No one understands what treason is: Alex Seitz-Wald, Salon

[carolinayellowdog]

The word “treason” has been thrown around a lot lately in relation to alleged leakers Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, but it turns out that no one accusing them of the crime actually seems to understands what it means.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein called Snowden’s leak an “act of treason,” as did Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, while House Speaker John Boehner called the leaker a “traitor.” And they were only the most prominent of a slew of columnists and officials. For instance, former UN Ambassador and Fox News regular John Bolton called the leak “the worst form of treason.”

Treason is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution, and considering how much people in Washington say they love the founding document, one would think they would have read it a bit more closely, because experts say that among Snowden’s potential crimes — and they are crimes, in all likelihood — treason is almost definitely not one of them.

“It’s a narrow and specific definition,” New York Law School professor and constitutional historian R. B. Bernstein told Salon. As described in Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Bernstein says this means that “you need to show specific intent to make war” against the U.S., or aid the enemy. “There’s just none of that here,” he said.

link to full article

[sibelian]

1. Sounds cool saying it, though.

Kind of like "terrorist".

[carolinayellowdog]

2. if patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel

and who among us does not consider Bolton a scoundrel?-- then public accusations of treason are the ultimate expression thereof

[longship]

4. Not just saying it.

Read it from Article III of the Constitution!

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

As the OP says, it's the only crime mentioned specifically in the US Constitution.

There's a reason, too, that some here and in the well of the Senate -- shame! -- apparently do not understand. The original authors of the Constitution defined treason narrowly because treason is a very serious charge which has been historically used as a political weapon.

They didn't want an often capital offense used that way. Hence, it's inclusion.

Political, as in DiFi's use, and that here within DU, or by the John Birch Society with their 1964 political screed None Dare Call it Treason (to which I will not link here).

Again, in the USA, and possibly only in the USA, treason has a very specific legal meaning, and I very high bar to prove it. Flinging the word about casually, or especially for political gain, is precisely what the framers were trying to avoid.

[kenny blankenship]

3. That's why they invented the Espionage Act

so they could use the TRAITOR!!! charge freely, and punish people very very severely WITHOUT HAVING TO PROVE ANYTHING about the mens rea (criminal intent) of the defendant, or anything about the direction of the defendant's loyalties. If you wanted to bring a formal charge of treason against someone, you would have to prove the accused did what they did in order to render service to an Enemy, because they prefer the Enemy to the US, or because they hate the US and want to hurt it, or they were being paid off in cash or kind, or were being promised some future reward for overthrowing the govt. and delivering the US into the hands of its Enemy.

Under the Espionage Act you don't have to prove any of that and the state of mind of the accused is officially irrelevant. The state declares its interpretation of the accused's actions as objectively giving aid and comfort to the Enemy (and you don't even have to have an Enemy-just any foreign govt will do). They don't have to prove that it has had that -or any- effect. They give their reasons for saying the defendant had to know that the state would view their act as giving aid and comfort. And then they march him off to jail or up to the gallows.

[Hissyspit]

5. kick nt

[okaawhatever]

6. So giving the Chinese detailed info on our data collection systems and telling them where we have

compromised their computers isn't aiding the enemy? It's not like they don't hack our computers. It's not like they don't steal our military, technical and medical secrets.

[noise]

7. Cheney made deals with Iran

when he ran Halliburton.

Iran Contra. Weapons deals w/Iran to aid the Contras.

Cheney defended Iran Contra as patriotic conduct by the unitary executive.

Snowden leaked to alert the US public which may have indirect benefits for several countries.

Should he be held to a different standard than Cheney?

[okaawhatever]

8. Well, I think Cheney is a traitor. The weapons for Iran went through Israel so I don't know if the

charges could stick. Snowden didn't just leak to the US public. He is actively pursuing an agenda with the Chinese. He has already announced that we were hacking their computers and given some data, promising more. That has no benefit to the American citizens. I'm pretty sure most are aware that China is hacking us and we are hacking them. It's been reported in numerous magazines and papers. Also, Snowden isn't finished. What about the agents undercover all over the world? What happens if one of them dies because of Snowden?

[noise]

11. It's very difficult to

view this in US vs. China terms because our government seems to have been abusing the public. Meaning the program isn't single use (protecting the US from other countries) but also intended to intimidate anyone who dissents from the official government line.

[okaawhatever]

14. I'll wait and see exactly what these programs are and what they do before I claim the gov't is

abusing the public. The notion that these programs are used to intimidate anyone who dissents is a tad absurd. The anti-Obama sentiment that has run since his election would be an example.. The fact that many of those people aren't concerned with the truth being another. None of those people or media outlets have been silenced.

[noise]

15. This is much larger than anti-Obama

For sure some right wing a-holes are obsessed with that issue.

The media has been intimidated. That is the take away from the AP story. Sources are afraid to talk to journalists out of fear of being prosecuted under the Espionage Act.

[davidn3600]

10. China is not an "enemy"

We dont have a declaration of war against China.

[carolinayellowdog]

17. a DU member casually calling China "the enemy" doesn't make them so legally

any more than Feinstein/Boehner casually calling Snowden a traitor does. It takes a declaration of war against our #2 trading partner (#1 for imports) -- that would do great things to the world economy and life on earth, but if it enables charging Snowden with treason, some would favor it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. Treason is not LOVING President Barack Obama.

Treason is questioning the status quo.

[davidn3600]

12. People accused those against the Iraq war as treason

Now it's treason to go against Obama's domestic spy programs.

Apparently it all depends on which party is in power.

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. Oh, it always has, my friend. It always has.

[noise]

16. So what is failing to prosecute Wall St.

for almost destroying the country?

Was that ok?

[malaise]

18. In other words more than a few ReTHUGs are guilty of treason n/t