The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Can Anyone Be Found Guilty Of Treason Anymore?

Posted by iusbvision on March 7, 2006

It is quite simple, Article 3 Section 3 reads “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort”.  However, does the freedom of speech trump treason?  Certainly not if one looks at the historical precedent.

Tokyo Rose was convicted of treason against the United States for broadcasting messages that taunted Allied forces and hurt morale during WWII.  She was an American citizen helping our enemy by her speech.  It is important to note that she was later pardoned by Pres. Ford, but not because her speech was found Constitutional.  She was pardoned because there was not enough evidence to prove the woman found guilty actually was Tokyo Rose.

After Tokyo Rose, it was Hanoi Jane Fonda in July of 1972.  During the Vietnam War, Fonda praised the North Vietnamese, posed for pictures on a communist anti-aircraft gun, and made several radio broadcasts calling American military leaders “war criminals”.  To make matters worse, when the POWs returned, instead of hailing them as heroes, Fonda called them hypocrites, baby killers, and liars.  Can there be any doubt she gave comfort and aid to our enemy?  Guess what, no charge of treason.

What about a person who actually fights alongside the enemy against American troops?  That is the case of American Taliban, Johnny “bin” Walker.  Can there be any doubt that he levied war against the United States.  Again, no charge of treason.

The latest example is former vice president Al Gore.  In an attempt to keep his name in the headlines, Mr. Gore went to the Jeddah Economic Forum and told the mainly Saudi Arabian audience that America committed “terrible abuses” against Arabs.  What were these abuses?  Apparently some illegal aliens were “indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable”.

Obviously Al of Arabia, as he is being called, just forgot that the terrorists on September 11th had invalid visas.  Gore even had the gall to apologize to our enemies on behalf of all Americans for arresting those who were breaking the law!

Is it treasonous for Time magazine to declare Osama Bin Laden the man of the year in 2001?  After much deliberation and even more public scrutiny, Time caved and picked Rudi Giuliani.  During a time of war, should we really be giving a world-wide stage to the enemy?

Then there are the employees of the Washington D.C. bureau of the Al Jazeera network.  Al Jazeera is the Arabic television station that broadcasts all the tapes of Bin Laden and beheadings of the kidnapping victims.  Isn’t giving the enemy a public voice giving them aid?

On that note, what about the newspapers across the country that run daily reports criticizing every action done by our troops?  Or newspapers that give our enemies and those who hate America a sounding board to spread their message?

The Vision will not be placing their messages on our pages.  We will not give a voice to the enemies of America.  Those that hate America need not come knocking, not on this door.

Jarrod Brigham

14 Responses to “Can Anyone Be Found Guilty Of Treason Anymore?”

  1. J. Paul Herr said

    I would like to suggest that you should be lauding those who question policies and practices of the U.S. government, not accusing them of treason. Had we listened more closely to those who questioned our government about the the existence of weapons of mass distruction in Iraq, perhaps we would not now be debating how we can extract our forces with a minimum of damage and embarrassment . We have already lost more than 2000 young men in that conflict and Iraq has suffered more than 30,000 killed as a result of the war. Furthermore, it is not clear at this point that the outcome is going to be a great improvement over the pre-war situation.

    Our riduculing of other countries and people who urged caution on our decision to go to war and our subsequent conduct of that war have inflicted a great deal of damage to our reputation in the world. We have in my view behaved in an un-American manner in the conduct of that war. The U.S. has always claimed to stand for democracy and human rights in the world. However, our torturing of prisoners, many of whom were innocent, and our refusal to renounce torture has made a mockery of what we claim to believe. Because of these reprehensible behaviors, our present standing in the world is at an all-time low jeapordizing efforts both to protect our own self interest and to promote democracy and human rights in the world.

    Al Gore \’s comments that we have committed \”terrible abuses\” against Arabs was only a restatement of what every reader of newspapers in the world already knows. After all, the images of Abu Graib were seen by people around the world. The most un-American behavior in this was in the torturing of prisoners and in our refusal to rule it out of future behavior.

    I am offended by those who question the patriotism of anyone who challenges government policies. This along with torture are the only un-American behaviors here.

    There are places in the world where what you describe would indeed be considered treason. However, I would not want to live in those places.

  2. Chuck Norton said

    Dear Paul,

    The spin ends now.

    Point 1 – America did not torture prisoners at Abu-Ghraib – some soldiers who broke the rules mistreated some prisoners and have been found guilty in a court of law and imprisoned. How convenient of you to leave those facts out. Here is a link to an AP article that tells how many prisoners do not want to leave Guantonimo Bay

    Point 2 – You say that it is unsure if the outcome is better than the pre war situation. That may be the opinion of the extreme left, but not of Iraqi’s who have just voted in their third free and fair election. Why don’t you go take a look right here to see what I am talking about –

    Point 3 – You say that our refusal to denounce torture is a mockery of all that we believe. That is easy for you to say when the far left, the antique media, UN NGO’s and other outfits are defining torture as not providing religiously and culturally sensitive meals to POW’s and other ridiculous definitions as that. The DoD posts what meals prisoners are fed every day and they eat better than most students at IUSB. I had two lunch meat sandwiches today and vitamin water.

    Point 4 – You play the WMD card, unfortunately you have been trumped. Boxes of tapes that Saddam Hussein made of his cabinet meetings show that as late as the year 2000 Iraq was enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon and bragged about how they hid weapons and programs from UN Inspectors. Also the Charles Duelfer and David Kay inspection teams tell us in their reports that they found undeclared WMD weapons programs and raw materials that would have allowed IRAQ to begin to rebuild its WMD stockpile within months after the inspection heat was off.

    I have a UN inspection team report that I have linked to and written about in The Preface that tells how the inspectors found WMD parts from Iraq in scrap yards all over the Middle East and Europe after the invasion which tells us that weapons were being destroyed in Iraq in secret from the inspectors up to the time of the invasion.

