The Glade 4.0

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rets.html#More at the link ...

I do so hope President Obama actually signs this; and I do so hope the information contained in that article is accurate.

_________________

Why do you hope both of these are true?

_________________

Doom wins when he can pit his enemies against themselves.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

More or less what I assumed but you can never fully read his motives.

_________________

It would be easier if there was a "Bwa-ha-ha-ha!" tag, I know, but if your imagination is as good as mine, you could hear it when you read his posts.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Especially since he tries to be as cryptic as possible.

It was the START treaty, he did sign it. I believe that the notifications are a continuation of previous START treaty protocol, with the addition of unique identifiers of the missiles transferred,giving much more specificity than previously.

I was discussing this with friends last week, and it came to my attention that there may be reasons for Obama's treating the UK like ****.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

If those provisions are true, then it's a demonstrable act of treason.

_________________

How is providing some information about what we are selling Britain treason against the US?

It could be bad for British relations or maybe even as bad as violating a treaty we have with them, but treason? You're gonna need to show your work on that on...

Beyond violating allied status with Britain, disclosing the quantities, types, and identification information of actual weapons sold to Britain constitutes levying war against an allied state, and per actual treason law constitutes making war against the United States itself. So, should the information in the OP be accurate, then articles of impeachment need to be drawn up against the President post-haste.

_________________

Sometimes I think you talk just to hear yourself talk.

Don't treaties have to be ratified by Congress? Its hardly the president's exclusive fault if treaties are contradictory. And complying with one while failing to comply with another doesn't constitute treason.

That's interesting. I thought we all wanted to be more liberal and cultured like our European role-models. I would have thought an Obama supporter would be more incensed at stabbing England in the back like that. Especially to aid a country that seriously tried socialism only to sell out out and embrace capitalism when they ran out of money.

Aww, who am I kidding. Frankly, I expected Obama's supporters to embrace any spin they can put on a story to keep der Führer from looking bad.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Well, it would be prudent to note that Congress failed to ratify this version of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. It would also be prudent to note that Obama has always said he'd comply with its terms whether the U.S. ratified it or not; and he also mentioned he's comply with its terms whether Russian ratified it for not.

That, however, is immaterial ...

The President has agreed to give away national security level secrets of an allied state to a nation that Britain considers an enemy state. The fact that you have no problem with this amuses me to no end. The fact that doing so is actually an act of treason is hilarious.

_________________

Enh, he can just have is declassified before he gives them info.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Your powers of logic continue to amaze. Thanks for the clarification.

Actually, if true and particularly if done without consulting Britain, I definately find it distasteful. It's certainly not the way that I would expect us to treat our allies.

Aizle:

Selling state secrets to an enemy state got the Rosenberg's executed. Why would it be any less an act of treason for the U.S. President to violate a treaty with Britain in order to provide British state secrets to the Russians?

_________________

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt there a tradition where the ex-president gets pardoned by what ever he does during his presidency by the next one?

Nope. And treason wouldn't get anywhere close to a pardon ...

For history's sake, the Rosenberg's were executed for less.

_________________

They're British secrets, not US secrets? Is there a law against giving someone elses's secrets?

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Violating a treaty?

The Rosenbergs were executed for conspiracy to commit espionage and allegedly released US secrets concerning the Atomic Bomb. They consistently denied the charges. The witnesses against them were allegedly co-conspirators who were promised reduced sentences for their testimony against the Rosenbergs. Today the trial would have gone through a series of appeals and may have been thrown out of court. In reality, the Rosenbergs were executed for being unapologetic communists and refusing to admit they did anything wrong.

The judge who sentenced them held them responsible for all of the deaths of the Korean war. The trial was fueled by hysteria and indirectly led to the rise of Senator McCarthy.

I have no idea what Barry is thinking, I do believe he is wrong in doing this.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

well this administration has gone on record against wikileaks doing this. Of course that doesn't mean crap, since they've flip flopped so often.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

violating a treaty is not treason.

especially not if done to further American interests.

furthermore, I haven't seen any treaty that says "thou shalt not disclose our nuclear secrets". While it could exist, I haven't seen it, so I'm not even sure it's a violation of any treaty.

Treaties have constitutional force, so there is an argument that violating them constitutes treason. There are a few problems with that line of thinking, though. For example, we've signed a treaty agreeing not to engage in whaling. If a US citizen does it, even if he does it while living in a country where it's legal, is he guilty of treason as well?