Discussion:
WI Jane Fonda convicted of treason?
(too old to reply)
TXZZ
2006-07-06 01:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Does this further stabilize, or de-stabilize america in that time?
Jim McCauley
2006-07-06 01:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by TXZZ
Does this further stabilize, or de-stabilize america in that time?
A great big don't-care.

Not sure if she could have even been tried for treason, really. No basis in
law for action.


Jim McCauley
Matt Wiser
2006-07-06 02:47:34 UTC
Permalink
"TXZZ" <***@aol.com> wrote:
One could make the argument (and many former POWs do, along with their supporters and
family members) that traveling to an enemy country in wartime and making propaganda on
behalf of said enemy would meet the Constitutional definition of "aid and comfort to the enemy." By that reckoning, Ramsey Clark would still be in Federal Prison, instead of
being every dictator's lawyer and best friend. (Clark did go to North Vietnam after Hanoi
Jane's trip, btw. His conduct since would have earned him additional trips to the slammer-
supporting Khadafy, the mullahocracy in Iran, Saddam, Kim il-Sung and his wacky son Kim Jong-il in NK, Milosevic, Noreiga, Castro, etc.)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jordan
2006-07-09 14:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Wiser
One could make the argument (and many former POWs do, along with their supporters and
family members) that traveling to an enemy country in wartime and making propaganda on
behalf of said enemy would meet the Constitutional definition of "aid and comfort to the enemy." By that reckoning, Ramsey Clark would still be in Federal Prison, instead of
being every dictator's lawyer and best friend. (Clark did go to North Vietnam after Hanoi
Jane's trip, btw. His conduct since would have earned him additional trips to the slammer-
supporting Khadafy, the mullahocracy in Iran, Saddam, Kim il-Sung and his wacky son Kim Jong-il in NK, Milosevic, Noreiga, Castro, etc.)
What is _with_ Clark, anyway? It seems to me as if he is willing to
support _any_ regime, no matter how incredibly vile, provided that it
is anti-American. This can't even be called "being too liberal," as
some of the regimes he supports (such as Iran's) are far-RIGHT.

- Jordan
d***@hotmail.com
2006-07-09 15:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jordan
What is _with_ Clark, anyway?
Perhaps he feels that no matter who the person is everyone deserves
representation in court. Perhaps he's a publicity hound. Perhaps a
little bit of both.
Matt Giwer
2006-07-10 01:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jordan
What is _with_ Clark, anyway? It seems to me as if he is willing to
support _any_ regime, no matter how incredibly vile, provided that it
is anti-American. This can't even be called "being too liberal," as
some of the regimes he supports (such as Iran's) are far-RIGHT.
It seems to me his choices are those who are demonized by one political faction
in the US and those who have become anti-american do to the acts of one
political faction in the US. For example, 20-25 million Iraqis who have become
anti-American as a result of the US war of aggression on Iraq.
--
One of every eight Mexicans is in the US illegally.
Is there any question why Americans are pissed?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3643
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9
Matt Giwer
2006-07-10 01:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Wiser
One could make the argument (and many former POWs do, along with their supporters and
family members) that traveling to an enemy country in wartime and making propaganda on
behalf of said enemy would meet the Constitutional definition of "aid and comfort to the enemy." By that reckoning, Ramsey Clark would still be in Federal Prison, instead of
being every dictator's lawyer and best friend. (Clark did go to North Vietnam after Hanoi
Jane's trip, btw. His conduct since would have earned him additional trips to the slammer-
supporting Khadafy, the mullahocracy in Iran, Saddam, Kim il-Sung and his wacky son Kim Jong-il in NK, Milosevic, Noreiga, Castro, etc.)
However it does not convert the country into an enemy in law, so to speak.
--
If Israel's response in Gaza is legitimate for the capture of one soldier
then Krystalnacht was a legitimate response to the murder of one ambassador.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3671
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6
Matt Giwer
2006-07-06 04:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by TXZZ
Does this further stabilize, or de-stabilize america in that time?
It would have brought to court the obvious fact that there was no declared war
and therefore no declared enemy. That is the sort of thing the US would not want
to bring to trial. It would have set the stage today for obvious legal
challenges to the undeclared "war" on terrorism and war on Afghanistan and Iraq.
--
There may be ten billion names of God but God is not one of them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 365
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3
Matt Wiser
2006-07-06 05:33:59 UTC
Permalink
"TXZZ" <***@aol.com> wrote:
Declared or not, the U.S. was in a state of war with North Vietnam. Declarations of war have
gone the way of the horse and buggy. Thus, the same conduct would be viewed as treasonous if someone went to say, Iran or North Korea during any future hostilities and
behaved in a manner similar to Ms. Fonda. Ditto for anyone who travels to Iraq and either
Afghanistan or Pakistan to show support for the various guerillas/insurgents/terrorists and then returns to the U.S. You can bet that the current Attorney General would convene a
Grand Jury to see if sufficient evidence to indict for Treason exists, and if it does, someone
gets a fast trip to a Federal lockup for an extended stay....Today's definition of "aid and
comfort" is not what the Founders had in mind, but making propaganda on behalf of an
enemy in wartime would not be viewed with sympathy by a jury. I'm suprised former POWs
haven't sued either Ms. Fonda or the other activists who visited NVN and met POWs, very
few of whom had a choice in the matter.....

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Matt Giwer
2006-07-06 07:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Wiser
Declared or not, the U.S. was in a state of war with North Vietnam. Declarations of war have
gone the way of the horse and buggy.
The desire for them to be out dated is exactly what a court case would have
addressed. The constitution says specifically what is required to have a state
of war. That clearly leads to who is an official enemy to whom one can give aid
and comfort. It is difficult to see how the court could ignore the constitution
and permit war to come into existence because the party controlling the White
House says so.

Now one can attempt to substitute congressional resolutions but as we saw in
the current Iraq war they are simply ignored or lied about. The laws cited
required Iraq to be in violation of UN Security Council resolutions regarding
chemical and biological weapons and to support terrorism. Bush sent a letter to
Congress saying both were true. As we know both of his statements were lies.
Post by Matt Wiser
Thus, the same conduct would be viewed as treasonous if someone went to say,
Iran or North Korea during any future hostilities and
behaved in a manner similar to Ms. Fonda.
Iran is another good example. As we all know there is ZERO evidence Iran has a
nuclear weapons program. Therefore at attack on Iran on that basis would be no
more than the act of the party controlling the White House.

And this is before addressing the fact that all unprovoked wars not in response
to an imminent threat are war crimes as was established by the Nuremberg tribunal.
Post by Matt Wiser
Ditto for anyone who travels to Iraq and either
Afghanistan or Pakistan to show support for the various guerillas/insurgents/terrorists
and then returns to the U.S. You can bet that the current Attorney General
would convene a
Post by Matt Wiser
Grand Jury to see if sufficient evidence to indict for Treason exists,
and if it does, someone gets a fast trip to a Federal lockup for an extended
stay....

And that is why a formal declaration of war is so important. The California kid
captured in Afghanistan was railroaded into a guilty plea. What did he do? Most
I can see is he defended himself against mainly Afghan warlords and some planes
trying to kill him from 20,000 feet. It is questionable they could be identified
at that altitude.
Post by Matt Wiser
Today's definition of "aid and
comfort" is not what the Founders had in mind, but making propaganda on behalf of an
enemy in wartime would not be viewed with sympathy by a jury. I'm suprised former POWs
haven't sued either Ms. Fonda or the other activists who visited NVN and met POWs, very
few of whom had a choice in the matter.....
Perhaps the reason they have not is simply because the absense of a declaration
of war makes such a suit unwinnable.
--
Whenever you read of Bush talking about withdrawing troops from Iraq you can
be certain the next day will have a report of sending additional troops.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3658
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11
Aaron Kuperman
2006-07-06 16:25:52 UTC
Permalink
You would have to go back to John Marshall who defined "treason" so
narrowly that no lawyer would touch the case (which is why Amreican
traitors are charged with statutory offenses rather than either common law
or constitutional treason).
The Horny Goat
2006-07-06 20:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aaron Kuperman
You would have to go back to John Marshall who defined "treason" so
narrowly that no lawyer would touch the case (which is why Amreican
traitors are charged with statutory offenses rather than either common law
or constitutional treason).
You're probably right and there's no question that under British law
Fonda would unquestionably have been guilty. In the trial of William
Joyce (aka "Lord Haw-Haw") defence tried to claim that as a
non-British citizen it was impossible for him to commit treason
against the British crown or government since he had never pledged any
sort of allegiance. What hung him in the end was his British passport
since passports infer the protection of the issuing state - and no
state gives a passport to one who has not given any kind of
allegiance.

Under British law, after that anti-aircraft gun picture was produced
in evidence pretty much the ONLY thing remaining before a conviction
would have been corroborating evidence that the gun was in fact in
Hanoi where it was stated to be. I doubt very much that credible
evidence could have been introduced suggesting the target of said gun
was other than USAF / USN.

In other words a pretty easy conviction.

(The usual disclaimer: IANAL)
Matt Giwer
2006-07-07 09:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Aaron Kuperman
You would have to go back to John Marshall who defined "treason" so
narrowly that no lawyer would touch the case (which is why Amreican
traitors are charged with statutory offenses rather than either common law
or constitutional treason).
You're probably right and there's no question that under British law
Fonda would unquestionably have been guilty. In the trial of William
Joyce (aka "Lord Haw-Haw") defence tried to claim that as a
non-British citizen it was impossible for him to commit treason
against the British crown or government since he had never pledged any
sort of allegiance. What hung him in the end was his British passport
since passports infer the protection of the issuing state - and no
state gives a passport to one who has not given any kind of
allegiance.
Under British law, after that anti-aircraft gun picture was produced
in evidence pretty much the ONLY thing remaining before a conviction
would have been corroborating evidence that the gun was in fact in
Hanoi where it was stated to be. I doubt very much that credible
evidence could have been introduced suggesting the target of said gun
was other than USAF / USN.
In other words a pretty easy conviction.
And in applying the British law it meant a common law standard including all
the treason cases since at least 1066. Not good.

Although if I understand what he did correctly he would have gotten the same
treatment under US law if a citizen. There was a state of war and therefore a
designated enemy. Broadcasting in favor of the enemy or against the US would
clearly be aid to the enemy. (I think the meaning of comfort meant in context in
those days something like sheltering wounded enemies without turning them in.)
--
When the Supreme Court found the Guantanamo military tribunals were in
violation of the Geneva Conventions it implicitely found him guilty of war
crimes.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3670
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12
Matt Giwer
2006-07-07 09:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aaron Kuperman
You would have to go back to John Marshall who defined "treason" so
narrowly that no lawyer would touch the case (which is why Amreican
traitors are charged with statutory offenses rather than either common law
or constitutional treason).
I will need a URL to see what you are talking about. If you mean his personal
defintion it had no standing. Only the definition in law written pursuant to the
constitution mattered. At the time treason was defined in the constitution the
point was to negate common law treason as over the preceeding centuries a very
wide range of actions were considered treason including speaking out for the
wrong religion. Speaking against the Church of England was the same as speaking
against the King who was the head of it.

Clearly there has to be a specific definition of treason because it has been
subject to political invention since it was invented.

This should be a clear example. All during the cold war there were Americans
saying good things about the Soviet Union. By the rules of English common law
that was like saying good things about Napolean back in his day. Not that I have
a problem with exterminating communists but without a lawful war and thus a
lawful enemy that leads to treason being opposition for any foreign policy. That
is one huge loophole to leave in freedom of speech.

The constitutional definition requires the described overt acts not implicit
acts. The common law usage means disagreeing with government foreign policy can
be construed as aiding the enemy. In fact the "policy" that foreign policy
debate ends at the border is an outgrowth of that.

I do not see a problem with things the way they are. If it were as in the good
old days Wilson would have been executed for treason for exposing the yellowcake
hoax. This is not a trivial matter as common law treason has no consideration
for an element of truth but includes all internal acts which can be construed to
give assistance by implication without the necessity of establishing the fact.
--
Why do Americans consider Bush the worst president since 1945? Because the
poll only went back to 1945.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3660
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8
The Horny Goat
2006-07-07 20:44:10 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 09:17:18 GMT, Matt Giwer
Post by Matt Giwer
This should be a clear example. All during the cold war there were Americans
saying good things about the Soviet Union. By the rules of English common law
that was like saying good things about Napolean back in his day. Not that I have
a problem with exterminating communists but without a lawful war and thus a
lawful enemy that leads to treason being opposition for any foreign policy. That
is one huge loophole to leave in freedom of speech.
Hmmm. So you then would excuse the Rosenbergs and their ilk?

After all - the United States WAS at war during 1943-45 when Fuchs,
the Rosenbergs and the rest of their circle were doing their thing -
just not a war against the Soviets.

By the above logic the United States government should have invited
Soviet technical observers to Los Alamos.
Matt Giwer
2006-07-08 01:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 09:17:18 GMT, Matt Giwer
Post by Matt Giwer
This should be a clear example. All during the cold war there were Americans
saying good things about the Soviet Union. By the rules of English common law
that was like saying good things about Napolean back in his day. Not that I have
a problem with exterminating communists but without a lawful war and thus a
lawful enemy that leads to treason being opposition for any foreign policy. That
is one huge loophole to leave in freedom of speech.
Hmmm. So you then would excuse the Rosenbergs and their ilk?
They were charged with espionage and were guilty of it. Espionage is not
freedom of speech. In fact when accepting a clearance one gives up such rights
in areas which are classified. Accepting a clearance is voluntary and they have
your signature on the acceptence document. There is a short outline of the
penalties for violating it on that document. No one can claim ignorance.
Post by The Horny Goat
After all - the United States WAS at war during 1943-45 when Fuchs,
the Rosenbergs and the rest of their circle were doing their thing -
just not a war against the Soviets.
The Soviet Union was not a designated enemy of the US during WWII or at any
time in all of its existence. As with Pollard it is still espionage even if the
country is a supposed friend or ally. The release of classified information
requires specific approval from a person who in permitted to authorize such
release.

You notice Pollard is still in prison and Israel has yet to find a spy for
America in Israel to trade for him. That is the only reason those who spied for
Russia were released early. One hopes you were not falling for the "held longer
than any other" whine.

I never heard of any case where there was a charge of treason in the 20 years I
spent dealing with classified information. It was never part of the handling issue.
Post by The Horny Goat
By the above logic the United States government should have invited
Soviet technical observers to Los Alamos.
You do not appear to be following the discussion or are unable comprehend it.

You cannot confabulate espionage with treason because you want to.

