The Law of Treason

[onenote]

There have been any number of posts that have speculated/suggested/hoped that Fitz could bring a charge of Treason against someone/anyone/everyone in the Plamegate matter. I thought a little primer on the law of Treason might help put these posts in perspective.

The constitutional(Art III, Sec 3) and statutory (18 USC 2381)prohibitions against treason are similar. The statutory provision states: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000 and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

There haven't been a heck of a lot of Treason prosecutions in US history, but a few things appear to be clear.

First, the crime of Treason is construed very strictly. The Supreme Court has held that the constitutional definition "has left no room for constructive treason, and Congress could not and has not undertaken to restrict or enlarge the definition."

Second, and just as importantly, the Supreme Court has carefully drawn a line between traitorous thoughts without accompanying acts(which is not a crime) and acts that give aid and comfort to the enemy but which are not accompanied by traitorous intent (which also is not a crime). "Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy -- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength -- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason."

My take is that there is no way a case of treason could be made against any of the Plamegate players. Even if the act of leaking Valerie Plame's identity constituted an act that gave "aid and comfort to the enemy" -- itself a debatable point, I think that it would be impossible to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the reason for the leak was to "betray" the United States. While we may believe that is what it helped do because we believe going to war against Iraq based on lies was a betrayal, the state of mind of Rove, Scooter, etc. is what matters and I don't see any chance of establishing that their intent was to harm the US.

I'd be interested in other views.

onenote

[ramblin_dave]

1. Suppose someone wanted to help Al Qaeda carry out

an attack on the US because they felt such an attack would create a climate in which a certain agenda could be more easily promoted. Would this be treason?

[onenote]

4. it would help to know what the "certain agenda" was

[William769]

2. Outing a covert operative could be constured as...

"or adheres to their enemies".

[onenote]

3. only if it was done with the state of mind of betraying US interest

The court cases indicate that unless their intent was to harm the US, its not treason.

onenote

[Peregrine]

6. Plus there is a standard of proof in the Constitution

Can only be convicted if the indidual confesses in open court or there are 2 eye witnesses to the same overt act. The latter saved Aaron Burr and would probably save anybody in this case if one was to contort the act into an act of Treason.

[Ready4Change]

5. Might be on a limb on this.

Exposing Plame shattered a branch of the CIAs investigation into foreign WMDs. There are several theories as to the motivations of whoever did this.

- Petty payback against Wilson.
- To debunk Wilsons latest findings (Yellow Cake Doc Forgieries)
- To hinder future WMD investigations which might turn up negative results, and thus undercut the drive to war.

Some might claim all of the above at once as motivation.

If what you claim regarding Treason requirements is true, I'd agree it doesn't directly apply to this case unless the following can also be proven to be a motive:

- To hinder future WMD investigations that might reveal positive results, ie: to allow an enemy of the USA to develop/obtain/use WMDs, such as in another LIHOP/MIHOP event.

That last is a total tinfoil hat wearing "what-if," btw. Just mindstorming what could make this into Treason by your definition.

[TahitiNut]

7. Those who'd adamantly deny that Jane Fonda was a 'traitor' ...

... might think three times before flinging such an accusation at anyone charged with a felony in a political context. Remember, Tokyo Rose was convicted of treason.

:shrug: :eyes:

[berni_mccoy]

8. I would argue that the leakers are DOMESTIC ENEMIES

They are enemies of the U.S. and their actions were to AID THEIR OWN CAUSE.

Would a friend do this to his own country? His own soldiers? His own agents? No. Treason represents BETRAYAL. Treason in the constitution represents BETRAYAL of the US to our ENEMIES.

Establish first, that they are our enemies: 1. They lied to take us to war for profiteering.

Then show they betrayed the US: 2. They outed a covert operative in the service of actively protecting us against foreign threats. They did this to support 1.