Thread: Treason - Does it apply to failure to secure the borders?

I'm not sure what happened to the thread I started regarding treason, but if it was moved perhaps someone can direct me to the correct section.

In the mean time, I had promised to post a treatise I had previously authored for another site, and so I provide that at this time so that those who suggest that failure to secure the border or even that threatening the continued sovereignty of this nation are acts that can or shoud be tried as treason. While I understand the passion behind the belief, and while I believe wholeheartedly that at least half of the Presidents and other political leaders of the 20th and 21st centuries have been traitors to their countrymen and in gross breach of their oaths of office, I cannot agree that they can be proven to have committed treason as narrowly defined by the Constitution.

The short article was written regarding treason generically, and was therefore not specific to the open borders or multinational trade agreemtns that threaten our survival as a nation. I offer it as originally written and then will comment further below:

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.

As regards derilection of duty or breach of oath, I believe that there are probably a number of good arguments against this President and most of the last dozen or so, as well as endless numbers of Senators, Congressmen and other officials both elected and appointed. However, as demonstrated above, the case for treason as narrowly defined in US jurisprudence, the case is extraordinarily poor.

First off, we cannot make the case for these people making war against the US unless and until armed forces are sent against the civil authority of one or more states or political divisions therein. Until this government actually uses force of arms against us, we must look elsewhere for prosecutable treason.

So what about aid and comfort to the enemy? Well, while you and I may consider one or another of the countries whose peasants are flooding our own country to be enemy states, they are not declared enemies. As a matter of fact, nations such as Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador are considered allies and trading partners by this nation's government. So while one may well make the case that our politicians are engaged in the aid and comfort of those foreign states, often to the detriment of our own, the case falls flat because there is no declared enemy in the equation.

Yes, I realize that it sucks that what you and I may consider to be blatant treason cannot be so defined within the context of the laws governing treason, but the law is what it is.

If you don't like this particular provision of the Constitution, then I suggest that you set about trying to garner support for an amendment so that it can be changed. Personally, I don't think that I want the definition of treason to be any broader because it is more likely that the government would use it as a weapon against the concerned citizenry than that the citizenry could use it against corrupt government.

Crockett, how strictly defined is levying war? Does this by definition require the US military and physical violence?

Originally Posted by Kate

Crockett, how strictly defined is levying war? Does this by definition require the US military and physical violence?

Well, as I pointed out, armed insurrection has qualified in the past, but even the Civil War was apparently not considered sufficient, given that a few of the officers and elected officials of the Confederacy were indicted but never prosecuted for treason. Most of the cases have been for aiding an enemy state in a declared war. Even the Rosenbergs were not tried for treason, but rather for espionage.

Well, I think in this case couldn't we use the term "war" as loosely as those we might want to try for Treason as the "war on terror".

When the President of the United States has declared war on terror and applied it universally across the globe, then aiding and abetting any country or persons to enter the US illegally without permission is an act of Treason for they are aiding and abetting the elusive enemy of "terror".

During war, security of the border is a prerequisite. We are being ID's, Spied Upon, Detained, Surveilled, Inpected, Targeted, Rated, Metal-detected, our Naked Bodies soon to be illuminated upon airport screens and observed by security soldiers engaged in the war on "terror".

Failing to secure the borders has already been established by members of the US Congress as the Line in the Sand, the Threat of the Southwest Border".

A "threat" .. in the war on terror.

It's like leaving the gate open for the enemy to slip in.

Border Patrol will confirm the number of armed infiltrators and the terrorist enemy disguised and coyoted into the country through the Gate Left Open by the sneaky Traitors.

I think during a war on terror declared, funded and definitely engaged ... that failing to secure the borders to prevent the entry of the "enemy" would qualify.

I mean sending 6000 National Guard Troops to the Border WITHOUT AMMUNITION? Is not an act of Treason in the War on Terror?

Or how about instructing Border Patrol not to shoot the enemy as it flees and instead throw the BP Agents in prison assurng the enemy that it is not only okay to enter, but in the event they should be intercepted, just run and then try again another day because the Traitors have given the order ... do not shoot the enemy as it flees. Is this not an act of Treason during the War on Terror?

If a general in any war sent troops to fight the war but told them not to shoot the enemy and to leave the gates to their base open so the enemy could enter ... would he not be court-martialed and tried for "aiding the enemy"?

Gee ... seems to me we could make a case for it. That's how all law develops. You make a case and take it to court. Both arguments are heard, for and against, and a decision by an impartial jury decides the outcome.

What is for sure, you never win a case if you never pursue it.

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... 382#254382

Here's another one!

Islamofascism and Shariah Law is our enemy in the war on terror.

Traitors set up two Islamofacist Regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan with new Shariah Law Constitutions; defend them; protect them; guard them; support them; aid them; comfort them.

Wow ... that's a BIG ONE, isn't it?

We've got some BIG TREASON going on during war, levying war ... how many American Troops have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since October 2005?

Yep ... this is the Really Big Show in the Treason Game.

Originally Posted by Judy

Well, I think in this case couldn't we use the term "war" as loosely as those we might want to try for Treason as the "war on terror".

Who is "we," Judy? "We" don't get to make the definitions. They are determined according to stare decisis by a federal prosecutor and then by a federal judge.

