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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I've come to the conclusion that it isn't treason [View all]Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)16. the word "adversary" simply is not in the definition of treason.
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.
The confusion is over the phrase "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
ADHERING. Cleaving to, or joining; as, adhering to the enemies of the United States.
2. The constitution of the United States, art. 3, s 3, defines treason against the United States, to consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
3. The fact that a citizen is cruising in an enemy's ship, with a design to capture or destroy American ships, would be an adhering to the enemies of the United States. 4 State Tr. 328 ; Salk. 634; 2 Gilb. Ev. by Lofft, 798.
4. If war be actually levied, that is, a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable enterprise, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy are to be considered as traitors. 4 Cranch. 126.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Publis
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/adhering
It doesn't apply to nations or organizations we are not at war with.
MYTH NO. 2
Aiding Russia is treason against the United States.
Stephen Colberts recent segment Michael Flynns White House Tenure: Its Funny Cause Its Treason was but one of many accusations of treason hurled against Flynn and other White House associates because of their proven or alleged ties to Russia. Consider the evidence that Trump is a traitor, exhorted an essay in Salon. It is, in fact, treasonable to aid the enemies of the United States.
But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.593948d28bc5
Some other critics of the administration, including Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who was Clinton's running mate, have suggested the President's son might have engaged in treason by dealing with a foreign adversary -- but that is a possibility that many legal analysts reject.
Both Constitution and federal law covering treason provide the United States be actively at war with the foreign adversary for such a charge.
[link:http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/trump-jr-legal-problems/index.html
The confusion is over the phrase "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
ADHERING. Cleaving to, or joining; as, adhering to the enemies of the United States.
2. The constitution of the United States, art. 3, s 3, defines treason against the United States, to consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
3. The fact that a citizen is cruising in an enemy's ship, with a design to capture or destroy American ships, would be an adhering to the enemies of the United States. 4 State Tr. 328 ; Salk. 634; 2 Gilb. Ev. by Lofft, 798.
4. If war be actually levied, that is, a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable enterprise, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy are to be considered as traitors. 4 Cranch. 126.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Publis
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/adhering
It doesn't apply to nations or organizations we are not at war with.
MYTH NO. 2
Aiding Russia is treason against the United States.
Stephen Colberts recent segment Michael Flynns White House Tenure: Its Funny Cause Its Treason was but one of many accusations of treason hurled against Flynn and other White House associates because of their proven or alleged ties to Russia. Consider the evidence that Trump is a traitor, exhorted an essay in Salon. It is, in fact, treasonable to aid the enemies of the United States.
But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.593948d28bc5
Some other critics of the administration, including Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who was Clinton's running mate, have suggested the President's son might have engaged in treason by dealing with a foreign adversary -- but that is a possibility that many legal analysts reject.
Both Constitution and federal law covering treason provide the United States be actively at war with the foreign adversary for such a charge.
[link:http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/trump-jr-legal-problems/index.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
52 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
seems you were responding to the o.p. title while i was responding to the o.p. body ;)
unblock
Jul 2017
#7
My definition includes "conspiring with an adversarial nation to steal the Presidency."
WinkyDink
Jul 2017
#11
How can you know? Accepting bribes to enact policies favorable to an adversary would be treason.
pnwmom
Jul 2017
#12
The word "enemies" applies to Russia, since they used cyberwarfare to attack our Democracy.
pnwmom
Jul 2017
#17
You do understand that our intelligence services say that the GOVERNMENT of Russia was behind
pnwmom
Jul 2017
#33
Oh, got it. You're one of the "what about-ers." We're all just equivalent, according to you.
pnwmom
Jul 2017
#40
People just aren't getting their heads around the fact that a cyber attack is an act a war.
FSogol
Jul 2017
#42
No, the worst Russian action was hacking into the election systems of at least 20 of our states
pnwmom
Jul 2017
#45
Your last paragraph is a perfect example of "everyone does it." Thanks for making my point.
FSogol
Jul 2017
#47
No, but she could declare that we will treat the hacking and electoral interference as an act of war.
FSogol
Jul 2017
#49
We are at war with them even though that is NOT required to be treason.
Eliot Rosewater
Jul 2017
#26
yes well as I noted up thread, in case law "enemies" means nations or organizations
Voltaire2
Jul 2017
#30