The GOP's Normalization of Treason

"If a senior White House staffer had intentionally outed an American spy during World War II, he'd have been shot. We're at war, George Bush keeps reminding us. We cannot continue with business as usual. A pre-9/11 mentality is deadly. Putting the lives of our troops at risk is treason. Then why is the White House and the Republican party engaged in a concerted campaign to make treason acceptable during a time of war?"

Read the rest of this excellent post by John Aravosis of americablog.org:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/10/normalization-of-treason-republicans.html

>Then why

>is the White House and the Republican party engaged in a

>concerted campaign to make treason acceptable during a time of

>war?"

OK, this is just silly now. Calling this "treason" is exactly the type of irresponsible, shrill rhetoric that always seems to save the Bush Administration right as they finally look to be on the verge of getting what they deserve (the last example being the uproar over the Administration's extreme mishandling of the Katrina crisis - everything looked bad for the Administration until its left-wing critics started accusing it of engaging in a genocidal plot to drown black people - things like that always save the Administration by making its critics look worse).

It now seems quite apparent that, at the very least, both Bush's top aide (Karl Rove) and Cheney's (Lewis Libby) violated the law by disclosing classified information and lying to the FBI and the Grand Jury about it afterwards. If that's the case, they should be removed from their positions and suffer whatever judicial consequences they have coming to them. It's likely the Cheney was involved in the efforts to undermine Joe Wilson's credibility and it's possible that he was part of a criminal conspiracy with Libby and Rove to disseminate information about Wilson's wife.

But no responsible person thinks they did any of this in order to help America's enemies or hurt America's national security - which is what "treason" is about. Nor is there any proof, or even suggestion, that disclosure of Valerie Plame's connection to the CIA resulted in any national security harm whatosever.

Rove, Libby and whoever else was involved were plainly not motivated by some treasonous desire to undermine American security or help its enemies. To suggest that is just dumb. What they wanted to do was to: (a) make an Administration critic (Joe Wilson) look bad, weak and hen-pecked by suggesting that he was chosen for the Niger trip because his wife-y got him the job; and (b) rebut Wilson's false statements that he was chosen for the trip by Dick Cheney's office.

In the course of pursuing those goals, they likely disclosed the classified information that Plame was a CIA operative. But outing a CIA operative wasn't their goal. And the reality is, she was a "CIA Opeartive" in name only. Like many CIA covert employees, her employment with the CIA was a poorly kept secret, and she had long ago ceased to have any real undercover activity. That's not to say that outing her was justified - it wasn't, nor was it legal. But trying to act like this is the Aldrich Ames case makes the Bush critics look shrill and unworthy of credibility, and is - yet again -the thing most likely to help Bush avoid the consequences of this case.

The Bush Administration - deservedly - has very serious problems with the Plame matter. Losing Rove and Libby would be a huge blow, both operationally and politically. If Cheney is indicted (or even named as an unindicted co-conspirator), it's hard to imagine the repurcussions.

The LAST thing that Bush critics should be doing is overplaying their hand by screaming TREASON or trying to make it seem like this was about some super-top-secret CIA project that the Bush Administration ruined. None of that is true. Disclosing the identity of a CIA agent for political gain is bad enough - don't make it easier for the Bush Administration by accusing them of things that people will quickly see they didn't do. That will just undermine the credibility and importance of this whole matter.

>

>Read the rest of this excellent post by John Aravosis of

>americablog.org:

>

>http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/10/normalization-of-treason-republicans.html

>

Point taken, but I don't think anyone is accusing them of deliberately trying to hurt their own government. I just looked up "treason" and one meaning is "a crime that undermines the offender's government." Does treason really have to always mean you purposely tried to help your country's enemies or hurt its national security? I'm not trying to argue with you; I spent my life more interested in The Brady Bunch than government and politics so I don't always have all the answers.

