No.10455
File: 1640219840735.jpg (154.65 KB, 563x1024, 563:1024, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
I was listening to the radio on the way home from my parent's place, and I think it was Tucker Carlson. He was talking like China was America's enemy.
If China were an enemy, we'd no longer be able to legally offer any citizen of that Republic Aid and Comfort. You could give them Aid or Comfort -- "I'm sorry you're having a bad day." But if you do both, you are of course a traitor.
So the question is: who gets to decide who America's enemies are? Radio talk show people? Democratic consensus of American citizens? The President?
And question two: who's on the list?
No.10457
File: 1640224344238.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google
i have an agreement with a close italian friend of mine c:
if i do end up in an internment camp someday if war breaks out, he says, he will bring me fresh fish
...what can one even say? it is increasingly a hard time to be asian... but we must do our best, keep our heads down, and suffer through it
No.10458
File: 1640225393820.jpg (1.16 MB, 2476x2487, 2476:2487, light_pine.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>10457China and the US are the Great Powers. Until WWII, the Great Powers of the world would go to war pretty regularly. It's an open question whether we are entering a new era, where we can call war barbarity of the past.
I do hope the Constitution makes a distinction between the Chinese ethnicity and Citizens of the Chinese Republic, at least. I guess you would say, it has not done very well in the past.
I hope things get better for you, Spider.
No.10459
File: 1640228657740.png (253.59 KB, 850x750, 17:15, spider shy.png) ImgOps Google
>>10458...if pandemic times are anything to go by... we all appear as one group, to others, i think
No.10460
File: 1640238336731.png (1.46 MB, 1878x3107, 1878:3107, 1847059.png) ImgOps Google
Oh fer the lovva...
Can we start with the people whose entire contribution to the nation and the human race as a whole can be summed up as "having opinions"?
No.10461
>>10455>If China were an enemy, we'd no longer be able to legally offer any citizen [of China] Aid and Comfort.Not quite. Individuals of Chinese nationality would not automatically be enemies of the United States upon initiation of war. Only those taking part in the war effort would be considered enemies. And furthermore, there must be an intention to assist the person in his capacity as an enemy. See, e.g.,
Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947) (
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/330/631):
>The jury were properly instructed that, if they found that defendant's intention was not to injure the United States, but merely to aid his son "as an individual, as distinguished from assisting him in his purposes, if such existed, of aiding the German Reich, or of injuring the United States, the defendant must be found not guilty.">>10455>So the question is: who gets to decide who America's enemies are? Radio talk show people? Democratic consensus of American citizens? The President?The Constitution gives Congress alone the power to declare war.
No.10464
>>10461OK. They might have said "intention to assist the person in his capacity as an enemy" part in the Constitution given they made a special section about Treason. But anyway.
I see Adam Yahiye Gadahn was tried for treason for aiding of al-Qaeda. If only formal wars counted, that would have been instantly thrown out, so every engagement of the US (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States), must be considered. It makes a long list of opponents. When the resolution of war is a peace treaty (or conquest), perhaps we can say those are no longer enemies.
What about when the US pulls out forces. Is the US planning to return? (We don't lose, do we?)
"There has been no formal treaty ending the 1950-53 Korean War, meaning North Korea and its ally China have technically been at war with U.S.-led forces and South Korea for more than seven decades." -- Some website.
So...Mr. Carlson is quite correct. But we may associate as long as we are prepared to prove we have not aided China's capacity to make war.
No.10465
File: 1640410319714.png (1.86 MB, 3070x2453, 3070:2453, 5f504196f6d5556519b6bd7790….png) ImgOps Google
>>10464Congress has been derelict its role to declare war, but it did enact an Authorization for Use of Military Force that was relevant to Al-Qaeda. And Al-Qaeda levied war against the US, which China has not.
No.10466
>>10465>Congress has been derelict its role to declare warWell, you know. Too many wars, not enough time. It's probably on their to-do list. Like the US's defeat of their opponents, China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union.
"The Soviet Union was a socialist state that spanned Eurasia during its existence from 1922 to 1991."
Well, I'm sure I'd be criticized as anti-American if I didn't believe the US could defeat a nation that no longer existed. They'll figure it out, congress will get it declared. We'll try to be good in the meantime.
No.10473
>>10470If I might be so bold, I think this is mainly paranoia on your part. Not something you ought worry so much about.
The likelihood of random people getting called traitors and then put through a show trial without cause seems rather minor
When tensions were high with Russia, we didn't start arresting every slav after all.
Ideology seemed to take precedence
No.10477
File: 1640925661386.jpg (418.61 KB, 1388x1552, 347:388, Screenshot_20210419-161239….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Tucker Carlson is a propogandist workong for people who cannot maintain power without resorting to fear mongering
No.10482
>>10481To some extent. Treason is a legal matter, either way. We have to be at war, in essence, for a conviction to occur.
Part of why it hasn't been used in forever
No.10483
>>10482We are at war when:
An organization (or individual?) has declared war on the US and that war has not been resolved.
The US has declared war on an entity through congress. Or might in the future (eg. Korean War). Or probably should have, maybe. And that war has not been resolved.
No.10484
>>10483I think most can agree wars end in peace treaties. But many conflicts end in something else, and I don't know enough to declare something else an official end.
So
Possible Current US Enemies
Sioux
Cheyenne
Arapaho
North Korea
China
Soviet Union
Ba'ath Loyalists
Mahdi Army
Ansar al-Sunnah
Iraq
Eritrea
Somali pirates
Syria
Russia
Iran
Hezbollah
More definite US Current Enemies:
Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
Ansar al-Sharia
Islamic State of Iraq, the Levant, Somalia, and Syria
Al-Shabaab
Hizbul Islam
No.10486
File: 1641193479029.png (58.79 KB, 1230x261, 410:87, Screenshot from 2022-01-03….png) ImgOps Google
>>10485>Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.I guess we can move to say the dissolution of an enemy ends conflict with that enemy.
-
The state agent, Colonel John M. Chivington, who committed the violence in the Colorado War received disapproval by the US government for his actions.
I put in on the list because I'm not sure how that registers in terms of resolution. Probably you could sensibly say the Indian Wars are over, but you have to be extremely careful about these things.
No.10489
>>10488>If I help out an elderly Asian neighbour, I deserve to be executed?Only if (1) the neighbor is an agent of an enemy state, (2) you actually help the neighbor in his capacity as an enemy, and (3) your intention was to help him in his capacity as an enemy.
>>10488>People who support minorities tend to be seen, for example, as traitors.Depends what you mean by "support". Ultra-far-right white nationalists have said things like "Miscegenation is betraying your own race", but they are a tiny portion of the population.
No.10490
>>10487Looking for a list of the current enemies of the US. My assumption is the list is not empty, and that being such an important matter, it should exist.
>>10488>traitors deserve the death penaltyUsually.
>speak of traitors in the more ideological senseWhile the constitution should have added "in their capacity to make war" or something, I gather the intent in defining treason was to prevent people being executed for wrong-think. I suppose the right wing is just using hyperbole, though. Executing people in hyperbole is acceptable.
I don't think it's a valid political position of either party to have prejudice against protected minorities. Other kinds of minorities may be hated, yes.
