Thread: Treason - what is it?

Folks, this thread is about the meaning of TREASON.

Please take the other information and put it in the "other topic" forum under it's own thread. That way, the conversation here won't go off on another road.

I'm moving this one also.

Thanx

.

2ndamendsis is absolutely correct. The legal meaning of treaon IN THIS COUNTRY is extremely limited. As promised, below is the treatise I had previously authored when treason was being discussed in an entirely separate case. I will offer it as originally written and then explain its practical meaning relative to this debate. (BTW - I was out for awhile and couldn't find this thread, which had been moved from General Discussion while I was away, and so I started a separate thread on the topic back in that forum. Kindly disregard that one.)

Treason – What is it?

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary describes treason thusly:

1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

The Constitution of the United States of America, however, limits the legal definition of treason in Art. III, Sec. 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. 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.

Now, while the dictionary definition of treason and the common usage of the term are both quite broad, the legal definition which is limited by the Constitution is actually quite narrow and specific.

We often hear people accusing one or another elected official or outspoken citizen of treason. If one is adhering to the dictionary definition of treason, then this is quite acceptable. However, when one suggests criminal sanction for the act of treason, the dictionary definition becomes utterly irrelevant.

Criminal treason, which is the only treason that may be prosecuted, is strictly limited to three elements, with one element standing alone and the other two being mutually dependent. The element that stands alone is “levying War against (the states).” Any person who can be proven to have participated in the actual levying of war against the states is guilty of treason. The other two elements are the two components of the act of providing aid and comfort to the Enemies of those states. In order to be guilty of treason under this provision, one must be proven to have provided aid and comfort. Also, it must be proven that the person, group, or entity to which aid and comfort was rendered was in fact an actual (declared) enemy of one or all of the several states (or of the nation, in modern terms).

There have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions of treason in this nation’s history, with only a handful achieving a conviction. The few times that rebellion or insurrection was tried as treason, the result was either pardon (in the case of the Whiskey Rebellion) or acquittal (as in those who resisted the Jefferson Embargo Acts and the Fugitive Slave Law), with the notable exceptions of Thomas Dorr and John Brown. Even the leaders of the Confederacy were never tried for treason.

Among the few actually convicted of treason were Tokyo Rose (Iva D’Aquino, paroled just over six jears into a ten year sentence and later pardoned by Gerald Ford), Governor Thomas Dorr (who led the Dorr Rebellion against Rhode Island, but was released from a life sentence of hard labor after only a year), Hans Max Haupt (convicted of helping his son aid the Nazis and sentenced to life), Axis Sally (Mildred Gillars, who propagandized for the Germans and was paroled from a sentence of 10-30 years upon her first request), Martin Monti (a US pilot who defected to the Nazis with his P-38 Lighting and eventually convicted and paroled), abolitionist John Brown (who led violent insurrections and murdered at least five people in the cause of abolition of slavery, and who was eventually hanged for treason against the state of Virginia), and dual US/Japanese citizen Tomoya Kawakita (convicted of treason for torturing US POWs in Japan during his employ with Oeyama Nickel, for which he was originally sentenced to death – the sentence was commuted to life by Eisenhower and he was released and deported to Japan by Kennedy).

So conviction for treason has been extraordinarily rare in this country and has never been successfully prosecuted outside of a declared war except in the case of armed insurrection.

In the past, it has not been uncommon for the occasional commentator to opine that this or that person is a traitor or is guilty of treason. Lately, however, it has become far more common for folks to actually discuss the desire to prosecute one or another person for the crime of treason, and to do so with a straight face. Such individuals clearly do not understand the history of the prosecution of treason in this country or the extremely limited list of actions which are considered to be worthy of prosecution as treason.

So we have some specific components to the charge of treason. One act that can be construed as treason is waging war against one of or all of the states. Significantly, the definition does not even include the levying of war against the federal entity, but rather against one or more of the republic states of the union. Historically, this has been so limited that only a handful of armed insurrections against one or more of the states have even been prosecuted for treason, with only two convictions that were allowed to stand. Even the Confederate officers were not actually tried for treason.

The second possibility is charging someone for giving aid and comfort to "the Enemy." A study of the prosecution of treason under this principle reveals that the only previous prosecutions under that provision occurred during one or another declared war, meaning that "the Enemy" has been limited to foreign states against whom a declaration of war had been ratified.

