Did Senator Tom Cotton Just Commit Treason…Again?

[GoLeft TV]

Senator Tom Cotton met privately with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss their opposition to the international nuclear agreement with Iran. Cotton has been one of the most outspoken critics of the agreement, and signaled that he will side with Netanyahu over Obama on this issue.

While that may seem innocuous enough, this statement can actually be considered treason under U.S. law. Here’s what U.S. Code Chapter 115 has to say about treasonous acts, specifically rebellion and insurrection:

“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

[benld74]

1. Oh I agree, but Slimeballs in DC would never allow it to go forward

[SCantiGOP]

15. Treason, really??

Isn't that a bit if a stretch? Jesse Jackson was warned by the State Dept years ago not to go to Syria to help release a captured US soldier. He did go and the American was released. Would you have accepted him being arrested for treason? Cotton is a grandstanding idiot, but saying it reflects badly on our Administration that they won't arrest him is hyperbolic nonsense.

[IHateTheGOP]

27. What? How are these two acts similar?

[SCantiGOP]

31. They are both a stretch

But both involve giving aid to a foreign country that is detrimental to the US. That is why an accusation of treason was such an overreaction.
The more appropriate charge, which Jackson did technically violate, is the prohibition against a private citizen conducting foreign policy without authorization from the government.

[djean111]

2. Yes, Cotton is a treasonous piece of crap, but can he really foment rebellion or insurrection?

Congress votes against things the president wants all the time.

Cotton really has not got the authority or the US backing to declare the treaty invalid, I think? He is just being a prick and aiming for a VP nod or a future presidential run, IMO. Netanyahu is using him big time.

[Faux pas]

3. So, who's gonna do

what about it???

[ejbr]

10. um...IOKIFYAR n/t

[Faux pas]

14. I'm sorry I don't know

what IOKIFYAR means, thanks.

[lastlib]

17. "It's OK If You're A Repuglican"

or some variant thereof......



As I point out here, treason is in the GOP DNA....

[Faux pas]

22. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Yep, lying, cheating, stealing and treason is fine if you're gop or any facsimile there of.

[Oldtimeralso]

18. IOKIFYAR

It's OK IF You Are Republican

[Faux pas]

23. Thanks!

Got it

[ejbr]

39. Sorry, my bad

We've all not known...but I suspect Merriam Webster will soon include it in an upcoming dictionary as it is true more than not.

[bjobotts]

16. Siding with a foreign power against your own president

Should be a seditious violation of the law and the AG should file charges. Arkansas should at least impeach him or recall him so he can go live in Israel with his war mongering buddy.

[PatrickforO]

4. Cotton is a traitor.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. 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.


No, he did not comit treason, as defined by the Constitution.

[gregcrawford]

6. You're right. But he IS...

... a complete and utter asshole who puts the Republican Party's diseased agenda ahead of the best interests of his constituents and his country. It's a shame we can't hang him for that.

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. I agree with everything you wrote except the hanging.

I am opposed to capital punishment.

[ejbr]

11. what about a good spanking? n/t

[Maynar]

13. Well there's that..

[ejbr]

38. Lol! N/t

[gregcrawford]

35. Oh, all right...

... we'll hang him from his ankles and tickle him within an inch of his life. Maybe half an inch. Figuratively speaking, of course.

[Travis_0004]

12. Ok, then call him out for that

But Its not treason what he did.

[bjobotts]

24. On foreign soil going against the president Is UnAmerican

and unethical to the point of having him recalled for sedition. Cotton-mouth is trying to start a war. These repub clowns have no integrity believing in tyranny and not democracy. We elected the president to conduct foreign policy not Tom Cottonmouth who tries to insert himself and his short sighted stupidity where he does not belong. Unqualified and short sighted Tom Cottonmouth is a national embarrassment.

[markpkessinger]

33. If anything, it's a violation of the Logan Act . . .

. . . but no, it isn't treason under U.S. law.

[Demeter]

20. This may be news--but Israel is NOT our friend

Regardless of the amount of ink spilled to cover up the fact, or the treaties unenforced.

[markpkessinger]

37. They may not be our friend, but that doesn't make them an enemy of the U.S. either . . .

. . . even Russia and China are not currently considered "enemies" of the U.S. (although many Snowden detractors here would have us believe they are), but are rather simply geopolitical adversaries.

[usaf-vet]

7. And he claims to be a veteran of the US Armed Forces.

Let me remind him he has taken at least two oaths. Apparently he doesn't respect or honor either one.

