 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rsbonds
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Posts: 17
Location: Los Angeles
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:16 pm Post subject: What exactly is the definition of aiding and abeting? |
 |
|
It is my understanding that Benedict Arnold had a disagreement with the policy of the Federalists in Congress. Can a Congressman aid and abet the enemy or do they just have "disagreements" over policy, no matter what they say or the consequences thereof? Or do they have to actually fight on the other side to be considered as aiding and abeting the enemy? Were the actions of Jane Fonda aiding and abeting? If her actions in North Vietnam got American POWs killed, is that ok because she was an actress? I am confused.
_________________
R Scott Bonds |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dusty
Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boy I'm confused as hell myself. Seems like the 'rules' don't apply to everybody equally. Idiots like Kerry and Fonda can commit outright treason and aid and abet the enemy and nothing happens except Kerry gets elected to congress and Fonda makes more movies and gets richer.
Senators can stand up and tell bald faced lies about our CinC and put our soldiers lives in jepeordy and aid the enemy in their recruitment of more terrorists and all that hapens is.......their lies start to be believed by the American public and support for the mission we are on wanes to the point that we are on the verge of pulling another Vietnam.
Now all you guys that were over there back in the late 60's and early 70's are getting to see exactly how it happened then. They have done it again.
When you have the news media, hollyweird, and U.S. senators along with a few veterans trying their dead level best, making a concerted effort and co-ordinated by idealogy and hatred to influence the American public to their way of thinking without the same or greater concerted effort from the other side, there can be only one outcome.
This is what happened back then, this is what's happening now.
I'm sick, sick, sick just thinking about it.
Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Benedict Arnold was an excellent commander and was pivotal in defeating Burgoyne at Saratoga. However, he had a problem in that he thought he should have more than he received in recognition and reward. In 1779 he married a woman in Phila whose family had loyalist sympathies and he subsequently was plotting to accept a commision with the British Army and betray West Point to the Crown. The plot was discovered and Arnold fled to exile in England where he died in disgrace and misery after the war. This is treason.
During the Civil War, Pres Lincoln threatened to arrest the MD legislature rather than have a secession. He further threatened to arrest the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court if he entertained any thoughts supporting the Confederacy. One Ohio Congressman was arrested and deported to the South for his overly vocal southern sympathies.
Hanoi Jane went to Viet Nam and encouraged the enemy to continue the fight. Lurch had phony hearings and discredited the men serving with false accusations of atrocities. This is aiding and abetting. Lurch is a Senator and Hanoi Jane is one of the 100 Women of the 20th Century. Go figure.
Cythia McKinney is a Moonbat and gets elected to congress to do everything she can do defy civility, logic and reason of anything American. McKinney is too stupid to be treasonous, aiding or abetting. The electorate who puts her in office has to be brain dead. How times have changed.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
The simplest and possibly most useful definitions are:
Aid: To provide what is useful in achieving an end or goal.
Abet: To approve, encourage, and support (an action or a plan of action); urge and help on.
Aid and abetment can be written, orally delivered, or provided in actual goods or services. Just apply the simple definition to any person and see if it fits. Apparently, if sufficient quantities of aiders and abetors exist in the case of application to an enemy of our country, the crime vanishes.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GenrXr
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 1720
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think dusty was being 'sarcrastrical'.
For you leftists, ask Chomsky, your God what it means.
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 2:41 pm Post subject: Re: What exactly is the definition of aiding and abeting? |
|
|
| rsbonds wrote: | | It is my understanding that Benedict Arnold had a disagreement with the policy of the Federalists in Congress. Can a Congressman aid and abet the enemy or do they just have "disagreements" over policy, no matter what they say or the consequences thereof? Or do they have to actually fight on the other side to be considered as aiding and abeting the enemy? Were the actions of Jane Fonda aiding and abeting? If her actions in North Vietnam got American POWs killed, is that ok because she was an actress? I am confused. |
It was certainly a goal of the framers of the Constitution, fresh from a defining fight with the British, to exact a certain amount of loyalty from American citizens and to prescribe certain punishments for disloyalty.
