry suggested,

Click to expand...

Ok I won't speak for Infantry - I will simply state that when I read his post there was a clear ambiguity between speaking and "advocacy" - the latter can involve acts, not just expression of an opinion. To fault him for lack of clarity would be fair; to accuse him of being a whack job for that lack of clarity would be to succumb to the same sort of wackiness you are in fact accusing him of. I judge this one a "double-fault."

I am against and I disagree with that extreme suggestion.

Click to expand...

Again, this depends upon the "degree of advocacy." I'd call folks who stand outside polling booths with weapons and dressed in garb intended to intimidate "advocates" - the sort who ought to be jailed.

but does a 'just' society label them as traitors and treat them as such ( execution ) ? ... or does it do as you posted above ... jail time and fines... the 'just' society does not do what infantry suggested.

Click to expand...

I was explicitly clear in my example - those who are elected officials conspiring to pass laws to circumvent or undermine the Constitution pass the test of Treason. A businessman asking for a special favor from Congress that happens to be Un-Constitutional and one or more Congresspersons who stupidly agree are simply greedy and negligent - the Congresspersons should be impeached (if you aren't smart enough to discern that the request is un-Constitutional, you don't belong in Washington) and the businessperson investigated to see if they were bribing officials.

Our law recognizes that varying circumstances also vary the severity of the crime, or change the Charge to be applied.

I have no idea why someone would think that would be good to advocate ...

Click to expand...

Neither do I - so how do you explain the fact that government is now spending over 50% of everything produced in this country today? If they spend 100% of everything produced, that is an effective tax rate of 100% - pure economic slavery. That is what Liberalism advocates, and thus if you are a true Liberal you are advocating for slavery - the only remaining argument is one of degree.

however that does not change ... I do not support the idea of labeling them as traitors and treating them as such ( execution ) ... just for peacfully advocating their position ... even if I 100% disagree with their position... which is why I disagree with infrantry's statement.

Click to expand...

Individuals, yes - except if they meet the further qualifications of Treason. The idea that because someone is attempting to accomplish the EFFECT of Treason and is not a Traitor simply because they were attempting it by Fraud rather than Force is specious. They know what they are about, for if they did not they would be honest about their aims. No, those who wish to be slave masters by any subterfuge are just as guilty as those who would use stupid brute force - more so, for they understand fully their intent, whereas brutes often do not. They should be made an example of in every generation until such time as they have a cure for that particular mental illness.

In fact, the Constitution ALLOWS us to ditch the principle of individual freedom for government slavery. All you have to do is pass an amendment. That is a debate those of us who believe in freedom would welcome - and one that just as certainly Liberals will avoid at any cost.

a crime ... fine ... I agree those who abuse 'free speech' ... should be punished ... but labeling them as traitors, and treating them as such ( execution ) ... just for advocating ??? I think that goes too far.... which is what I was disagreeing with infrantry about.

Click to expand...

See above. I do understand that you might have drawn a different inference from Infantry's post, but not from mine. For the rest of your "explanation," I'll withhold judgment on you personally - my take is that Progressives have made a concerted effort to blur the lines between right and wrong so that, when caught, they can claim "I was ONLY... <insert excuse here>"

You guys seem to think ‘Traitor’ has an absolute meaning. It hasn’t, it’s just a curse word, like idiot, fool, liar, or charlatan. It’s all in the eyes of the beholder. Someone uses such a word, when he or she is not able to express him or herself in coherent sentences to describe his or her feelings.

And ‘traitor’ is mostly used in the ‘us against them’ situations, that are hard to explain logically. Or not to explain at all.

The Netherlands tried to get their control back over Indonesia after WW2. It was a pretty bloody war. Some Dutch fighters stepped over to the other side, to help the Indonesians fighting the Dutch. Eventually the USA turned against ‘us’, and ‘we’ gave it up. Indonesia became an independent country. One of the last colonies. Most of the Dutch know by now ‘we’ were wrong. We where the bad guys. Really bad guys. But still those men who choose the right side in those days, never got rehabilitated. They were not welcome home until recent years. They were traitors and what ever happened, that could not be changed. Just stupid feelings.

I have lost all my group feelings over the years. Feelings like nationalism, religion, political base or race, or whatever. I’m just me, wherever I like to live my life. So, it’s meaningless to me. For me, the only thing that counts is ‘Intention’.

Would I defend the country where I accidently live against an invading country? It depends. If the Netherlands get a racist or neo Nazi-like government under Geert Wilders, I will hopefully become a traitor. And help the Germans to overthrow our government. That would be ironical.

To Jan's point

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Ovid
(I had thought it was the Bard?)

Working openly to Amend the Constitution is not "working by subterfuge" nor "conspiracy to undermine the Constitution.

Working openly - then those who pay for anonymous political campaign ads are committing treason??

My interpretation is different - as long as you are obeying the laws and not planning sedition or violence you are not committing treason

You may be breaking other laws - we have strict campaign funding laws here as we do not believe that money is speech and is protected

Any campaign for anything will start with conspiracy and subterfuge - it has to - you will always start with a small group talking privately!

To the dual citizenship
I am a British citizen and a New Zealand Citizen - If it came to armed conflict I would have to choose and repudiate one of them