Did Clinton sell military "secrets" to China?

[Reason]

I was too young during the Clinton years to be paying attention & yet I have heard this claim repeated ad nauseum by neocons so I have reason to question the allegation.

Anyone well informed on this claim?

[Zatch]

bump

[FrankRep]

Yeah, look up ChinaGate.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F054Slq07wg


Bill Clinton's Chinagate Scandal


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2802238322400032215



The Clinton's and Chinagate what we never heard above main stream media's distraction of Monica and Kosovo. This should convince most people why the Clinton's could be tried for treason and surely not be elected to the Whitehouse again.



Wikipedia: 1996 United States campaign finance controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy)



The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy, also known as Chinagate, was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics during the 1996 federal elections.

The issue first received public attention in early 1997, with news that a Justice Department investigation had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in violation of U.S. laws regarding foreign political contributions.[1] The Chinese government denied all accusations. Twenty-two people were eventually convicted of fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the United States elections, and others fled U.S. jurisdiction. Several of these were associates of Bill Clinton or Al Gore.

[fisharmor]

The Clinton's and Chinagate what we never heard above main stream media's distraction of Monica and Kosovo. This should convince most people why the Clinton's could be tried for treason and surely not be elected to the Whitehouse again.

Here we go with the T word again.


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Were the Clintons levying war against the states? Was China an enemy of the states?

That word "only" is tricky. So no, it wasn't treason. In fact, having a standing army is unconstitutional in the first place, so why not stop picking on the Clintons here? There are so many other reasons to blast those two that don't rely on creative interpretation of the constitution.

[cswake]

The Chinagate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy) campaign controversy becomes important in light of the fact that the 2003 declassified documents show that Clinton authorized (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/29/25139.shtml) the sale of "radiation hardened chip sets to China" which are "necessary for fighting a nuclear war".

It becomes even more problematic in that the Cox Report (http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/ch2.html) showed that during the 1990s the Chinese were stealing the most sophisticated nuclear secrets the U.S. had.

[scottditzen]

I was too young during the Clinton years to be paying attention & yet I have heard this claim repeated ad nauseum by neocons so I have reason to question the allegation.

Anyone well informed on this claim?

This may be on point.

A friend of mine is a well respected and highly paid accountant. He was brought in to audit Los Alamos nuclear facility, which was once under the control of the Univ. of California. I'll spare you the rumors, because there was no way for my friend to substantiate them. But at the very least, these government officials seemed to be negligent in safeguarding sensitive records. Also, there were tens of millions of dollars unaccounted for. Whether that's a result of sloppy government record keeping or conspiracy, either way it is very concerning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee

[realtonygoodwin]

I remember it being a big deal that "The Clintons were selling our nuclear secrets to China."

[AFPVet]

Here we go with the T word again.



Were the Clinton's levying war against the states? Was China an enemy of the states?

That word "only" is tricky. So no, it wasn't treason. In fact, having a standing army is unconstitutional in the first place, so why not stop picking on the Clinton s here? There are so many other reasons to blast those two that don't rely on creative interpretation of the constitution.

Yes, but we have to understand that communism 'was' our enemy; therefore, those countries which are communistic in nature technically 'were' our enemy.

[Reason]

Interesting

[madengr]

Read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d.html/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/192-3165328-1092327?a=0895263173

[fisharmor]

Yes, but we have to understand that communism 'was' our enemy; therefore, those countries which are communistic in nature technically 'were' our enemy.

This is horseshit.
"Technically" nothing.
The reality of your statement is that it is anti constitution.
The constitution says what it says, and you are choosing to ignore it.
There are limited constitutional ways to have an enemy. We were not (and are not) at war, and it's been about 200 years since we wrote a letter of marque.
Therefore China was not our enemy at the time.

You can manufacture all the dragons you wish to slay, but the cold, hard, unavoidable reality behind that is that it really only makes you one enemy: the rule of law.

[FrankRep]

This is horseshit.
"Technically" nothing.
The reality of your statement is that it is anti constitution.
The constitution says what it says, and you are choosing to ignore it.

