[cpbell0033944]

Actually, it is illegal to be a crackpot if your crackpottiness leads you to commit treason.

Sorry Lingster, hut I fear you have treason on the brain.  She has not committed treason.  Yes, she has said daft things, but treasonous?  No.  Just because someone criticises a Government that you admire greatly should not lead to a loss of objectivity on your part. 

[Lingster]

She's falsely accusing the U.S. government of murdering thousands of U.S. citizens as a justification for war, during the course of the resulting war, and broadcasting those accusations internationally.

That is undermining the legitimacy of the government during wartime, that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and that is treason.  If it was up to me she'd be on trial for it. 

[The Muffin man]

She's falsely accusing the U.S. government of murdering thousands of U.S. citizens as a justification for war, during the course of the resulting war, and broadcasting those accusations internationally.

That is undermining the legitimacy of the government during wartime, that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and that is treason.  If it was up to me she'd be on trial for it. 

No, it's called "conspiracy theory".

They are generally ignored, unless ACTUAL facts are presented, in which case they are investigated.

[Lingster]

What makes you think propagating a false conspiracy theory can't be traitorous behavior?

[cpbell0033944]

From Wikipedia: "Put simply, sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state and has to do with giving aid to enemies or levying war. Sedition is more about encouraging the people to rebel, when treason is actually betraying the country."

Lingster:
Please explain to me how, BASED ON THE ABOVE DEFINITION, what O'Donnell  did was any worse than sedition, without resorting to the "It gives our enemies a psychological boost for her to spread daft conspiracy theories because it undermines our Government's legitimacy" argument.  If that were treason, then half of Britain would be locked-up for it and would be being guarded by the other half.  Criticising one's Government, whether at war or at peace is a right of those in a free country. 

Anyway, you keep on changing your mind.  On May 5th, you said (regarding treason vs. sedition):

What Rosie O'Donnell did is somewhere between those two things.

yet, on June 17th, you said, (referring to treason):

If it was up to me she'd be on trial for it.

If you, as an O'Donnell hater, cannot decide, then how is a jury supposed to?

[Lingster]

Yes, what she did is between those two things.  As they're both crimes, I don't think the distinction is particularly important.

I can make it clearer: she is committing sedition for traitorous purposes, which I think is treason. 

And I would not describe O'Donnell's attacks as criticism – she is making a false allegation of mass murder against the government.  If a substantial portion of the population actually came to believe such a charge, it could destroy the United States.

[cpbell0033944]

Yes, what she did is between those two things.  As they're both crimes, I don't think the distinction is particularly important.

I can make it clearer: she is committing sedition for traitorous purposes, which I think is treason. 

And I would not describe O'Donnell's attacks as criticism – she is making a false allegation of mass murder against the government.  If a substantial portion of the population actually came to believe such a charge, it could destroy the United States.

As a Brit, the two crimes seem very different – treason was the last hanging offence in the UK before capital punishment was outlawed.
You might think that committing sedition is treasonous, but to state so on the internet without qualification is not far off slander.
Also, I never said that O'Donnell's attacks were just criticism and nothing more – what I said was that, if one considers what she has done to be treason, then the logical extension of that would be to consider any strong condemnation of one's nations actions as treason, which is heading rapidly in the direction of a right-wing, dictatorial position.  Right-wing is, IMO as dangerous as left-wing.

[Lingster]

In the U.S. slander and libel (let's group them as 'defamation') are almost impossible to litigate or prosecute, especially when the 'wronged' party is a public personality. 

Otherwise, it would be George W. Bush who could sue Rosie O'Donnell for defamation, since she's accused him of treasonous behavior and gross misconduct in office with no basis in fact.  And as I have argued, making such allegations during time of war with the apparent intent of damaging the warmaking ability of the United States is itself treason.

So I say prosecute and then hang the cunt.

[rob000]

"And I would not describe O'Donnell's attacks as criticism – she is making a false allegation of mass murder against the government.  If a substantial portion of the population actually came to believe such a charge, it could destroy the United States."

It sounds like you are almost as out of touch with reality as she is.  The United Status has survived Joe McCarthy, Viet Nam, and a whole mess of scandals that the government tried to cover up and really were true.  It's in no danger from an idiot like O'Donnell.

[Author]

Posts