Was it Treason? (repairing the trashing of Alan's thread)

[Norman Bernstein]

Alan, first and foremost: the behavior of some people around here is truly reprehensible, and your thread didn't deserve to get trashed like that.

I created this new thread because I wanted to respond to your C&P... and it wasn't clear that your original thread was the place to do it.

My reaction to your C&P: if only things were easily classifiable into black and white, we wouldn't need, debate, discussion, and argument.

My reaction to the 'outing' of the NSA wiretapping effort is as follows: since we don't know if it is legal or not, we can't yet make a judgment on whether the NYT reporting deserves castigation, or praise.

A plethora of conservative pundits write as if the legality of Bush's spying program were blatantly and obviously legal under both statutory law, and the Constitution.

An equally large group of liberal pundits say precisely the opposite; that the program is a clear transgression of Consitutional authority.

In searching out the opinions of non-partisan legal experts (well, at least, not BLATANTLY partisan), the opinion is: they don't know. It hasn't been tested in court.

If the Supremes declared the program to be illegal, then the NYT reporters and their sources are patriots; whistleblowing on an illegal act by the government is a patriotic act.

If the Supremes declare the program to be legal, then the sources (but not the NYT reporters) are guilty of a federal offense.

Either way, it's not treason. Treason has specific legal definitions, and you can google them to your heart's content. However, if you go by the most commonly accepted definition, that of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, then you can't define vigorous dissent and opposition as treason at all. The word itself gets tossed around like the 'F' bomb, defining all opposition and dissention as treasonous... yet unless you can show that the intent was specifically to give 'aid and comfort to the enemy', you can't prove treason.

[ 02-03-2006, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[Meerkat]

My view is that it's wrong to hide behind any law in order to trash the constitution. Same goes for "national security" if it destroys the very foundations it's claiming to protect.

[High C]

A standup and gentlemanly gesture, Norman...

[Meerkat]

No opinion on the subject, HiC?

[Gonzalo]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:


A plethora of conservative pundits write as if the legality of Bush's spying program were blatantly and obviously legal under both statutory law, and the Constitution.

An equally large group of liberal pundits say precisely the opposite; that the program is a clear transgression of Consitutional authority.
Just for the record, there have been a few conservative and Republican voices raising serious questions about the legality of the program, for reasons that have more to do with the rule of law and expansion of executive authority than with partisan politics.

Last week my local paper wrote a long piece about the controversy in which a Republican lawyer (sorry, can't remember the name) was quoted extensively saying that he testified in the House impeachment hearings in favor of impeaching Clinton because he believed the president is not above the law. He was quoted as saying that he could not believe his conservative Republican colleagues were not equally insensed about the NSA wiretap program for the same reason. This Republican openly said Bush should be impeached.

George Will wrote a column I posted part of last week in which he was (weakly) critical of the rationale Bush seemed to be using--that it did not violate FISA, but even if it did, his powers as C in C superceded the law and allowed him to ignore it.)

The only reason I bring this up is that Norman's 2 sentences I quoted seem to imply that the criticism of Bush was only a partisan issue.

[Victor]

Treason? Since when is wiretapping your own citizens aiding and abetting the enemy? The Times' crime was failing to do their journalistic duty and report the story as soon as they had it. On what ground did they agree to suppress it?

Only a protofascist nattering nabob of neoconservatism would even consider calling this treason.

Still, it remains to be seen whether it violates the Constitution.

[ 02-03-2006, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Victor ]

[Memphis Mike]

FART!

oh my stomach

[Jagermeister]

(Copied from the other thread):

Cliff Notes version (per Jagermeister):


If these statutes mean what they seem to say and are constitutional, public speech in this country since World War II has been rife with criminality. The source who leaks defense information to the press commits an offense; the reporter who holds onto defense material commits an offense; and the retired official who uses defense material in his memoirs commits an offense.

Mere allegations of illegality do not, in our system of democratic rule, create any sort of terra firma—let alone a presumption that one is, in turn, entitled to break the law.

