Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 25, 2007 17:07:37 GMT -4
Another example - beyond dispute - would be that of German citizens advocating the overthrow of Hitler in the 1930's. They are not traitors in such a case, they are patriots. Actually I'll dispute that. German citizens who advocated the overthrow of Hitler in the 1930s were in fact traitors. They would have been on the morally correct side of the issue - but they would have been engaging in treason nevertheless. George Washington was a traitor to England too, at least until England recognized him as the legitimate head of a sovereign state seperate from their own. It doesn't matter how abusive your government is towards you - if you act treasonously against it you are a traitor. Whether that also makes you an immoral person is where you can begin taking the behavior of the government towards you into account.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 27, 2007 4:25:49 GMT -4
Then who is? If you cannot say who is, how do you know they're government employees at all? Couldn't it be someone else with a super-secret ninja demolition squad that manages to only leave traces that look to qualified engineers like progressive collapse due to BFP+BFF but are clearly signs of controlled demolition to unqualified, uneducated amateurs on bulletin boards? So when Cheney allows a plane to fly a direct path towards the Pentagon, as he's told it's 50, 30 and 10 miles out, but never even raises an alert to anyone, exactly what should we assume? I'd really like to know.... No, I don't think it's obvious at all. You have a clear and fundamental distrust of the government that seems to contain everyone who works for them. I assure you that some of the people who were in the Pentagon on 9/11, probably even people working in that very section, had as little to do with upper-level decisions as my mother. Your assumption of what my view is towards the government is completely wrong. If you can't understand that fact, it's simply not my problem.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Apr 27, 2007 7:28:21 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Apr 27, 2007 8:44:04 GMT -4
What does this even mean ? I'm not familiar with Washington DC, but on Google Maps it looks as if any plane using Reagan National Airport would pass within about a mile of the Pentagon. Does Cheney get warned about [italic] every [/italic] plane that is headed that way ?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 27, 2007 10:27:39 GMT -4
So when Cheney allows a plane to fly a direct path towards the Pentagon, as he's told it's 50, 30 and 10 miles out, but never even raises an alert to anyone, exactly what should we assume? I'd really like to know.... If we... ...assume you are right that he knew about the plane, ...and assume that he knew the plane wasn't approaching Ronald Reagan airport, ...and assume he knew it was being used as a weapon Can we not also assume that maybe he was reluctant to order the shooting down of a plane full of innocent civilians, possibly resulting in flaming debris falling on even more civilians on the ground.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 27, 2007 11:24:03 GMT -4
Can we not also assume that maybe he was reluctant to order the shooting down of a plane full of innocent civilians, possibly resulting in flaming debris falling on even more civilians on the ground. From what I've heard, and I don't have a source on this at the moment, is that after the Pentagon attack Cheney illegally authorized the shootdown of any plane heading for them and even thought that the military had already shot some planes down. Before the attack, he may have been reluctant to order the shootdown of a plane full of innocent civilians, but afterwards he sure wasn't. Plus, he didn't have the authority to order the shootdown of planes, though that's debatable since Bush was flying around in Air Force One not getting anything done and not communicating with anyone. To be fair, Cheney made a much better leader during the attacks than Bush. edit to add: I'd be happy to be corrected on any of this information if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 28, 2007 1:03:40 GMT -4
If we... ...assume you are right that he knew about the plane, ...and assume that he knew the plane wasn't approaching Ronald Reagan airport, ...and assume he knew it was being used as a weapon Can we not also assume that maybe he was reluctant to order the shooting down of a plane full of innocent civilians, possibly resulting in flaming debris falling on even more civilians on the ground. This is part of the testimony given by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta to the 9/11 Commission (emphasis added)...... MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?
MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --
MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --
MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.
MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.
MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognize the significance of that.
And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.
MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.
MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.
MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.
MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out. www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm#panel_oneNow, let's address your points.... ...assume you are right that he knew about the plane, No doubt about it. The young man kept referring to a specific plane ("the plane") in his updates to Cheney. ...and assume that he knew the plane wasn't approaching Ronald Reagan airport, Cheney knew the plane was specifically approaching the Pentagon, as Mineta confirmed in his testimony... MR. MINETA:....I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon....
MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --
MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.
MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah....and assume he knew it was being used as a weapon A plane being tracked on a direct flight path towards the Pentagon, a building located within a "buffer zone" - one of the most strictly monitored areas of restricted airspace in the country (quite likely the world). And, well aware that two other planes had just been used as weapons, smashing into the twin towers. Cheney would hardly have to know that the plane was going to be used as a weapon. Even if he thought it only had the slightest chance of happening (which is absurd), he should have immediately alerted the Pentagon. Can we not also assume that maybe he was reluctant to order the shooting down of a plane full of innocent civilians, possibly resulting in flaming debris falling on even more civilians on the ground. Even if that were the case, it's not relevant to my point. If you believe the official 9/11 story, then Cheney should have warned the Pentagon about the impending hit, so at the very least they could evacuate the building, etc. But if you believe 9/11 was an inside job, then Cheney would have no intention of warning the Pentagon. 124 people who were on the ground died when the Pentagon was hit. And the only reason I can think of to explain how Cheney can sleep at night - he has no conscience or morals. A monster.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 28, 2007 3:57:49 GMT -4
Yes, well, I wonder how you can sleep at night, too, since you spend your waking hours accusing innocent people of mass murder. (Not that I'm a big fan of Cheney's; he really ought to treat his daughter better.)
