Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (205012)	10/4/2004 4:45:29 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1576346

kerry committed treason. Then why wasn't he tried for treason?

To: steve harris who wrote (205012)	10/4/2004 5:32:59 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576346

"kerry committed treason" Interesting interpretation you make of the laws... Assuming that Kerry went to Paris with "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof", it still doesn't mean he either was at war with the US or "in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.". But if you can dig up "two witnesses to the same overt act", go for it...

To: steve harris who wrote (205012)	10/5/2004 4:18:35 AM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 1576346

which part of this definition would you like to ignore? Well, some of this definition is pretty offensive. I've abbreviated both section a bit. http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000953----000-.html Any citizen of the United States who, without authority of the United States, indirectly commences any correspondence with any officer of a foreign government with intent to influence the conduct of any foreign government in relation to any disputes with the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Doesn't this say that a US citizen that, for example, objects to the US travel ban on Cuba, cannot contact a member of the Cuban government and try to get them to undertake actions that would cause the US to lift the ban? That seems ridiculous to me. Treason: law.cornell.edu Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in giving them aid and comfort. Doesn't that say that during times of war, its treason for a non-combatant to give medical treatment to the enemy's soldiers that might be near death? These definitions look too broad to me.