1. I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

2. I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

[ladjf]

8. That man breaks U.S. law whenever he chooses to do so. nt

[Jack Rabbit]

19. No, this is not treason

It would delight me to say that Cotton is guilty of treason, but I disagree with Mr. Cousins.

That's certainly isn't because I approve of Senator Cotton's maneuvers. They are harmful to the cause of stability in the Middle East and peace on earth, but they don't constitute an "insurrection against the authority of the United States."

To say that Senator Cotton is engaged in an insurrection against the authority of the United States would be to concede that the relationship between the United States and various nations in the Middle East, including Israel, is one of an empire to conquered territory. There are people at DU, including your most humble hare, who would argue that that is, in fact, the case, but neither President Obama nor Senator Cotton would ever say such a thing, at least not in public. Even the usurper who preceded President Obama in the White House explicitly denied it in an Oval Office interview with NBC's Matt Lauer after the invasion of Iraq when he said, with no hint or irony, "We don't do imperialism."

Consequently, the US government cannot charge Senator Cotton with insurrection against the authority of the United States if that authority is imperial when the officers and policy makers in that government claim that the US is not an imperial power. Whether it is, in fact, an imperial power is beside the point.

Also, Mr. Cousins asserts that by sending a letter to Iran's leaders last Spring, Senator Cotton and all who signed it were in rebellion against the authority of President Obama. While the Senate Republicans way of going about it was extremely clumsy and underhanded, the Senate is part of a co-equal branch of government and has every right to express an opinion and legislatively influence foreign policy. It would have been better, of course, if they had taken up the matter by sending a letter to the President rather than to Iranian leaders and had asked the President to address to Congress about the problem rather than the Prime Minister of Israel. But treason? Not quite.

[Demeter]

21. Politics is like horseshoes

Close enough counts...depending on who is keeping score and what length ruler they are using.

[Jack Rabbit]

30. Dissenting

Mr. Cousins is talking about neither politics nor horseshoes. Mr. Cousins is a lawyer, and when he urges that Senator Cotton be charged with treason, he is talking about law.

Now, he is urging this action for a political end, namely that Senator Cotton "needs to be stopped." I agree with that wholeheartedly. Nevertheless, using criminal law to obtain a political end is something that never ends well for anybody and does violence to law itself.

We stop Senator Cotton's political sins with political means. However any one wants to slice it, that means defeating like-minded members of the Senate and the House and eventually, in 2018, defeating Senator Cotton when he runs for re-election. Meanwhile, as long as US foreign policy even hints at more imperial resource wars in the future, I would urge Americans in their late teen or early twenties to eschew military service and find something to do that is beneficial to America's future, like building the renewable energy industry.

[SoapBox]

25. Scum PukeBagger.

[IHateTheGOP]

26. It's treason plain as day. But Repuglicans are allowed to comit treason, see bush cheney.

[markpkessinger]

36. And again, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution states . . .

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.

Cotton's actions are vile and despicable, and are arguably violations of the Logan Act. But they cannot, so long as words still have any meaning in Constitutional law, be termed 'treason.'

[arely staircase]

28. It is unpatriotic and low class sleazy

but not treason.

[Turbineguy]

29. No.

Republicans who harm national security by definition do not commit treason. Most people do not understand the meaning of the word treason. First of all, only Democrats commit treason. Doubly so if they do some good. Clinton going after ObL= treason. Reagan Iran-Contra arms deal = not treason.

[CanonRay]

32. Title 18 USC Sec. 953, otherwise known as the Logan Act

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position.[2] The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was last amended in 1994, and violation of the Logan Act is a felony.

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

[LiberalArkie]

34. Hush your mouth, Republicans can't commit treason or anything close to it, only Democrats

can be accused of doing that kind of stuff.

[markpkessinger]

40. The desl is not yet law . . .

. . . Hopefully it will be soon. So even despite the fact that charging Cotton with treason is foreclosed by Article III, Section3 of the Constitution due to the fact that Israel is not an enemy of the United States, the section of federal code Cousins cites refers to "rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof," and since the deal is not yet law, there is no "authority of the United States," nor is there any U.S. law, to rebel against.

I despise Cotton and his actions. But to suggest they are tantamount to 'treason' would be to effectively criminalize opposition to something that is merely pending before Congress. And tempting though that might be, no, we can't actually do that. I'm a little disappointed in Cousins on this -- this is a really sloppy analysis.