you do realize that non-citizens can be convicted of treason, right? mirriam webster did not write the law. legal residents who are not citizens can commit traitorous acts and be convicted just the same. again, treason is NOT protected by the bill of rights because it's FUCKING TREASON.
Webster didn't write the legal definitions, but Black sure did. Every person accused of any Crime known to man is protected by the bill of rights, ALL OF THEM!!! Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the parent nation."
You may call it an interesting counter, but I disagree. Of course there was "tension". Guzman had the support of "the people" (the very same people you say who have an obligation to exercise their rights). The wealthy (United Fruit included)did not support him.
treason has nothing to do with citizenship or rights. it's about the united states protecting itself from known enemies. the guy was on the internet professing his allegience to a known enemy of the united states during wartime. if he did it during peacetime none of this would be going on, and the "trial argument" would have merit. he's the enemy. joined the dark side during a war. worked his way up the ranks of an enemy militia-thing and plotted to cause deaths of innocent americans . and now he's dead. i, for one, am crushed.
What about RIU?
Oh yes it most certainly does. Do you think the USA can just go around calling anyone in the world who would plot against the USA as a traitor and then that classification strips that person of all rights and so then they can be executed with no trial?
I used to think the answer was yes, now I know the answer is yes.
You have mistaken Traitor and Enemy Combatant for each other.
Who makes the determination ? Are there any set definitions?
for a non citizen to be convicted of treason they must be in a position to owe allegiance to the united states (legal resident). so no, we can't call ANY non citizen a traitor, just people who have "pledged their allegiance". "testimony can only be given at trial in court"...i don't even know what to say about that. ever heard of a depositon?
A deposition is the process by which interrogatories are done.
Reducing the issue to "cheap bananas" is well, cheap bananas. What I mean is that post WWII, the dynamic shifted. Two-worlds powers played global chinese checkers with players and pieces of land called "countries." We had a very real reason to pursue something like the Monroe Doctrine, and a serious threat to consider in every decision.
Yes, yes....We all know about the Monroe Doctrine and American Imperialism. The fact is clear...Guzman was elected by the people of Guatemala. What does this mean? The people wanted him as their leader (mostly the commoners. The wealthy did not). The "people" wanted him and voted him into office...period. There is no debate here. And what did we do? We proceeded with covert operations to depose him and put in place a government of our own choosing that would maintain the "status quo"...A government sympathetic to Us corporate interests. Whether Guzman was a socialist or a communist is immaterial...He was elected by the people who wanted him.
Not sure where this is coming from. Condemn you? Do you wish to be adversarial? I wasn't referring to Che as a leader. I was pointing out that men like Che and OBL are "created" by oppressive governments. I know how Che died, but I don't see how his death is relevant to the discussion.
