SwiftVets.com

[Aristotle The Hun]

What Ross Perot wouldn't say - A personal note



I’ve been thinking again. Just wanted to warn you before you read this.



The other night Ross Perot was interviewed by Sean Hannity. Sean asked Ross what he thought about the effect of politicians going on about Gitmo, Abu Grahib, and anti war comments in general. Ross’s answer went something like this (from memory) “The people and press can say all kinds of things because we have freedom of speech. But when a national leader, a politician, opposes how we conduct a war he/she gives aid and comfort to the enemy and you know what we call that.”



When Sean tried to prod Ross to say the word “treason” he declined cleverly by saying, “Sean, you can say that word but if I say it I will need to deal with media fallout for the next week.”



So I got to thinking. Proving that someone is aiding and abetting the enemy results in a conviction for the crime of treason. So, it is probably wrong to call someone a traitor unless it has been proven in court that they have aided and abetted the enemy.



It seems reasonable that elected leaders need to be held to a much higher standard of responsibility than ordinary citizens or the media. To me the proof of aiding and abetting is obvious just from the public comments of several politicians. Irresponsible comments by leaders really do aid and abet the enemy.



It probably wouldn’t take much effort to come up with legally defined “evidence” that “loose lips sink ships”. So, whatever action might eventually occur, the place to start is to have an “inquiry” to see if certain behavior by various Senators and Congressmen constitute aiding and abetting. I suspect this will shut them up without needing to charge them with treason.



Please give me some feedback on my thinking.



And if any of the lawyers on this forum actually know how aiding and abetting is defined please respond.



Sam
_________________
Deportè Monsieur Kerrè

[blue9t3]

I saw the interview and I like Perot, to define aiding and abetting might be slippery, I think its like bad taste( you know it when you see it!). I wonder sometimes what would happen if the spouse of a fallen warrior was to hang some paper on one of these loud mouth so called American reps.?
_________________
MOPAR-BUYER

[Aristotle The Hun]

There isn’t even a real need to name names. Just hearings to collect evidence into how public statements by politicians effect National Security. We need this information. Once the evidence is clear then politicians would know what havoc they cause with their “loose lips”, and so would the public.

We need public hearings into the effects of political statements on National Security.

Sam
_________________
Deportè Monsieur Kerrè

[Rdtf]

Remember no one dared to say the word about Kerry either, although many eluded to it and accused him of it.

[wpage]

[PhantomSgt]

One must separate what is stated on the Senate floor while in session from other statements made outside of the sanctity of the floor. All speeches made by members of Congress on the floor of the House or Senate are all "privileged speeches" and they cannot be held liable for the content.

This does not preclude the voters from showing their displeasure with these statements at the ballot box when the member is up for reelection.

Obviously Mr. Hannity forgot this fact when he throws out the word treason to describe a privileged speech by a member of Congress. This is what makes the USA the strongest democracy on the planet in spite of the liberal left.

The bully pulpit of freedom is alive and well as long as the Constitution protects us all. When we start trying people for the words they utter, Democracy will die a sudden death in America.


_________________
Retired AF E-8

Independent that leans right of center.

[Aristotle The Hun]

I agree with you post. Please remember that all I want is hearing into the impact on national security when leaders make comments opposing national policy.

There isn't even a need to name names. No one would be on trial. No charges of treason would be made.

To validate your point further I refer you to Article I, sec. 6 of the Constitution: "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place." Durbin's remarks were, of course, made on the Senate floor.

Sam
_________________
Deportè Monsieur Kerrè

[Aristotle The Hun]

Just imagine public hearings with POWs testifying about how irresponsible remarks by elected officials (Kerry) affected them.

Or witness after witness giving evidence about how irresponsible comments effect the war effort and kill our troops.

This would be enough to shut them up. No need for a charge of treason to be filed. Once educated both the politicians and the people will know who the traitors are.

Sam
_________________
Deportè Monsieur Kerrè

[Army_(Ret)]

Durbin shouldn't apologize, he should resign.
_________________
Peace is acheived through victory

[Aristotle The Hun]

[blue9t3]

(seems fitting)
In big letters on a vets pickup that I saw yesterday: It said "if you wont stand behind our troops- then go stand in front of them"

PS. durbin needs a turbin!
_________________
MOPAR-BUYER

[Army_(Ret)]

[Army_(Ret)]

[George F. Thompson]

Just for the record, who the hell cares what Perot thinks about anything. If my memory serves me, wasn't Perot the one who got 19% of the vote during the Bush I, Clinton and Perot election. 19% Perot, 43% Clinton and 38% for president Bush. What a legacy for the cause and effect concept.

George F. Thompson