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 shields employees from retribution if they wish to set out evidence of wrongdoing. When classified information is at stake, the complaints must be leveled in camera, to authorized officials, like the inspectors general of the agencies in question, or to members of congressional intelligence committees, or both. Neither the New York Times nor any other newspaper or television station is listed as an authorized channel for airing such complaints.

Current and former officials who choose to bypass the provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Act and to reveal classified information directly to the press are unequivocally lawbreakers. This is not in dispute. What Section 798 of the Espionage Act makes plain is that the same can be said about the press itself when, eager to obtain classified information however it can, and willing to promise anonymity to leakers, it proceeds to publish the government’s communications-intelligence secrets for all the world to read.All I can conclude is that it is high time for people to start going to jail IMO, this country desperately needs a chilling effect on the habit of leaking classified security material. This article (courtesy of LeeG) illustrates that people are leaking the Pentagon's war plans. In time of war, if that's not treason, I don't know what is. :(

Upping the Ante for Kim Jong Il: Pentagon Plan 5030, a new blueprint for facing down North Korea (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/030721/21korea.htm)

- Kevin

P.S. George. - why don't you just delete the post and help the rest of us out? :(

P.P.S. The material Alan posted deals with the larger question of security leaks, and is not restricted solely to the New York Times publication of the "wiretapping". Responding solely to the narrow question of the NSA activity misses the broader issues of Alan's post.

[ 02-03-2006, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Jagermeister ]

[Alan D. Hyde]

Thank you, Norman & Kevin.

This is worth serious discussion.

Irrespective of where the chips may fall...

Alan

[High C]

Originally posted by Jagermeister:
...this country desperately needs a chilling effect on the habit of leaking classified security material. This article (courtesy of LeeG) illustrates that people are leaking the Pentagon's war plans. In time of war, if that's not treason, I don't know what is. :( Meer, this should answer your question. I don't know exactly what constitutes treason and what doesn't, but we have a serious problem with the press leaking critical classified material.

It has to stop.

[Memphis Mike]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
Thank you, Norman & Kevin.

This is worth serious discussion.

Irrespective of where the chips may fall...

AlanNo, what you're trying to do is claim that those that object to the current adminstration might possibly be guilty of treason.

You are way out of line Alan and have no idea what it's like to be an American.

You're just a blind follower and I'm quite surprised by that considering your education.

You've reached your end and are starting to resort to low down dirty tactics.

Just what is your personal interest anyway?

[Jagermeister]

Mike, are you responding to Alan's post, and the follow ups, or just what you assume to be the content based on the title of the thread?

Are you claiming that its proper to leak anything, as long as you disagree with the administration? Because the other posters are drawing distinctions, and you seem to be "shotgunning" from the hip.

- Kevin

[High C]

Originally posted by Jagermeister:
...Mike...you seem to be "shotgunning" from the hip...I thought he was on his stomach.

[Alan D. Hyde]

Mike, I wholly respect your right to debate and to disagree, but that right (as I suspect you might agree) does NOT include leaking vital intelligence to our enemies (who CAN read the New York Times).

Such leaks can endanger or kill our people, who are risking their lives abroad so that innocent women and children don't have to lose their lives at home, as too many did on September 11th.

Such an act of terror could happen again, if we fail to keep our eyes open.

Alan

[George Roberts]

You all misunderstand government.

During WWI a congressman started and later served 15 years in prison for mild comments against the war. I believe the charge was treason. (I may be wrong.)

Government has to do with the willingness to exert power. Bush exerted his power. The papers exerted theirs. People will take up sides and some will win; someone will lose.

Try to be on the side that wins.

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by George Roberts:
People will take up sides and some will win; someone will lose.

Try to be on the side that wins.Better to be on the side of Right, regardless of whether you win or lose.

That's the shrub's problems: he believe the ends justify the means. Not true now; never has been.

[Norman Bernstein]

Alan,

I had failed to point out that the piece you C&P'd did NOT use the word 'treason'.

