General Discussion

onenote

(45,990 posts)

143. The language you cite establishes undercuts your conclusion

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 01:21 PM

Mar 2017

An Act of War is limited to an act occurring a declared war (not the case here) or armed conflict (not the case here).

As for whether Putin's actions vis a vis the election, such as we know them to be, are International Terrorism, there are three elements, each of which must be met. The first is that the activities must
involve "violent acts or acts dangerous to human life" that violate US law or would violate US law if committed in the US (not the case here)

While that essentially ends the need for analysis, the second and third elements also are questionable.

The second element requires that the activities appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or influence the government by intimidation or coercion. Publishing the emails was intended to influence not the government, but the civilian population, and wasn't through intimidation or coercion.

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:

A very serious question: Is this treason? [View all] kentuck Mar 2017 OP

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

The Rosenbergs were charged with a conspiracy to commit espionage. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #7

Ah, thx for this info uponit7771 Mar 2017 #12

Isn't hacking a form of espionage? LisaM Mar 2017 #34

Could be. I just know it's not treason. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #36

That seems to be the case. For it to be treason we would have to be at war with Russia. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #103

which is what trump and team are guilty of...but not treason Eliot Rosewater Mar 2017 #101

I'm not a lawyer , but that's what lawyers say seems to be the case. Please see Postb 68. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #102

They were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage Phoenix61 Mar 2017 #11

Because Russia wasn't our "enemy" as defined by law. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #15

While I agree, did anyone notice the Dems calling Russia hacking a form of warfare? LOL Lib Mar 2017 #16

Exactly! ananda Mar 2017 #21

Remember how they repeatedly questioned rogers/comey on whether Russia was our "adversary?" LOL Lib Mar 2017 #23

I agree Sculpin Beauregard Mar 2017 #32

pre mediated too. bdamomma Mar 2017 #44

Your not the only one to notice. rogue emissary Mar 2017 #51

Excellent! LOL Lib Mar 2017 #55

cyber warfare. Russia sure thinks it is! triron Mar 2017 #62

The words aid and comfort gibraltar72 Mar 2017 #46

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

Slippery slope much? CYBER WAR IS STILL AN ACT OF WAR. LaydeeBug Mar 2017 #66

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

Why would we bring a knife to a gun fight? Nice try. No dice. nt LaydeeBug Mar 2017 #92

Non sequitur DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #94

False comparison LaydeeBug Mar 2017 #95

I will defer to a Yale Law graduate and law professor. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #96

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

On this, we agree. nt LaydeeBug Mar 2017 #122

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

But then the notion of "war" has changed treestar Mar 2017 #82

that could be interpreted treestar Mar 2017 #73

Please see Post 68 DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #76

Tell Putin that Skidmore Mar 2017 #112

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

They are betraying our country Horse with no Name Mar 2017 #2

Close enough for government work. dchill Mar 2017 #3

.... A HERETIC I AM Mar 2017 #90

There are enough crimes to jail them for years. roamer65 Mar 2017 #4

No. Not according to the Constitution. Phoenix61 Mar 2017 #6

According to Congress, they are. OliverQ Mar 2017 #10

Adventure and enemy are two different words Phoenix61 Mar 2017 #17

Enemy has a specific legal meaning. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #18

Do you people really, so strongly, Ghost Dog Mar 2017 #38

Who wants war with Russia? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #39

They committed an act of war orangecrush Mar 2017 #49

So are you calling on your member of Congress to introduce a declaration of war onenote Mar 2017 #61

To put it colloquially.. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #89

Just one question orangecrush Mar 2017 #98

Only if that interference is by force of arms onenote Mar 2017 #109

you need a case law cite treestar Mar 2017 #75

Please see Post 68 DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #77

No we aren't. former9thward Mar 2017 #20

Sorry, but according to Congress they're not. onenote Mar 2017 #56

That could be made into a legal interpretation treestar Mar 2017 #74

I think it falls within the purview of the espionnage act. drray23 Mar 2017 #8

Definition of treason: kentuck Mar 2017 #26

It does not matter what the dictionary definition says drray23 Mar 2017 #28

+10000000000 onenote Mar 2017 #59

Trump's staff members must believe it their actions were treasonous... TheDebbieDee Mar 2017 #9

It is impossible for me to read the following and not come to that conclusion. Miles Archer Mar 2017 #13

Colloquially? Yes. Legally? No. Codeine Mar 2017 #14

It would be better described as espionage... 2naSalit Mar 2017 #19

They worked with a foreign power to affect our election, a move that was favorable to that foreign still_one Mar 2017 #22

