The attorney general double standard

[DesertFox]

Jerome Schmitt
American Thinker
6 Sep 07

Both John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales were pilloried by liberals in the left-wing press for trying to fulfill their official duty and advise the White House on a proper, constitutional response to the CIA's request for legal guidance on allowable methods to interrogate terrorist suspects.

The actual guidance provided by these Republican Attorneys General has never been revealed, of course, because they are legitimate state secrets, but this has not prevented the Mainstream Media from charging them with approving "torture". It is impossible for these men to defend themselves in the court of public opinion due to the secret nature of their legal advice. This circumstance has not prevented liberals from flogging them with this un-provable charge -- as well as all Republicans by association.

In contrast, Ramsey Clark, a former Democrat Attorney General has volunteered to render legal advice to two war criminals, Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein who were actual torturers and mass murderers. This goes virtually without comment in the media.

More (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/the_medias_attorney_general_do.html)

[DesertFox]

Judging from the lack of comment, one might conclude that Mike Nifong has ruined interest in Attorneys General.

Or that Janet Reno did with all her illegal acts.

Or that Alberto Gonzalez did with all his do-nothingness.

But the reality is prolly simpler than that: Attorneys General are boring. And should be. Their eyes should be focused on legal vs. not legal, as John Ashcroft's.

[Jack_Savage]

Just goes to show how effective the puke-left is with the smear. A boring appointment and they get the whole country worked up. Hollywierd climbs on board and this new celebrity-hungry society all of a sudden becomes mean and hollow.

With the things that Janet Reno did to get a pass, and Gonzelez forced to resign for doing his job, that tells us alot about todays poll giver.

Man, we are in a situation today where Hillary could win the election and bring Janet Reno back into our everyday lives. That alone is enough to motivate the troops. Even if its only a slim chance, the thought of it is horrific.

[DoctorDoom]

When the RATs can't get at the man at the top, they do their worst to undermine him at lower levels, hoping for a collapse. Their psychotic loathing for Bush is driving them to try to destroy America. They are literally insane.

And I say again that the DemonRATs are traitors who should be tried for treason, convicted and executed on prime time.

[DesertFox]

Treason? I don't follow.

[Jack_Savage]

Treason? I don't follow.
I believe obstruction of the Commander In Chief during war is the definition of treason. Those self-serving pukes who do it for cheap political purposes, should be prosecuted.

If this was done by Republicans during a Hillary or Obama administration, the media would be full of Democrats calling for a special prosecutor. Censure, etc. And all those who jump on Bush now, would be joining in for blood. None of todays rock-throwers were saying a word against Clinton going into Bosnia. Then the media was showing his courage, instead of detailing his orders to Sandy Berger to let Osama go.

[DesertFox]

Treason is defined in Article 3 Section of the Constitution:

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

You can say that somebody is a traitor to a cause, but anything beyond that and you're speaking figuratively.

[cerebraldebris]

Treason is defined in Article 3 Section of the Constitution:

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

You can say that somebody is a traitor to a cause, but anything beyond that and you're speaking figuratively.

You don't consider the despicable acts of Schumer, Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the usual suspects treasonous? I don't think they've been simply traitorous to a cause.
I can't imagine our enemy being discouraged by the words and actions of the left. Quite the opposite. The left as a whole has done nothing but give aid and comfort to our enemies. Whether it be through the leaking of secret counter-terrorism operations by the NY Times or the craziness coming from high profile "leaders" in the Democrat party.
They are so completely and utterly mad with hatred toward this president, and so beholden to the America hating fringe on the left that all sense of reason is gone.

[DesertFox]

No doubt. But treason has a very specific definition. To call them traitors outside that definition is merely allusory.

[Timberwolf]

What does Ramsey Clark think of Sison? From Komfie Manalo's All Headline News article linked above:
He (Clark) described Sison as a "gentle person and an inspiring leader."

"Everyone who is concerned about peace and freedom has to be greatly distressed over the arrest of Joma Sison," Clark reportedly said
NOW does anyone think Ramsey Clark isn't one of those "domestic enemies" referenced in the Constitution?

[DoctorDoom]

Treason? I don't follow.I was referrring to the RAT traitors, obviously not clearly enough. When people deliberately seek to undermine the Administration and the Executive Branch in wartime, give aid and comfort to America's enemies, make illegal visits to nations supporting our enemies, and try desperately to destroy the morale of our troops in order to force defeat on the battlefield, that's treason.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Politics/TombstoneGallows.jpg

[cerebraldebris]

No doubt. But treason has a very specific definition. To call them traitors outside that definition is merely allusory.

...:question:

So am I to understand that treason as defined by our Constitution can only be considered treason if-

Article III, Section III, Clause I:
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.

...all of the above are met? Or any in the statement above are met?
Also, is "levying war against them" to be considered militarily? Or can it be considered in the sense of building up opposition in such a way that causes damage to this country?
I'm not speaking of mere opposition in the sense of peaceable protest or debate. I'm speaking of actual, real damage.

I understand that the framers wanted to do their best to eliminate easily abused definitions of treason, so they really narrowed the definition of treason to what we have in our Constitution.

So are you saying it's allusive unless and until the latter part of the definition has been met? (in bold above)