I agree that we have real problems with this nation's leadership and that there should be some legal recourse. However, trying to use the provision for treason is like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. A better course would be to attempt to prosecute for breach of oath of office or derilection of duty, though there is precious little case law at the federal level to support those actions.

Our own laws are against "US...WE THE PEOPLE" (for illegals and politicians) ...seems we have only made provision for those who would betray us to be able to do so very broadly, while charges if any against them are limited and narrow for the people to weed out the corruption. THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME. There should be something WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHEN MOST OF THOSE WE ELECT ARE CORRUPT???? There needs to be an investigation of the whole bunch! Including president, vice president, administration and all of congress!
Is there a provision for us SOMEWHERE???? We allow everyone to use our laws against us...while our own hands are tied by them!!!!!

Originally Posted by JAK

Our own laws are against "US...WE THE PEOPLE" (for illegals and politicians) ...seems we have only made provision for those who would betray us to be able to do so very broadly, while charges if any against them are limited and narrow for the people to weed out the corruption. THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME. There should be something WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHEN MOST OF THOSE WE ELECT ARE CORRUPT???? There needs to be an investigation of the whole bunch! Including president, vice president, administration and all of congress!
Is there a provision for us SOMEWHERE???? We allow everyone to use our laws against us...while our own hands are tied by them!!!!!

This has been a long and slow process of erosion of all the checks and balances, primarily at the hands of corrupt judges but asl through vast reams of legislation that the legislators themselves cannot possibly read. A good start would be to limit all legislation to some short and finite form, say five pages of typical text. You can't hide all the crap that gets hidden in tenthousand page omnibus bill in five short pages!

But the fact is that it is generations of lack of vigilance that has led us to this sorry state, and it's not going to be fixed overnight.

JAK ... the law works every day in the United States, most of the time on a basis that the vast majority of US would agree upon if and when we took the time to understand the arguments presented.

Every case that has ever been filed on the basis of law had two sides ... one that thought there was no legal basis for the proceeding (defendant) and the other side that believed there was (plaintiffs or prosecutors).

One side says "You're guilty of treason". One side says "I'm innocent of treason".

Someone decides AFTER hearing all the evidence.

The same with impeachment. There are 37 Congressmen right now slobbering to impeach Bush and would gladly add Cheney to the ticket. The head of that team is Representative John Conyers.

Our laws do not work against US, JAK.

They are there for US to use; to dispute; to change.

We achieve that with court action.

Same with impeachment.

The provision is there.

Same with treason.

The provision is there.

If we don't use them to save our nation from this disaster, then we have only ourselves to blame.

For those who want to predict the outcomes before the proceedings, I suggest a Crystal Ball and a Weji Board.

No one knows before hand what the outcome of an effort will be.

What we do know is that if there is no effort, we are assured of no outcome at all.



That's why I think we need to pursue every possible avenue of every kind and nature and pray that one or more of them works to save our nation from its impending destruction.

Sorry, I am not very smart on these things...so I will ask those that are.

Since this is an illegal immigration forum...this is my question.

If 80% of the American people DO NOT WANT AMNESTY GIVEN TO ILLEGALS...and they are betrayed and it is given to them anyway...WHAT ARE OUR RIGHTS! This IMO, would be and outright betrayal of the American people...WOULDN'T IT????? All of these people need to be investigated. We need to throw them ALL out and start over. There should be a way to do this...and not just by voting. We can't get all of them by voting. Investigations need to be done...and let the chips fall where they may. If corruption is found on them they should be held accountable! If we can't call it treason...is is most definately BETRAYAL!

JAK ... the law works every day in the United States, most of the time on a basis that the vast majority of US would agree upon if and when we took the time to understand the arguments presented

Well, what about all of the illegal immigration laws...that are being abused on a DAILY BASIS. These laws are for us...but they are continually being ignored or changed to accomadate illegals...aren't they? I am not saying we need to ignore the law... but that the law should be enforced and if things need to be added to STOP CORRUPTION...in every way, shape and form...then we need to add them. RUNNING FOR OFFICE HAS BECOME ...POWER AND MONEY...not to run for the common good the of nation of the people.