    Point 5 – You tell us how terrible it is that we have lost over 2000 troops over the last two years. While each loss is a personal tragedy it is important to keep this number in perspective. Reenlistment rates among combat veterans are at an all time high and on June 6th, 1944 we lost 10,945 men in one day while taking a beach. It was not uncommon to lose 3000 men in a Civil War battle. Considering the size of the undertaking our military has taken on, in strictly military terms, our losses have been almost insignificant. It is truly a testimony to the effectiveness of the American Soldier.

    Point 6 – Al Gore went to Saudi Arabia, to Osama bin Laden’s hometown, while being paid by the bin Laden family, and made a speech saying that after 9/11 we unfairly rounded up and mistreated Arabs all over America. He painted a picture that was reminiscent of the internment camps in WWII. Al Gore did not just merely dissent, he was paid to make a speech where he lied about his country that gave aide and comfort to the enemy and would almost certainly motivate ignorant people from that part of the world into trying to kill Americans.

    Dissent is fine, lies and spin overseas that are designed to trash America that gives aide, comfort and motivation to the enemy is not dissent, it is something else.

    Point 7 – Dear Paul, welcome to reality, sometimes it doesn’t always afford us a truth to our liking.

  3. J. Paul Herr said

    Dear Chuck:

    Both you and O’Reilly do nothing but spin.

    Let me respond to each or you points with a few fundamental truths. First, I am not talking about what happened at Guantonimo Bay. I don’t know a great deal about what goes on there and I doubt that you do either. News media are not allowed to report on the conditions there or interview prisoners so assertions about the conditions there are just that, assertions without basis. As to the outrageus statement that “Americans did not torture at Abu Ghraib,” let me remind you that they were American troops, under command of US officers, and under the direction of Secretary Rumsfeld and ultimately President Bush. Neither is it credible to say that the offendors were just a few errant soldiers. The presidents had documents prepared by the Justice Department that said we were not bound by the Geneva Convention ban on torture. He fought the congressional efforts to declare that we would not torture and said he may not enforce the ban when he was forced to accept the congressional mandate. Furthermore, the behavior we saw at Abu Ghraib was fairly widespread. Torture was practiced on prisoners in Afghanistan to the point where at least one died from the inflicted injuries. There have been subsequent allegations of additional torture. This behavior has been too frequent to have not had implicit approval from above. Unfortunately, as is all too common, the troops who were doing what they thought superiors wanted are suffering for behavior that, by all appearances, had the approval of Rumsfeld and the President.

    Regarding you point #2, I am not justifying Saddam Hussein. The current state of affairs, which could well go on for some time and perhaps develop in to a full-scale bloody civil war, is disasterous for the people of Iraq and could get worse. A civil war could also pull in Iran and who knows who else. That would also be a serious problem for the US. Sometimes, the cost of ridding the world of evils such as Saddam causes more pain and damage than the situation the action seeks to remedy.

    Your point #3 is just silly. Neither I nor most of the others who criticize our torture are referring to the food at Guantonimo Bay. We are talking about injury that causes serious pain and even death. If you don’t call what happened at Abu Ghraib torture, I surely hope you are never in a position that would permit you to act in a similar manner in our name.

    Your point #4 is only wishful thinking conjered up by a few “right wing loonies and foaming at the mouth radio and TV personalities.” I know of no credible sources or individuals who make the claim that there were weapons of mass distruction in Iraq when we invaded. I doubt that you would get even the Republican members of congress to accept that point. I don’t doubt that he might have wanted them and even attempted to develop them at an earlier point, but most credible sources now believe that the inspections process worked. But then that had little to do with the Bush administrations decision. They had other reasons for wanting to go to war and were only looking for a pretext.

    Point #5 In world War II we were fighting to protect our own shores, our allies and a world threatened by a tyrant. The claim by some that Saddanm was the equivalent of Hitler is not justified. We were not threatened by Iraq, we sent in a minimal force and in general mismanaged the entire war for what may turn out to be a Mddle East that is in greater turmoil than before we invaded. At the end of the day, we may have caused 2300 plus American soldiers and innumerable citizens of Iraq to be killed for little discernable improvement in the lives of Iraqi citizens or our own security.

    As to Al Gore’s comments, it is indisputable that we have not lived up to our own standards of behavior in Iraq or even in our dealing with Middle Eastern citizens here. We have one example of a Kurdish citizen living in nearby Michigan whom we want to deport for doing far less than what we regularly do to innocent Iraqi citizens in our occupation. While many individuals in the Midle East and some of the countries there have behaved despicably, that is no excuse for our bad behavior. It is only just that we express our regret for torture and violations of human rights which we claim is an important part of who we are. That is only treason in the minds of those who have little commitment to American principles.

    Finally, you comment about the “real world” illustrates that you don’t recognize the world as it is. You seem to be like the Bush Administration that was going to make their own reality. The world you claim to be real told us that this would be a very short war, that the troops would be home in 90 days, and that it would only cost a few billion dollars. They told us that everything was going wonderfully, that we were building a new Iraq, and that the insurgency was only a few deadenders. I could go on about the world that Bush and Cheany and their lap dogs described, most of which turned out to be fantasy. I do hope that ultimately Iraq turns out to be the the democratic utopia that existed in the minds of some Bushies. However, at the present time, we seem to be far from that.

    If you want a ‘real version” of the war written by someone who actually spent a great deal of time there, who by the way was initiallly a supporter of the war, read THE ASSASSINS’ GATE by George Packer.

  4. Chuck Norton said


    How about you debate me publicly in the cafeteria?

    After seeing your response and your inability to do any real scholarship it would be my pleasure to deconstruct you in front of the student body.

    Your response avoided the evidence and best arguments I pointed out to you and was full of ad-hominems. Your response was everything that I had ever hoped for.

