7 ms·

Lying about the war crimes was treason in my view

matthewowen 8y ago
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
- resters 8y ago
  What better aid to our enemies than spending trillions on a futile war?
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Generally, spending too much money to bomb the shit out of your enemies is not considering providing aid to them....anywhere.
    - resters 8y ago
      You are assuming that the groups we are told are our enemies are actually enemies, and that they are the most significant enemies.
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        I assume none of that. I know people who died in 9/11, people who died in Mumbai, and people who died in the San Bernardino shooting. I don't need to be told by anyone that the terrorist cowards behind those bombings are our enemies--that much was obvious from them bombing us.
        resters 8y ago
        And you think the dollars spent on the wars have actually done anything to prevent future attacks such as the ones you mention?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
Veen 8y ago
Your view is irrelevant unless you can change the law.
- roywiggins 8y ago
  Not just the law, the US Constitution.
- paulcole 8y ago
  Not necessarily if they can get on the jury and use jury nullification. Or make this concept more well known to people who may be on the jury.
  - Veen 8y ago
    Jury nullification is hard to pull off though. I'm not sure Assange would have the support he'd need to guarantee a jury finding in his favor (assuming he's actually guilty of what he's accused of).
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      paulcole wasn't talking about Assange being convicted, but rather those whom Assange exposed.
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    ...then get the trial declared a mistrial, and possibly get held in contempt by the judge for violating their duty as a juror.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    It's hard to use jury nullification to convict; it's usually used only to acquit. First, the judge won't usually allow charges that are outside the bounds of the law to even be presented to the jury. Second, even if the jury does convict of something outside the bounds of the law, it will almost certainly be overturned on appeal. You don't want a jury deciding to convict people for things that the law doesn't say is illegal. You really don't. That's way too close to mob rule, and that often doesn't get applied only to the people that you think it should be applied to. You don't want a jury deciding that what you did is treason, even though the law doesn't say that it is.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

resters 8y ago
What better aid to our enemies than spending trillions on a futile war?
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Generally, spending too much money to bomb the shit out of your enemies is not considering providing aid to them....anywhere.
  - resters 8y ago
    You are assuming that the groups we are told are our enemies are actually enemies, and that they are the most significant enemies.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      I assume none of that. I know people who died in 9/11, people who died in Mumbai, and people who died in the San Bernardino shooting. I don't need to be told by anyone that the terrorist cowards behind those bombings are our enemies--that much was obvious from them bombing us.
      - resters 8y ago
        And you think the dollars spent on the wars have actually done anything to prevent future attacks such as the ones you mention?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

Veen 8y ago

Your view is irrelevant unless you can change the law.

roywiggins 8y ago
Not just the law, the US Constitution.
paulcole 8y ago
Not necessarily if they can get on the jury and use jury nullification. Or make this concept more well known to people who may be on the jury.
- Veen 8y ago
  Jury nullification is hard to pull off though. I'm not sure Assange would have the support he'd need to guarantee a jury finding in his favor (assuming he's actually guilty of what he's accused of).
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    paulcole wasn't talking about Assange being convicted, but rather those whom Assange exposed.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  ...then get the trial declared a mistrial, and possibly get held in contempt by the judge for violating their duty as a juror.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  It's hard to use jury nullification to convict; it's usually used only to acquit. First, the judge won't usually allow charges that are outside the bounds of the law to even be presented to the jury. Second, even if the jury does convict of something outside the bounds of the law, it will almost certainly be overturned on appeal. You don't want a jury deciding to convict people for things that the law doesn't say is illegal. You really don't. That's way too close to mob rule, and that often doesn't get applied only to the people that you think it should be applied to. You don't want a jury deciding that what you did is treason, even though the law doesn't say that it is.