11/11/2005 04:15 pm ET | Updated May 25, 2011

Is Treason Passé?

I am no legal scholar to be sure, but it seems to me that the definition of treason as provided in the constitution is fairly straightforward, especially the following:

"… in adhering to [UNITED STATES'] Enemies, giving [THE ENEMIES] Aid and Comfort (Article III, Section 3)"

A Thought Exercise:

The head of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), Ahmed Chalab, is largely known to the public as a con-man, who America paid more than $100 million to “mislead” our government into war with Iraq, or more simply, to help convince us - the people - that Iraq was a threat, with cooperation from certain members of our government.

Chalabi, however, is more than a poor little rich con-man and his organization, the INC, is more interested in the dealing of intelligence and arms than in championing purple fingers.

In June of last year, The White House gave the order for Chalabi’s house to be raided, as well as the offices of the INC and homes of other INC members because Chalabi and pals were passing US secrets to Iran.

Some sources to get you started:

He was, however, suspected even before the Iraq war for doing much of the same, spying, dealing in arms, counterfeiting, and forgery.

Now, if I remember correctly, Iran is part of some satanic monolith called the “Axis of Evil,” as defined by the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon, and so forth. The terms were set forward by them, very publicly and the terms were also defined for other countries: “you are either with us or you are against us.”

Obviously the “us” in this trite and astonishingly disingenuous construct is of course the United States. Anyone who is part of the Axis of Evil would in no doubt be “against” us, that is against the United States. Iran, being part of the evil troika, is clearly against us.

Mental Stretching:

If Iran is an “enemy” of the United States and Chalabi is an agent of Iran, would that not make Chalabi an enemy of the United States?

I will venture a yes, for the simple logic of the very clear and non-nuanced terms set for us to follow: either/or.

Mental Jogging:

If Chalabi is an enemy of the United States and the Constitution defines TREASON as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, then would it not be clear also that anyone giving aid and comfort to Chalabi is committing an act of TREASON against the United States?

Again, I will venture a yes

Mental Running:

If the Feith-Rummy-Cheney trifecta is paying Chalabi stipends (that American citizens can only dream of) and hosting him, meeting with him, and giving him cover from authorities while he is in the United States and while abroad, then are they committing TREASON?

Call me a stickler for logic and reason (and the rule of law) but I would say yes.

Now, according to the Constitution:

“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.”

What about an indictment for treason? How many witnesses are needed, 2 witnesses, 3 witnesses, millions? Let us make this argument simple by keeping to the number of witnesses established by the Constitution, 2.

Have at least two witnesses been privy to Feith, Rummy, and Cheney (and others, like Rice, Hadley, and so forth) giving aid and comfort to Chalabi?


So what happens now, arrests, indictments, charges, what? Nothing, crickets!

Mental Breakdown:

The only response we get is WHIG reconstituting its propaganda weapons' program, as we have seen from this administration in the last few days, all babbling through spit-filled and spiteful punches at the public at large, be they Democrat, Republican, Christian, Muslim, etc. Anyone who disagrees with this administration on any point is a target, showing just how valuable their group-hug ethics charade was.