The executions should be televised. Not treason you say?

[rzemanfl]

Last edited Fri Jul 14, 2017, 04:45 PM - Edit history (1)

We were not at war with Japan when Pearl Harbor was attacked. If an American was on Oahu with big arrows in their yard that said "this way to battleships" in Japanese, they would be guilty of treason despite the lack of a declaration of war. The attack on the election was an act of war. The Russians at their hacking computers leading their bot armies were just as much our enemies as the pilots of the Japanese planes.

Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida. All successfully attacked by an enemy power with the aid of Republican Quislings. No quarter for them, my qualms about capital punishment notwithstanding.

ON EDIT-cooler heads have convinced me we cannot hang these assholes for treason, as much as I would enjoy watching.

[SHRED]

1. Many here give reasons for it not being treason

Thanks for this other perspective.

[rzemanfl]

2. Thanks. I just came to this conclusion this morning.

Before the latest revelations I was going along with the "not technically treason" school. Now I say "bullshit."

[Botany]

3. Donald Trump Jr. should be taken to Africa and have to go into the middle of a ....

.... heard of elephants and show off that elephant tail.


It was a coup, we had treason, and a hostile foreign power had an act
of war against America with the help of Team Trump and the GOP.

[BSdetect]

4. McConnell and Ryan also knew.

[rzemanfl]

5. I wonder if a noose will fit around that turtle neck? n/t

[lastlib]

16. With no chin to hold it, it might slip off.

Better go with piano-wire for him.......... Jus' sayin'..........

[rzemanfl]

17. Nazis did that. Sort of fitting. n/t

[Doreen]

27. That was my first thought.

[Decoy of Fenris]

6. Please take a look at this link, then reevaluate.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/crime-and-law-enforcement/treason


Still not treason. And no, the American on Oahu wouldn't be a traitor, either.

There is -no- wiggle room for a Treason charge, no room for interpretation or circumstantial evidence. There's a reason only a few dozen Treason cases have ever managed to stick, and that was with outright hostility and armed intent to overthrow the government.


Treachery, sure. Not Treason by our ability to prosecute or declare criminality, though. Please don't diminish the severity of the treason charge by so casually slinging it about at political enemies. That's one of the reasons the treason charge is already so hard to prosecute.

[rzemanfl]

8. "Levying war." n/t

[Decoy of Fenris]

9. Still not good enough.

Levying War would apply if the hackers were American, and if the hackers were constituting a treasonable object, and if the Republicans recruited them directly. None of those apply in this particular case. Also, Levying War has a violence prerequisite. Again, there is no wiggle room. War is a direct phrase with little room for error. Were the Republicans to have the Russians hack us in order to somehow drive us into a state of war, or hinder us (or aid them) within an ongoing war, Treason would be applicable. As it stands, notsomuch.


There's a reason the Constitution is -exceptionally- tight with its terminology here, Rzemanfl. It was designed to avoid partisan politicking and labels of Treason against political enemies.

[rzemanfl]

10. You are entitled to your opinion. Just as I am to mine.

I maintain the attack on the election was an Act of War by Russia and the repukes were a party to it. Violence is not a prerequisite IMO.

[Decoy of Fenris]

12. Granted, about opinions.

The only objection I have is that in a court, an opinion is worth very little. In fact, it's often worth less than nothing if improperly applied. An opinion with no foundation in fact or law is worthless when applied to either of those things. The rampant panicked and frenzied screams of "Treason!" (Not you, but there are others) are much less likely to offer any help to our cause of ousting Trump, and are in fact more likely to cause trouble and difficulties if we are too fast and loose with an improper legal definition for such a serious matter.

All I can say is that I urge you to again reconsider your position, but I won't fault you if you don't. Opinions are exceptionally difficult to rectify in the face of contradicting facts, especially if they do not confirm our wants or desires.

Peace to you and yours.

-Decoy-

[rzemanfl]

13. What law school did you attend and when?

Opinions matter in court, that's why they're called that. Where we disagree is on your theory of "prerequisite violence." I don't agree with the idea a foreign power can take over our government so long as they keep any violence outside our borders (count the dead Russians).

Within the past 24 hours I was convinced the Drumpf inner circle committed treason. The latest meeting revelations and the talk on Rachel Maddow about micro targeting of voters in key swing states did it.

Thanks for your wish of peace. I will not know any until these traitorous shits are driven from our midst.

