Should treason laws be used?

[SoylentGreen]

For example: Should Islamic radicals who support terrorism be charged with treason, or would existing laws, such as incitement to murder or charges of solicitation be more appropriate?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Teason is an act, not a thought. Depends on what you mean by "support". If he gives AK's to terrorists or helps them, then you have a case, but just thinking that terrorism is good shouldn't be grounds for any charges.

[SoylentGreen]

True. I guess we have to refer to "support" in this case as an act of support.

[Morality Games]

If you mean publically expressing approval toward foreigners ennacting terrorist attacks on their fellow citizens, then incitement to murder is a valid accusation -- but only if their words are orientated toward encouraging future attacks, not if they are just being retrospective. Meaning, in essence, it should be legal to say that the 9/11 attacks were a good thing (I don't think they were, but this is public law we are talking about, not my perspective on the matter), but illegal to say there needs to be additional 9/11-type attacks.

Moreover, if done in private, even if they expressed sentiments of the second kind, then no charges should be filed against them, even if they are found out, as they aren't really 'inciting' anything. If they are 'supporting' terrorists with resources, then of course they should be charged with treason.

[SoylentGreen]

Hurst's Law of Treason: Introduction by Jon Roland

the Framers of the U.S. Constitution chose to adopt a restricted definition of treason, making it the only term defined in the body of the Constitution: Art. III Sec. 3: 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 Statute of 7 William III (1694) introduced the requirement of two witnesses to the same or different overt acts of the same treason or misprision of treason, made several exceptions to what could be considered treason, and protected the right of the accused to have copies of the indictment and proceedings against him, to have counsel, and to compel witnesses, privileges not previously enjoyed by those accused of common law crimes. This statute served as a model for colonial treason statutes. Chief Justice John Marshall opened the door for making other than treason a crime in Ex parte Bollmann[6] when he held that the clause does not prevent Congress from specifying other crimes of a subversive nature and prescribing punishment, so long as Congress is not merely attempting to evade the restrictions of the treason clause, although he cited no authority for doing so other than the doctrine of necessity. However he also stated "However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into open action by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that ... it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying of war." On the basis of these considerations and due to the fact that no part of the crime charged had been committed in the District of Columbia, the Court held that Bollman and Swartwout could not be tried in the District and ordered their discharge. He continued by saying that "the crime of treason should not be extended by construction to doubtful cases".

That mouthfull could be basically boiled down to "It's a bloody hard road to convict someone of treason"

[Morality Games]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Hurst's Law of Treason: Introduction by Jon Roland That mouthfull could be basically boiled down to "It's a bloody hard road to convict someone of treason"

Yes, but not of incitement to murder. Short of actually providing tangible help to terrorists, treason charges should be invalid.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Morality Games Yes, but not of incitement to murder. Short of actually providing tangible help to terrorists, treason charges should be invalid.

If incitement to murder and treason were truly outlawed, where would our politicians be? We could exhume Reagan's record of supporting Mujahideen radicals, for example.

American politicians are planning for other murders:

A former Middle East specialist on the National Security Council in the Reagan administration, Feith had long urged Israel to secure its borders in the Middle East by attacking Iraq and Iran. After Bush's election, Feith went to work to make that vision a reality, putting together a team of neoconservative hawks determined to drive the U.S. to attack Tehran. Before Bush had been in office a year, Feith's team had arranged a covert meeting in Rome with a group of Iranians to discuss their clandestine help. The meeting was arranged by Michael Ledeen, a member of the cabal brought aboard by Feith because of his connections in Iran. Iran: The Next War : Rolling Stone

These murderer's laws should not be passed, but shredded out-right.

Grandpa h.

[GHook93]

Quote by: SoylentGreen For example: Should Islamic radicals who support terrorism be charged with treason, or would existing laws, such as incitement to murder or charges of solicitation be more appropriate?

Treason!

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: GHook93 Treason!

Well argued there Mr G. you almost convinced me.

One point I am trying to make is the difficulty and the complexity of a charge of treason as compared to a charge of incitement to murder or charges of solicitation.

Is it even worth the bother and legal expense to use treason laws these days.

[Red]

First, shall we define treason? Treason being: Deliberate acts preformed on one's mother country to cause it's harm, discredit, or downfall. Can we agree on this definition?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Red First, shall we define treason? Treason being: Deliberate acts preformed on one's mother country to cause it's harm, discredit, or downfall. Can we agree on this definition?

Only if you can point out why you are disagreeing with the constitutions definition ( see 5th post). Which does not fit yours.