If the US had chosen to invite technical observers it would have been a
different ball game but it chose to keep everything very highly classified. So
highly classified that groups of specialists were so compartmentalized that none
could reconstruct the entire project.
--
One of every eight Mexicans is in the US illegally.
Is there any question why Americans are pissed?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3643
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1
The Horny Goat
2006-07-08 02:42:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:27:36 GMT, Matt Giwer
Post by Matt Giwer
They were charged with espionage and were guilty of it. Espionage is not
freedom of speech. In fact when accepting a clearance one gives up such rights
in areas which are classified. Accepting a clearance is voluntary and they have
your signature on the acceptence document. There is a short outline of the
penalties for violating it on that document. No one can claim ignorance.
Post by The Horny Goat
After all - the United States WAS at war during 1943-45 when Fuchs,
the Rosenbergs and the rest of their circle were doing their thing -
just not a war against the Soviets.
The Soviet Union was not a designated enemy of the US during WWII or at any
time in all of its existence. As with Pollard it is still espionage even if the
country is a supposed friend or ally. The release of classified information
requires specific approval from a person who in permitted to authorize such
release.
You notice Pollard is still in prison and Israel has yet to find a spy for
America in Israel to trade for him. That is the only reason those who spied for
Russia were released early. One hopes you were not falling for the "held longer
than any other" whine.
Absolutely not. Please don't ask me to feel sympathy for the likes of
Pollard who if anything did worse than Ames.
Post by Matt Giwer
You do not appear to be following the discussion or are unable comprehend it.
You cannot confabulate espionage with treason because you want to.
What I am arguing is that the Rosenbergs, Ames, Pollard gave one
HELLUVA lot more 'aid and comfort' to their masters outside the United
States than did folks like Wiliam Joyce (who was hung) and Mildred
Gilard (aka "Axis Sally" who was not). I do understand the difference
between espionage and treason though say the difference is often quite
narrow. I would suggest to you that Philby, Burgess and McLean all
damaged the security of the UKoGBaNI far more than did Joyce though he
was admittedly hugely annoying to British soldiers.

Bear in mind that I am NOT an American and to the best of my knowledge
my wife's home town Burlington, Ontario was where the last executions
for treason in Canada were carried out less than 2 miles from where
she was born. I believe those executed (in what is believed to be the
last case of drawing and quartering in the British empire) were in
fact Americans which makes the case of treason arguable.
Post by Matt Giwer
If the US had chosen to invite technical observers it would have been a
different ball game but it chose to keep everything very highly classified. So
highly classified that groups of specialists were so compartmentalized that none
could reconstruct the entire project.
Despite postwar Communist rhetoric Moscow would certainly have been
amazed had the United States done anything else. Is there any doubt on
this point?
Matt Giwer
2006-07-08 03:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:27:36 GMT, Matt Giwer
Post by Matt Giwer
They were charged with espionage and were guilty of it. Espionage is not
freedom of speech. In fact when accepting a clearance one gives up such rights
in areas which are classified. Accepting a clearance is voluntary and they have
your signature on the acceptence document. There is a short outline of the
penalties for violating it on that document. No one can claim ignorance.
Post by The Horny Goat
After all - the United States WAS at war during 1943-45 when Fuchs,
the Rosenbergs and the rest of their circle were doing their thing -
just not a war against the Soviets.
The Soviet Union was not a designated enemy of the US during WWII or at any
time in all of its existence. As with Pollard it is still espionage even if the
country is a supposed friend or ally. The release of classified information
requires specific approval from a person who in permitted to authorize such
release.
You notice Pollard is still in prison and Israel has yet to find a spy for
America in Israel to trade for him. That is the only reason those who spied for
Russia were released early. One hopes you were not falling for the "held longer
than any other" whine.
Absolutely not. Please don't ask me to feel sympathy for the likes of
Pollard who if anything did worse than Ames.
Good because in bringing up Aims it was his failure to fully cooperate which
lead to attributing the losses due to Ames to Pollard and he was able to continue.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Matt Giwer
You do not appear to be following the discussion or are unable comprehend it.
You cannot confabulate espionage with treason because you want to.
What I am arguing is that the Rosenbergs, Ames, Pollard gave one
HELLUVA lot more 'aid and comfort' to their masters outside the United
States than did folks like Wiliam Joyce (who was hung) and Mildred
Gilard (aka "Axis Sally" who was not). I do understand the difference
between espionage and treason though say the difference is often quite
narrow. I would suggest to you that Philby, Burgess and McLean all
damaged the security of the UKoGBaNI far more than did Joyce though he
was admittedly hugely annoying to British soldiers.
I do not get the point of what you are trying to say. Treason also requires two
witnesses to each act. Where is one going to get the witnesses? Supeona the
handlers?
Post by The Horny Goat
Bear in mind that I am NOT an American and to the best of my knowledge
my wife's home town Burlington, Ontario was where the last executions
for treason in Canada were carried out less than 2 miles from where
she was born. I believe those executed (in what is believed to be the
last case of drawing and quartering in the British empire) were in
fact Americans which makes the case of treason arguable.
I would assume Canadian law follows from English common law in the matter of
treason. That of the US legal meaning does not. I have not researched it but I
assume the British use of common law treason during the Revolution pissed off so
many people that giving it a narrow meaning based upon the misuse seemed like a
good idea at the time.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Matt Giwer
If the US had chosen to invite technical observers it would have been a
different ball game but it chose to keep everything very highly classified. So
highly classified that groups of specialists were so compartmentalized that none
could reconstruct the entire project.
Despite postwar Communist rhetoric Moscow would certainly have been
amazed had the United States done anything else. Is there any doubt on
this point?
Again I am at a loss as to what point you are trying to make. You asked,

Hmmm. So you then would excuse the Rosenbergs and their ilk?

If you see the difference between espionage and treason what does the question
mean?
--
When the Supreme Court found the Guantanamo military tribunals were in
violation of the Geneva Conventions it implicitely found him guilty of war
crimes.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3670
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6
Jordan
2006-07-09 14:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Aaron Kuperman
You would have to go back to John Marshall who defined "treason" so
narrowly that no lawyer would touch the case (which is why Amreican
traitors are charged with statutory offenses rather than either common law
or constitutional treason).
I will need a URL to see what you are talking about. If you mean his personal
defintion it had no standing. Only the definition in law written pursuant to the
constitution mattered. At the time treason was defined in the constitution the
point was to negate common law treason as over the preceeding centuries a very
wide range of actions were considered treason including speaking out for the
wrong religion. Speaking against the Church of England was the same as speaking
against the King who was the head of it.
Clearly there has to be a specific definition of treason because it has been
subject to political invention since it was invented.
This should be a clear example. All during the cold war there were Americans
saying good things about the Soviet Union. By the rules of English common law
that was like saying good things about Napolean back in his day. Not that I have
a problem with exterminating communists but without a lawful war and thus a
lawful enemy that leads to treason being opposition for any foreign policy. That
is one huge loophole to leave in freedom of speech.
The constitutional definition requires the described overt acts not implicit
acts. The common law usage means disagreeing with government foreign policy can
be construed as aiding the enemy. In fact the "policy" that foreign policy
debate ends at the border is an outgrowth of that.
Actually, British law is largely based on the most recent precedents,
and simple verbal or written dissent hasn't been treated as "treason"
in that country for centuries. It _has_ sometimes been considered to
be other crimes, though, such as "sedition" or "seditious libel,"
depending on the context.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
The Horny Goat
2006-07-09 21:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jordan
Actually, British law is largely based on the most recent precedents,
and simple verbal or written dissent hasn't been treated as "treason"
in that country for centuries. It _has_ sometimes been considered to
be other crimes, though, such as "sedition" or "seditious libel,"
depending on the context.
Some people here figured I had a murky idea of the difference between
espionage and treason. A look at the appropriate Criminal Code of
Canada cite may demonstrate why:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec46.html

Criminal Code
PART II: OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
Treason and other Offences against the Queen’s Authority and Person
High treason

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm
tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or
restrains her;

(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against
whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a
state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they
are.

Treason


(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the
government of Canada or a province;

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an
agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information
or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or
scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by
that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of
Canada;

(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything
mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is
mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt
act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph
(b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b)
and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Canadian citizen


(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a
person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does
anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything
mentioned in subsection (2).

Overt act


(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of
conspiring is an overt act of treason.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 46; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.

To which I add while I am not a lawyer I would make the assumption
that jurisprudence in Canada on this issue is somewhat in the
mainstream of most English-speaking jurisdictions worldwide. (E.g. USA
/ UK / Oz / NZ etc.)

Thus under section 46.2(b) the Rosenburgs and others WOULD have been
guilty of treason under Canadian law irregardless of whether a state
of war existed with the country on behalf of whom they were operating.

Interestingly enough assassination attempts on the Crown are
considered High Treason while no mention of any other Royal is made
thus it is presumably OK to be a paparazzi and hound Chuck, Willie or
Harry to the exist that their limo drives into a cement column or
whatever else Mohammed Al-Fayed might be alleging about the death of
his son and his better known companion.

I apologize for the length of time it has taken me to come up with a
cite - it has been a busy week.
David Tenner
2006-07-09 23:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
To which I add while I am not a lawyer I would make the assumption
that jurisprudence in Canada on this issue is somewhat in the
mainstream of most English-speaking jurisdictions worldwide. (E.g. USA
/ UK / Oz / NZ etc.)
You are simply wrong on that point with regard to the United States where
the *definition* of treason is fixed in the Constitution, and only the
power "to declare the *Punishment* [emphasis added] of Treason" (provided
it does not work "Corruption of Blood or Forfeiture except during the Life
of the Person attainted") is left to Congress. Hence, the fact that
something could be defined as treason by statute in Canada does not mean
that it could be so defined in the United States. (And as Hurst notes,
"the constitutional prohibition on creation of new 'treasons' limits the
courts as well as the Congress."
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_5.htm)

Of course, as I said, the narrow definition of treason is not particularly
helpful to people convicted and sentenced to death for espionage or some
other offense. See *United States v. Rosenberg*, 195 F.2d 583 (2nd Cir.
1952) where the convictions and death sentences of the Rosenbergs were
upheld in an opinion written by the famous liberal Jerome Frank:

"In their petition for rehearing, the defendants, for the first time, urge
as pertinent that portion of Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution,
which provides: '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 Rosenbergs, as we understand them, rest two arguments on this
provision.

"(1) The first runs thus: (a) Had the defendants been indicted and tried
for giving aid to an 'enemy,' the crime charged would have been treason,
and they could not have been convicted unless the trial judge instructed
the jury as to the two-witness rule and told the jury specifically the
overt act or acts which a jury must find in order to justify a verdict of
guilty. n43 (b) Here the defendants were indicted and tried for giving aid
to a country which was not an 'enemy.' (c) Consequently, the crime of
which they were accused was of the same kind as treason- but of a lesser
degree. (d) The constitutional safeguards applicable to a trial of the
greater crime of this kind must be applied to the lesser. (e) But here
there were no such safeguards, since the trial judge did not give the
instructions constitutionally required in a treason trial.

"The Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 38, 63 S.Ct.
2, 16, 87 L.Ed. 3, disposes of this contention. There the defendants,
including Haupt and Burger, United States citizens, were held guilty of
violating the article of War which make it a crime, punishable by death,
for an enemy belligerent to pass our boundaries without uniform or other
insignia signifying belligerent status. 10 U.S.C.A. @@ 1471-1593.
Admittedly, the conduct constituting this crime would also, in the case of
Haupt and Burger, have constituted treason, but this crime of which the
defendants were accused was more specific than treason. The Supreme Court
(of its own motion) raised, and then rejected, the argument that, on this
account, the procedural requirements of a treason trial must be, and had
not been satisfied. The Court said: 'The argument leaves out of account
the nature of the offense which the Government charges and which the Act
of Congress, by incorporating the law of war, punishes. It is that each
petitioner, in circumstances which gave him the status of an enemy
belligerent, passed our military and naval lines and defenses or went
behind those lines, in civilian dress and with hostile purpose. The
offense was complete when with that purpose they entered- or, having so
entered, they remained upon- our territory in time of war without uniform
or other appropriate means of identification. For that reason, even when
committed by a citizen, the offense is distinct from the crime of treason
defined in Article III, @ 3 of the Constitution, since the absence of
uniform essential to one is irrelevant to the other. Cf. Morgan v. Devine,
237 U.S. 632, 35 S.Ct. 712, 59 L.Ed. 1153; Albrecht v. United States, 273
U.S. 1, 11, 12, 47 S.Ct. 250, 253, 254, 71 L.Ed. 505.' This ruling has
been criticized. See e.g., Hurst, Treason in the United States, 58 Harvard
Law Rev. (1945) 395, 421. n44 But this ruling binds inferior courts such
as ours. n45 In the Quirin case, the absence of uniform was an additional
element, essential to Haupt's non-treason offense although irrelevant to
his treason; *in the Rosenbergs' case, an essential element of treason,
giving aid to an 'enemy,' is irrelevant to the espionage offense.*
[emphasis added]

"(2) The Rosenbergs present a second argument, which is a variant of the
first and is as follows: (a) Traditionally, and in this country by
statute, the courts have been authorized to impose the death penalty for
treason. (b) To authorize such a sentence for a similar but less grave
offense, in the trial of which there are omitted the guaranteed safeguards
of a treason trial, is to permit 'cruel and unusual' punishment in
violation of the Constitution. (c) That part of the Espionage Act which
authorizes the death sentence is therefore unconstitutional. (d)
Accordingly, the trial judge should be directed to reduce the sentence.
n46

"This argument, we think, involves an unfounded assumption, e.e., that
Congress will always authorize the death sentence for treason. Without
that assumption the argument would compel the strange conclusion that, if
Congress, in its discretion, authorized a maximum twenty-year penalty for
treason, no greater punishment could be given for espionage, sedition or a
similar crime without its becoming 'cruel and unusual.' Moreover, as the
Quirin case had the unavoidable consequence of permitting death sentences
to be imposed upon the citizen-saboteurs for crimes other than treason,
the Supreme Court must there have implicitly rejected the 'cruel and
unusual' argument. As, however, the Supreme Court did not specifically
discuss it, that Court may well think it desirable to review that aspect
of our decision in this case.

"Petition for rehearing denied.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROS_CT1.HTM
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
The Horny Goat
2006-07-10 05:30:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:20:13 -0000, David Tenner
Post by David Tenner
Post by The Horny Goat
To which I add while I am not a lawyer I would make the assumption
that jurisprudence in Canada on this issue is somewhat in the
mainstream of most English-speaking jurisdictions worldwide. (E.g. USA
/ UK / Oz / NZ etc.)
You are simply wrong on that point with regard to the United States where
the *definition* of treason is fixed in the Constitution, and only the
power "to declare the *Punishment* [emphasis added] of Treason" (provided
it does not work "Corruption of Blood or Forfeiture except during the Life
of the Person attainted") is left to Congress. Hence, the fact that
something could be defined as treason by statute in Canada does not mean
that it could be so defined in the United States. (And as Hurst notes,
"the constitutional prohibition on creation of new 'treasons' limits the
courts as well as the Congress."
I never *said* I believed the Canadian definition of treason exactly
matched that of the United States or any other English-speaking
country. What I said was that I guessed that there was a common view
in the English-speaking world as to what was treason and what was not
and that my country probably fit into international norms.

