I now accept that it was treason, although it might be difficult to prove....

[mike_c]

Article III, Sec. 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.

It's now hard to escape the conclusion that destroying Valerie Plame's intel network removed, at the very least, investigatory impediments to WMD proliferation, if not worse. Given America's foreign policies, it is likely that one or more of those weapons will eventually be used against Americans, or again, in the best case scenario, will figure prominently in conspiracies to attack Americans. They likely already do. This of course is the part that's hard to prove until after the fact.

By any reasonable standard, those engaging in attacks or conspiracies against us are enemies of America, even if they do so only because our government has fostered the conditions that make them so. This much seems clear and unequivocal-- the intent of anyone conspiring to kill Americans makes them enemies even if we can understand their motives, and not all such motives are as rational.

The destruction of Plame's intelligence network must thus provide material aid to America's enemies. That Plame was sold out for cheap political purposes only makes the matter worse.

I have always resisted using the broader definition of the term treason because the framers of the Constitution feared its application enough to provide a very narrow alternate meaning in American law. It now seems to me that the actions of Cheney, Bush, Libby, Rove, and Armitage, at least, meet that narrow standard.

[kestrel91316]

1. Welcome on board the S.S. Guillotine, mike-c. I knew you would come around eventually.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Another who has seen the light!

Of **course* it was treason. The call for impeachment, while perhaps the product of emotion, is far from without legal merit.

Impeachment: The Moral Imperative.

[motocicleta]

3. I am no lawyer

but isn't treason punishable by something a little stronger than impeachment? Something a little sharper, shall we say?

[Ganja Ninja]

6. Impeachment doesn't require you to convict them of a crime.

And being convicted of a crime doesn't necessarily mean you have to impeach. There may not be enough evidence for a criminal conviction but if there is enough circumstantial evidence of wrong doing they can still impeach them.

[motocicleta]

9. I don't understand what evidence could be missing

to convict in a criminal trial? Either she was covert or not, and either Cheney outed her or not. I could see if she was not covert then it isn't treason, but if she was then SOMEBODY is guilty, right? What seems to be the line most critics of treason use is that she wasn't covert, but isn't that pretty simple to clear up? Like, say ask the CIA? And they asked for the investigation in the first place, so there answer should be clear. Like I said, I feel like I am missing something. My repuke father-in-law says that everybody in Washington knew who she was, but I have no idea where he comes up with this crap, and it stinks of propaganda.

This issue has been a thorn in my rational side since 2003. How could anyone (Novak, much less Cheney, Libby, Rove) talk publicly about her job and not get thrown in the hoosegow? The logic doesn't add up unless my premise that she was covert is just wrong.

On edit: this is mostly rhetorical. I don't think there is really any explanation that can be given that will assuage my feeling that you can't out any covert CIA agent for political purposes and in so doing put absolutely anyone at risk anywhere and not be committing treason. It's just a feeling though, I suppose.

[Ganja Ninja]

11. It's really not a lack of evidence as much as it is a lack of will.

There's no point going for an impeachment if you can't get the votes to pull it off.

[motocicleta]

12. That I can, and do, understand

It's the criminal side that confuses me.

[yodermon]

4. Very hard to prove i'm afraid.

It has to be shown that Darth Crashcart et. al. Consciously outed Valerie for the express reason of allowing our enemies' weapons networks to proliferate. All the motions & testimony in the Libby trial -- even intra-adminstration conflicts, e.g. Cathie Martin v. Libby -- so far indicate simply a vindictiveness against Joe Wilson in response to his public criticism of the Iraq war.

Did they also say "Wow, his wife just so happens to be Valerie Plame, whose covert CIA network is actually preventing WMDs from getting to Iraq/n! My my, outing her & Brewster Jennings would be such a convenient way to allow nukes into Iraq/n, evidence of which (to be "uncovered" by JudyJudyJudy) would allow us smite them with impunity, muahaha!" If there is evidence of this it's well hidden, and if Fitz has such evidence he's got it VERY well hidden.

Don't get me wrong, the act was entirely treasonous as the Plame threads / Waterman paper / American Judas make crystal clear.
It's PROVING it that's problematic.

[BuyingThyme]

10. Everything changed on 9/11.

Don't quote me on that.

But, now that the "enemies" are "terrorists," the objective is terrorism.

So, if Cheney's intention was to terrorize the American people into war -- which it very, very, very, very clearly was -- he has committed treason.

Remember, Cheney's objective was not to allow the United States to be attacked by WMD; his objective was to make the American people believe that Saddam Hussein was acquiring materials (yellow cake) by which a major U.S. city would be destroyed.

Cheney's objective was to terrorize us into war.

Cheney is a terrorist.

Cheney has committed treason.

[Bandit]

5. At the very least "High Crime and Misdemeanor"

Yet no one will ever be charged with it but only with LYING about it. IMO they are Treasonous Bastards that deserve imprisonment but I am sure we will never see such happen. In fact they will go one to continue to make millions if not billions off their treason and America will continue to be hated through out the world..

[Jack Rabbit]

7. I'm still not sold on the treason charge

For me, giving aid to the enemy would mean actively collaborating with al Qaida, which clearly isn't the case here.

That it is a high crime and misdemeanor, as Bandit says, is true. If Bush or Cheney were involved in this matter or even knew and gave tacit approval, he should be impeached and removed. I said that when this thing broke, so nothing has changed. Furthermore, it would appear that Cheney is involved up to his eyeballs and Bush, by secretly declassifying secrets in order to give Cheney and Libby legal cover, is as well. A Bush Bubbah can argue all day long about the legality of Bush's action, but that will be something for the courts to decide. Going about it the way he did is an abuse of power, and that is what Congress should decide.

[cassiepriam]

8. All of it has been treason.

Failure to protect us against 9/11 when amply warned.
Katrina.
WMD and Iraq War.
The theft of the American Treasury.
Plame.
ETC

[fooj]

13. Thus, the name, TREASONOUS, RAT BASTARDS!

[Swamp Rat]

14. Leave us rats out of it!

:D