From: MarkLFischer at aol.com
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 00:22:57 EDT
Subject: [WSFA] Re: The end of a Washington mystery
To: WSFAlist at WSFA.org
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

In a message dated 6/2/2005 11:40:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
omni at omniphile.com writes:

>Granted, a declared war and a cold war are a bit different in legal  terms,
but the Soviets >were no less our enemy at the time

I think the difference in legal terms is very important when it comes  to the
definition of treason.  I think it's very clear that the framers  intended
that treason be narrowly defined, and therefore the elements of treason  should
receive the same treatment.

> If Clinton had just wanted to protest the war to our  government,
>he could have done that in D.C..  He didn't.  He  didn't do the protest in
>London either.  Or Brussels, or any other  friendly country...he went to
>Russia instead, and their status as our foe  was involved in the decision.

So?  See the above paragraph.  There was no overt act intended to  harm the
US, just a young, dumb intellectual showing off.  It's still  protected speech,
*from a US standpoint*, even if uttered elsewhere.

There's always a possibility that somebody who dislikes us will use
something we say against us, it's one of the risks that comes with a free  society.