Canadian law is not exactly known for being out of step with British
or American jurisprudence though lawyers whose judgement I trust say
it started about 95% in synch with Britain and has been moving towards
American standards since. Given the history of the country as a whole
this ought not to shock anyone.

I'm well aware that if I chose I could look up the US Code online but
I didn't see the point since for the third time I am not a lawyer.
(I'm not aware that any of the grognards here have declared that
profession)

I am well aware there are differing standards of evidence particularly
when discussing high crimes / major felonies or whatever term you use.
We discussed it a lot in our household when I was growing up as my
grandfather (who was definitely my mentor) served on a very high
profile jury in the 60s. I've referred to that case here previously
more than once.
David Tenner
2006-07-10 14:02:17 UTC
Permalink
The Horny Goat <***@home.ca> wrote in news:***@4ax.com:

[snippage]

It's not clear to me whether you are now willing to acknowledge that *in
the United States* the atomic spies could not have been convicted of
treason. I again refer you to Judge Frank's opinion in the *Rosenberg*
case, which makes clear enough the difference between treason and
espionage (except against an enemy in wartime) under US law.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROS_CT1.HTM
Post by The Horny Goat
I'm well aware that if I chose I could look up the US Code online but
I didn't see the point since for the third time I am not a lawyer.
(I'm not aware that any of the grognards here have declared that
profession)
The subject of lawyers in this group has been brought up on several
occasions. See, e.g.,
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/d804d8257bcac171
Unfortunately, a number of them, like Doug Hoff and Jonathan Edelstein,
don't post here any more (though one can always hope for a return).
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
The Horny Goat
2006-07-10 15:40:16 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:02:17 -0000, David Tenner
Post by David Tenner
It's not clear to me whether you are now willing to acknowledge that *in
the United States* the atomic spies could not have been convicted of
treason. I again refer you to Judge Frank's opinion in the *Rosenberg*
case, which makes clear enough the difference between treason and
espionage (except against an enemy in wartime) under US law.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROS_CT1.HTM
Yup. Point granted.

While I understand Frank's reasoning, given the facts in the Rosenberg
case it would seem to me a treason charge could reasonably have been
laid. It would not have been the "slam dunk" the espionage charges
were but it looks a fair go. I completely understand the higher
American constitutional requirements of treason vs. espionage for
conviction.

[One thing I did NOT catch in the Canadian criminal code previously
cited is the date that section was last amended - I would strongly
suspect it was done both in parallel to a study of other country's
acts and with special reference to several cases in the period 1945-50
of which this case was almost certainly one of them. Certainly it
would seem likely that Parliament would refine legislation to more
specifically deal with things which trial judges internationally had
had to deal with without benefit of legislation.]

It seems to me that the major notoriety of the Rosenberg case was due
to the death sentences rather than the actual crime committed. I'm not
convinced they were the most culpable in their ring though clearly
Julius Rosenberg was the 'quarterback'. It is doubtful anyone would
remember them had they died in prison either before or after 1991.

[One MAJOR difference between Canadian and American jurisprudence is
that a US appeal court does not have power to alter a sentence -
locally about two months ago we had a high-profile case where the
appeal court did just that. It was a drunk driving causing death case
where the defendant had had more than six previous DWI convictions but
this was the first one where someone died. (She tested higher than .20
and turned onto a freeway going the wrong direction. Since it was 2 am
she went at least 1 1/2 miles before narrowly missing one car and
hitting the victim's car head on). There was a public hue and cry at
the sentence and the provincial attorney general who was a former
Supreme Court judge called for an appeal of the sentence]
Post by David Tenner
Post by The Horny Goat
I'm well aware that if I chose I could look up the US Code online but
I didn't see the point since for the third time I am not a lawyer.
(I'm not aware that any of the grognards here have declared that
profession)
The subject of lawyers in this group has been brought up on several
occasions. See, e.g.,
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/d804d8257bcac171
Unfortunately, a number of them, like Doug Hoff and Jonathan Edelstein,
don't post here any more (though one can always hope for a return).
Either or better yet both of them would be a welcome addition to this
place - I remember them well though don't recall the reference you
cited. So is it true that the only lawyers currently active here are
you and Mr. Muir?
David Tenner
2006-07-10 16:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Either or better yet both of them would be a welcome addition to this
place - I remember them well though don't recall the reference you
cited. So is it true that the only lawyers currently active here are
you and Mr. Muir?
No, there's Raymond Speer and Lee Ratner. (And Dennis Brennan, though he
hasn't posted here very recently.) Also, among non-US posters there is at
least one lawyer, Stephen Copinger.
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
d***@hushmail.com
2006-07-11 04:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Tenner
Post by The Horny Goat
Either or better yet both of them would be a welcome addition to this
place - I remember them well though don't recall the reference you
cited. So is it true that the only lawyers currently active here are
you and Mr. Muir?
No, there's Raymond Speer and Lee Ratner. (And Dennis Brennan, though he
hasn't posted here very recently.)
And Jonathan Edelstein same. And doesn't Colin Alberts have a JD?

d1b9 "son of a lawyer man" ***@hushmail.com
a***@pacific.net.au
2006-07-11 04:58:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@hushmail.com
Post by David Tenner
Post by The Horny Goat
Either or better yet both of them would be a welcome addition to this
place - I remember them well though don't recall the reference you
cited. So is it true that the only lawyers currently active here are
you and Mr. Muir?
No, there's Raymond Speer and Lee Ratner. (And Dennis Brennan, though he
hasn't posted here very recently.)
And Jonathan Edelstein same. And doesn't Colin Alberts have a JD?
Not a very nice thing to say about his offspring <grin>

JD = Juvenile Delinquent

In Oz, LlB = Law Degree (mostly)

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au
David Tenner
2006-07-11 13:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@hushmail.com
Post by David Tenner
Post by The Horny Goat
Either or better yet both of them would be a welcome addition to this
place - I remember them well though don't recall the reference you
cited. So is it true that the only lawyers currently active here are
you and Mr. Muir?
No, there's Raymond Speer and Lee Ratner. (And Dennis Brennan, though
he hasn't posted here very recently.)
And Jonathan Edelstein same. And doesn't Colin Alberts have a JD?
I mentioned Jonathan Edelstein in the post to which The Horny Goat was
responding:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/3dc151c9e4c03ff4

Alas, Jonathan has not been posting much here recently, perhaps in part
because of the effort he devotes to his own (excellent) blog:
http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
c***@hotmail.com
2006-07-11 14:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@hushmail.com
Post by David Tenner
Post by The Horny Goat
Either or better yet both of them would be a welcome addition to this
place - I remember them well though don't recall the reference you
cited. So is it true that the only lawyers currently active here are
you and Mr. Muir?
No, there's Raymond Speer and Lee Ratner. (And Dennis Brennan, though he
hasn't posted here very recently.)
And Jonathan Edelstein same. And doesn't Colin Alberts have a JD?
He does.

ObWI: WI the bulk of US law schools in the 1970s retain the title of
their basic degree as a "Bachelor of Laws" (LLB) rather than the
new-fangled "Juris Doctor"? ISTR a story (possibly an urban legend)
that it was some clever grad from HLS in the early 70s who realized
that having a "doctorate" meant an automatic boost in your placement in
the federal GS pay scale, and lobbied his alma mater to relabel the
degree, leading most of the rest to follow in its wake. This despite
the fact that no dissertation or thesis is involved...

Colin Alberts
quod scripsi scripsi
Matt Wiser
2006-07-10 04:58:18 UTC
Permalink
David Tenner <***@ameritech.net> wrote:

There was only one Japanese-American who had been in the Imperial Army who was tried
postwar: Tomaya Kwakita was visiting relatives in Japan when Pearl Harbor happened, and
he joined the Japanese Army. An interpeter at a POW camp in Japan, his brutality towards
American POWs earned him a lengthy stay in Federal Prison after the war.

AAF Lt. Martin J. Monti flew a P-38 to Vienna in early '44 and defected to the Germans; he
offered to join the Luftwaffe and fly against the Soviets, but the Germans made him a Capt. in
the Waffen-SS and gave him command of a unit made up of German-Americans. He got
25 years postwar. The charge WAS Treason. Wasn't Mildred Sellars (Axis Sally) given the
same charge?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Stan Boleslawski
2006-07-11 18:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Wiser
Treason
(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,
(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the
government of Canada or a province;
(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an
agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information
or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or
scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by
that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of
Canada;
(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything
mentioned in paragraph (a);
(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is
mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt
act; or
(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph
(b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b)
and manifests that intention by an overt act.
So, this opens up some ObWI territory: WI the FLQ leaders had
been tried on treason charges? Their actions seemed to meet the
definitions of treason mentioned in 2(a), {c), and (d).

Most likely, it was probably easier to convict Schoeters for
terrorism, Vallieres and Lanctot for conspiracy to commit
kidnapping, Cossette-Trudel for extortion, and Villeneuve,
Rose, and Hudon for murder, than to
convict any of them for treason, but did prosecutors ever
consider pressing treason charges against any of them?
Would convictions be possible?

What would be the political effects of any of the FLQ
leadership being tried for treason? Would the
perception of martyrdom boost the FLQ's support
at the expense of the Parti Quebecois, or would all
Quebec nationalists be discredited by association
(at least for awhile). Would the referendum on
independence come to pass in this TL?

Stan B.
Matt Giwer
2006-07-10 01:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jordan
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Aaron Kuperman
You would have to go back to John Marshall who defined "treason" so
narrowly that no lawyer would touch the case (which is why Amreican
traitors are charged with statutory offenses rather than either common law
or constitutional treason).
I will need a URL to see what you are talking about. If you mean his personal
defintion it had no standing. Only the definition in law written pursuant to the
constitution mattered. At the time treason was defined in the constitution the
point was to negate common law treason as over the preceeding centuries a very
wide range of actions were considered treason including speaking out for the
wrong religion. Speaking against the Church of England was the same as speaking
against the King who was the head of it.
Clearly there has to be a specific definition of treason because it has been
subject to political invention since it was invented.
This should be a clear example. All during the cold war there were Americans
saying good things about the Soviet Union. By the rules of English common law
that was like saying good things about Napolean back in his day. Not that I have
a problem with exterminating communists but without a lawful war and thus a
lawful enemy that leads to treason being opposition for any foreign policy. That
is one huge loophole to leave in freedom of speech.
The constitutional definition requires the described overt acts not implicit
acts. The common law usage means disagreeing with government foreign policy can
be construed as aiding the enemy. In fact the "policy" that foreign policy
debate ends at the border is an outgrowth of that.
Actually, British law is largely based on the most recent precedents,
and simple verbal or written dissent hasn't been treated as "treason"
in that country for centuries. It _has_ sometimes been considered to
be other crimes, though, such as "sedition" or "seditious libel,"
depending on the context.
It may be that now but what was it in the late 1700s when the provision was
written?

I have to problem with the provision as written. It prevents the party in power
from being able to declare political enemies and have treason apply. As with
Iraq, Hussein was purely a political enemy in the same manner Iran is today.
Those are political enemies of the war party or whatever you want to call it.
There is no justification for calling them enemies.

I do not remember the details but during Vietnam there were articles by pro-war
types saying why it was undesirable to actually have a declaration of war. I
sort of remember one of the reasons being that all the WWII presidential powers
that had never been revoked would come into force. Sending Vietnamese and
perhaps Cambodians to camps would be a granted power. Censorship boards,
rationing, all the rest would come within the powers of the president.
--
When I was a child my family was so poor we could not afford a computer.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3648
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1
David Tenner
2006-07-08 00:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aaron Kuperman
You would have to go back to John Marshall who defined "treason" so
narrowly that no lawyer would touch the case (which is why Amreican
traitors are charged with statutory offenses rather than either common
law or constitutional treason).
Note, though, that Marshall's opinion in the *Burr* case related almost
entirely to the "levying War" branch of treason, not the "adhering to
their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" branch.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/burr/burropinion.html
Presumably Fonda would have been tried under the latter branch. The issue
of whether this latter branch can be applied where there is no formal
declaration of war against the "enemy"is AFAIK unresolved. According to
James Willard Hurst's *The Law of Treason in the United States*:

"The march of events raised a new point relevant to general limitations on
the treason offense. In earlier doctrine there was an assumption, more
often implied than stated, that treason by adhering to and aiding an
'enemy' could be committed only during a formally declared state of war.20
By mid-20th century the country found itself in shooting wars which
Congress had not formally declared. In two matters connected with the
undeclared Korean war, where treason charges were not directly in issue
but policy concerning the scope of treason figured in the handling of the
matters at issue, some judges apparently assumed that a foreign power
which was shooting at United States forces was an 'enemy' within the
meaning of the treason clause despite absence of a declaration of war.21
There is realism in this position. But there were also enough
possibilities of uncertain definition in it to run counter to the
traditional restrictive policy of the Constitution."
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_6.htm

(Hurst's invaluable--though by now somewhat dated--book is available in
its entirety online at
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason.htm)

I think that we are overlooking one reason Fonda was not tried. It was
not just the legal problems of establishing treason; after all, some other
charge could have been brought instead. It was the *timing* of Fonda's
trip to North Vietnam. It was in August 1972. The election was only
three months away, and Nixon was trying hard to convince the American
people that the war was being wound down, that peace was at hand.
Prosecuting Fonda would simply have focused more attention on the war,
which is the last thing Nixon wanted at the time. Had the trip been two
years earlier, things might have been different.

Finally, the question of whether one can have an "enemy" with which one is
not formally at war brings us back to our old friend, the Sedition Act.
The US did not declare war on France in 1798, though there was an
undeclared naval "quasi-war." Nevertheless, the Senate proposed a law
compared to which the Sedition Act as ultimately passed was the epitome of
libertarianism:

"But in the course of June the sedition question was preempted by the
Senate, and the bill on which the completed act was based had its origin
there rather than in the House. The proposed measure was exceedingly
drastic. Its guiding light was James Lloyd of Maryland, as wrathful a
spirit in the Senate as was John Allen in the House. Lloyd's bill dealt
with treason as well as sedition. He had the novel idea that there was
such a thing as treason in peacetime--or rather, that it was possible to
have an 'enemy' with which one was not at war, that the enemy was France
and should be named as such, and that giving aid and comfort and adhering
to that enemy should be punishable by death. The sections on sedition
were similar to those in the House omnibus bill. Seditious utterances
could include anything that might cause a belief that the federal
government had passed laws from motives 'hostile to the constitution, or
liberties and happiness of the people,' which could cover almost anything
in the way of opposition; and 'libelous or scandalous' writings or
expressions were punishable whether false or true. Expressions tending to
justify the French government were also punishable. Hamilton emitted
another groan when he saw this, and made predictions of trouble. Even the
Senate, though generally of a more imperious temper than the House, had
its second thoughts, and its members did not need Hamilton to tell them
they had better pull back. They struck out the entire section relating to
treason, and all references to France. The bill they then passed and sent
to the House was one that more or less reflected traditional common-law
practice concerning sedition.

