SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Moderate Forum
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: The Philosopher who wrote (5864)1/18/2004 3:02:13 PM
From: cosmicforce  Read Replies (2) of 20773
 
<mere words>

Not 'mere words' - these have to be some pretty damning words in which a provable harm could arise. Undermining the morale (as indicated in Abe Lincoln quote) is not treason. Maybe there is a good reason for morale to be low. There are plenty of laws that prevent those who know something damaging from divulging it. Most of those people have voluntarily taken oaths as part of these duties.

For example, Paul O'Neill, IMO, is less tightly bound to hold the President's confidence than the oath where he swears he "will defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic". I belive our Constitution is better served by O'Neill serving the Constitution first. If he knows the President is lying to Congress, then he has an oath-driven duty to disclose it. Saying nothing and being silently complicit, is more treasonous than speaking, in this case.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News