Is This TREASON?

The short answer.....no. Though Michael Scheuer might be guilty of an ignorant statement. Beck is just guilty of having a show and conducting an interview as I heard NOTHING from him other than asking Michael Scheuer a question. But as to Scheuer's answer....it was as appaling to me in that he believes we need an attack for us to demand more "protection"....the LAST thing we need are more freedom robbing "protections" the last thing I WANT is more freedom robbing protections, we've been protected right in to an orewellian novel. The only thing I want more protection from is my own government....from MORE government.... This is far from treason though, just a really dumb statement on the part of Michael Scheuer. Beck isn't nodding in agreament, in fact, I'm suprised he didn't call the guy out on the more government protection line, beck dropped the ball on that one...something I emailed him on by the way after the show first aired.

OMFG!!! Check out Jon Stewart's reaction ( http://vodpod.com/watch/1844719-the-daily-show-with-jon-stewartosama-bin-laden-needs-to-attack-america ). Sadly, he's so on the money about the priorities, it isn't funny!!!! They need to be stopped, taken off the air entirely, never again permitted to publicly speak because they are inciting not just violence, but terrorism!!! And, I wouldn't put it past one of their rabid followers (I know not all on the right are rabid followers) to attempt to follow through with a 'fake' Osama attack. Just like someone on the inside set loose anthrax to "show" us we needed tighter controls by government - they sacrificed a few to gain a political advantage. I'm sure it could happen again with these ship-sinking big mouths!!

No more or less than the former Clinton Administration apologists who said that it's too bad Clinton didn't have a 9-11 to give him a chance to show his true abilities as president. Or when Biden said that the enemies of the US would test Obama if he's elected president. Or all the people who want the price of gasoline to skyrocket, hoping it will destroy our economy and freedoms. Now, if you can produce evidence that Glenn Beck or anyone else actually helped the enemies of the US carry out attacks against us, then you would have treason.

No, by definition it is not treason. It would have been if Scheuer had said he is aiding bin laden or violated his alliance with the country. It was only an opinion, a bad one, but not treason.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/michael-scheuer-fox-americas-only-ho Since your link seems to start in the middle of the discussion I tried to find one that gave more of the conversation. I hope I was successful. In listening to the discussion, it sounded to me as though Michael Scheuer was saying that the United States government is not doing what it should to protect the borders and that the American people don't seem concerned enough to insist the government do a better job, and that the only thing that will make us wake up to the danger our country is in is for another attack like 9/11. I don't think he or Beck is wishing it would happen, but that that seems to be the only thing that will induce some action on all our parts.

The video starts out with Glen Beck saying, "So you have seen this," seen what? Are they saying the Obama administration is not making any effort to protect the United States from our enemies? This is what it says treason is in the United States: Article Three of the United States Constitution Section 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. The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war". Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason. Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies... It's a shame you can't find a transcript of the whole conversation, but going by what the Constitution says and what I heard, I'd have to say that this wasn't treason. All Michael Scheuer was saying was the government will do nothing to protect us until something is done to us first.

And your hypocrisy continues... So this guy says that the only way our government would protect us is if bin Laden launches an attack and you call that treason? Ok, I disagree, but let's compare this to something you wholeheartedly approve of. Al Franken makes jokes about how he'd like to help al Quaeda assassinate the president and not only do you see nothing treasonous about it, you WANT HIM TO BE A SENATOR.

Totally misconstrued. No news here. Please move along.

Oh, Annie! How far do people think their first Amendment rights take them? This is way over the line. I do think it's treasonous, and promoting the downfall of the government and the country!

I was actually getting a coffee from Dunkin Donuts the other night, it was 11:30 or 12am and I was oh, can I say, little surprised to see FOX News on both of the TV's, and it was Bill O'Reilly and a guest and they were talking JUST DIRT man, that man never ceases to suprise me but can their really be comparisons on that network?? They said Joe Biden was on hallucogenics and he has no idea what he's talking about or doing--hmm, I'd like to know where they come with their big Egos and what they know that I don't know

I think I have to agree with X. But, I do believe that if this were a Democrat saying this there would be protests and people calling for those 2 people's jobs. There is a complete double standard. I see that one respondent talked about Fraken I didn't hear those comments before today and I suppose that I would have to know the whole story but, if that's what he said than he is right and he should not be a Senator. I am fully against anyone talking about killing people and waging war, with some rare exceptions.

I just find it amusing that the right was always calling the left nut jobs when Bush was president. I agree with whoever said that if this were a Dem with a statement like this the "other side" would be in an uproar. I don't think it is treason but this Beck character cares about nothing other than ratings and popularity and there is minority of Ameicans drink his kool-aid. Why were so many against Obama yapping about everyone worshipping him when they have people like this on cable that they will defend to the end no matter what they say. It is called, if I don't agree with him,then everyone else is just kool aid happy, but if I agree with him it is because he is correct syndrome.

No. Treason is the specific *act* of betraying ones country. They are neither trying to procure a weapon, nor aiding a terrorist organization. Nor were they advocating the overthrowing of the American government. Further, they were not actually advocating the action in question. They merely were stating that it would likely take such an act to wake people up to the reality of terrorism, and force government to do what is required to stop it. Ironically, they were both being patriotic in their comments. They were saying they want government to protect America, but unfortunately, they likely will not unless forced to by a catastrophic attack by a terrorist group. But regardless, they were not committing treason.

If that is genuine then it is a disgrace!

This comment seemed to be tongue in cheek - or sarcasm. If someone asked them if they really meant this they would probably apologize that it was taken literally. Maybe emailing them and asking about it would be a good thing?

no their not guilty of treason. their guilty of stupidity. its their right to free speech.

It's amazing how many people on this Lot don't know the difference between treason and ...oooohhh what's that other one ....ummmm Oh Yeah FReE SpEEcH The government's No1 purpose is to protect these borders. "...Provide for the common Defence..." Sound familiar. Obamaman has SWORN to do this. HE IS NOT. THAT is TREASON. "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[b]If you ever bothered to really WATCH Glenn Beck's show, you'd know he NEVER wants any such thing to happen here. I didn't see that particular episode, but I think I recognize his sense of humor when I hear it. Beck LOVES this country, & is fighting REAL traitors. Here's a dollar. Buy a sense of humor. And WATCH his show, so you'll know what the hell you're talking about. Maggiepie "WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?"[/b]

No, like movie stars who advocated killing our last president, they are guilty of imminent foolish speech, but in this country even stupidity is allowed as free speech.

Just looking at Glenn's expression, I see no indication that he is in favor of an attack on the United States. I would even say that Scheuer was not being literal and was only trying to emphasize a point. In addition, it's not treason if they both support the United States. Actual treason would involve Beck and Scheuer flying to Afghanistan, training with Al-Qaeda, and fighting against America in the War on Terror.