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 28, 2007 5:08:42 GMT -4
Actually I'll dispute that. German citizens who advocated the overthrow of Hitler in the 1930s were in fact traitors. They would have been on the morally correct side of the issue - but they would have been engaging in treason nevertheless. George Washington was a traitor to England too, at least until England recognized him as the legitimate head of a sovereign state seperate from their own. It doesn't matter how abusive your government is towards you - if you act treasonously against it you are a traitor. Whether that also makes you an immoral person is where you can begin taking the behavior of the government towards you into account. You are correct, in respect to some general definitions of traitor and treason. One source defines it here..... Treason 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. 2. A betrayal of trust or confidence. A betrayal of one's country is not necessarily the same thing as a betrayal of one's government. Another source, however, does define treason as "a crime that undermines the offender's government" That's not a correct definition in US law. This was a problem dealt with in the framing of the Constitution. The Constitution has a more "defined" definition of treason, ..... Art. III Sec. 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.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the treason clause was most praised for the reason that it prevented the use of treason trials as an instrument of political faction; and the link here to the omission of any provision similar to the charge of compassing seems clear.
Judges have accordingly denied the general relevance of English precedents peculiarly derived from the charge of compassing the king's death and have agreed that the mere expression of beliefs cannot be deemed "treason" within the constitutional definition
The framers did not choose to contrive their own definition of the crime of attempting the subversion of the government.www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_1.htm You said "German citizens who advocated the overthrow of Hitler in the 1930s were in fact traitors." I'd argue that they were, in fact, only considered traitors, according to German law. George Washington - you correctly noted that (for a period of time) he was a traitor to England. In other words, he was considered to be a traitor, according to English law. He wasn't a traitor to America while he was labelled as a traitor to England. Today, we acknowledge "treason" and "traitor" as defined by the Constitution. So.... "American citizens who advocate the overthrow of Bush are in fact not traitors." To me, treason is not correctly defined as "a crime that undermines the offender's government". Maybe back in Jolly Olde England, but certainly not in America today. The country is not the government. Advocating the overthrow of a brutal regime like Hitler's is not treason. One last point. As you said.... "German citizens who advocated the overthrow of Hitler in the 1930s were in fact traitors." Now, consider this statement.... In the late 1600's, citizens of Salem, MA, who went into seizures and screamed out blasphemies were in fact witches. Not a fact, can we agree? Considered to be witches, that's a fact.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 28, 2007 5:26:06 GMT -4
Yes, well, I wonder how you can sleep at night, too, since you spend your waking hours accusing innocent people of mass murder. (Not that I'm a big fan of Cheney's; he really ought to treat his daughter better.) Accusing innocent people? Such as? Cheney makes no attempt to warn the Pentagon. 124 people needlessly die, because they weren't warned. A 30 second phone call would have saved all those lives. And you come back with "he really ought to treat his daughter better" ?!!? Where's the Mad Hatter? I think you fell into the rabbit hole.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 28, 2007 6:21:15 GMT -4
George Washington - you correctly noted that (for a period of time) he was a traitor to England. In other words, he was considered to be a traitor, according to English law. He wasn't a traitor to America while he was labelled as a traitor to England. "Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." - John Harington
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 28, 2007 7:11:44 GMT -4
Cheney knew the plane was specifically approaching the Pentagon, as Mineta confirmed in his testimony... MR. MINETA:....I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon....Could anyone explain how exactly he knew the plane was going to hit the Pentagon as opposed to, say, the White House or some other target? 10 miles out it could have been targeted for any building in Washington. It was only obvious what the actual target was when the plane made its final manoeuvre. How could Cheney have known which building to evacuate?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 28, 2007 8:36:36 GMT -4
Cheney knew the plane was specifically approaching the Pentagon, as Mineta confirmed in his testimony... MR. MINETA:....I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon....Could anyone explain how exactly he knew the plane was going to hit the Pentagon as opposed to, say, the White House or some other target? 10 miles out it could have been targeted for any building in Washington. It was only obvious what the actual target was when the plane made its final manoeuvre. How could Cheney have known which building to evacuate? Even if he knew, which of course he couldn't have evacuating probably would have been more dangerous because there would not have been enough time to get everyone out of and away from the building in time. A plane flying 500+ MPH would take about 7 minutes to fly 60 miles. We can't even be sure Mineta was right about which plane was being discussed.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 28, 2007 9:00:12 GMT -4
...and assume he knew it was being used as a weapon A plane being tracked on a direct flight path towards the Pentagon, a building located within a "buffer zone" - one of the most strictly monitored areas of restricted airspace in the country (quite likely the world). See if you can come up with any evidence for this dubious claim as has already been pointed out to you the Pentagon is very close to Washington National Airport restricting airspace would be near impossible except for immediately above. By the time anyone could determine a plane was going to fly over or into that building rather than the airport there would not be enough time to react. If Mineta’s testimony was accurate the airman must have been referring to the distance the plane was from Washington itself. From the distances he cited it would be impossible to determine if the plane was headed for the White House, the Capitol, CIA Headquarters, the Pentagon or another target, let alone between the Pentagon and the airport. In fact the plane did fly over the airport before circling around and hitting where it did. The Pentagon is less than a mile from a runway whose flight path extends over that building. And it isn’t uncommon for planes to fly close to it even after 9/11 Isn’t it your theory anyway that no plane hit the Pentagon?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 28, 2007 13:09:25 GMT -4
You are correct, in respect to some general definitions of traitor and treason. One source defines it here..... Then it's not without dispute, as you claimed, is it?
|
|