"But this was still too much for the House, where misgivings remained, and
a number of further limitations were added, nearly all at the initiative
of Federalist members. It was these amendments that have led a modern
authority to comment that the Sedition Act of 1798 represented a
substantial liberalization of the common law of seditious libel as it then
stood..." Elkins and McKitrick, *The Age of Federalism,* p. 592. So a
possible what-if would be what if James Lloyd's sedition-and-treason law
had passed, but given that the House approved even the "liberalized"
Sedition Act by only a 44-41 margin, that seems most unlikely...
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
The Horny Goat
2006-07-08 01:15:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 00:11:10 -0000, David Tenner
Post by David Tenner
Finally, the question of whether one can have an "enemy" with which one is
not formally at war brings us back to our old friend, the Sedition Act.
The US did not declare war on France in 1798, though there was an
undeclared naval "quasi-war." Nevertheless, the Senate proposed a law
compared to which the Sedition Act as ultimately passed was the epitome of
Of course you can have an "enemy" one is not formally at war with -
what were the "Atomic Spy" prosecutions about if not that? No one
suggests Abel or a host of Soviet spies were spying on behalf of a
friendly state just because a state of war did not exist between the
United States and the Soviets.

Meanwhile Jonathan Pollard rots away in prison for espionage on behalf
of a state the United States is allied to.

I'd argue any or all of these people could have reasonably been tried
for treason.
David Tenner
2006-07-08 02:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Of course you can have an "enemy" one is not formally at war with -
what were the "Atomic Spy" prosecutions about if not that? No one
suggests Abel or a host of Soviet spies were spying on behalf of a
friendly state just because a state of war did not exist between the
United States and the Soviets.
Meanwhile Jonathan Pollard rots away in prison for espionage on behalf
of a state the United States is allied to.
I'd argue any or all of these people could have reasonably been tried
for treason.
I'd argue that they couldn't have been. These were prosecutions for
espionage, not treason, and there was a reason for that. (Obviously, this
was not much comfort for the defendants, especially those sentenced to
death.) In fact, in the Rosenberg case, the jury was specifically
instructed that whether the Soviet Union had been an ally of the US at the
time of the defendants' alleged espionage was irrelevant.

One can argue that when there is a shooting war, there can be an "enemy"
within the meaning of Article 3, section 3, clause 1
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_3_1-2.html without a
declaration of war, though as I mentioned, this has never been resolved by
the Supreme Court. (And in any event there can be arguments whether things
like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the resolutions authorizing the use
of force in the Gulf Wars were the functional equivalents of declarations
of war for purposes of the law of treason.) But neither spying for a Cold
War rival nor for an ally is, *legally* speaking, treason, though they may
be considered such in the popular usage of the word.
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Matt Giwer
2006-07-08 04:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 00:11:10 -0000, David Tenner
Post by David Tenner
Finally, the question of whether one can have an "enemy" with which one is
not formally at war brings us back to our old friend, the Sedition Act.
The US did not declare war on France in 1798, though there was an
undeclared naval "quasi-war." Nevertheless, the Senate proposed a law
compared to which the Sedition Act as ultimately passed was the epitome of
Of course you can have an "enemy" one is not formally at war with -
what were the "Atomic Spy" prosecutions about if not that? No one
suggests Abel or a host of Soviet spies were spying on behalf of a
friendly state just because a state of war did not exist between the
United States and the Soviets.
Meanwhile Jonathan Pollard rots away in prison for espionage on behalf
of a state the United States is allied to.
I'd argue any or all of these people could have reasonably been tried
for treason.
Again you do not appear to understand the difference.

You can argue but not in the US without a change in the constitution and in the
implementing laws. It is not an argument in the US save perhaps for amending the
constitution.

The Rosenbergs and Pollard was tried under the espionage laws. Those laws make
NO distinction regarding who gets the information. It can be other Americans
with the right level of clearance but no need to know.

Aid and comfort to the enemy requires a state of war to create an enemy.
--
If you want to understand Jews, look to the West Bank.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3665
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8
David Johnston
2006-07-08 06:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 00:11:10 -0000, David Tenner
Post by David Tenner
Finally, the question of whether one can have an "enemy" with which one is
not formally at war brings us back to our old friend, the Sedition Act.
The US did not declare war on France in 1798, though there was an
undeclared naval "quasi-war." Nevertheless, the Senate proposed a law
compared to which the Sedition Act as ultimately passed was the epitome of
Of course you can have an "enemy" one is not formally at war with -
what were the "Atomic Spy" prosecutions about if not that?
They were about espionage. It doesn't matter whether a power is
friend or hostile, spying on their behalf is illegal.
Matt Wiser
2006-07-08 22:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Matt Giwer <***@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

So the North Vietnamese were not an enemy, according to your view? Strange, every
Vietnam Vet I've talked to says they were. Declared or not, the U.S. and North Vietnam
were at war from a technical standpoint, and the U.S. Congress added North Vietnam to
the Trading With The Enemy Act shortly after ROLLING THUNDER began in 1965 IIRC.
I'd say the Baathist regime in Iraq was an enemy from 1991 to 2003 (remember, there was a
cease-fire, not a permanent end, to the First Gulf War), and North Korea is still an enemy of
the U.S., as there is only an armistice, not a permanent end, to the Korean War. The
Taliban became an enemy after 9-11, and Al-Queda has been one since the '90s (remeber, OBL declared war on the U.S. in 1997), but Slick Willie's administration treated them as criminals needing apprehension and prosecution, not armed enemies in need of plots of earth six feet by six feet by three feet. After 9-11, I don't see anyone advocating a return to the
former policy. You don't need a declaration of war to become an enemy of the U.S. They
worked fine up until WW II. Now, they're percieved as letting someone know you're coming.
I don't see the NKs issuing one if they ever move South of the DMZ, for example. They'll just
attack. And if there'd been a NATO-Warsaw Pact war in the '80s, for example, you think any
party would issue a declaration of war? Maybe the Soviet ambassador giving one just as the
T-80s and BMPs cross the Inner-German Border, but that's about it. Emphasize Maybe.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Matt Wiser
2006-07-08 03:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Tenner
--
David Tenner
David has something here that SCOTUS has never touched upon. Can certain conduct in
time of war, in which that war is not declared, but has been Congressionally authorized, be
considered Treason? While Tonkin Gulf had been repealed by the time of Hanoi Jane's trip,
there were still forces in the field (air and naval, mostly) engaged in combat operations
against NVN.Furthermore, there were peace activists who had visited NVN in the 1966-69
time frame that had met with POWs who did not have a say in the matter (Tom Hayden being
one that comes to mind), and several POWs after their release in 1973 mentioned that the
NVN hammered them again after the meetings because their conduct had not been "proper".
AF Capt. Larry Carrigan met with three members of a peace group called Women's Strike for
Peace, and as they left, they told a NVA officer that Carrigan was "wayward." His resulting
stint in the ropes dislocated one of his shoulders and he was severely beaten. Traveling to
an enemy country with which the U.S. is clearly at war with, but there has been no declaration of war, and engaging in behavior that is more beneficial to the enemy than your own country, should meet some definition of Treason. Engaging in propaganda activities on the enemy's behalf, meeting with POWs who may not have had a choice, and basically
extolling the enemy cause should qualify as Treason and be punished appropriately. Certainly
joining an enemy country's armed forces voluntarily qualifies as well. This is not the same
as an American who is forced into said enemy's armed forces (see the Iraqi-Americans who
were "drafted" into the Iraqi Army before DESERT STORM), or an American resident of an
enemy country who is forced to engage in propaganda activities under threat of imprisonment
or worse.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jordan
2006-07-09 14:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Wiser
Furthermore, there were peace activists who had visited NVN in the 1966-69
time frame that had met with POWs who did not have a say in the matter (Tom Hayden being
one that comes to mind), and several POWs after their release in 1973 mentioned that the
NVN hammered them again after the meetings because their conduct had not been "proper".
AF Capt. Larry Carrigan met with three members of a peace group called Women's Strike for
Peace, and as they left, they told a NVA officer that Carrigan was "wayward." His resulting
stint in the ropes dislocated one of his shoulders and he was severely beaten.
By the way, is there any website that lists these individuals? I think
that a lot of Vietnam veterans would love to personally, um, _thank_
them for their actions ... :D
Post by Matt Wiser
Certainly
joining an enemy country's armed forces voluntarily qualifies as well. This is not the same
as an American who is forced into said enemy's armed forces (see the Iraqi-Americans who
were "drafted" into the Iraqi Army before DESERT STORM), or an American resident of an
enemy country who is forced to engage in propaganda activities under threat of imprisonment
or worse.
Which is why "Tokyo Rose" got a bum rap in my opinion -- she was
trapped in Japan at the outbreak of the war and pretty much had to
broadcast or be executed, because the Japanese claimed her as a citizen
based on her descent, even though she was actually an American.

- Jordan
Aaron Kuperman
2006-07-10 13:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Prosecutors, being clever lawyers, prefer to use something they know will
work (prosecution for various statutory offenses, such as espionage)
rather than trying to prosecute someone for the constitutional offense of
treason. While in theory any grand jury could indict someone for the
treason, in practice a better defined and easier to prosecute statutory
offense will be used since it gets the same result with greater certainty
and LESS WORK FOR THE PROSECUTOR.
Matt Wiser
2006-07-08 04:54:05 UTC
Permalink
David Tenner <***@ameritech.net> wrote:

To charge her with Treason doesn't need to be done immediately; The trip was in Aug of '72,
so convene a grand jury in December or January, and when POWs come home, have some
of them testify about their meetings with her (only two met with her freely: they were
despised by their colleagues due to extensive collaboration with the North Vietnamese),
and review the transcripts and recordings of her broadcasts over Radio Hanoi, view the
infamous pictures of her at the triple-A site, and let the grand jury decide. It shouldn't be that
hard to get an indictment for Treason under the "aid and comfort to the enemy" clause.
And anyone who indirectly caused POWs grief would get no sympathy from any jury (except
maybe in the SF Bay Area.....). While torture of POWs had stopped in Sep of '69, there were
other coercive methods the NVN used: sleep and food deprivation, not treating wounds or
illnesses, continuous and rapid questioning, and isolation. Several were just plucked from
their cells and told they were meeting her in 5 min., like it or not. They still didn't have any
say in the matter. And then the POWs who heard her on the camp radios would no doubt
testify to the effect the broadcasts had on them as well. Bottom line: indictment, conviction,
and a stretch in Federal Prison.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
David Tenner
2006-07-08 14:21:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Wiser
To charge her with Treason doesn't need to be done immediately
[snippage]

Yes, but the problem with waiting until after the election is that (1)
after the peace agreement was signed and the troops came home, America
just wanted to forget the war (the great interest in the POWs came later),
and (2) most important, in early 1973 the Watergate story really broke
wide open, and any attempts at prosecution of Fonda would be seen as an
attempt by Nixon to divert public attention from Watergate. A not
unrelated fact is that the Justice Department was in turmoil in 1973;
Kleindienst resigned on April 29, and his succesor Eliot Richardson
probably would have little enthusiasm for this kind of case, especially
given its legally problematic nature.
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Matt Wiser
2006-07-11 00:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Matt Giwer <***@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

So you finally admit that broadcasting propaganda on behalf of an enemy is "aid and comfort
to the enemy".....Good. Now will you realize that you don't need a declaration of war to be
in a state of war? If two or more countries are shooting at each other in the air, at sea, and on
land, then it's a war, period. Notice that the rules of war (Geneva, etc.) apply whether or not thewar is declared or not. As far as I'm concerned, if someone travels to a country with which the U.S. is engaged in hostilities with, and conducts themselves in a manner such as engaging in propaganda activities on behalf of that country, meets with any American POWs (who will likely not have a choice in the matter), and generally engages in behavior that supports the cause of that hostile country, that's treason under the "aid and comfort to the enemy" clause.(Fonda, Hayden, Clark, and the others who visited NVN between 1966-72 would certainly qualify). Openly joining that country's armed forces voluntarily (Taliban John comes to mind)also qualifies. Notice that the Taliban were not recognized by the UN as the Afghan govt-the Northern Alliance was, and by just about everybody else; only Pakistan, Saudi, and the UAE had an embassy in Kabul recognizing the Taliban's govt, and those three pulled their staffs after OEF got started. And the Afghan troops who put down the Mazar-e-Sharif were Northern Alliance forces under Gen. Dostum. And yes, there were
Americans there (the SF and 10th Mountain Division guys previously mentioned, and some
AF Combat Controllers).

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Matt Giwer
2006-07-11 02:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Wiser
So you finally admit that broadcasting propaganda on behalf of an enemy is "aid and comfort
to the enemy".....Good.
If you would learn to quote it would be easier for me to see where you get your
mistaken ideas.

As I have said from the beginning, Congress never declared North Vietnam and
enemy by declaring war on the country.

If you had been paying attention at the time the fighting was agaisnt the Viet
Cong supported by ARVN. As the US supported the Mujehadeen in Afghanistan does
that mean the US was at war with Russia?
Post by Matt Wiser
Now will you realize that you don't need a declaration of war to be
in a state of war?
The US Constitution says we do.
Post by Matt Wiser
If two or more countries are shooting at each other in the air, at sea, and on
land, then it's a war, period. Notice that the rules of war (Geneva, etc.) apply whether
or not the war is declared or not.
The Geneva conventions do not supercede the US constitution. In ratifying the
conventions the US agreed to incorporate its provisions in US law. Only to the
extent of incorporation do they apply to the US.
Post by Matt Wiser
As far as I'm concerned, if someone travels to a country
with which the U.S. is engaged in hostilities with, and conducts themselves
in a manner
Post by Matt Wiser
such as engaging in propaganda activities on behalf of that country, meets
with any
Post by Matt Wiser
American POWs (who will likely not have a choice in the matter), and
generally engages
Post by Matt Wiser
in behavior that supports the cause of that hostile country, that's treason
under the
Post by Matt Wiser
"aid and comfort to the enemy" clause.
Your opinion is your own. It does not satisfy the requirements of US law. I
have invited you to produce the sections of the USC which support your opinion
and you have declined to do so.

Why do you keep returning with your unsupported, extralegal opinion instead of
citations of the law?
Post by Matt Wiser
(Fonda, Hayden, Clark, and the others who visited
NVN between 1966-72 would certainly qualify). Openly joining that country's
armed forces
Post by Matt Wiser
voluntarily (Taliban John comes to mind)also qualifies.
He did that before the US got around to invading Afghanistan after the invasion
was announced in April 2001. And if the Taliban is in fact the legal army of
Afghanistan everyone captured is a POW. That means everyone from the Taliban
imprisoned anywhere is held in violation of the Geneva Conventions as they must
be released after hostilities have ended. You really should learn something
about thing the things to talk about some day.

