Sessions - isn't this treason?

[onenote]

78. The reason not to cite Wikipedia: you end up looking foolish

Yes, Walter Allen was convicted of "treason" for his participation in the miner's strike of 1921. However, it makes me weep to think a DUer would cite that as a proper precedent for a broad definition of treason under the US Constitution.

First, most progressives would recognize that the truly guilty parties in the labor disputes of the 1920s were not the workers -- it was the mine owners and their backers in the state government and law enforcement.

Second, Allen was tried in state court for treason against the State of West Virginia, not treason against the United States. That he was charged with treason even under state law was a gross overreach, which is why it stands as a rather unique case, not a precedent to be followed. (Allen who was sentenced to ten years in prison for his treason against the state appealed his conviction, but jumped bail. Given that the other cases alleging treason arising from the Miners Strike resulted in acquittals or having the charges reduced, its more likely than not that if he hadn't jumped bail, he could have prevailed on appeal.

Finally, the "treasonous" acts Allen and other charged with treason in connection with the Miners Strike arose out of the participation in and active support of armed conflict against the state. Even so, there is little question but that the conviction of Allen was a gross miscarriage of justice and certainly not anything a progressive board should be citing as an example to be followed.