POTUS says "Theisman should be jailed!"

Silverwall wrote:Cthia, you are confusing internal laws within a government stating Coups are illegal with being some sort of global edict from a higher being that coups are illegal.

All Coups are illegal from the perspective of those being overthrown. If they are considered illegal after the fact depends on many factors including but not limited to:

* WHICH SIDE WON IN THE LONG TERM (this is most important)
* Public opinion
* Reputation of those overthrown (internal)
* Reputation of those doing the overthrowing
* Reputation of those overthrown (externally)
* Willingness of the international community to recognise the new government.
* Form of old government
* Form of new government

None of this can be determined on a simple matrix but is a massivly complex interlocking set of value calls and nuanced judgements unique to each case. Given the many examples in real life we can compare to Theismans actions it is very unlikely any successor government would prosecute such an action.

Probably the closes real life example would be Von Stalfenburg and bombing Hitler in the bunker. In real life he failed and was duly rounded up and tried and executed for treason. If he had succeeded he would have been considered a hero for helping overthrow a paranoid tyrant and ending the war.

What other perspective is there? Can there be? Should there be?

Be very careful and move very slowly, as you are unscrewing the lid form a vast can of worms and they are really squirming in anticipation.

If I follow your lead, then a successful coup to unseat Trump's rump and demand that Hillary be seated is legal, at least in its conception and execution. Whether Clinton would actually be seated is besides the point.

Speaking of points, Clinton would win on every single factor that you named, especially public opinion. Remember, public opinion is on the side of the popular vote. She takes the other points by a popular landslide as well.

One simply cannot compromise on certain immutable ideas as treason or murder. Murder and treason. Or one compromises his own integrity and soul. Harrington understood this well. So did the Soul of Steel. One reason Beth was always so pissed regarding the Peeps is that they never seemed to understand this. Or have nothing going on at their core by way of access to morals, scruples and values. It seems that the spots still linger?

A misnomer...

Victory does not justify murder and treason. Treason or murder.

Or all of the Nazi's responsible for the inhumane crimes against the Jews would never have had their crimes follow them unto the day of resolution and justice.

cthia wrote:

Silverwall wrote:Cthia, you are confusing internal laws within a government stating Coups are illegal with being some sort of global edict from a higher being that coups are illegal.

All Coups are illegal from the perspective of those being overthrown. If they are considered illegal after the fact depends on many factors including but not limited to:

* WHICH SIDE WON IN THE LONG TERM (this is most important)
* Public opinion
* Reputation of those overthrown (internal)
* Reputation of those doing the overthrowing
* Reputation of those overthrown (externally)
* Willingness of the international community to recognise the new government.
* Form of old government
* Form of new government

None of this can be determined on a simple matrix but is a massivly complex interlocking set of value calls and nuanced judgements unique to each case. Given the many examples in real life we can compare to Theismans actions it is very unlikely any successor government would prosecute such an action.

Probably the closes real life example would be Von Stalfenburg and bombing Hitler in the bunker. In real life he failed and was duly rounded up and tried and executed for treason. If he had succeeded he would have been considered a hero for helping overthrow a paranoid tyrant and ending the war.

What other perspective is there? Can there be? Should there be?

Be very careful and move very slowly, as you are unscrewing the lid form a vast can of worms and they are really squirming in anticipation.

If I follow your lead, then a successful coup to unseat Trump's rump and demand that Hillary be seated is legal, at least in its conception and execution. Whether Clinton would actually be seated is besides the point.

Speaking of points, Clinton would win on every single factor that you named, especially public opinion. Remember, public opinion is on the side of the popular vote. She takes the other points by a popular landslide as well.

One simply cannot compromise on certain immutable ideas as treason or murder. Murder and treason. Or one compromises his own integrity and soul. Harrington understood this well. So did the Soul of Steel. One reason Beth was always so pissed regarding the Peeps is that they never seemed to understand this. Or have nothing going on at their core by way of access to morals, scruples and values. It seems that the spots still linger?

A misnomer...

Victory does not justify murder and treason. Treason or murder.

