« Beater of The Week, V | Main | Apples Apples Everywhere - Even If I Did Have To Drive Out Of Back Bay »

Comments

Anonymous

Did something happen and we're suddenly at war with Hezbollah? If not, you're going to have a hard time proving treason, unless this vague "war on terror" is sufficient. Even if we were at war, I'm not sure how Chomsky as a single indvidual can weaken the United States' ability to prosecute a war. Bleating "aid and comfort, aid and comfort" doesn't change the legal determination of treason and it is highly unlikely that what Chomsky has done is anywhere close to treason.

Or is the word "treason" being used in this case as a sledgehammer to try to shut up political opponents of the Bush administration? I especially like how commentators use weasel words like "damn close" to treason. Well, until it is treason, it isn't treason and falls within the purview of free speech.

Little Green Footballs and their ilk should stick to what they know best--fantasizing about being brave enough to actually fight a war against terrorism rather than looking for internal enemies in some sort of Stalinist purge.

carpundit

Quick points:

I said he's getting close to treason, because he is. Hezbollah are terrorists, and our enemies. Treason does not merely consist of levying war, but is also possible through support of an enemy.

Travelling to Lebanon to meet with terrorists and speak against the United States is pushing the limit of free speech, and approaching punishable speech.

"Damn close" wasn't a "weasel." It was carefully framed to make it clear I am not actually accusing him of treason. Yet.

TheAutoProphet

If I was king, I would deport the asshole to Iran. Or maybe Saudi Arabia.

First, It might (although it is highly unlikely) be treasonous if we were at war with Hezbollah. We are not--certainly they are not our enemies as defined by the Constitution. Are they terrorists? Yes. Are we at war with them? No, unless again you're talking about the vague "war on terror" which, if permitted to stand in for an actual war, should be leading to numerous treason indictments. Haven't seen any yet.

Second, as I tried to point out, simply appearing and speaking with Hezbollah is not treasonous. It would also have to be proved that his actions were damaging to the United States' war effort. I suppose one would have to lump Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford, and Prescott Bush into the treasonous camp using your logic because all of them supplied either material support or "aid and comfort" to the Nazi regime.

I'm sure everyone appreciates your expert opinion that Chomsky is "damn close" to committing treason but it is abundantly clear that you don't know what the necessary and sufficient conditions for being found guilty of treason are.

As to the Auto Prophet, it is good to know that deep in the heart of those who despise liberals lives a free speech hating authoritarian troll. Why do you hate America?

carpundit

Actually, Anonymous, I read up on the case law before posting. I stand by my assessment. Seems Chomsky's about one ATM withdrawal away from supplementing the payroll at Hezbollah. Hezbollah has said this: "Today, as the region fills up with hundreds of thousands of American troops, our slogan was and will remain ‘Death to America."

Add that to their attacks in Israel, our ally, and you have a war.

The "War on Terror" may be rhetoric in many uses, but it's as real as blood in the Middle East, where our soldiers are dying at enemy hands. Hands attached to bodies given moral support by Chomsky. That's near to treason.

Your ad hominem attacks on AutoProphet and me only serve to undermine your weak position.

The comments to this entry are closed.