Also, I don't see where anyone has changed their opinion at all about how the federal government handled Katrina. Bush's poll numbers have continued to fall and didn't some poll say that only 2% of blacks now support him? I don't see where Bush was "saved" by people saying it was racism. A majority still think he sucks as a president.

>Point taken, but I don't think anyone is accusing them of

>deliberately trying to hurt their own government.

If they weren't deliberately trying to hurt their own government, then it's not treason - either legally or politically. The U.S. Constitution defines the crime of "treason." Article Three defines treason as only levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort", and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction.

This capital crime is one of the most serious in our judicial system, if not the most serious, and is punishable by death. Nobody remotely thinks or even suggests that the Special Prosecutor, who everyone agrees is honest and super-aggressive, is going to charge anyone with "treason" in this case. So hurling that accusation is dumb and irresponsible.

Legalities aside, the term "treason" is even less apt here politically. The classic case of treason is Benadict Arnold, who actively collaborated with the enemy against the U.S. Nobody did that here. So screaming this term just makes Bush critics look bad. What happened here is bad enough. There is no reason to exaggerate what occurred. Doing so will only play right into the hands of Bush, yet again.

>Also, I don't see where anyone has changed their opinion at

>all about how the federal government handled Katrina. Bush's

>poll numbers have continued to fall and didn't some poll say

>that only 2% of blacks now support him? I don't see where

>Bush was "saved" by people saying it was racism. A majority

>still think he sucks as a president.

This illustrates the critical point that Democrats keep failing to realize. We have a two-party system in this country. That means that everyone who votes (and who wants their vote to be consequential in the outcome) has to vote for one party or the other.

As a result, it's not enough for Democrats to convince people that Bush is bad. They have to convince people that the Democrats are BETTER.

They've been doing a good job since BEFORE the election of convincing everyone that Bush is inept. They've been doing a horrible job, and still are, of convincing people that the Democrats are any better. Bush and the Republicans didn't win the last election because everyone loved them. They won because too many people who disliked Bush thought he was still better than Kerry and the Democrats. So yeah, Bush's popularity is low (not shockingly or umprecedently low, but low), but that doesn't mean the Democrats are any closer to winning.

Articles like the one you posted demonstrate the tragic flaw of the Democrats. With these Plame indictments (like with Katrina), they have a great chance to convince the persuade-able middle that Bush is a disaster for the country.

But instead of doing so in a responsible way, they start letting their uncontrollable hatred of the GOP inflame what they do, and they end up sounding like dishonest maniacs throwing around accusations that most people just aren't going to believe (Bush wanted black people to drown; the Bush Administration committed treason in the Plame case; Bush LIED about WMD's, rather than being mistaken, etc. etc. etc.).

As a result, as bad as Bush ends up looking, it doesn't help the Democrats, because they look worse - like shrill, irresponsible crazies - and these wild accusations enable the Bush defenders to distract attention away from Bush's failings and onto the leftists' hysteria. It happens over and over and over, and it's the single biggest reason why the GOP dominance continues despite mounting and increasingly serious evidence of both their ineptitude and corruption.

I'm just wondering if the Democrats will ever learn this lesson.

I agree with most everything Doug69 has said here.

One point though--

>But instead of doing so in a responsible way, they start

>letting their uncontrollable hatred of the GOP inflame what

>they do, and they end up sounding like dishonest maniacs

>throwing around accusations that most people just aren't going

>to believe (Bush wanted black people to drown; the Bush

>Administration committed treason in the Plame case; Bush LIED

>about WMD's, rather than being mistaken, etc. etc. etc.).

If you look at the specific language Bush and his associates

used in talking about WMDs in Iraq, it's hard to say that

they didn't at least willfully exaggerate, if not lie.

(see http://billmon.org/archives/000172.html )

They repeatedly said there was "no doubt" that Iraq had

WMDs; Rumsfeld said "we know where they are".

You'd better be right if you're going to talk that way.

US credibility has suffered because of how the the case

for the war was presented.