    As far as Guantanamo – Bi-Partisan delegations of Congress have inspected the facility and were quite satisfied with the conditions there. The UN and other reports are based off of third person accounts and since the al-qeada training manual says that they should always claim that they were tortured it would seem that we are just going to have to trust our members of congress on this one.

    Also one person dying in Afghanistan does not mean people were tortured “wide spread” at Abu-Ghraib. Like I said those who mistreated prisoners were tried and convicted, a point that you keep avoiding.

    As far as your unsubstantiated allegation that the soldiers were just following orders of Rumsfeld and the President. Being former military myself, in basic training we are given the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and written guides about how to treat prisoners and extensive training on what is a legal order and what is not a legal order. If those soldiers had the same standard training I was given than they well knew that what they were doing was wrong.

    I guarantee you that even when I was a 19-year-old soldier; I would never have obeyed an order to mistreat a prisoner. That’s why those soldiers who broke the rules are in jail.

    As far as a civil war. What a laughable assertion. Al-qeada blows up some mosques and tried to start trouble but cooler heads prevailed and no civil war. It sure seemed like the media and the far left George Soros funded web sites were hoping for a civil war, but they were denied. I encourage you to read Ralph Peters report from Iraq:
    “And riding around with the U.S. Army, looking at things first-hand, is certainly a technique to which The New York Times wouldn’t stoop in such an hour of crisis.

    Let me tell you what I saw anyway. Rolling with the “instant Infantry” gunners of the 1st Platoon of Bravo Battery, 4-320 Field Artillery, I saw children and teenagers in a Shia slum jumping up and down and cheering our troops as they drove by. Cheering our troops.
    All day – and it was a long day – we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. Everywhere, the reception was warm. No violence. None. “

    Your response to my point 4 was the most interesting – You completely dodged the sources I sited about the Saddam Cabinet Meeting Tapes and the Charles Duelfer and David Kay inspection team reports. And than you mischaracterized my statement in an effort to make a straw man argument. If this is an example of the scholarship that you demonstrate to your students in class then you should consider yourself fortunate that I am not among them because I do not tolerate such unethical rhetorical tactics from a PhD. Any professor engaging in such unscholarly behavior would find that behavior deconstructed in class by me. Doubt it? I invite you to speak with some of my former profs and find out for yourself.

    I have listened to the Saddam tapes and translations. I have read the inspection team reports from the UN, Charles Duelfer and David Kay. Because of that I know what contraband was found there and what the real story is. Those are the reports from the people on the ground. Your dodge about “right wing loonies and foaming and the mouth radio and TV personalities” has nothing to do with those reports, which is obviously why you failed to address them in your response.

    That is the difference between real scholarly research and a recital of the talking points from

    EDIT: Oh I almost forgot. Your point about how we thought the war would be really short and last 90 days etc etc. Actually I have a string of quotes in my archive that tell us how the war on terror will be a long and difficult undertaking. Granted, the pentagon did not understand the full nature of the insurgency but is adapting quite well from the old cold war model to this new kind of warfare. It shows too because re-enlistment rates among combat vets is at an all time high.

    By the way, its spelled Cheney.

  5. Chuck Norton said

    Here is an Iraqi Intelligence Document that tells about their relationship between Osama bin Laden, Al-Qeada and the Taliban at the time of 9/11.

    Now didnt tell us that there was no connection between Iraq and Al-Qeada….

    Kiss one more DNC talking point goodbye……….

    This document is a letter written by a member of Saddam Intelligence apparatus (Al Mukabarat) on 9/15/2001 (shortly after 9/11/2001) where he addressed it to someone higher up and he wrote about a conversation between an Iraqi intelligence source and a Taliban Afghani Consul. In the conversation the Afghani Consul spoke of a relationship between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11/2001, and that the United States was aware of such a relationship and that there is a potential of US strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan if the destructive operations in the US (most probably he is referring to 9/11 attacks) were proven to be connected to Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban.

    Below is a translation from Arabic to English of CMPC-2003-001488 document that was posted on Pentagon Website regarding the pre-war Iraq documents. (

    Text of the document in English translated from Arabic.

    In the Name of God the Merciful

    Presidency of the Republic
    Intelligence Apparatus

    To the respectful Mr. M.A.M

    Subject: Information

    Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him the following:

    1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin Laden group visited Iraq.

    2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America.

    3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama Bin Laden group and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    4. That the Afghani Consul heard about the subject of Iraq relation with Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.

    5. In light of this we suggest to write to the Commission of the above information.

    Please view… Yours… With regards
    Signature:……, Initials : A.M.M, 15/9/2001
    Foot note: Immediately send to the Chairman of Commission

  6. Noah said


    If you read the article you employed to try to make your case, you might notice they are scared of going to countries where there are absolutly no human rights whatsoever.

    ” Uzbekistan, Yemen, Algeria and Syria are also among the countries to which detainees do not want to return. The inmates have told military tribunals that they or their families could be tortured or killed if they are sent back.”

    “You’ve been saying ‘terrorists, terrorists.’ If we return, whether we did something or not, there’s no such things as human rights. We will be killed immediately,” he said. “You know this very well.”

    ” A detainee from Uzbekistan told the tribunals in December 2004 that his father and uncles were jailed for their Muslim faith in his native country and said he fears the rest of his family would be tortured if he returned.

    The prisoner shrugged off the threat to his own safety in Uzbekistan, where the government has clamped down on Islamic groups which are not sanctioned by the state.

    “I’m not afraid to die. We all belong to Allah and we shall return to him,” he said.

    This Uzbek’s fate is unknown, as is that of almost every other detainee whose names are no longer blacked out when they appear in the hearing transcripts. The Bush administration has not said who has been held in the prison it opened in January 2002, and does not announce when or where individual detainees are released. ”

    ” What the Pentagon has said is that 187 prisoners have been released, and 80 others have been transferred to prisons in more than a dozen countries, including Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Russia, Bahrain and Pakistan. An unknown number of these prisoners were later released, but many languish in other jails, again without charges, let alone trials.”