Lindh was not treated as a POW nor was the arrested under US law. That means
the druglord militias holding him were criminals for doing so. Why someone from
the CIA was supporting a criminal organization is for you to answer.
Post by Matt Wiser
Notice that the Taliban were not
recognized by the UN as the Afghan govt-the Northern Alliance was, and by
just about
Post by Matt Wiser
everybody else; only Pakistan, Saudi, and the UAE had an embassy in Kabul
recognizing
Post by Matt Wiser
the Taliban's govt, and those three pulled their staffs after OEF got
started. And the
Post by Matt Wiser
Afghan troops who put down the Mazar-e-Sharif were Northern Alliance forces under
Gen. Dostum. And yes, there were
Americans there (the SF and 10th Mountain Division guys previously mentioned, and some
AF Combat Controllers).
First you say

"Openly joining that country's armed forces voluntarily ..."

Then you say it was not the country's armed forces at all.

I do find it amusing that you accept what the UN determines over what the US
might think in this one case.

You jump back and forth between conflicting truths attempting to make a case.
Reasoned argument does not work that you. A conclusion flows from the premise.
If you change the premise you negate the conclusion from it.
--
Can anyone tell me the difference between Iraq with nuclear weapons and Iran
with nuclear weapons? The lies all sound the same to me.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3654
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3
Robert Kolker
2006-07-11 11:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
The US Constitution says we do.
Congress did not declare war upon the ruler of Tripoli or the Barbary
Sates. They just funded the naval squadrons. The President authorized
the attacks on Tripoli and on one objected.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Bob Kolker
Matt Giwer
2006-07-12 01:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by Matt Giwer
Now will you realize that you don't need a declaration of war to be in a state of war?
The US Constitution says we do.
Congress did not declare war upon the ruler of Tripoli or the Barbary
Sates. They just funded the naval squadrons. The President authorized
the attacks on Tripoli and on one objected.
What does that have to do with the subject? Are you suggesting someone was
charged with treason for supporting the pirates?

If I am not mistaken on the time a maritime agreement declaring pirates the
enemies of all mankind had been in effect for nearly a century at that time.
Taking action against pirates was not an issue of war. Something we might call a
police action today.
Post by Robert Kolker
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
Encyclopedias are not acceptable for post gradeschool research.
--
A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of
evils.
Pro-Israel is anti-American.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3642
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12
Matt Wiser
2006-07-06 08:08:17 UTC
Permalink
"TXZZ" <***@aol.com> wrote:
Son, have you ever talked to a Vietnam Vet? I personally know several, and to a man they
are disgusted by "Hanoi Jane" and her behavior. I have also met a former POW who, though
he didn't meet her, was put thru the rope torture and had two ribs broken from beatings so
that he would meet a "peace delegation." This was in late 1967. You want to tell them it
wasn't a real war and the North Vietnamese weren't a real enemy? The U.S. and North Vietnam were at war from an international law standpoint. That's all a court would need for any criminal or civil litigation regarding any of the peaceniks who went to NVN. And rest assured that if we were as litigous in 1973 as we are now, you bet Jane and her ilk would be sued by former POWs. And they would win. Interesting you bring up Johnny Walker "Taliban John" Lindh: He's right where he belongs-in Federal Prison. When the prisoners revolted at Mazar-e-Sharif, he was there, and participated in the uprising; and it just wasn't a few CIA paramilitary types with Afghans there: there's film via CNN, German TV, and ITN of U.S. Special Forces, British SAS, and fellas looking like light infantry with 10th Mountain Division patches. That's bearing arms against the U.S. and its allies-the full constitutional definition of Treason. Nancy Grace was correct back then: Lindh should have been tried for Treason. And he would have been convicted. No doubt. The fact that an American died there would be icing on the cake. Lindh is doing 20 years. Rest assured he will do the full 20 since the Federal Prison system has no parole.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Matt Giwer
2006-07-06 09:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Wiser
Son, have you ever talked to a Vietnam Vet? I personally know several, and to a man they
are disgusted by "Hanoi Jane" and her behavior. I have also met a former POW who, though
he didn't meet her, was put thru the rope torture and had two ribs broken from beatings so
that he would meet a "peace delegation."
In fact I have met vets and a POW, a SEAL in fact, a crasy SOB. Not only that I
agree completely with the attitude towards her. However that does not mean a
conviction on treason is possible.
Post by Matt Wiser
This was in late 1967. You want to tell them it
wasn't a real war and the North Vietnamese weren't a real enemy?
You appear to be confusing the fact of war and enemy with the constitutional
requirements for same. ALL federal laws must have a basis in the constitution.
The constitution says so. This is the same problem the antiabortion folks have
with actual murder but not legal murder. Both issues have similar problems in
treating abortion as legal murder and wars started by political parties as real
wars.

If there had been an enforced requirement during the Kennedy/Johnson years to
have a constitutional DoW we would not be having this discussion. It would have
been treason and she would have been sent to prison. Most likely she would never
have gone there knowing it was a real war.

OTOH if there were no DoW then 56,000+ Americans would not have died for
nothing. Repeat, died for NOTHING. We also would not have had a round of
inflation at a compound rate worth about 100% over the years in which it
occured. It may have not lead to a financial need for two income families. I can
recite more but requiring a DoW has benefits both ways depending upon whether or
not one is passed.
Post by Matt Wiser
The U.S. and North
Vietnam were at war from an international law standpoint. That's all a court
would need
Post by Matt Wiser
for any criminal or civil litigation regarding any of the peaceniks who went
to NVN.

As with the requirement for all Federal laws and court decisions to be founded
in the Constition courts are not permitted to make decisions based upon anything
but US law.
Post by Matt Wiser
And rest assured that if we were as litigous in 1973 as we are now, you bet
Jane and her
Post by Matt Wiser
ilk would be sued by former POWs. And they would win.
She can still be sued and the Vets are older and richer. Go for it. I am not
aware of a statute of limitations on civil suits nor on treason for that matter.
Post by Matt Wiser
Interesting you bring up Johnny
Walker "Taliban John" Lindh: He's right where he belongs-in Federal Prison.
When the
Post by Matt Wiser
prisoners revolted at Mazar-e-Sharif, he was there, and participated in the
uprising;

He had every right to attempt to escape capture. That is in the Geneva
Conventions as implemented in US law.
Post by Matt Wiser
and it just wasn't a few CIA paramilitary types with Afghans there: there's
film via
Post by Matt Wiser
CNN, German TV, and ITN of U.S. Special Forces, British SAS, and fellas
looking like
Post by Matt Wiser
light infantry with 10th Mountain Division patches. That's bearing arms
against the
Post by Matt Wiser
U.S. and its allies-the full constitutional definition of Treason.
Again people who tried to kill him, did not treat him as a POW and he exercised
his lawful right to escape. And if he was not a prisoner of war then there was
no war which brings us back to where I started.

Do not miss the point that the folks in Gitmo are either prisoners of war or
there is no war. There is no such person as illegal combatant or whatever the
buzzword of the week. They do not exist in US law or international covention.
They exist only in the fevered brain of AG Gonzales* who usually gets credit for
the invention. IF there is any question of a person's status that must be
established by a separate hearing and cannot be done by declaration.

Bush was just handed his head on the Geneva Conventions AS IMPLEMENTED IN US
LAW as required by the conventions applying to everyone captured in Afghanistan.
Meaning Bush has committed war crimes and US law says he must be prosecuted for
them. Screw the law. He is a king not a president.

Do not miss the distinction between a convention or treaty itself and as
implemented in US law under the clause on treaties in the constitution. A signed
and ratified treaty has no standing at all. Only the implementing laws have
standing. Of course part of the treaty is an agreement to create the
implementing laws so we expect them to exist.
Post by Matt Wiser
Nancy Grace was
correct back then: Lindh should have been tried for Treason. And he would
have been
Post by Matt Wiser
convicted.
Again the failure of the government to even raise the possibility of
prosecution for treason was likely because of the obvious defense of no DoW
therefore no treason was possible. Also his treatment and not being read his
rights would have scuppered most any attempt.

Escaping captivity is not "waging war" so that cannot be invoked. And waging
war provision mentions only the US not any other country, ally or not.
Post by Matt Wiser
No doubt. The fact that an American died there would be icing on the cake.
Then the charge is murder but because he has a lawful right to attempt to
escape that cannot stand. He was not under arrest according to the laws of the
US. He was not a POW because there was no lawful war. What more do you want? He
cannot have been an illegal combatant because such a status does not exist in
law. He was simply a person being held by other people who had no lawful right
to hold him. It is no different from a kidnap victim killing the kidnapper in
the process of attempting to escape.
Post by Matt Wiser
Lindh is doing 20 years. Rest assured he will do the full 20 since the
Federal Prison
Post by Matt Wiser
system has no parole.
As I said he was railroaded and I have just expanded upon the reasons. Please
find fault with the reasons this time rather than expressing your feelings
again. You don't come off well as a feelings type person.

A young kid caught in a war between the Taliban and the drug warlords backed by
the US. As I am certain you read the druglords provided most all of the ground
combatants with the US and others as advisors and coordinators of air strikes.
They were quite savage and not amenable to any geneva conventions as in their
habit of executing prisoners if they lost too many in a fight. They had no
standing as a government by any stretch of the imagination.

For the record, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq ever surrendered so the wars of
aggression never ended. It has taken the Taliban three years to regroup and
begin to repeat their victory over the Russians. Do you think the US public has
the balls to stick it out for another six years to no benefit as the Russians did?

And if you like Iraq two years ago the US started counting insurgent attacks
and it was 400 per week. It is now 600 per week and climbing. How many more
years to you think the US public will hold out to no benefit? The answer is 65%
are against it already. But the parties will not let it become a campaign issue.

=====

* A couple days ago I discovered the illegal combatant designation (but no law)
is based upon an Israeli law defining an unlawful combatant. The definition is
roughly, any who resists the occupation and war crimes of Israel.
--
No matter what you think of Izziehuggers being behind the conquest of Iraq
it is the least incredible of all the possible reasons.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3657
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org
Raymond Speer
2006-07-06 12:15:20 UTC
Permalink
American warmongers don't need no stinking Constitution to punish
goldamned effing traitors! Look it how they fried the Rosenbergs.

Who gave a rat's ass that maybe the Soviet Union was not legally really
the archfoe of the USA. Everybody knew what those Commie rats were, and
all that is necessary was to get the SOBs who loved them on any criminal
charge that was not technically treason. They get convicted of
espionage. From the days of Nathan Hale, tyhe USA has been saying that
espionage should not be a capital offense --- lot of good all that
reasoning did the Rosenbergs.

In essence, Jane Fonda is lucky to be a rich bitch. She always has
flunkies to buy her grass and other drugs. Imagine, if you will, that
lady getting caught in Orange County, California, with a bag of pot in
her purse. She would have been charged with Distributing a Hard Drug,
and lesser criminals would be freed if they lie for the Grand Jury and
Jury about Fonda being the Hollywood Connection that flooded our schools
with dope!

Jane Fonda gets sentenced to a decade or so of time in prison. You
think that ain't punishment for her treason!

By the way, have you ever noticed that rabid patriots love to sniff
their fireworks and guzzle their beer and lament that Jane Fonda and
John Walker Lind never got punished enough? I say that Robert E. Lee of
Virginia did much, much greater harm to the USA than those two ever did,
so why don't you freaking superpatriots have wet dreams about the
conviction and punishment of RE Lee for treason?
Oliver Neukum
2006-07-06 14:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond Speer
John Walker Lind never got punished enough? I say that Robert E. Lee of
Virginia did much, much greater harm to the USA than those two ever did,
so why don't you freaking superpatriots have wet dreams about the
conviction and punishment of RE Lee for treason?
Had you shot him, you would have needed to treat the whole confederate
army and indeed everybody loyal to the Confederacy as traitors. Doing
such a thing after accepting a surrender would have been impossible.
Had such a policy been announced no prisoners would have been taken.
The civil war was bloody enough and the troops would have asked why
their lives were put at risk needlessly. The Confederacy would have
won. Loyalty to the army has to go both ways.

Regards
Oliver
mike
2006-07-06 16:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oliver Neukum
Post by Raymond Speer
John Walker Lind never got punished enough? I say that Robert E. Lee of
Virginia did much, much greater harm to the USA than those two ever did,
so why don't you freaking superpatriots have wet dreams about the
conviction and punishment of RE Lee for treason?
Had you shot him, you would have needed to treat the whole confederate
army and indeed everybody loyal to the Confederacy as traitors.
Also overlooks the fact that Lees been one dead Southern traitor for
many decades while Jane is still a moving target[1] and could be
punished

What's the point of digging up the bones and putting those on trial?
It be a silly now as when it was done with Becket or Pope Formosus
remains. Being a dead traitor means he's on Ice in the 9th Circle
of Hell, for those who feel the need for Justice being visited, since
he dodged it when he shuffled off the Mortal Coil. [2]

[1] never saw the point in getting worked up over this silly Bint,
since she mostly just parrots the views of whoever she's currently
sleeping with.
Folks were getting mad at the wrong person
[2] Those Neo-CSA types really ought to hate him, since all he
did was lead Dixie to ruin by his inept ideas on Strategy for several
years. Didn't have the Brains von Runstedt had in '44 to
"Sue for Peace" seeing the upcoming Checkmate looming.


**
mike
**
Oliver Neukum
2006-07-06 18:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike
What's the point of digging up the bones and putting those on trial?
It be a silly now as when it was done with Becket or Pope Formosus
What is a "jury of his peers" in case of a corpse?
And how do you confront the accuser? Do you employ a public
necromancer?

Regards
Oliver
Matt Giwer
2006-07-07 09:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oliver Neukum
Post by mike
What's the point of digging up the bones and putting those on trial?
It be a silly now as when it was done with Becket or Pope Formosus
What is a "jury of his peers" in case of a corpse?
And how do you confront the accuser? Do you employ a public
necromancer?
These braindead folks arguing emotion over law can be his peers.
--
America will murder as many Iraqis as required to liberate Iraq.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3651
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8
Matt Giwer
2006-07-07 09:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oliver Neukum
Post by Raymond Speer
John Walker Lind never got punished enough? I say that Robert E. Lee of
Virginia did much, much greater harm to the USA than those two ever did,
so why don't you freaking superpatriots have wet dreams about the
conviction and punishment of RE Lee for treason?
Had you shot him, you would have needed to treat the whole confederate
army and indeed everybody loyal to the Confederacy as traitors. Doing
such a thing after accepting a surrender would have been impossible.
Had such a policy been announced no prisoners would have been taken.
The civil war was bloody enough and the troops would have asked why
their lives were put at risk needlessly. The Confederacy would have
won. Loyalty to the army has to go both ways.
Calm down. The civil war was fought on the presumption of being in rebellion.
That was no different from the Whiskey Rebellion. The ring leaders were
sentenced to death but were pardoned by Washington who lead an army against
them. There were several prominent international figures arguing against any
trial for Lee and they prevailed.
--
No democracy has the right to keep secret facts which could materially
affect any election.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3646
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2
Will in New Haven
2006-07-11 17:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Oliver Neukum
Post by Raymond Speer
John Walker Lind never got punished enough? I say that Robert E. Lee of
Virginia did much, much greater harm to the USA than those two ever did,
so why don't you freaking superpatriots have wet dreams about the
conviction and punishment of RE Lee for treason?
Had you shot him, you would have needed to treat the whole confederate
army and indeed everybody loyal to the Confederacy as traitors. Doing
such a thing after accepting a surrender would have been impossible.
Had such a policy been announced no prisoners would have been taken.
The civil war was bloody enough and the troops would have asked why
their lives were put at risk needlessly. The Confederacy would have
won. Loyalty to the army has to go both ways.
Calm down. The civil war was fought on the presumption of being in rebellion.
That was no different from the Whiskey Rebellion. The ring leaders were
sentenced to death but were pardoned by Washington who lead an army against
them. There were several prominent international figures arguing against any
trial for Lee and they prevailed.
Only the Union victory created the condition where Lee and his comrades
were guilty of treason. Lee's own opinion was that his state was
Virginia and by that he meant what we call "nation-state" today and not
what Virginia and Ohio and all the other states have become. That issue
was decided on the battlefield and there is no point revisiting it. The
issue of slavery taints their side so much that it is sometimes
difficult to see that they may have been right about the Constitution
and the nature of the United States pre-1860.