Originally Posted by Judy

JAK ... the law works every day in the United States, most of the time on a basis that the vast majority of US would agree upon if and when we took the time to understand the arguments presented.

Every case that has ever been filed on the basis of law had two sides ... one that thought there was no legal basis for the proceeding (defendant) and the other side that believed there was (plaintiffs or prosecutors).

One side says "You're guilty of treason". One side says "I'm innocent of treason".

Someone decides AFTER hearing all the evidence.

The same with impeachment. There are 37 Congressmen right now slobbering to impeach Bush and would gladly add Cheney to the ticket. The head of that team is Representative John Conyers.

Our laws do not work against US, JAK.

They are there for US to use; to dispute; to change.

We achieve that with court action.

Same with impeachment.

The provision is there.

Same with treason.

The provision is there.

If we don't use them to save our nation from this disaster, then we have only ourselves to blame.

For those who want to predict the outcomes before the proceedings, I suggest a Crystal Ball and a Weji Board.

No one knows before hand what the outcome of an effort will be.

What we do know is that if there is no effort, we are assured of no outcome at all.



That's why I think we need to pursue every possible avenue of every kind and nature and pray that one or more of them works to save our nation from its impending destruction.

Judy, there have been less than 40 cases for treason tried. There have been SEVEN convictions. SEVEN, in 220 years since the Constitution defined treason!

A case is not tried because a citizen thinks that is should be. A case is tried because a prosecutor finds credible cause for proceeding with a prosecution AND a credible chance for success. Then he has to convince a grand jury to indict. Then the indictment has to be signed off on by a judge. then a jusdge has to review any motions to dismiss based on frivolous prosecution or other grounds. Then and only then does it go to trial, and at each of those levels the prosecutor, the grand jury, and the judge or judges are looking at existing precedent to determine whether the case should proceed. I have demonstrated the EXTREMELY limited conditions under which treason has been successfully prosecuted, and those conditions do not apply to this case or any of the charges you are pushing for.

The definition of Treason is Betrayal, JAK.

It is Treason. And it is Prosecutable.

And every politician is subject to it.

And certain officials like the President and Vice President can be impeached for it at a much lower standard because they are not judged during an impeachment by the Judicial Branch ... they are Judged by the Political Legislative Branch.

If our Congressmen know that we want these Traitors impeached, I believe they will do it and it doesn't have to be for Treason ... the impeachment bill that has been introduced is to investigate wrongdoing associated with the Iraq War.

Pelosi as we know doesn't run the US House of Representatives. They've already defied her twice and they aren't even in their first 100 hours yet .. so her "impeachment is off the table" carries as much weight as her "we'll implement ALL the 911 recommendations".

Never in our history have Americans been so confused.

It's time to come out of the fog; cut to the chaste; boil it all down to what it really is and use our provisions our Founding Fathers gave US to stop it.

And if we can't choose to do that, then we may be doomed.

Originally Posted by JAK

Sorry, I am not very smart on these things...so I will ask those that are.

Since this is an illegal immigration forum...this is my question.

If 80% of the American people DO NOT WANT AMNESTY GIVEN TO ILLEGALS...and they are betrayed and it is given to them anyway...WHAT ARE OUR RIGHTS! This IMO, would be and outright betrayal of the American people...WOULDN'T IT????? All of these people need to be investigated. We need to throw them ALL out and start over. There should be a way to do this...and not just by voting. We can't get all of them by voting. Investigations need to be done...and let the chips fall where they may. If corruption is found on them they should be held accountable! If we can't call it treason...is is most definately BETRAYAL!

Well, JAK, this is not a direct democracy. It is an indirect system of governance by which the People are represented by democratically elected officials. In the event that those elected officials defy the wishes of their constituents, recourse is limited unless the People can demonstrate a clear violation of the rules of office or a breach of one's oath, but even that is a complicated and rare process. The primary means for eliminating such corruption is the ballot box. The problem is that the only ballot box most people visit is the one at the general election. By that time you are already stuck with a choice of Corrupt Candidate A or Corrupt Candidate B. The only way to break this cycle is to get active much earlier in the process and promote for office a person you know can be trusted, and to get out there and make sure that enough concerned citizens vote for that candidate at the primary that he or she replaces one or another of the corrupt candidates the parties would like to saddle us with.