Dissent? Patriotic? Treasonous?

Just a few days ago, John Kerry stated that dissenting against the war in Iraq was patriotic. Some have agreed with the former presidential candidate. Others have gone the other route and claimed it to be treasonous. Which is it? Does it lay somewhere in the middle of the two?

In a "democracy" or republic, I don't see there ever being a scenario where dissent is treasonous. In dictatorships, it may be seen this way, but America is not a dictatorship, so this wouldn't apply to us.

There are situations where dissent can be dangerous and put people from our country at risk. For example, if someone overseas decides to dissent against the military he or she is with, the dissent could come at a time when they're covering for someone, they turn their back and walk away and that person they were supposed to be covering for gets shot and killed. That's why it's so important to have a voluntary armed forces. With a draft comes the increased likelihood of dissent within the military. Dissent that doesn't put people at risk of being hurt or killed is a different story. Again, it's voluntary. There aren't a few people who are drafted into having the right to dissent. Those that want to speak up have the right to do just that. Those that don't want to don't have to.

I don't think there's one label we can attach to the word dissent. While it may be dangerous in some situations, it isn't in most. If a group of people live in what they want to call a "democracy" or a republic, dissent must be spoken, enacted, heard, and seen or else that "democracy" or republic will slowly transform into a dictatorship, where the draft truly is relevant to people having the right to speak. Only a select few, those in power, would have this right. Anyone else would be punished and possibly killed for letting their voice be heard.

Whatever one wants to label it, whether that be patriotic or treasonous, dissent is a necessity and an essential aspect to keeping alive a "democracy" or republic.