Posted on Sep 17, 2017
The West Point Football Team That Went To War In Vietnam
1.88K
15
11
9
9
0
United States Military Academy (USMA West Point)
Vietnam War
Football
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 5
1
1
0
"Was serving in the military and sharing the risks that involves the only honorable action to take?"
Yes.
"Was protesting the war, particularly through civil disobedience, a morally acceptable alternative?"
No.
IMHO.
Yes.
"Was protesting the war, particularly through civil disobedience, a morally acceptable alternative?"
No.
IMHO.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Bob Leonard
Capt Seid Waddell - U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381
Treason
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason..."
In order for a person to commit treason, there must first be a war.
"JAMES MADISON in the 43d number of the Federalist says:
"As treason may be committed against the United States the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it: but as new tangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free governments, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the Convention has with great judgment opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger by inserting a Constitutional definition of the crime."
"The Constitution confines the crime of treason to two species; First, the levying of war against the United States; and Secondly, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort..."
"In 1807 ERICK BALLMAN and SAMUEL SWARTWONT were committed to prison in the District of Columbia, on a charge of high treason against the United States. The prisoners were brought by a writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court of the United States. In delivering the opinion of the Court, Chief-Justice MARSHALL said:
"To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the Court have been commuted, war must be actually levied against the United States. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the Government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war. and actually to levy war, are distinct offences."
"In the case of The United States vs. FRIES, Mr. Justice CHASE said on the trial, and stated the opinion of the Court to be,
"That if a body of people, conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war;..."
Other SCOTUS cases affirm what is stated in these: in order for a person to be guilty of treason, 1. there must first be a war (Viet Nam was NOT a war; much has been said over the years about it being a "police action", an "armed conflict", et al.; by the US Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare War, and they never did) and, 2. he/she must, "give aid and comfort" to the enemy of that war. Protesting the war is stating an opinion which may make the enemy feel encouraged, but by definition, it doesn't give them any real "aid or comfort".
You may see what those demonstrators were doing as being treasonous, but the Constitution does not.
Treason
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason..."
In order for a person to commit treason, there must first be a war.
"JAMES MADISON in the 43d number of the Federalist says:
"As treason may be committed against the United States the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it: but as new tangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free governments, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the Convention has with great judgment opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger by inserting a Constitutional definition of the crime."
"The Constitution confines the crime of treason to two species; First, the levying of war against the United States; and Secondly, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort..."
"In 1807 ERICK BALLMAN and SAMUEL SWARTWONT were committed to prison in the District of Columbia, on a charge of high treason against the United States. The prisoners were brought by a writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court of the United States. In delivering the opinion of the Court, Chief-Justice MARSHALL said:
"To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the Court have been commuted, war must be actually levied against the United States. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the Government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war. and actually to levy war, are distinct offences."
"In the case of The United States vs. FRIES, Mr. Justice CHASE said on the trial, and stated the opinion of the Court to be,
"That if a body of people, conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war;..."
Other SCOTUS cases affirm what is stated in these: in order for a person to be guilty of treason, 1. there must first be a war (Viet Nam was NOT a war; much has been said over the years about it being a "police action", an "armed conflict", et al.; by the US Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare War, and they never did) and, 2. he/she must, "give aid and comfort" to the enemy of that war. Protesting the war is stating an opinion which may make the enemy feel encouraged, but by definition, it doesn't give them any real "aid or comfort".
You may see what those demonstrators were doing as being treasonous, but the Constitution does not.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Sgt Bob Leonard, "That if a body of people, conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war;..."
You may be having a memory lapse...
Weather Underground
https://vimeo.com/33006390
You may be having a memory lapse...
Weather Underground
https://vimeo.com/33006390
(1)
(0)
Sgt Bob Leonard
Capt Seid Waddell - "However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the Government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war. and actually to levy war, are distinct offences."
"In 1969, a small group of leftist college student radicals ANNOUNCED THEIR INTENTIONS to overthrow the U.S. government..."
That is exactly what the SCOTUS was addressing with United States v Ballman et al.
"To conspire to levy war. and actually to levy war, are distinct offences." Talking about overthrowing the Gov't. is not the same as actually trying to do it.
When the Weather Underground went beyond rhetoric and took action with fires and bombings etc. perhaps their actions became treasonous. But they were only a small part of the anti-war movement. The SDS, the Black Panthers, even VVAW, were vocal and active, but I'm not aware of any of their activities rising to the level of "levying war" against the US.
And in all of these discussions, do we remember these words, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say them."
(If nothing else worthwhile comes out of this discussion, at least I've learned a new word:
flagitious:adjective
1. shamefully wicked, as persons, actions, or times.
2. heinous or flagrant, as a crime; infamous.)
"In 1969, a small group of leftist college student radicals ANNOUNCED THEIR INTENTIONS to overthrow the U.S. government..."
That is exactly what the SCOTUS was addressing with United States v Ballman et al.
"To conspire to levy war. and actually to levy war, are distinct offences." Talking about overthrowing the Gov't. is not the same as actually trying to do it.
When the Weather Underground went beyond rhetoric and took action with fires and bombings etc. perhaps their actions became treasonous. But they were only a small part of the anti-war movement. The SDS, the Black Panthers, even VVAW, were vocal and active, but I'm not aware of any of their activities rising to the level of "levying war" against the US.
And in all of these discussions, do we remember these words, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say them."
(If nothing else worthwhile comes out of this discussion, at least I've learned a new word:
flagitious:adjective
1. shamefully wicked, as persons, actions, or times.
2. heinous or flagrant, as a crime; infamous.)
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Sgt Bob Leonard, working to defeat our nation in time of war and taking up the cause of the enemy is still treason in my view - and this is clearly what they did.
We may differ.
We may differ.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
Not one player is named, and they show an Annapolis Graduate in the photo. Not very good reporting.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google