This business doesn't smell right.

Why? Because it was a false flag operation that if not in operation, the perp (traitor) wouldn't have walked into thereby committing a crime?

He is not a traitor, because we are not at war with Israel. His crime is bad enough.

He is a traitor cassandra because he betrayed the trust of his nation....cut and dry!

Seaworthy:

He is a traitor cassandra because he betrayed the trust of his nation....cut and dry!

Well, that's not the traditional definition of treason. The actual Constitutional definition is: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Unless Israel is at war with the United States or is otherwise considered an enemy (which has a specific meaning), then it's not legally treason, it's just espionage.

Ketone:

Well, that's not the traditional definition of treason.

Are we are at war with say, Saudi Arabia? Would you be making excuses if they were given our nuclear secrets?

Of course not. It’s just more of what we see all the time. One standard for jews, another standard for everybody else.

Giving away nuclear secrets? Not signing the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty? Killing civilians, bulldozing homes, constant violations of UN resolutions? It’s all fine- for them. 

The jews have proven time and again that they are jews first and anything else second. That is why whenever these kinds of stories crop up, there is always a contingent of people ready to defend, to minimize, to excuse. Whoopi says it wasn’t “rape” rape. Just like it wasn’t “treason” treason, right? 

The same people, making the same excuses, defending the same people, for the same reason.

Jews are jews first?

Hm...badbone, what are you? First, and foremost, what do you consider yourself? I guess it is your top loyalty and priority we are asking about.

Our liberal laws on treason saved John Walker Lindh from execution, when he was actually fighting with the Taliban against our soldiers. Technically, we were not at war there. And it protected Jane Fonda from imprisonment...because technically we were not at war in Viet Nam.

Actually I think the question has been ansered by the Rosenbergs.

They claimed they believed that no single nation should have "the bomb" because it would lead eventually to a global superpower. The people were Jewish and survived Hitler and aruably were taking a "humanity first" position. We will never know if they were right because now more than one nation does have nukes.....but can we honestly say that no US leader would have ever used our sole possession of nukes to go for world domination? We already have a president in recent times willing to lie to launch a war (Poland anyone?).

Anyone looking at an interesting debate about what a traitor is might want to consider the case of Verner Von Braun, the famous rocket scientist the US spirited out of Nazi Germany at the end of WWII. Many Jews and many Brits believed this man to be a war criminal...the rocket factory at Piedamonde was staffed with Jewish slaves and the horrors the V-1 and V-2 rockets brought to England were legendary (a good think he didnt have nuclear warheads on them). We brought this man back to the USA because he was absolutely brilliant in his field and without him it is unlikely we would have landed on the moon.....but again there are those who would not give him a pass like the US government did.

It is true that religion may place a person in a position of religion first and country second, especially in the light of history showing a government can and has turned on various religious groups...would you blame a Jew for placing his religion ahead of loyalty to Germany in the 1930's and 1940's for example? Even today, Israel is a nation not much bigger than New Jersey surrounded on all sides by enemies....its hard to imagine anyone loyal to Israel not being a bit paranoid or concerned about its future. Of course I personally believe that if Israel was wiped out the Jewish faith would continue.....I consider the attachment to land to be a serious problem given that religion is supposed to be about the next world, not this one.

At the end if the day I would say a US citizen selling or giviong any kind of sensative classified information to another nation is a traitor hands down. If he did it for the money it doesnt matter who he sold it to and if he did it out of loyalty to another nation or faith then he had no business signing his security contracts because he has a different agenda than the entity he is working for. There should be no double standard because the buyer was Israel.

And back to the Rosenbergs. If you believe you have a higher reason which makes you sell out, you then step into a new place. A nazi soldier who would refuse to load Jews into the gas chamber would be there too.....if you go against your nation because it is against your humanity then you know what you are doing and you know its right. Some do consider the Rosenbergs traitors-others do not because of their reasons. We can have some good debate about the Rosenbergs....are we all here today because they prevented a nuclear conquest by a single nation? Is the US really immune from falling into the situation they feared (remember Germany was a democracy when Hitler came into power).

The Rosenbergs were communists who were doing the bidding of their ideological masters in the USSR..to assert that they were doing what they did "for the good of humanity" is absurd. They did what they did for the glory of Lenin and Stalin.

What smells is that the FBI POSED as an Israeli agent. Would we even be having this discussion if the agent was an Asian-American posing as a North Korean or Chinese agent? I think not.

You can believe that if you want but Rosenberg was working for us throughout WWII and was associated with the Manhatten project.

To assume such brilliant scientists were merely doing the bidding of a popular leader or even a political philosophy would imply a much simpler persona then these people had.

The world is not so black and white as you would have it. There are communists with good intentions and capitalists with bad intentions. The Rosenbergs were clear that they believed no single nation should possess the bomb and they explained their reasons very clearly.

We have seen that given the chance, certain US leaders in history might well have been as dangerous to world peace as any behind the iron curtain. And we have seen in the happenings at Tienemmn Square that not everyone behind the iron curtain is anti America or an enemy of peace. There are people who live outside the simplistic borders of nations and who do look at the world through a humanistic lense.

It may be hard for you to believe, but your very existence may well be something you can thank the Rosenbergs for. We will never know how far people like Nixon or Bush would have gone if they had the only nukes....we already know neither of them were concerned with lying to the US population or using US troops for economic gains......The Rosenbergs survived Hitler-they knew political types were not to be trusted with such power but they also knew the genie couldnt be stuffed back into the bottle.

Apparently only Blue Eyed Austin knows that doing something for the glory of Lenin and Stalin (interesting time frame) is a really bad thing, just like doing something for the glory of Allah.

On the other hand, BEA knows that doing something for the glory of America, the red white and blue, land of the free, home of the brave, that is, of course a really good thing. Spy against the USA (Rosenbergs) and you are evil. Spy for the USA (Nathan Hale) and you are a hero.

It is a pretty simple and very easy to understand philosophy. Why don't you guys get it?

RML,

Your take on the Rosenbergs is a bit disingenous. They were dedicated, sincere communists who believed the Soviet model was right, while the Western capitalist one was wrong, and they wanted the Soviet model to prevail and the Western capitalist one to die.

Sure, given their belief that communism was necessary and good for humanity, any work they did on communism's behalf could be described as "humanitarian." They were not, however, helping get nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union out of "humanitarian" concerns that only one superpower would be armed with nukes. They wanted their side to win.

As for their support of the Allies during WWII, it is quite beside the point. Most communists were dedicated anti-fascists. Socialists famously fought against the right-wing fascist takeover of by Franco in Spain, for instance. And of course, the Soviet Union was a key ally against the Nazis.

A bit of a side note: Von Braun was not brought to the US from Nazi Germany for the sake of making a moon shot, as that was considered pretty much science fiction in the '40s. He was brought here because it was clear that a nuclear arms race was ramping up with the Soviets and they wanted his rocket genius for that purpose.

Perhaps the Rosenbergs were right. The Soviets had 40 years to do terrible things with atomic weapons. They declined to do so. The record of the USA is not quite so unblemished...

Hey, back then it was easy to believe in the justice of an "equality for all" system like communism if you didn't actually have to live in a nation trying to enact it. They were both born Americans. No internet, no TV documentaries, no Alexander Solzhenitsyn to present the truth.

(intersting sidenote, Solzhenitsyn himself discovered, after living in the USA for a while, that it isn't such a rose garden either, and he returned to Russia)