Try this on for justice: before I convict a man of murder, I'd like to see the corpse. But I understand this crime was quite brutal and, since I don't like the sight of blood, I prefer not to see the corpse. Therefore, I cannot convict the accused of murder.
Internally logical, but not much of a basis for a legal system. You are free to avert your eyes from Pound's words and reserve judgment, of course. I was only saying that the system was rather disingenuous in the way it punished without judging, through the fiction of mental incompetence. And, prompting your reply, I offered the opinion that Pound's statements were treasonous.
The questions you ask about treason are tricky. Many interim steps that some would call treason I would defend as free expression. Taking to Rome radio while the US was at war with the Italian govt. and telling US troops they had been duped into fighting -- that the US govt. had betrayed the Const. by making war on Mussolini -- THAT's plainly treason to me. Since that's what Pound did, the many closer calls presented by hypothetical scenarios need not be resolved by those like me(and unlike you, I understand) who presume to judge his behavior treasonous.
In a message dated 2/15/2003 12:50:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask] writes:
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > the theme that US troops should not be fight, eg, "Jewsevelt's War"
> > (one of the LESS offensive formulations) is plainly treasonous when
> > broadcast over enemy radio at time of war.
> Since it looks like we are heading into another war and one way where
> many more people than just mad poets don't want us to enter, what I'm
> going to ask (rhetorically) may lead to argumentative political posts
> but I'm posting anyway.
> What if Ez spoke the same words to his brother-in-law? To a young
> man not yet drafted? To a solider at the home-front, To one being
> shipped out? In front of a USO? The White House? When would it
> become plainly treasonous?
> Before convicting Pound of treason I'd want to know what he said.
> Since I'm not really interested in his rantings I'm not
> ready to
> call him a traitor.
> Rick Parker