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: A very serious question: Is this treason? [View all]DemocratSinceBirth
(101,632 posts)67. THIS - by the way the esteemed law professor and author uses the same rationale as I did
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.
This was true even in the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War. When Julius and Ethel Rosenberg handed over nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, they were tried and executed for espionage, not treason. Indeed, Trump could give the U.S. nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin or bug the Oval Office with a direct line to the Kremlin and it would not be treason, as a legal matter. Of course, such conduct would violate various laws and would constitute grounds for impeachment as a high crime and misdemeanor the framers fully understood that there could be cases of reprehensible disloyalty that might escape the narrow confines of the treason clause.
So who are the current enemies of the United States? North Korea is a possible enemy, since the Korean War was never formally concluded. Certain nonstate actors can also count as enemies, and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State probably fit the definition.
-Carlton F.W. Larson is a professor of law at the University of California at Davis and is writing a book about treason and the American Revolution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.6e0ec8716b43
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.
This was true even in the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War. When Julius and Ethel Rosenberg handed over nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, they were tried and executed for espionage, not treason. Indeed, Trump could give the U.S. nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin or bug the Oval Office with a direct line to the Kremlin and it would not be treason, as a legal matter. Of course, such conduct would violate various laws and would constitute grounds for impeachment as a high crime and misdemeanor the framers fully understood that there could be cases of reprehensible disloyalty that might escape the narrow confines of the treason clause.
So who are the current enemies of the United States? North Korea is a possible enemy, since the Korean War was never formally concluded. Certain nonstate actors can also count as enemies, and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State probably fit the definition.
-Carlton F.W. Larson is a professor of law at the University of California at Davis and is writing a book about treason and the American Revolution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.6e0ec8716b43
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
148 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
No. Because we aren't at war with Russia. They are not officially the "enemy"
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#1
We weren't at war with Russia when the Rosenbergs were executed either or the guy before them
uponit7771
Mar 2017
#5
That seems to be the case. For it to be treason we would have to be at war with Russia.
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#103
I'm not a lawyer , but that's what lawyers say seems to be the case. Please see Postb 68.
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#102
While I agree, did anyone notice the Dems calling Russia hacking a form of warfare?
LOL Lib
Mar 2017
#16
Remember how they repeatedly questioned rogers/comey on whether Russia was our "adversary?"
LOL Lib
Mar 2017
#23
By this term is understood the whole body of a nation at war with another.
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#48
AGAIN...cyber war *IS* an act of war, and it does NOT have to be declared. nt
LaydeeBug
Mar 2017
#47
By this term is understood the whole body of a nation at war with another.
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#50
THIS - by the way the esteemed law professor and author uses the same rationale as I did
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#67
And, yet...the FACT still remains that he is conflating one thing with another and so are you
LaydeeBug
Mar 2017
#86
Why would we join cretins who maliciously and fallaciously accused Presidents Obama and Clinton ...
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#88
I will defer to the Constitution of the United States, and you made ANOTHER false coparison.
LaydeeBug
Mar 2017
#117
Ultimately it doesn't matter what we think constitutes "Treason", it will be up to the Supreme Court
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#118
Which Democrat has introduced a declaration of war against Russia in Congress? n/t
PoliticAverse
Mar 2017
#93
Conversely, which member of the Duma has introduced a declaration of war against us ?
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#97
Putin is a deplorable tyrant who persecutes glbtq folks, scoffs at the rule of law...
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#115
Some people say that what Russia did--attacking our electoral process --constituted an act of war.
pnwmom
Mar 2017
#147
So are you calling on your member of Congress to introduce a declaration of war
onenote
Mar 2017
#61
It is impossible for me to read the following and not come to that conclusion.
Miles Archer
Mar 2017
#13
They worked with a foreign power to affect our election, a move that was favorable to that foreign
still_one
Mar 2017
#22
invoking nato would be smart, since the whole thing is also an attack on nato.
mopinko
Mar 2017
#128
The Rosenbergs were electrocuted for conspiring to commit espionage.
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#53
I've thought it was a corporate/Kremlin coup d'tat since the morning of November 9, 2016,
catbyte
Mar 2017
#54
If Trump and his cronies are proven to be in cahoots with Russia there will be hell to pay !
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#70
Did they or did they not, overthrow our government? One of the first acts out of the
shraby
Mar 2017
#80
Agreed. Many of the current laws relating to electronic communications are outdated/unduly narrow.
onenote
Mar 2017
#126
Gawker got sued out of business for publicizing the Hulk Hogan sex tapes.
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#133
If a democrat did it, they would call it treason and they would interpret the law
Eliot Rosewater
Mar 2017
#130
We were at war with Germany. They were the "enemy" That wasn't in dispute.
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#81
It's the essential charge, if not the eventual charge. Hovering naysayers notwithstanding. (n/t)
FreepFryer
Mar 2017
#91
In other words it's not treason but using a rhetorical flourish makes it so.
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#99
You've made your views amply known on a multitude of comments already. May I have my own last word?
FreepFryer
Mar 2017
#108
I believe a foreign dictator interfering in another nations election process
workinclasszero
Mar 2017
#129
The language sticklers here - and I am at heart one of them - will say no because we are
Squinch
Mar 2017
#132
Ooh. Trump the Traitor is even better! You can't say his actions aren't traitorous.
Squinch
Mar 2017
#136
Putin's actions to subvert our elections are either international terrorism
workinclasszero
Mar 2017
#138
Interesting that the liberal William O. Douglas voted to uphold his conviction.
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2017
#141