Economic Treason: The definition of "treason" and could Republicans be guilty of this crime (Part 2) [View all]

[Samantha]

On May 14, 2011, I wrote a thread here at DU entitled the same as this thread. Here is a link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1104652

We have had several discussions recently on this subject, and I decided to go back and review the contents of my thread and the replies I received. This was prompted by a discussion on another thread in which 2naSalit and I became very interested in the subject, although the thread in which we were participating was of a different nature. So we decided to jointly start a thread on this specific question rather than hijack that discussion. This is that thread.

I hope if you are reading this, you will take a minute out and look at the contents of the linked thread and read some of the responses. Even today, I find the arguments initiated by some of the posters in response to my question very informative and interesting. I think you will too.

For those of you too busy to check out the link, here are a few paragraphs:

"Why is not the threat to make the U.S. government default on its debt the equivalent of economic treason? Every time one of the Republicans steps out and threatens to vote no on raising the debt ceiling, is he or she not giving aid and comfort to our enemies?

If a terrorist group boasts it will destroy the U.S. Government by breaking it economically, as the late Osama bin Laden himself repeatedly said he would do, is an American citizen threatening to cast a vote which will prevent the lifting of the current debt ceiling not giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

Keep in mind it is the Republicans themselves who boast that the late Ronald Reagan took down the Soviet Union simply by destroying its economy. By doing so, they imply this technique is an effective but non-violent approach to destroying one's political enemy.

When the Republicans started threatening to do this initially, I froze up with fear to think of the ensuing collapse. Of course, soon thereafter, I realized that was their purpose in making this threat: instill political paralysis through threatening to collapse our economy until they get what they want.

Of course, in order for a charge of treason to be made, we must be in a time of war. As we know, a formal declaration of war has not been declared by Congress. Still, with the recent "elimination" of Osama bin Laden, the use of extreme conduct by our military as so ordered by our Commander-in-Chief came with the explanation of that conduct being justified as acceptable in times of war. It would be awkward at best to make a legal case excusing a person charged with treason by a technicality that war has not been declared when arms of our government publicly speak in terms that we are.

I took my question a step further by looking up the term to find the precise definition. Here is a link to a full explanation. It is easy to see how a legal case could be argued either way under this definition, but please read it for yourself and let me know your reaction."

and here is a sampling of the diverse responses:

Poster #2: Are some of our trade agreements treason? They certainly have weakened our manufacturing capacity and therefore, our ability to be independent and self-sufficient as a nation.

Poster #30: Yes, if they deliberately default on the debt to punish the nation for political purposes.

Poster #32: As far as I'm concerned treason can only constitutionally be defined as giving actual aide to an enemy that the United States has declared war.

It's why the Rosenbergs were charged formally with treason, but "conspiracy to commit espionage." Same reason why Jonathan Pollard wasn't charged with treason.

Given the way this word has been thrown around loosely to target progressive activist, much to the detriment of our democracy, I'm not comfortable to doing the same thing even with people I think are horrible human beings. I'm for a very narrowly and strictly defined definition of treason.

This does not fall within in it."

Please note: the discussion on treaties alone is very interesting.

But another question that arose last night concerned whether or not the citizens of this Country could initiate a class action civil suit against the Tea Party minority determined to shut down our government. This question was prompted by the fact they cannot be impeached because the House has a Republican majority and the DOJ would probably never initiate any investigation because the hue and cry that would arise by the Republicans would accuse President Obama and his Attorney General of using the power of their offices to retaliate against their political opponents.

So if you have any thoughts you would like to contribute to issues in this thread, please share your thoughts. The question I raised with 2naSalit last evening was could the Tea Party Republicans be sued for malfeasance in office:

“ Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do. ”
—Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).

"The court then went on to use yet another definition, "malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3765139

In summary, I have the feeling that if our politicians cannot remedy this type of behavior soon, the citizens of the Country need to step up to the plate and hit back at those who think shutting down our government is acceptable. Many, many people are going to be hurt by this. I think many of you will say that the way to hit back is at the polls, but that might be too late.

So the question is what can we as citizens do?

Thanks for reading.

Sam