drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,
drieuxster
drieuxster

Should there be a civil suit for Treason???

I think what the wankers are missing in the actual flow of history is that 'treason' is not a civil court action.

Unless they have obviously moved on to the other side of the game. A friend of mine sent me the grand comedy of the strange right wingers, who are, well, amusing:
The depressing and dishonest films about American troops in the Middle East, like the odious Redacted, produced by Mark Cuban, seem to be immune to pressure from patriotic Americans. Although the films lose huge amounts of money, the billionaire producers of the films do not care. Hollywood and the coastal elites love bashing America and the financial bottom line in these films simply do not matter to anti-Americans with billions of dollars of personal wealth.

What can we do? Well, to the extent that the films deliberately portray an inaccurate and defamatory picture of our troops in combat, there is at least one approach we could take: sue the producers. The mother, father, wife or husband of a soldier killed in Iraq after Redacted came out should bring a defamation action for ten million dollars or so against Mark Cuban. Ten million dollars is reasonable compensation for the wrongful death of an American citizen.

[ cf Suing traitors ]
ah yes....

if only treason were a torte.

There is also the small legal problem that these fruit bats need to also work out.

Namely the criminal convictions in the US Military Courts for the underlying war crimes that were actually committed by actual american troops in the field.

I mean, gosh, as long as the point of the drill is to avoid the actual american law, because one wants to use the 'traitor' slam on anyone who is not supporting the party dogma, is, well, gosh, a well known gambit by the psuedo-fascists bent upon a drift away from the actual law of the actual constitutional republic.

But, well, everyone already knew that, eh no???

And while we are here, I always wonder why these folks who are in the rear with the beer, are willing to do any damage they can to american law in the hope of pimping some notion of 'supporting the troops'. Could the problem here be tgghat they have no personal honor that they could bring to bear with they are asked to swear their oath of honor to protect the US Constitution, from enemies both foreign and domestic.... and is that the main reason that they are still in the rear with the beer?
Tags: war, warcrime
Subscribe

  • The men who stare at Goats

    Saw the film today. It was, as expected disturbing, and unsettling. But I think the adverts for the films before were even more unsettling. We walked…

  • Design gambits

    Hey kids, what if you had two competing cartridges? the S&W .44 and the .44 colt and you are competing to replace the old fashion, god fearing, all…

  • What should GlennBeckistania's response be to new bombing in Iraq?

    Hum.... GlennBeckIstanianista have been opposing the Commander In Chief. Now we have terrorist bombings in Baghdad also attacking the Commander In…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 4 comments