Some light reading re Treason

[PdxSean]

"Treason" is the only crime specifically defined in the United States Constitution. Article III, section 3 reads as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Penalty for Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

See also:
10 U.S. Code § 904 - Art. 104. Aiding the enemy
Any person who—
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

And a nice footnote for Faux News and the Repubs in Congress:
18 U.S. Code § 2 - Principals
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

See?, nothing complicated.

[truebluegreen]

1. Iirc treason is narrowly defined

as making war on the US or aiding our enemies in war on the US. We are not at war with Russia.

[onenote]

2. Correct.

Russia does not fit the definition of an "enemy" of the US. It has not been designated an enemy for purposes of the trading with the enemies act and there are billions of dollars of bilateral trade (exports and imports) between the two countries. There is, by and large, unrestricted travel between the two countries and over a quarter of a million US citizens visit Russia for business or vacations every year. The two countries have embassies and diplomatic relations. Yes, Putin is scum. Yes, he tried to influence the outcome of the US election. But even while Obama was in office, Russia and the US did not not treat each other as enemies as that term is understood in US or international law -- as countries engaged in hostilities with each other that are subject to the rules of war.

[PdxSean]

5. Stop confusing me with logic and reason!

[mindfulNJ]

15. wait a sec

isn't hacking into our election system in order to influence the outcome an act of war? I think there may be a case that Russia is indeed an "enemy".

[PdxSean]

17. Maybe

But I'd focus less on the "act of war" question and more on the "enemy" question. Easier to argue that Trump aided a (previously unknown) "enemy" seeking to undermine our election.

[onenote]

30. John McCain thought that North Korea hacking Sony pictures was an act of war.

The bottom line is that the US government has not treated the Russian attempts to influence the election as an act of war, and if the US government doesn't treat it as an act of war, then its hard to make the case that the US government considers Russia to be an enemy (particularly when it doesn't treat Russia as an enemy by any of the usual indicia of such status).

Here's a thought exercise: is it treason when, without the aid of or at the behest of, any other country, a candidate engages in election fraud or some other illegal act (a break in) to influence the outcome of an election. The answer, of course, is no. Is it treason for a campaign to coordinate with a foreign power that seeks to influence the outcome of an election through indirect means (such as having the prime minister endorse a particular candidate who has indicated he/she will pursue policies that are supported by that foreign government)? I'd say no to that being treason. And is it treason for the United States to get chummy with a foreign government whose interests are contrary to those of our allies and, ultimately, to the principles that we claim to hold dear? Again, probably not.

My point isn't that there is no activity short of an armed takeover of the government and its citizens that might be considered the equivalent of an armed takeover of the country and its citizens and thus give rise to a potential claim of treason. Rather its simply that proving that the country has been subjected to an actual or attempted takeover of its government or citizens by a foreign government equivalent to the takeover that would result from an invasion that foreign government's armed forces would require proving a lot more than probably can be proven at this point.

[PdxSean]

4. Doesn't say "aiding our enemies IN WAR"

You may be correct, but I don't think we have to be at war before an entity can be considered an enemy. I'd love to hear congress debate the issue.

[truebluegreen]

6. Actually in precedent and practice

an "enemy" is defined by a state of war. Iirc it goes all the way back to the Revolution.

[HoneyBadger]

3. Logan Act is far more likely than treason

Even so, Flynn would be the first person ever to be prosecuted under Logan. Fun fact, Logan was elected to the Senate as a Democratic Republican after he did harm. I could see the ACLU stepping into this and it going all the way.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

[uponit7771]

7. Yeap, and the dems not calling for prosecuting for violations is some bullshit

[PoliticAverse]

26. It would be nice if someone was actually prosecuted under the Logan act so it could finally....

be declared unconstitutional and people stop mentioning it.

[HoneyBadger]

29. I imagine that timing could play a part in the case

If the phone call happened 12/25 (post election), is the President Elect already a member of the Executive Branch. How about a two party nominee? Could be worth a Supreme Court case that has more ramifications than just Logan. Imagine if a transition between President and President Elect had to take place in one day, so that they both were members of the Executive Branch that calendar day. If the President Elect was essentially on an embargo from Election Day to Inauguration Day.

[longship]

8. Quote the definition in the US Constitution!!!

That's the only one that matters!

We are not at war with Russia!

[PdxSean]

9. Here it is again.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them,

OR

in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

The US never declared war in Vietnam yet the VC were the enemy. Similarly, al Qaeda is considered a US enemy in the "war against terror." Dunno who the enemy is in the "war on Christmas."

Camp 1 is arguing that X can be an enemy of the US even in the absence of a declaration of war. If I understand correctly, Camp 2 is arguing that X cannot be an enemy of the US unless there is a corresponding declaration of war which essentially says X is now a US enemy.

I'm in Camp 1.

[longship]

12. I respectfully disagree.

The entire reason why treason is narrowly defined in the constitution is to prevent such charges to be used politically, as historically happened in Europe under various kingdoms.

