Home     Links     Contact Us     Bookmark  
 
   Homepage      News      Legal Forum      Dictionary  
Home : Legal Forum : Law & Ethics

Is it treason?
Find answers to your legal question.





Is it treason?

Why is it when "British" muslims are found to be plotting acts of terrorism against the country that has given them all the things they take for granted ie. Freedom of speech,human rights,fair trials and equal opportunities,aren't they arrested and charged with treason.And if this country is such a terrible place to live,why don't they practice their freedom of travel and move somewhere else.I'll tell you why,its because they'll struggle to find a country who's people are kinder and more accepting of other creeds,colours and religions than our Great Britain and also they know that they can turn our laws against us and hide behind the same laws that ensure their great standard of living!
In a nutshell,if this country and it's people are so corrupt and ungodly then why don't they pick up and f**k off!!


    




Yahoo
You are absolutely right. Very well articulated. Although the BNP totally repell me, it is instances like this that make misguided people vote BNP.


shellovescharlie
Rating
Well said.


manxbiker
very well said indeed i think a lot of people would agree with you


JOHN F
Rating
agree with you 100%


Chris C
Well said. And I think that a lot of British Muslims feel the same way. They don't like these people giving their religion a bad reputation.


BigD
Rating
Spot on. The human rights rights act is a refuge for scumbags - the PC brigade should be ignored


hi there
that goes for any one living in and off our country
and yes it is treason so why no action?
can you imagine the USA putting up with it?


Steven G
Rating
the same way that if a group of white men jumped a muslim and beat him it would be a racist attack even if the reason was merely that the muslim had tried to rape one of the mens brothers (damned sure I'd beat the creep too). However if a group of muslims pile out of a car and lay into the first whiteboy they see that isn't racist!!! Why!!! and why do we put up with it??


bilious bill
Rating
Absolutely.


agius1520
Rating
Treason specifically is about endangering the person on the throne and the royal family.

Terrorism charges are used against those plotting acts of terrorism towards the whole country or any part there in.


ARTmom
Rating
Americans feel the same way-for anyone whinning, breaking the law or putting down the country that gives them freedoms-with you on that one!


Mick B
I could not agree more. Why the hell do we allow it to go on. Wooly minded politicians, maybe its high time they got on with representing the views of the people that elected them.


Rommel
i will gladly give my vote to any party that will remove all Muslims from Britain i have no problem with all the other immigrants at all. but Muslims do not belong among civilised western people. they are sub human. they are a violent hate fuelled people who should not be excepted or tolerated any where in the world. they are liars who tell us they do not support extremists, and yet year after year they invite extremest preachers into their mosques. you cannot identify who is with you and who is not.....best to throw all out completely. that way you can be sure. when a surgeon cuts out a cancer, he doesn't leave any behind. Islam should be treated in the same way, or we will be handing our children a nightmare world. when do we yell enough is enough. no wonder Muslims laugh in our faces. we let them walk all over us.


CrG
Rating
The terrorists are mentally ill. They believe that the acts of protest they are committing will eventually bring down some or all the governments in the Middle East, Spain, France, the UK and US. When this unlikely event occurs, they will step in to rule that country. Does that sound normal? Really, it sounds like little boys playing with matches. Behavior of this sort does not quite make it to evil but mental illness.


ICEMAN
Rating
Think someone should tell Faye prudence that the question was about the British isles not her colony know as America..


Wild 4 U
I don't know what is going on in the UK with Muslims now, but I live amongst Muslims in Trinidad and they are the most peace loving, generous, do anything for you people you could meet. They said there are 1 Billion muslims in the world now and even they are ashamed of the very minute few who tarnish the name of their religeon. Rommel your views have no place in the 21st century, you are as extremist as they are.


hopflower
Rating
The USA does put up with it. There is basically no difference in what both places are taking.

Well said; I feel like that exactly.


A little bit angry
those people need help, help chopping their own b0110ck5 off


SnoddersB
Rating
I think that you answered your own question.


Faye Prudence
Rating
It might be helpful if you understood that the Constitution does NOT define "treason" it only limits its definition of treason. Then we have what is called the law of "sedition". Please see below.

Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. However, because of the broad protection of free speech under the First Amendment, prosecutions for sedition are rare. Nevertheless, sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force. Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

The crime of seditious conspiracy is committed when two or more persons in any state or U.S. territory conspire to levy war against the U.S. government. A person commits the crime of advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government when she willfully advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government by force, publishes material that advocates the overthrow of the government by force, or organizes persons to overthrow the government by force. A person found guilty of seditious conspiracy or advocating the overthrow of the government may be fined and sentenced to up to 20 years in prison. States also maintain laws that punish similar advocacy and conspiracy against the state government.

Governments have made sedition illegal since time immemorial. The precise acts that constitute sedition have varied. In the United States, Congress in the late eighteenth century believed that government should be protected from "false, scandalous and malicious" criticisms. Toward this end, Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, which authorized the criminal prosecution of persons who wrote or spoke falsehoods about the government, Congress, the president, or the vice president. The act was to expire with the term of President John Adams.

The Sedition Act failed miserably. Thomas Jefferson opposed the act, and after he was narrowly elected president in 1800, public opposition to the act grew. The act expired in 1801, but not before it was used by President Adams to prosecute numerous public supporters of Jefferson, his challenger in the presidential election of 1800. One writer, Matthew Lyon, a congressman from Vermont, was found guilty of seditious libel for stating, in part, that he would not be the "humble advocate" of the Adams administration when he saw "every consideration of the public welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice" (Lyon's Case, 15 F. Cas. 1183 [D. Vermont 1798] [No. 8646]). Vermont voters reelected Lyon while he was in jail. Jefferson, after winning the election and assuming office, pardoned all persons convicted under the act.

In the 1820s and 1830s, as the movement to abolish Slavery grew in size and force in the South, Southern states began to enact seditious libel laws. Most of these laws were used to prosecute persons critical of slavery, and they were abolished after the Civil War. The federal government was no less defensive; Congress enacted seditious conspiracy laws before the Civil War aimed at persons advocating secession from the United States. These laws were the precursors to the present-day federal seditious conspiracy statutes.

In the late nineteenth century, Congress and the states began to enact new limits on speech, most notably statutes prohibiting Obscenity. At the outset of World War I, Congress passed legislation designed to suppress antiwar speech. The Espionage Act of 1917 (ch. 30, tit. 1, § 3, 40 Stat. 219), as amended by ch. 75, § 1, 40 Stat 553, put a number of pacifists into prison. Socialist leader eugene v. debs was convicted for making an antiwar speech in Canton, Ohio (Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211, 39 S. Ct. 252, 63 L. Ed. 566 [1919]). Charles T. Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were convicted for circulating to military recruits a leaflet that advocated opposition to the draft and suggested that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on Involuntary Servitude (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

The U.S. Supreme Court did little to protect the right to criticize the government until after 1927. That year, Justice louis d. brandeis wrote an influential concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 47 S. Ct. 641, 71 L. Ed. 1095 (1927), that was to guide First Amendment Jurisprudence for years to come. In Whitney the High Court upheld the convictions of political activists for violation of federal anti-syndicalism laws, or laws that prohibit the teaching of crime. In his concurring opinion, Brandeis maintained that even if a person advocates violation of the law, "it is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on." Beginning in the 1930s, the Court became more protective of political free speech rights.

The High Court has protected the speech of racial supremacists and separatists, labor organizers, advocates of racial Integration, and opponents of the draft for the Vietnam War. However, it has refused to declare unconstitutional all sedition statutes and prosecutions. In 1940, to silence radicals and quell Nazi or communist subversion during the burgeoning Second World War, Congress enacted the Smith Act (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2385, 2387), which outlawed sedition and seditious conspiracy. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the act in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951).

Sedition prosecutions are extremely rare, but they do occur. Shortly after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, the federal government prosecuted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind Egyptian cleric living in New Jersey, and nine codefendants on charges of seditious conspiracy. Rahman and the other defendants were convicted of violating the seditious conspiracy statute by engaging in an extensive plot to wage a war of Terrorism against the United States. With the exception of Rahman, they all were arrested while mixing explosives in a garage in Queens, New York, on June 24, 1993.

The defendants committed no overt acts of war, but all were found to have taken substantial steps toward carrying out a plot to levy war against the United States. The government did not have sufficient evidence that Rahman par ticipated in the actual plotting against the government or any other activities to prepare for terrorism. He was instead prosecuted for pro viding religious encouragement to his cocon spirators. Rahman argued that he only performed the function of a cleric and advised followers about the rules of Islam. He and the others were convicted, and on January 17, 1996, Rahman was sentenced to life imprisonment by Judge Michael Mukasey.