    ” “This policy of handing over prisoners to countries that the U.S. challenges on their human rights abuses is a sham and it opens the United States to charges of hypocrisy around the world,” said Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who has sought passage of a bill that would ban the U.S. from sending prisoners to other countries to face torture.”

    Thanks for the source. It’s too bad it doesn’t mention anything about how things are there. I certainly doubt that we are using physical means of torture that are employed throughout the world. Notice we’re not sending these prisoners to any countries that are solid on not violating human rights.

    Don’t you think it’s strange that Bush pushed for us being able to employ torture? Isn’t it absurd that it took Mccain to push for us to not do this?

    Better or Worse?

    Probably better. I don’t think either one of us can say with any certainty. I cannot address this. Things were certainly in more order when Hussein was running the show. Is he a nutjob? Yes. Are things in chaos now? Yes.

    Torture Point 2:

    Religion is a pretty foolish institution. I don’t pretend to know or care what your religion is. If you were being forced to violate your religion, putting your eternal soul on the line. Well, that’s pretty ruthless. I am an athiest, but the majority of humans have religious beliefs. If I made you do things so that you’d go to hell (if you believe in it), I don’t think you’d be very peachy.


    Well, I cannot argue that he probably had them. Do you know why I say that? I bet you do. Back in the 1980s we hooked him up! You might remember back when Rummy, Bush Sr., and co were in Washington we allied ourselves with Saddam. We backed his coup and supplied him with weapons. He then employed those weapons (chemical, biological) in Iran. That was okay, because Iran was backed by Russia, and god forbid communism is spread. What about North Korea, a country that actually has nuclear weapons? What about Isreal (more later), another country that has nuclear weapons? What about us?? What about the fact the one of Bush’s first things to be done when he got into office was to pull out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Isn’t it a bit hypocritical that we are making nukes, but nobody else can? I mean, we are the only country that has ever used them on other people. Oh we must have learned better. But wait….


    You say “…our losses have been almost insignificant.” Any loss of human life is significant. I’m sure if you ask the family and friends of these people who died if their lives were insignificant, you won’t be met with much friendliness. I think the real point is that this war is illegal. It violates international law. We don’t accept international law and we have one of the best militaries in the world. I guess it really doesn’t matter then? Hussein was in no position whatsoever to attack America. Hussein had no ties to Al Quaeda. This man was not a religious fundamentalist. He just liked being rich and living it up. Surely he was a bastard and killed/tortured many people. Obviously we liked him enough at one point to help him take over the country, though.

    bin Laden:

    Wasn’t bin Laden exiled from his family? They are all fairly rich, living it up, I though. I could be wrong on this. I cannot state it with any certainty. I only know about what I saw on Moore’s movie. Moore is just as good at spinning news as you/Fox are, so I can’t rely on that.

    It surely isn’t a good time to be a Middle Easterner in America. Suspicion is certainly running rampant. You can’t reasonably deny that.

    Point 7:

    Way to be a chach. Maybe you should be “welcome[d] to reality.” We go after Iraq. What about other places in the world? What about the genocide going on in the Congo. What about crazy Kim Jong-Il building nuclear weapons in Korea. What about Osama bin Laden, who was the guy who attacked us in the first place.

    Some interesting hypocracy:

    We support Israel fully. They commited both genocide and terrorism back before the formation of their state. We took the land away from the Palestinians and gave it to the Zionists. I don’t think that made them very happy. As a matter of fact, the Arab League mentioned that we might be in for a bit of resentment.

    Isreal violations?

    * General Assembly Resolution 250 “calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.”
    * General Assembly Resolution 251 “deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250.”
    * General Assembly Resolution 252 “declares invalid Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as her capital”
    * General Assembly Resolution 271 “condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”
    * General Assembly Resolution 476 “reiterates’ that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are null and void”
    * General Assembly Resolution 673 “deplores Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations”

    Do you remember when they bulldozed over an American citizen who was protesting about how they were bulldozing houses of suspected opponents? What about the overuse of force? You know, sending hellicopters in to shoot rockets at cars with suspected terrorists? I mean, Great Britian declared Zionists were using terrorism before the solidifcation of their state. Maybe the terrorists (who do not have nuclear weapons, jets, tanks, modern equipment) are just taking a lead from what worked against them?


  7. Chuck Norton said

    Point 1 – Just because a prisoner is afraid to be tortured or killed at home, doesn’t mean he is being tortured at Gitmo. As I stated and you avoided, bipartisan Congressional delegations have inspected the facility and have made it clear that it is not a torture camp. Regular military works there and regular military would report it if people were being abused outside of the law. Someone exposed Abu-Ghraib and the people who broke the rules were punished.

    Point 2 – You say “many languish in jail, again without charges, let alone trials.”

    Your point here is fundamentally flawed in that you assume that they are in jail for committing a civil crime. POW’s are not held to be tried for jury trials in civil courts. They are held so that they do not return to the battlefield and so they can give intelligence information. Criminal law doesn’t even enter in to it.

    So I tell you what, why don’t you find me a European country that gave POW’s from WWII jury trials in civil courts….what was that …. Can’t find one?? Cause it didn’t happen.

    Point 3 – You still have to prove that regular prisoners are tortured by empirical evidence or a first hand account. Would you like a link to the Al-Qeada training manual that instructs them to always claim torture? Saddam claimed he was tortured as well and regularly, so we allowed human rights NGO’s to give him a thorough medical exam and guess what ……

    Do me a favor and try to quote the UN report that says there was torture at Gitmo, because when you look at the internals of the report, it is based on third hand accounts and zero real inspection. It will be my pleasure to have an excuse to demolish that report on this blog.

