This in response to the significant number of persons who should know better, regarding the use of the word treason to describe the childish, disrespectful and poorly thought out letter open letter to Iran written by Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and signed by 47 Republican members of the Senate. These persons are using the word treason, which I suppose makes them feel better, but which in fact, simply displays the same lack of knowledge the Tea Baggers showed when they called several Obama initiatives treason some time ago.
"One more time.
Read the definition of treason. Where? In the Constitution. It's the only crime
actually defined in the document. Why is that? Because the British screamed
"treason" anytime someone did something they didn't like.
"Treason against the United States shall consist only of waging war
against the United States or adhering to its enemies ( which had historically
interpreted as in actual declared war) ......." . Before one calls for a
specific action, it might behoove one to actually have a clue what they're
talking about! Aside from that, the offending Senate members are flaming
assholes, which is heinous , but not treason.
I am far from an apologist for these Far right imbeciles, I just hate to
see the term Treason bandied about with the same vituperation and much the same
context as the Tea Baggers have used it against the current President of the
United States. What we are talking about here and your response to it is
precisely why Hamilton, Madison and Jay felt it necessary to define it in the
Constitution. If simply doing something some people don't like is treason, we
would have a lot of executions. (but if it changes, start with Tom Cotton, boy
asshole!, lol)
There simply is
no legal precedent that is relevant. Because the Constitution, ratified in 1788
wasn't in force during the War for Independence. In fact for much of it the US
had no governing document at all, until the Articles of Confederation were
ratified in 1781. The fast and loose use of the charge "treason " by
the British is the precise reason why the Framers of the Constitution made it
the only crime actually defined and described in the document, to avoid exactly
the sort of thing you suggest.
Jefferson couldn't even get a treason
conviction against Aaron Burr in 1807 for conspiring to break away Louisiana,
parts of several and several southern states and part of the Texas territory to
form a southern confederation, even though such action would probably have
constituted war against the remaining states. Chief Justice (and presiding
judge in the trial in Richmond) John Marshall, no fan of Jefferson, insisted
upon the strictest possible interpretation of the wording. Since all law in the
US before the Constitution is irrelevant, the precedent stands. As much as you
might want these guys to be tried for treason, what they have done just doesn't
come close to meeting the Constitutional definition. Don't get mad at me for
pointing it out. Hell, using the one time loose British definition, I'd have
been jailed during the entire Bush administration.
Several Treason
cases during the Civil war were heard by military tribunal, which might make it
strange today because of the obvious public knowledge of it. In our history,
there have been relatively few events which have engendered the majority of
treason charges (less than 20 have ever been convicted and two of them
Washington pardoned almost immediately (Whiskey Rebellion). The rest stem from:
WWII (Tokyo Rose, Axis Sally, a guy who broadcast for the Germans, a pilot
defector, and a US born Japanese defector , John Brown's raid - He was actually
charged with treason against Virginia, a weird R.I. thing (Dorr's rebellion),
and Lincoln's assassination (Five convicted, 4 hanged, Dr. Mudd got life. As
for the whole definition thing, in the UK as little as 150 years ago, calling
for treason charges against members of the upper house of government might
well, in and of itself, been sufficient to get a charge of treason. I don't want
to go there."
No comments:
Post a Comment