[Donn]

I'd use the word treason. I don't think that the usage of the word "adhering" in the Constitution, implies intent. I think, in this case, the result is the definition. If the action weakens the ability of the government to defend the people, it is treason, no matter the intent.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Memphis Mike:
FART!

oh my stomachDon't worry - if anything comes out, with the grace of god, some vaseline and two fingers you can get it all back in. tongue.gif

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by George Roberts:

During WWI a congressman started and later served 15 years in prison for mild comments against the war. I believe the charge was treason. (I may be wrong.)
I'd like to see a cite for that: sounds like an urban legend.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Donn:
I'd use the word treason. I don't think that the usage of the word "adhering" in the Constitution, implies intent. I think, in this case, the result is the definition. If the action weakens the ability of the government to defend the people, it is treason, no matter the intent.So, what is the 18th century definition of "adhering"?

[shamus]

Fellah called Scott Nearing was tried for treason during WW1 for writing anti war material. He was found not guilty of treason, but his publisher was convicted for publishing the material which was the subject of the trial. That seems a strange result to me.

[Donn]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
So, what is the 18th century definition of "adhering"?I wasn't there, but my guess is it would be something like a burr, adhering to your sweater. No intent involved, just a happenstance.

[Meerkat]

Well, I don't agree that the definition has no connotation of intent, especially for 18th century people.

Modern dictionary definition (2nd): "To remain devoted to or be in support of something: adhered to her beliefs."

[Norman Bernstein]

I'd use the word treason. I don't think that the usage of the word "adhering" in the Constitution, implies intent. I think, in this case, the result is the definition. If the action weakens the ability of the government to defend the people, it is treason, no matter the intent. Meaning no disrespect, Donn, I don't think it's reasonable to arbitrarily redefine a word which has a specific legal meaning.

I have no doubt that you, and many Bush supporters, view much of the dissent and opposition to George Bush in the same emotional light as you might view someone committing treason... but think about it. Who would you leave it up to, to define just what dissent is a patriotic expression of free speech, and what consitutes a treasonous act?

The reason we have such carefully defined terms is to protect people from the whims of a vengeful administration within government. Recall that the Nixon Administration had the infamous 'White House Enemies List'... and consider the lengths they were willing to go to obtain that vengeance.

Were you guilty, perhaps, of 'treason' during the Clinton Administration? Were any critics during those eight years guilty of it... by your definition?

[ 02-03-2006, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Treason is one of the few crimes that is mentioned in the US Constitution. Since European monarchies often claimed any opposition to the monarch was "treasonous" our founding fathers made it damned difficult to prosecute such a charge here. Since it's getting late I'm not going to wade thru' the Constitution but I think
prooving a charge of treason requires one or more witnesses to the act.

Charlie

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
Who would you leave it up to, to define just what dissent is a patriotic expression of free speech, and what consitutes a treasonous act?
Within limits, NOT THE GOVERNMENT!

EVERY time free speech is limited by law, it's an erosion of the Constitution. SOME of it is necessary ("fire" in a crowded theatre), but every such law must be carefully examined and quite narrow in scope IMO.

(I have my doubts about the "hate speech" law(s) and the (federal) law against speaking out in church/temple/synagogue.)

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Cuyahoga Chuck:
Treason is one of the few crimes that is mentioned in the US Constitution. Since European monarchies often claimed any opposition to the monarch was "treasonous" our founding fathers made it damned difficult to prosecute such a charge here. Since it's getting late I'm not going to wade thru' the Constitution but I think
prooving a charge of treason requires one or more witnesses to the act.

CharlieTwo or more.

Over the years, making a charge of treason has actually gotten more difficult since the courts have struck down some laws.

Sedition is a non-starter. The USSC struck down 200 year-old law and precedents in 1917.