Witness Amendment XIV, Section 3 of the Constitution:
| Quote: | | No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. |
Or, look at 18 US Code 2381, violation of which is called "treason."
| Quote: | | Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. |
Fonda and Kerry contributed directly and materially to our defeat in Vietnam, as testified to by the leaders of the enemy there.
The current chorus calling for abandonment of the plan for Iraq is played back to us by al Zawahiri and al Zaqawi, reminding their fighters of Vietnam and calling on them to be patient.
The actions of Fonda, Kerry and a large number of elected representatives of the people should be examined in a court of law to determine just how much they have violated these clearly written laws. Apparently, that's not going to happen and our treasured Republic sinks just a little deeper into oblivion.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deuce
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 589
Location: FL
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Schadow wrote: | The simplest and possibly most useful definitions are:
Aid: To provide what is useful in achieving an end or goal.
Abet: To approve, encourage, and support (an action or a plan of action); urge and help on.
Aid and abetment can be written, orally delivered, or provided in actual goods or services. Just apply the simple definition to any person and see if it fits. Apparently, if sufficient quantities of aiders and abetors exist in the case of application to an enemy of our country, the crime vanishes.
Schadow |
Whoa there Schadow...
if sufficient 'rapists and murderers' exist in the application of rape and murder the crime won't vanish, nor should it here! Certainly not for 'High Treason'...the only question is did sKerry commit high treason when, as a Naval Officer, he negotiated with the enemy...I for one still see High Treason...same for Fonda...just my 2 cents
Deuce |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dusty
Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Whoa there Schadow...
if sufficient 'rapists and murderers' exist in the application of rape and murder the crime won't vanish, nor should it here! Certainly not for 'High Treason'...the only question is did sKerry commit high treason when, as a Naval Officer, he negotiated with the enemy...I for one still see High Treason...same for Fonda...just my 2 cents
Deuce |
That they did commit treason is obvious to everyone I know. Why they haven't ever been charged and have even been rewarded is not at all obvious to me at least.
Like they have little force fields around them or something.
The world is still upside down.
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deuce wrote: | Whoa there Schadow...
if sufficient 'rapists and murderers' exist in the application of rape and murder the crime won't vanish, nor should it here! Certainly not for 'High Treason'...the only question is did sKerry commit high treason when, as a Naval Officer, he negotiated with the enemy...I for one still see High Treason...same for Fonda...just my 2 cents
Deuce |
Of course it's high treason. I tend to write sarcastically.
The Congress (and the Executive for that matter) insist on hiding behind the tattered fig leaf of the definition of "declared war." The Constitution grants the authority to declare war to the Congress. This has not been done since December 8, 1941 (retroactive to December 7) when FDR asked Congress for a declaration of war against Japan. This was followed a few days later to make a similar declaration against Germany and, if I remember correctly, Italy.
We are stuck on the fiction that only recognized "nations" can have war declared against them. All of our war actions since have been accomplished via the granting to the Executive by the Congress of "war powers."
It would appear that Attorneys General have been reluctant to pursue treason actions against the likes of Kerry and Fonda (and others) for the lack of a "declared war". That thinking need to change. One has only to read the fatwas issued by Bin Ladin, al Zawahiri, etc., to recognize that we have had war declared against us. Surely, we can accommodate the necessary changes in law to get real about this matter.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you are on to something. Maybe Congress could issue a Fatwah.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The best modern example of the treasonous behavior concerning aiding and abeting the enemy, is the conduct of Senator Kerry after he returned from his four month war in Vietnam.
His trips to Paris after his war and dishonest testimony before Congress are glowing examples of violations of the act.
To this day Communist Vietnam treats Kerry as one of their war heroes along with the present anti-war movement in the USA.
Kerry = Treason
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