Now there are DUers who suggest that charges of treason be invoked for the same damnable political reasons that Madison et al tried to prevent.

I cannot go along with such sentiments.

Under our constitution, there has been no treason here.

[PdxSean]

16. I might ultimately agree with you, but . . .

Until we know the substance of the communications between Trump et al and Russia, we have zero information to make a determination one way or the other.

[longship]

18. Well, one only has to read Article III, Section 3 of the constitution.

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.

Pretty simple actually. We are not at war with Russia, nor are they considered an enemy. This, in spite of a somewhat historic adversarial relationship.

Under our constitution one does not casually fling charges of treason. And the courts would never stand for it. Rightfully.

[mikelewis]

20. We don't have to be at war...

John Brown declared war on the U.S., yet the U.S. did not declare war on him and yet he was hung for treason. And the Russian Federation is our enemy. They have never stopped being our enemy...

Premier Mikhail Gorbachev said at Malta....

"The world is leaving one epoch and entering another. We are at the beginning of a long road to a lasting, peaceful era. The threat of force, mistrust, psychological and ideological struggle should all be things of the past."
"I assured the President of the United States that I will never start a hot war against the USA."

And yet, here we are... nothing has changed. The Russian Federation acts like an enemy and so have proven to be our enemy... and if they are our friend then we don't need friends like that... We have booted their ambassadors and leveled sanctions against them which is not what one does to an ally... which is why 45 is so eager to get those things reversed as the Russian Federation is not his enemy; but the Russian Federation is certainly an enemy of the People of the United States...

[longship]

21. Well, have it your way...

Let's get this thing over with.

Press the damned button.

[mikelewis]

23. We don't need to have a nuclear response but we should not be afraid to engage any enemy head on...

The Russian aggression must be met head on in Europe, the Middle East and here at home. Ignoring it won't make it stop and it's directly responsible for the catastrophic situation we find ourselves in currently. Sanctions and increased support for our NATO allies would definitely help amend this horrible situation.

[longship]

24. Thank you. I can support this.

Unfortunately Drumpf likely will not.

We need to keep plugging away, nonetheless.

[mikelewis]

25. It has become increasingly clear to many that 45 has been compromised and once the dust settles...

... a very strong response will be forth coming. Soon, we'll ensure Putin never forget what a superpower can really do... unfortunately for the people of Russia (who are wonderful people for the most part), the actions of their leaders are going to land them in real trouble this time. The Agency will fix this internal problem and then Uncle Sam will turn our gaze to the real culprits... I had truly wished for a different outcome but they asked for it and soon they'll get it.

[longship]

27. Common sense wins out.

Screeching treason does not. Especially under our constitutional republic.

[mikelewis]

22. And the Open Ended War on Terror may also satisfy that requirement...

Especially as it applies to Syria and their allies... the Iranians and the Russian Federation. Syria was designated in 1979 as a State Sponsor of Terrorism and that designation continues to this day. It is an act of aggression to provide "material support" or "expert advice or assistance" to terrorist groups and is punishable by death in this country if an American citizen does it and thanks to the Patriot Act and act of War when other countries do it. However, I don't believe we need to go that far to satisfy the charge of Treason in this case... Just because they didn't use bombs and bullets to overthrow our government does not absolve them of this charge.

[mikelewis]

10. No, but it's clear that the Russian Federation is at war with U.S....

Undermining our government, aiding and abetting and outright collusion with our enemies... The Russian Federation is our enemy and should be treated like it.

[PdxSean]

13. That's kinda sorta what I'm thinking.

An extreme example: If Trump passes US nuke codes to Putin in exchange for keeping a certain video secret, I think Trump is committing treason. Otherwise, one could argue that it would NOT have been treasonous for a US citizen to aid Japan in the Pearl Harbor attack because the aid and the attack came before the US declared war in response.

[mikelewis]

19. No, aiding the Japanese in an attack on Pearl Harbor...

... would absolutely be considered treason.

Article III Section 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.

As would be conspiring with Foreign Operatives to overthrow the U.S. government; which is what appears may have happened... At least on some level... whether or not it reaches all the way up to 45 or not, those involved have betrayed the people of the United States as exemplified by the popular vote (which is why 45 is so crazy to prove he won that as well).

The Japan example would actually be more difficult than our current Russian Federation issue as our relations with Japan were no where near as terrible or as long standing as with our Russian Enemies preceding the attack. The Russian Federation has long been adversarial to the U.S. and is now committing flagrant acts of War against our nation without reprisal or even slight resistance. This is why President Obama said President Reagan would be rolling over in his grave.

[PoliticAverse]

28. "Tokyo Rose" was actually tried for treason and convicted...

before eventually being pardoned by Gerald Ford.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Rose

[longship]

14. Rubbish! nt

[mopinko]

11. well it was war to them, and they won. they took the seat of power.