Recommended. H2O Man Mar 2017 #24

Note: H2O Man Mar 2017 #31

I think it is very close, but not legally "there" by traditional definition. elfin Mar 2017 #25

Treachery Dem2 Mar 2017 #27

Not sure rufus dog Mar 2017 #29

HELL YES Skittles Mar 2017 #30

Legally, no GP6971 Mar 2017 #33

Campaign laws L. Coyote Mar 2017 #35

No, only because we are not currently at war with Russia. musicblind Mar 2017 #37

The definition of "war" has changed over the centuries. kentuck Mar 2017 #40

And the Cold War wasn't "war" for purposes of the crime of treason onenote Mar 2017 #58

For some reason, it sounds more serious than "espionage"... kentuck Mar 2017 #63

There likely is some statute treestar Mar 2017 #79

Aiding and abetting an enemy randr Mar 2017 #41

Problem with that is the definition of "enemy" truebluegreen Mar 2017 #107

Intentional interference into our nations sovereign randr Mar 2017 #121

Go argue that in front of SCOTUS truebluegreen Mar 2017 #144

I understand your point randr Mar 2017 #145

Congress could create new laws truebluegreen Mar 2017 #148

GREED panader0 Mar 2017 #42

what is the definition of war in the 21st century? mopinko Mar 2017 #43

The same as it was in the 20th Century, at least until congress changes it onenote Mar 2017 #57

i cant imagine infiltrating and overthrowing the government of the u.s. mopinko Mar 2017 #106

So should we be invoking the NATO mutual defense obligations? onenote Mar 2017 #111

invoking nato would be smart, since the whole thing is also an attack on nato. mopinko Mar 2017 #128

Technically, no but... Chitown Kev Mar 2017 #45

Keep in mind matt819 Mar 2017 #52

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

Orans Dictionary of Law MFM008 Mar 2017 #60

And the definition of espionage is: kentuck Mar 2017 #64

Yes. It's treason. DT, Pence, Kushner, Ryan, Turtleman, Alice11111 Mar 2017 #65

The skinny DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #68

+1 onenote Mar 2017 #69

If Trump and his cronies are proven to be in cahoots with Russia there will be hell to pay ! DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #70

Would you call it "espionage"? kentuck Mar 2017 #71

Now I am just guessing or hypothesizing. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #72

Did they or did they not, overthrow our government? One of the first acts out of the shraby Mar 2017 #80

Possible crimes committed: Conspiracy to violate the CFAA onenote Mar 2017 #114

Wouldn't it be espionage as well? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #116

I don't think so. onenote Mar 2017 #120

This is interesting DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #123

I don't think the information at issue here would qualify as a "trade secret" onenote Mar 2017 #124

We likely need another statute. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #125

Agreed. Many of the current laws relating to electronic communications are outdated/unduly narrow. onenote Mar 2017 #126

Which begs the question DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #127

You raise a much debated question of ethics and law onenote Mar 2017 #131

Gawker got sued out of business for publicizing the Hulk Hogan sex tapes. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #133

It was admitted at trial that the tapes had no news value onenote Mar 2017 #134

I'm using colloquial parlance... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #137

I don't know the details of all of the testimony and argument onenote Mar 2017 #140

If a democrat did it, they would call it treason and they would interpret the law Eliot Rosewater Mar 2017 #130

ok but it would be better if he had cites treestar Mar 2017 #78

We were at war with Germany. They were the "enemy" That wasn't in dispute. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #81

interesting, what are the three cases? treestar Mar 2017 #83

Voila DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #87

google scholar results treestar Mar 2017 #84

Cramer seems like an easy one, even for a layperson. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #85

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

We don't, and it doesn't. Hovering naysaying notwithstanding. (n/t) FreepFryer Mar 2017 #104

If you believe DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #105

You've made your views amply known on a multitude of comments already. May I have my own last word? FreepFryer Mar 2017 #108

Which I'll leave to Richard Painter, former Bush WH Ethics czar. FreepFryer Mar 2017 #110

You may. The last word is yours. Have a great day. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #113

Yes, high treason JesterCS Mar 2017 #100

Even espionage charges seem unlikely ymetca Mar 2017 #119

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

At different times I have compared Trump to DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #135

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

The language you cite establishes undercuts your conclusion onenote Mar 2017 #143

I'm always wary of a race to the bottom. onenote Mar 2017 #139

Interesting that the liberal William O. Douglas voted to uphold his conviction. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #141

But even if we do not agree on "treason," he is certainly a traitor. Though I'm sorry you have Squinch Mar 2017 #142

I don't think so. Bradical79 Mar 2017 #146