    Point 4 – Even McCain said it was ok to lean on certain prisoners in cases like ticking time bomb scenarios and other certain rare circumstances. One incident I am aware of is Kalid Sheik Mohammad, he was the tactical and strategic brains behind most Al-Qaeda operations. There is an unofficial report stating that we used water-boarding to make him talk. Water-boarding is when you make a person think that they are drowning when in fact they are in no danger. It was said that he broke in 2 minutes using this technique.

    The info he gave saved lives and lots of them.

    How far we are able to go when pushing a high intelligence target is a matter of debate, but making a public law that states what we can and cant do will only let the enemy know exactly how far we will go and they will train their people accordingly. That is why that bill was opposed. What we do in such rare circumstances like the ticking time bomb scenario and with certain high intelligence targets should be between the Executive and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. It is my understanding that this is exactly what is done now.

    You are trying to paint a false picture that torture is rampant; our military is filled with bloodthirsty animals, and that they are having a great time at the enemy’s expense. This is exactly why only moonbats take accusations like yours seriously and why your party gets demolished when it comes to issues of national security. Such deceptions also inspire the enemy to fight and kill more Americans, which might be your intent, but who knows.

    Point 5 – It’s the old – “We gave Saddam WMD …”

    You must mean this
    In an October 1, 2002, article entitled “Iraq Got Germs for Weapons Program from U.S. in ’80s,” Associated Press writer Matt Kelly wrote,
    [The] Iraqi bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records that are getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, saying it needed them for legitimate medical research.

    The truth is that many universities have this stuff. Back then they were an ally and almost any ally can order these samples for research from the CDC.

    None the less, is it your point since we made sure that the Mullah’s in Iran did not take over Iraq, than Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (because that is what would have happened if we didn’t balance things up with the USSR helping Iran) that we should now leave Saddam to break our cease fire agreement with impunity and redevelop his WMD programs as the Duelfer and Kay inspection team reports say he was?

    So because Saddam got samples from the CDC we were unjustified in stopping him from rebuilding his WMD programs now in violation of the cease fire agreement…. Brilliant logic…. Do me a favor and run on that in 2008 ok?

    Point 6 – The old “we are making nukes aren’t we the evil……”

    The nukes being made are small tactical nukes that are used to penetrate ultra deep bunkers. Not unlike the bunkers that Iran has made to build their nukes in that are unable to be penetrated with conventional bombs. OHHHHH ya you somehow forgot to leave that detail out…. In order to make the USA look EEEEvil no doubt.

    As far as your point that we have used nukes, I invite you to debate the case that we should have invaded Japan instead of ending the war with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I will have a great time with such an argument.

    In response to your point 7 – My point wasn’t about the bin-Ladens, they were just a part of the audience – in your typical style you avoided my main point, namely that Al Gore went overseas and was paid for lying about America and trashing us with those lies in Saudi Arabia, of course you would never DREAM if critiquing Al Gore for such behavior. After all the “trash America first” crowd has to stick together right?

    Last Point – So you want to cover the Israeli gig? You have a few problems. The UN’s record of blatant anti-Semitism is easily demonstrated. The UN has shown a double standard with Israel that is obvious. So let me ask you, how many US resolutions condemned Arafat for killing his political enemies, stealing billions of dollars worth of aid for himself while his own people suffered, for killing our ambassador in 1973, for backing out of the Camp David accords, for sending hordes of homicide bombers to kill civilians…. Need I go on?

    With the UN its always the same, PLO/HAMAS attacks Israel, …Israel has the gaul to respond and wham… instant UN condemnation.

    Do me a favor, run on the “It’s the JOOO’s “ platform in 2008 OK?

    In fact I invite you to run on all of these talking points, I am begging you to 

  8. Noah said

    1. Torture

    you were trying to prove that they weren’t being tortured with a link that didn’t prove that. i was just trying to explain to you what it said.

    of course we won’t let inspectors in. we wouldn’t let them into our NBC production areas, either. just like saddam. would you like me to find that, too?


    well, we don’t really know why these people are in jail. neither do they. are some of them enemies? sure, probably. are they all? well, i couldn’t tell you since we don’t know who’s in there, until they get out. nothing like secret military tribunals for peace & democracy!

    oh, i see you dare me to get the quote! i must say i missed that the first time. here’s a quote from the article:

    “Many of these allegations have come to light through declassified (U.S.) government documents,” they said.

    please, demolish this report here. i’m open to change brought forth by critical thinking.

    the “ticking timebomb” is just ridiculous. are we going to let fear of terrorism make us resort to inhumane actions? you are saying that’s okay? it’s so typical that you resort to attacks. yes, i am pro terrorist. i love it when our troops die in an INTERNATIONALLY ILLEGAL WAR started with FALSE INTELLIGENCE.

    well let’s not forget the VX gas that they were using on iran. that was back in the eighties. iran repeatedly sought international condemnation. do you want me to search for that? i can do my best, it was about 20 years ago.

    nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons. semantics. we are saying, “no, you can’t have nuclear technology. you can’t use nuclear power, even though it’s perhaps the least environmentally impacthing source of energy. no you might give this stuff ot the bad guys, or make bombs.” meanwhile, we pull out of a treaty we were in for the last 20+ years. nice. just like when we “just said no” to kyoto. the big dog eats first.

    al gore is a total douche. most democrats are. we need another one with gusto, but it’s been decades. i have no problem with “trash talking” america, when it’s deserving. why did you even have to bring in the bin laden family? hypocritical, much?

    arafat was a douche too, but do you know what happened? we took the land away from people who lived there and made a country for another people. those people have since recieved enormous economic assistance from us. your average israeli is living at about our standard of living. what about your average palestinian? how are they doing? what about when israel attacked a ship listening to them in fifties/sixites (somewhere around there). you know, when they secretly were devloping nuclear weapons. it’s always anti-sematism, isn’t it? yah, it’s because they are jewish. they wear those funny hats and talk like in woody alan movies. get a clue, just because you criticize america doesn’t make you unpatriotic, and because you criticize israel doesn’t make you anti-semetic. what it does make you is someone who critically evaluates knowledge.

    you’re a grown man. if you can’t act like one and address me with any semblence of respect, i just will stop responding. i am most certainly acceptant of change. are you? are you so entrenched in your opinions that you have to belittle anyone that thinks like you? if you can handle that, you might be able to change my mind. give it a shot, “i’m begging you.”