It was just a word. Get over yourself.



Wikipedia: Treason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason)

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

[fisharmor]

It was just a word. Get over yourself.



Wikipedia: Treason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason)

In law, treason[/COLOR][/URL] is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

Oh, ok I get it - wikipedia is now a higher legal authority than the US Constitution, right?
Am I on the right fucking forum? When did this place get all cozy with the idea that the constitution doesn't say what it says, but only what we want it to say or whatever is expedient to whatever we want to do?

This is why there are so many anarchists hanging around here. If none of you constitution lovers is ever going to bother to read the fucking thing, much less defend it, why should we bother to have one?

[cswake]

Were the Clintons levying war against the states? Was China an enemy of the states?

That word "only" is tricky. So no, it wasn't treason. In fact, having a standing army is unconstitutional in the first place, so why not stop picking on the Clintons here? There are so many other reasons to blast those two that don't rely on creative interpretation of the constitution.

This is not black and white. What's your definition of enemy? It's not a declaration of war, since we never did so against the Russians. However, it was proven that China was stealing the most advanced nuclear weapons secrets, wouldn't that start treading into the grey area?

It could be argued that they indeed are an enemy through their continued intelligence efforts. If they indeed are considered an enemy, then Clinton can fall under Article 3 if it was shown that Chinese money influenced his decision to approve the sale of technology that could be used to wipe the U.S. off the map...

[fisharmor]

This is not black and white. What's your definition of enemy? It's not a declaration of war, since we never did so against the Russians. However, it was proven that China was stealing the most advanced nuclear weapons secrets, wouldn't that start treading into the grey area?
Whether or not we can fabricate an argument that they're the enemy is beside the point. The point is that by fabricating this argument, you are running headlong and blindfolded into the black part of this very black-and-white argument.
This assumes, of course, that the constitution is our judge of what is black and what is white.
Under that constitution, Clinton's government - and every government prior to it - should not have had these secrets in the first place.
Under that constitution, the federal government doesn't get to just decide who its enemies are.
Under that constitution, armchair historians don't get to label people traitors because the way they ignored the constitution doesn't jive with the way the armchair historian would rather we ignore the constitution.


It could be argued that they indeed are an enemy through their continued intelligence efforts. If they indeed are considered an enemy, then Clinton can fall under Article 3 if it was shown that Chinese money influenced his decision to approve the sale of technology that could be used to wipe the U.S. off the map...It's about two paces to get from this argument to "we need to invade Iraq because they might have WMDs".
Seriously, did I wake up in a different dimension? Am I on the right board?

[cswake]

Whether or not we can fabricate an argument that they're the enemy is beside the point. The point is that by fabricating this argument, you are running headlong and blindfolded into the black part of this very black-and-white argument.
It's not fabricating, these are all facts. The U.S. has fought Chinese troops in the Korean War, and potentially might fight them again in defense of Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea. There are demonstrated efforts by the Chinese government to steal U.S. and European technology for the sole purpose of improving its military odds in a conflict with the U.S. Regardless of the outcomes, our international treaties with those countries are permitted by the Constitution.

This is definitely not how I view a friend or neutral party would act.


This assumes, of course, that the constitution is our judge of what is black and what is white.
Under that constitution, Clinton's government - and every government prior to it - should not have had these secrets in the first place.
Under that constitution, the federal government doesn't get to just decide who its enemies are.
Under that constitution, armchair historians don't get to label people traitors because the way they ignored the constitution doesn't jive with the way the armchair historian would rather we ignore the constitution.

It's about two paces to get from this argument to "we need to invade Iraq because they might have WMDs".
Seriously, did I wake up in a different dimension? Am I on the right board?

You're grasping at straws. Military secrets are not prohibited by the Constitution. Iraq took no proactive effort at hostilities with the US, while China did through an active effort to steal information critical to national security. And yes, the Federal Government *can* decide who our enemies are, and in fact, declare war against them.