The special prosecutor seems to be focusing on the failure of people involved to fess up and perhaps giving misleading info to the prosecutor. It is increasingly clear that no law was violated in the mention of Plame, and there is very little chance anyone will be indicted for anything that was said about Plame.

>The special prosecutor seems to be focusing on the failure of

>people involved to fess up and perhaps giving misleading info

>to the prosecutor.

How do you know what the special prosecutor is focusing on? The reality is, that is one of the most leak-proof and tight-lipped prosecutorial offices ever - the opposite of Ken Starr's office in this regard (and in others) - and neither you nor anyone else has any idea what they are focusing on.

And if you are right - that the Bush Administration's top officials lied to the FBI and the Grand Jury about this matter - are you going to be dismissive of that? As I recall, you were one of the people who supported the witch hunts against Clinton in the Lewinksy matter on the ground that lying is unacceptable and the Rule of Law is scared.

Are you changing your tune now, or do you want to see these officials fired and prosecuted if they perjured themselves before the Grand Jury and gave false statements to federal law enforcement investigators?

It is increasingly clear that no law was

>violated in the mention of Plame, and there is very little

>chance anyone will be indicted for anything that was said

>about Plame.

How could you possibly say that this is "increasingly clear" when you have no idea what evidence Patrick Fitzgerald has gathered in the course of his investigation?

What little information has been made public has been disclosed by very biased and self-interested sources - mostly the lawyers for Rove and Libby - and now the Judith Miller and NYTimes confessions. Even that body of evidence suggests that - contrary to the quite public and emphatic denials of Rove, Libby, Scott McClellan and the Administration generally - the sources for the disclosures regarding Valerie Plame's work with the CIA (which was unquestionably classified) were Administration officials, as part of a campaign to discredit, and likely punish, Joe Wilson and, quite possibly, the dissident faction of the CIA.

In light of all of that, where does anyone get off saying that "it is increasingly clear that no law was violated in the mention of Plame"?

One other thing, Merlin: while you haven't been privy to the evidence of criminality compiled by Patrick Fitzgerald, there is a group of people which has seen all of it: namely, the four Republican-appointed federal judges (one District Court Judge and the three-judge appellate panel) which sent Judy Miller to prison for 85 days for refusing to testify about her sources.

Under all interpretations of a reporter's right to withhold information obtained from confidential sources, reporters can be compelled to disclose such information ONLY where there is evidence of a serious crime and the prosecutor has a compelling need for that evidence. A court simply isn't going to send a New York Times reporter to prison unless there is a serious criminal case first established by the prosecutor.

Here, in ruling that Judith Miller would be imprisoned if she did not disclose her conversations with her source, the 3-judge appellate panel reviewed the evidence of criminal wrongdoing submitted to them ex parte by the Special Prosecutor(i.e., without anyone else reviewing it). They discussed that evidence as part of their published decision over 8 pages, which - due to its sensitive nature - was redacted from the decision.

That appellate decision makes absolutely clear that those judges concluded that Fitzgerald's case involves serious criminality and is supported by very compelling evidence. That's why they forced Judy Miller to testify - because they were convinced, having looked at the evidence (as opposed to you and other right-wing Bush slaves, who haven't seen it) this is a fucking serious case involving important matters of national security.

One last thing - the sweet thing about all of this is that not only are the judges involved Republicans, so, too, is Patrick Fitzgerald - and he was appointed by the Republicans running the Justice Department.

Thus, unlike the Clinton prosecutions (engineered by judges and prosecutors who hated him ideologically), this matter is driven by Republicans. While the Bush Administration has had no compunction in the past about attacking the supposed biases of anyone, even life-long loyal Republicans, who expressed divergent views (see e.g., Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, and even former Bush I Ambassador Joe Wilson), they will have an extremely difficult time depicting Pat Fitzgerald as some sort of liberal traitor.

Republicans, are you going to allow Trump's treason?