  9. David Mathues said

    For the moment, I will pass on the debate above to make an important legal point. That is what law students like me do. The Constitution specifically defines “treason” as “making war upon the United States, or giving aid and comfort to their enemies in time of war.” Furthermore, treason must be proven by either two witnesses or a confession in open court.

    To answer the question which prompted this article, people can be convicted of treason. However, they can only be convicted if they meet the Constitutional definition of treason. Even though we have some judges who in other contexts conveniently ignore what the Constitution says when it conflcits with their own policy preferences, on this point I am quite sure the Supreme Court would rule 9-0.

    John Walker Lindh was give 15 years for conspiracy, but not convicted of treason because there were no witnessess of him actually shooting at Americans or helping the Taliban. It’s not that he is not a traitor, but the prosecutors knew they had no chance of proving their case.

    As to people like Al Gore, I have no sympathy for their remarks. They put their own political careers over the nation’s security. The same goes for jounalists who are quick to publish every story that might make American look bad or professors who slander America’s troops while praising islamic terrorists. Such people qualify as many bad things. But under the Constitution, they are not traitors, and that is a distinction that should be made.

  10. Chuck Norton said

    Dear Noah,

    Since you did not respond to most of the meat of my argumnets and was carefull to stay out on the prenumbras of them, you have not given me much to respond to within the arena of facts and ideas.

    In response to your Newsmax link. The UN Human Rights Commission members are often made up of the worst human rights abusers in the world. I would not let them near any US facility. Second, the IRC has a record of irrationally opposing the USA, and a record of anti-semitism that is easily demonstrated. We have seen the published standards of what the IRC calls torture and it is just laughable. I would not be opposed to the American Red Cross inspecting the facility, but I remind you that bipartisan delegation of Congress have inspected the facility.

    Let us keep in mind that it was the UN that has been rife with prostitution and human trafficing scandals, UNICEF being used for child porn rings, and let us not forget how Kofi and his son both profited while the UN helped Saddam steal 23 Billion dollars from the UN Oil for Food Program.

    In responce to point 5 – You seem to claim that we did not condemn Iraq’s use of WMD on Iran. First, I am thrilled that we can all agree that Saddam had WMD. Second, this document from the national security archive speaks of our public condemnation of those events, in fact it was one of the reasons that Rumsfeld visited Iraq in 1983. The following document proves this beyond rational doubt.

    Click to access iraq48.pdf

    You indicated that you believe that your opinions are not given the weight of respect that you think that they deserve. Uninformed opinions, worsened through a lens of ideological extremism, combined with such creative terms as you have used such as “douche”, somehow fail to inspire me with scholarly reverence. Such views should be carefully examined in light of the evidence, deconstructed, and if necessary, mocked.

    However, since Dr. Herr is hiding under his desk and will not debate me in public. I hereby extend that invitation to you. How about we limit it to 3 aspects to save time, WMD intel, WMD Program Intel and Saddams historical collaboration with Al-Qeada that the far left seems to think has never existed.

    I await your answer sir.

  11. Noah said

    dear chuck,

    you accuse me of avoiding your arguments. i could do the same. instead, i will briefly respond to your points, and invite you to present your opinion on the topics that you like. you must forgive me if i’m a bit irreverent. i’m not publishing a research paper, i’m talking to someone on the interweb. i will try to avoid my colourful vernacular, since you think it diminishes my credibility. rest assured, there is no need to “mock” anyone. i will not mock your opinion, no matter how ridiculous i may believe them. that is something a child does. my mother taught me it was rude and impolite.

    the UN:

    your entire point is based on discrediting the UN. should i do the same to discredit america? is that the argument that you’d like? what do you want me to say, really? would you like me to unearth american political controvercies? would you like me to unearth the sketchy things we’ve done throughout our history? the UN is the best thing that we’ve got at this point. perhaps my biggest complaint about the bush administration is their lack of concern for international concensus. bush sr. certainly was better about this.

    my simple point is that we don’t care what the UN says, either. it boils down to this: we want to start a war because saddam hussein won’t allow inspectors into certain areas. we wouldn’t do it either. do you know how many NBC sights there are in this country? again, my problem is to the inherant impugnity this administrations foreign policy has entailed.

    see, look how easy it was. now i believe that we did condemn saddam. did we still give him aid to take over iraq?

    i can only speculate why he doesn’t want to debate you. i surely have several top guesses. in any case, if you’d like to discuss those topics, go nuts. i certainly won’t have a “public debate” because i spend my time doing physics and math, not studying up on internationally illegal wars.


  12. Chuck Norton said


    So how did you like that document from the national archives online that proved your Iraq statement wrong? I dont know because, like most of my best arguments and evidence, you dont mention them in your responses.

    Shall we make a comparison between the USA and the UN. Ohhh thats a GREAT idea. Lets do it, I am well prepared.

    However there is one argument that no one who wants the League of Nations…. ooops Freudian slip there…. The United Nations to have soveriegnty can trump.

    The United Nations was created so that no holocost, like what happened to the Jews in WWII, could ever happen again. That was the big public reason for why it was created and its primary purpose.

    You know, incidences of over a million people killed like in Rwanda……, but wait, when President Clinton’s Administration went to the UN to do something about it, France stopped it, after all they do have a veto on the security council.