Or all of the Nazi's responsible for the inhumane crimes against the Jews would never have had their crimes follow them unto the day of resolution and justice.

If all that happend was overthrowing the current president then it's obviously illegal because the basic structure of the state has not changed. We are talking about a case where the fundamental structures of the state are changed these follow a different set of rules. If you can't see that there is a difference between the two examples then you are being blinkered by absolutism or extreme legalism.

cthia wrote:

Silverwall wrote:Cthia, you are confusing internal laws within a government stating Coups are illegal with being some sort of global edict from a higher being that coups are illegal.

All Coups are illegal from the perspective of those being overthrown. If they are considered illegal after the fact depends on many factors including but not limited to:

* WHICH SIDE WON IN THE LONG TERM (this is most important)
* Public opinion
* Reputation of those overthrown (internal)
* Reputation of those doing the overthrowing
* Reputation of those overthrown (externally)
* Willingness of the international community to recognise the new government.
* Form of old government
* Form of new government

None of this can be determined on a simple matrix but is a massivly complex interlocking set of value calls and nuanced judgements unique to each case. Given the many examples in real life we can compare to Theismans actions it is very unlikely any successor government would prosecute such an action.

Probably the closes real life example would be Von Stalfenburg and bombing Hitler in the bunker. In real life he failed and was duly rounded up and tried and executed for treason. If he had succeeded he would have been considered a hero for helping overthrow a paranoid tyrant and ending the war.

What other perspective is there? Can there be? Should there be?

Be very careful and move very slowly, as you are unscrewing the lid form a vast can of worms and they are really squirming in anticipation.

If I follow your lead, then a successful coup to unseat Trump's rump and demand that Hillary be seated is legal, at least in its conception and execution. Whether Clinton would actually be seated is besides the point.

Speaking of points, Clinton would win on every single factor that you named, especially public opinion. Remember, public opinion is on the side of the popular vote. She takes the other points by a popular landslide as well.

One simply cannot compromise on certain immutable ideas as treason or murder. Murder and treason. Or one compromises his own integrity and soul. Harrington understood this well. So did the Soul of Steel. One reason Beth was always so pissed regarding the Peeps is that they never seemed to understand this. Or have nothing going on at their core by way of access to morals, scruples and values. It seems that the spots still linger?

A misnomer...

Victory does not justify murder and treason. Treason or murder.

Or all of the Nazi's responsible for the inhumane crimes against the Jews would never have had their crimes follow them unto the day of resolution and justice.

Siverwall wrote:If all that happend was overthrowing the current president then it's obviously illegal because the basic structure of the state has not changed. We are talking about a case where the fundamental structures of the state are changed these follow a different set of rules. If you can't see that there is a difference between the two examples then you are being blinkered by absolutism or extreme legalism.

You are still attempting to justify the act and classify it under the name of another rose that smells sweeter, by manner of some insane perceived qualifications and merits.

Murder and treason. Treason and murder are immutable. Just as sure as Detective Stabler would have shot that creep while he was on the pavement because he knew he'd just be out on bail the next day and kill again does not absolve him of the crime. Heck, the creep was bragging that's what he would do.

Stabler's badge is collected and he sees Internal Affairs.

We cannot allow ourselves to be judge, jury and executioner. That is too much power for one individual, or office to wield. The Constitution would never give one individual that much power. Or base the Constitution on one man's assimilation of the law -- and his morals, scruples and values.

cthia wrote:You are still attempting to justify the act and classify it under the name of another rose that smells sweeter, by manner of some insane perceived qualifications and merits.

Murder and treason. Treason and murder are immutable.

Remember the old quote: Treason can never prosper, for if it prospers, it isn't treason.

As was pointed out upthread: All the founding heroes of the United States are traitors to the United Kingdom. Are they thus not worthy of the respect paid to them? Should they be regarded not as national heroes, but as traitors most foul? Should the soldiers who fought in the american civil war be posthumously tried as murderers, no matter the side they fought on?

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:You are still attempting to justify the act and classify it under the name of another rose that smells sweeter, by manner of some insane perceived qualifications and merits.

