Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Treason: In the Eye of the Beholder

Given the timely appointment of the heretofore unknown John Roberts, the W, Rove and Co. have managed to shift attention away from Mr. Karl Rove and his obvious connection with the Valerie Plame Leak. Only for a moment.

With an ever shrinking ethical standard for employment with the W, Rove and Co. (from no leaks tolerated, to people who leak being fired, to only convicted criminals let go), let's refresh our memories of the definition of Treason (Stipulated in Article Three of the US Constitution - 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.
Or by law:
In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who reneges on an oath of loyalty or a pledge of allegiance, and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."
Now with Scott (McMessage) McClellon (click on the 18 July 2005 press briefing audio) obfuscating and setting the stage to blame the press - or anyone else besides Rove - for the leaking of Plame's name ( you can view text of the briefing as well), who's to say if Rove committed treason? In the end, the results of the Grand Jury investigation should be interesting to review.

Perhaps determining whether a person has committed treason is as gray an area as finding an activist judge you can get behind for the supreme court. Shouldn't the Whitehouse have a higher, rather than lower, moral and ethical standard for employment than simply not employing criminals?

Incidentally, with a great number of very well qualified women sitting on benches today, why didn't GWB have the courage to nominate a woman to replace Justice O'Connor.

2 comments:

homebrewer2005 said...

I really enjoy watching the left complain about activist judges when a Righie is in office. It reminds me of the Right complaining about activist judges when a Leftie was in office.

Plus ça change (plus c'est la même chose).

I like the blog. I'll be back to visit again.

Anonymous said...


Irony is not the ''Right's'' strong point

The ''Right'' complains about activist judges when they're reaping the benefits of activist judges. The ''Left'' only complains when they're getting screwed.