    You know there is this genocide going on in the Sudan RIGHT NOW. The Bush Administration went to the UN to get them to act and guess what, France stops that too.

    Or I know how about the Ivory Coast, where French Troops gunned down a crowd of unarmed civilian protestors (I have 2 video’s of the event)… oh wait, you cant get a resolution condemning France for that behavior because they have a Veto.

    The UN, like the League of Nations, fails to act to back up its own rules and charter and in fact, provides cover for people like the butchers in Sudan, Saddam, Castro etc etc. Look at the number of times the League of Nations failed to act, when Japan invaded Manchuria on Sept. 18th, 1931. How it failed to act when Hitler took Austria when he promised not to, and how he invaded the DMZ Rhinelands, and how he invaded Czeckoslovakia…. again all like he promised not to.

    It wasnt until Hitler invaded Poland that Britian and France acted and Russia put troops on the Polish border that something was done. It took countries acting outside the League of Nations to push back against Hitler. Hey according to your logic, France and Britain acted illegally for acting unilaterally right? Hey its not too late, why dont you write Ambassador Bolton at the UN and ask him to submit a resolution condemning France and Britain for their illegal war against Hitler. After all, at that time those two countries were not under attack by Hitler and since they acted outside of a League of Nations Resolution demanding military action…………

    Perhaps you were too busy studying physics and math during your history class. Let me know when you write the letter, it will show me just how consistant your point of view is.

    Another good reason to make a comparison between the US and the UN is that I will have an excuse to talk about how the UN UNICEF bureaucracy operated a kiddie porn ring. Or I can talk about how UN personel on “peace keeping” missions routinely trade the food and aid that they are supposed to be giving for free for sex from young girls, and they do so with impunity. NBC and PBS have both done specials on this problem.

    We can also talk about the UN Oil for Food Program, where Kofi Anon’s son stole millions, and other UN crooks and accomplisses stole over 23 billion dollars in what has become the largest financial scandal in the history of the world.

    In fact we can even explore UN Documents like the UN Covenent on Political and Civil Rights… that tells us how we have a right to free speech and conscience so long as we dont oppose the goals and purposes of the UN when we excersize those rights. But hey, when you have a warm and fuzzy UN bureaucracy to protect you, dissent becomes obsolete right?

  13. Noah said

    dear charles,

    if you look to line 13 you will see something that goes like this:

    see, look how easy it was. now i believe that we did condemn saddam. did we still give him aid to take over iraq?

    pretty straight forward, no?

    i’ve got to get ready to go to a research conference. i’ll surely cook something up for you next weekend, when i get back. really i don’t know why you to continue to simply discredit the UN. perhaps you are a fan of unilateral action and preemptive wars. of course there is genocide going on in africa. there is a madman stockpiling nuclear weapons in korea, as well. no oil to be found in either of those places, though. why bother, right? or wait, it’s that UN that’s keeping us from doing anything about it, i forgot.

    i certainly have much to counter about what you’ve said. if only i had the time. soon enough.


  14. Chuck Norton said

    Our TORTURE Camp in Action!!!!!!!,12271,1163436,00.html

    [b]Cuba? It was great, say boys freed from US prison camp [/b]

    James Astill meets teenagers released from Guantanamo Bay who recall the place fondly

    Saturday March 6, 2004
    The Guardian

    Asadullah strives to make his point, switching to English lest there be any mistaking him. “I am lucky I went there, and now I miss it. Cuba was great,” said the 14-year-old, knotting his brow in the effort to make sure he is understood.
    Not that Asadullah saw much of the Caribbean island. During his 14-month stay, he went to the beach only a couple of times – a shame, as he loved to snorkel. And though he learned a few words of Spanish, Asadullah had zero contact with the locals.

    He spent a typical day watching movies, going to class and playing football. He was fascinated to learn about the solar system, and now enjoys reciting the names of the planets, starting with Earth. Less diverting were the twice-monthly interrogations about his knowledge of al-Qaida and the Taliban. But, as Asadullah’s answer was always the same – “I don’t know anything about these people” – these sessions were merely a bore: an inevitably tedious consequence, Asadullah suggests with a shrug, of being held captive in Guantanamo Bay.

    On January 29, Asadullah and two other juvenile prisoners were returned home to Afghanistan. The three boys are not sure of their ages. But, according to the estimate of the Red Cross, Asadullah is the youngest, aged 12 at the time of his arrest. The second youngest, Naqibullah, was arrested with him, aged perhaps 13, while the third boy, Mohammed Ismail, was a child at the time of his separate arrest, but probably isn’t now.

    Tracked down to his remote village in south-eastern Afghanistan, Naqibullah has memories of Guantanamo that are almost identical to Asadullah’s. Prison life was good, he said shyly, nervous to be receiving a foreigner to his family’s mud-fortress home.

    The food in the camp was delicious, the teaching was excellent, and his warders were kind. “Americans are good people, they were always friendly, I don’t have anything against them,” he said. “If my father didn’t need me, I would want to live in America.”

    Asadullah is even more sure of this. “Americans are great people, better than anyone else,” he said, when found at his elder brother’s tiny fruit and nut shop in a muddy backstreet of Kabul. “Americans are polite and friendly when you speak to them. They are not rude like Afghans. If I could be anywhere, I would be in America. I would like to be a doctor, an engineer _ or an American soldier.”

    This might seem to jar with the prevailing opinion of Guantanamo among human rights groups. An American jail on foreign soil, Guantanamo was designed, according to Amnesty International, to deny prisoners “many of their most basic rights”, which in America would include special provision for the “speedy trial” of juveniles. But, seized in the remotest wilds of violent Afghanistan, the boys knew practically nothing of their rights, and expected less.

    They were also unaware that the American defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, had described Guantanamo’s inmates as “hard-core, well-trained terrorists” and “among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth.”

