Archive | December, 2015

Treason; a discussion

30 Dec

The laws of this nation are based on honest people keeping honest people honest.  At least that is what the founders thought.  We were founded because of threat and intimidation, but it was never addressed in the declaration or the constitution.  I think it was an oversight, but at the time I think the founders believed they had solved the problem.

Now when perpetrators commit crimes that are basically are crimes against the public.  The perpetrators should be treated differently because they basically are saying in such action that they do not believe in the laws and courts system we hold dear.  In certain situations when crimes against the public should become crimes against the United States.

Below I have written two definitions.  Someone smarter that I can redefine, but it is clear that it needs to be addressed

For the purpose of this article, treason should be defined: anyone who commits or causes to be committed an indiscriminate crime, threat of a crime, against a person or persons because of race, religion, social, or political affiliation because of personal anguish, political unrest, or, religious disagreement, or any person agenda that differs from the laws and general values of the people of the United States and/or the framers of the United States Constitution.  Added to this definition should have always been person or persons that cause a general fear of injury, loss of life or other damage to property to any group of people; will also be considered terrorist.

For the purpose of this article, indiscriminate means a crime or threat of crime that appears not directed at a crime to a specific person unless that person represents a targeted philosophy that causes, social group, or the government of the United States i.e. a drive by shooting; any bomb situation; and group targeted scenarios would be two examples either acted on or threatened.

Our pasted and present laws have been ineffective and weak at best.  The threat of a crime from an individual or group of individuals is just as damaging as the crime itself to the people being threatened.  From time to time in our brief history, our way of life has been changed by the perception of the treats against individuals, classes of individuals, or our way of life.

In the United States threats against certain populations have been suffered by the public because the perpetrators knew they could hide behind their citizen rights in our constitution.  The crime syndicates in the past to the syndicates, gangs, drug cartels of the present day, and/or foreign based organization and government have determined that they do not believe in the values of the United States and have determined to change those values by action or to take over the United States.

I think we should form a new federal court specifically for terrorist activities.  Terrorist being defined in the above statement including threats.

The way one enters this court is being convicted in any other court including other federal courts.  In this manner justice is served.  Someone is found guilty of a terrorist activity either domestic or foreign.  The person or persons could be of sound mind or not.  Insanity defense of not would not be admissible.  Once the jury determined the person or persons were terrorist, why they got there becomes unimportant.  They are simply convicted of being involved in terrorist activities, and sentenced to the federal court.  Along with that sentence, which has convicted them of being a terrorist, they lose their citizenship rights because their crime was against the country and not just a single part of society.  By committing or threatening to commit such a crime, they have stated they do not believe in the constitution and our courts therefore they should not enjoy the benefit of citizenship.

This is a simple statement, but another simple statement is if we do nothing our way of life will change.