Originally Posted by Judy

When the President of the United States has declared war on terror and applied it universally across the globe, then aiding and abetting any country or persons to enter the US illegally without permission is an act of Treason for they are aiding and abetting the elusive enemy of "terror".

The problem is that Congress voted to grant him that specific authority. He didn't just make it up. But "war" in the case of the "War on Terror" is just a euphimism. Congress authorized military action, but it did not declare war on any nation or group. There is no formal declaration for the War on Terror, and in fact there has been no declaration of war since WWII. The Korean "War" was a United Nations police action. The Vietnam "War" was a "training mission" that turned into a police action. The Cold "War" was not a declared war. The Gulf "War" was not a declared war, but rather an authorized military action.

Originally Posted by Judy

During war, security of the border is a prerequisite. We are being ID's, Spied Upon, Detained, Surveilled, Inpected, Targeted, Rated, Metal-detected, our Naked Bodies soon to be illuminated upon airport screens and observed by security soldiers engaged in the war on "terror".

Again, you speak to derilection of duty, not treason. Also, as I explain above, there is no declared war.

Originally Posted by Judy

Failing to secure the borders has already been established by members of the US Congress as the Line in the Sand, the Threat of the Southwest Border".

That has no meaning in law, Judy. There isn't even so much as a resolution that has been passed by Congress on the topic.

Originally Posted by Judy

A "threat" .. in the war on terror.

It's like leaving the gate open for the enemy to slip in.

Border Patrol will confirm the number of armed infiltrators and the terrorist enemy disguised and coyoted into the country through the Gate Left Open by the sneaky Traitors.

I think during a war on terror declared, funded and definitely engaged ... that failing to secure the borders to prevent the entry of the "enemy" would qualify.

This is as good a place as any to add some commentary. These statements are all predicated on the false notion that we are in a declared war, that there is a defined enemy, and that derilection of duty is tantamount to knowingly giving aid and comfort. Yes, there are some tortured processes of logic by which one could attempt one or another of these claims, but the simple fact is that they have no legal merit in light of stare decisis on the subject.

Originally Posted by Judy

I mean sending 6000 National Guard Troops to the Border WITHOUT AMMUNITION? Is not an act of Treason in the War on Terror?

Judy, the problem is that the NG troops were not sent there for combat, but rather for administrative support. It's a gross misuse of the Guard, but it is within the discretion of the Commander in Chief. That's good evidence of poor judgment, but it is not treason. It's not even close.

Originally Posted by Judy

Or how about instructing Border Patrol not to shoot the enemy as it flees and instead throw the BP Agents in prison assurng the enemy that it is not only okay to enter, but in the event they should be intercepted, just run and then try again another day because the Traitors have given the order ... do not shoot the enemy as it flees. Is this not an act of Treason during the War on Terror?

No, it is not an act of treason by any stretch for the reasons I provide above.

Originally Posted by Judy

If a general in any war sent troops to fight the war but told them not to shoot the enemy and to leave the gates to their base open so the enemy could enter ... would he not be court-martialed and tried for "aiding the enemy"?

Military law is not the same as civilian law. That argument has no merit in the case of treason.

Originally Posted by Judy

Gee ... seems to me we could make a case for it. That's how all law develops. You make a case and take it to court. Both arguments are heard, for and against, and a decision by an impartial jury decides the outcome.

Again, YOU can't make any case. A federal prosecutor must do that and a grand jury must then indict. Neither is going to happen based upon the case you are presenting for the reasons stated above. Alternately, you could attempt to convince Congress to impeach on these charges, but that won't happen either, for all the reasons I have previously provided and because many if not most of the Congressmen who would be involved in the vote are complicit in the very acts you want them to prosecute.

What is for sure, you never win a case if you never pursue it.

[/quote]
What is even more sure is that a prosecutor is not going to try a case for which none of threshold conditions for indictment and prosecution exist.

Originally Posted by Judy

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=254382#25 4382

Here's another one!

Islamofascism and Shariah Law is our enemy in the war on terror.

Traitors set up two Islamofacist Regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan with new Shariah Law Constitutions; defend them; protect them; guard them; support them; aid them; comfort them.

Wow ... that's a BIG ONE, isn't it?

We've got some BIG TREASON going on during war, levying war ... how many American Troops have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since October 2005?

Yep ... this is the Really Big Show in the Treason Game.

The "War" on Terror is just a euphimism. There is no declared war and no declared enemy.

Beyond that, poor judgment or poor leadership is not grounds for charges of treason.

What you have been doing is levying a long list of grievances against the President and (presumably) against the Congress that empowered the President to undertake these policies. Grievances do not make for treason, which is limited to levying of war against the United States and giving aid and comfort to a declared enemy.

So in laymen's terms.....what CAN we do

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?

Here is another article claiming Islamofacism as the threat.

That makes it the enemy doesn't it?

Our gates have been left wide open for this enemy to enter guarded by men with either no bullets in their weapons or by men with bullets but under orders not to shoot.

PLEASE NOTE:

The United States of America had NOT declared war since WWII.

Herein lies the difficulty. WAR has NOT been declared, therefore, we are in a 'conflict.'

This lack of declaration of war puts an entirely different spin on the entire subject.

"Threats" don't count. There is a very limited scope for Treason.

.