I guess the title says it all. Musings got me thinking (I still can't believe it) in the Protest... anarchy thread about this.

What constitutes legal protest and what constitutes treason? If a group of anarchists who want to bring down the government operates entirely within the law then is that wrong? What's the problem with legally trying to change the government?

Sometimes anarchists can give Progressives in general a bad name. I'm talking about Black Bloc and such. In general, these groups seem more like Nazis than Socialists to me, and I wouldn't mind at all if they went away. However, in general, even groups that want to destroy the government do it peacefully, so as long as they don't attack people it's not insurrection or treason.

Oh, and for a note, there are anarchists that aren't half bad.




[EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION]

And how does this answer UltimateJoe's question? You don't even mention treason in your reply.

Just in case it wasn't clear, I was exploring the dynamics of the legality of opposing government.

Last weekend I watched a three-hour program about the CIA. A large part of the show dealt with Aldrich Ames and how he betrayed America to the Soviets.

The program featured an interview with Ames, and the guy came off as a totally immoral, self-absorbed scumbag.

Aldrich Ames is the definition of treason. He is the Devil In the Flesh and the damage he did to this nation, the secrets he confided with our enemies and the lives he cost can never be forgiven.

We cheapen the meaning of "treason" when we use it carelessly. Save it for the real traitors like Aldrich Ames.

anything constitutse legal protest, the 1st amendment doesn't say you can only protest certain things or do so at certain times. some people, micheal savage for example, are saying when the bullets start flying that protesting should be considered sedition, and all protesters of the war arrested (thank god he has no real power) based on the sedition act (J. Q. adams was president when that act was passed, and it expired in the early 1800's)

also, the declaration of independence says that when any form of government becomes destructive to the rights of lif, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right and duty of the people to throw off such government and replace it with a system that is in their opinion most likely to ensure these right (that is heavilly paraphrased)

rattlesnake, I think I should point out "black bloc" isnt an organization or group, it is a protest tactic aimed at creating as much a of a disturbance as possible. this can be any thing from shutting down roadways, to destroying property of capitalist entities. (such as mcdonalds)

as to what constitutes treason: selling info to another country. fighting with any entities attacking america. the government can commit treason, by violating rights gauranteed by the constitution, or violating their oaths of office. there are likely many others, but I can't think of any more now.

I remember the arguments against the legality of the American Communist Party, which happened to be headquartered not too many miles from my hometown. Since communism starts with revolution to overthrow the existing government, the argument went that this constitutes treason, and therefore the party should be declared illegal.

These arguments didn't hold up in court, and so Gus Hall ran numerous times for President of the United States under the American Communist Party--much to our collective apathy.

So there's a precedence. I don't think anarchist groups can be considered treasonous.

Running into the legislature and setting off a large explosive would not qualify as a legal protest.

--Ultimatejoe

I'll apply my answer to the protests for peace. There is nothing wrong with this and it's not treason unless it is undermining the government's ability to enforce policy.

People that actually go over to the land of the opposition to put themselves in the way of military strikes are guilty of treason only after War is declared. My reasoning for this is because you can't really define the enemy until the point of actual war is declared. Until that time, there is no official enemy. Once war is declared, then any efforts to assist the enemy is treason.

--Ultimatejoe

I'm assuming you mean bring down an "administration" when you say government. There is nothing wrong with operating within the legal system. That's why impeachment is available.

That's interesting to know. Well, I think you know the type of anarchists I'm talking about when I compare them to Nazis, don't you? The kind that dress up in all black, wear bandanas over their faces and throw stones at McDonalds?


As for the topic at had, I don't think having an ideology that believe the state should be removed could be considered treason. I mean, there are people out there that think we should kill everyone in the Middle East, and they get together on message board and elsewhere to discuss it, but they're not committing conspiracy to murder by believing that. Unless someone commits violent action or makes specific plans to do so, they're perfectly within their rights.

It's a bit OT, but I can't see how you can compare petty vandals and rabble-rousers with people who would commit genocide.

Eva,



That's a piece of good, solid logic. The trouble with the notion of treason in this war and all wars we have engaged in since WW II is that none of them have been declared. Even throughout the Cold War, war was never declared against the USSR.

I think giving the Executive branch the power to do "peace-keeping" and "policing" actions without UN support is a dangerous way to go. You see, if we just go by the Constitution's wording, as follows:



then we need to determine what constitutes our "Enemies". A soft definition could spell trouble in the sense that a police state could easily be established.