[fisharmor]

You're grasping at straws.
No, I'm applying reading comprehension to a legal document. And I'm all alone here, apparently.


Military secrets are not prohibited by the Constitution.
Read the 10th Amendment.


Iraq took no proactive effort at hostilities with the US, while China did through an active effort to steal information critical to national security. And yes, the Federal Government *can* decide who our enemies are, and in fact, declare war against them.

I find it interesting that you refer to "our enemies" while I refer to "the federal government's enemies". I pity you for considering them the same.
Get your representatives and senators to declare war on China, and then afterward any time Clinton sells unconstitutional military secrets it will be treason.
By the way, your idea that Iraq "took no proactive effort at hostilities" is totally absent in the narrative that was fabricated during the run-up to the war. (The second one, that is.)

Look, equivocate and hem and haw all you want about this. I stand by my assessment. The reason why so many of us give up on the system altogether and recognize the constitutional republic to be patent bullshit is because of you. If the people who supposedly support this form of government spend so much time and energy trashing it, why should I support it?

[Dr.3D]

Treason or not, Clinton did something everybody else couldn't do. He used his position as president to make money selling military secrets to another country. Why fall for the distraction of if what he did was treason? He did something that wasn't ethical and then the media covered it up with the Monica Lewinsky oral office garbage.

[cswake]

No, I'm applying reading comprehension to a legal document. And I'm all alone here, apparently.

Read the 10th Amendment.

Re-Read Article I, Section 8.


I find it interesting that you refer to "our enemies" while I refer to "the federal government's enemies". I pity you for considering them the same.
Get your representatives and senators to declare war on China, and then afterward any time Clinton sells unconstitutional military secrets it will be treason.
By the way, your idea that Iraq "took no proactive effort at hostilities" is totally absent in the narrative that was fabricated during the run-up to the war. (The second one, that is.)

Look, equivocate and hem and haw all you want about this. I stand by my assessment. The reason why so many of us give up on the system altogether and recognize the constitutional republic to be patent bullshit is because of you. If the people who supposedly support this form of government spend so much time and energy trashing it, why should I support it?

And I don't dispute it is a failure of government policies and the representatives who were sent forth to carry them out. Interestingly enough, all our problems stems from interpretations of the Constitution. While it is clear you have a different interpretation than I, we're much more constructionist than most of the population. That's a starting point.

[AFPVet]

This is horseshit.
"Technically" nothing.
The reality of your statement is that it is anti constitution.
The constitution says what it says, and you are choosing to ignore it.
There are limited constitutional ways to have an enemy. We were not (and are not) at war, and it's been about 200 years since we wrote a letter of marque.
Therefore China was not our enemy at the time.

You can manufacture all the dragons you wish to slay, but the cold, hard, unavoidable reality behind that is that it really only makes you one enemy: the rule of law.

1. The Constitution is to be capitalized.
2. Nothing in my statement is against the Constitution.
3. Letters of Marque refer to allowing pirate vessels to attack an enemy... what does communism have to do with this?
4. Under the War Powers Resolution, we were at war with communism via the Korean and Vietnam Conflicts. The WPR was legitimized by the Necessary and Proper Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Oh, ok I get it - wikipedia is now a higher legal authority than the US Constitution, right?
Am I on the right fucking forum? When did this place get all cozy with the idea that the constitution doesn't say what it says, but only what we want it to say or whatever is expedient to whatever we want to do?

This is why there are so many anarchists hanging around here. If none of you constitution lovers is ever going to bother to read the fucking thing, much less defend it, why should we bother to have one?

Hear, hear! I'm with you, don't think all the constitution lovers have been banned.

[FrankRep]

Oh, ok I get it - wikipedia is now a higher legal authority than the US Constitution, right?

You completely ignored the stuff I posted about Bill Clinton and focused on one loosely used word. That is silly.

[Dr.3D]

You completely ignored the stuff I posted about Bill Clinton and focused on one loosely used word. That is silly.

Well, the person who said; "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."?

Worked for him.... :D

Edit: Or did it... LOL