…only looking for legal definitions here, not emotional arguements…(of course, that’s what General Questions is all about!)
…is acting as a human shield defined as an act of treason by the respective governments of the people in the shield? If not, what charges, if any, could be laid?
depending on how active a role these human shield take, I suppose it could be argued that you are taking up arms for a foreign nation against your own, despite the fact that they are not literally “taking up arms.” I don’t know, it’s kind of a murky area, but if it is evident that these “shields” are being used strategically for defense purposes, even if only defensive psychologically, I’m sure the case could be made. Don’t know if it would stick, but the case could be made.
Source: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
In retrospect, that definition is fairly vague. I suppose it depends if you define “aid” as dissuading physical attacks by appealing to a moral challenge.
Compare this to the much-discussed Jane Fonda tour, and judge from there, I suppose. I doubt the government would consider it treason.
If a government wants it to be, it will be defined as such. I’m not sure one can be more precise: legal definitions become very flexible in times of war.
While one may find dictionary defintions to treason – thanks Zagadka – what matters is the legal application of it. Sorry raygirvan, but you will find that treason is explicitly defined in the US Constitution:
Source: Article II., Section 3., of the US Constitution
It is this defintion, and not the dictionary that decides the issue. However, interpretation of this is left up to the courts.
You can read an observation of how treason has been decided, as well as offering insight into this specific issue, by surfing over to http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html#1
The i’s have it!
definition!
Bloody hell!
:smack:
You’d think it would be, but in all likelihood probably not.
Treason is a very serious offense, the only crime created by the Constitution (unless you want to get persnickety about the 13th Amendment). You must have two witnesses to the overt act, or an admission in open court. This was precisely because of its potential for abuse. The framers wanted to prevent it from becoming a political tool the way it had been in the past for English monarchs. Courts have followed by defining treason narrowly.
Because of this, the legal standard for treason is extremely high. There have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason in the history of the United States, and only once has SCOTUS upheld a treason conviction. The difficulties are great enough that even a seeming home run like John Walker Lindh wasn’t indicted for treason.
IANAL, so… Right.
Good thing Sadman has not come up with the idea of free two-week stays for westerners in Iraq, return airfare included.
For one person, this would cost about US$2000.
He would need about 5 000 people to make a serious difference.
Say, for a six month period.
2000 x 5000 x 24/2 = $120 Million
About the price of the six Iraqi fighter aircraft that would be destroyed in the first 10 minutes of a war.
Please excuse the hijack. Couldnt help it.