A recent discussion about the NYT's "treason" has erupted in our comments section. The right slings this charge around anytime anyone disagrees with their policy decisions, embarrasses them by making pubic their foibles, or demonstrates how they willfully ignore the rule of law. I went googling to find out just what has constituted treason in the past.
The first thing I did was find how treason is defined in the constitution.
Article III Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid an 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.
Two types of actions can be looked upon as treason. The first, fighting in a war against the US. The second giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I am unaware of anyone making the charge that the NYT's has fought against the US on the battlefield (I'm sure it's coming). For this reason, I will focus on the second act of treason. Notice, one must give aid AND comfort for treason to apply. One without the other does not rise to the level of treason.
What does aid and comfort mean? The dictionary defines aid as The act or result of helping; assistance. It has several other definitions, but this one relates more to treason than the others. Comfort also has several definitions, one being Help; assistance. Since that is also the definition of aid, I think some of the other definitions must come into play, otherwise it would be redundant. If you scroll down a bit you will see the act of consoling; giving relief in affliction. There is also the definition give moral or emotional strength. So one must not only help the enemy, but also support them morally and emotionally.
Next, I looked at the history of court cases that involved treason. I was suprised to find that the first conviction occurred in 1945 (Cramer vs United States). This case was followed by seven others. The courts ended up with four criteria that must be met to be convicted of treason: (1) An Overt Act, (2)testified by two witnesses, (3) manifesting an intent to betray the U.S. and (4) providing aid and comfort to the enemy (reference).
Even if you could construe NYT's act as giving aid (I don't), it is implausible to say their reporting was an overt act manifesting an intent to betray the U.S.. It can't even be seen as a moral or emotional support of our enemies. Not only does it not meet the four criteria for conviction, it doesn't even meet the two listed in the constitution. We should keep the following in mind the next time some right wingnut shrilly accuses their opponents of treason. Did they help the enemy? If so, did they provide moral and emotional support, and did the overt act manifest an intent to betray the U.S.? The right will confabulate any action it wants as helping the enemy, but moral support and intent will always be missing when they accuse their political enemies of treason. We now have a rational reason to ignore their ravings of "treason", and maybe a bit of ammo to shoot holes in the argument.
|