Following the September 11th Attacks of 2001, the federal government feared that terrorist networks were very real threats, and that if left unchecked, would lead to further insurrection. As a result, Congress enacted the Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272. Among other things, the act increases the president's authority to seize the property of individuals and organizations that the president determines have planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in hostilities or attacks against the United States.

The events of September 11 also led to the conviction of at least one American. In 2001, U.S. officials captured John Philip Walker Lindh, a U.S. citizen who had trained with terrorist organizations in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Lindh, who became known as the "American Taliban," was indicted on ten counts, including conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals. In October 2002, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sedition





 Enter Your Message or Comment


User Name:  
User Email:   
Post a comment:




Legal Discussion Forum

 Can I sue for inaccurate background report?
I successfully interviewed for a job and most likely had the job until my background check came back with Armed Robbery,Sale of Narcotics which I was not convicted of...this was not the first time ...


 Do you pay child support on bonus or overtime pay ?
My employee makes $320 wk on 40hrs and gets another $150 on overtime. But we slow down in the winter. Do they base it on 40 hrs , or yearly ? ( in arkansas )...


 Would you favor a 3 strikes law for abortions?
It seems to me that one of the greatest fears of the pro-life crowd is that without regulation, people will use abortions as a form of birth control which I agree is wrong. So, in that line, would ...


 Should marijuana be legal?
Marijuana is just as bad as cigarettes and alcohol, so why should it be excluded. other states are beining to agree, such as colorado. so why are we so worried about it. it would keep more people out ...


 Why is marijuna illegal?
I never understood why marijuana is illegal. It's been scientifically proven that is nor a physically addictive or brain damaging drug. Only a small percentage of marijuana smokers use it on a ...


 Should a library in a Black community be forced to carry books by the KKK?

Additional Details
This question concerns a fundamental misunderstanding of the first ammendment.

The right to free speech means you can say or publish anything you want.
...


 Should the government reduce taxes on cigarettes to make smoking more affordable for young people?
Right now I have to work for 1 hour just to be able to afford a pack, this has got to stop!...


 If one innocent person is executed, is the price too high to keep using capital punishment?
I challenge anyone to prove that no innocent person has ever been executed in the US....


 In some states prositution is legal , do u agree or oppose that it stays legal?
...


 Should an obese person get the privelage to park in a handicap spot?
At work today there was a gentleman in a wheelchair (who is legitimately handicapped) who couldn't park in the handicapped spot because someone who is overweight parked there due to his handicap-...


 I have recently experienced English justice in an English court, 5 points for who guesses what happened?
My first time in an English court! Regarding the Police and the Judge and the Solicitor and Myself, can you guess what happened?...


 What does it mean when people say "I plead the 5th" in court??????????
i was just wondering because i say it on "THE CLOSER" a few days ago....


 How can we make churches/synagogues/mosqu... pay taxes?
IMO religion/spirutal services are bought and sold just like cell phone service or cable TV. How can we (the voter-taxpayers) get them paying taxes, just like other businesses?...


 Are pro-choicers also against mandatory seat-belt laws?
just another choice to think about.
Additional Details
Its about choice over ones body....right?...


 I was at the cardiologist yesterday and, while waiting in the waiting room...?
I picked up a magazine from Kraft and it had this recipe for a layer cake which was made from a layer of ice cream sandwiches, you know the kind with the cookie and the ice cream filling, then a ...


 Is it illegal to open post that is not addressed to you?
I am writing an article and need to know if it is illegal and if so does anyone know where I can get more information about this....


 Custody of Daughter???
My daughter, who is 5, lives with me and her stepfather. Her biological father lives across the country, pays child support, but rarely sees her. My mother has been part of my daughter's life ...


 Just trying to settle an argument so my question is, is there anyway that a polygraph test can be beaten?
I am saying it can an several others say no way....


 Legal drinking age?
I'm 19 yrs old..In april im going on a cruise to mexico..someone told me the legal drinking age on the ship is 18, is that true? I know there I can drink while in mexico, but what about actually ...


 Did you know you never really own land?
You are just renting it from your government. When you buy a home you are buying the rights to pay rent to the government in the form of property taxes. If you don't pay the rent (taxes) they ...




Copyright (c) 2009-2011 Wiki Law 3k Monday, May 28, 2012 - Trusted legal information for you.
Archive: Forum  |  Forum  |  Forum  |  Links
0.074