Do the released Yoo memos constitute proof of a plot to commit HIGH TREASON

[tom_paine]

Poll question: Do the released Yoo memos constitute proof of a plot to commit HIGH TREASON

against the United States of America by George W. Bush, Richard B Cheney, John Yoo, and possibly many others?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-bush-memos4-2009mar04,0,643986.story

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/secret-bush-memos-release_n_171221.html

High Treason. It's an ugly word. And not to be uttered lightly. Hannidiots, Savage Weiners and Dittoheads use the word at the drop of a hat. FranklY, sometimes, so do I.

But I say "High Treason" now not as a small child throwing a tantrum or a Hannidiot would, but with all the seriousness and gravity the term warrants.

The just-released Yoo memos speak of our worst fears, that were just an flick of the Imperial Bushler Wrist away. Of the end of probable cause, of habeus corpus and the Bill of Rights. Of the beginnings of the American Disappeared, of a TRULY State-Controlled Bushmedia that makes our GOP-driven and corporate-controlled M$M (they have gotten a little better lately) look like Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite.

Was it High Treason, the Yoo memos outline?

TO ANY DU LAWYERS A SPECIAL SHOUT OUT: What, if anything, am I missing? Why would this NOT be considered pretty ironclad proof of guilt of conspiracy to commit High Treason, especially if their is a paper trail to BushCheney signing off on it?

For that matter, what about the Gonzales Perjury? Considering he's on videotape, and the Director of the FBI is on tape contradicting him, is that, too, pretty much not open and shut if it goes to trial?

Not counting the political considerations, of course.

[BuyingThyme]

1. Jeez... Are you still looking back?

[KansDem]

2. Not "yes" but "HELL YES!!!"

Especially when you consider the bogus Iraq war was started as a cover to implement these treasonous acts...:grr:

It was all about neo-con rule!

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Does the Sun rise in the East?

:-)

Problem is proving it in a court of law...

And for many reasons it will be hard

[tom_paine]

5. Probably true. You'd think with pretty much an admission of guilt and intent in these memos.

I am downloading the .pdfs now, so I haven't read them directly yet.

Like the Gonzales Video, in which he perjures himself repeatedly on video tape and under oath, while at the same time, on videotape and under oath, the Director of the FBI contradicts him repeatedly.

Like most Bushie Crimes, this one is open and shut. They were so confident they'd never be prosecuted, Gonzales seemed to be saying, "So what the fuck if I perjured myself right in front of you a bunch of times? Who the fuck cares if the Dierctor of the FBI's sworn testimony says that either I'm lying or he is? Whattaya gonna do about it, huh?"

But we both know that, if a case was as open and shut as the evidence against Gonzales for perjury, the trial would last 15 min. or so before the Guilty Verdict came in.

Open and shut.

I'm no lawyer, and I would LOVE for one to chime in, but aren't these memos also like that, open and shut?

The treason is written right on them, plain and proud, signed by Yoo and who knows who else Like the Gonzales Video it is less a question of guilt. The Bushies provided their own evidence against themselves and it is pretty ironclad.

The only thing lacking, like Gonzales, is the WILL to prosecute, perhaps fearing that Cheney will have his al-Qeada pals hit us again, as he warned, Don Corleone-style, last month.

Whatever it is, I think if these cases go to trial, it would be the political, not the legal, aspects that would hold it up.

The criminals provided their own evidence, openly and shamelessly.

But again, I know very little of the legal profession, and I would love for a DU Lawyer to speak onthe matter of both the Gonzales Perjury and the Yoo Memos.

(hurry and download you slow dialup!)

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. The problem we have in proving treason is King George, and I mean George III

since he used the term for all... the Founders made proving treason very hard.

The standard is extremely hard to meet

That said Yoo might have created one of those cases that is easier, even under the standards set forth by Jefferson and company

:-)

Now in my opinion he (and the rest) have committed treason, but am aware of the legal difficulties in actually getting a conviction

And this does not even go into the politics of this and empire

[anigbrowl]

4. I am the person who voted no

lest someone think I was hiding behind a shield of anonymity. I don't approve of Yoo or the Bush regime, but my (amateur) legal opinion is that their misdeeds don't equate to 'high treason' as it is generally understood. In violation of the constitution, yes. Treasonous, no.

[tom_paine]

9. Conspiring to rationalize ending the Bill of Rights, military kicking in doors

and being able to disappear people, and not think it's treason?

Admittedly, they never carried it out, but they sure planned it and thought it through to the point of rationalizing it, Hitler-style.

Conspiracy to Commit High Treason. Conspired so shamelessly that they didn't even bother shredding the memos before they left.

I understand that you have a differing opinion, and I respect that. Given the magnitude of what was quite coldly rationalized, I am curious as to how you think it falls short of High Treason.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occam Bandage]

12. Yes. That is not treason. To try treason, you must prove the defendant adhered to an enemy nation

in his actions. It is not enough to prove the defendant harmed the nation, or intended to harm the nation. Were that the case, a labor leader who led a strike during a war could be thrown in jail for treason.

[anigbrowl]

15. Saying 'high treason!' doesn't make it so.

There's a specific meaning to those words - that is, betraying your country to a foreign power. It's article 3 of the constitution, section 3:

"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Now bush & co. may well have conspired to illegally suspend or violate the constitution - in fact, I'm pretty sure they did. But, as the constitution itself says, treason is something different from that.

[Occam Bandage]

10. Your opinion matches that of the Supreme Court in every case involving treason they have tried.

Unconstitutional behavior is not necessarily treason. Illegal behavior is not necessarily treason. Actions that hurt the country, even if they are undertaken with the specific and deliberate attempt to hurt the country, are not treason if they are not done with the intent to benefit an enemy foreign nation.

[TahitiNut]

6. Sedition?

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

7. Only if you don't understand what treason means. (Edited to add case law.)

It amounts to a destruction of our moral system and an attack on the Constitution, but neither are tantamount to treason. Treason is very simply defined, both in the Constitution and in case law (mostly relating to World War II): it is the act of damaging America, with the intent to damage America, with the further intent to damage America for the specific benefit of a specific hostile foreign power. If you did not intend to damage America to the direct and specific benefit of a specific hostile foreign power, you have not committed treason.

Cramer v. United States, 1945:

the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

Haupt v. United States, 1947

The overt act and the intent with which it is done are separate and distinct elements of the crime. It is true that reasonable doubts may be raised as to whether or not the prime motive for an act was treasonous. <330 U.S. 631, 648> Yet the nature of some acts is such that a non-treasonous motive cannot be completely dismissed as a possibility. An overt act of treason, however, should rest upon something more substantial than a reasonable doubt. Treason is different from ordinary crimes, possessing unique and difficult standards of proof which confine it within narrow spheres. It has such serious connotations that its substance cannot be left to conjecture.

[onenote]

14. you are right of course

[stillcool]

16. I defer to those upthread...

who defined treason. I also don't know what laws Bush broke. Seems to me like the U.S. Congress covered the Bush Administration's asses pretty good.