Originally posted by Terraceth
View Post
It isn't providing aid and comfort to the enemy because China isn't an enemy in the sense of the term used in the Constitution. To recap, the United States Constitution says the following: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Compared to many countries, the United States actually has a rather narrow definition of treason--this was intentional due to the fact in the past some British rulers would slap their political enemies with accusations of treason to get rid of them. While the US did take those definitions of treason from the Treason Act that Britain had, it cut out some of the other definitions that were used by sovereigns to accuse enemies, leaving only the two above.
What's important here, though, is the meaning of "enemies." It refers specifically to states that the United States is in active hostilities against. That, clearly, is not China. China may not be friendly to the US--well, outside of the money they can get from business anyway--but that doesn't make it an enemy.
This article explains it fairly well:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...5fc_story.html
And before anyone dismisses it by saying the Washington Post is liberal, note that (1) the context of that is defending the Trump administration from accusations of treason, and (2) it was written by a law professor, not a simple journalist.
Milley's actions (if these actions have been accurately described) may have violated other laws--military or civil--but weren't treason.
Compared to many countries, the United States actually has a rather narrow definition of treason--this was intentional due to the fact in the past some British rulers would slap their political enemies with accusations of treason to get rid of them. While the US did take those definitions of treason from the Treason Act that Britain had, it cut out some of the other definitions that were used by sovereigns to accuse enemies, leaving only the two above.
What's important here, though, is the meaning of "enemies." It refers specifically to states that the United States is in active hostilities against. That, clearly, is not China. China may not be friendly to the US--well, outside of the money they can get from business anyway--but that doesn't make it an enemy.
This article explains it fairly well:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...5fc_story.html
It is, in fact, treasonable to aid the “enemies” of the United States.
But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.
This was true even in the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War. When Julius and Ethel Rosenberg handed over nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, they were tried and executed for espionage, not treason. Indeed, Trump could give the U.S. nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin or bug the Oval Office with a direct line to the Kremlin and it would not be treason, as a legal matter. Of course, such conduct would violate various laws and would constitute grounds for impeachment as a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the framers fully understood that there could be cases of reprehensible disloyalty that might escape the narrow confines of the treason clause.
So who are the current enemies of the United States? North Korea is a possible enemy, since the Korean War was never formally concluded. Certain nonstate actors can also count as enemies, and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State probably fit the definition.
But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.
This was true even in the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War. When Julius and Ethel Rosenberg handed over nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, they were tried and executed for espionage, not treason. Indeed, Trump could give the U.S. nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin or bug the Oval Office with a direct line to the Kremlin and it would not be treason, as a legal matter. Of course, such conduct would violate various laws and would constitute grounds for impeachment as a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the framers fully understood that there could be cases of reprehensible disloyalty that might escape the narrow confines of the treason clause.
So who are the current enemies of the United States? North Korea is a possible enemy, since the Korean War was never formally concluded. Certain nonstate actors can also count as enemies, and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State probably fit the definition.
And before anyone dismisses it by saying the Washington Post is liberal, note that (1) the context of that is defending the Trump administration from accusations of treason, and (2) it was written by a law professor, not a simple journalist.
Milley's actions (if these actions have been accurately described) may have violated other laws--military or civil--but weren't treason.
As for North Korea, given we never declared war, could aiding them be considered treason?
Comment