Since Lee's treason was treason only after he was defeated, punishing
him or his comrades for treason would have been an ex-post-facto action
and unconstitutional. Of course, the impracticality of bringing charges
against one hundred thousand men might have had something to do with it
also.

Will in New Haven
Post by Matt Giwer
--
No democracy has the right to keep secret facts which could materially
affect any election.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3646
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2
Matt Giwer
2006-07-12 01:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Oliver Neukum
Post by Raymond Speer
John Walker Lind never got punished enough? I say that Robert E. Lee of
Virginia did much, much greater harm to the USA than those two ever did,
so why don't you freaking superpatriots have wet dreams about the
conviction and punishment of RE Lee for treason?
Had you shot him, you would have needed to treat the whole confederate
army and indeed everybody loyal to the Confederacy as traitors. Doing
such a thing after accepting a surrender would have been impossible.
Had such a policy been announced no prisoners would have been taken.
The civil war was bloody enough and the troops would have asked why
their lives were put at risk needlessly. The Confederacy would have
won. Loyalty to the army has to go both ways.
Calm down. The civil war was fought on the presumption of being in rebellion.
That was no different from the Whiskey Rebellion. The ring leaders were
sentenced to death but were pardoned by Washington who lead an army against
them. There were several prominent international figures arguing against any
trial for Lee and they prevailed.
Only the Union victory created the condition where Lee and his comrades
were guilty of treason. Lee's own opinion was that his state was
Virginia and by that he meant what we call "nation-state" today and not
what Virginia and Ohio and all the other states have become. That issue
was decided on the battlefield and there is no point revisiting it.
I have heard that a lot. I assume it is because there is no rational
constitutional argument against secession. In any event secession is a matter
for the constitution. Only conquests are settled on the battlefield. Legal
issues never are.
Post by Will in New Haven
The
issue of slavery taints their side so much that it is sometimes
difficult to see that they may have been right about the Constitution
and the nature of the United States pre-1860.
Slavery is to the civil war as the holy holocaust is to WWII. The further we
get from the war the more a minor matter is addressed as the dominant reason.
Post by Will in New Haven
Since Lee's treason was treason only after he was defeated, punishing
him or his comrades for treason would have been an ex-post-facto action
and unconstitutional. Of course, the impracticality of bringing charges
against one hundred thousand men might have had something to do with it
also.
Before the war Lee had a commission in the US. After the war started he
resigned that commission to accept one in Virginia. Lee was notconsidered to
have committed treason by Fed gov lawyers although I am certain the armchair
shysters wante him as much as Jane Fonda. That honor was reserved for Jefferson
Davis.
--
Can anyone tell me the difference between Iraq with nuclear weapons and Iran
with nuclear weapons? The lies all sound the same to me.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3654
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11
Will in New Haven
2006-07-12 15:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Oliver Neukum
Post by Raymond Speer
John Walker Lind never got punished enough? I say that Robert E. Lee of
Virginia did much, much greater harm to the USA than those two ever did,
so why don't you freaking superpatriots have wet dreams about the
conviction and punishment of RE Lee for treason?
Had you shot him, you would have needed to treat the whole confederate
army and indeed everybody loyal to the Confederacy as traitors. Doing
such a thing after accepting a surrender would have been impossible.
Had such a policy been announced no prisoners would have been taken.
The civil war was bloody enough and the troops would have asked why
their lives were put at risk needlessly. The Confederacy would have
won. Loyalty to the army has to go both ways.
Calm down. The civil war was fought on the presumption of being in rebellion.
That was no different from the Whiskey Rebellion. The ring leaders were
sentenced to death but were pardoned by Washington who lead an army against
them. There were several prominent international figures arguing against any
trial for Lee and they prevailed.
Only the Union victory created the condition where Lee and his comrades
were guilty of treason. Lee's own opinion was that his state was
Virginia and by that he meant what we call "nation-state" today and not
what Virginia and Ohio and all the other states have become. That issue
was decided on the battlefield and there is no point revisiting it.
I have heard that a lot. I assume it is because there is no rational
constitutional argument against secession. In any event secession is a matter
for the constitution. Only conquests are settled on the battlefield. Legal
issues never are.
Legal issues are always secondary to the issues settled on the
battlefield. Before the Civil War there was a very good argument that
the individual states were nations and that each of them, or a group of
them banded together, had a right to secede. As you undoubtedly know,
there were New Englanders considering it a generation or so earlier.
Once it was settled, it was settled. This is one country. If you
disagree, raise an army. I talk about what is, not what should be.
Violating his oath troubled Lee greatly. The legal issues troubled him
not at all.

Will in New Haven

--

Ballot Box-Jury Box-Ammunition Box
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Will in New Haven
The
issue of slavery taints their side so much that it is sometimes
difficult to see that they may have been right about the Constitution
and the nature of the United States pre-1860.
Slavery is to the civil war as the holy holocaust is to WWII. The further we
get from the war the more a minor matter is addressed as the dominant reason.
Post by Will in New Haven
Since Lee's treason was treason only after he was defeated, punishing
him or his comrades for treason would have been an ex-post-facto action
and unconstitutional. Of course, the impracticality of bringing charges
against one hundred thousand men might have had something to do with it
also.
Before the war Lee had a commission in the US. After the war started he
resigned that commission to accept one in Virginia. Lee was notconsidered to
have committed treason by Fed gov lawyers although I am certain the armchair
shysters wante him as much as Jane Fonda. That honor was reserved for Jefferson
Davis.
--
Can anyone tell me the difference between Iraq with nuclear weapons and Iran
with nuclear weapons? The lies all sound the same to me.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3654
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11
David Tenner
2006-07-12 19:47:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will in New Haven
Legal issues are always secondary to the issues settled on the
battlefield. Before the Civil War there was a very good argument that
the individual states were nations and that each of them, or a group of
them banded together, had a right to secede.
But it would be hard for Lee to use that argument in defending against a
charge of treason because *he himself does not seem to have believed in a
legal right of secession.* In an early 1861 letter (apparently to his son
Custis), while noting that "a Union that can only be maintained by swords and
bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of
brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me" he nevertheless says

"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never
exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and
surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be
broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for
'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of
a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or
the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of
secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government by
Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the
Revolution."
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/24*.html

Whatever the merits of this argument (which, among other things, apparently
confuses the Articles of Confederation's reference to a "perpetual union"
with the Preamble to the Constitution's reference to a "more perfect" one
[1]) it shows that Lee could not claim "I thought secession was legal" as an
excuse. (Not that, legally speaking, such a belief in the legality of
secession would be an excuse if secession was in fact illegal, as the
Supreme Court was to hold in *Texas v. White,* but it might at least be a
mitigating circumstance.)
Post by Will in New Haven
As you undoubtedly know,
there were New Englanders considering it a generation or so earlier.
And the leading Southern journalist of his day, Thomas Ritchie of the
*Richmond Enquirer*, attacked them as traitors (even though the Hartford
Convention never even explicitly threatened secession). See my post at
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/0d17056e0e260568

[1] See
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/0a312e86f6e722b9 for
my discussion of the "more perfect union" phrase and whether it did in fact
imply a perpetual union.
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Matt Giwer
2006-07-13 01:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Oliver Neukum
Post by Raymond Speer
John Walker Lind never got punished enough? I say that Robert E. Lee of
Virginia did much, much greater harm to the USA than those two ever did,
so why don't you freaking superpatriots have wet dreams about the
conviction and punishment of RE Lee for treason?
Had you shot him, you would have needed to treat the whole confederate
army and indeed everybody loyal to the Confederacy as traitors. Doing
such a thing after accepting a surrender would have been impossible.
Had such a policy been announced no prisoners would have been taken.
The civil war was bloody enough and the troops would have asked why
their lives were put at risk needlessly. The Confederacy would have
won. Loyalty to the army has to go both ways.
Calm down. The civil war was fought on the presumption of being in rebellion.
That was no different from the Whiskey Rebellion. The ring leaders were
sentenced to death but were pardoned by Washington who lead an army against
them. There were several prominent international figures arguing against any
trial for Lee and they prevailed.
Only the Union victory created the condition where Lee and his comrades
were guilty of treason. Lee's own opinion was that his state was
Virginia and by that he meant what we call "nation-state" today and not
what Virginia and Ohio and all the other states have become. That issue
was decided on the battlefield and there is no point revisiting it.
I have heard that a lot. I assume it is because there is no rational
constitutional argument against secession. In any event secession is a matter
for the constitution. Only conquests are settled on the battlefield. Legal
issues never are.
Legal issues are always secondary to the issues settled on the
battlefield.
And as the _only_ issue upon which the North fought was that the states were in
rebellion against the federal government, one cannot say other than that single
issue was settled. And this rebellion was based upon South Carolina expelling
the federal tax collectors from Charleston Harbor.
Post by Will in New Haven
Before the Civil War there was a very good argument that
the individual states were nations and that each of them, or a group of
them banded together, had a right to secede. As you undoubtedly know,
there were New Englanders considering it a generation or so earlier.
As the issue was only rebellion not secession how can secession have been settled?
Post by Will in New Haven
Once it was settled, it was settled. This is one country. If you
disagree, raise an army. I talk about what is, not what should be.
Violating his oath troubled Lee greatly. The legal issues troubled him
not at all.
You falsely claim the north fought the war on grounds it never claimed.
--
America will murder as many Iraqis as required to liberate Iraq from Iraqis.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3651
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org
Wesley Taylor
2006-07-12 03:38:55 UTC
Permalink
On 11 Jul 2006 10:05:00 -0700, "Will in New Haven"
Post by Will in New Haven
Only the Union victory created the condition where Lee and his comrades
were guilty of treason. Lee's own opinion was that his state was
Virginia and by that he meant what we call "nation-state" today and not
what Virginia and Ohio and all the other states have become. That issue
was decided on the battlefield and there is no point revisiting it. The
issue of slavery taints their side so much that it is sometimes
difficult to see that they may have been right about the Constitution
and the nature of the United States pre-1860.
The end of the war did not make Lee's actions treason, they removed
his only defense as a possible outcome. His actions were treason from
the beginning of the war. IF the CSA had won it's freedom then he
would have not been a traitor, because that would have meant the CSA
was sovereign from the start.

They lost, meaning they were never severeign. Hence Lee was a traitor
by waging war on his own country.
Post by Will in New Haven
Since Lee's treason was treason only after he was defeated, punishing
him or his comrades for treason would have been an ex-post-facto action
and unconstitutional. Of course, the impracticality of bringing charges
against one hundred thousand men might have had something to do with it
also.
actually the charges, due to the surrender terms usually used, would
have only be allowed against the upper level officers. A few thousand
at most.
Post by Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
Matt Giwer
2006-07-12 03:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wesley Taylor
On 11 Jul 2006 10:05:00 -0700, "Will in New Haven"
Post by Will in New Haven
Only the Union victory created the condition where Lee and his comrades
were guilty of treason. Lee's own opinion was that his state was
Virginia and by that he meant what we call "nation-state" today and not
what Virginia and Ohio and all the other states have become. That issue
was decided on the battlefield and there is no point revisiting it. The
issue of slavery taints their side so much that it is sometimes
difficult to see that they may have been right about the Constitution
and the nature of the United States pre-1860.
The end of the war did not make Lee's actions treason, they removed
his only defense as a possible outcome. His actions were treason from
the beginning of the war. IF the CSA had won it's freedom then he
would have not been a traitor, because that would have meant the CSA
was sovereign from the start.
Other than the yankee fantasy that a war can decide a constitutional issue, the
issue of secession was never addressed. The north fought the war on the pretext
of the individual states were in rebellion. Legally it never fought the
confederacy as that would have recognized the secession and new union.

Secession is still a lawful right of each and every state. That issue was never
addressed in any manner.
Post by Wesley Taylor
They lost, meaning they were never severeign. Hence Lee was a traitor
by waging war on his own country.
People seem to love to jump into questions they have never seriuosly
considered. Being a sovereign nation means doing what sovereign nations do. The
south did what sovereign nations do. Therefore it was sovereign for a time.
--
A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of
evils.
Pro-Israel is anti-American.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3642
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org
Matt Wiser
2006-07-12 06:52:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
--
Can anyone tell me the difference between Iraq with nuclear weapons and Iran
with nuclear weapons? The lies all sound the same to me.
No difference: Iraq run by a secular dictator who never bought a weapon he didn't use, and
Iran run by a mullahocracy who never bought weapons they didn't use. And both with
ties to various terrorist groups.

Anyway: You mentioned secession as not having been settled; I'd say that's revisionist.
Nearly all historians and poli-sci specialists consider secession as having been settled on
9 Apr 1865. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever seriously considered it since. Unless
you're willing to count the fringers in Hawaii who try for it, and the Puerto Rican FALN and
Macheteros terrorist groups. The Hawaiian nutcases don't amount to even 1% of the
population on Oahu, let alone the rest of the Islands. And in the last referendum, Puerto Rico
chose the status quo by a narrow margin over statehood; Independenceistas, as they're called, got only 4%. And if you think they (or anyone else in a particular state) has a chance
of bringing that issue to any state legislature or ballot with any chance of success, then you can buy beachfront property from me-in New Mexico! (The bridge in Brooklyn has long been off the market.)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Matt Giwer
2006-07-12 08:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Wiser
Post by Matt Giwer
--
Can anyone tell me the difference between Iraq with nuclear weapons and Iran
with nuclear weapons? The lies all sound the same to me.
No difference: Iraq run by a secular dictator who never bought a weapon he didn't use,
As you appear to be replying to me you fail to note Hussein bought the nerve
gas from the US.