[onenote]

15. opinions actually matter very little in court when there are facts

And the facts do not support the conclusion that the US and Russia were t at the time or are they now in a state of war. Fact: the US and Russia maintain diplomatic relations. Fact: the US and Russia allow bilateral trade and travel. Fact: Russia has not been designated an "enemy" of the US under the Trading with the Enemies Act. Fact: the NATO provisions requiring allies to come to the defense of each other have not been invoked.

Against those facts, your opinion argument goes nowhere.

And in case you were wondering, I attended an Ivy League law school in the mid-1970s. I am admitted to the Supreme Court bar, have briefed (but not argued) several Supreme Court cases, represented (and helped form) Handgun Control Inc. on a pro bono basis, etc etc.

[rzemanfl]

19. So how do you propose we deal with people who collude with and provide aid and comfort to the

"not enemies" who clearly have engaged in cyber-warfare against us?

[onenote]

20. If they conspire with others who are committing crimes, we prosecute them.

If they are engaging in espionage or cyberlaw violations we prosecute them.

We don't yell for them to prosecuted for something they're never going to be prosecuted for.

[rzemanfl]

21. Okay, you convinced me. Drumpf will pardon them, of course. n/t

[Decoy of Fenris]

24. Onenote answered first and arguably better, so I'll let him carry any discussion further.

That said, as an aside I would appreciate you not trying to appeal to authority against me. Whether or not I attended or attend a law school is irrelevant and is a minor insult in what was otherwise a fairly straightforward fact-based discussion. My credentials, or lack thereof, do not determine the accuracy or truth of any statement I may make. Truth is truth and fact is fact, regardless of credentials.

Anyways. My part in this discussion is over for now, so I wish you a good evening, and rest well if you find it.

[rzemanfl]

25. Please note the edit to my post which says-

ON EDIT-cooler heads have convinced me we cannot hang these assholes for treason, as much as I would enjoy watching.

I have a strong feeling the Drumpf reign is going to end badly for all of us.

[Decoy of Fenris]

26. I noticed after the fact and my post.

I have something of a habit of not deleting my posts if rendered obsolete: I'd rather they stay so that anyone perusing this thread can avoid confusion in regards to what was self-deleted.

Trump's dumpsterfire of an administration will be one of the worst we've seen in recent decades, true, but for the same reasons that we can't have him hanged for treason, America we will be strong enough to survive as a nation.

We will endure because we must. We have no other choice.

[lastlib]

18. Maybe it's time to bring the treason statute(s) into the 21st century.

Cyber-warfare was unknown when it was written. It's time to update the law to include cyber-warfare.

(fat chance of it happening with the repugs in charge, though, right?)

[Decoy of Fenris]

23. The law holds well enough when taking Cyberwarfare into account even now.

While almost no one may like the message, "Treason" is meant to be -ludicrously- hard to prove. Short of an actual confession, most cases will require two direct, object witnesses and still require the burdens laid down by the charge of treason to hold.

We may not like it because we have the strict rule of law operating against us, but the charge of "Treason" can never be so open and lenient as to be used to suppress either the free will of the people or our political adversaries. That's a can of worms that we, as progressives and forward-thinkers, should never allow to be opened because that path leads straight to totalitarian or authoritarian rule by rule of law. Treason should, from a legal perspective, always be above and beyond the worst charge possible to be leveled at a citizen, above murder, or rape, or espionage.

What you're thinking about is less "treason" than "act of war", which would be quite a good deal easier to amend than the charge of treason. But again, the burden of the government throwing that international charge should still be heavy, otherwise even the most casual of "hackers" could end up declaring war in the name of their home country if the law is not balanced appropriately.

Rule of law must be absolute, and it must be nonpartisan.

[Zo Zig]

7. ESPIONAGE

Rosenbergs case, is a close companion in terms of charges. IMO.

[Gabi Hayes]

11. Reminds of this:

Will not be televised....Will not be televised
.....Will not be televised

[onenote]

14. among the many distinctions: We ended up being in a declared state of war with Japan

We are not now, nor do I expect we will be in a declared, or even undeclared state of war with Russia. There are recognized indices of when countries are at war: they completely cut off diplomatic relations, they do not allow citizens to engage in trade or travel between the nations that are "at war", and, in the US, the fact that Russia has not been designated an "enemy" under the Trading with the Enemies Act is yet another indicia of the absence of a state of war.

Talking about "treason" may make some people feel good, but there is no chance - none, nada, zero -- that any prosecutor would give more than 10 seconds thought to bringing a treason charge against Trump or any of his family or campaign staff before rejecting the idea out of hand.

[sarisataka]

22. Should we declare war

On Russia?