TYT: Seymour Hersh Talks Treason And Syria

[redgreenandblue]

8. Even if it did not happen, as a hypothetical it is interesting.

My understanding is that in a democracy "the power of the governing derives from the consent of the governed" and yadda yadda. In other words, the president is elected to represent the will of the public.

The case referred to in the OP aside (I believe you that it did not happen), lets assume some president makes a decision which, while technically legal, is so out of line with the will of the public, that he knows he will get shredded in the public forum if it comes to a debate. Let's assume it is something so severe that it will likely lead to impeachment.

And now assume that generals refuse to act in accordance with said decision. Technically it is treason, or at least insubordination, depending on the details.

The question is who failed at their job in this case.

As far as I am concerned, if said president, under no physical threat whatsoever and in full control of all the mechanisms to remove these generals from their positions after the fact and to bring forward charges against them, fears the public forum so much that he is afraid to come forward with treason charges, then treason did not happen. In such a case, the president has strayed so far from his purpose that the actions of the generals represented the will of the public much more closely.