RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Last edited:
If This Be Treason …
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
greg334
Veteran Expediter
But of course in the case of the leaker(s), it is. There has been a line that was crossed if they are in the diplomatic corp or in the military, no matter how important they feel the information is in their opinion. Especially in the military, this is a serious offense and some one who does this is helping our enemies while we are at war.
Aside from that, Assange should be dealt with differently. He entered a different world and as one commentator said on the BBC, it is a world where the games are serious and the price is very high.
Last edited:
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Treason? no... espionage? Maybe....
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
That is something on which reasonable people might disagree ....
Apparently, those currently in government and the military, do not see it in quite same fashion as you - since Bradley Manning has not been charged with Treason, but simply charged with the unauthorized use and disclosure of U.S. classified information.
My guess is that the US Government and Military probably does not want to go there (treason) - because to do so would open a hole can of worms that they really don't wanna get into - namely that of intent.
They basically want something that they can stick this guy with so can be locked up and the key thrown away, and that will allow the entire issue to just go away ..... as quietly as possible, with as little discussion of the guy's motivations as can be orchestrated.
The eventual book and movie will no doubt be quite interesting .... provided that anyone is permitted to make it.
You will likely never see this actually shown and demonstrated - only claimed and stated - by those who are inclined to hide the crimes which they themselves, or their associates, have been implicated or involved in.
Indeed.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yup - maybe ....
But even that may be fraught with .... difficulties ....
Take a look at the history of the Espionage Act of 1917 .... and the court cases stemming from the application of it ....
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Sorry dude, the end of the 19th century has cropped up again with stupid anarchist ideas. And again we are at war while others think it is alright to help the enemy. The reasonable think would be to follow the law, the law says this is treason and being treason, death is the only course of action that should be taken.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
No, don't need to, it is already in the US code;
"whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, 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.
This is on the civilian side, on the military side there is the UCMJ 904 art 104;
Any person who—
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
And there is 906 art 106a;
(a) (1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, anything described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack,
(B) war plans,
(C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or
(D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is— (A) a foreign government;
(B) a faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States; or
(C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such a government, faction, party, or force.
(3) A thing referred to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense.
(b) (1) No person may be sentenced by court-martial to suffer death for an offense under this section (article) unless—
(A) the members of the court-martial unanimously find at least one of the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c); and
(B) the members unanimously determine that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, including the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c).
(2) Findings under this subsection may be based on— (A) evidence introduced on the issue of guilt or innocence;
(B) evidence introduced during the sentencing proceeding; or
(C) all such evidence.
(3) The accused shall be given broad latitude to present matters in extenuation and mitigation.
(c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors: (1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.
(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.
(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.
(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (article 36).
"whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, 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.
This is on the civilian side, on the military side there is the UCMJ 904 art 104;
Any person who—
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
And there is 906 art 106a;
(a) (1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, anything described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack,
(B) war plans,
(C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or
(D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is— (A) a foreign government;
(B) a faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States; or
(C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such a government, faction, party, or force.
(3) A thing referred to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense.
(b) (1) No person may be sentenced by court-martial to suffer death for an offense under this section (article) unless—
(A) the members of the court-martial unanimously find at least one of the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c); and
(B) the members unanimously determine that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, including the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c).
(2) Findings under this subsection may be based on— (A) evidence introduced on the issue of guilt or innocence;
(B) evidence introduced during the sentencing proceeding; or
(C) all such evidence.
(3) The accused shall be given broad latitude to present matters in extenuation and mitigation.
(c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors: (1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.
(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.
(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.
(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (article 36).
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
You miss my point:
Don't you think that they would have charged him if they felt they that it was clearly Treason .... and they could make it stick ?
BTW, the way, the problem with doing it is contained precisely in what you quoted.
Put aside your own ideological bent and beliefs for a moment and the certainty that you have that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (without having ever been tried and found guilty
) ... and adopt the flip side ..... if you can ....If you do that, you will understand what the problem is ....
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
That's a load of crap. That gets tossed around a lot, and it's almost never true.
iow, we want to kill him, and boy, wouldn't it be a shame if that happened?