[Meerkat]

Treason is betrayal after trust.


be·tray
tr.v. be·trayed, be·tray·ing, be·trays

1.
1. To give aid or information to an enemy of; commit treason against: betray one's country.
2. To deliver into the hands of an enemy in violation of a trust or allegiance: betrayed Christ to the Romans.
2. To be false or disloyal to: betrayed their cause; betray one's better nature.
3. To divulge in a breach of confidence: betray a secret.
4. To make known unintentionally: Her hollow laugh betrayed her contempt for the idea.
5. To reveal against one's desire or will.
6. To lead astray; deceive. See Synonyms at deceive.

[LeeG]

is it treason for the US gov't to leak classified information for political purposes? Is it ok if there's official sanction?

[George Jung]

I'm playing catch-up (on dial up, no less) so hope this is germaine. After reading the above noted link, my question is, are we sure this is an honest 'leak'? My take is, either the info was released as a means of pressuring the N Koreans; or you have folks in the military genuinely concerned about such an aggressive move. You might argue that is inappropriate for someone in the Pentagon to act in this manner; I'd say it's time honored, and perhaps one of the few options open to them. And I'd be very concerned about anything military being started in NK, or Iran, or wherever this might spread; and I'd be surprised if most here wouldn't share that concern.

[Ian McColgin]

I'm not certain that the other version of this thread

http://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000237

is any more blown than this. Since I go to the WBF from top down in categories but bottom up by threads within a category I did not see this till after I'd made a sober, thoughtful, brilliant if you will, reply on the other.

Just hoping that we settle on which thread to run with and of course hoping that someone reads my bit and argues or agrees or whatever.

Along the way, I hope we can all see that reasonable arguments can clash but in the end this issue and the issue of whether President Bush's acts are constitutional are not really well phrased as court style legalities.

Discussion of the law and constitution are important, but the issues are way to big to be adjudicated. These are issues of such national import that in the end the constitutionally correct course if for Congress to address them. All arguments about constitutionality and legality are just stepping stones to the great debate.

[Keith Wilson]

The problem here is that there are two completely legitimate opposing interests:

First, it is entirely reasonable to for the government keep some information secret, particularly military information. Laws against making this information public are a good thing and should be enforced. Legally it’s different than “treason”, but it’s still illegal, and rightly so.

Second, the government can misuse this legitimate power. Information that is inconvenient, embarrassing, or politically damaging can be classified and hidden. Any government would wish information about its own misconduct to be kept from the public; the easiest way to do that is to make it a military secret.

So what to do? It’s possible to err in both directions. My opinion is that the government’s actions pretty clearly violate the law (FISA) in this case, so it’s good they were exposed, but reasonable people may disagree.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

The first rule of governance is "the government has to take care of business". This is poorly stated by me but, in essence, it's correct. The government's legitimacy hangs on it's ability to cut thru' the c**p. A government that is nothing but a "talking shop" can bring the entire country down.
A looming question about the legality of the executive's actions has to be gotten to. If the branches of government can only shrug their shoulders or revert to pointing their fingers at each other you get nothing but big time inertia.
The assumption of any authority by one branch of government is a threat to the balance of power with the other branches. Normally, these questions go right to the Supreme Court.
In this case the executive's claim impinges on the power of the court system. Even so, the court gets to decide. It may not be an ideal solution but the problem has to be dealt with. This is a "constitutional question" and the sooner it gets sorted out the better.
In my view, if Bush wins, either by intransegence or a decision of the court, we will have a different America than we had previously.
So much for "original intent".

Charlie

[Phillip Allen]

I think I recall the Supreme Court ruling against Jackson who then proceeded to ignore the decision and kill 4000 indians anyway

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

If you could dovetail that into the current discussion it would be helpful.
Since we have had a whole bucket load of legal decisions and amendments since Jackson's time there might just be a problem drawing a line from Andrew Jackson to George Bush.
I, for one, would like to see you draw that line. But keep it in the relm of legalities. Personally, Andrew Jackson was his own man, one tough SOB, with a proven war record. Don't try to introduce any odious comparisons between him and that fratboy, weenie, psuedo-cowboy who holds the same office today.

Charlie

"Me? Partisan?"