I can only guess at your motives but I have no interest in your stinking
propaganda.
--
There may be ten billion names of God but God is not one of them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 365
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2
Matt Wiser
2006-07-07 01:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Oliver Neukum <***@neukum.name> wrote:
Clarification: several Iraqi-Americans visiting Iraq at the time of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and
the resulting DESERT SHIELD buildup were "drafted" into the Iraqi Army. These guys were
literally plopped into the desert with an AK-47, a uniform, and not much else. When the
ground war kicked off on 24 Feb 91, and the regular Iraqi Army began to melt away like ice
cream in the sun, these fellows convinced the Iraqi soldiers with them to wait for the U.S.
Army to arrive. The Iraqi-Americans ID'd themselves (some still had their U.S. passports),
and were handed over to the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh for the trip home. No charges were
contemplated, let alone filed, since they had been press-ganged right off the streets....That is a world away from someone who joins the Taliban of his own volition and winds up fighting
against fellow Americans. The Iraqi-Americans went back to home, job, and family. Taliban
John went back and wound up where he belongs-in Federal Prison. I'm sure that Murderers,
bank robbers, and rapists have shown their dislike of traitors; the Walker spy family and Aldrich Ames are kept away from General Population (according to the Washington Post and Reader's Digest) for their own protection-they have gotten death threats and been physically assaulted by other prisoners when it became known what they were in for.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Matt Giwer
2006-07-07 09:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond Speer
American warmongers don't need no stinking Constitution to punish
goldamned effing traitors! Look it how they fried the Rosenbergs.
Last I heard when Russia opens it Cold War records it revealed they were spied
for what they did but had been secretly awarded hero medals.

But they were fried on espionage laws not treason laws. And that is the
difference. And there is no connection between common law treason and common
english traitor.
Post by Raymond Speer
Who gave a rat's ass that maybe the Soviet Union was not legally really
the archfoe of the USA. Everybody knew what those Commie rats were, and
all that is necessary was to get the SOBs who loved them on any criminal
charge that was not technically treason. They get convicted of
espionage. From the days of Nathan Hale, tyhe USA has been saying that
espionage should not be a capital offense --- lot of good all that
reasoning did the Rosenbergs.
See? You agree it was espionage not treason. I have no idea what you are trying
to say abou espionage should not be a capital offense. That is a different set
of laws entirely.
Post by Raymond Speer
In essence, Jane Fonda is lucky to be a rich bitch. She always has
flunkies to buy her grass and other drugs. Imagine, if you will, that
lady getting caught in Orange County, California, with a bag of pot in
her purse. She would have been charged with Distributing a Hard Drug,
and lesser criminals would be freed if they lie for the Grand Jury and
Jury about Fonda being the Hollywood Connection that flooded our schools
with dope!
Jane Fonda gets sentenced to a decade or so of time in prison. You
think that ain't punishment for her treason!
It is old hat. The gov could not find a basis to seek an indictment for the
reasons I gave.
Post by Raymond Speer
By the way, have you ever noticed that rabid patriots love to sniff
their fireworks and guzzle their beer and lament that Jane Fonda and
John Walker Lind never got punished enough? I say that Robert E. Lee of
Virginia did much, much greater harm to the USA than those two ever did,
so why don't you freaking superpatriots have wet dreams about the
conviction and punishment of RE Lee for treason?
Robert E. Lee fought for his state under the accepted meaning of the
Constitution at the time.

In fact Lincoln's only claim was that the southern states were in rebellion
based upon Ft. Sumter.

You really need to learn more history than you forgot from high school.
--
In June 2006 Israel is murdering an average of ten Palestinians a day.
Correcting to population that would be about 8500 Americans per day.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3662
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11
Matt Wiser
2006-07-06 23:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Matt Giwer <***@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

There may not have been a constitutional declaration of war, but the U.S. and North Vietnam were at war, nonethless. There have been more armed conflicts than declared wars since WW II-I don't think the Argentines declared war before taking the Falklands, and none of the two Iran-Iraq War participants declared war-they just fought. Since the U.S. did not recognize the Taliban government, there was no reason to declare war-harboring, aiding, and abetting
Al-Queda after 9-11 was the causus belli. I'm sure Mullah Omar and his accomplices have
regretted not giving up OBL.... You don't need a declared war to charge someone with Treason. Oh, btw, No SEALs were captured. Check your buddy's name at http://www.pownetwork.org. They have a list of everyone who was taken prisoner in the SEA conflict. If your friend's name is not on the list-he's a phony. The SEALs pride themselves on never leaving anyone behind. They never have. I don't think any jury after listening to what POWs went thru would hesitate to either convict of treason or award a hefty damage award for pain, suffering, and emotional distress. And this goes for the other Americans who visited NVN between 1965-72, most of whom met POWs who had been tortured into agreeing to the meetings.....

Once Taliban John was proven to be an American, Geneva stopped and U.S. Law took over.
Any American fighting for the enemy regardless of the conflict-declared or not-is liable to be
prosecuted. However, if the American can prove he (or she now) was coerced into fighting, the case is dropped and the subject brought home to the family. If not....well, hello, U.S.
District Court. Bearing arms against the U.S. or "aid and comfort to the enemy" is the
definition of Treason. How do you know before his capture that there weren't U.S. Special Forces or SEALs alongside the Northern Alliance guys? If there were, Count #1. Fighting against the SF and 10th Mountain during the uprising: Count #2. Accessory to the death of CIA officer Mike Spann: Count #3. Joining the Taliban Army in the first place: "Aiding the enemy." Statutory, not constitutional. Taliban John is lucky that he plead guilty: If he'd been charged with Treason in the first place, he'd be lucky to be in Florence, CO; home of the "supermax" Federal Prison. Unlucky means he gets a needle in his arm....(in the old days, it's either Old Sparky or the noose) Nancy Grace said it right: he should've been charged and convicted of Treason. (Btw, several Iraqi-Americans in the First Gulf War were captured by U.S. forces-they had been "drafted" while visiting relatives in Iraq. All were processed and handed over to the State Dept. for return home to the U.S. No charges even considered.) Taliban John has a long time to go before he gets out. As far as I'm concerned, he's right where he belongs.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Matt Giwer
2006-07-07 10:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Wiser
There may not have been a constitutional declaration of war, but the U.S. and North
Vietnam were at war, nonethless. There have been more armed conflicts than
declared
Post by Matt Wiser
wars since WW II-I don't think the Argentines declared war before taking the
Falklands, and none of the two Iran-Iraq War participants declared war-they just
fought. Since the U.S. did not recognize the Taliban government, there was no
reason
Post by Matt Wiser
to declare war-harboring, aiding, and abetting
An armed conflict is not a lawful war. Panama was an armed conflict. Should the
rules of war apply? Funny thing they did and Noriega is treated better than a
five star general by Supreme Court decision. Nicuragua was an armed conflict and
if a real war the Geneva conventions apply and dozens of Americans get hanged.

And the Iraq-Iran war was an armed conflict. As with the rule of any support
makes the supporter culpable in what is done, giving Iraq the material and the
knowledge to make nerve gas constitutes more hanging offenses by Americans. I
have this clip of Rumsfeld meeting with Hussein to seal the deal ...
Post by Matt Wiser
Al-Queda after 9-11 was the causus belli.
Then such a war should have been declared against al Qaeda. But it was not. But
as the FBI has confirmed there is no evidence to link bin Laden with 9/11.
Post by Matt Wiser
I'm sure Mullah Omar and his accomplices have
regretted not giving up OBL.... You don't need a declared war to charge someone
with Treason.
You keep making assertions without addressing the law. This is both annoying
and non-responsive. Charge means getting an indictment for violation of a law.
As there is no evidence of al Qaeda/bin Laden involvement in 9/11 there is no
basis for seeking an indictment. The FBI wants bin Laden for Khobars Towers but
not for 9/11.
Post by Matt Wiser
Oh, btw, No SEALs were captured. Check your buddy's name at
http://www.pownetwork.org. They have a list of everyone who was taken prisoner
in the SEA conflict. If your friend's name is not on the list-he's a phony.
And as I knew the captain of SEAL Team Six who confirmed it ...

Let it drop. I have no interest in making this a public issue.
Post by Matt Wiser
The
SEALs pride themselves on never leaving anyone behind. They never have. I don't
think any jury after listening to what POWs went thru would hesitate to either
convict of treason or award a hefty damage award for pain, suffering, and
emotional
Post by Matt Wiser
distress. And this goes for the other Americans who visited NVN between 1965-72,
most of whom met POWs who had been tortured into agreeing to the meetings.....
So why not file the suit? Your lack of doubts are belied by the absense of
legal action.
Post by Matt Wiser
Once Taliban John was proven to be an American, Geneva stopped and U.S. Law took over.
Which means he had to be arrested. The military cannot perform a civilian
arrest by the posse comitatus law. Even if you wish to believe they are, was he
read his rights? Was he provided with an attorney? Was there any questioning
after he requested an attorney? There are many more points and all are valid.
Post by Matt Wiser
Any American fighting for the enemy regardless of the conflict-declared or not-is
liable to be prosecuted.
The only issue is what is the charge to be and I still ask you which statute
law you think applies. The USC is online. I am certain you can find it.
Post by Matt Wiser
However, if the American can prove he (or she now) was coerced into
fighting, the case is dropped and the subject brought home to the family.
If not....well, hello, U.S.
Coerced into fighting druglords allied with the US? There is a war on drugs.
Did you forget that? If he fought druglords he was fighting an American war.

How far should I go down the path of fighting a war on drugs and treason before
you get absurd and I declare anyone disagreeing with the war on poverty is a
traitor to the US?

While it is hard to imagine saying anything good about cancer there is also a
war on cancer declared by Nixon.

So tell me this, why does disagreeing with a war on the abstract noun of
terrorism allow response without regard to law?
Post by Matt Wiser
District Court. Bearing arms against the U.S. or "aid and comfort to the enemy" is the
definition of Treason.
But as Bush has always said the war is on the abstract noun of terrorism. Even
Bush never said there was a war on Afghanistan. One presumes a reasonable person
would connect terrorist with terrorist so your first problem is to prove Walker
was a terrorist. Rotsa Ruck.
Post by Matt Wiser
How do you know before his capture that there weren't
U.S. Special Forces or SEALs alongside the Northern Alliance guys?
You have to show he knew it else there is not ability to commit the crime. One
cannot commit a crime in ignorance.
Post by Matt Wiser
If there were, Count #1.
You appear to have no concept of law.
Post by Matt Wiser
Fighting against the SF and 10th Mountain during the uprising: Count #2.
Only if he knew they were there and they offered him an opportunity to
surrender. If they attacked without giving him that opportunity he had every
right to defend his life.
Post by Matt Wiser
Accessory to the death of CIA officer Mike Spann: Count #3.
Excersing his human right under every legal system to escape arbitrary
confinement by druglords allied with the US? Priceless!
Post by Matt Wiser
Joining the Taliban Army in the first place: "Aiding the enemy."
You need to learn some history. There no intention or plan to declare the
Taliban an enemy until March 2001 (YES six months early) to invade Afghanistan
for not playing nice over oil and gas pipeline requirements by the West.

Joining while it was not illegal is not a crime. Being attacked while it was
negotiating cooperation in turning over bin Laden is crucial. And the US
attempting to murder him in an unprovoked war of aggression over a man for which
the FBI says there is no evidence of a connection to 9/11 is hardly at issue.
Post by Matt Wiser
Statutory, not constitutional.
Cite the statute. USC what?
Post by Matt Wiser
Taliban
John is lucky that he plead guilty: If he'd been charged with Treason in the
first place, he'd be lucky to be in Florence, CO; home of the "supermax" Federal
Prison. Unlucky means he gets a needle in his arm....(in the old days, it's
either Old Sparky or the noose) Nancy Grace said it right: he should've been
charged and convicted of Treason. (Btw, several Iraqi-Americans in the First
Gulf War were captured by U.S. forces-they had been "drafted" while visiting
relatives in Iraq. All were processed and handed over to the State Dept. for
return home to the U.S. No charges even considered.) Taliban John has a long
time to go before he gets out. As far as I'm concerned, he's right where he
belongs.

I realize you are incapable of dealing with the rule of law in society. And I
realize you enjoy venting spleen like a Limbaugh. But until you folks take over
the country this is still one of laws however imperfect.

And if you folks do try to take over the country the insurrection will destroy
you too.
--
There may be ten billion names of God but God is not one of them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 365
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11
Matt Giwer
2006-07-08 01:59:54 UTC
Permalink
Matt Wiser wrote:

In general you appear to wish to apply felony murder to Lindh. Those are state
laws and vary from state to state. If I remember correctly some states do not
have them at all. So none of them apply. There is no generic federal law against
murder.

Even if it were true, the act has to be a felony. There is no federal law
making attempting to escape captivity a felony. Such a law would be contrary to
the Geneva Convention specifically reciting it to be the duty of a prisoner to
attempt to escape. As an escape attempt is not a crime there can be no there can
be no crime related to it.
--
When I was a child my family was so poor we could not afford a computer.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3648
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1
Oliver Neukum
2006-07-08 06:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
Even if it were true, the act has to be a felony. There is no federal law
making attempting to escape captivity a felony. Such a law would be
contrary to the Geneva Convention specifically reciting it to be the duty
of a prisoner to attempt to escape. As an escape attempt is not a crime
there can be no there can be no crime related to it.
This seems inconsistent. If the Geneva convention applies, he was
a soldier. Then he would be a traitor, wouldn't he? If not, he simply
was detained by US or cooperating armed forces.

Regards
Oliver
Matt Giwer
2006-07-08 08:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oliver Neukum
Post by Matt Giwer
Even if it were true, the act has to be a felony. There is no federal law
making attempting to escape captivity a felony. Such a law would be
contrary to the Geneva Convention specifically reciting it to be the duty
of a prisoner to attempt to escape. As an escape attempt is not a crime
there can be no there can be no crime related to it.
This seems inconsistent. If the Geneva convention applies, he was
a soldier. Then he would be a traitor, wouldn't he? If not, he simply
was detained by US or cooperating armed forces.
Yes, it is inconsistent but I did not create the inconsistency.

The inconsistency is that the US wants a war on one hand and then refuses to
follow the rules of war on the other hand.

But the inconsistency blurs the absense of a DOW on the Taliban or Afghanistan
OR on terrorism. Without one of those he was not involved with a lawful enemy in
the sense of treason.

As to being detained by anyone, anyone detained save by law has the absolute
right to escape regardless of the consequences to the detainers.

Look at it this way. The claim of a war on terrorism is no different than a war
on drugs or on poverty or on cancer. It is pure rhetoric. The reality is all in
the law. Can drug users be treated the same as folks captured in Afghanistan?
Can Lindh fighting against druglords and thus for the US war on drugs be both
whipsawed between two wars?
--
In considering troop to population ratios, the US had over a half mllion
troops in Vietnam with a population of 16 million and still lost.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3668
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11
Tim McDaniel
2006-07-08 06:31:26 UTC
Permalink
There is no federal law making attempting to escape captivity a
felony. Such a law would be contrary to the Geneva Convention
specifically reciting it to be the duty of a prisoner to attempt to
escape.
<http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm>, "Geneva Convention
relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War", 1949, covers the
subject in articles 88 through 97. It mentions no duty to escape;
you may be confusing the treaty with US regulations. It does provide
that an escape can be punished only with "disciplinary punishments",
which are mild: exact maxima are in articles 89 and 90.