Murder and treason. Treason and murder are immutable.

Remember the old quote: Treason can never prosper, for if it prospers, it isn't treason.

As was pointed out upthread: All the founding heroes of the United States are traitors to the United Kingdom. Are they thus not worthy of the respect paid to them? Should they be regarded not as national heroes, but as traitors most foul? Should the soldiers who fought in the american civil war be posthumously tried as murderers, no matter the side they fought on?

Read it again. That is not the meaning of that quote. For one you changed the structure which grossly changed the meaning.

They are not traitors by virtue of treason and murder. A civil war does not constitute either.

It is the whole point behind the notion of formally announcing to your enemy that you are resuming hostilities after a ceasefire, because anything else would be uncivilized. And murder.

Murder and treason can never become opportunistic crimes.

I'd like to use my one phone call to call my lawyer.

"Lawyer, why can't Alfredo Yu and Co. ever go home?"

1. Victory does not justify murder and treason. Treason or murder.

2. Murder and treason can never become opportunistic crimes.

cthia wrote:Read it again. That is not the meaning of that quote. For one you changed the structure which grossly changed the meaning.

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

That's the original, straight from John Harington's words. What does it mean, exactly, if it isn't an acknowledgment that successful coups rarely, if ever, result in criminal charges against the people behind them for actions taken as part of the coup?

Treason is only a crime if the state being betrayed lives through it. Even if it does, there are forms of treason that are more acceptable than others, for example, whistle-blowing is accepted as a sometimes necessary element of keeping checks on the government or its agents. Similarly, treason against a corrupt regime is considered noble, as is bringing such a regime down.

For you to declare these actions crimes, no matter what the reasoning behind them are or what the outcome is, is wrong. There is no universal moral or legal code under which these actions are unambiguously and unchangeably criminal, there is no supreme authority that can step in here. This was already pointed out upthread: If a traitor succeeds in overthrowing his government and installing a new regime and new system of governance, who is the prosecuting party? Who is the judge?

They are not traitors by virtue of treason and murder. A civil war does not constitute either.

Doesn't it? The american civil war can be defined as a treasonous act of secession; By the US' own definition of Treason (that is, any act against its government or any act of aiding and abetting its enemies), the south is guilty of the crime.

It is the whole point behind the notion of formally announcing to your enemy that you are resuming hostilities after a ceasefire, because anything else would be uncivilized. And murder.

I think we tend to call those things "War".

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:Read it again. That is not the meaning of that quote. For one you changed the structure which grossly changed the meaning.

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

That's the original, straight from John Harington's words. What does it mean, exactly, if it isn't an acknowledgment that successful coups rarely, if ever, result in criminal charges against the people behind them for actions taken as part of the coup?

Treason is only a crime if the state being betrayed lives through it. Even if it does, there are forms of treason that are more acceptable than others, for example, whistle-blowing is accepted as a sometimes necessary element of keeping checks on the government or its agents. Similarly, treason against a corrupt regime is considered noble, as is bringing such a regime down.

For you to declare these actions crimes, no matter what the reasoning behind them are or what the outcome is, is wrong. There is no universal moral or legal code under which these actions are unambiguously and unchangeably criminal, there is no supreme authority that can step in here. This was already pointed out upthread: If a traitor succeeds in overthrowing his government and installing a new regime and new system of governance, who is the prosecuting party? Who is the judge?

They are not traitors by virtue of treason and murder. A civil war does not constitute either.

Doesn't it? The american civil war can be defined as a treasonous act of secession; By the US' own definition of Treason (that is, any act against its government or any act of aiding and abetting its enemies), the south is guilty of the crime.

It is the whole point behind the notion of formally announcing to your enemy that you are resuming hostilities after a ceasefire, because anything else would be uncivilized. And murder.

I think we tend to call those things "War".

My curiosity is getting the best of me.

Does anyone else assimilate that quote the same way?

It is the standard English language interpretation of the quote yes.

You can sum up why Tom didn't get tried for treason in two phrases

He won

The winner writes the history