Look at me I'm Nancy P.

[Darkling]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this treason? I mean, doesn't the constitution say that only the president is to receive foreign dignitary's? In addition, isn't Syria considered a State Sponsor of Terror???

I wonder if anyone would have the guts to impeach her over this?

[Guest]

She ought to be impeached, then tried for treason, no if's and's or but's.

The lady is slime, going to an enemy state, in a time of war.

Any state that sponsors terrorism when we are fighting a war on terrorism is an enemy state.

She is giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war.

She should be shot...

End of story.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Article III United States Constitution

Section 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.

---

So she should be tried under the provision of 'giving aid and comfort'?

What is giving aid and comfort?

Define it - legally speaking. Nancy Pelosi has not the authority to broker any foreign agreements. She can visit a state sponsor of terrorism - as anyone in the United States can. As long as she is not encouraging, aiding, abetting, assiting, etc. attacks against the United States - in my view she is not giving aid and comfort to anyone.

I think her visit is despicable, it is abhorrent, and it is counterproductive. I don't think it is treason however.

[Guest]

When she tells the old dictator that Israel is ready to talk peace, and that the road to peace begins in Dimascus.

Yeah, the B@#$H is treating with the enemy.

She ought to be arrested for treason, when she gets back, and then shot in the head after the trial.

[Guest $iLk]

I can't say I agree with you. I believe that removing her from the speaker position would be the best course - although it would take drumming up a controversy with the media to force the DNC to move on it. Something most of the media is not willing to touch.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

The text of the act is as follows:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004)

---

The Logan Act seems appropriate. First written during the tenure of John Adams.

[Darkling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nomad:

Someone mind to enlighten me why Republican lawmakers (Frank R. Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert B. Aderholt) who visited Syria a few days before Mrs. Pelosi, and Republican lawmaker Darrell Issa, who met Assad THE DAY AFTER Pelosi, don't all deserve also a bullet or should be considered traitors ?

---

I will enlighten you

quote:

---

Originally by Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala - FOXNews

in a statement issued Wednesday putting distance between his trip with Reps. Frank Wolf of Virginia and Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania. Other Republicans visiting Syria in recent days were Reps. David Hobson of Ohio and Darrell Issa of California.

"I, along with my colleagues, fully support the Administration's long term strategy and decisions regarding Syria. My visit was in no way an attempt to make foreign policy or negotiate on behalf of the United States government," Aderholt said, characterizing the visit only as a "fact-finding trip."

---

In other words, they were there on a fact finding visit, but they support the presidents policy. Like it or not Nancy just CAN'T STAND the fact that in this situation, the Bush policy IS the official US Position. She wasn't there on a fact finding mission, she was there trying to conduct "Shuttle Diplomacy" as the news organizations are saying. In other words, she was trying to broker her own peace deals over there, when she has not IDEA, WTF she's doing.

[Guest]

There was no collusion between Saddam and Al Quaeda and 911, NOT that there was no collusion between Saddam and Al Quaeda, period.

There is PLENTY of evidence to conclude that Saddam and Al Quaeda cooperated on many things, including medical care for injured Al Quaeda members, as well as training camps etc.

So get a grip on fricking reality there Nomad.

Pelosi was there to attempt to woo Syria with her foreign policy accumen, of which she has none.

As far as I am concerned, she has given aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war.

That would be TREASON, in my book, and she should be arrested, brought to trial, found guilty and then shot in the head. End of story.

Fact finding is one thing, trying to influence foreign policy, when it is COMPLETELY out of her purview or constitutional duties is TREASON.

[Darkling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nomad:

@Darkling, Jag:

Okay, then allow me to fill you in on a few things. I've spent what ? More or less 22 years in diplomatic circles, among them 4 in Lebanon.

Facts finding ? LMAO: you don't travel to a country living under an authoritarian regime without a prior diplomatic negociation when you are a lawmaker from a country considered as unfriendly.

---

That's all very interesting, and sad, but has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Nancy visited Israel before visiting Syria, she then went and told the Syrians that Israel is ready to talk peace with them. In other words, she was trying to broker a peace agreement. What about that is it that you don't understand that makes it different than simply visiting a country and it's leaders?

It's one thing if I'm going to visit Syria and talk and listen, so I can gain a better understanding of what's going on over there, as the Republican congressmen set out do to. It's another to go there and start "relaying" messages from Israel (a message that was botched BTW) and try to kick-start the peace process on my own, like Pelosi tried to do.

P.S. If you haven't gotten the clue by now, let me highlight it for you. George W. Bush, never agreed with the things that his father did. He didn't agree with the policy of going in and "containing" Saddam, he felt it was better to get rid of him permanently, and being far more "Christian" AND conservative than his father, he DEFINITELY wouldn't have sold out the Christian Syrians. But these days, hard resolve doesn't count for anything, it's how much you can talk that does.

[Wolferz]

Never underestimate the power of female nagging

[Guest]

Or liberal stupidity..

Yeah, and European stupidity as well.

[Darkling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nomad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Yeah, and European stupidity as well.

---

As far as history is concerned, the meltdown of organized christian militias, the only powerful pro-israelian proxy which could have nowadays opposed pro-syrian influence in Lebanon (and hence decreased the amount of weaponry reaching Hizbollah, Hamas and Co) is solely due to a single and exclusively US decision.

Foreign policies emit ripples through time, and it seems that you still don't realize it despite having access to over 2000 years recorded human history. You will be entitled to talk about european stupidity the day US decisions don't come regularly back biting your a*s...

---

As far as I'm concerned Bush Sr. was a traitor to the conservative cause. He backpedaled on his "No New Taxes" pledge, which caused a downturn in the economy, and he did so as a "back room deal" with the Dems to make it more "smooth sailing" as he went after Saddam. This other back room deal that you're talking about shows me just how much of a sellout he really was.

Everyone complains so much about how W. Bush "Goes it alone" and never bothered to build the "coalition" that his fathers diplomacy had created. In my eyes, the way he did things was definitely the right way, no back room deals and no selling out of friends to "Make things easier". As the old American Civil Liberties Union used to say when it was run by Christians, and opposing discrimination, "We don't do things because they're popular or even wanted by the majority of Americans, we do them because it's the RIGHT things to do"