    Naqibullah and Asadullah were arrested one night in November 2002, in Musawal village, Paktia province, by around 30 American special forces soldiers. More than 30 local men were also arrested, and remain in Guantanamo.

    Naqibullah, the local imam’s son, said he stumbled into the raid while cycling from a friend’s house. Asadullah is from a village three days’ walk away, in neighbouring Logar province, but was working for a local farmer along with several men who were also arrested.

    It seems likely the Americans were looking for a local commander, Mansoor Rah man Saiful, who had fought against the Taliban for years, but joined the radical Islamists when America attacked Afghanistan. If so, they were unsuccessful: Mr Saiful is still at large.

    The captives were taken to Bagram airbase, a short helicopter ride away. Naqibullah grins as he mimes the Chinook’s whirring rotary blade; but he was less relaxed at the time. “It was terrifying, I didn’t know what was happening to me,” he said, seated cross-legged in a small reception room, cut into a thick fortress wall. “There were many of us in a small cell. Some men were screaming to be let free.”

    Naqibullah was interrogated every day at Bagram. “They kept asking me, ‘Do you know the Taliban? Do you know al-Qaida? Have you given them shelter? Have you given them food?’,” he said.

    “I told them, ‘I don’t know these people, and I am too young to give anything to anyone without my father’s authority’.” After two weeks, Naqibullah said, he was asked whether he had any objection to being taken to “another place”.

    “I said, ‘What can I do? You will take me wherever you want to’.” That night, bound, blindfolded and fitted into orange overalls, he was loaded on to a cargo plane and flown non-stop to Cuba. Naqibullah’s first 10 days in Guantanamo were the worst of his life, he said. He was put in a tiny cell with a single slit-window as his interrogation continued. Then everything changed. “I was taken to an American general who said, ‘We will educate you and soon you will go home’. And my situation improved.”

    Naqibullah, Asadullah and Mohammed Ismail were moved into one large room, which was never locked. They were taught Pashto (their own language), English, Arabic, maths, science, art and, for two months, Islam. “The American soldiers ate pork but they said we must never do that because we were Muslim,” said Naqibullah. “They were very strict about Islam.”

    The boys played football every day, and sometimes basketball and volleyball with their guards. Asadullah said his particular friends were called Special Sergeant M and Private O – their real names were kept from him. Officially, he was called Prisoner 912. “But my friends called me Asadullah, which made me happy.”

    The boys never spoke to Guantanamo’s other prisoners – “lots of Arabs and Afghans,” according Naqibullah.

    Meanwhile, their own interrogation became a predictable affair. “I said, ‘Look, I don’t anything about the Taliban’,” said Asadullah. “But anyway, the Taliban were the government so lots of people worked with them. Just because you were Taliban it doesn’t mean you’re a criminal.”

    After five months, Naqibullah wrote home for the first time. Taking this first letter, written on Red Cross notepaper, from his pocket, he now reads it aloud. “My greetings to beloved family, to my beloved father, to my beloved uncles, to my beloved cousins, to my beloved brothers. I am in good health and happy. I am in Cuba, in a special room, but it is not like a jail. Don’t worry about me. I am learning English, Pashto and Arabic.” The next two lines of the letter were scrubbed out by the Guantanamo censor. Asadullah said he couldn’t for the life of him remember what they said.

    Despite their gentle treatment, the boys were homesick. “I was very sad because I missed my family so much,” said Asadullah. “I was always asking, ‘When can I go home? What day? What month?’ They said, ‘You’ll go home soon’, but they never said when.”

    Meanwhile, the boys’ parents were suffering agonies. In Khoja Angur, Asadullah’s village, the boy’s mother describes how she cried “every night thinking about my son.”

    Covered entirely by a sheet of turquoise silk, she speaks through a male relative while the Guardian’s translator stares respectfully at his feet. So conservative is Asadullah’s society that his mother’s name is a family secret. “I prayed to God, I asked, ‘Where is my son?’,” she continued. “He was just a boy, much too young to disappear on his own.”

    Asadullah was gone for seven months before his parents discovered his whereabouts. For the first two months, his uncles and cousins were afraid to tell his elderly father, Abdul Rahman, that he was missing, believing the shock might kill him. Almost the entire male population of Khoja Angur, a fortified mud-village, snowbound and ringed by icy peaks, downed tools and went searching for the boy. “They went to Bagram, but the Americans said they didn’t know anything about him,” said Abdul Rahman, white-bearded and heavy-breathing. “They went to Logar and Gardez, even to Kandahar, but no one knew about him.”

    When Asadullah returned to Khoja Angur last month – at a day’s notice – the village elders gathered to ask how the Americans had treated him. When he said they had treated him well, they ruled that the matter was closed. “We have nothing against the Americans, they looked after the boy. They taught him English and other things,” said Haji Mohammad Tahir, an elder of the village, gesturing to Asadullah’s drawings of the planets, which were proudly displayed on the floor.

    But, for Asadullah’s father, the matter is not closed. He borrowed several thousand dollars to support his relatives’ families while they looked for his son. To raise the money, he was forced to forfeit his land. Now, his creditors come visiting every day to demand money that he cannot repay, he said. His eldest son – a shopkeeper in Kabul – last week cancelled his engagement, for want of $2,000 to pay the dowry. And that is not Abdul Rahman’s only concern. “I thank God that my son has come back, but he has changed,” he said. “He is impatient and refuses to listen to his elders. He has grown disobedient.”

    So, while Naqibullah is at home now, helping his father in the fields, Asadullah is in Kabul, seeing if the UN will continue his schooling. “There is no electricity and no clinic in my village. It’s a bit boring, nothing new happens there,” he said, looking embarrassed.

    Loitering in Kabul this week, Asadullah came across an American soldier. “I asked him, ‘How are you, sir?’,” he recalled, grinning shyly. The soldier said he was well, and asked the boy what he wanted. Asadullah replied: “Nothing, I was just asking,” as the American walked away.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: