Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

TomSlick

(11,096 posts)

7. I've read the case law O'Donnell referenced.

Reply to triron (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2018, 12:01 AM

Dec 2018

I am less sure than he that a "declared war" is a condition precedent.

However, I think the question unnecessary. We can get where we need to go with more conventional charges.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Google treason and the first article was about trump. [View all] liberal N proud Dec 2018 OP

O'Donnell argued that treason can only occur with "declared war". triron Dec 2018 #1

I've read the case law O'Donnell referenced. TomSlick Dec 2018 #7

Yeah I admit we're just quibbling. triron Dec 2018 #8

I'm a lawyer. I live to quibble. TomSlick Dec 2018 #13

He was only reading the first situation that could be treason. LiberalFighter Dec 2018 #10

Yes I saw Meacham this morning and it makes you go hmmmmmm. nt UniteFightBack Dec 2018 #2

So what did he say? triron Dec 2018 #4

It's in the link in the OP but here is a snip..... UniteFightBack Dec 2018 #5

Some still insist an enemy can only be the object of a declared war. This is just plain obsolete. triron Dec 2018 #6

First idiot, now treason jberryhill Dec 2018 #3

I just rechecked the Constitution and I disagree with O'Donnell LiberalFighter Dec 2018 #9

But O'Dpnnell added the caveat that an enemy was restricted to the object of a declared war. triron Dec 2018 #11

I understand that. But nothing stated specifically about war. LiberalFighter Dec 2018 #12