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
No treason is involved here, no enemy is being aided.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
How do you know that?
You work in the CIA or monitor these groups?
You have access to the information and have the ability to decipher it in order to understand what it could mean for someone sitting in the middle east or at Harvard?
We are at war with a highly intelligent group of people, people who the American population think are a bunch of goat herders standing on a mountainside outside their tent.
The one thing that is missed is the structure of the organizations that our government and many citizens consider as enemies. They are well structured, they are built around the same concepts that are used in business and government, a few have strong intelligent gathers groups who decipher information looking for ways to hurt western countries.
The ignorance of many in this country who seem to think this isn't a big deal is just something else.
It puzzles me when I keep hearing how this or that doesn't matter but it all does. It frustrates me to hear that information that is obtained by stealing or other means will not help someone in damaging our country or killing someone.
JUST the information that was released about who is helping us fight in Afghanistan is damaging enough.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
No, because of what aiding the enemy must mean. It can't be amorphous. It must mean certain things, like sending them supplies or ammo, or military intelligence, or rendering them medical aid or shelter, or the like. If it can be stretched to mean anything, then it means nothing. If I say something to you, and some enemy is inspired by it, that's not aiding the enemy.
You see the parallel here between this and ridiculous political correctness? The PC crowd says that actions and things said must be considered in the light of how someone would receive it or perceive it. However, no one can know how another individual will interpret something or perceive something, let alone multiple people. To apply the broad test promoted by the PC crowd would require we not have contact with anyone, lest they misinterpret it or find offense where there is none. The same applies here. If you're taking the broad view, allowing rendering aid or comfort to a ridiculous extreme in which no aid was intended, I wouldn't even be able to say, "Hey, Greg, what's up?" if I passed you on the street, just in case some would-be terrorist was standing on the corner and was inspired to do violence because he heard us.
Again, something that can mean anything means nothing. If Assange starts sending info on troop movements or actual materiel, then we can talk about him rendering aid and comfort. If he's exposing our own government's buffoonery, then it's to everybody's benefit, except the buffoons.
You see the parallel here between this and ridiculous political correctness? The PC crowd says that actions and things said must be considered in the light of how someone would receive it or perceive it. However, no one can know how another individual will interpret something or perceive something, let alone multiple people. To apply the broad test promoted by the PC crowd would require we not have contact with anyone, lest they misinterpret it or find offense where there is none. The same applies here. If you're taking the broad view, allowing rendering aid or comfort to a ridiculous extreme in which no aid was intended, I wouldn't even be able to say, "Hey, Greg, what's up?" if I passed you on the street, just in case some would-be terrorist was standing on the corner and was inspired to do violence because he heard us.
Again, something that can mean anything means nothing. If Assange starts sending info on troop movements or actual materiel, then we can talk about him rendering aid and comfort. If he's exposing our own government's buffoonery, then it's to everybody's benefit, except the buffoons.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I would have agreed with you if it wasn't for two really important things; the first thing is the definition that is used in the UCMJ and this
This is aiding the enemy, plain and simple based on the following ...
The argument can't be made that the private did not know that the information would not reach any terrorist group nor had control over it after that. The enemy isn't Assange but the people who view the site so there was indirect disclosure by the private and it fulfill the requirement of the article.
BUT not done yet ...
The next section also is applicable
What has been explained that this article can be used for the simple fact that Assange released information about strategic sites.
One of the things you know but seem to leave out is that it does not require an interpretation of the information to charge this guy with treason, it is the act of disclosure and transmission of what is considered classified information.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Ahhh, well ..... glad we cleared that up ....
Perhaps we can just skip that whole assassination business then ?
..... a nasty, nasty business ...
Ahhh, well ..... glad we cleared that up ....
Perhaps we can just skip that whole assassination business then ?
..... a nasty, nasty business ...
He became one when he outed SECURE U.S. bases. He put the LIVES of U.S. soldiers AND DoD civilians at GREATER risk. Knocking him off is just what happens when you wage war. I have no read the list of sites he named but it is very possible that he put members of my family lives at risk. NOT a good idea. Killing an enemy is NOT assassination. Of course, YOUR not at risk so it's ok?