(Acts of violence against life or limb during an escape attempt is a
separate matter, but of course that's not relevant to a crime of
"attempting to escape" -- I just mention it as a tangental point.)
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: ***@panix.com
Matt Giwer
2006-07-08 08:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim McDaniel
There is no federal law making attempting to escape captivity a
felony. Such a law would be contrary to the Geneva Convention
specifically reciting it to be the duty of a prisoner to attempt to
escape.
<http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm>, "Geneva Convention
relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War", 1949, covers the
subject in articles 88 through 97. It mentions no duty to escape;
you may be confusing the treaty with US regulations. It does provide
that an escape can be punished only with "disciplinary punishments",
which are mild: exact maxima are in articles 89 and 90.
(Acts of violence against life or limb during an escape attempt is a
separate matter, but of course that's not relevant to a crime of
"attempting to escape" -- I just mention it as a tangental point.)
I may be in error on this one or not have the background documents to the
treaty or it may be in Hague V. I will not argue with your assertion without
further research which I will do if this becomes of interest to subsequent
discussion.

My position is simply that it is not credible that nations would agree to
criminalize attempts by their own troops to escape capture. Capture starts from
the moment of capture. It would criminalize running away in a moment of
inattention and warrant execution for doing so.

But as you note the punishment are by definition minimal and do not translate
into 20 years in prison.
--
No democracy has the right to keep secret facts which could materially
affect any election.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3646
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12
Jordan
2006-07-09 14:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
My position is simply that it is not credible that nations would agree to
criminalize attempts by their own troops to escape capture. Capture starts from
the moment of capture. It would criminalize running away in a moment of
inattention and warrant execution for doing so.
But as you note the punishment are by definition minimal and do not translate
into 20 years in prison.
You're not getting it, Matt. Bearing arms against your own country of
your own free will is felonious (*). This includes both the fighting
in the field _and_ the violent escape attempt. An American citizen
captured voluntarily fighting against America cannot claim POW status,
not even if he is with a real army, in uniform and subject to a normal
chain of command. If, for instance, Lindh had been captured fighting
for the Germans in WWII, he would not have enjoyed the same POW status
as other German soldiers.

Lindh got off lightly -- he should have been executed.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

(*) It is "treason" in the normal sense of the word, though not always
provable as such under American law. It is most definitely also falls
under several other criminal headings.
d***@hotmail.com
2006-07-09 15:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jordan
Post by Matt Giwer
My position is simply that it is not credible that nations would agree to
criminalize attempts by their own troops to escape capture. Capture starts from
the moment of capture. It would criminalize running away in a moment of
inattention and warrant execution for doing so.
But as you note the punishment are by definition minimal and do not translate
into 20 years in prison.
You're not getting it, Matt. Bearing arms against your own country of
your own free will is felonious (*). This includes both the fighting
in the field _and_ the violent escape attempt. An American citizen
captured voluntarily fighting against America cannot claim POW status,
not even if he is with a real army, in uniform and subject to a normal
chain of command. If, for instance, Lindh had been captured fighting
for the Germans in WWII, he would not have enjoyed the same POW status
as other German soldiers.
I find this doubtful. You are claiming that American citizens of German
or Japanese descent who chose their loyalty to their former country of
origin openly by returning to that country and serving openly in
uniform were treated differently than other POW's? Do you have a
reference?

I would think that at the very least renouncing US citizenship would
remove the threat of treason. Dual citizenship would make the matter
murky at best.
a***@pacific.net.au
2006-07-10 00:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by Jordan
Post by Matt Giwer
My position is simply that it is not credible that nations would agree to
criminalize attempts by their own troops to escape capture. Capture starts from
the moment of capture. It would criminalize running away in a moment of
inattention and warrant execution for doing so.
But as you note the punishment are by definition minimal and do not translate
into 20 years in prison.
You're not getting it, Matt. Bearing arms against your own country of
your own free will is felonious (*). This includes both the fighting
in the field _and_ the violent escape attempt. An American citizen
captured voluntarily fighting against America cannot claim POW status,
not even if he is with a real army, in uniform and subject to a normal
chain of command. If, for instance, Lindh had been captured fighting
for the Germans in WWII, he would not have enjoyed the same POW status
as other German soldiers.
I find this doubtful. You are claiming that American citizens of German
or Japanese descent who chose their loyalty to their former country of
origin openly by returning to that country and serving openly in
uniform were treated differently than other POW's? Do you have a
reference?
I would think that at the very least renouncing US citizenship would
remove the threat of treason. Dual citizenship would make the matter
murky at best.
There were, as I recall, a number of cases where US citizens of German
ancestry had returned to Germany before 1941 and conscripted into the
German army (conscripted = not being given a choice, by definition)
and who were later captured by the allies ... even by US forces. As
far as I am aware none of them were tried for treason.

A similar situation applied in the Pacific ... a number of US citizens
of Japanese descent were likewise given no choice as to serving in the
Japanese forces when they were caught in Japan prior to or after 1941,
and were later captured by allied forces. I believe that, after the
war, some at least chose to renounce their US citizenship ... but the
source where I read this (*many* years ago ... and, no, I don't
remember where) implied that *not all* did so ... again, I am not
aware of any being tried for treason.

In the Lindh case, there was no proof ... just assertions ... that he
had actually fought against US forces. Indeed, as far as I recall, he
claimed (and his family did) that he had fought with the Taliban
against the Northern Alliance but had never fought against the US.

Of course, he was railroaded ... he was told he'd be executed if he
didn't plead guilty, and he had a snowball's chance of getting
anything even remotely resembling a fair trial so he took that option
to, quite reasonably, save his life.

Jordan's attitude, while understandable, represents a desire for
vengeance at all costs, regardless ... and that's my opinion and I'm
sticking to it!

YMMV of course.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au
Matt Giwer
2006-07-10 02:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jordan
Post by Matt Giwer
My position is simply that it is not credible that nations would agree to
criminalize attempts by their own troops to escape capture. Capture starts from
the moment of capture. It would criminalize running away in a moment of
inattention and warrant execution for doing so.
But as you note the punishment are by definition minimal and do not translate
into 20 years in prison.
You're not getting it, Matt. Bearing arms against your own country of
your own free will is felonious (*).
No, you are not getting it.

Nothing in any version of the details of the events I have read suggests he
ever waged war against the US. Every version has it he was fighting against
northern alliance druglords. (Does that mean he was fighting the equally
political US war on drugs?) The place of captivity was run by druglord militias.
After being captured and NOT being treated as a prisoner of war (therefore there
was no war?) there happened to be a CIA man killed in the process of an attempt
to escape unlawful captivity.

The CIA man was not a lawful combatant unless holding a proper military rank
and a member of or leading a military hierarchy at the time and in uniform at
the time.

Even if the CIA man were doing all the right things to qualify as a member of
the military the first requirement of law is to establish Lindh killed him and
to find a US Federal law applicable in Afghanistan. If you can't show that you
have nothing as there is no federal felony murder statute. Even if there were
you would have to show the death occurred in the course of a felony rather than
as described in all reports of details.

Given the circumstances even if that could have been proven it is not clear how
more than manslaughter could be charged. There is no suggestion of an element of
premeditation. And then his defense is he was attempting to escape unlawful
detention as it was not under any US police power. As a prisoner of war he had
the right to attempt escape regardless of who was holding him. There is no way
to establish escape is a felony.

And that gets us back to the details and we find he was being held by members
of the militia of some druglords. The reported circumstances do not differ from
kidnapping and in a kidnapping killing the kidnappers is lawful.

Were the druglords allied with the US? Please show me the treaty which says so.
No treaty no ally.
Post by Jordan
This includes both the fighting in the field
Against fighting US troops has never been claimed.
Post by Jordan
_and_ the violent escape attempt.
We have established he was not lawfully under arrest under US law. If a POW he
had the right to escape so that is not a crime. If not a POW then he had the
lawful right to escape unlawful detention.
Post by Jordan
An American citizen
captured voluntarily fighting against America cannot claim POW status,
You have to establish he was in fact fighting US troops on the ground and show
he knew who they were.
Post by Jordan
not even if he is with a real army, in uniform and subject to a normal
chain of command.
There is no definition of hierarchical command structure. It can in fact be as
little as three people with one in charge. The only point is to remove the POW
defense from common criminals. However the Taliban was organized according to
the way things are organized in Afghanistan and to which there were no
objections when fighting the Russians.
Post by Jordan
If, for instance, Lindh had been captured fighting
for the Germans in WWII, he would not have enjoyed the same POW status
as other German soldiers.
What would have happened if he had been captured fighting for the Geramns
against the Russians? At least there a formal treaty of alliance existed. There
was no alliance in the Afghan war.
Post by Jordan
Lindh got off lightly -- he should have been executed.
In fact the only charge the gov was willing to hold against him was a 1999
excecutive order (not a law) prohibiting Americans from contributing (undefined)
services to the Taliban and not to terrorists in general. The other odd charge
was carrying explosives in the commission of a felony. You will notice neither
had anything to do with escaping unlawful detention. Nor is it clear what this
felony might have been unless it was provided services. So carrying explosives
is the felonius service he provided to the Taliban. One would expect normal
military items to be excluded from the list of explosives but apparently not.
Post by Jordan
(*) It is "treason" in the normal sense of the word, though not always
provable as such under American law. It is most definitely also falls
under several other criminal headings.
And in the normal sense of the word, abortion is murder as the common usage
does not debate the moment of life. If that were applied in law women who get
abortions would also be executed or get automatic life in prison for subborning
and paying for the murder and the doctor the same as a murder for hire.

There are very good reasons for the meanings in law being different from common
usages.

And as you have not established any US legal definition of treason which his
actions did in fact satisfy we see why it is a very good idea in this case.
--
Why do Americans consider Bush the worst president since 1945? Because the
poll only went back to 1945.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3660
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5
Matt Wiser
2006-07-10 03:22:30 UTC
Permalink
***@hotmail.com wrote:
I think it's the crowd Clark is running with; his "International Action Center" and "ANSWER"
are known fronts for a hard-core Stalinist bunch known as the Worker's World Party.
Their idea of a paradise is either Castro's Cuba or Kim-Jong il's North Korea. You want to
know how wacky they are? They actually supported the Soviet invasions of Hungary in '56,
Czechoslovakia in '68, and Afghanistan in '79, as well as the PRC's Tinanmen Square
massacre in '89. They were also one of the few outfits to mourn when Milosevic died, and
they probably will mourn when Saddam gets fitted for his well-deserved necktie party.
But then Clark's been a thorn in the side of every administration since '69. His travel to NVN
in '72 and meeting POWs who did not have a say in the matter should've earned him time in
Federal Prison, as far as I'm concerned. A lot of Vietnam vets would care to agree. (Former
POWs, especially)


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Matt Wiser
2006-07-10 03:41:54 UTC
Permalink
"Jordan" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, no list of those....people has been compiled and put on the web. Books dealing
with the POW experience in SEA do have names. Check Honor Bound by Stuart Rochester
and Fredrick Kiley, or P.O.W. by John G. Hubbell. The former book does quote a House
committee which did investigate travel by various peaceniks to NVN during the war. I do agree
though, that these folks need to be "thanked" by Vietnam Vets for their actions. And I'd put
former POWs at the head of the line. Bottom line, regardless if a war is declared or not:
putting the lives of POWs at risk to show your "solidarity" with an enemy who is holding
those POWs should earn you a nice stint in Federal Prison. And the other cons will no doubt
be willing to show their appreciation, as the Walkers and Aldrich Ames have been shown on
several occasions.....a Washington Post article on Ames mentioned the prison authorities
had to put him in the SHU for his own safety.Just because there isn't a declaration of war, but
(as is more likely) a Congressional Use of Force authorization, doesn't mean there's no such
thing as Treason or Aid and Comfort to the Enemy. If someone's shooting at Americans on a
battlefield, waging air combat, or combat at sea, it's a war, period. Joining that enemy's
armed forces voluntarily, or conducting propaganda willingly on that enemy's behalf, ought to
earn one a long, long, time in the supermax in Florence, CO at least, and at most, they
stick a needle in your arm at the Federal death chamber in Terre Haute, IN.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Matt Giwer
2006-07-11 01:20:29 UTC
Permalink
I looked through the USC provisions on treason and there is nothing materially
different from the constitution. If interested, these are them.


CHAPTER 115--TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Sec.
2381. Treason.
2382. Misprision of treason.
2383. Rebellion or insurrection.
2384. Seditious conspiracy.
2385. Advocating overthrow of Government.
2386. Registration of certain organizations.
2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally.
2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war.
2389. Recruiting for service against United States.
2390. Enlistment to serve against United States.
[2391. Repealed.]

BUT when searching on treason This came up as a hit.

http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=579089485593+27+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 24, 2002]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 24, 2002 and December 19, 2002]
[CITE: 18USC552]


TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 27--CUSTOMS

Sec. 552. Officers aiding importation of obscene or treasonous
books and articles

Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States,
knowingly aids or abets any person engaged in any violation of any of
the provisions of law prohibiting importing, advertising, dealing in,
exhibiting, or sending or receiving by mail obscene or indecent
publications or representations, or books, pamphlets, papers, writings,
advertisements, circulars, prints, pictures, or drawings containing any
matter advocating or urging treason or insurrection against the United
States or forcible resistance to any law of the United States, or
containing any threat to take the life of or inflict bodily harm upon
any person in the United States, _or means for procuring abortion_, or
other articles of indecent or immoral use or tendency, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Importing literature on procuring an abortion? Treason, insurrection,
pornography and abortion in the same category?
--
Extrajudicial killing is another term for cold blooded murder.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3666
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11
Matt Wiser
2006-07-11 06:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
--
Extrajudicial killing is another term for cold blooded murder.
No, it's taking a hit on an oppertunity target: quite a few AQ types have gotten their 72
Virgins that way; with the late and unlamented Abu Musab Al-Zarquari being the most
recent example of that. Sooner or later, Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zwahari will either get their
Virgins, or they get carried away to the helo in cuffs. (Preferably the former) By your reckoning, the Yamamoto shootdown was murder. It wasn't. A targeted attack on a high-value
target wearing the other side's uniform, nothing more.

Back to your citation: nail Fonda, Clark, and the other peaceniks who went to NVN under
Section 2387 and 2388. If a court rules a declared war didn't exist (as you seem so fond of
insisting on) then 2387 should apply; The specific charge would be affecting the health and
well-being of the POWs they met-since the majority of them had not choice: either being
tortured (pre Sep '69) or being coerced thru less painful means (food and sleep deprivation,
lack of medical treatment, continuous interrogation). However, the Government would appeal,
and it would take SCOTUS to rule. (btw, it never has) If they'd charged Lindh with treason, the
high 9 would have had a chance to rule and render this discussion moot.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...