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.The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
This I said to a moderately famous defense lawyer (I got chewed out for saying it, too.):
The Framers were tired of the Crown throwing around charges of treason for simple disagreement. Yet is it reasonable to view Trump's secret meeting with Vladimir Putin as anything but treasonous? I think the definition of “Enemies of the United States” needs updating, now that the USA is involved in global multipolar conflicts that seldom turn into declared wars.
The legal current definition, by precedent, of “Enemies of the United States” requires that an enemy be a nation that the USA has declared war upon. The United States has not declared war on Russia, yet Russia has worked to incite violence in the USA, and to turn US elections – at this time, Russia is no friend. Trump carefully insured there would be only one witness to his secret meeting with Putin (mobster!), so that, at least, cannot be directly prosecuted, but he was impeached for doing Putin's will in Ukraine.
The “corruption of blood” and “forfeiture” clauses are intended to ensure that penalties not be placed on a family of a traitor, yet there is little doubt that Trump's children were complicit in his crimes and would be far less destructive were they not so very rich. The Founders did not, I think, look far enough ahead (perhaps no-one could have) in writing those clauses.
Since the Framers so limited the definition of treason we dance around the concept in law, laying charges of sedition and espionage instead. These have become as problematic as charges of treason in the English monarchy. I am very glad to see the leaders of the Oath Keepers be convicted of seditious conspiracy. Yet both the Espionage and Sedition Acts have been abused, and in the same way as treason charges in Britain. I don't have even suggestions as to how to make this better. It is an area where the rigidity of written law meets the complexity of human character – not only of the criminals, but of the judges and juries as well.
2 comments:
I think there is enough evidence to hang all them fuckers.
Agree with Jackiesue. However mob justice usually doesn't stop with the guilty, though there is a lot of them before you run out of the need for more rope.
Post a Comment