Republicans, are you going to allow Trump's treason?

Da!

The President is just saying what any intelligent person already knows: that the deep state, the US government, are lying criminals.

#TrumpTreasonTrain

I am surprised that no newspaper headlined today's reports with "TREASON". Collusion is on the open.

I am surprised that no newspaper headlined today's reports with "TREASON". Collusion is on the open.

Fake Newsky!!

The President is just saying what any intelligent person already knows: that the deep state, the US government, are lying criminals.

Day-old newbie Troll.

trai·tor

ˈtrādər/

noun

1. a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.
    
   

I am surprised that no newspaper headlined today's reports with "TREASON". Collusion is on the open.

The lawyer in me says “TREASON” is a legal term that does not apply:

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason

The Constitution limits treason and defines it narrowly because our founding fathers themselves were committing treason against The Crown. The British had a history of misusing the charge as well. Bottom line: common usage of the term is different from the legal term.

Now the acts committed may be other crimes, but not “treason.” For example, the Rosenbergs were not convicted of “treason” (which did not legally apply to them) but they were convicted of “espionage.”

The lawyer in me wishes the term as commonly used would go away since it confuses the public. Unfortunately, stupidity is not a crime.

Merriam-Webster tweets a Word of the Day, typically as a comment on current events. Yesterday’s word: treason.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/is-it-treason-word-history-usage

The lawyer in me wishes the term as commonly used would go away since it confuses the public. Unfortunately, stupidity is not a crime.

The general meaning, of course, will not go away because its specific meaning in the US constitution does not negate the wider meaning in the English language. Some things we can't change, we need to be able to recognise those things when we see them. Doesn't mean we can't wish that we could change them!

There was a language segment on ABC Canberra this afternoon. It started out on whether data should be pronounced daht-a or date-a (answer, split decision), but went off on the tangent of whether it was singular or plural. It then went off on another tangent of specialists complaining about people (in particular radio announcers) 'misusing' words that have very specific insider meanings (in, say, physics, IT) but are used less specifically in the wider world. I guess you could include legal terms in that. The linguist's suggestion was for them to get over it.

The general meaning, of course, will not go away because its specific meaning in the US constitution does not negate the wider meaning in the English language. Some things we can't change, we need to be able to recognise those things when we see them. Doesn't mean we can't wish that we could change them!

Exactly. And voters tend to go with the general meaning of things, not the tedious legalisms of know-it-all lawyers.

That’s why Bill Clinton's approval rating jumped 10 points to 73 percent in the wake of his impeachment over lying under oath about getting blow jobs.

The lawyer in me says “TREASON” is a legal term that does not apply:

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason

 

The Constitution limits treason and defines it narrowly because our founding fathers themselves were committing treason against The Crown. The British had a history of misusing the charge as well. Bottom line: common usage of the term is different from the legal term.

 

Now the acts committed may be other crimes, but not “treason.” For example, the Rosenbergs were not convicted of “treason” (which did not legally apply to them) but they were convicted of “espionage.”

 

The lawyer in me wishes the term as commonly used would go away since it confuses the public. Unfortunately, stupidity is not a crime.

Fortunately, lawyers cannot control language.

All that said, political insiders in Washington should be careful about using the word treason in a political context. They should stick to its constitutional meaning. I heard Michael Hayden comment on the issue after that former CIA director used the T word for 45, he made the point that it had a very specific meaning in US federal jurisprudence and on that test there was nothing treasonous about Helsinki.

Regardless of ordinary or legal definition, what is apparent is that Trump's performance at G7, NATO, and the Helsinki summit was reprehensible. I cannot understand why Americans are not outraged.

Fortunately, lawyers cannot control language.

But laws do determine the legal outcome and not common word usage.

Regardless of ordinary or legal definition, what is apparent is that Trump's performance at G7, NATO, and the Helsinki summit was reprehensible. I cannot understand why Americans are not outraged.

Reprehensible yes; treason no.