The collectivist blog Talking Points Memo is in an indignant spasm, as only collectivists can work themselves up to. "Oath Keepers Founder: Traitor McCain Should Be 'Hung By The Neck Until Dead'."
Of course Stewart predicated his statement with this: “He should be tried for treason before a jury of his peers — which he would deny you."
If you look at McCain's support for the worst parts of the misnamed PATRIOT Act, as well as his backing of the NDAA, it is not unreasonable that a guy who is all for massive spying on his fellow citizens (and hence the violation of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights under the same Constitution that he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend) as well as executing American citizens without trial could be considered treasonous. The Founders, I suspect, would certainly think so. And McCain's votes for these laws place him beyond mere free speech advocacy and into direct responsibility for destruction of the rule of law as understood by the Founders. I mean, it's not as if Stewart's channeling the Red Queen and uttering some wild-eyed advocacy of McCain's death without trial in a vacuum of evidence.
"Now for the evidence," said the King, "and then the sentence.""No!" said the Queen, "first the sentence, and then the evidence!""Nonsense!" cried Alice, so loudly that everybody jumped, "the idea of having the sentence first!"
However history judges John McCain, it will likely depend upon how he enabled tyranny that he didn't mind seeing others enforce upon innocent American citizens. Stewart believes passionately that McCain has violated his oath. Under the circumstances and with all our potential futures hostage to those actions, it is understandable that he would view those concrete acts as treason. As it happens, I agree with him on that. And the Founders, you may recall, laid out a specific punishment for treason. And that was? Why, to be hung by the neck until death.
Of course with the laws being what they are, Stewart may have put himself in legal jeopardy for, as they see it, threatening a perfumed senatorial prince of the Mandarin class. In certain circles it was at the least certainly impolitic to say. I probably would have phrased it more delicately and indirectly. Does that make me smarter, or just not as forthright and honest as Stewart Rhodes? History, too, will judge that.